Kimmo Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 I think her point about un-immunized children posing a risk is that if you and a bunch of other people decide not to immunize, you lower the rate of herd immunity, possibly below its optimal threshold, which would then allow diseases to spread more easily. 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.... Quote
minx Posted June 24, 2009 Author Posted June 24, 2009 Kimmo, I am not going to spend my time re-reading your posts. i frankly don't give a rats ass about your position on autism, its your position on vaccination that infuriates me. and what precisely is your problem w/the scientific method? i would support your questioning of statistics if we were simply discussing one review or analysis of the data but we're not. there is ample concurring evidence from multiple international sources. Quote
minx Posted June 24, 2009 Author Posted June 24, 2009 Has anyone tried a nice single malt lately? yes, but it was really good and i drank a lot and don't remember its name There is a MacCallan 12YO that you can only get at the duty free that is f'ing awesome. thanks jon, i clearly need some today. and i'll be travelling soon so, i'll pick up a bottle for the plane ride. Quote
Bosterson Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 something as elemental as people having differing opinions about even the "scientific method" itself 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. As much as I want to infer depth from your monosyllabic one-sentence responses, do you want to go ahead and back any of this up with at the very LEAST a description of what you're referring to? Quote
minx Posted June 24, 2009 Author Posted June 24, 2009 no this is logical deductive reasoning. not drawing his own conclusions. based on your comments, regardless of your willingness to acknowledge the implications of your own remarks, the logical conclusion is that you're only looking out for your own self interest. it is the same conclusion i drew in an early post. I think her point about un-immunized children posing a risk is that if you and a bunch of other people decide not to immunize, you lower the rate of herd immunity, possibly below its optimal threshold, which would then allow diseases to spread more easily. 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.... Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Has anyone tried a nice single malt lately? yes, but it was really good and i drank a lot and don't remember its name There is a MacCallan 12YO that you can only get at the duty free that is f'ing awesome. MacAllan 12 is pretty good. I prefer the Balvenie 12 YO double wood for something in a comparable style and price range. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 I think her point about un-immunized children posing a risk is that if you and a bunch of other people decide not to immunize, you lower the rate of herd immunity, possibly below its optimal threshold, which would then allow diseases to spread more easily. 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.... Kimmo: STFU. MKTHXBYE! Quote
jon Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 So I'm assuming everyone here is read up on their Treg and GammaDelta T cell literature for this argument? Quote
minx Posted June 24, 2009 Author Posted June 24, 2009 not only have i read up on my T-cell lit for this argument, i've read up on my recombinant, attenuated, and whole cell vaccine +/-thiomerosal, as well as initiated a vaccine clinical trial for non-ininferiority of a new vaccine formulation. Quote
Bosterson Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 not only have i read up on my T-cell lit for this argument, i've read up on my recombinant, attenuated, and whole cell vaccine +/-thiomerosal, as well as initiated a vaccine clinical trial for non-ininferiority of a new vaccine formulation. Are you some sort of BDSM rubber duck biologist? That's hot. Quote
minx Posted June 24, 2009 Author Posted June 24, 2009 not only have i read up on my T-cell lit for this argument, i've read up on my recombinant, attenuated, and whole cell vaccine +/-thiomerosal, as well as initiated a vaccine clinical trial for non-ininferiority of a new vaccine formulation. Are you some sort of BDSM rubber duck biologist? That's hot. i retired last year. i do something else now involving leather and whips Quote
Kimmo Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Kimmo, I am not going to spend my time re-reading your posts. i frankly don't give a rats ass about your position on autism, its your position on vaccination that infuriates me. 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. and what precisely is your problem w/the scientific method? 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. i would support your questioning of statistics if we were simply discussing one review or analysis of the data but we're not. there is ample concurring evidence from multiple international sources. regarding.....what? the efficacy of vaccinations? Quote
Kimmo Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 or are we simply discussing the selfishness of relying on herd mentality err immunity? Quote
Bosterson Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 and what precisely is your problem w/the scientific method? 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. I conclude that Kimmo is either trolling or else has a very serious head injury that may require immediate medical attention. Quote
minx Posted June 24, 2009 Author Posted June 24, 2009 something as elemental as people having differing opinions about even the "scientific method" itself 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. i believe this is where you questioned the scientific method Quote
minx Posted June 24, 2009 Author Posted June 24, 2009 aluminum toxicity? the amount of adjuvant in vaccines is relatively minute to compared to the amount that your child is going to get from aluminum cans and other packaging by age 5. if you are uncomfortable with the amount of vaccines given concurrently, please feel free to space them out and take as many trips to the physician as you'd like. unnecessary vaccines are certaily a matter of opinion. some i would not question your decision on. for others the consequences are grave. chicken pox v. polio. herd mentality ...clever. whatever. herd immunity is valid concept. you're dismissal with the clever use of language does not make it any less relevant to community health. Quote
Kimmo Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 and what precisely is your problem w/the scientific method? 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. Quote
Bosterson Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 herd mentality ...clever. whatever. herd immunity is valid concept. you're dismissal with the clever use of language does not make it any less relevant to community health. Seriously, unless he is INCREDIBLY stupid (always a possibility), he's just trying to piss you off. Note the lack of specificity in any of his assertions. Do you really do something with leather and whips, or just as part of your yellow/rubberier persona? Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Do you really do something with leather and whips, or just as part of your yellow/rubberier persona? Settle down, Beavis. Quote
minx Posted June 24, 2009 Author Posted June 24, 2009 alright...before i go. let me also add, that many vaccines no longer use aluminum adjuvants. further the discontinuation of mecury as a preservative (thimerosal) has made delivery of basic vaccines to developing countries far less cost effective when the preserved version of the vaccine is unavailable or no longer manufactured. the risk of mecury toxicity from the amount of mecury in these vaccines is nearly nothing. thanks...at least someone appreciates it when i'm feeling fiesty. bosterson...take it easy cupcake. yeah i do something that involves whips and leather not much rubber though. but frankly, regardless of how intersting that might sound a) it probably isn't to you and b) you won't ever know. Quote
Bosterson Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Settle down, Beavis. Wait - which one does that make you? Quote
Bosterson Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 but frankly, regardless of how intersting that might sound a) it probably isn't to you and b) you won't ever know. Sheesh, forget I mentioned it. Work is boring. Can we go back to discussing the "problems" with the scientific method now? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.