Slashdot Mirror

Here is the CDC page, http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/bikeinjuries.html [cdc.gov] although the data is a little old. 500,000 injuries, 700 deaths 59% children

So you are claiming there are only 10 million bike rides a year in the US? There are 15 million bikes sold in year (http://nbda.com/articles/industry-overview-2011-pg34.htm) but each one is ridden less than once before the owner gives up entirely or buys another bike? And of course that's assuming every single injury is a head injury.

Oh wait you are only counting non-helmet wearing rides. So that still isn't anywhere near a useful statistic since it doesn't break down the injuries by helmet status or say how many rides a year there are. or what percentage of those rides are without a helmet.

Even if the rate of injury is relatively low, is it still not worth protecting against when the solution is so simple?

It depends on the cost of the solution, as always. The article describes some potential costs I'm not going to bother regurgitating them since that has nothing to do with the point. I'm not actually interested in whether a helmet is a great idea or not. All I'm interested in is you 5% figure and where it comes from.

Put differently, the chance of a baseball player actually getting hit in the groin with a baseball is pretty low, but they all were cups just in case. If it is that important to protect the family jewels, should protecting one's brain and head be of even greater importance? Just a thought.

Do you make your kids where a cup when they play baseball in the street with friends? When they are using a tennis ball? If they would not bother playing if they had to would you still do so? But anyway, it's irrelevant to the actual issue.

ps. there is a link from the cdc page to the bicyclinginfo.org that is full of statistics, including crash statistics. Some of the stats conflict with the CDC stats and the Children's Safety Network. All of them, though show that there are risks involved and fatalities do occur more than people would expect.

I looked as best I considering the other things I have to get done. And I can't find stats that give the numbers for the claim - over 5% of all bike rides without a helmet result in a head injury.

Best I can find (why I need to do the digging to support your claim I still don't understand) is: http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0036941/m0036941.asp. It says "Bicycles are owned by approximately 30% of the U.S. population, and 45% of bike owners ride at least occasionally " and "557,936 persons were treated in emergency departments for bicycle-related injuries" and " addition, approximately 33% of all bicycle-related emergency department visits and 67% of all bicycle-related hospital admissions (5,8) involve head injuries " and " For example, from 1984 through 1988, if a presumed helmet-use rate of 10% had been increased to 100% (i.e., universal helmet use), an average of 500 fatal and 151,400 nonfatal bicycle-related head injuries could have been prevented each year".

So that gives us a few numbers - mind you we are at the "presumed" level of confidence. 557396*1/3=185800 round it so 200000 head injuries at the "go to the emergency dept" level a year.. 263,000,000 * 0.3 * 0.45 = 35.5 million. 90% of that gives us 31,950,000 people who "ride at least occasionally" without a helmet. So for your 5% number if we take the best case (for it) that all head injuries involved non-helmet wearers then "occasionally" must mean riding your bike 0.125 times a year. And of course far lower than that since every kid who rides their bike once a day adds 3000 such occasional riders worth of such rides to the stats pool (and should sustain 18 head injuries a year themselves

Here is the CDC page, http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/bikeinjuries.html although the data is a little old. 500,000 injuries, 700 deaths 59% children. Remember, too, that a child's skull is a lot thinner than an adults. Also, children tend to be less cautious and have less control of the bike. Cars are not the only problem for bicyclists. Sewer grates, dogs, debris in the road and distractions all are more likely to cause a fall. Given that, even without a brain injury, hitting the pavement with one's head will lead to nasty scars and scalp injuries. Even if the rate of injury is relatively low, is it still not worth protecting against when the solution is so simple?

Put differently, the chance of a baseball player actually getting hit in the groin with a baseball is pretty low, but they all were cups just in case. If it is that important to protect the family jewels, should protecting one's brain and head be of even greater importance? Just a thought.

ps. there is a link from the cdc page to the bicyclinginfo.org that is full of statistics, including crash statistics. Some of the stats conflict with the CDC stats and the Children's Safety Network. All of them, though show that there are risks involved and fatalities do occur more than people would expect.

Yes: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a8.htm?s_cid=mm6128a8_w

I don't have any more recent numbers on hand; but the 1990 figures suggest that 3.7% of deaths were by violence(defined as homicide, suicide, and war) worldwide that year. Sub-Sarahan Africa was (unshockingly) leading the tables at 6%, with the Middle East at 5.6%.

In absolute terms, that's a fair amount of blood spilled; but relative to the world population and deaths from other causes violence is surprisingly weak sauce, even once the slightly dubious step of factoring in suicide is taken...

Well, he can always start eating lots of microwave popcorn and try it that way. $7.2 million isn't bad, is it?

"Popcorn lung" makes it sound funny; but that one is actually a pretty ugly story(at least for the production workers and some of the QA guys at the plants, this guy must have really been a big fan to inhale that much). Let's just say that "constrictive bronchiolitis obliterans" is almost as much fun as it sounds like it would be. A much rarer disease; but the macro-scale symptoms are pretty similar to emphysema.

The matter first came to broader attention when NIOSH looked into a cluster of occurrences of this(usually quite uncommon) condition at a microwave popcorn plant. As it turns out, diacetyl, the usual artificial butter flavoring component, causes a delightful progressive, irreversible, destruction of lung capacity(pretty much what 'bronchiolitis obliterans' sounds like it does, it does.) The most severe cases require permanent supplemental oxygen or lung transplants to survive. Less severe cases experience ongoing shortness of breath and respiratory difficulties(whether only under exertion, or even when idle depends on the severity of the case).

