I would have not gotten the flu if I just passed on the vaccine.
If I drove my car, I would have gotten into an accident. We do not know what you were around, where, with whom, etc to in any way, shape, or form to pass that as a valid arguement statement.
Last paragraph, No....just....no. I have only gotten the flu a very few times, and getting the flu immediatly after vaccine gave me horrid sick feeling was no coinsidence. I would have not gotten the flu if I just passed on the vaccine.
Because you got the flu vaccine during flu season. And after you get the flu shot, you feel bad because your body is creating the antibody. It's a lot less dangerous than getting an actual flu. The flu shot contains DEAD flu virus. If you could demonstrate that you contracted the flu from a DEAD virus, you would probably win the Nobel prize for that work.
I work for a company now that makes the #1 flu vaccine in the country. Not only are vaccines today orders of magnitude cleaner, more effective, and less dangerous than they were when your grandfather was around, even those vaccines were incredibly safe and effective in preventing illness.
And I would caution you about trusting "sources" like offthegridnews.com They are catering to an agenda, and that agenda is not your health.
No they are not safe for everyone cause they might not know what the side effects are. Everyone should ask their doctor first.
And every doctor will tell you to take the vaccine, barring a medical condition that prevents it. Because the risks of the vaccine are dwarfed by the risks of the disease you are vaccinating against
You realize that if a Vaccination lowers your immunity uppon receiving it
It doesn't. That's not how your immune system works. I encourage you to do some reading on the topic and educate yourself about viruses, the human immune system, and how they work so you can make educated choices regarding your personal health. Exercise has nothing to do with it.
It is a personal reason to not partake in vaccines and is a help cause that creates a control group
It's a potentially life threatening decision based on misinformation and ignorance, ranking right up there with "prayer healing". Ultimately it is your choice, but it is a choice based on misinformation and irrationality.
I haven't seen anyone advocating a law that would bar Jenny McCarthy from spreading conspiracy theories; the most I've seen is people trying to organize boycotts or letter-writing campaigns to convince the producers of The View to fire her. This may seem similar, but really it's fundamentally different from real censorship, because no one is infringing on the rights of the producers. They're just using their own legitimate freedoms (of speech, and to decide what they will watch and which companies' products they will buy) to register their disapproval, which the producers may respond to or ignore at their preference.
I agree. It's the comments of "She should be banned from TV" or "They shouldn't let her on the air" that concern me. The producers of the show are free to hire anyone they want, and Jenny McCarthy is free to say whatever she wants. People can be free to object and express their objecting view, but calling for her to be silenced are IMO advocating a much worse reality than one where Jenny McCarthy talks on a TV show.
Also, TV shows exist for one reason: to make $$. They make money by having viewers. You attract viewers by drawing attention to the show. Jenny McCarthy certainly seems to be doing that, so I can't fault the producers for hiring her. The controversy she brings with her hiring is by design.
Also, TV shows exist for one reason: to make $$. They make money by having viewers. You attract viewers by drawing attention to the show.
Absolutely. One consequence of this that I've noticed, is that the TV/radio boycotts, letter writing campaigns, angry blog posts (etc) that are actually effective tend to be the ones that target the companies that advertise on the show, not the network itself. Since most broadcasters' business model depends on companies paying them to publicize their products and brand name, they're far more receptive to their advertisers than to basically anyone else. And should those companies get the impression that the content they're sponsoring is associating their brand with something of which people have negative perceptions, they tend to feel they're no longer getting their money's worth and express their feelings about that quickly and assertively.
Anyone who's serious about depriving Jenny McCarthy of The View's more visible public platform should be finding out which companies advertise during the program and letting them know what they think of McCarthy and her agenda.
Opens window, yells "****" loud enough to register on seismographs for five minutes.
Seriously, even before she started her antivaccine crusade, Jenny was into the whole "indigo children" mvoement. Basically it's about how your child is special because he's an egomaniac and easily distracted, and your child will lead our species into the next phase of human evolution. (Yeah, they don't get how evolution works either.)
They work for the person vaccinated, right? If I get vaccinated, and someone else doesn't, that doesn't neutralize my vaccination.
Not quite. Some vaccines don't take. In addition, people with suppressed immune systems (for instance, due to chemotherapy, AIDS, or drugs to treat an autoimmune disease or prevent organ rejection) can't take vaccines. They just don't work for those people. Also, most vaccines are grown in an egg medium, so if you're allergic to egg, no dice.
It's actually better to not have been given a vaccine when everyone else has than to have been given a vaccine when nobody else has.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Not quite. Some vaccines don't take. In addition, people with suppressed immune systems (for instance, due to chemotherapy, AIDS, or drugs to treat an autoimmune disease or prevent organ rejection) can't take vaccines. They just don't work for those people. Also, most vaccines are grown in an egg medium, so if you're allergic to egg, no dice.
It's actually better to not have been given a vaccine when everyone else has than to have been given a vaccine when nobody else has.
Yeah, hyalapterouslemur pretty much has it. I'd just add that the level of access to care like vaccination can vary pretty widely, although hopefully one good thing to come out of the ACA will be better access to preventive care like vaccines.
Incorrect. Viruses do not care how hydrated you are, or how much you exercise, or how much grape juice you drink. Your immune system either has the correct antibody to fight the virus or it doesn't, your level of physical fitness makes no difference at all. That's why vaccination works, it's triggers your body to create the correct antibody. The health of the individual has nothing to do with getting infected at all, just how well they can survive the symptoms once they do get infected.
This is false. First, the success of a vaccination directly depends on your body mounting a sufficiently strong adaptive immune response, so your level of overall health and immune strength at the time of vaccination absolutely has an effect. Second, you are either discounting or conflating the two different types of immune responses that your body mounts: innate and adaptive. The innate immune response is not mediated by antibody interactions, but rather relies on (primarily) macrophages and neutrophils to generate reactive oxygen species that are capable of destroying foreign pathogens; the strength of the innate immune response is also affected by the overall level of health.
To be clear, vaccines represent one of the greatest achievements in public health, and are unparalleled in their safety and efficacy. In short, everyone able to be should be vaccinated. I simply wanted to correct this statement; I am not in any way advocating "healthy living" in place of vaccination.
While I think people who don't get vaccinated are idiots and mostly self centered jerks, it's also a bodily autonomy issue.
The government shouldn't be able to force you to have a medical procedure against your will. Granted, the government should be able to then prevent you from doing things that would elevate the risk for others, but it shouldn't be able to actually force you to have the vaccination.
It's well-established that the government can compel you to do things for the sake of public health. Remember Typhoid Mary?
You guys are missing a few points. While I do get one vaccination (Tetnus); the rest do nothing or harm me.
I'm sorry, but while you have unique circumstances (as you mention below), your experience is the tiny, tiny exception, not the rule.
