Kimmo

Oh, I see now. So vioxx and ddt = bad. That means vaccines are, too. Brilliant! if you do stop toking (assuming this is the problem), you will actually be able to recover your critical thinking skills. but possibly only up to a point. the longer the initial problem has existed, the harder the recovery. but, this is no excuse to not try, because some damage can absolutely be reversed. it might take time, possibly a year or more, but it's worth it.

Is that how you do it? it's the wake and bake baby when i open my eyes. no bob, like this: ddt, vioxx, ummm seat belts, corvair? please, feel free to add to the list, since you understand the principle now.

you really like to pick the extremes to support your didactics. bong toke bob 101.

but seriously, because i love you as a friend, substitute something else for pinto. i'm sure you can find one that supports my argument.

you bring out the tiger in me. rrroarrr.

ah man, i'm expressing my sincere love for you, and you have to go turn it into a homosexuality thing. i just like you as a friend.

how many did you get to the other day? i hope you saved some for the two of us. outlets, yay!

can we go testing outlets together sometime?

i love ya man. and if vaccines are proven some day to cause asperger's, i guess you'd be one example of the positive side. again, i love ya man.

i guess i'm missing something. i watched that clip too, but it hardly seemed as earth-shattering as some are trying to make it out to be. big deal, rove was wrong. and again, the election was close. romney, the dude with his own planet somewhere with many wives and decaf coke, ALMOST WON THE FRIGGIN ELECTION IN AMERICAN IN 2012. (i think many conservatives are equally frustrated by this entrenched two party system, but dems and repubs like it that way)

jesus, i didn't know gallagher had taken over penn's body. scary! but, i suppose the above comment misses the point: penn and teller are really the peeps to be in charge of vaccine policy.

i think the conflation has been an evolving thread drift, which tends to happen. talk to outlet man, bong toke bob, even yourself. joe, really? you do things like move the gas tank away from the rear bumper, you put seat belts and airbags in cars, you build safer highways, you take cdl's away from mad semi drivers. you have open reviews of safety issues, studies, etc, and MAKE CHANGES. you don't simply say "well, yea that's the 57th ford pinto that's blown up this year, but that's just the cost of business. hell, MORE PEOPLE DIE OF BEE STINGS." no, not vaccines per se. i think very few argue that. the most thoughtful inquiries support the idea that it's probably a confluence, with the possibility that vaccines play a role. unfortunately, a vax vs non-vax study hasn't been done, but the following has, indicating a much lesser role for genetics than previously theorized (bias alert: NIH study): link

i'm evidently interested in this stuff, so i'll read your recommended link. curious about your own readings? and what you said earlier is a big piece of the puzzle: "some" are susceptible to vaccine injury. some are seemingly not. what the difference is, we aren't entirely sure of, are we? and we aren't sure of the degree of injury that might occur, right? some are obvious: death, loss of limb, brain damage, tissue loss; if there are such overt injuries, are you really willing to say that there might not be more subtle injuries that are harder to connect to vaccines? what do you say about the thousands(?) who have been reimbursed billions by the federal vaccine court, and the many more who have had their claims denied (and have no further recourse) as they grapple with either the loss of their child, or permanent injuries? do you say "well sorry, this is the price we pay as a society. we must sacrifice a few to the gods every year to protect everyone else. i know it seems barbaric, but it's what we must do. there is NO OTHER WAY." the above rings hollow when basic research into safety, comparative studies between vax and non-vax kids, isn't done. i'd LOVE to see vaccines safe, and i do truly believe we can do more to ensure that, but it seems the priority right now is to put the blinders on (maybe that's the agency's pr face?) and deny deny deny the need for doing anything.

i know, right? nothing like superstition to get in the way of progress. savages. link link link

what, no pics or emoticons? time for your bong toke.

i'll thank you now for not reproducing, but if this changes, i'd be inclined to believe that if you did find yourself to be a thinking man, what you think about might change just a wee bit. i'm inclined to believe the above is more about your misplaced sublimated (my ass) needs for grandeur than any particular messianic mission on my part. but hey, i could be wrong! what does intrigue me a little is the emotive reaction to some links and my own thoughts regarding the possibility of vaccines posing, oh dear, any danger to humanoids. my god, it's as if i'm suggesting you all quit smoking dope, pledge allegiance to the flag, and take up christianity. i've posted links to what i think are pretty level-headed thoughts about both known and suspected dangers with vaccines, case studies of actual vaccine injuries, and support for the study of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated kids. nothing too earth-shattering there, one might think? my suspicion is that the reaction is based on the following: -an "anti-vaccine" fringe that does a decent job of presenting itself as total nut-jobs. rob likes to conflate any decent science or calls for inquiry with this fringe element (mainly because he has no other response to actual real content. joe has seemingly adopted this stance, along with moon boy.) -the idea of "conspiracy theory". dismissing inquiry as "conspiracy theory" is an effective way to turn people away from the idea that something almost universally accepted might actually not be exactly as advertised. "you're telling me that the earth is round? dude, that's woowoo!". -ignorance. most of us have grown up with the assumption that vaccines are harmless. most of us don't know the feds have a vaccine injury compensation fund that's paid out what, over 2 billion so far? we don't know that vaccines are a known cause of neurological disorders that absolutely CAN fall within the parameters of current ASD diagnoses. -trust in doctors and/or "scientists". hey, if the doctors and scientists say it's impossible for vaccines to cause x y or z, then that's gotta be the truth, right? they know more than we do. and if a doctor says otherwise, they must be in the conspiracy group, and a nut job to boot. to call something like this a "conspiracy" is the easy way out. it neatly polarizes the issue and turns off the brain. which is what, seemingly, many would prefer to do, since it's a hell of a lot easier that way.

and joe, i know it can be a bit of a shock that the government might not be disclosing everything they know. well, it happens joe. jeez, SCIENTISTS have been known to do this too! incredible, i know.

can you be specific? you seem like a reasonable fellow, so i'd be interested to hear what you was as "skewed", perhaps in the last interview i linked to? link i only ask because i've noticed this pattern: some people disagree in a rather emotive manner to any doubts about vaccine safety, but when questioned, either stop responding or continue emotive substanceless attacks.

i thought his repetitive nature indicated exposure to a more mundane over-the-counter type.

i suppose that's what we might be witnessing?

how are those outlets testing out?

rob, i know it's your goal, and i'll acknowledge: you are a substanceless pest, congratulations!

a bit of reading that ANY self-respecting climate change denier should read, and even off-white: link from article: I doubt that anyone in Congress fully appreciates the plethora of “political” scientists who occupy the upper level positions at FDA and NIH and who have the capability of not funding projects that would scientifically analyze vaccine reactions. actually, off-white, i'm wondering if you might be a bit of a climate change denier?

i did, dear boy! "just a little bit of mileage" that some top end sportos might not have. meaning: they might have some serious troubles on certain granite routes at first. logic, dear boy! i think climbing certain granite routes is almost a different sport altogether, especially when compared to the red.

hell's yeah solo affects (apparent) rating!!! 5.9 slippery slab onsite can have a magical way of transforming itself into a hell of an affair when the rope ain't there to catch ya! and we have no idea what anyone might do on a particular route. would i bet against ondra on split left? well that's silly! but i have taken a 5.14+ climber to index before.... let's just say granite has a way of messing with ya if ya ain't used to it.