As usual with these cases, the story of the discovery is littered with OSHA dragging its feet, popcorn producers skipping cheap protective measures like extractor fans to keep exposure down(25k to install fans, or slow death for the workers in the mixing room... Hmm, which is better for shareholder value?), and similar depressing anecdotes. Since consumer exposure is much, much lower than flavor-mixing exposure, the FDA has twiddled its thumbs about any questions of reconsidering the present regulatory status of 'safe' give to diacetyl as a food ingredient; but some are a bit concerned...

so you're saying that this is only a problem if you over-eat?

oh no worries, then.

I have insurance companies tell me all the time that they would rather I use one of the cheaper alternatives if OxyContin comes up.

Methadone is dirt cheap, but its use as a painkiller is leading to its outsized share of overdose fatalities.
It's being prescribed by general practitioners who aren't monitoring patients like they do in methadone clinics, leading to accidental overdoses.
Nationally, methadone represents 2% of prescriptions and 30% of fatalities.

The CDC's websites have some information:
http://www.cdc.gov/features/vitalsigns/methadoneoverdoses/
http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/MethadoneOverdoses/

But what they don't tell you is that these deaths are highly concentrated amongst those on Medicaid
"In Washington, the poor have been hit the hardest. While Medicaid recipients make up about 8 percent of Washington's adult population, they account for 48 percent of the methadone deaths."

I have insurance companies tell me all the time that they would rather I use one of the cheaper alternatives if OxyContin comes up.

Methadone is dirt cheap, but its use as a painkiller is leading to its outsized share of overdose fatalities.
It's being prescribed by general practitioners who aren't monitoring patients like they do in methadone clinics, leading to accidental overdoses.
Nationally, methadone represents 2% of prescriptions and 30% of fatalities.

The CDC's websites have some information:
http://www.cdc.gov/features/vitalsigns/methadoneoverdoses/
http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/MethadoneOverdoses/

But what they don't tell you is that these deaths are highly concentrated amongst those on Medicaid
"In Washington, the poor have been hit the hardest. While Medicaid recipients make up about 8 percent of Washington's adult population, they account for 48 percent of the methadone deaths."

Sorry to reply to myself, but this CDC report says that the main reason the US does poorly is that it has a larger proportion of preterm births.

Why does the US have more preterm births? This article mentions a few factors: a greater percentage of mothers may be teenagers or older than 35, mothers may have worse preventative health care, and/or mothers have higher risk factors like diabetes and obesity.

So anyway it seems like a complex situation; I'm sure there's plenty in here anyone can cherrypick to support their political views.

How can bioterrorism threats be taken seriously when we are our own worst enemy? Munincipal waste systems are prime targets - this is the soft underbelly of america.

Imagine the scenario -
1) Flush biologically active agent that thrives in sewage treatment plant (i believe this can be engineered)
2) dewater, concentrate and truck to farm field - fling in rural area (area of few hospitals and less than average intelligence community)
3) innoculate residents
4) residents travel to urban areas, spreading disease

Possible? Plausible? I think so.

Look up what we do with the "residuals" from a sewage treatment plant - yes - we use it on farm fields as "fertilizer".

Yes - its biologically active (they dont pasturize it).

Sewage sludge is a money maker for some and busy work for others.

When you do some reasearch, you will find that we dump biologically active "sludge" on farm fields - sludge that can "rebloom" and contains many of the hazards identified in bioterrorism response plans.

More info:
http://vimeo.com/24854061
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/2/11/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHsIjMPP2M8
http://thewatchers.us/NCDENR.html
http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/sewagesludge.htm

1) Because it'll likely be considered uncivilized.
2) Because overweight people are the majority in the USA ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm ), charging them more may make many use an airline that doesn't charge them more.

FWIW I vaguely recall someone who managed to get her overweight luggage on board by telling the check-in staff that she was much lighter than some big passenger she pointed at. She was one of those petite east asian ladies.

By my count from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2000s there were about 23 terrorism related deaths from 2000-2009, excluding 9/11 (which can be safely considered an outlier). That's 2.3 deaths/yr. If we do include 9/11, it's 302deaths/yr.

From http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf (I know it's only one year, I don't have time to compile a decade of statistics - but removal of any single outlier statistic shouldn't impact the overall message) page 89+.

Things that have killed ~2-3 people a year include:
-Measles (2)
-Malaria (3)
-Shigellosis (shingles) and amebiasis (4)
-Scarlet fever and erysipelas (5)

Things that have killed ~300 people/yr or more:
-Bronchitis and Bronchiolitis or other acute unspecified lower respirator infection (272)
-Diseases of appendix (426)
-Hyperplasia of prostate (446)
-Tuberculosis (529)
-Infections of kidney (604)
-Bronchitis, chronic and unspecified (639)
-Meningitis (649)
-Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium (6-weeks postnatal) (960)
-Malnutrition (2,680)

