Kimmo

why, are you a scientist?

hmmm not what i found. supposedly it's needed for the efficacy of the vaccine.

hey we're getting somewhere! common ground! a flavor of agreement, not too bitter i hope! yes the level of aluminum as adjuvant PER SINGLE DOSE is within the "safe" levels established by the FDA(?) in i think all vaccinations, but combine these levels into single occurence events and what do you have? a cause for concern, imo. also keep in mind that oral and iv are very different pathways for aluminum to enter the body. so, then space them out, as you said. good idea. and something that i think everyone should do. don't dose your kid up with a bazillion shots in one sitting. and then which shots to get? here is obviously some room for disagreement, and honestly, we personally haven't made up our minds yet. chicken pox certainly not. i think this can be a disservice in the long run. hep b as infant? ridiculous. hep a? hmmm. and then it gets tougher. and herd immunity? of course a valid concept. more than that, a "scientifically proven" reality, if using the "scientific method". i feel better now, since we seem to be getting along so swimmingly!

i don't recall saying that i had any specific problem with the scientific method; i simply noted that there are various arguments surrounding the issue. This sounds like an invocation of the vague yet "well known" problems surrounding evolution. oh my god, you got me! back to the confessional for further instructions.

or are we simply discussing the selfishness of relying on herd mentality err immunity?

what, pray tell, is my position on vaccinations that so infuriates you? is it that i have concerns about aluminum toxicity? concerns about the number of vaccines given at very young ages? potentially unnneccessary vaccines given at all? you seem to be jumping all over the place in your emotionally charged stupor. i don't recall saying that i had any specific problem with the scientific method; i simply noted that there are various arguments surrounding the issue. regarding.....what? the efficacy of vaccinations?

if that were the case, then her child would be safe, since it was immunized. Immunity is not 100%, but really what you seem to be implying is that we should only look out for our own self-interest. If your kid has some candy, I'm totally stealing it. you seem to be drawing your own conclusions here....

Are we talking about disagreements on how to interpret statistical results (probabilities, error boundaries, etc.)? Or do you have some sort of fundamental problem with the scientific method (eg, solipsism)? both, and then some.

it seems to me that you might be best served by going back and reading my posts, since you seem to be lacking in any understanding of my position regarding autism.

if that were the case, then her child would be safe, since it was immunized.

yes, your take. why don't you explain your take? and if you're not good at explaining your take, maybe your understanding is deficient, and needs a little improvement? and if you don't understand something as elemental as people having differing opinions about even the "scientific method" itself, then we might have difficulty having a fruitful exchange. and you seemed like such a nice person!

done that, but didn't have the same take as you. and as far as giving a shit, me too, and that's why we are being so careful with how and when and with what we go about immunizing our child.

how does this work? i'll take a look at your links when i have time; thanks.

hmmm, i'm pretty sure he lied at some point, right? but that wasn't the issue for me; the issue was rob's flippant attitude towards behaviour that causes immense pain in many families. Seriously? How does that relate to politics? see my first post. and doug's, ie party of god and morals and all that shizzle. if instead of being a republican he was a satanist liar, then probably no hypocrisy. again, my comment was directed at what i perceived to be rob's flippancy. and yes politicians are human and make mistakes, and shouldn't necessarily be unelectable or impeached for this. but i do "give a shit" about what they do.

link me towards the huge studies; i'd be interested in looking at them. yeah and "orthodoxy" in seattle is a little different, but the national standard per CDC and AAP is rather daunting, to say the least, and probably different that what your pediatrician recommended. check out their website! PEPS is a parent group of sorts, newbie parents getting together and socializing, talking about challenges, what works, what doesn't, etc etc. been really cool to be a part of for the first 5 months of little bear's life.

hmmm, i'm pretty sure he lied at some point, right? but that wasn't the issue for me; the issue was rob's flippant attitude towards behaviour that causes immense pain in many families.

oh i'm convinced vaccines work. and have worked effectively to eliminate certain catastrophic illnesses. there seems to be no real question about that. my concern is the number of vaccines that the orthodoxy pushes parents to get all at once, and also the types of vaccines (hep b vaccines one day after birth? let's wait til she entertains notions of iv drug use first! and chicken pox? come on now....). another concern i have is again in conjunction with the amount of vaccines administered concurrently: most if not all vaccines contain aluminum (mercury has mostly been removed); just last night at PEPS, someone from microsoft mentioned their child being diagnosed and treated for aluminum toxicity after multiple vaccine administration. i'm still trying to get all the specifics to confirm the authenticity of the claim, but still of at least a little concern to me.... and, i think the link between autism and vaccines is quite inconclusive, and warrants further study. the alarming increase in autism itself is reason enough to look at any possible source, including vaccines.

yeah i'm sure most people would have confidence in someone to honestly handle government affairs if that person lies to their family.... real integrity there, oh boy.

I don't know what bonehead's take on vaccines was/is, but to indiscriminately accept the current establishment doctrine concerning vaccines is rather....unscientific.

head injuries seem to be more prevalent in down-hill snow sports than in sport climbing or bouldering, yet i don't know of any resort that enforces a helmet policy; am i mistaken here? if head injuries were prevalent, i would assume that liability issues would force the adoption of helmet policies across the board. having climbed for quite a few years, i know of very few (one?) head injuries, and only from alpine trad climbing. i don't recall a single head injury from sport climbing or bouldering. if one wishes to wear a helmet, that's awesome, but to denigrate others for not following suit seems a bit over-reaching. if someone has relevant stats on this subject, i'd love to see them.... it could be that wearing a helmet while driving a car to the crag would be more in order, statistically speaking, but if this is not the case, please inform me.... and, after having recently been graced with the birth of a baby daughter, this subject will probably be even more relevant to me in the near future (right now i'm so paranoid that i barely can handle her being taken to the crag, for fear of a quick draw being dropped on her head!).

ya really think i care about your preferences? and your arbitrary differentiations between spray and non-spray? you guessed it. so go ahead and ban me, bitch; you'd be doing me a favor. and thanks, buddy, for sticking up for me; that raindawg is a meanie!

the way you both get peed on, i'm kinda thinking you're into the whole watersports thing; any truth to this observation?

i think your above list simply indicates you are a sport climbing prodigy, whilst sucking at trad. i've climbed all the routes listed above sans yose and devil's tower, and that's the only explanation i have. maybe you can teach dwanus to get up that 5.13 he keeps mumbling about? should be easy, with your combined talents.

yeah well he's old and fat too. but i'd also like to know what 10+ routes he's talking about that he claims to be harder than smith 11+....maybe pope's just a very gifted sport climber, and sucks at trad? he is (was?) built more like a sporto! index sport harder than trad, at same grade: -model worker, harder than sagg full (and i think harder than jap gardens, even tho jg rated 11+). -same with wham. -little jupiter, also a lot harder than jg, or iron horse. little si comps with index trad: -aborigine, similar to sagg full, same rating. -iron horse, similar to rainy day women, same rating. -thin fingers, easier than psychowussy, same rating. i'm not up on trad harder than 12-, so my comparisons stop there, but up to this point, it's all in the same ball-park to me. and like you said rudy, it's kinda funny and silly to quibble over a couple of letter grades, since it is all so subjective and dependent on particular beta and conditions and body size etc etc etc. climbing doesn't lend itself quite as nicely to "objective" criteria, like a 4 minute mile or somesuch. bottom line, try harder than you can, have fun and never say "take" on rp burn.