Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   11/10/22

      Help keep cascadeclimbers.com going!  Please consider donating so we can keep this site going.   We have set expenses right now but no revenue.  We do hope to getting a sponsor to help out, but for now we just need funds to upgrade the site and pay for hosting and licensing. See the "DONATE" tab in the top menu.
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

Had Your Flu Shots Yet?

Recommended Posts

How about a hope-filled message of ephemeral somethingness?

 

I find it helps to have a bit of focus on reality when problem solving.

 

If the events of this past week aren't good examples of that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
African malnutrition:

 

1) Lack of birth control

 

2) Sectarian violence

 

Thank you Religion.

i can think of no better practical step to start sorting out equatorial africa's immense shit-sandwich than an effective malaria vaccine (probably a pipe-dream, i know, but curious that, should one be developed, it would somehow be percieved as pernicious...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can think of no better practical step to start sorting out equatorial africa's immense shit-sandwich than an effective malaria vaccine (probably a pipe-dream, i know, but curious that, should one be developed, it would somehow be percieved as pernicious...)

 

Malaria Vaccine Conspiracy

 

So "donating" a billion dollars to develop a malaria "vaccine" could turn into tens of billions of dollars in drug sales in Africa alone, and Bill Gates, through his drug company investments, will quietly pocket more African blood money.

 

All the while a very successful malaria mortality reduction program is operating, effectively, safely and affordably, in Eritrea.

 

Why isn't this being publicized internationally? Could it be that such a program is not going to put billions into the pockets of the drug lords of Western finance?

 

Bill Gates and other assorted financial terrorists through their control of the Western media and "aid" organizations are suppressing implementation of a successful malaria mortality program while investing in a malaria drug addiction for Africa's people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, off-white, I'm wondering if you might be a bit of a climate change denier?

 

That all depends on how you define "climate". "I did not have climate with that woman."

 

No Kimmo, I haven't read all your links in their entirety, life is just a little too full for that kind of fun right now. I do like the notion that a Massachusetts ambulance chaser has discovered that AIDS came from polio vaccines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure not a climate-be-all-fucked-up-today denier.

 

Malaria is largely a political issue - countries torn by war and fucked gubmint can't seem to eradicate the carrier. Mozambique largely had malaria under control until their civil war, for example.

 

Anyone who's had a mefloquine nightmare can be forgiven for attributing to it demonic properties.

 

Vaccine superstitions have been around from the very beginning. Overcoming them can be the hardest part of a vaccination program. Primitive cultures that cling to belief in magic and witchcraft, like Americans, can transform even the most obviously beneficial medical breakthroughs into a Great Satanic Plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What doesn't fascinate me about crap like this is all the glaringly obvious problems an individual like Kimmo could focus his anxieties and energies on.

 

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 understand the borderline schitzoid need satisfied by being a conspiracy whistleblower, but it really isn't about being an agent of change, is it?

 

More about being a secret agent of change, I reckon.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do like the notion that a Massachusetts ambulance chaser has discovered that AIDS came from polio vaccines.

The OPV AIDS hypothesis was thoroughly investigated by people who lent the concept credibility until the science soundly repudiated it. You can make a far better case that OPV contamination by SV40 may be involved with some cancers - but not AIDS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primitive cultures that cling to belief in magic and witchcraft, like Americans, can transform even the most obviously beneficial medical breakthroughs into a Great Satanic Plot.

 

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

 

link

 

link

 

 

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry you seem to think this is some kind of joke, dude.

 

DO YOU THINK THIS IS FUNNY?????

 

horror2vaccine.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth reading through all of the material there in full. Wakefield wasn't engaged in a charitable enterprise either.

 

the situation is a bit bigger than wakefield and his role.

 

it's bigger than merck falsifying data on a vaccine administered to millions.

 

link

 

 

it's even bigger than gerberding, former cdc director, leaving her post and going directly to work for merck as head of their vaccine department!

 

i don't think we even need to get into the whole pfizer atrocity in africa, do we? (and people wonder why dem forners are so ignorant and can't just take their (our) meds!).

 

to me, the above are distractions. ok maybe they show that both pharma and some anti-vax researchers will falsify data (surprise surprise), but the bigger problem is that vaccines haven't been studied in ways they could, and there are known problems with them already. i think until this happens, we will continue to have public trust issues, with the accompanying problems undervaccination can lead to (as mentioned in your earlier post).

 

 

somewhat interesting read for the science types (scroll down to View from the other side and "scientific proofs":

 

link

 

What's puzzling to me is that I haven't ever encountered anyone who actually works in vaccine development who claims that vaccines are entirely riskless for all people.