Even if you play mad-scientist with the statistics and assume that there will be a 9/11 every single year (~3000 deaths), these still kill about as many or more people a year
-Influenza (2,918)
-Cholelithiasis and other disorders of gallbladder (3,300)
-Asthma (3,388)
-Accidental drowning and submersion (3,517)
-Other and unspecified events of undetermined intent and their sequelae (4,773)
-Atherosclerosis (7,377)
-Viral hepatitis (7,694)
-HIV disease (9,406)

Things that GP mentioned:
        Obesity (no single statistic, but assume a fraction of the 600,000 death by cardiac diseases are from obesity)
        Cancer (Malignant neoplasms - 567,628)
        Car accident (Motor vehicle accident - 36,216)
        Non-terrorism based plane crash (Water/air/space/unspecified accident - 1,782)
        Somebody elses gun (Homicide by firearm - 11,493)
        Their own gun (Accidental discharge of firearms - 554)
        Alcohol (24,518)
        Stress (again, no single stat - assume a portion of Hypertensive heart disease (high blood pressure) with 33,157 death/yr)

I couldn't find stats for Dogs/Cats, Lack of healthcare (too vague) or Peanuts (although I did read several times an approximate rate of 150-200 deaths/yr from food allergens, a significant portion of which are from peanuts).

I know you weren't disagreeing with GP, but there you go.

Am I the only one who does not see the quoted number of 20,000 on either website? TFA, on the other hand, links to Fox News.

I didn't see it either... just last year's warning from the CDC and this week's warning from Homeland Security about Zombie attacks. I don't really care about the number of people who may be infected because that number doesn't really have any bearing on my safety. What really concerns me is this: can zombies transmit the hantavirus?

So guns are less deadly than diabetes?

Maybe we should require an ID when buying candy bars.

84/310000000 does turn out to be pretty statistically irrelevant number.

Instead of using your 1.8 versus 2% figures (which I'm not sure where they came from), let's return to the article, which states: "A 2009 report in the American Journal of Public Health studied traffic fatalities in the U.S. from 1995 to 2005 and found that more than 12,500 deaths were attributable to increases in speed limits on all kinds of roads." You can divide 12,500 deaths by 10 years, getting 1250 deaths per year caused by higher speeds.

I want to say you can't divide 1250 people by the 310 million population (0.0004%) and get anything meaningful. Death rates are 0.8%/year in the US. Accidents account for 118,021 of 2,437,163, or about 5%, of those deaths. Making 1250 higher-speed deaths about 0.05% of all deaths. So even though I don't like it, I begrudgingly see your point. On the big list of things to improve, high-speed deaths are a small, even minuscule, concern.

BCG is that vaccine that leaves that lifelong scar on the upper arm... I don't have a scar on my arm so either I didn't get that one, or a new scar free vaccine is used stateside.

The scar on the arm vaccine, at least for the states, was the smallpox vaccine. Oddly enough, I'm one of the considerably less than 1% of those under 40 in the USA to be vaccinated against it. I very much had an immune response(so we know the vaccine took), but due to my reaction the infection spread more along the skin rather than going deep - I have no visible scaring from it. Had minor blistering down to my elbow though. Knew another guy they ended up giving two sets of pokes, only to determine that he's naturally immune.

Reading up on BCG - it's used when babies are exposed to people with TB, it's 80% effective(in infants) for ~15 years, and it's not really used in the USA because it's less effective on adults and the risk analysis people here decided we don't have enough adults with uncontrolled TB running around exposing babies to make the vaccine worth it. Brazil has recommended the vaccine since 1967-68, the USA has depended upon 'detection and treatment of latent tuberculosis'.

I've been vaccinated against a lot of stuff (shot records are now 3 pages long), but not TB. Of course, I get the annual scratch test for TB, which goes in my records... That and the flu shot are probably a page alone...

Working with a doctor is hard because very few people can listen and/or learn from someone they believe to be less knowledgeable. The credibility barrier.

As I understand it, the trick is a combination of a good doctor, a frank honesty that you're a specialist in YOUR condition(s), and building up a good working relationship.

No scientific evidence exists to suggest that mothers or babies are healthier because of the incision rather evidence shows it's unnecessary, but it's performed anyway because that's the way they teach it in med school. Doctors believe it's part of the procedure and that without it birth is hindered/obstructed.

Then your doctors/surgeons are particularly non-scientific; here in the USA they tend to at least pay attention to such studies.

Interesting. I don't know if I ever got the small-pox vaccine. Just out of curiosity, was it your option to be receive the small-pox vaccine? Did you have a specific reason you would share, for having received that vaccine? Does it have something to do with your work?

Anyway, I believe it will prove to be a valuable vaccine to have taken, but that's only because of a conspiracy theory I've heard... Never mind.

Yes the BCG vaccine targets bone tuberculosis. I understand it takes 3 months to take effect when it works.

I used to get the TB scratch test at school every year because my mom has the disease. Her immune system reacted by encapsulating the bacteria with calcium so her chest X-rays have white spots in them... Anyway in the 80's when I was going to school, I had to take those tests as a measure the school board took because of the circumstances... I don't think my mom ever had the TB vaccine but she did receive treatments when it was detected about 40 years ago.

Thanks for the tip regarding building a working relationship with a good doctor.

http://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/outbreaks/yosemite-national-park-2012.html

seriously guys, there should be a policy that any posted web link should have a clickable link

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/hantavirus/hps/transmission.html

The types of hantavirus that cause HPS in the United States cannot be transmitted from one person to another. For example, you cannot get the virus from touching or kissing a person who has HPS or from a health care worker who has treated someone with the disease. You also cannot get the virus from a blood transfusion in which the blood came from a person who became ill with HPS and survived.

It seems like this is about as isolated of an incident as it can be. It's not contagious, and that's key.

BCG is that vaccine that leaves that lifelong scar on the upper arm... I don't have a scar on my arm so either I didn't get that one, or a new scar free vaccine is used stateside.

The scar on the arm vaccine, at least for the states, was the smallpox vaccine. Oddly enough, I'm one of the considerably less than 1% of those under 40 in the USA to be vaccinated against it. I very much had an immune response(so we know the vaccine took), but due to my reaction the infection spread more along the skin rather than going deep - I have no visible scaring from it. Had minor blistering down to my elbow though. Knew another guy they ended up giving two sets of pokes, only to determine that he's naturally immune.

Reading up on BCG - it's used when babies are exposed to people with TB, it's 80% effective(in infants) for ~15 years, and it's not really used in the USA because it's less effective on adults and the risk analysis people here decided we don't have enough adults with uncontrolled TB running around exposing babies to make the vaccine worth it. Brazil has recommended the vaccine since 1967-68, the USA has depended upon 'detection and treatment of latent tuberculosis'.

I've been vaccinated against a lot of stuff (shot records are now 3 pages long), but not TB. Of course, I get the annual scratch test for TB, which goes in my records... That and the flu shot are probably a page alone...

Working with a doctor is hard because very few people can listen and/or learn from someone they believe to be less knowledgeable. The credibility barrier.

As I understand it, the trick is a combination of a good doctor, a frank honesty that you're a specialist in YOUR condition(s), and building up a good working relationship.

No scientific evidence exists to suggest that mothers or babies are healthier because of the incision rather evidence shows it's unnecessary, but it's performed anyway because that's the way they teach it in med school. Doctors believe it's part of the procedure and that without it birth is hindered/obstructed.

Then your doctors/surgeons are particularly non-scientific; here in the USA they tend to at least pay attention to such studies.

The lack of human testing is a pretty big issue. I went to an early stages of drug discovery conference last year and remember one of the speakers referring to clinical trials as "the place where drug candidates go to die." However the articles linked to in TFA are very light on details so we don't really know what they have tested at all.

There are five different plasmodium species that can infect and cause disease in humans and we don't know which one(s) this group looked into. Probably P. malariae, and if effective on just one of the species it would still be wonderful news, but we don't know from TFA. The other problem is that the drug "killed resistant parasites instantly." What does that mean? Do they maintain drug resistant plasmodium strains in their lab and when you have them in some petri dish with tissue culture medium that you can instantly kill them by adding the compound? If that's all they've got then it's not nearly as impressive as the article lets on. Malarial pathogens spend a lot of time inside of cells, both inside of red blood cells and also inside of cells in the liver, hiding from the host immune system and any anti-malarial drugs. The life cycle inside the host is fairly complex with different malarial stages having different responses to any drug administered. This is why traditional malaria treatments are multiple doses over at least several days. The other problem is that the animal model for malaria disease isn't very good. Again, we don't know from the articles linked in TFA exactly what animal model they used, but it's probably a mouse model. In that case, it's already known to be easier to kill malarial infections in the model than in an actual infection in humans.

I share your wish that the research group has lots of luck in their upcoming clinical trials; it sounds like they've gone about as far as they can without testing on the actual disease in human patients. I'm just not optimistic as clinical trials are difficult to pass, a one pill cure just sounds too good to be true, and then your comments about the drug class itself.

The lack of human testing is a pretty big issue. I went to an early stages of drug discovery conference last year and remember one of the speakers referring to clinical trials as "the place where drug candidates go to die." However the articles linked to in TFA are very light on details so we don't really know what they have tested at all.

There are five different plasmodium species that can infect and cause disease in humans and we don't know which one(s) this group looked into. Probably P. malariae, and if effective on just one of the species it would still be wonderful news, but we don't know from TFA. The other problem is that the drug "killed resistant parasites instantly." What does that mean? Do they maintain drug resistant plasmodium strains in their lab and when you have them in some petri dish with tissue culture medium that you can instantly kill them by adding the compound? If that's all they've got then it's not nearly as impressive as the article lets on. Malarial pathogens spend a lot of time inside of cells, both inside of red blood cells and also inside of cells in the liver, hiding from the host immune system and any anti-malarial drugs. The life cycle inside the host is fairly complex with different malarial stages having different responses to any drug administered. This is why traditional malaria treatments are multiple doses over at least several days. The other problem is that the animal model for malaria disease isn't very good. Again, we don't know from the articles linked in TFA exactly what animal model they used, but it's probably a mouse model. In that case, it's already known to be easier to kill malarial infections in the model than in an actual infection in humans.

I share your wish that the research group has lots of luck in their upcoming clinical trials; it sounds like they've gone about as far as they can without testing on the actual disease in human patients. I'm just not optimistic as clinical trials are difficult to pass, a one pill cure just sounds too good to be true, and then your comments about the drug class itself.

I call BS. Of the 2,437,163 deaths in the US in 2009, 28,088 were due to prostate cancer. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

As they say you are more likely to die with prostate cancer than of prostate cancer.

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/penile.htm

The rate of HPV assisted Penile Cancer in the US among the various demographics of men ranges from .4 per 100,000 for Asian / Pacific Islander to .8 per 100,000 white males, up to 1.3 per 100,000 for Hispanic males. If that's your justification for circumcision (and it's totally fine if it is) you're taking some strong proactive steps against a fairly slight risk.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-key-statistics

Per year, 1570 *cases* are diagnosed, and roughly 310 men die of penile cancer. You quite literally have a 99.9999% chance of never being diagnosed with penile cancer.

So, aside from the cancer part, the overall message re: Penis isn't much different from owning a gun "Take care of it, keep it clean, and use it safely." (also, don't point it at your eye, it might go off.) It hurts me a bit to see people running around like Thomas Dolby with Echolalia yelling "SCIENCE!" in every instance of X > Y. You're right, the numbers certainly side with science. But the data provided also says that, in the Western world where things like soap and running water aren't privileges, you're pretty much (as in 99%+) OK either way, at least until the boy hits an age where a responsible parent can instill care and handling procedures to prevent later issues like STD's.

(as an aside, there is at least the smallest shred of financial incentive for Doctors to perform circumcisions in the US, but that isn't part of a grand "strip 'em and clip 'em" conspiracy, it's a fundamental flaw in the system. Somewhere along the line it was determined that insurance will pay for it, ergo it gets done. My 84 year old grandmother with cmphysema and congestive heart failure was put on Lipitor the last time she was admitted. Her cholesterol wasn't the problem, Smoking for 70+ years was. As the Doctor bluntly put it, the main reason was "Medicare will pay for it." There was was slight medical benefit. But, for the most part, it was a money move. If you try and break that cycle, though, people start screaming about "Death Panels." Sigh....)

This isn't in the same ballpark as say, not getting your kids a whooping cough vaccine. So help me if I find those fuckers at daycare who sent their little outbreak monkeys in....

I stand corrected. One's mind cannot hold everything, and I didn't do a recheck.

Still, you're only 18% of the shots a child of 6 has received having it... (USA, CDC vaccination schedule to age 6)

Then why develop a vaccine for Chicken Pox?

My guess is that we're working our way down the list of diseases. Smallpox killed like 30% of those it infected. Huge amounts of effort went into curing/preventing it. Polio led to a lot of death and lifetime disability(grandfather never could 'walk right' after). You were 'normally' okay with measles, but it was still highly contagious and killed a fair number.

Dangers of Varicella - Before vaccination in the USA, 4M cases per year, leading to 10-13k hospitalizations, and 100-150 deaths. After vaccination - 90% fewer cases(fewer illness absences), 70% fewer hospitalizations, and 90% reduction in death rate under 20. One of the things they look at is total costs - not just deaths. If hitting up 100% of the population with a $20 vaccine will stop a 1% hospitalization rate costing an average of $100k, no deaths, they'll recommend it. Will said $20 vaccine prevent, on average, 4 hours of work lost? (most lose no time, but some are out for 2 weeks...)

As for the longevity of the vaccination - Turns out that, much like herpes, you're never totally clear of the Varicella virus once you've had it - when you're older and your immune system weakens a bit, it can come 'roaring' back, now known as "shingles". Dad got it. Mom might of. I'm at risk, and will need the vaccine when I get older to ensure that I don't get it. Looking at the wiki page, it mentions that 90% of people are still protected(immune) in Japan after 20 years, the current data is shorter in the USA at 10(but studies are ongoing...).

Then again, CDC's adult vaccination page says NOTHING is said there being a 'once a decade' booster. It's a two shot series, but that's not actually all that unusual - one vaccination I have was a serious of six shots, plus annual booster(anthrax). Should we stop giving Tetanus shots? That's the one that I see that is recommended every 10 years. What about Flu? Of course, 'Flu' is actually thousands of related viruses, and the annual 'Flu Shot' is actually a mix of 3 vaccines for 'best guess' at the common strains. Immunity lasts longer - So if strain 123 was predicted last year to be big and is predicted to be big again this year, they might not put it in the mix because the people who get the shot every year would already be immune(lots of extra data and statisticians are used to make this determination).

If there was a real problem with kids who got their CDC recommended second dose at around 6 years losing immunity at 16, there would be a recommended booster. There isn't. There isn't even a recommended booster at 26(if it lasted the 20 years that Japan has confirmed thus far).

You post is just a bunch of straw men attacks.

You do know that the authorities want to administer Gardasil to boys, right?

What's wrong with that?

The flu shot contains mercury (it's good for your baby, "they" say)?

It contains a tiny amount of mercury, smaller than you'd get from eating fish. So, what's the problem? If you dread mercury that much, don't drink water or eat fish.

They are also recommending lithium be added to drinking water, as well.

Who are "they"? It was just a simple study! You make it sound like there's a hidden conspiracy for drugging Humanity!

Don't be afraid to re-evaluate your beliefs from time to time. Culture, attitudes, environment...life...changes, and so should you.

I do, you clearly don't. Otherwise, you'd be showing me any valid data, not trying to fool me into your beliefs using out-of-context data and alarmist bullshit.

The flu vaccine does not really prevent the flu (20% effective). Instead, it prevents serious complications of the flu (80% effective)..

This claims much higher rates of effectiveness.