Quote from Wraith223 »
There is a large number of people who are having issues with vaccinations. Any of you remeber swine flu? ALOT of people took the vaccination and had symptoms similar to polio (legs failed to respond).
The risk of significant symptoms from the flu vaccine is [url=http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm]one or two cases per million, an incidence which is far, far less than the percentage who die from infectious flu. More to the point, no recent studies have backed up the claim made by some anti-vaccination advocates that the current H1N1 vaccine causes major problems.
Quote from Wraith223 »
Now they are severely harmed by new flu shots and have to get doctors slips to avoid being forced to get the shots in certain jobs. I have to get one cause of Gene translocation syndrome.
A variety of things cause people to be unable to take vaccines. This is the reason it's so important that everyone else take theirs; your safety is directly correlated to the number of infected people you come into contact with.
Quote from Wraith223 »
Hell, many common drugs do nothing to me or just give me the runs (Viccodine, Allergy meds, other sedatives during dental work and stuff I am affriad to be perscribed). I had the flu vaccine a few times, and I got the flu anyway a few days later!
No vaccine is 100% effective. What it definitely does is make it substantially less likely that you will develop it.
Quote from Wraith223 »
A school forced me to get the Heppatitis shots and I was sick for weeks after. Never got Hep., but I could have lived without missing a simester. I rarely get sick anyway, but alergies kick my ass.
Correlation != causation
Quote from Wraith223 »
Immunizations are not neccessarly the end all. Multiple flu (or other viruses) strains can make the process pointless.
They're not pointless at all. The whole point of seasonal flu vaccines is to vaccinate you against those flu strains which are predicted to be most common in the upcoming season. Of course you can't stop every strain, but stopping the great majority of cases is still a major win.
Quote from Wraith223 »
The best immunization process you can prsonally do is regular excercise, being properly hydraided, not drinking out of water fountains, washing your hands frequently while on the town, and eating a well balenced diet.
What Valarin/Brandon said.
Quote from Wraith223 »
Since I started working out everyday, my allergies are significantlt less and sick days have been gone. My secret weapon is also grape juice (100%) and mix it with half/half with water.
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Yeah, hyalapterouslemur pretty much has it. I'd just add that the level of access to care like vaccination can vary pretty widely, although hopefully one good thing to come out of the ACA will be better access to preventive care like vaccines.
You'd think so, but it's not that vaccines are expensive. Actually, they're already subsidized, and the American antivaccine movement has mutated into a way to abuse the fact that the government for a long time would just pay out to the parents who claimed any adverse event, in exchange for them not suing the manufacturer. (This was because vaccine manufacturers have very small profit margins, but vaccines are so important to public health.) A tragedy of the commons developed, so now you can't just claim vaccines made your kid act weird.
Instead, it's because of ignorance surrounding vaccines, such as Jenny McCarthy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I know my personal case is unique, but alot of people have my condition and don't know it. It used to be 1 in 2 million when my dad found out in the 70's. The numbers have been growing and now a few classes are being given in hospitals on how to deal with us. Lets just say "knocking us out" is like trying to put an elephant to sleep. A Doctors (Arab guy I could barely understand) opinion I got was that possible that vaccines are messing with DNA in the very long term, and wierd mutations in Human DNA are being noticed. The severe, difficult problem is figuring out what causes it? Vaccines are just one of many suspects. A virus is the best means to manipulate the human DNA in the "quiet" long term. I am no conspiricy guy, but if you all the vaccine and a few of us don't; you should be OK? I would like to see further research in long term vaccine effects before I believe that vaccines are OK for everyone. Folks believe current medical actions to be safe and later find out on TV through class action lawsuites that "X" medical action caused "x" side affects. I think vaccines are great, but how they are made is of question.What are the side effects of the ingrediants when mixed with current patient drugs, food, life style, current patient weight, and I could go on forever. I know not all news sources are "good", but a grain of truthe is still worth knowing. You just need to sift, alot.
That's what I disagree with. The government restricting free speech and engaging in censorship is, to me, FAR more dangerous then anything Jenny McCarthy could ever say. She should (and does) have the right to say whatever she wants, and the producers of the View have the right to hire whoever they want. The right to free speech does not just cover free speech you agree with.
Plus, it's completely ineffective as a tactic, since all it does is embolden the people who believe what she was saying in the first place, and push people which may have been on the fence in her camp (if it was nonsense, why are they covering it up?)
You fight ignorance with education, not censorship.
I agree that you address — not necessarily combat — ignorance or wrongness with education, not censorship.
But you must realize that, despite the US rights — and (mis)interpretations in Constitutional and other legal provisions — culture, this woman is a serious threat and, if it could really work, a gag order or booting her off the air might do some good in the world.
As someone who was hospitalized and nearly killed by swine flu, yes, I remember it very well. Flu vaccinations are incredibly safe and should be taken by everyone barring an existing medical condition that prevents it.
[...]
Incorrect. Viruses do not care how hydrated you are, or how much you exercise, or how much grape juice you drink. Your immune system either has the correct antibody to fight the virus or it doesn't, your level of physical fitness makes no difference at all. That's why vaccination works, it's triggers your body to create the correct antibody. The health of the individual has nothing to do with getting infected at all, just how well they can survive the symptoms once they do get infected.
During the last swine flu outbreak the elderly, normally a group who is high risk during flu outbreaks, rarely contracted swine flu. Because a similar flu outbreak in the 60's made them immune. Old folks in their 80's were shrugging off the virus fine, healthy people in their 20's and 30's were getting infected in record numbers.
[...]
No flu vaccine is 100% effective, as none cover every strain. And if you didn't get the flu vaccine, you still would have gotten the flu you got on those occasions. No flu shot "triggers" the flu or makes you more susceptible to getting it.
Please do me and Wraith223 the justice and courtesy of correctly quoting his/her text, by adding =Wraith223 to the quote tags as appropriate. Thank you.
Also, I honestly don't understand why you — Sen, Brandon, or others — have engaged him/her or bit down on that. It is clearly demonstrable that he/she is doing one of two things: first, being completely facile and facetious; or, two, wilfully and/or through ignorance, sowing discord.
On the other hand, if there weren't absurd claims to shoot down, perhaps there'd be less discussion. There would perhaps also be no opportunities to inform and educate the lay too.
While I think people who don't get vaccinated are idiots and mostly self centered jerks, it's also a bodily autonomy issue.
The government shouldn't be able to force you to have a medical procedure against your will. Granted, the government should be able to then prevent you from doing things that would elevate the risk for others, but it shouldn't be able to actually force you to have the vaccination.
Eh, this is a tricky one and mostly a matter of policy. I personally believe that governments should have the authority to do this and similar things, but this authority and the commensurable associated power should be exercised with caution in a framework with the necessary checks and balances.
Consistent with your submission is relaxing the prosecution of those that recklessly and wilfully infect others with HIV. Would you say that would be much too big a stretch, however?
I haven't done extensive study on US medical or health law, but I do readings for kicks and pursued this recently, as Australia averted its attention from other important things to this thing. You may be aware of one seminal case that may be relevant here; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case heard by the Supreme Court of the USA. The case upholds the supremacy of — well, I don't know what you would identify it as being — police power and a nanny state in the interest of the public, its health, and its safety over an individual's rights and freedoms. Therefore, the state can in fact order an individual to be vaccinated, and to not order an individual to vaccinate if necessary and to allow the right to choose is tantamount to negligent conduct of the state and allows the poor decisions and negligent conduct of an individual. To allow this right is to allow the infringement of others' enjoyment of health and, to whom this is relevant, their ability to enjoy freely raising their families, especially those with vulnerable and immunonaive progeny and children and/or with immunocompromised elders, in an environment in which debilitating and even deadly diseases do not thrive.
Eh, this is a tricky one and mostly a matter of policy. I personally believe that governments should have the authority to do this and similar things, but this authority and the commensurable associated power should be exercised with caution in a framework with the necessary checks and balances.
Consistent with your submission is relaxing the prosecution of those that recklessly and wilfully infect others with HIV. Would you say that would be much too big a stretch, however?
It's not really consistent, because I distinguish between forcing someone to undergo an invasive procedure and prohibiting someone from performing an action. Forcing someone to do something will always have a higher threshold (in my personal opinion, not talking legally) than prohibiting someone from doing something. Removing one option is a significantly smaller blow to autonomy than removing all but one option.
I haven't done extensive study on US medical or health law, but I do readings for kicks and pursued this recently, as Australia averted its attention from other important things to this thing. You may be aware of one seminal case that may be relevant here; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case heard by the Supreme Court of the USA. The case upholds the supremacy of — well, I don't know what you would identify it as being — police power and a nanny state in the interest of the public, its health, and its safety over an individual's rights and freedoms. Therefore, the state can in fact order an individual to be vaccinated, and to not order an individual to vaccinate if necessary and to allow the right to choose is tantamount to negligent conduct of the state and allows the poor decisions and negligent conduct of an individual. To allow this right is to allow the infringement of others' enjoyment of health and, to whom this is relevant, their ability to enjoy freely raising their families, especially those with vulnerable and immunonaive progeny and children and/or with immunocompromised elders, in an environment in which debilitating and even deadly diseases do not thrive.
I don't disagree with your analysis particularly, but I disagree that that is how it *should* be.
Also, I honestly don't understand why you — Sen, Brandon, or others — have engaged him/her or bit down on that. It is clearly demonstrable that he/she is doing one of two things: first, being completely facile and facetious; or, two, wilfully and/or through ignorance, sowing discord.
Speaking for myself, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible and treat opinions accordingly. In addition, responding to criticisms or alternative viewpoints -- even if I believe or know that they are outlandish or incorrect -- can strengthen the original claim by demonstrating its completeness.
@Wraith223: I've never heard of gene translocation syndrome, and a quick Google search demonstrates that this thread is actually the only result for that exact phrase. Is there another name for it? When you say 1 in 2 million, is that the prevalence (number of people living with the diseases) or the incidence (number of people newly diagnosed per year)? In either case, that should be plenty of cases for it to be reported in the literature.
You'd think so, but it's not that vaccines are expensive.
I apologize, I meant that access to medical care varies so much. Someone needs to have a family physician and see them to get vaccines. You are absolutely right that vaccines themselves are incredibly inexpensive.
@Wraith223: I've never heard of gene translocation syndrome, and a quick Google search demonstrates that this thread is actually the only result for that exact phrase. Is there another name for it? When you say 1 in 2 million, is that the prevalence (number of people living with the diseases) or the incidence (number of people newly diagnosed per year)? In either case, that should be plenty of cases for it to be reported in the literature.
That is the name I was told by the doctor. I have been trying to research it for years little or no success. I have to tell my general practitionor and he or she always looks at me perplexed then researches it themselves. Here is what learned from the doctor and a few others who discovered to have the condition.
- Chromasomes are split 75/25 instead of 50/50. It looks like Downs Syndrome in the microscope but acts nothing like it.
- Often discovered while trying to have kids, wife can't get pregnant or has multiple miscariages. I have only met males with the condition (Doctor said he had only seen males with it). My sister does not have it.
- Body responds to medication very oddly. Resistences are built after one use (not forever, just need to wait about a month/3 weeks to drop resistence), targeted job of most meds is not accomplished
- Allergies are terrible. Response to them is over compensated, For some reason Benadryl always works but me knocks out.
- Certain processed foods give really bad head aches.
- Little or no research is on this condition due the difficulty in finding patients to study.
- Folks can also "possibly" find out about this condition by going to the dentist. "X" afflicted person is given sedatives or deadeners wlth little or no results, yet they are not on any significant drugs before dentist to build tolerances. It took 5 addivan to do anything to me, novacane lasts about 5 minutes or less, and I still had no idea what laughing gas was supposed to do. Thus I REALLY hate going to the dentist.
-1 in a milion (my father learned in 1970) is estimated carriers of condition. A family member in the medical field had a continued education class on it and found the new number is 1 in 500,000.
That is all I know, currently.
Speaking for myself, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible and treat opinions accordingly. In addition, responding to criticisms or alternative viewpoints -- even if I believe or know that they are outlandish or incorrect -- can strengthen the original claim by demonstrating its completeness.
Oh, I fully understand and would very well do so too but for one critical thing; that is, it is apparently so that posts on a forum such as this do not accord the same gravity, weight, or intellectual rigour or investment as, for example, countervailing opinions or claims others in peer-reviewed journals. Plainly, there is no need for such thoroughness, in particular as it proves to be neither appreciated nor fruitful, through no fault of oneself.
It's not really consistent, because I distinguish between forcing someone to undergo an invasive procedure and prohibiting someone from performing an action. Forcing someone to do something will always have a higher threshold (in my personal opinion, not talking legally) than prohibiting someone from doing something. Removing one option is a significantly smaller blow to autonomy than removing all but one option.
Well, to be perfectly honest with myself, I am displeased with my proposition, which has great deficiencies. However, you could perhaps just as reasonably argue it any number of ways, other than yours and mine.
I don't disagree with your analysis particularly, but I disagree that that is how it *should* be.
Well, yes. Why, isn't a matter of personal feelings and such, influenced by an indeterminate number of factors, yes?
I firmly believe in responsibility for own's one actions and the responsibility of others' actions. Therefore, Jenny McCarthy being on The View is not a matter of freedom of speech, which is not actually an issue or, if you wish it to be one, can readily be proven to not be an issue; rather, it is her irresponsible advocacy of absurdity in the face of robust evidence for the antitheses of her claims.
I know my personal case is unique, but alot of people have my condition and don't know it. It used to be 1 in 2 million when my dad found out in the 70's. The numbers have been growing and now a few classes are being given in hospitals on how to deal with us. Lets just say "knocking us out" is like trying to put an elephant to sleep.
Please consider installing a spell checker for your browser, for I fear this is not a one- or ten-of thing and will otherwise persist. Further, duly consider the use of spaces and grammar — not syntax or orthography but specifically grammar. There are various websites with fairly thorough address of English grammar.
It is reasonable to believe that, were the above suggestions taken to heart and changes implemented, this would be greatly appreciated by the rest of the users and those who read your writing and may have long-lasting personal and professional benefits.
Thanks.
A Doctors (Arab guy I could barely understand) opinion I got was that possible that vaccines are messing with DNA in the very long term, and wierd mutations in Human DNA are being noticed.
What is to say that you misinterpreted the profound speech of this fellow? What is to say that you fail to understand for reasons other than, presumably, phonology or pronunciation? What is the credibility of this unnamed 'Arab guy'?
Moreover, could that have been any more potentially offensive? How could you not take into account the fellow's name but know, and know for an absolute fact, that he is an "Arab guy"? Were you to make such a reference to an opinion of a presumed expert, as you have, would you not have thought, in your learnedness and wisdom, it were reasonable to have produced a reference of some sort rather than simply assert such a revolutionary statement? If this is a real-life M.D. saying this, could you clarify this and produce a recording or exact transcript of his wisdom?
The severe, difficult problem is figuring out what causes it? Vaccines are just one of many suspects. A virus is the best means to manipulate the human DNA in the "quiet" long term. I am no conspiricy guy, but if you all the vaccine and a few of us don't; you should be OK? I would like to see further research in long term vaccine effects before I believe that vaccines are OK for everyone. Folks believe current medical actions to be safe and later find out on TV through class action lawsuites that "X" medical action caused "x" side affects. I think vaccines are great, but how they are made is of question.What are the side effects of the ingrediants when mixed with current patient drugs, food, life style, current patient weight, and I could go on forever. I know not all news sources are "good", but a grain of truthe is still worth knowing. You just need to sift, alot.
This isn't an argument in favour for vaccines, for current therapies, or for the current knowledge, but all of that applies to everything known, be it in pathophysiology of any given disease, the pharmacology of any given drug, or anything else in the human race's limited, but incrementally growing, understanding of medical science or knowledge in any other discipline. Therefore, and in light of your comments, with or without weighing up things, do you still take analgesics to kill headaches or the medication indicated for specific diseases you may have?
As far as a reasonable person should be concerned, vaccines have undergone adequately rigorous testing, to ensure that they are efficacious, reliable, and safe, in accordance with highly stringent regulations. If you could compare this testing and all the work done to reach this stage to the amount or merit of meaningful thinking and bona fide acceptable evidence that the good anti-vaccination folk or conspiracy theorists, if one is wont to call them that, one will find that the former markedly outweighs the latter and that the other, taken in consideration with or without anything else, is a pick-and-choose hodgepodge body of incongruities and intellectual dishonesty, of fabrication and of self-deceit.
That is the name I was told by the doctor. I have been trying to research it for years little or no success. I have to tell my general practitionor and he or she always looks at me perplexed then researches it themselves. Here is what learned from the doctor and a few others who discovered to have the condition.
Sorry. Help us out here.
I'm guessing "I" is missing, but then you've also said doctor. Who? Do you have more than one? If yes, why? If no, why is there any ambiguity as to the sex of the doctor?
- Chromasomes are split 75/25 instead of 50/50. It looks like Downs Syndrome in the microscope but acts nothing like it.
- Often discovered while trying to have kids, wife can't get pregnant or has multiple miscariages. I have only met males with the condition (Doctor said he had only seen males with it). My sister does not have it.
- Body responds to medication very oddly. Resistences are built after one use (not forever, just need to wait about a month/3 weeks to drop resistence), targeted job of most meds is not accomplished
- Allergies are terrible. Response to them is over compensated, For some reason Benadryl always works but me knocks out.
- Certain processed foods give really bad head aches.
- Little or no research is on this condition due the difficulty in finding patients to study.
- Folks can also "possibly" find out about this condition by going to the dentist. "X" afflicted person is given sedatives or deadeners wlth little or no results, yet they are not on any significant drugs before dentist to build tolerances. It took 5 addivan to do anything to me, novacane lasts about 5 minutes or less, and I still had no idea what laughing gas was supposed to do. Thus I REALLY hate going to the dentist.
-1 in a milion (my father learned in 1970) is estimated carriers of condition. A family member in the medical field had a continued education class on it and found the new number is 1 in 500,000.
That is all I know, currently.
Could there be other genetic damage otherwise? How have all of these signs and symptoms been identified and further verified?
Frankly, from these S&S, I'm surprised that you're alive or you have nevertheless done as well as you have in life. Have you considered getting your condition studied or forming a nice network of other sufferers, so as to support each other and maybe be a group to study?
Do correct me if I'm mistaken, but you presume your father has this and so do you. There is a follow up to this, but I am hoping you can identify what that is and explain it without prompting.
Oh, I fully understand and would very well do so too but for one critical thing; that is, it is apparently so that posts on a forum such as this do not accord the same gravity, weight, or intellectual rigour or investment as, for example, countervailing opinions or claims others in peer-reviewed journals. Plainly, there is no need for such thoroughness, in particular as it proves to be neither appreciated nor fruitful, through no fault of oneself.
The fact that Wraith responded to our comments with civility and new information makes your claim that our efforts were "neither appreciated nor fruitful" demonstrably false. Additionally, your own participation in a lengthy discourse with Wraith prompts an obvious question: if you believe such engagements are so problematic, why do you participate in them while simultaneously criticizing others for doing so?
Please consider installing a spell checker for your browser, for I fear this is not a one- or ten-of thing and will otherwise persist. Further, duly consider the use of spaces and grammar — not syntax or orthography but specifically grammar. There are various websites with fairly thorough address of English grammar.
Yes mom. I have spell checker on this computor and it seems not see miss-spellings on this Website.
What is to say that you misinterpreted the profound speech of this fellow? What is to say that you fail to understand for reasons other than, presumably, phonology or pronunciation? What is the credibility of this unnamed 'Arab guy'?
He spoke 200 miles a hour, was very direct, and spent little time explaining his findings in manner we could understand. We got the main ponts of his findings, but they had little or no help for us. There are no scans, pictures, or X-rays to look at for better understanding.
Moreover, could that have been any more potentially offensive? How could you not take into account the fellow's name but know, and know for an absolute fact, that he is an "Arab guy"? Were you to make such a reference to an opinion of a presumed expert, as you have, would you not have thought, in your learnedness and wisdom, it were reasonable to have produced a reference of some sort rather than simply assert such a revolutionary statement? If this is a real-life M.D. saying this, could you clarify this and produce a recording or exact transcript of his wisdom?
I could not pronouce his name and barely remember him since I was about 6 years old. Can tell you are a very intelligent person in your writing, but you ramble on to much and make conclusions beyond the scope of what I said.
This isn't an argument in favour for vaccines, for current therapies, or for the current knowledge, but all of that applies to everything known, be it in pathophysiology of any given disease, the pharmacology of any given drug, or anything else in the human race's limited, but incrementally growing, understanding of medical science or knowledge in any other discipline. Therefore, and in light of your comments, with or without weighing up things, do you still take analgesics to kill headaches or the medication indicated for specific diseases you may have?
This is not a disease. It is a condition. Some medication work fine when used very infrequently (alieve and Alegra D for me). Benadryl (severe sleepyness) and Anti-acid meds have never failed. Most of the time it is better to ignore the pains of allergies and head aches.
As far as a reasonable person should be concerned, vaccines have undergone adequately rigorous testing, to ensure that they are efficacious, reliable, and safe, in accordance with highly stringent regulations. If you could compare this testing and all the work done to reach this stage to the amount or merit of meaningful thinking and bona fide acceptable evidence that the good anti-vaccination folk or conspiracy theorists, if one is wont to call them that, one will find that the former markedly outweighs the latter and that the other, taken in consideration with or without anything else, is a pick-and-choose hodgepodge body of incongruities and intellectual dishonesty, of fabrication and of self-deceit.
Sorry. Help us out here.
Eyes glazed over....WHAT?......I just offer a counter opinion that not everyone should jump on the band wagon of vaccines. A small few that don't partake in the vaccines will offer a control group to study. You are not sorry, but attemtpting overwhelm me.
I'm guessing "I" is missing, but then you've also said doctor. Who? Do you have more than one? If yes, why? If no, why is there any ambiguity as to the sex of the doctor?
Have had multiple doctors through life. What is difficult to understand about this.
Could there be other genetic damage otherwise? How have all of these signs and symptoms been identified and further verified?
It is a big unknown of what else could happen in later life. My father is in his late 50's and nothing else has happend beside what I listed. Need money to verify anything further.
Frankly, from these S&S, I'm surprised that you're alive or you have nevertheless done as well as you have in life. Have you considered getting your condition studied or forming a nice network of other sufferers, so as to support each other and maybe be a group to study?
It's not that bad as long as you don't need surgery. I had surgery for a pilonidal cyst and a few bad things happend. Took a long time to be sedated and I woke up half way through. All I have is a re-occuring nightmare of it, and was told that it happend. Don't have the time and money right now for doing groups or research, and no one wants to admit their not very fertal. Also, there is no money in gene translocation research for doctors/researchers.
Do correct me if I'm mistaken, but you presume your father has this and so do you. There is a follow up to this, but I am hoping you can identify what that is and explain it without prompting.
I found out about this early on from my father (we both have it, and no other family members have it) and the Doctor to warn the other Doctors so I can be properly taken care of. I gues a small bonus can be found in that I am terrified to take any drugs, thus NO recreational drug, ever! Prompting? How else am I to explain a condition that has little or no rsearch in it? I am a Criminal Justice and Political Science Major, not a medical doctor. Doing the best I can here with what little I can find/learn.
Lastly, The pompous level is a little high. Please tone it down.
I would like to see further research in long term vaccine effects before I believe that vaccines are OK for everyone
Further research? How about the billion+ people that have been vaccinated over the past 200+ years? That's a sufficient sample size and timeline to expose any side effect, no matter how rare. If vaccinations caused autism, or allergies, or anything else they are blamed for, then over half the country would be autistic. Conversely, 90% of kids who die from the flu die because they were not vaccinated.
I forgot the main point of this thread and why I watch Fox News! When the news is pointless look at the Hot Chicks!
You can watch porn and look at hot chicks, with the added benefit of not having to listen to neo conservative partisan nut jobs spewing their nonsense.
This is false. First, the success of a vaccination directly depends on your body mounting a sufficiently strong adaptive immune response, so your level of overall health and immune strength at the time of vaccination absolutely has an effect. Second, you are either discounting or conflating the two different types of immune responses that your body mounts: innate and adaptive. The innate immune response is not mediated by antibody interactions, but rather relies on (primarily) macrophages and neutrophils to generate reactive oxygen species that are capable of destroying foreign pathogens; the strength of the innate immune response is also affected by the overall level of health.
You are claiming I said something that I did not say. I said that "healthy living" doesn't make you immune to viruses, and are not a substitute for vaccinations. You can be fat, tired, dehydrated, and out of shape, if you have been vaccinated against a virus, that virus is not going to hurt you (unless you are so sick that your overall immune system is compromised, but that's a given)
I wasn't talking about ones health in getting vaccinated (although it's still a pretty small variable), I'm talking about ones health not having anything to do with preventing a virus from infecting you. Healthy living cannot cause spontaneous generation of new antibodies in your system.
I was countering Wraiths claim that instead of getting vaccinated he can avoid viral infections through healthy living, exercise, hydration, and grape juice.
But you must realize that, despite the US rights — and (mis)interpretations in Constitutional and other legal provisions — culture, this woman is a serious threat and, if it could really work, a gag order or booting her off the air might do some good in the world.
It might do good in the world, but in my opinion, the price is to high. If she were actively trying to stop people getting vaccinated by blocking access to doctors offices or blowing up manufacturing facilities used to make vaccines, then arrest her and lock her up. But gagging her because of her ideas, no matter how flawed? I can't get on board with that. Having a thought police state where people can be gagged and/or censored just for thinking something is not a world I want to live in.
You are claiming I said something that I did not say. I said that "healthy living" doesn't make you immune to viruses, and are not a substitute for vaccinations. You can be fat, tired, dehydrated, and out of shape, if you have been vaccinated against a virus, that virus is not going to hurt you (unless you are so sick that your overall immune system is compromised, but that's a given)
I wasn't talking about ones health in getting vaccinated (although it's still a pretty small variable), I'm talking about ones health not having anything to do with preventing a virus from infecting you. Healthy living cannot cause spontaneous generation of new antibodies in your system.
I was countering Wraiths claim that instead of getting vaccinated he can avoid viral infections through healthy living, exercise, hydration, and grape juice.
