One for CSS
-
According to my girlfriend when our son has his final set of shots at 18 months old we get a payment from the government. They do this as an incentive for new parents to have their children vaccinated. What do you think? :)
I wish I was as fortunate as fortunate as me
Bloody hell, they give you money for that? Vaccination is almost a no-brainer. A few years ago some ill educated journalists peddling tin-foil-hat nonsense about how the combined MMR (mumps, measles and rubella) jab causes autism/aspergers. At the time author did say the effect was small, subject to question and less than the risks from the deseases the jab prevented. The results were also peer criticised as the rise in incidences was considered too small to be statisctically significant. Those messages were somehow lost in the papers. Of course I wouldn't accuse the journos of scaremongering sensationalism (no, actually that is what I'm accusing them of). But I will say that they the have little to no understanding of science or medicine being mostly Arts graduates. We are now four/five years down the line and the unvaccinated kiddiewinks have started the illness swapping centre school. The net result: The media is now complaining about the rate of measles infection (and let's not forget it's only about 40 years since measles has really been under control, in my mother's day it was a killer). As a post script, the author of the original study has distanced himself from his findings. Still the foil-hats will protect us!
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
-
Bloody hell, they give you money for that? Vaccination is almost a no-brainer. A few years ago some ill educated journalists peddling tin-foil-hat nonsense about how the combined MMR (mumps, measles and rubella) jab causes autism/aspergers. At the time author did say the effect was small, subject to question and less than the risks from the deseases the jab prevented. The results were also peer criticised as the rise in incidences was considered too small to be statisctically significant. Those messages were somehow lost in the papers. Of course I wouldn't accuse the journos of scaremongering sensationalism (no, actually that is what I'm accusing them of). But I will say that they the have little to no understanding of science or medicine being mostly Arts graduates. We are now four/five years down the line and the unvaccinated kiddiewinks have started the illness swapping centre school. The net result: The media is now complaining about the rate of measles infection (and let's not forget it's only about 40 years since measles has really been under control, in my mother's day it was a killer). As a post script, the author of the original study has distanced himself from his findings. Still the foil-hats will protect us!
CCC solved so far: 2 (including a Hard One!)
Your insolence will effect you adversely, if it hasn't already. The most educated and intelligent people don't get any shots at all, and over half of the doctors today aren't getting vaccinated against H1N1. I suggest you do your research via scientific literature (like I have), instead of puking what you see on mainstream TV or a billboard.
-
Your insolence will effect you adversely, if it hasn't already. The most educated and intelligent people don't get any shots at all, and over half of the doctors today aren't getting vaccinated against H1N1. I suggest you do your research via scientific literature (like I have), instead of puking what you see on mainstream TV or a billboard.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
instead of puking what you see on mainstream TV
Ah, now I get it, it can only be true if it's on YouTube.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Ah, now I get it, it can only be true if it's on YouTube.
You are mistaken. Only a small fraction of my information comes from youtube, and that is in the form of interviews with researchers and CSPAN material.
-
Your insolence will effect you adversely, if it hasn't already. The most educated and intelligent people don't get any shots at all, and over half of the doctors today aren't getting vaccinated against H1N1. I suggest you do your research via scientific literature (like I have), instead of puking what you see on mainstream TV or a billboard.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
over half of the doctors today aren't getting vaccinated against H1N1
Inconclusive. Possible reasons for not getting vaccinated: 1) Insufficient supply. One of my coworkers is married to a pediatrician, whose practice has only received a few hundred doses for their 5000+ patients. They're unwilling to dose themselves when it would be depriving one of their patients of immunity. 2) Already had the flu. If you've caught it, processed it, and recovered, as I have, that means you're already immune. 3) Safety concerns. This is the only one you've actually focused on.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I suggest you do your research via scientific literature (like I have)
YouTube is not scientific literature. Ron Paul is not scientific literature. Alex Jones is not scientific literature.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
over half of the doctors today aren't getting vaccinated against H1N1
Inconclusive. Possible reasons for not getting vaccinated: 1) Insufficient supply. One of my coworkers is married to a pediatrician, whose practice has only received a few hundred doses for their 5000+ patients. They're unwilling to dose themselves when it would be depriving one of their patients of immunity. 2) Already had the flu. If you've caught it, processed it, and recovered, as I have, that means you're already immune. 3) Safety concerns. This is the only one you've actually focused on.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I suggest you do your research via scientific literature (like I have)
YouTube is not scientific literature. Ron Paul is not scientific literature. Alex Jones is not scientific literature.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Insufficient supply. One of my coworkers is married to a pediatrician, whose practice has only received a few hundred doses for their 5000+ patients. They're unwilling to dose themselves when it would be depriving one of their patients of immunity.