Only one large randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine has been conducted among an elderly population. During the 1991-1992 influenza season, a group of Dutch people 60 years of age and older not living in long-term care facilities (e.g., nursing homes) was studied (Govaert et al., 1994). In this study, vaccine efficacy was 58% in preventing clinically-defined influenza with serologic confirmation of infection.

In a four-year randomized, placebo-controlled study of inactivated and live influenza vaccines among children aged 1–15 years, vaccine efficacy was estimated at 77% against influenza A (H3N2) and 91% against influenza A (H1N1) virus infection (Neuzil et al., 2001). A two-year study of children aged 6–24 months found that the vaccine was 66% effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in one year of the study (Hoberman et al., 2003). Only children who were fully vaccinated (i.e., had either two doses if not previously vaccinated, or one dose if previously vaccinated) versus unvaccinated children were included in the analysis. In the other year of this study, few cases of influenza occurred, making it difficult to assess the vaccine's efficacy (Hoberman et al., 2003).

Clearly you've made up your mind based on something someone told you at a very young age. No amount of discussion is going to budge your pro-vax mentality, but stop for a moment. 30 years ago I would have believed that vaccination was a little bit more about public health than what it is today. You do know that the authorities want to administer Gardasil to boys, right? The flu shot contains mercury (it's good for your baby, "they" say)? They are also recommending lithium be added to drinking water, as well.

Don't be afraid to re-evaluate your beliefs from time to time. Culture, attitudes, environment...life...changes, and so should you.

Maybe not, but the vaccine companies won't tell you the truth of the matter either. The company that makes the popular MMR vaccine was just discovered to have been lying about it's effectiveness for the last several decades. They ran tests in faulty ways to exaggerate the effectiveness score. You think they won't lie about any side effects or problems that it causes also.

If only there was a government agency that told you about diseases, vaccines, and risks.

They are immune from lawsuits if there is anything wrong with the vaccine, so what do they care.

If only Congress created a special court to deal with vaccines and side effects. You know one that would streamline the process and gets victims compensation quicker than multi-year lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies.

Some of the vaccines stop super rare diseases that are no worse than getting a cold. Yeah, stopping polio is great. Give them the shot at 3 or 5 years old, not at one day old.

First of all, some of the diseases are rare because of vaccinations. The whole point of this article is that vaccinating less is bringing them back. The vaccine schedule clearly shows the vaccines are given over a period of time starting at 1 month old. Newborns should have acquired immunities from their mothers only for a short while after birth. Waiting till children 3 or 5 years old, puts them at serious risk.

And don't give 1001 shots for all kinds of pointless things. They want to give infants shots to prevent sexually transmitted disease (one of the hepatitus versions). Sure, that would be bad if they got it, but I don't think my 2 year old is having sex yet!

Hepatitis B is not strictly a sexually transmitted disease. "The virus is transmitted by exposure to infectious blood or body fluids such as semen and vaginal fluids, while viral DNA has been detected in the saliva, tears, and urine of chronic carriers.

See above comments about unkown risks due to company testing their own vaccines in secret.

[Citation needed] The CDC vaccine testing process disagrees with you.

Somethink like 80% of the cases of Whooping Cough are for vaccinated people. The unvaccinated are much less likely to get it. In the past, before vaccination, more people would have gotten the real disease and been immune for life.

[Citation needed]

Yes the vaccine has shown to lose effectiveness over time. More boosters may be needed.

Maybe not, but the vaccine companies won't tell you the truth of the matter either. The company that makes the popular MMR vaccine was just discovered to have been lying about it's effectiveness for the last several decades. They ran tests in faulty ways to exaggerate the effectiveness score. You think they won't lie about any side effects or problems that it causes also.

If only there was a government agency that told you about diseases, vaccines, and risks.

They are immune from lawsuits if there is anything wrong with the vaccine, so what do they care.

If only Congress created a special court to deal with vaccines and side effects. You know one that would streamline the process and gets victims compensation quicker than multi-year lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies.

Some of the vaccines stop super rare diseases that are no worse than getting a cold. Yeah, stopping polio is great. Give them the shot at 3 or 5 years old, not at one day old.

First of all, some of the diseases are rare because of vaccinations. The whole point of this article is that vaccinating less is bringing them back. The vaccine schedule clearly shows the vaccines are given over a period of time starting at 1 month old. Newborns should have acquired immunities from their mothers only for a short while after birth. Waiting till children 3 or 5 years old, puts them at serious risk.

And don't give 1001 shots for all kinds of pointless things. They want to give infants shots to prevent sexually transmitted disease (one of the hepatitus versions). Sure, that would be bad if they got it, but I don't think my 2 year old is having sex yet!

Hepatitis B is not strictly a sexually transmitted disease. "The virus is transmitted by exposure to infectious blood or body fluids such as semen and vaginal fluids, while viral DNA has been detected in the saliva, tears, and urine of chronic carriers.

See above comments about unkown risks due to company testing their own vaccines in secret.

[Citation needed] The CDC vaccine testing process disagrees with you.

Somethink like 80% of the cases of Whooping Cough are for vaccinated people. The unvaccinated are much less likely to get it. In the past, before vaccination, more people would have gotten the real disease and been immune for life.

[Citation needed]

Yes the vaccine has shown to lose effectiveness over time. More boosters may be needed.

Maybe not, but the vaccine companies won't tell you the truth of the matter either. The company that makes the popular MMR vaccine was just discovered to have been lying about it's effectiveness for the last several decades. They ran tests in faulty ways to exaggerate the effectiveness score. You think they won't lie about any side effects or problems that it causes also.

If only there was a government agency that told you about diseases, vaccines, and risks.

They are immune from lawsuits if there is anything wrong with the vaccine, so what do they care.

If only Congress created a special court to deal with vaccines and side effects. You know one that would streamline the process and gets victims compensation quicker than multi-year lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies.

Some of the vaccines stop super rare diseases that are no worse than getting a cold. Yeah, stopping polio is great. Give them the shot at 3 or 5 years old, not at one day old.

First of all, some of the diseases are rare because of vaccinations. The whole point of this article is that vaccinating less is bringing them back. The vaccine schedule clearly shows the vaccines are given over a period of time starting at 1 month old. Newborns should have acquired immunities from their mothers only for a short while after birth. Waiting till children 3 or 5 years old, puts them at serious risk.

And don't give 1001 shots for all kinds of pointless things. They want to give infants shots to prevent sexually transmitted disease (one of the hepatitus versions). Sure, that would be bad if they got it, but I don't think my 2 year old is having sex yet!

Hepatitis B is not strictly a sexually transmitted disease. "The virus is transmitted by exposure to infectious blood or body fluids such as semen and vaginal fluids, while viral DNA has been detected in the saliva, tears, and urine of chronic carriers.

See above comments about unkown risks due to company testing their own vaccines in secret.

[Citation needed] The CDC vaccine testing process disagrees with you.

Somethink like 80% of the cases of Whooping Cough are for vaccinated people. The unvaccinated are much less likely to get it. In the past, before vaccination, more people would have gotten the real disease and been immune for life.

[Citation needed]

Yes the vaccine has shown to lose effectiveness over time. More boosters may be needed.

the flu averages about 36k deaths per year according to the CDC. though the number swings around quite a bit year to year.

and that in 1952 at the height of the polio epidemic there were only 60k cases and 3k deaths in the US. according to this

so even if vaccines were never developed you would still be more likely to die from flu than one of those "stable diseases".

All deaths are not equal.

An octogenarian dying from "flu" when he was already on death's door is not the same as measles killing a healthy 5-year-old.

the flu averages about 36k deaths per year according to the CDC. though the number swings around quite a bit year to year.

and that in 1952 at the height of the polio epidemic there were only 60k cases and 3k deaths in the US. according to this

so even if vaccines were never developed you would still be more likely to die from flu than one of those "stable diseases".

While I don't disagree with most of what you said, I do think you're overstating your disagreement a bit. They said "contribute", not "cause". Is it fair to say that antibiotics may contribute to obesity? Quite likely, yes. The extent to which they contribute is a second discussion, and by all indications it's not significant. Even so, acknowledging that there may be an issue is a first step to better medical practices in the future. If antibiotics' contribution made the difference in pushing a mere 1% of obese Americans over the line into obesity (note: I pulled 1% out of thin air), fixing that issue would mean helping about 1 million people drop below the obesity threshold (math check: there are 311M Americans and roughly 35% of adults are obese according to the CDC).

And as one might suspect, Toxoplasmosis is linked to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Interestingly, as drug warriors grasp at ever fewer straws, they've found a tenuous linkage between Cannabis use and schizophrenia. Somehow they never propose criminalizing felines though.

You also gain immunity to West Nile over time. Most people exposed will never even get any symptoms too.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/qa/transmission.htm

And if West Nile is such a grave grave threat as some media want to portray it, maybe there should be vaccines for it? Oh right, it is not a major threat, hence no vaccines for humans. Horses, on the other hand, do have vaccines for West Nile because West Nile kills horses.

So basically this entire "spraying West Nile carrying mosquitoes" is a giant waste of money.

You should probably let the CDC know that...

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/qa/insect_repellent.htm

More specific info on DEET concenctration can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/mosquitoes/ai_insectrp.htm

where it says: "Formulations registered for direct application to human skin contain from 4 to 100 percent DEET."

Look here:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/consultations/deet/guidelines.html

To prevent the possibility of adverse effects, products containing DEET should not be used on children younger than 2 months of age. For children over 2 months and for adults, the use of a product with a concentration no greater than 30% DEET is advised. Use the lowest concentration DEET product that will provide adequate protection. Reapply the repellent only after effectiveness diminishes with time.

Studies have also shown that anything above 50% provided no additional protection (but did provider longer protection). In other words, it was no more effective, but lasted longer.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/toolkit/DEET.pdf

Look here:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/consultations/deet/guidelines.html

To prevent the possibility of adverse effects, products containing DEET should not be used on children younger than 2 months of age. For children over 2 months and for adults, the use of a product with a concentration no greater than 30% DEET is advised. Use the lowest concentration DEET product that will provide adequate protection. Reapply the repellent only after effectiveness diminishes with time.

Studies have also shown that anything above 50% provided no additional protection (but did provider longer protection). In other words, it was no more effective, but lasted longer.

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/toolkit/DEET.pdf

Lower concentrations work fine too. http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/toolkit/DEET.pdf. It wears off sooner, but if you're not going out for hours at a time, no big deal.

You should probably let the CDC know that...

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/qa/insect_repellent.htm

What drugs can do is break down the illusion of being normal that many fucked-up people try so hard to project. There are a lot of fucked up people trying hard to appear normal "like everybody else". The real tragedy is that we live in such a shallow and unenlightened society that a) people blame the drug for this, b) we generally like to blame drugs, guns, and other inanimate objects for what people do, and c) the shallow, exclusive focus on external behavior and appearances means that many people don't know what real character actually is.

A phenomenon that is highlighted by the absurdity that something like one in five Americans takes antidepressants, making it highly likely that any crusading against the evils of "drugs" is on drugs.

two things to say about this:

You have kids? You Damn well better make sure they know how to swim. You're the parent, that's your job!

You have a pool? All the places I've lived in, here in the US, local laws required you to have a fence around the pool.

TEN people die from drowning everyday (USA). Many times that number are rescued, BUT - require further care for severe brain damage that result in long-term disabilities and permanent loss of basic functioning (e.g., permanent vegetative state).

1 IN 5 who die from drowning are CHILDREN. For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries.1 (from http://www.cdc.gov/HomeAndRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html )

Even if the local laws don't require a fence, having one lowers your liability against lawsuits when a drunk neighbor (teenager?) decides to go swimming one night while you're away. (Concept of "attractive nuisance?, maybe)

Anyone ever heard of the Wegmans grocery store chain? Based in upstate New York? Family owned, Great store's, great family, great people. How many companies provide health care and child care for cashiers?

Wanna see the family compound that holds the pool they lost one of their kids in? Nevermind. The water in a pool, lake, stream, river or ocean doesn't care how rich, smart, or pretty you are. once you go in, you better know how to get yourself out.

Water safety: Make sure your kids know how to swim. Make sure the pool is fenced, If above ground, keep the outside ladder off, and the inside ladder, in. (Just in case a kid does get in, so they have a chance to get out).

Think of the children. Really.

(someday I will tell y'all the story of how my brother used Wegman's Stores to intimidate the commies back in the 1970's. Also, the 'garbage plate')

(I listened to a noise outside one night, had no idea what it was, next morning, found a squirrel floating in the pool. Ever since then, inside ladder stays in. )

[[ Squirrel's are the tiny terminators of wildlife, nothing stops them. I had one chew through a 1/8 in steel cable once, to take a bird feeder down! If they ever get organized, human life in suburbia will be over! ]] .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_(1971_film) >

Also - for your perusal:
https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=child+drowning+pool

We should ban Hydrogen Dioxide. You know it KILLS many people every year! (usually in the summer time)

Hydrogen Dioxide, H2O2, technically Dihydrogen Dioxide, and commonly known as Hydrogen Peroxide, is a fairly safe antiseptic. Of course, like all chemicals, it can be toxic, and should only be used in safe concentrations. (See http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0335.html)

I would love to see a source for your claim that Hydrogen Peroxide has resulted in any deaths, especially of children, in recent years.

Even if you swallow some balls, but not at once, you will need to go to the surgery.

Correct - you will need surgery but nobody has yet died. However if you look at the stats for accidental poisonings in the US you will see that there are 41,592 deaths every year. 91% of these are due to drugs which leaves 3,473 deaths every year due to non-drug related poisonings. It is not clear how many of these are due to kids swallowing household chemicals but you have to wonder why there is any need to ban something over 12 surgeries and zero deaths given the number of actual deaths from swallowing things.

Try the nose drops. I've had similar experience with the shots but very good results with the drops.

"While Americans worry every year about getting a flu shot or preventing HIV/AIDS, the deadlier silent killer is actually Hepatitis C, killing over 15,000 ..."

The flu kills each year an average number of 25000-36000 people in the US, depending on the statistics.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

the flu kills more then terrorist, yet we spend more money defending against terrorist.

wtf?

"While Americans worry every year about getting a flu shot or preventing HIV/AIDS, the deadlier silent killer is actually Hepatitis C, killing over 15,000 ..."

The flu kills each year an average number of 25000-36000 people in the US, depending on the statistics.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

Flammable tap water is normal in some places because methane in groundwater is normal in some places. Oil and gas seeping out at the surface from the ground is also normal for some parts of the world. As is radioactive ground water (usually this is from radon gas). And groundwater can be full of poisonous materials such as arsenic. This is why not every well is suitable for drinking water, especially without treatment. All of these issues existed before oil and gas exploration and hydraulic fracturing. And water wells *do* change over time regardless of whether or not oil companies are drilling exploration wells in the area, particularly because the process of extracting groundwater does change the subsurface environment. This is why wells that didn't originally have problems with methane can subsequently develop them (this is especially true in areas with coal beds, because extraction of groundwater releases methane trapped in the coal).

But put an oil and gas well anywhere in the vicinity, and all problems are because of the oil companies. At least, that's what the lawyers will claim when the landowners sue those companies for big money.

The point is, without a baseline, blaming oil and gas exploration is not justified, and automatically assuming that any of these problems are caused by the petroleum industry is false. That doesn't mean there aren't real problems caused by the oil and gas industry -- there are -- but you have to look at the details. A lot of groundwater is naturally unsuitable for human consumption.

We appear to be averaging about 100 suicides per day in the USA, or double your reported deaths by gun violence rate...