 

What they believe, and what the data supports, are that the risks from getting vaccinated are miniscule both in absolute terms (e.g. so rare that it takes a massive sample size for any to be detectable, but they can and are detected with robust statistical techniques) and and relative to the risks presented by the diseases themselves, on both the individual and the population level.

 

If I had to offer one suggestion - it would be to translate some of the energy you've got around vaccination into acquainting yourself with the scientific knowledge that mankind has amassed about how the immune system actually functions. Starting with a review paper that addresses the evolution of innate and adaptive immunity is a great way to put all of the different players and their function in context. When you're done with that, then move onto a textbook that addresses their function in fine detail.

 

If you can do both of those things and maintain your current positions - I'd be surprised - but that would be a much more interesting and constructive discussion than a mano-y-mano link-off.

 

-Very good review article on the evolution of adaptive immunity:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20651744

 

Textbook:

 

-http://www.amazon.com/Janeways-Immunobiology-Immune-System-Janeway/dp/0815342438/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're conflating way too many aspects of the pharmacy industry, its practices, it's products, the science behind them, and medical history. The result is really a lurching mess.

 

Yes, without a doubt pharma has moved trials offshore to countries with few rules and high levels of corruption over the past two decades in response to oversight in the US and EU and that's a despicable practice - one among many in that industry.

 

Those capitalism-driven business practices aside, our societal delivery of medicine unavoidably kills people sometimes in any number of ways and that unfortunately is part of the cost of providing healthcare to large populations: bad things sometimes happen. Appendectomies for example, don't all turn out well; most all surgeries have a certain percentage of bad outcomes and most drugs have adverse effects or are poorly tolerated by a certain percentage of people.

 

Fighting infectious disease in particular is a constantly shifting battlefield where it's often the case where it's not about the individual, but rather the herd. And in protecting the herd there are again unavoidable costs in individual lives. No two people are alike and responses to vaccines operate on bell curves of efficacy and adverse reactions - some people die for any of a variety of reasons.

 

Ditto on our cancer treatment about which today you can still say the cure can be almost as bad as the cancer and a matter of which succumbs first.

 

Our transportation and food distribution systems operate similarly with equally tragic loss of lives each year. But do you sell your car or stop shopping at Safeway because a fellow member of the herd died?

 

Bottom line is we don't know what causes autism, but it isnt the vaccines per se. More likely it will be a genetic, microbiome, environmental, cultural, or societal issue or some combination of all of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I had to offer one suggestion - it would be to translate some of the energy you've got around vaccination into acquainting yourself with the scientific knowledge that mankind has amassed about how the immune system actually functions. Starting with a review paper that addresses the evolution of innate and adaptive immunity is a great way to put all of the different players and their function in context. When you're done with that, then move onto a textbook that addresses their function in fine detail.

 

-Very good review article on the evolution of adaptive immunity:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20651744

 

Textbook:

 

-http://www.amazon.com/Janeways-Immunobiology-Immune-System-Janeway/dp/0815342438/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

 

i'm evidently interested in this stuff, so i'll read your recommended link.

 

curious about your own readings?

 

somewhat interesting read for the science types (scroll down to View from the other side and "scientific proofs":

 

link

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're conflating way too many aspects of the pharmacy industry, its practices, it's products, the science behind them, and medical history. The result is really a lurching mess.

 

i think the conflation has been an evolving thread drift, which tends to happen. talk to outlet man, bong toke bob, even yourself.

 

Our transportation and food distribution systems operate similarly with equally tragic loss of lives each year. But do you sell your car or stop shopping at Safeway because a fellow member of the herd died?

 

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."

 

 

Bottom line is we don't know what causes autism, but it isnt the vaccines per se. More likely it will be a genetic, microbiome, environmental, cultural, or societal issue or some combination of all of the above.

 

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

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fighting infectious disease in particular is a constantly shifting battlefield where it's often the case where it's not about the individual, but rather the herd.

 

The "herd"? Why am I not surprised that you view people as cattle?

 

And could the irony be any more clear from the guy that a few days ago was spewing diatribes against libertarians than sounds like a Rand disciple in his treatment of how the fittest must survive at the expense of culling the "herd".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear the Ford Pinto argument a lot. BTW, a total of six people were injured or killed in Pinto burning incidents prior to Ford's recall.

 

The argument has several critical flaws:

 

1) It ignores opportunity cost - could the resources spent fixing the Pinto's exploding gas tank have been used making Ford cars safer in some other way for a much larger population of future crash victims? Litigation often skews the cost side of the cost benefit equation in instances like this - essentially replacing human misery (of not doing using those resources to address more pressing safety issues for a much larger population) with the monetary penalties from a handful of large litigation awards.

 

2) In incidents like this, more relevant factors are often ignored as time goes on. For example, 3 out of the 6 total people injured or killed in Ford Pintos actually lost their suit due to the more relevant factors of alcohol impairment coupled with unsafe driving conditions. Similarly, death statistics are often inflated over time - 57 versus the actual figure of 6, for example. Both figures are tiny as compared to the 50K + traffic fatalities per year that were occurring at the time. It was hardly the car industries biggest problem, but media attention certainly changed that pretty quickly.

 

3) What got Ford into PR trouble was not that the Pinto was particularly unsafe - people were dying in many other car models in much greater numbers, but that Ford was aware of possible weaknesses in the design beforehand and so performed a macabre cost/benefit analysis regarding its gas tank design decisions which compared payout out an estimated 125M in litigation awards with beefing up the design. That analysis was famously leaked by Mother Jones and the rest is history.

 

The Pinto debacle was a very different situation than today's vaccine 'controversy'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, homo sapiens behave much more like bacteria in the aggregate than herd animals. We populate and consume to the point where habitat destruction forces us to do otherwise. It's not an insult to the human spirit or the value of the individual - who can make a difference - its just an honest self assessment of how the species actually behaves given, you know, the actual scientific data.

 

In other words, exactly what I've been saying the GOP cannot or will not do - honest self assessment using observation and reason.

 

Try it. You won't like it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear the Ford Pinto argument a lot. BTW, a total of six people were injured or killed in Pinto burning incidents prior to Ford's recall.

 

The argument has several critical flaws:

 

1) It ignores opportunity cost - could the resources spent fixing the Pinto's exploding gas tank have been used making Ford cars safer in some other way for a much larger population of future crash victims? Litigation often skews the cost side of the cost benefit equation in instances like this - essentially replacing human misery (of not doing using those resources to address more pressing safety issues for a much larger population) with the monetary penalties from a handful of large litigation awards.

 

2) In incidents like this, more relevant factors are often ignored as time goes on. For example, 3 out of the 6 total people injured or killed in Ford Pintos actually lost their suit due to the more relevant factors of alcohol impairment coupled with unsafe driving conditions. Similarly, death statistics are often inflated over time - 57 versus the actual figure of 6, for example. Both figures are tiny as compared to the 50K + traffic fatalities per year that were occurring at the time. It was hardly the car industries biggest problem, but media attention certainly changed that pretty quickly.

 

3) What got Ford into PR trouble was not that the Pinto was particularly unsafe - people were dying in many other car models in much greater numbers, but that Ford was aware of possible weaknesses in the design beforehand and so performed a macabre cost/benefit analysis regarding its gas tank design decisions which compared payout out an estimated 125M in litigation awards with beefing up the design. That analysis was famously leaked by Mother Jones and the rest is history.

 

The Pinto debacle was a very different situation than today's vaccine 'controversy'.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The counter argument is 100% religiously based, of course. We're God's chosen ones, separate and above the rest of the universe, which was put here solely for us, so what could go wrong? Would God let anything really bad happen? Of course not.

 

Remember, every sperm (or sperm+egg) is sacred.

 

The truth, of course, is that there is a glut of humanity on this planet. As we rapidly automate everything - most especially innovation and invention - we're increasingly finding out that we can, indeed, do more with fewer people in a far less damaging way. We'll either have to depopulate voluntarily, or nature and human nature will do that job for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear the Ford Pinto argument a lot. BTW, a total of six people were injured or killed in Pinto burning incidents prior to Ford's recall.

 

The argument has several critical flaws:

 

1) It ignores opportunity cost - could the resources spent fixing the Pinto's exploding gas tank have been used making Ford cars safer in some other way for a much larger population of future crash victims? Litigation often skews the cost side of the cost benefit equation in instances like this - essentially replacing human misery (of not doing using those resources to address more pressing safety issues for a much larger population) with the monetary penalties from a handful of large litigation awards.

 

2) In incidents like this, more relevant factors are often ignored as time goes on. For example, 3 out of the 6 total people injured or killed in Ford Pintos actually lost their suit due to the more relevant factors of alcohol impairment coupled with unsafe driving conditions. Similarly, death statistics are often inflated over time - 57 versus the actual figure of 6, for example. Both figures are tiny as compared to the 50K + traffic fatalities per year that were occurring at the time. It was hardly the car industries biggest problem, but media attention certainly changed that pretty quickly.

 

3) What got Ford into PR trouble was not that the Pinto was particularly unsafe - people were dying in many other car models in much greater numbers, but that Ford was aware of possible weaknesses in the design beforehand and so performed a macabre cost/benefit analysis regarding its gas tank design decisions which compared payout out an estimated 125M in litigation awards with beefing up the design. That analysis was famously leaked by Mother Jones and the rest is history.

 

The Pinto debacle was a very different situation than today's vaccine 'controversy'.

 

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'm reminded of the classic Texan rebuttal

 

"Well, you argue just lahk a faggit"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×