selkirk Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Hey, I haven't had one of these in a while! Man, between your PhD's, ET's directorship of the ACLU, Dwayner's PhD, and selkirk's clucking, we've got a board of geniuses here. Hey don't forget my PhD !!!! rat bastard not respected the credentials Edited January 21, 2011 by selkirk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I never argued that a vaccine didn't reduce morbidity. Your zealousness made you interpret my comments as such. At least with Pertussis, we are being hypothetical. No where can I find data stating that people who are not vaccinated cause Pertussis outbreaks. The best I could find was that most outbreaks occur in middle school or high school when the childhood vaccine wears off. Which to me means that not getting your booster as an adolescent or adult is just as bad as not giving the vaccine to an infant if you are worried about morbidity. such subtleties are lost on this crowd. they'd rather assume they know everything. We do know that, when pursuing case of statistical harm reduction through highly (but not 100%) effective solutions, this argument is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Hey, I haven't had one of these in a while! Man, between your PhD's, ET's directorship of the ACLU, Dwayner's PhD, and selkirk's clucking, we've got a board of geniuses here. Hey don't forget my PhD !!!! rat bastard not respected the credentials I have a MASTERS DEGREE...in BIDNESS! Edited January 21, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 <=~1%. You even suck at sybolic logic. Kimmi,"dear". "sybolic logic"?? CUTE!!! Look it found a typo! "Cute" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) This is the part where you call me a "a douche" back. Then we all debate the merits of douching vs. not douching and you cite a bunch of articles by anti-douching whack-jobs with an axe to grind because their pussies no longer naturally clean themselves after too many douches and ask us all if we wash our butts because we can't be pro douche if we don't wash our asses, right? Edited January 21, 2011 by E-rock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Hey, I haven't had one of these in a while! Nor both of these..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Wakefield had a scheme. The scheme was fraud. Wakefield was anti the combo MMR vaccine. Wakefield was NOT anti vaccine. The connection to anti vaccine and Wakefield is made by internet zealots, apparently on both ends of this argument. In a gross and obvious conflict of interest, Wakefield received nearly $700K from a law firm intending to file lawsuits linking vaccination with autism using the results of Wakefield's study, which could not be replicated. Damning enough evidence for the UK to revoke his license. Smear campaign? When he tried to sue his journalist detractors for libel, he lost. I rest my case. Resting your case to agree with me? You really don't read do you? Once more with feeling: I have not argued that Wakefield did not fraud the public. This is old news. (Nearly as old as his "report") What you appear to overlook is that he was NOT anti vaccine. HE was specifically anti the MMR vaccine and recommended getting the vaccines for Measles, Mumps and Rubella as separate vaccinations. ...in order to profit from his fraudulent attempt link the MMR vaccine to autism. Distinction without much difference as far as the impact on public health is concerned. At the end of the day no one cares whether the guy was only opposed to the vaccines that he thought he could undermine for his own profit with bogus research, or vaccines in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) <=~1%. You even suck at sybolic logic. Kimmi,"dear". "sybolic logic"?? CUTE!!! Look it found a typo! "Cute" calling out someone's typo with a typo IS..... cute! don't deny your cuteness. Edited January 21, 2011 by Kimmo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) We do know that, when pursuing case of statistical harm reduction through highly (but not 100%) effective solutions, this argument is irrelevant. which argument? for some, any argument is worth having, even if it's with one's self. Edited January 21, 2011 by Kimmo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Hey, Selkirk, what's your PhD in, if you don't mind me asking? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I have a PhD in the poon. Dr. Tang, that's what they call me. Giggidy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Dr. Hugh Giardon, to the intubation ward, paging Dr.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 calling out someone's typo with a typo IS..... cute! don't deny your cuteness. "i got an upper degree in Cute." ahhahahahahahahaaa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Hey, Selkirk, what's your PhD in, if you don't mind me asking? Just curious. Aeronautics and Astronautics (i.e. glorified Mechanical Engineering) I have a feeling there are a whole lot more closet nerds on here than one would expect. I'm pretty sure you can't trundle a rock around here without hitting an engineer or programmer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Can't read? This quote from the CDC from one of Kimmo's links: That’s because the pertussis vaccine loses 15 percent of its effectiveness after the first five years, and drops even moreafter 10 years that it's necessary to get a booster. So since the vaccine is at best 90% effective (CDC/WHO) and diminishes over time, I'd say the easy math says that at least 90% of the US population that has been properly vaccinated for Pertussis is NOT immune. Hence the call for a booster. Of course, if you don't have contact with infants, (You know, you don't have any at home or you don't go out in public.) then you won't be risking infecting anyone else. Of course if you don't go out in public you won't risk getting it either. You're not following the thread, lazyalpinist, which is understandable. His conclusion was to get a Tdap booster regularly, and something about boosting Q5years. However, even one of his own links disagreed and spelled out the official current CDC recommendation of Tdap once as an adult, then continuing with Td boosters. So apparently neither of you read carefully. Not to mention that all 3 of his sources are popular news articles, which is really why the single scholarly article that went uncorroborated got us into this mess in the first place. You won't find the good ole stuck-in-the-mud CDC changing their recommendations on the basis of a single specious article, thank goodness. And your assertion that because the vaccine loses 15% in the first 5 years, therefore 90% of adults aren't immune, is hilarious. How exactly does that "easy" math work? I'd love to see that equation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I'm pretty sure you can't trundle a rock around here without hitting an engineer or programmer. engineers seem to be the most agrro trundlers too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 nothing like a good physics experiment! you've got gravity, fracture mechanics, stability, elasticity, all wrapped up together. Not to mention, you know, breakin shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 the smell of rockfall brings out the pagan in me, and fear compells me then to throw the nearest virgin i can find into the fire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazyalpinist Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 You're not following the thread, lazyalpinist, which is understandable. His conclusion was to get a Tdap booster regularly, and something about boosting Q5years. However, even one of his own links disagreed and spelled out the official current CDC recommendation of Tdap once as an adult, then continuing with Td boosters. So apparently neither of you read carefully. Not to mention that all 3 of his sources are popular news articles, which is really why the single scholarly article that went uncorroborated got us into this mess in the first place. You won't find the good ole stuck-in-the-mud CDC changing their recommendations on the basis of a single specious article, thank goodness. And your assertion that because the vaccine loses 15% in the first 5 years, therefore 90% of adults aren't immune, is hilarious. How exactly does that "easy" math work? I'd love to see that equation! Appears you are the one not following... Otherwise you could have read this: http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/998140/Re_Vaccine_Autism_Link_Deliber#Post998140 It would have saved you from reposting the CDC's adult recommendation for Pertussis. As for your inability to understand the math, that was my typo. (You'll see similar non-typo numbers in the post above.) It should have read: So since the vaccine is at best 90% effective (CDC/WHO) and diminishes over time, I'd say the easy math says that at least 10% of the US population that has been properly vaccinated for Pertussis is NOT immune. Hence the call for a booster. But hopefully you realized that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 nothing like a good physics experiment! you've got gravity, fracture mechanics, stability, elasticity, all wrapped up together. Not to mention, you know, breakin shit We can't all be on Mythbusters, but.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 the smell of rockfall brings out the pagan in me, and fear compells me then to throw the nearest virgin i can find into the fire Virgins? Meh. Would you throw WHISKEY into the fire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 fucking crazy talk, that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 It would have saved you from reposting the CDC's adult recommendation for Pertussis. not really, as it was reiterated to correct kimmo's personal viewpoint on what is best. but that would have been an excellent point, and added a whole new dimension to this discussion. so to wrap it all up, there's a lot of information out there, and you're paying a bunch of really smart people to figure it out, so listen to them and not a bunch of internet kooks or fear-mongering news articles. next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Kimmo, what exactly are you trying to say? I'm afraid I couldn't come to any of your conclusions based on the links you provided. Strange... i thought it to be rather straight-forward: the pertussis vaccine seems to lose its efficacy over time. it's enough of a concern that the CDC itself is investigating the 2010 "epidemic", due to the number of what, 7 to 10 year olds affected etc, and the apparency of vaccine efficacy loss. you might have a misunderstanding about the nature of the CDC: it isn't the final say on infectious diseases; it relies on research from outside sources, and responds to political pressure (define it as you may). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 so to wrap it all up, there's a lot of information out there, and you're paying a bunch of really smart people to figure it out, so listen to them and not a bunch of internet kooks or fear-mongering news articles. next? are you in grad school? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.