You claimed that an individual's overall level of physical health has no effect on his or her ability to combat pathogens. The exact comment was:
"The health of the individual has nothing to do with getting infected at all."
You then repeated the claim in this post, saying:
"I'm talking about ones health not having anything to do with preventing a virus from infecting you."
Both of these statements are factually incorrect for the reasons I previously explained. In short, antibody-mediated adaptive immunity is not the only way that infections can be prevented. It's really that simple.
You claimed that an individual's overall level of physical health has no effect on his or her ability to combat pathogens. The exact comment was:
"The health of the individual has nothing to do with getting infected at all."
You then repeated the claim in this post, saying:
"I'm talking about ones health not having anything to do with preventing a virus from infecting you."
Both of these statements are factually incorrect for the reasons I previously explained. In short, antibody-mediated adaptive immunity is not the only way that infections can be prevented. It's really that simple.
Once again, you are not reading what I wrote. What I was saying is that "healthy living" does not created antibodies. It cannot prevent a viral infection. If you are claiming that your body can kill viruses through exercise and hydration, then I'm sorry, you are wrong. Harping on me or bolding words in your posts isn't going to change that. I'm not sure why you are trying to pick a fight where there is none.
Once again, you are not reading what I wrote. What I was saying is that "healthy living" does not created antibodies. It cannot prevent a viral infection. If you are claiming that your body can kill viruses through exercise and hydration, then I'm sorry, you are wrong. Harping on me or bolding words in your posts isn't going to change that. I'm not sure why you are trying to pick a fight where there is none.
Antibodies are not the only way to prevent infection. The innate immune response is capable of preventing infection; it does so every day and prevents our bodies from being completely colonized by environmental microorganisms. The human body can kill viruses (and bacteria and fungi) with a variety of nonspecific immune cells and inflammatory agents that do not rely on antibodies or vaccinations. This is a basic fact of immunology. I'm trying to correct your willful spreading of incorrect information.
If I drove my car, I would have gotten into an accident. We do not know what you were around, where, with whom, etc to in any way, shape, or form to pass that as a valid arguement statement.
I do not understand this statement...if you do something for a living and defy what you are doing, isnt that hypocrital?
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Compare it to working in fast food and refusing to eat it because now you've seen how it's made.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
You sell insurance, but you don't want any yourself.
You work in the financial industry, but don't believe in cash and use the bartar system.
And my pet peeve is when I ask the waiting staff how a certain food/drink product is and they don't know.... that is part of their job.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list
Because you got the flu vaccine during flu season. And after you get the flu shot, you feel bad because your body is creating the antibody. It's a lot less dangerous than getting an actual flu. The flu shot contains DEAD flu virus. If you could demonstrate that you contracted the flu from a DEAD virus, you would probably win the Nobel prize for that work.
I work for a company now that makes the #1 flu vaccine in the country. Not only are vaccines today orders of magnitude cleaner, more effective, and less dangerous than they were when your grandfather was around, even those vaccines were incredibly safe and effective in preventing illness.
And I would caution you about trusting "sources" like offthegridnews.com They are catering to an agenda, and that agenda is not your health.
And every doctor will tell you to take the vaccine, barring a medical condition that prevents it. Because the risks of the vaccine are dwarfed by the risks of the disease you are vaccinating against
It doesn't. That's not how your immune system works. I encourage you to do some reading on the topic and educate yourself about viruses, the human immune system, and how they work so you can make educated choices regarding your personal health. Exercise has nothing to do with it.
It's a potentially life threatening decision based on misinformation and ignorance, ranking right up there with "prayer healing". Ultimately it is your choice, but it is a choice based on misinformation and irrationality.
I agree. It's the comments of "She should be banned from TV" or "They shouldn't let her on the air" that concern me. The producers of the show are free to hire anyone they want, and Jenny McCarthy is free to say whatever she wants. People can be free to object and express their objecting view, but calling for her to be silenced are IMO advocating a much worse reality than one where Jenny McCarthy talks on a TV show.
Also, TV shows exist for one reason: to make $$. They make money by having viewers. You attract viewers by drawing attention to the show. Jenny McCarthy certainly seems to be doing that, so I can't fault the producers for hiring her. The controversy she brings with her hiring is by design.
Absolutely. One consequence of this that I've noticed, is that the TV/radio boycotts, letter writing campaigns, angry blog posts (etc) that are actually effective tend to be the ones that target the companies that advertise on the show, not the network itself. Since most broadcasters' business model depends on companies paying them to publicize their products and brand name, they're far more receptive to their advertisers than to basically anyone else. And should those companies get the impression that the content they're sponsoring is associating their brand with something of which people have negative perceptions, they tend to feel they're no longer getting their money's worth and express their feelings about that quickly and assertively.
Anyone who's serious about depriving Jenny McCarthy of The View's more visible public platform should be finding out which companies advertise during the program and letting them know what they think of McCarthy and her agenda.
Seriously, even before she started her antivaccine crusade, Jenny was into the whole "indigo children" mvoement. Basically it's about how your child is special because he's an egomaniac and easily distracted, and your child will lead our species into the next phase of human evolution. (Yeah, they don't get how evolution works either.)
Not quite. Some vaccines don't take. In addition, people with suppressed immune systems (for instance, due to chemotherapy, AIDS, or drugs to treat an autoimmune disease or prevent organ rejection) can't take vaccines. They just don't work for those people. Also, most vaccines are grown in an egg medium, so if you're allergic to egg, no dice.
It's actually better to not have been given a vaccine when everyone else has than to have been given a vaccine when nobody else has.
On phasing:
Yeah, hyalapterouslemur pretty much has it. I'd just add that the level of access to care like vaccination can vary pretty widely, although hopefully one good thing to come out of the ACA will be better access to preventive care like vaccines.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
This is false. First, the success of a vaccination directly depends on your body mounting a sufficiently strong adaptive immune response, so your level of overall health and immune strength at the time of vaccination absolutely has an effect. Second, you are either discounting or conflating the two different types of immune responses that your body mounts: innate and adaptive. The innate immune response is not mediated by antibody interactions, but rather relies on (primarily) macrophages and neutrophils to generate reactive oxygen species that are capable of destroying foreign pathogens; the strength of the innate immune response is also affected by the overall level of health.
To be clear, vaccines represent one of the greatest achievements in public health, and are unparalleled in their safety and efficacy. In short, everyone able to be should be vaccinated. I simply wanted to correct this statement; I am not in any way advocating "healthy living" in place of vaccination.
It's well-established that the government can compel you to do things for the sake of public health. Remember Typhoid Mary?
I'm sorry, but while you have unique circumstances (as you mention below), your experience is the tiny, tiny exception, not the rule.
The risk of significant symptoms from the flu vaccine is [url=http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm]one or two cases per million, an incidence which is far, far less than the percentage who die from infectious flu. More to the point, no recent studies have backed up the claim made by some anti-vaccination advocates that the current H1N1 vaccine causes major problems.
A variety of things cause people to be unable to take vaccines. This is the reason it's so important that everyone else take theirs; your safety is directly correlated to the number of infected people you come into contact with.
No vaccine is 100% effective. What it definitely does is make it substantially less likely that you will develop it.
Correlation != causation
They're not pointless at all. The whole point of seasonal flu vaccines is to vaccinate you against those flu strains which are predicted to be most common in the upcoming season. Of course you can't stop every strain, but stopping the great majority of cases is still a major win.
What Valarin/Brandon said.
Allergies are not viral.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
You'd think so, but it's not that vaccines are expensive. Actually, they're already subsidized, and the American antivaccine movement has mutated into a way to abuse the fact that the government for a long time would just pay out to the parents who claimed any adverse event, in exchange for them not suing the manufacturer. (This was because vaccine manufacturers have very small profit margins, but vaccines are so important to public health.) A tragedy of the commons developed, so now you can't just claim vaccines made your kid act weird.
Instead, it's because of ignorance surrounding vaccines, such as Jenny McCarthy.
On phasing:
Multiplayer Decks- Memnarch - Animar, Soul of Elements - Zur, the Enchanter - Atraxa, Praetors' Voice - Food Chain Tazri - Teysa Karlov
Modern BUMill and Bant Spirits.
Thank you Xenphire for the signature!
But you must realize that, despite the US rights — and (mis)interpretations in Constitutional and other legal provisions — culture, this woman is a serious threat and, if it could really work, a gag order or booting her off the air might do some good in the world.
Please do me and Wraith223 the justice and courtesy of correctly quoting his/her text, by adding =Wraith223 to the quote tags as appropriate. Thank you.
Also, I honestly don't understand why you — Sen, Brandon, or others — have engaged him/her or bit down on that. It is clearly demonstrable that he/she is doing one of two things: first, being completely facile and facetious; or, two, wilfully and/or through ignorance, sowing discord.
On the other hand, if there weren't absurd claims to shoot down, perhaps there'd be less discussion. There would perhaps also be no opportunities to inform and educate the lay too.
Eh, this is a tricky one and mostly a matter of policy. I personally believe that governments should have the authority to do this and similar things, but this authority and the commensurable associated power should be exercised with caution in a framework with the necessary checks and balances.
Consistent with your submission is relaxing the prosecution of those that recklessly and wilfully infect others with HIV. Would you say that would be much too big a stretch, however?
I haven't done extensive study on US medical or health law, but I do readings for kicks and pursued this recently, as Australia averted its attention from other important things to this thing. You may be aware of one seminal case that may be relevant here; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a case heard by the Supreme Court of the USA. The case upholds the supremacy of — well, I don't know what you would identify it as being — police power and a nanny state in the interest of the public, its health, and its safety over an individual's rights and freedoms. Therefore, the state can in fact order an individual to be vaccinated, and to not order an individual to vaccinate if necessary and to allow the right to choose is tantamount to negligent conduct of the state and allows the poor decisions and negligent conduct of an individual. To allow this right is to allow the infringement of others' enjoyment of health and, to whom this is relevant, their ability to enjoy freely raising their families, especially those with vulnerable and immunonaive progeny and children and/or with immunocompromised elders, in an environment in which debilitating and even deadly diseases do not thrive.
It's not really consistent, because I distinguish between forcing someone to undergo an invasive procedure and prohibiting someone from performing an action. Forcing someone to do something will always have a higher threshold (in my personal opinion, not talking legally) than prohibiting someone from doing something. Removing one option is a significantly smaller blow to autonomy than removing all but one option.
I don't disagree with your analysis particularly, but I disagree that that is how it *should* be.
Speaking for myself, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible and treat opinions accordingly. In addition, responding to criticisms or alternative viewpoints -- even if I believe or know that they are outlandish or incorrect -- can strengthen the original claim by demonstrating its completeness.
@Wraith223: I've never heard of gene translocation syndrome, and a quick Google search demonstrates that this thread is actually the only result for that exact phrase. Is there another name for it? When you say 1 in 2 million, is that the prevalence (number of people living with the diseases) or the incidence (number of people newly diagnosed per year)? In either case, that should be plenty of cases for it to be reported in the literature.
I apologize, I meant that access to medical care varies so much. Someone needs to have a family physician and see them to get vaccines. You are absolutely right that vaccines themselves are incredibly inexpensive.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That is the name I was told by the doctor. I have been trying to research it for years little or no success. I have to tell my general practitionor and he or she always looks at me perplexed then researches it themselves. Here is what learned from the doctor and a few others who discovered to have the condition.
- Chromasomes are split 75/25 instead of 50/50. It looks like Downs Syndrome in the microscope but acts nothing like it.
- Often discovered while trying to have kids, wife can't get pregnant or has multiple miscariages. I have only met males with the condition (Doctor said he had only seen males with it). My sister does not have it.
- Body responds to medication very oddly. Resistences are built after one use (not forever, just need to wait about a month/3 weeks to drop resistence), targeted job of most meds is not accomplished
- Allergies are terrible. Response to them is over compensated, For some reason Benadryl always works but me knocks out.
- Certain processed foods give really bad head aches.
- Little or no research is on this condition due the difficulty in finding patients to study.
- Folks can also "possibly" find out about this condition by going to the dentist. "X" afflicted person is given sedatives or deadeners wlth little or no results, yet they are not on any significant drugs before dentist to build tolerances. It took 5 addivan to do anything to me, novacane lasts about 5 minutes or less, and I still had no idea what laughing gas was supposed to do. Thus I REALLY hate going to the dentist.
-1 in a milion (my father learned in 1970) is estimated carriers of condition. A family member in the medical field had a continued education class on it and found the new number is 1 in 500,000.
That is all I know, currently.
Is anyone here a regular viewer of The View?
Multiplayer Decks- Memnarch - Animar, Soul of Elements - Zur, the Enchanter - Atraxa, Praetors' Voice - Food Chain Tazri - Teysa Karlov
Modern BUMill and Bant Spirits.
Thank you Xenphire for the signature!
Well, to be perfectly honest with myself, I am displeased with my proposition, which has great deficiencies. However, you could perhaps just as reasonably argue it any number of ways, other than yours and mine.
Well, yes. Why, isn't a matter of personal feelings and such, influenced by an indeterminate number of factors, yes?
I firmly believe in responsibility for own's one actions and the responsibility of others' actions. Therefore, Jenny McCarthy being on The View is not a matter of freedom of speech, which is not actually an issue or, if you wish it to be one, can readily be proven to not be an issue; rather, it is her irresponsible advocacy of absurdity in the face of robust evidence for the antitheses of her claims.
Please consider installing a spell checker for your browser, for I fear this is not a one- or ten-of thing and will otherwise persist. Further, duly consider the use of spaces and grammar — not syntax or orthography but specifically grammar. There are various websites with fairly thorough address of English grammar.
It is reasonable to believe that, were the above suggestions taken to heart and changes implemented, this would be greatly appreciated by the rest of the users and those who read your writing and may have long-lasting personal and professional benefits.
Thanks.
What is to say that you misinterpreted the profound speech of this fellow? What is to say that you fail to understand for reasons other than, presumably, phonology or pronunciation? What is the credibility of this unnamed 'Arab guy'?
Moreover, could that have been any more potentially offensive? How could you not take into account the fellow's name but know, and know for an absolute fact, that he is an "Arab guy"? Were you to make such a reference to an opinion of a presumed expert, as you have, would you not have thought, in your learnedness and wisdom, it were reasonable to have produced a reference of some sort rather than simply assert such a revolutionary statement? If this is a real-life M.D. saying this, could you clarify this and produce a recording or exact transcript of his wisdom?
This isn't an argument in favour for vaccines, for current therapies, or for the current knowledge, but all of that applies to everything known, be it in pathophysiology of any given disease, the pharmacology of any given drug, or anything else in the human race's limited, but incrementally growing, understanding of medical science or knowledge in any other discipline. Therefore, and in light of your comments, with or without weighing up things, do you still take analgesics to kill headaches or the medication indicated for specific diseases you may have?
As far as a reasonable person should be concerned, vaccines have undergone adequately rigorous testing, to ensure that they are efficacious, reliable, and safe, in accordance with highly stringent regulations. If you could compare this testing and all the work done to reach this stage to the amount or merit of meaningful thinking and bona fide acceptable evidence that the good anti-vaccination folk or conspiracy theorists, if one is wont to call them that, one will find that the former markedly outweighs the latter and that the other, taken in consideration with or without anything else, is a pick-and-choose hodgepodge body of incongruities and intellectual dishonesty, of fabrication and of self-deceit.
Sorry. Help us out here.
I'm guessing "I" is missing, but then you've also said doctor. Who? Do you have more than one? If yes, why? If no, why is there any ambiguity as to the sex of the doctor?
Could there be other genetic damage otherwise? How have all of these signs and symptoms been identified and further verified?
Frankly, from these S&S, I'm surprised that you're alive or you have nevertheless done as well as you have in life. Have you considered getting your condition studied or forming a nice network of other sufferers, so as to support each other and maybe be a group to study?
Do correct me if I'm mistaken, but you presume your father has this and so do you. There is a follow up to this, but I am hoping you can identify what that is and explain it without prompting.
The fact that Wraith responded to our comments with civility and new information makes your claim that our efforts were "neither appreciated nor fruitful" demonstrably false. Additionally, your own participation in a lengthy discourse with Wraith prompts an obvious question: if you believe such engagements are so problematic, why do you participate in them while simultaneously criticizing others for doing so?
I found out about this early on from my father (we both have it, and no other family members have it) and the Doctor to warn the other Doctors so I can be properly taken care of. I gues a small bonus can be found in that I am terrified to take any drugs, thus NO recreational drug, ever! Prompting? How else am I to explain a condition that has little or no rsearch in it? I am a Criminal Justice and Political Science Major, not a medical doctor. Doing the best I can here with what little I can find/learn.
Lastly, The pompous level is a little high. Please tone it down.
Multiplayer Decks- Memnarch - Animar, Soul of Elements - Zur, the Enchanter - Atraxa, Praetors' Voice - Food Chain Tazri - Teysa Karlov
Modern BUMill and Bant Spirits.
Thank you Xenphire for the signature!
Thank you!:nod:
I forgot the main point of this thread and why I watch Fox News! When the news is pointless look at the Hot Chicks!
Multiplayer Decks- Memnarch - Animar, Soul of Elements - Zur, the Enchanter - Atraxa, Praetors' Voice - Food Chain Tazri - Teysa Karlov
Modern BUMill and Bant Spirits.
Thank you Xenphire for the signature!
Further research? How about the billion+ people that have been vaccinated over the past 200+ years? That's a sufficient sample size and timeline to expose any side effect, no matter how rare. If vaccinations caused autism, or allergies, or anything else they are blamed for, then over half the country would be autistic. Conversely, 90% of kids who die from the flu die because they were not vaccinated.
You can watch porn and look at hot chicks, with the added benefit of not having to listen to neo conservative partisan nut jobs spewing their nonsense.
You are claiming I said something that I did not say. I said that "healthy living" doesn't make you immune to viruses, and are not a substitute for vaccinations. You can be fat, tired, dehydrated, and out of shape, if you have been vaccinated against a virus, that virus is not going to hurt you (unless you are so sick that your overall immune system is compromised, but that's a given)
I wasn't talking about ones health in getting vaccinated (although it's still a pretty small variable), I'm talking about ones health not having anything to do with preventing a virus from infecting you. Healthy living cannot cause spontaneous generation of new antibodies in your system.
I was countering Wraiths claim that instead of getting vaccinated he can avoid viral infections through healthy living, exercise, hydration, and grape juice.
It might do good in the world, but in my opinion, the price is to high. If she were actively trying to stop people getting vaccinated by blocking access to doctors offices or blowing up manufacturing facilities used to make vaccines, then arrest her and lock her up. But gagging her because of her ideas, no matter how flawed? I can't get on board with that. Having a thought police state where people can be gagged and/or censored just for thinking something is not a world I want to live in.
You claimed that an individual's overall level of physical health has no effect on his or her ability to combat pathogens. The exact comment was:
You then repeated the claim in this post, saying:
Both of these statements are factually incorrect for the reasons I previously explained. In short, antibody-mediated adaptive immunity is not the only way that infections can be prevented. It's really that simple.
Once again, you are not reading what I wrote. What I was saying is that "healthy living" does not created antibodies. It cannot prevent a viral infection. If you are claiming that your body can kill viruses through exercise and hydration, then I'm sorry, you are wrong. Harping on me or bolding words in your posts isn't going to change that. I'm not sure why you are trying to pick a fight where there is none.
Antibodies are not the only way to prevent infection. The innate immune response is capable of preventing infection; it does so every day and prevents our bodies from being completely colonized by environmental microorganisms. The human body can kill viruses (and bacteria and fungi) with a variety of nonspecific immune cells and inflammatory agents that do not rely on antibodies or vaccinations. This is a basic fact of immunology. I'm trying to correct your willful spreading of incorrect information.
For reference, the free online copy of Molecular Biology of the Cell has an excellent chapter on the innate immune system and its ability to destroy pathogens.