No. If you were informed, you would be aware of New York state health workers absolutely refusing to take the vaccine even when the law mandated it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
YouTube is not scientific literature. Ron Paul is not scientific literature. Alex Jones is not scientific literature.
No shit. I didn't say youtube or aj. I said SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE which literally means scientific literature in the most literal term.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Insufficient supply. One of my coworkers is married to a pediatrician, whose practice has only received a few hundred doses for their 5000+ patients. They're unwilling to dose themselves when it would be depriving one of their patients of immunity.
No. If you were informed, you would be aware of New York state health workers absolutely refusing to take the vaccine even when the law mandated it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
YouTube is not scientific literature. Ron Paul is not scientific literature. Alex Jones is not scientific literature.
No shit. I didn't say youtube or aj. I said SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE which literally means scientific literature in the most literal term.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No. If you were informed, you would be aware of New York state health workers absolutely refusing to take the vaccine even when the law mandated it.
We've already discussed the difference between vaccines being "available" and "mandated." No one wants to be FORCED into an injection. I'm well aware of the situation you're describing, as I live in New York City. You didn't, however, address my point. You're just trying to redirect the argument to equate refusal with safety concerns. Try again.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
- Insufficient supply. One of my coworkers is married to a pediatrician, whose practice has only received a few hundred doses for their 5000+ patients. They're unwilling to dose themselves when it would be depriving one of their patients of immunity.
No. If you were informed, you would be aware of New York state health workers absolutely refusing to take the vaccine even when the law mandated it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
YouTube is not scientific literature. Ron Paul is not scientific literature. Alex Jones is not scientific literature.
No shit. I didn't say youtube or aj. I said SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE which literally means scientific literature in the most literal term.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No sh*t. I didn't say youtube or aj. I said SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE which literally means scientific literature in the most literal term.
Oh yeah? Which journals?
-
Your insolence will effect you adversely, if it hasn't already. The most educated and intelligent people don't get any shots at all, and over half of the doctors today aren't getting vaccinated against H1N1. I suggest you do your research via scientific literature (like I have), instead of puking what you see on mainstream TV or a billboard.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Your insolence will effect you adversely, if it hasn't already
So far the only downside of immunisation I've received is your ill though-out and weirdly agressive reply. I mean I only made a few observations about the MMR vaccination (not the Swine flu one you note, I didn't even mention it) and somehow you've managed to turn observations on a broad social trend into a personal slight, which you attack me for.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The most educated and intelligent people don't get any shots at all
And global warming has been on the rise since the number of pirates has declined. Doesn't suggest a causal link though, does it?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
over half of the doctors today aren't getting vaccinated against H1N1
So what? Why are they not taking it? This doesn't mean anything, as there are multiple (non foil-hat) reasons why they might not want or need to take it.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I suggest you do your research via scientific literature (like I have),
Citations needed, and I'll only accept peer reviewed articles from respected journals. Additionally you have to read articles that counter yours with the same level of acceptance. If you reject articles on the basis that they don't agree with your belief-system then the research is worth nothing. My sources are drawn from New Scientist and conversations with my father-in-law (who as it happens is a top ENT surgeon and has read the peer review articles). He is ensuring all his family are getting the jab. The whole thing on the MMR jab was that there was plenty high-quality scientfic evidence to suggest the benefits far outweighed the risks.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
instead of puking what you see on mainstream TV or a billboard
Interesting. My whole point was the mass media brewed up a shit-storm on the back of some psuedo-scienctific research, showing that you just can't rely on the media. The the same bunch of arseholes brewed up another storm later about the consequences of their actions. So I think that I'm just a little more critical of the crap the media pumps out than you suggest. Also the only things you ever seem to cite are You-Tube videos and a few sources that agree with your embedded conspiracy theories. I
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No sh*t. I didn't say youtube or aj. I said SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE which literally means scientific literature in the most literal term.
Oh yeah? Which journals?
The "I've got my head stuck so far up my ass, I'm able to lick my lips recursively" journal.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit