Slashdot Mirror

Cancer rates in the USA (for both genders! Standard display in this app is male-only) vary between about 40% (Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Alaska etc.) and 52% (Delaware, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Maine etc.)

For the record: New England should be evacuated immediately and nobody allowed back in, except for brief periods in protective clothing.

DEATHS

As of September 15, 2011, there have been a total 71 VAERS reports of death among those who have received Gardasil®. There were 57 reports among females, 3 were among males, and 11 were reports of unknown gender. Thirty four of the total death reports have been confirmed and 37 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 34 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.

No vaccine today uses any live virus.

Yellow fever

Saying anyone who questions this vaccination is a moron without studying the facts is stupid. Many vaccines are important, others carry untold risks. The discussion of this issue has been beaten back by people worshiping at the church or big pharma and various political and media forces, but never addressing the research. It is important to understand the issue and not just read what talking heads and politicians have to say.

The vaccine in question is primarily used prevent a virus that can cause rare cancers 70% of the time [1]. The death rate of cervical cancer is quite low, 4,021 (0.1660% of total deaths) in 2007 [2]. The risks of death from the cancers in question are are similar dying of gallbladder disorders [2]. As for the laundry list of other rare cancers it is linked to preventing, they are dramatically rarer then cervical cancer, data is to support this is readily found for those that are curious.

The CDC data [3] shows some serious concerns, 20,096 reaction reports including 71 verified deaths over 40 million doses. Of the 20,096 reports, 1,607 (8%) are considered serious. A serious reaction is defines by the CDC as a "report that indicated hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, congenital anomaly or death". There is no way to determine that these reactions are not linked to the vaccine without much more study.

I am not convinced that they are being honest about the risks and benefit of this drug. The number of lives it is supposed to save, 2,815 per year (70% of cervical cancer deaths are linked to viruses the vaccine prevents [1]), does not appear to outweigh the risks of a serious reaction. The benefit looks in the margin of error. Stop believing talking heads and politicians, do your own research, we are nerds after all. I have far more faith in medicine to treat me for a condition in the future then to take a risky medication to prevent a virus I will never get because I made it to the the age of 26 without it [1]. Never expect the talking heads or even your doctor to actually understand the research, few doctors are trained in research, they are practitioners fueled by money and boredom.

I may be completely wrong and totally misunderstand the data I see published, this will not stop me from actually performing my own review of the research in an effort to actually understand the issues rather then accept biased claims from everyone.

[1] http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2008/ucm116945.htm
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html
[3] http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf, Table 10

Saying anyone who questions this vaccination is a moron without studying the facts is stupid. Many vaccines are important, others carry untold risks. The discussion of this issue has been beaten back by people worshiping at the church or big pharma and various political and media forces, but never addressing the research. It is important to understand the issue and not just read what talking heads and politicians have to say.

The vaccine in question is primarily used prevent a virus that can cause rare cancers 70% of the time [1]. The death rate of cervical cancer is quite low, 4,021 (0.1660% of total deaths) in 2007 [2]. The risks of death from the cancers in question are are similar dying of gallbladder disorders [2]. As for the laundry list of other rare cancers it is linked to preventing, they are dramatically rarer then cervical cancer, data is to support this is readily found for those that are curious.

The CDC data [3] shows some serious concerns, 20,096 reaction reports including 71 verified deaths over 40 million doses. Of the 20,096 reports, 1,607 (8%) are considered serious. A serious reaction is defines by the CDC as a "report that indicated hospitalization, permanent disability, life-threatening illness, congenital anomaly or death". There is no way to determine that these reactions are not linked to the vaccine without much more study.

I am not convinced that they are being honest about the risks and benefit of this drug. The number of lives it is supposed to save, 2,815 per year (70% of cervical cancer deaths are linked to viruses the vaccine prevents [1]), does not appear to outweigh the risks of a serious reaction. The benefit looks in the margin of error. Stop believing talking heads and politicians, do your own research, we are nerds after all. I have far more faith in medicine to treat me for a condition in the future then to take a risky medication to prevent a virus I will never get because I made it to the the age of 26 without it [1]. Never expect the talking heads or even your doctor to actually understand the research, few doctors are trained in research, they are practitioners fueled by money and boredom.

I may be completely wrong and totally misunderstand the data I see published, this will not stop me from actually performing my own review of the research in an effort to actually understand the issues rather then accept biased claims from everyone.

[1] http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2008/ucm116945.htm
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html
[3] http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf, Table 10

It's pretty clear that Guarasil kills people,

No it isn't, and your source kind of sucks.

"I know it was the Gardasil," Tarsell said, although the official cause of death was undetermined.

This reads like the autism fraud news stories.

Here is the CDC's page on the whole issue. Excerpt (my emphasis):

Concerns have been raised about reports of deaths occurring in individuals after receiving Gardasil. As of June 30, 2008, 20 deaths had been reported to VAERS. There was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. In cases where autopsy, death certificate and medical records were available, the cause of death was explained by factors other than the vaccine.

People get vaccinated and die. People brush their teeth and die too. Statistics.

According to the CDC website, no there is no test to say whether an individual is HPV infected or not.
Interestingly though it also seems to indicate that the HPV infection can go away of its own accord in time.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
"There is no general test for men or women to check one’s overall "HPV status," nor is there an approved HPV test to find HPV on the genitals or in the mouth or throat."

and from http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm
"There is no test for men to check one’s overall “HPV status.” But HPV usually goes away on its own, without causing health problems. So an HPV infection that is found today will most likely not be there a year or two from now."

According to the CDC website, no there is no test to say whether an individual is HPV infected or not.
Interestingly though it also seems to indicate that the HPV infection can go away of its own accord in time.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
"There is no general test for men or women to check one’s overall "HPV status," nor is there an approved HPV test to find HPV on the genitals or in the mouth or throat."

and from http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-and-men.htm
"There is no test for men to check one’s overall “HPV status.” But HPV usually goes away on its own, without causing health problems. So an HPV infection that is found today will most likely not be there a year or two from now."

That's both technically true and so completely misleading that it is effectively a bald-faced lie. Here are some facts:

• The "one or two exceptions" includes the U.S. multi-person dose of seasonal flu shots to this day (Source: CDC.
• These days, about 43% of U.S. adults get the flu shot (source: USA Today)
• I can't find any reputable source to indicate what percentage of people get their flu shots from a multi-dose (thimerosal-laden) container. However, several anti-vaccine sites say 90%, and I'm inclined to suspect that this is in the ballpark given that in many years of getting flu shots from multiple sources, I've never seen a single-dose container.

Thus, more than a third of U.S. adults get a shot containing thimerosal in any given year. That's about ninety million people. Admittedly, that's only about 2% of the adults on the planet, but again, that's 2% every year.

The CDC is working to try to eliminate thimerosal from the flu vaccine, but it hasn't happened yet, and probably won't happen for several more years (at least).

NoScript blocks more malware than either.

And abstinence provides better protection than condoms.

Yet, abstinence probably leads to much more serious things than possibility of some minor STD, including depression, anti-social behavior and stress. It's good to let go every once in a while.

Of course, there is a good middle ground too. Serious STD's like HIV/AIDS generally do not spread orally. If you're on the receiving end of a blowjob, you have almost 0% change of catching HIV. Even with prostitutes. I learned this thing and have had sex with many ladyboys and never had any STD. Of course, while having intercourse it's a good idea to use condom, but as a receiving end of a blowjob, you cannot get AIDS.

This is dangerously wrong. The CDC reports that the risk is lower but still a risk with known infections.

Worth reading: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db46.pdf

Basic conclusion: in every US state with abstinence-only sex education, teen pregnancy rates are far higher then the national average.

kills more users per capita than the illegal stuff.

You probably don't like it when people mix and twist sets of statistics, cherry-pick and paraphrase the conclusions so they agree with their viewpoint, eh? Seems like most /.ers dislike that.

What you've just done here is a prime example of statistics abuse.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a12.htm
What percent of people properly using prescription drugs were killed by them? Seems to me you are glossing over the fact that the legal vs illegal death rate change was due to overdoses of legal meds. The CDCs definition counts improperly-acquired oxycodone, causing overdose fatalities as a "legal drug" death.

http://www.utexas.edu/research/cswr/gcattc/documents/PrescriptionTrends_Web.pdf

Kids downing hydrocodone and diazepam at raves.... they don't get that from their doctors. But is sure is tempting to include their statistics in with the "legal drugs are more dangerous than crack and meth!!!1!" numbers.

S21.059 (Open bite of unspecified breast (since you didn't say left or right)) + W53.81XA (Bitten by other rodent, initial encounter)

The complete list of the current american version (ICD-10-CM, 2011 edition) can be downloaded from the CDC. The hierarchical organization that makes it possible to answer your question is fairly well explained at the wiki page here. Injury (Sxx) -> Thorax (S2x) -> Superficial injury (S20) etc. Causes of Injury (Vxx-Xxx) -> Unintentional act of living creature (W5x) -> Rodent (W53) etc. Unfortunately wikipedia uses the 2007 WHO website version of ICD-10, and doesn't go into as much detail as the ICD-10-CM guide published by the CDC does.

Quote the whole sentence, asshole.

I said, "The US could eat a 9/11 10 times a year, and if we didn't act like fucking cowards in response, terrorism still wouldn't even make it into the top 10 most likely ways to die as an American."

30,000 deaths each year still would not break you into the top 10 leading causes of death. You would still be below the number 10 spot which is occupied by a specific infection. The 9 spot kills 60,000 people a year due to the flu. We lose 300,000 people in just six months to heart disease alone.

It isn't hyperbole. The terrorist are not going to kill you. Stop being such a god damn coward and realize that you are going to eat your fat ass to death, not get struck dead by a sheep herder. Mewing and pleading for the government to strip you of your liberties over the absurdly rare possibility that a terrorist might get you is pathetic and cowardly. Stop trying to defend such pathetic craven bleating.

Top 10 ways to die in the US: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

The anniversary of 9/11 always pisses me off. No, not because 3000 people died. 3000 people dying was a tragedy to be sure and the relatives of the victims certainly have my condolences. What pisses me off is the cowardly way that we as Americans reacted and how we continue to behave.

After 9/11 we had a decision. We could either have been brave or cowardly. We chose the path of cowardice. Cowardice is submitting to terror by stripping ourselves of civil liberty, creating a department of "homeland security", and installing pr0n scanners in airports. Cowardice is secret no-fly lists and domestic spying. The worst cowardice was Americans mewing to their politicians to strip them of their liberties to save them from the oh-so-scary terrorist. Cowardice is the path we picked. We gave up essential liberties for a trivial amount of security.

The path of bravery would have been to have by clinging to our essential freedoms and liberties. The nation that stood down the fucking USSR, a REAL threat, managed to go half a century without surrendering their freedoms and running away screaming like cowards. Seriously, consider that. 9/11 stripped away freedoms that we had even when the US was facing down a nation armed with a nuclear arsenal big enough to wipe out the world multiple times over. We faced down a world ending threat and didn't balk, but when a couple of sheep herders managed to knock down two buildings in a manner that they can never repeat again, we promptly shit ourselves and surrender those liberties we guarded when facing down the existential threat that was the USSR. Talking about acting the part of the fucking coward. If there was ever a time to piss ourselves and wipe our ass with the constitution, it was during the Cold War.

Just think about it for a moment. In a time when it was our policy the literally destroy the world if our allies were attacked, you could get on an airplane unmolested and the fourth amendment was still actively enforced.

If you are an American, you are going to die by stuffing your face with too much fucking food. Fucking deal with it. You are not going to die in a terrorist attack. The food you stuff into your god damn face is going to be the death of you. That, or your own body is going to murder you with cancer. If you are really lucky, you might die in an exciting car accident. The fucking terrorist are not going to kill you. If you believe so, you are a god damn coward and an idiot.

Look here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Fucking food bacteria kills 10x more people every year than terrorist did in 2001. It kills 300x more people than terrorist have killed Americans in the past decade. Terrorism in 2001 didn't even make it to the top 10 most likely ways to die. It falls well below chocking on your own god damn food over the past decade. That is right, stuffing food into your fat face is literally more likely to kill you than a terrorist.

So what pisses me off about 9/11 is that it is not a time for memorials and what not. What pisses me off is that we sit around circle jerking each other over how scary the terrorist are as we stuff our fat Americans asses with McDonalds food. We mew and bleat to politicians to protect us from one of the most unlikely ways to die imaginable, as we work on scoring a heart attack before the age of 60 by eating ourselves to death.

We could have a 9/11 style attack every single MONTH, and we would still have more people dying to being fat asses. Despite this, I don't see us cowardly begging the government to strip us of our civil liberties to save us from eating ourselves to death.

9/11 pisses me off each and every year because it is a sore reminder that when faced with a minor and petty threat to ourselves, we shit our pants, pissed ourselves, and picked the path of the coward. We gave up our civil liberties and elected asshole politicians who promised to rip apart the constitution. It pains me to think

Here goes my Karma.

Some parents are a little concerned about the number of immunizations that children receive in a very short time. There seem to be concerns that
27 separate immunizations over the first 18 months of a child's life may be stressing the immune system a little too much. If you start forcing people to do things they don't not understand they will resist, I hope society would stop calling them stupid, treat the parents like rational people and give them an educated choice.

health sentinel? HEALTH SENTINEL? are you fucking kidding me?

Here is proof we are visited by aliens:
http://atlantisbook.com/

I mean, it's a nice graph, too bad it measure per 100K and not per 1000. Nice manipulation to drowned out inconvient facts.

"... and logical deduction. "
I have yet to see any of that in any of your posts.

Here are the three top reason people are helthier:
Hand washing, flush toilets, and vaccines.

3 of every 1000 people with measles die. 1 in a hundred in third world countries.

If only there was a site known for it's rigor ,, oh wait:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm#measles

"..*may* have reached the point where the costs of "improved health" outweigh the benefits."
We haven't, all the evidences point to you being wrong.

You are experiencing the GIGO effect.

While it is true that there is a low death rate due to measles in modern societies (1 or 2 per 1000 cases) about 10% of cases develop ear infections that result in permanent deafness. So, I don't think that "staying in bed with plenty of water and some nice warm soup" is the only outcome to worry about.

Source: Here

I suspect you're a little over optimistic about the hygiene and other habits in effect today. There's also far greater potential for spread and acceleration of infection due to the vastly greater and faster transportation of people, foods and other goods.

Consider how widespread many virulent infections are, such as the common cold or flu (basic sanitation should keep those at bay too). Or how about:
- 1 in 6 Americans carries herpes.
- "An estimated 2.8 million [Chlamydia] infections occur annually in the U.S."
- Over a million Americans have HIV.

True, you are right to point out the probability of a fast-killing pandemic being low, especially relative to the alarmists. But risk is a combination of the probability and the severity of the outcome. It is logical to be more concerned about a 1% lifetime chance of decimation than the annual 99% chance of a minor drop in productivity such as caused by flu.

The response to a small potential for pandemic also has to be excessive. Acting swiftly and severely is vastly more effective. The reminders also help encourage people to practice that basic sanitation.

I suspect you're a little over optimistic about the hygiene and other habits in effect today. There's also far greater potential for spread and acceleration of infection due to the vastly greater and faster transportation of people, foods and other goods.

Consider how widespread many virulent infections are, such as the common cold or flu (basic sanitation should keep those at bay too). Or how about:
- 1 in 6 Americans carries herpes.
- "An estimated 2.8 million [Chlamydia] infections occur annually in the U.S."
- Over a million Americans have HIV.

True, you are right to point out the probability of a fast-killing pandemic being low, especially relative to the alarmists. But risk is a combination of the probability and the severity of the outcome. It is logical to be more concerned about a 1% lifetime chance of decimation than the annual 99% chance of a minor drop in productivity such as caused by flu.

The response to a small potential for pandemic also has to be excessive. Acting swiftly and severely is vastly more effective. The reminders also help encourage people to practice that basic sanitation.

I suspect you're a little over optimistic about the hygiene and other habits in effect today. There's also far greater potential for spread and acceleration of infection due to the vastly greater and faster transportation of people, foods and other goods.

Consider how widespread many virulent infections are, such as the common cold or flu (basic sanitation should keep those at bay too). Or how about:
- 1 in 6 Americans carries herpes.
- "An estimated 2.8 million [Chlamydia] infections occur annually in the U.S."
- Over a million Americans have HIV.

True, you are right to point out the probability of a fast-killing pandemic being low, especially relative to the alarmists. But risk is a combination of the probability and the severity of the outcome. It is logical to be more concerned about a 1% lifetime chance of decimation than the annual 99% chance of a minor drop in productivity such as caused by flu.

The response to a small potential for pandemic also has to be excessive. Acting swiftly and severely is vastly more effective. The reminders also help encourage people to practice that basic sanitation.

Bubonic plague != pneumonic plague. It's the same organism but a different infection route. Pneumonic plague spreads like wildfire - that's the real "Black Death". It's still treatable but it's one of those diseases where by the time you realize you have it, you've already infected other people, and by the time you're sick enough to seek help it's probably too late. Only thing that will work here is prophylactic antibiotics for anyone who has been in contact with an infected person, aggressive treatment of the infected and lots of luck.

If that were true then it would require that most people would have to see chiropractics. But lifespan has increased across the board even as only a small fraction of people go get chiropractic treatments.

Here's a better question: When was the last time chiropractice came up with a new treatment that helped heal a disease or problem they couldn't otherwise? Science does this all the time. Small pox and polio, once terrifying diseases, are diseases of the past. Diabetes, once a death sentence, is now manageable. Fifty years ago, childhood leukemia was a death sentence. Now, it is a horrific disease which permanently damages children, but often they live. And the death rates are still declining http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5648a1.htm. A hundred years ago, severe liver disease was a painful way to die. Now, we have liver transplants.

This is what real science and real medicine do. They improve. They work. They develop and test new treatments. And when a treatment doesn't work we throw it out. This process is slow, and comes in fits and starts. But the pattern of progress is clear. So again, what have the chiropracticts or the homeopaths or the Reiki fan done? What diseases have they cured? What insights into the nature of humans have they found? Did they find DNA? Did they unravel the genetic code? Did they discovery the many things RNA does in a cell? Instead they've stuck with hundred year old beliefs and kept parroting them.

All of these fringe beliefs have a variety of things in common: they each claim to be able to cure almost everything. The Reiki practitioner can cure any disease by manipulating the energy fields. The chiropracter can cure and prevent any disease by removing toxins" and subluxations. But that's not how the real world works. In the real world, there is no magic bullet. The human body is a wondrously complicated awesome thing. And so different diseases have different causes, not the same causes. And so different problems require different solutions. There's nothing easier when confronted with a massive collection of hard problems to convince yourself that you can solve all of them with a single trick. But that's not how the world works.

Unfortunately for you Dr. Bob, it is extremely unlikely that you will let any of this sink in. You have spent a massive amount of time and resources preaching your beliefs to the world. Humans have a tremendous amount of time admitting when they are wrong even over little things. In your case, the long amount of effort will likely make the cognitive dissonance much too severe for you to even question whether potentially part of your belief system might be wrong. And that's sad. But, you've put yourself in that position. You are the only one who can take yourself out of it.

Condoms ARE NOT TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF STDs.

Citation please?

To say what you are saying is to spread potentially fatal misinformation. Please provide your citation and we'll know who to blame. This is cut from the same cloth as the anti-vaccinators.

For those willing to look past this poster's crypto-fundamentalist agenda, the Centre for Disease Control states on page 2 of the Fact Sheet for Medical Personnel: Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases,

Sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases.

Third time in this thread I've had to post this link :)

Second time in this thread I've had to post this link

Wanna bet?

If you want to take your chances and get head from a bisexual, hemophiliac, Haitian, IV drug using hooker I'll pay.

interestingly it also attacks the ozone layer. win-win-win, pollutes ground, water and air! http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts70.pdf

"Doctors are the third leading cause of death in this country". Bullshit. Heart disease, Cancer, Stroke, Chronic lower respiratory diseases and Accidents are the top 5 causes in the US, according to CDC. Doctors and other health professionals work hard to prevent disease. Why prevent people from peddling quack therapies? Perhaps you don't have many friends or family that you love and care about, but most people will know at least one person that means a lot to them, who doesn't have the means to properly understand medical information, and wastes their money - or even worse risks their health - on quackery. That's why I vocally oppose quacks.

I think, most important variant today is increasing rate of c-section and survival rate at birth (abortion, etc). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db35.htm Besides, Feb. 29th, I think, birthday is quite evenly distributed these days compared to say, back in 1800s or 1900s.

I would imagine in the olden days, seasonal birth was essential due to disease, famine, and political stability. After all, if you don't survive at birth, there will be no birthday.

The CDC begs to differ: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db01.pdf

Roughly 25% equates to average? We shouldn't let facts get in the way of your slander though. Sure, it's a lot of people. No, it's not the average.

I realize you're joking, but Halon doesn't actually work like that.

If something is actually burning, it's possible for the Halon to be converted into phosgene, which is highly toxic, and other toxic or irritating substances. However, Halon itself is not toxic although it does cause temporary giddiness and impairment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halomethane#Safety

Halon 1301 is more usually employed in total flooding systems. In these systems, banks of halon cylinders are kept pressurised to about 4 MPa (600 psi) with compressed nitrogen, and a fixed piping network leads to the protected enclosure. On triggering, the entire measured contents of one or more cylinders are discharged into the enclosure in a few seconds, through nozzles designed to ensure uniform mixing throughout the room. The quantity dumped is pre-calculated to achieve the desired concentration, typically 3–7% v/v. This level is maintained for some time, typically with a minimum of ten minutes and sometimes up to a twenty minute "soak" time, to ensure all items have cooled so reignition is unlikely to occur, then the air in the enclosure is purged, generally via a fixed purge system that is activated by the proper authorities. During this time the enclosure may be entered by persons wearing SCBA. (There exists a common myth that this is because halon is highly toxic; in fact, it is because it can cause giddiness and mildly impaired perception, and also due to the risk of combustion byproducts.)

According to the CDC, seatbelts reduce the risk of death by about 50%. So, without any further knowledge, I guess there's 50/50 chance the seatbelt would have saved him.

I'm a firm believer in wearing seatbelts, but I think you are misunderstanding the 50% bit. It might make sense in terms of "of 100 car accidents where people were killed, if they were all wearing seabelts then 50 of them would have lived", but that is not taking into account the specifics of each accident. At around 40kph an impact starts having a serious risk of killing you if you aren't wearing a seatbelt. If Bob failed to make a turn at highway speeds and hit a tree head on in a 40yo VW Beetle with no ABS or airbags etc I doubt the presence of a seatbelt would have made much of a difference.

And remember that a car accident doesn't have to kill you to be disasterous... having a seatbelt can make a significant different to what your brain smashes into which can make a significant difference to the quality of the rest of your life (and the quality of life for those left to wipe up your dribble).

According to the CDC, seatbelts reduce the risk of death by about 50%. So, without any further knowledge, I guess there's 50/50 chance the seatbelt would have saved him.

http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/international-and-domestic-statistics-compared : banning guns does prevent murders.
and accidents: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
and even suicides: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html

having guns does not really do anything to protect anyone.

Surely a citation to the previous comment wouldn't hurt, but don't you think your anecdotal evidence is a bit weak? First of all, if casually observing someone driving was enough to determine sobriety, the police would hardly have an incentive to run checkstops. But back to your anecdotal observations...

In all of this 40 years of driving, how many traffic fatalities have you observed occur? I'm not talking about driving by afterwards, I mean actually witnessed. I'll assume the number is low or zero. Would you draw therefore the conclusion that traffic accidents are not a huge problem? In fact, there were 42,031 traffic fatalities in 2008 in the US according to this page.

I just don't get how "I haven't seen many obviously drunk drivers" translates into evidence that drunk driving is not a big problem. As an invincible youngster, I drove drunk and severely buzzed on numerous occasions. As a grown up, I'm horrified by this. However, I routinely see people drive home from parties or functions after having consumed far more alcohol than myself at times when I have had too much (for me personally) to drive safely.

It's not about being obviously drunk while driving. You can pull off reasonably ok driving when drunk. It's about not being able to respond to an unexpected situation when drunk. Someone else does something unexpected and instead of swerving or otherwise avoiding an accident, the buzzed/drunk driver does not react fast enough and contributes to a tragedy.

Side note: I don't know if endemic means what you think it means.

DDT was never needed in places like the USA, where malaria is not a problem

Ha. You're making a funny there... right? The whole reason malaria is not a problem in the USA is because of the use of DDT, in addition to the draining of swamps and other traditional anti-malaria activities. The Centers for Disease Control was pretty much founded for the purpose of eliminating malaria in the United States following World War II. And I quote:

The National Malaria Eradication Program was a cooperative undertaking by state and local health agencies of 13 southeastern states and the Communicable Disease Center of the U. S. Public Health Service, originally proposed by Dr. L. L. Williams. The program commenced operations on July 1, 1947. It consisted primarily of DDT application to the interior surfaces of rural homes or entire premises in counties where malaria was reported to have been prevalent in recent years. By the end of 1949, more than 4,650,000 house spray applications had been made. It also included drainage, removal of mosquito breeding sites, and spraying (occasionally from aircrafts) of insecticides.

(Emphasis mine.)

And this is why.
How many of you knew that most of your food comes from sewage land applied farm fields?
Its perfectly legal. Farmers demand it.

You can have what are called phobe/bacteria blooms after land application.

Could this be the smoking gun for all the MRSA reports, contamination of our produce, and now in E.Coli Germany.

They take the digestate and apply it to farm fields to grow food.

If you are unaware, bacteria mutate thru a process called gene swapping.

I believe multi-drug resistance is a byproduct of the Waste Water Treatment industry - take these bacteria, kill off the weak with the pharmasuticals we dump into waste stream (penecillin, etc), and you end up with super tough bacteria that can take us out.

Raw milk is quite dangerous.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/cheesespotlight/cheese_spotlight.htm

I hate to break it to you, but living in 1900 or 1910 wasn't the utopian society you make it seem. Infant mortality rates were around 30%. Life expectancy was around 50 years, the literacy rate was only 92% (as opposed to the 99.4% or so today). 85% of the workforce was employed in manual labour with little or no benefits, extremely low pay and no basic protections. Work place deaths were a daily occurrence because having something like guard rails where not required during this time.

If you think 1900 was such a great time then cut your electricity usage to about 1/10 of your existing usage. Throw away your fridge and any means to keep food fresh, try walking to work, working 15 hours a day for 6 days a week for a wage that would pay approximately 1/5 of what you're making now without adjusting prices for inflation. Remove all of your access any public service by not sending your children to school, not taking them to a doctor when they're sick because you can't afford it.

I'm sick of hearing from Libertarians about some utopian dream in the 19th century any very early 20th without looking at all the things government regulation has done. It like the scene from Life of Brian when they're griping about the government never doing anything for them except the running water, public roads, access to education, sewage system, and peace and order in the streets.

Been reading the Centers for Disease Control website, have you?

Or swimming pools.

In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died, from drowning and other causes, in boating-related incidents.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

It looks like they're trying to advert their emergency preparedness campaign, and this is a great creative way to do it.

Maybe too much of one?

I'd like the people who are guarding smallpox, anthrax, and other potentially lethal diseases to be humor-less and boring.

Any idea what people like this are on about then? -

http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/17/4/pdfs/681.pdf

Plenty of people who are experts in the field seem to have a similar view in that Smallpox can likely be created from scratch, and certainly be created as a modification of an existing virus. Are you saying these people with many years experience in the field are all wrong?

I'm not an expert in the field so can't be certain either way, but I'm a little loathe to believe those who are experts in the field are definitely wrong, and a suggestion that they're so wrong as to be the case that we're 10 years off from such technology and understanding seems a little unlikely to me.

Hanging on to a microorganism that can kill millions is about as evil as evil gets. To the autoclave they should all go. Every last one of them. And anyone who defends the existence of smallpox as a weapon should have his head examined.

The problem is that the disease still exists outside of labs. Some victims were far enough north that they were buried in permafrost regions. Note that this fact has been the inspiration for numerous movies and tv shows. Also note that those concerned about global warming are also concerned about smallpox.

"The search for variola viruses surviving even longer was pursued in 1991 near Novosibirsk, Russia (9). "Bioweapons experts" searched for the variola virus in 19th-century smallpox victims mummified in the permafrost above the Arctic Circle. In the event of unusual thawing and flooding, the concern was that these corpses might become exposed and release infectious virus into the environment. In the 19th century, this region of Russia (Sakha Republic) was "ravaged by smallpox strains of extraordinary lethality" (9). Isolating and comparing them with preserved modern strains might identify genes contributing to virulence. To date, no live variola viruses have been isolated from Sakha. But the threat now is that "a sophisticated terrorist team might go smallpox hunting on the permafrost" (9)"
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol11no05/04-0616.htm

There has even been discussions regarding investigations of crypts in Europe:

"In the absence of reliable survival data some experts have advised the routine vaccination of archaeologists who might handle well preserved corpses"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1008009/pdf/brjindmed00145-0079.pdf

Why does that statistic even matter?

Because statistics are fun!

If it happens even once, it's too often.

It's risk(cost)/benefit. People die in car accidents more than once and it sucks but we don't give up driving.

If it happens due to Sony's negligence, it's too often.

Fair enough for the consumer but from Sony's standpoint it's back to cost/benefit.

Why does that statistic even matter?

Because statistics are fun!

If it happens even once, it's too often.

It's risk(cost)/benefit. People die in car accidents more than once and it sucks but we don't give up driving.

If it happens due to Sony's negligence, it's too often.

Fair enough for the consumer but from Sony's standpoint it's back to cost/benefit.

Except for taking the spider to the Oregon Poison Center at Oregon Health Sciences University, where it was shipped off to Oregon State and they said "It's a Hobo Spider" and Brown Recluse not being native to the area.

A spider that was identified as a Hobo Spider (Tegenaria agrestis), it bit my head, other Tegenaria agrestis and T.domestica were seen in my building and in my basement, I had tissue necrosis and nerve pain.

I've read the NIH report and all the drama on the Hobo vs Funnel Webs vs Brown Recluse, the scaring is more similar to Tegenaria duellica/T.agrestis/T.domestica but the spider chewing on my head was a T.agrestis.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00042059.htm