Slashdot Mirror

Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teenagers. It's appropriate for high schools and colleges to be addressing this problem.

There were as many as 1240 people killed by the police in the US last year. Total. That's all killings of any kind. In the line of duty or not. Justified or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

The last year I could get stats for murder in general was 2013. The total murders in the US was 16,121.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...

I'm more than 10 times more likely to get killed by the general public than by a cop. If I was the paranoid kind I'd wear a bullet proof vest to the supermarket. As a bonus, if I don't pull a gun on them then my chances of getting offed by the cops drops drastically. All I have to worry about are the handful of rogue cops roaming around blowing up pressure cookers. Come to think of it though.....they didn't kill anyone either.

According tot he CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/reproductiv..., the unintended pregnancy rate male condoms is 18%.

Funny that here around I've regularly seen and read different numbers (random source in fr. key point < 10% for latex based condoms, < 5% for polyurethan. that's just a random example. I don't have enough time to kill to do a complete litterature mining and meta analysis)
Either North American are much dumber or worse at using condom than European, or your condoms tend to be made of a self-destructin material~
Xenophobic jokes aside, actual result vary *wildly* depending on the considered population, specially the level of sex-ed.

*when used properly* condoms can be very much safe. When used *haphazardly* not so.
See this table (again quick search). Pregnancy rates vary a lot. (See the specially low level among "motivated women" in israel. They probably had better knowledge on proper prevention than the (poor) women in the philiphine that still did get pregnant up to 60%).

The difference in number seem to be linked in the level of education and motivation of the people. A *properly* used condom is effective. That means that you need to educate better the people, to that they use the prevention better.
(instead of completely ignoring condoms, and opting to outcast HIV positive people, as suggested by top troll).

(I know it's only an anecdote, but that also match my personnal experience with <1% breakage among the hundreds of protected intercourses I've done. But both I and girl(s) knew how to use a condom properly and the necessary precautions to take).

According tot he CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/reproductiv..., the unintended pregnancy rate male condoms is 18%. Whether "failures can be fixed", they're not being "fixed".

http://www.cdc.gov/features/vf...

I am all for easy access to vaccines.They do go bad however so doctors and hospitals can run out.

California's southern border situation is far, far more dangerous than a few un-immunized natives. Immunization rates in central and south America are far, far lower than here in the US. But the right wants cheap labor and the left wants illegal votes, so we have no representation in this area. One naturally wonders why the obsession with immunization when public health is manifestly less important than open borders.

Bunk, on two accounts. Both as "PeterM from Berkeley" stated (facts), and from a logical standpoint. Measles has a 90% rate of infection. If you were correct in your assumption about migrant workers (and poor) carrying all these diseases and having terrible vaccination rates, then we'd be hearing (frequently) in the news things like, "15 found dead in migrant worker home from Measles outbreak." (they're often packed like sardines; two or three families per ROOM in a house) But you don't. Why? For the same reason that Mississippi has the highest vaccination rate, but is also the lowest median income and highest poverty. Poor people can't afford to miss work. You miss work, you don't get paid. You don't get paid, you can't feed your kids and you fall behind on bills VERY quickly. Getting deathly ill is not an option.

Those 20-60 deaths seem to be without medical attention. The previous version of this vaccine was pulled the previous version because the side effects was not worth the protection. Your assuming those deaths would happen with proper medical treatment.

Point being accepting life threatening/serious side effects for a non life threatening disease (with proper medical treatment) makes little sense to me. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp... Sometimes there are side effects that do not show up in trials, as a parent I would generaly not be ok with having my child receive any vacinne without at least a few years in widespread use. Now obviously if everybody was like me nothing would ever get into widespread use.

Ummmm I think you are talking crap.

http://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/s...

Prior to the vaccine, almost all U.S. children were infected with rotavirus before their 5th birthday. Each year, among U.S. children younger than 5 years of age, rotavirus led to

more than 400,000 doctor visits,
more than 200,000 emergency room visits,
55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations, and
20 to 60 deaths.

Also from the CDC website - Rotavirus vaccine risks - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...

  It is possible that an estimated 1 to 3 U.S. infants out of 100,000 might develop intussusception within 7 days of getting their first dose of rotavirus vaccine. That means 40 to 120 vaccinated U.S. infants might develop intussusception each year.

What the fuck is intussusception?
a medical condition in which a part of the intestine invaginates (folds into) into another section of intestine

Treatment?
The intussusception can be treated with either a barium or water-soluble contrast enema or an air-contrast enema, which both confirms the diagnosis of intussusception, and in most cases successfully reduces it. The success rate is over 80%. The remaining 20% require surgery.

So to summarise
Prior to the rotavirus vaccine there were 55,000+ hospitalisations and 20+ deaths per year due to rotavirus. Post vaccine your worst case risk is a minor surgery which occurs 8 to 24 times a year. I think I know which I would prefer.
 

Ummmm I think you are talking crap.

http://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/s...

Prior to the vaccine, almost all U.S. children were infected with rotavirus before their 5th birthday. Each year, among U.S. children younger than 5 years of age, rotavirus led to

more than 400,000 doctor visits,
more than 200,000 emergency room visits,
55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations, and
20 to 60 deaths.

Also from the CDC website - Rotavirus vaccine risks - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...

  It is possible that an estimated 1 to 3 U.S. infants out of 100,000 might develop intussusception within 7 days of getting their first dose of rotavirus vaccine. That means 40 to 120 vaccinated U.S. infants might develop intussusception each year.

What the fuck is intussusception?
a medical condition in which a part of the intestine invaginates (folds into) into another section of intestine

Treatment?
The intussusception can be treated with either a barium or water-soluble contrast enema or an air-contrast enema, which both confirms the diagnosis of intussusception, and in most cases successfully reduces it. The success rate is over 80%. The remaining 20% require surgery.

So to summarise
Prior to the rotavirus vaccine there were 55,000+ hospitalisations and 20+ deaths per year due to rotavirus. Post vaccine your worst case risk is a minor surgery which occurs 8 to 24 times a year. I think I know which I would prefer.
 

Ability to metabolize toxins and excrete them varies widely between individuals, many people have deficiencies in their abilities. Children's ability to metabolize toxins are not the same as adults. To top it off, the resources in the body needed to metabolize them (antioxidants, enzymes, conjugating molecules) are consumed by many things in the environment --> Did the chem-lawn folks just spray your lawn? Did you recently repaint the infant's room before you brought the baby home from the hospital? New carpeting in the house? On a constant basis, you are breathing, touching, drinking and eating toxins -- everything is contaminated to some measurable degree today (with lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, etc)...usually in very very small quantities, but some of these things bio-accumulate. So how much stuff is your body dealing with when you get the vaccine and how will that affect development? The medications you might be taking all rely on the same chemical transformations and consume those resources as well.

In case you wonder if these toxins can have any effect, here is something produced by the United States NIH discussing the impact of environmental toxin exposure on children. http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/11041...

Clinical toxicology (understanding the effect of toxins on the body) is not nearly as advanced as many of you probably imagine it is. Much of our knowledge comes from the last 15 years and a great deal is still not known. By the way, knowledge of clinical toxicology is virtually absent from the MD curriculum (at least here in the US).

And one last point to everyone who is pro-vaccine and antagonistic to those who aren't, I would like to point out that if YOU did not do the science yourself, then these issues come down to who you trust (I wouldn't trust Jenny McCarthy either). I bet all of you have an opinion one way or the other about climate change, but almost none of you have actually looked at the data and models yourself. Claiming "its science you idiots" when you did not do the science is pretty similar to religion....belittling someone with a *belief* that differs from yours because yours must be the one true god.

I'll let measles be the judge of that.

Not so much people but environmental conditions, the more lax the environmental laws the worse the problem and it seems it is substantially related to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... It is becoming apparent that no amount was safe https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/healt... as further studies are indicating.

In fact if you look at the whole pseudo conservative pseudo Christian revival (people who claim to be something they behave nothing like) it is all likely tied to lead poisoning (pay close attention to the dominant average age in this group and thus the toxic lead polluted environment of their youth). They behave like brain damaged idiots because well, to be blunt, they are people suffering from the toxic effects of lead poisoning "No safe blood lead level has been identified" http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitori....

The reason higher intellect people seem to have escaped the problem, well, not you didn't, you just had capacity to spare and simply failed to achieve what you might have achieved but still remained socially democratic and more community minded (down the other end of the IQ scale, even a little damage can do a lot of harm).

Urban myth. There is no appreciable difference in population growth when there are power outages or even during winter.

Says who? Unfortunately I couldn't find a chart of births by month in the US, so I had to make my own.

Here's a plot of the results: http://postimg.org/image/3qa37...
Data source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_a...

Unfortunately the data doesn't provide day of birth, only month of birth, so I normalized by dividing by the number of days in the month in 2013 which gives me births/days per month. Assuming 2013 wasn't an atypical year, there's a definite peak in births from July to September, which suggests more babies are being conceived in winter than in summer.

Here are the raw numbers:

J: 10461
F: 10441
M: 10360
A: 10409
M: 10651
J: 10682
J: 11287
A: 11428
S: 11295
O: 11011
N: 10641
D: 10849

"There is no viable evidence" = "I'm too lazy to look"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (Free)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (Non-free but synopsis provided)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (Non-free but synopsis provided)

And that's just a minute or two of looking. Thousands of studies have been done on fluoride for safety and effectiveness on a wide range of topics, not just public water fluorination. It works, we know how and why it works, it's pretty dang cheap, and it's been hailed as one of the top ten greatest public health achievements.
=Smidge=

HPV prevalence is about 70% in sexually active young people. HPV causes about 6100 deaths per year, and about 26900 cases of cancer per year in the US. Most deaths, however, occur in low-income countries - about http://www.who.int/mediacentre...">270,000 per year worldwide in 2012 for cervical cancer alone according to the World Health Organization.

So, I think it's reasonable to conclude HPV is indeed contagious, common and deadly. Also, in my experience (as a primary care physician), most people are enthusiastic about the idea of making Pap smears obsolete, which is a distinct possibility with widespread use of HPV vaccine.

Contrary to your argument, those who receive the chickenpox vaccine seem to have proven to have a lower risk of shingles (scroll to "Risk Factors"). Stop posting lies and deceit.

According to the CDC, they are 93% effective http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp...

That's pretty fucking close to 100%.

For example: The highest rate of mortality for Chicken Pox is 100 out of 300Million. This was what could possibly be attributed, which means that most of these people were already fatally ill with things like Leukemia when they contracted the Chicken Pox. The mortality rate of the vaccine according to the CDC is 1 in 30,000. (The actual wording on the CDC site is that 2 out of 15,000 will have extremely severe reactions to the vaccine, and 1 of those will be fatal.

Your claim of a 1 in 30,000 mortality rate is false.
Here's the CDC safety data for vaccines:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...

Here's chickenpox vaccine:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...

For example: The highest rate of mortality for Chicken Pox is 100 out of 300Million. This was what could possibly be attributed, which means that most of these people were already fatally ill with things like Leukemia when they contracted the Chicken Pox. The mortality rate of the vaccine according to the CDC is 1 in 30,000. (The actual wording on the CDC site is that 2 out of 15,000 will have extremely severe reactions to the vaccine, and 1 of those will be fatal.

Your claim of a 1 in 30,000 mortality rate is false.
Here's the CDC safety data for vaccines:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...

Here's chickenpox vaccine:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...

risks of death from chickenpox (1 in 3,000,000)

Oops, apologies, a thoroughly derpy error on my part: the death rate from chickenpox is actually a teensy smidgin higher than 1 in 3 million, ranging from 1 in 100,000 in children [1], to 1 in 4000 in adults [2]. From CDC's Pinkbook:

The risk of complications from varicella varies with age. Complications are infrequent among healthy children. They occur much more frequently in persons older than 15 years of age and infants younger than 1 year of age. For instance, among children 1–14 years of age, the fatality rate of varicella is approximately 1 per 100,000 cases, among persons 15–19 years, it is 2.7 per 100,000 cases, and among adults 30–49 years of age, 25.2 per 100,000 cases. Adults account for only 5% of reported cases of varicella but approximately 35% of mortality.

My guess [3] is that s.petry took the US's 100 deaths per year and divided it by 300M population to arrive at 1 per 3M death rate, but of course that calculation would only work if the entire population was catching chickenpox every year, whereas only only few percent of the population actually do: those catching it for the first time, those who failed to develop an immune response after catching it previously, and those whose immune systems are compromised for other reasons.

--

[1] or "acceptable losses" in antivax-speak

[2] a.k.a. "they deserved it anyway for not getting sick sooner"

[3] Actually, I know this is what s.petry did, 'cos I made the exact same mistake doing a quick back-of-the-envelope conversion from CDC's description of chickenpox killing 100 people per year prior to varicella vaccine introduction. But it had that "off smell" to it, so I went back and researched further till I found the right numbers, posted them publicly apologizing for any confusion caused, and moved on. Self-correction, it's the nuts.

risks of death from chickenpox (1 in 3,000,000)

Oops, apologies, a thoroughly derpy error on my part: the death rate from chickenpox is actually a teensy smidgin higher than 1 in 3 million, ranging from 1 in 100,000 in children [1], to 1 in 4000 in adults [2]. From CDC's Pinkbook:

The risk of complications from varicella varies with age. Complications are infrequent among healthy children. They occur much more frequently in persons older than 15 years of age and infants younger than 1 year of age. For instance, among children 1–14 years of age, the fatality rate of varicella is approximately 1 per 100,000 cases, among persons 15–19 years, it is 2.7 per 100,000 cases, and among adults 30–49 years of age, 25.2 per 100,000 cases. Adults account for only 5% of reported cases of varicella but approximately 35% of mortality.

My guess [3] is that s.petry took the US's 100 deaths per year and divided it by 300M population to arrive at 1 per 3M death rate, but of course that calculation would only work if the entire population was catching chickenpox every year, whereas only only few percent of the population actually do: those catching it for the first time, those who failed to develop an immune response after catching it previously, and those whose immune systems are compromised for other reasons.

--

[1] or "acceptable losses" in antivax-speak

[2] a.k.a. "they deserved it anyway for not getting sick sooner"

[3] Actually, I know this is what s.petry did, 'cos I made the exact same mistake doing a quick back-of-the-envelope conversion from CDC's description of chickenpox killing 100 people per year prior to varicella vaccine introduction. But it had that "off smell" to it, so I went back and researched further till I found the right numbers, posted them publicly apologizing for any confusion caused, and moved on. Self-correction, it's the nuts.

" the idea being to add it to shots as something to enhance the body's reaction to a foreign body"

Wrong. the "mercury" in the vaccine is trace amounts of themirosol, which is a preservative used as an antibacterial/anti-fungal agent for multidose vials of vaccines. Its inclusion in single dose vials has been almost eliminated just to placate idiots like you who think it's dangerous or don't know what it actually does.

If you stick a needle into a multidose vial and it keeps getting punctured, there is a chance of contaminants getting introduced. The themirosol prevents that.

It has nothing to do with making the body react stronger to the vaccine. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Get educated:

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBl...

The OP was correct in that they do use adjuvants in many vaccines to promote a better response, although OP was incorrect about the thimerosal (both as an adjuvant and its safety, or lack thereof). Typically, it's aluminum or monophosphoryl lipid A used as the adjuvant.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/adjuvants.html

[s.petry] For example: The highest rate of mortality for Chicken Pox is 100 out of 300Million. This was what could possibly be attributed, which means that most of these people were already fatally ill with things like Leukemia when they contracted the Chicken Pox. The mortality rate of the vaccine according to the CDC is 1 in 30,000. (The actual wording on the CDC site is that 2 out of 15,000 will have extremely severe reactions to the vaccine, and 1 of those will be fatal.

[hondo77] You are completely full of shit. From the CDC site [cdc.gov]: "Serious health problems after (Varicella (Chicken Pox) vaccination are extremely rare."

[s.petry] Try actually searching the CDC site, and you can find some amazing information. Your page is quite different from this CDC page.

OK, here for reference what that page says:

Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine side-effects

What are the risks from chickenpox vaccine?

A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions. The risk of chickenpox vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.

Getting chickenpox vaccine is much safer than getting chickenpox disease. Most people who get chickenpox vaccine do not have any problems with it. Reactions are usually more likely after the first dose than after the second.

Mild Problems

• Soreness or swelling where the shot was given (about 1 out of 5 children and up to 1 out of 3 adolescents and adults)
• Fever (1 person out of 10, or less)
• Mild rash, up to a month after vaccination (1 person out of 25). It is possible for these people to infect other members of their household, but this is extremely rare.

Note: The first dose of MMRV vaccine has been associated with rash and higher rates of fever than MMR and varicella vaccines given separately. Rash has been reported in about 1 person in 20 and fever in about 1 person in 5. Seizures caused by a fever are also reported more often after MMRV. These usually occur 5-12 days after the first dose.

Moderate Problems

• Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (very rare).

Severe Problems

• Pneumonia (very rare)

Other serious problems, including severe brain reactions and low blood count, have been reported after chickenpox vaccination. These happen so rarely experts cannot tell whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. If they are, it is extremely rare.

...

[s.petry] Sure, I'll retract the 1 in 30,000

How... magnanimous of you. Why not just a simple, honest admission that you were completely and utterly wrong, then leave it at that before you make an even bigger fool of yourself? Oh wait, too late:

[s.petry] Funny that attempt to call me a shill yet completely ignore the disclaimer on these pages. How did you miss the fact that the date of your information is from 2008, and provided by Merck. You do know that there are numerous manufacturers of different types of varicella vaccine don't you? And you only cover one.. shame on you.

The page I linked above has this:

(This information taken from MMRV VIS date

[s.petry] For example: The highest rate of mortality for Chicken Pox is 100 out of 300Million. This was what could possibly be attributed, which means that most of these people were already fatally ill with things like Leukemia when they contracted the Chicken Pox. The mortality rate of the vaccine according to the CDC is 1 in 30,000. (The actual wording on the CDC site is that 2 out of 15,000 will have extremely severe reactions to the vaccine, and 1 of those will be fatal.

[hondo77] You are completely full of shit. From the CDC site [cdc.gov]: "Serious health problems after (Varicella (Chicken Pox) vaccination are extremely rare."

[s.petry] Try actually searching the CDC site, and you can find some amazing information. Your page is quite different from this CDC page.

OK, here for reference what that page says:

Varicella (Chickenpox) vaccine side-effects

What are the risks from chickenpox vaccine?

A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions. The risk of chickenpox vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.

Getting chickenpox vaccine is much safer than getting chickenpox disease. Most people who get chickenpox vaccine do not have any problems with it. Reactions are usually more likely after the first dose than after the second.

Mild Problems

• Soreness or swelling where the shot was given (about 1 out of 5 children and up to 1 out of 3 adolescents and adults)
• Fever (1 person out of 10, or less)
• Mild rash, up to a month after vaccination (1 person out of 25). It is possible for these people to infect other members of their household, but this is extremely rare.

Note: The first dose of MMRV vaccine has been associated with rash and higher rates of fever than MMR and varicella vaccines given separately. Rash has been reported in about 1 person in 20 and fever in about 1 person in 5. Seizures caused by a fever are also reported more often after MMRV. These usually occur 5-12 days after the first dose.

Moderate Problems

• Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (very rare).

Severe Problems

• Pneumonia (very rare)

Other serious problems, including severe brain reactions and low blood count, have been reported after chickenpox vaccination. These happen so rarely experts cannot tell whether they are caused by the vaccine or not. If they are, it is extremely rare.

...

[s.petry] Sure, I'll retract the 1 in 30,000

How... magnanimous of you. Why not just a simple, honest admission that you were completely and utterly wrong, then leave it at that before you make an even bigger fool of yourself? Oh wait, too late:

[s.petry] Funny that attempt to call me a shill yet completely ignore the disclaimer on these pages. How did you miss the fact that the date of your information is from 2008, and provided by Merck. You do know that there are numerous manufacturers of different types of varicella vaccine don't you? And you only cover one.. shame on you.

The page I linked above has this:

(This information taken from MMRV VIS date

You keep referring to the CDC in this and other child posts - to back your claims. I'm in extremely strong opposition to your view on both the danger of the MMR vs the diseases it protects us from, as well as the autism claims. Let me call out a few which may be of interest;

From the CDC page entitled "Top 4 Things Parents Need to Know about Measles" http://www.cdc.gov/measles/abo...
    - About 1 in 4 people in the U.S. who get measles will be hospitalized
    - 1 out of every 1,000 people with measles will develop brain swelling, which could lead to brain damage
    - 1 or 2 out of 1,000 people with measles will die, even with the best care

From the CDC page entitled "Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism" http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
    - well, suffice to say they have a different world-view to yourself

Please feel free to reply to this post with peer-reviewed medical evidence which articulates why countries where immunisation is low or non-existent are in less danger than those who have a high immunisation level, or alternately cite your source on the autism to MMR link.

We read those two numbers clear as day, but we are not allowed to look at vaccines as a possible cause? Are you kidding me?

If you're so willing to disregard the study linked in the topic which clearly addresses exactly that point comprehensively, and categorically denies it i know, RFTA, how gauche) then I assume you have an empirical model you can clearly articulate which shows the link? Or is it correlation == causation, facts be damned?

You keep referring to the CDC in this and other child posts - to back your claims. I'm in extremely strong opposition to your view on both the danger of the MMR vs the diseases it protects us from, as well as the autism claims. Let me call out a few which may be of interest;

From the CDC page entitled "Top 4 Things Parents Need to Know about Measles" http://www.cdc.gov/measles/abo...
    - About 1 in 4 people in the U.S. who get measles will be hospitalized
    - 1 out of every 1,000 people with measles will develop brain swelling, which could lead to brain damage
    - 1 or 2 out of 1,000 people with measles will die, even with the best care

From the CDC page entitled "Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism" http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...
    - well, suffice to say they have a different world-view to yourself

Please feel free to reply to this post with peer-reviewed medical evidence which articulates why countries where immunisation is low or non-existent are in less danger than those who have a high immunisation level, or alternately cite your source on the autism to MMR link.

We read those two numbers clear as day, but we are not allowed to look at vaccines as a possible cause? Are you kidding me?

If you're so willing to disregard the study linked in the topic which clearly addresses exactly that point comprehensively, and categorically denies it i know, RFTA, how gauche) then I assume you have an empirical model you can clearly articulate which shows the link? Or is it correlation == causation, facts be damned?

This CDC page says 4 in 1 million. or 1 in 250,000 which is still how many times higher than 100 in 300 Million? I'm not able to find the 1 in 30,000 number at the moment, but I don't need to do so to prove that the odds of death are higher with the vaccine.. for a non-lethal and non-debilitating virus. Sure, I'll retract the 1 in 30,000 and replace it with 1 in 250,000 and you still have 24 times greater chance of death than with the virus (not considering how improvements in medical treatments would change the highest ever rated mortality rate for chicken pox.)

What are you talking about. On the page you referenced it lists:

Several severe problems have been reported following MMR vaccine, and might also happen after MMRV. These include severe allergic reactions (fewer than 4 per million), and problems such as:

Deafness.
Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness.
Permanent brain damage.
Because these problems occur so rarely, we can’t be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not.

So in contrast to what you wrote it is not about mortality rate at all and the problems can not even be reliably attributed to the vaccination.

Maybe those upper middle class parents associate vaccination with third world countries, and they're dark skinned and/or poor and filthy children sitting naked in dirt. Anti vaxxers children are superior to those halve humans. Watch this: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...
http://www.theatlantic.com/hea...
http://www.latimes.com/busines...

You claim I'm full of shit, then list out exactly what I called out. You claim to get testy about this, yet ignore the CDC's vaccine schedule. Fact: Varicella is not, and never has been, considered a fatal or debilitating disease. Why is it in the same category as Polio? Later you claim "it's not innocent and cute" but I don't see any proof that it's dangerous. I never claimed it was innocent or cute for that matter, I simply stated that it was not lethal or debilitating. Like I said above, 100 out of 300 million mortality rate. Outside of that, if you stop scratching the sores there are no issues. Influenza has not been considered a fatal illness since the time when we began treating dehydration by IV, yet it's in the same category as Polio as well.

The 7 vaccines you mention up until about 1989 were given how many times? Exactly once. Compared to each today being given 3 times. Varicella vaccinations did not exist until the 1990s, and went through several horrible issues and recalls (perhaps you just forgot to mention the egg based vaccine). But we can't talk about vaccines as different entities, they are all identical in ingredients, effects, and effectiveness right? WRONG.

I never ever stated that any of these vaccines were bad, go back and read my post again. I said that there has been both an increase in number and little discussion for the patient's health when giving vaccines. A perfectly healthy child getting 1xMMR is something we had 40 years experience with to know it was safe. We don't have the same track knowledge base for an unhealthy kid getting 1xMMR, 1xDTap, 1xInfluenza, 1xHep a/b (depending), gardasil, etc... every 6-12 months for years on end during their most prominent development ages. In fact, change that to the healthy kid getting all of this simultaneously, and we don't have enough research to claim it's always safe, especially if a person should not be receiving a vaccine (see next).

As I stated above, manufacturers recommend that you do not get a vaccinations all the time. In fact here is one of many CDC warnings, this one about MMR. Different vaccines have different warnings for when not to get vaccinated. Make sure you check dates and defer to the Manufacturer's information as the CDC claims they do if you are going to present a rebuttal and claim "always safe".

So I brought up several distinct points and told you that my source was the CDC. You claimed "nuh uh" to one point, lied to back your "nuh un", and finally claimed I'm full of shit. Go figure.

I picked on the Varicella vaccine for a reason, namely that I have done some hefty research on this. The only misinformation is yours, stop reading the first thing you find and believing it's the gospel. CDC's web site is full of many studies, some more recent than others. So lets clear up two of your completely false points

First, The varicella vaccine does NOT make you immune to shingles. That is a fairy tale, and if it's not on Snopes yet it should be. Manufacturers don't make the claim, and CDC states flat out that Shingles is not impacted by the vaccine what so ever.

Next, there is no such thing as immunity to chicken pox. People who have had the vaccine series still have a 10-20% chance of infection (depending on which study you read on the CDC's site). People who received the live vaccine will amazingly be able to transmit and have all of the chicken pox symptoms with a milder version, and still be infected by a more severe case due to natural exposure. The whole reason for the newer series of both varicella and MMR is that they were only 60-80% effective (again, choose a study). They "believe" that with a series of 3 there is an effective rate of 90%.

Yeah, pushing dubious vaccines is bad. I brought up some legitimate questions which you simply dismissed without doing ample research. "it's certainly not dangerous" is an outright lie. Here I quickly found that the odds for a "severe" reaction to MMR (not MMRV) is 1 in 250,000. Compared to the severe complications to the raw varicella virus, it s certainly more dangerous. I'll certainly be fair and retract the 1 in 30,000 (looks like the CDC removed that link) and go with the 1 in 250,000. My points are all still valid because the vaccine is exponentially higher risk.

Try actually searching the CDC site, and you can find some amazing information. Your page is quite different from this CDC page. Funny that attempt to call me a shill yet completely ignore the disclaimer on these pages. How did you miss the fact that the date of your information is from 2008, and provided by Merck. You do know that there are numerous manufacturers of different types of varicella vaccine don't you? And you only cover one.. shame on you.

The page I linked above has this:

(This information taken from MMRV VIS dated 5/21/10. If the actual VIS is more recent than this date, the information on this page needs to be updated.)

Amazingly you find yet more information on that link, I know.. research is hard.

This CDC page says 4 in 1 million. or 1 in 250,000 which is still how many times higher than 100 in 300 Million? I'm not able to find the 1 in 30,000 number at the moment, but I don't need to do so to prove that the odds of death are higher with the vaccine.. for a non-lethal and non-debilitating virus. Sure, I'll retract the 1 in 30,000 and replace it with 1 in 250,000 and you still have 24 times greater chance of death than with the virus (not considering how improvements in medical treatments would change the highest ever rated mortality rate for chicken pox.)

I await your retraction of false allegations and apology for shitty research..

Try actually searching the CDC site, and you can find some amazing information. Your page is quite different from this CDC page. Funny that attempt to call me a shill yet completely ignore the disclaimer on these pages. How did you miss the fact that the date of your information is from 2008, and provided by Merck. You do know that there are numerous manufacturers of different types of varicella vaccine don't you? And you only cover one.. shame on you.

The page I linked above has this:

(This information taken from MMRV VIS dated 5/21/10. If the actual VIS is more recent than this date, the information on this page needs to be updated.)

Amazingly you find yet more information on that link, I know.. research is hard.

This CDC page says 4 in 1 million. or 1 in 250,000 which is still how many times higher than 100 in 300 Million? I'm not able to find the 1 in 30,000 number at the moment, but I don't need to do so to prove that the odds of death are higher with the vaccine.. for a non-lethal and non-debilitating virus. Sure, I'll retract the 1 in 30,000 and replace it with 1 in 250,000 and you still have 24 times greater chance of death than with the virus (not considering how improvements in medical treatments would change the highest ever rated mortality rate for chicken pox.)

I await your retraction of false allegations and apology for shitty research..

Suddenly, you're born and you're literally being assaulted by every germ around you, with probably thousands of them being encountered by your immune system every day.

Are you attempting to agree with me? It is hard enough to come into the world and survive the first few months after birth. Do we need to be given a Hepatitis vaccine the moment you are born. No check for the baby's condition, no testing for health, just pump them with the vaccine is what we should be doing? You want to tell me that this relatively new procedure has nothing to do with childhood illnesses which have skyrocketed since put into practice?

Lets play the Socratic method. Ask your doctor this question: Would he recommend that you get any type of surgery while you have bronchitis? (I just picked a random common illness) If your doctor says "Is it life threatening?" breath a sigh of relief. If they say "Sure" then you should find a new doctor that understands the human body quite a bit better.

Simple fact, our immune systems are not always running at 100% efficiency. Another simple fact, everyone is slightly different. Stuffing 8-12 diseases into every single kid on their 2nd birthday, in a single sitting, is pure lunacy. That would be like claiming that every single patient with strep should have no problem undergoing a tonsillectomy. No, not everyone could withstand that procedure, and any MD with any level of training would be able to tell you this.

How are a *few* shots (7 may seem like a lot to you) going to compare against thousands of things all hitting the naive immune system of an infant all at once, starting from birth, every day?

Absolutely, kids are already inundated with viruses, diseases, and bacteria. Their bodies are learning about how to fight those things without people adding severe diseases and viruses to their system. Adding 1 new disease like we did for 40+ years seemed to be a reasonable number. Hell, when I had the MMR vaccine our Doctors asked us about our general health _before_ giving the vaccine. I will say, as with Polio and Small Pox, most people handled 3 assuming they were in good health.

The CDC entry on Varicella points to the MFR page, it's really too bad that people can't seem to do any of their own studies any longer, but I digress. Vaccine MFR.s all recommend that you are in reasonable good health prior to getting any vaccine. Are you going to tell me that every Walmart and Grocery store pharmacist is checking this with people before they give any vaccines? Or, are they mass pumping these things without checking because they get paid very well when they do? Many of the Doctors are in the same boat, because if they don't push the influenza vaccine (as one example) they can be reprimanded or face disciplinary action at certain medical facilities.

How about the fact that ALL vaccines are produced differently, with different ingredients and attenuation solutions. Some are made from animal and insect parts, others from metals, others from fetal or cadaver parts. That is certainly not to claim that "vaccines" are bad, but that not everyone will react to vaccines which are ALL made and contain DIFFERENT materials.

The simple fact is that In less than 30 years we have had a minimum 312% increase in childhood vaccinations. Autism rates have gone up just a hair under 300%, again according to the CDC. We read those two numbers clear as day, but we are not allowed to look at vaccines as a possible cause? Are you kidding me?

And you moderators censoring should be ashamed of yourselves!

Suddenly, you're born and you're literally being assaulted by every germ around you, with probably thousands of them being encountered by your immune system every day.

Are you attempting to agree with me? It is hard enough to come into the world and survive the first few months after birth. Do we need to be given a Hepatitis vaccine the moment you are born. No check for the baby's condition, no testing for health, just pump them with the vaccine is what we should be doing? You want to tell me that this relatively new procedure has nothing to do with childhood illnesses which have skyrocketed since put into practice?

Lets play the Socratic method. Ask your doctor this question: Would he recommend that you get any type of surgery while you have bronchitis? (I just picked a random common illness) If your doctor says "Is it life threatening?" breath a sigh of relief. If they say "Sure" then you should find a new doctor that understands the human body quite a bit better.

Simple fact, our immune systems are not always running at 100% efficiency. Another simple fact, everyone is slightly different. Stuffing 8-12 diseases into every single kid on their 2nd birthday, in a single sitting, is pure lunacy. That would be like claiming that every single patient with strep should have no problem undergoing a tonsillectomy. No, not everyone could withstand that procedure, and any MD with any level of training would be able to tell you this.

How are a *few* shots (7 may seem like a lot to you) going to compare against thousands of things all hitting the naive immune system of an infant all at once, starting from birth, every day?

Absolutely, kids are already inundated with viruses, diseases, and bacteria. Their bodies are learning about how to fight those things without people adding severe diseases and viruses to their system. Adding 1 new disease like we did for 40+ years seemed to be a reasonable number. Hell, when I had the MMR vaccine our Doctors asked us about our general health _before_ giving the vaccine. I will say, as with Polio and Small Pox, most people handled 3 assuming they were in good health.

The CDC entry on Varicella points to the MFR page, it's really too bad that people can't seem to do any of their own studies any longer, but I digress. Vaccine MFR.s all recommend that you are in reasonable good health prior to getting any vaccine. Are you going to tell me that every Walmart and Grocery store pharmacist is checking this with people before they give any vaccines? Or, are they mass pumping these things without checking because they get paid very well when they do? Many of the Doctors are in the same boat, because if they don't push the influenza vaccine (as one example) they can be reprimanded or face disciplinary action at certain medical facilities.

How about the fact that ALL vaccines are produced differently, with different ingredients and attenuation solutions. Some are made from animal and insect parts, others from metals, others from fetal or cadaver parts. That is certainly not to claim that "vaccines" are bad, but that not everyone will react to vaccines which are ALL made and contain DIFFERENT materials.

The simple fact is that In less than 30 years we have had a minimum 312% increase in childhood vaccinations. Autism rates have gone up just a hair under 300%, again according to the CDC. We read those two numbers clear as day, but we are not allowed to look at vaccines as a possible cause? Are you kidding me?

And you moderators censoring should be ashamed of yourselves!

And you are exactly right. The OP does have one reasonable point in his post - now that we've knocked out the 'big' childhood infectious diseases (measles, mumps, rubella, polio, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and haemophilus) through vaccinations, we are working on immunizations where the cost - benefit ratio is much less clear.

Hepatitis B, Varicella (Chicken pox), pneumococcus, rotovirus and Hepatitis A are all safe and effective. Whether or not they need to be given to everyone is an interesting question. Hepatitis B is certainly reasonable for persons living in areas where the virus is endemic (South Asia in particular) and is reasonable for persons who plan on being drug addicts or health care workers. The problem is that most people who end up in the former life style aren't the type to seek medical attention early on. Varicella immunization, as you point out, wanes after a decade or so (as does tetanus, diphtheria and especially pertussis) and chicken pox is a largely benign illness (although complications do occur). The pediatric community has decided that a nuanced approach to this won't work so it's "everybody gets everything all of the time".

This appears to be pretty safe (again, the number of distinct antigens in all vaccines is dwarfed by the number of different proteins presented to your immune system every time you go out in a crowd) but there are theoretical concerns. You can make the argument that antigens presented by a vaccine are qualitatively different from your garden variety protein. You can also note that autoimmune diseases (where the body overreacts to antigens) is common, sometimes severe and undoubtedly increasing in the Western world. Thus, one can be concerned that pissing off the immune system could cause problems.

It, however, has never been demonstrated that vaccines are causally related to any autoimmune phenomenon or disease.

So, in the best of all worlds, one would have an informed discussion about the risks and benefits of all 14 recommended vaccines. Which would take a couple of hours. Which, of course, doesn't happen.

"Chicken Pox for adults is known as Shingles which is far nastier than Chicken Pox"

Wrong to an extreme.

Shingles is a resurgence of the virus which causes chicken pox. Once you get chicken pox, the virus is dormant in your body, your immune system continues to fight it. When your immune system is weakened, you get shingles.

Vaccination against chicken pox not only reduces chicken pox, but never being infected with the wild strain of chicken pox reduces the probability of contracting shingles when older:

" the risk of getting shingles from vaccine-strain VZV after chickenpox vaccination is much lower than getting shingles after natural infection with wild-type VZV" http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/varicella/

The mortality rate of the vaccine according to the CDC is 1 in 30,000. (The actual wording on the CDC site is that 2 out of 15,000 will have extremely severe reactions to the vaccine, and 1 of those will be fatal.

You are completely full of shit. From the CDC site:

• Serious health problems after (Varicella (Chicken Pox) vaccination are extremely rare. Only a few have been confirmed by lab testing as due to vaccine-strain VZV, including:
  • pneumonia,
  • hepatitis,
  • severe rash, and
  • shingles with meningitis.
• Some children who had these serious health problems after vaccination had weakened immune systems before they were vaccinated, but they had not been diagnosed by a doctor at the time of vaccination.
• Other serious health events after vaccination have been reported, such as thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), acute cerebellar ataxia (brain injury that leads to balance problems), and acute hemiparesis (paralysis on part the body). It is not known if these were caused by the vaccine. Lab testing was either not done or did not confirm if the health effects were caused by vaccine-strain virus.

I await your retraction before calling you out as a shill.

According to PEW Research, there are approximately 300 million guns in the US. Almost 40% of Americans claim to own guns. According to the CDC, there were 11,000 deaths by firearms in 2013. According to Wikipedia, there were 33,000 traffic fatalities in the US in 2011. It sounds to me like vehicles are far more dangerous than firearms are.

I'm not trying to say that firearms are more useful than vehicles, but I think you'll find that you can save more lives by making the roads safer than you can by repealing the 2nd amendment.

Your reasoning is flawed on two grounds.

First, there's the idea that efforts are not being made to make the roads safer. This is untrue. Plenty of effort has been made to reduce the number of traffic fatalities, as you may or may not know, the peak in raw deaths was in the 1970s, and that's not even considering the number of vehicles on the roads.

The second ground is that you're relying on some pretty shoddy numbers for comparison, you didn't even mention the number of vehicles, but more importantly, you didn't mention the exposure level.

How much time does the average American get exposed to automobiles and other vehicles in operation in a single year? How does that compare to guns? I can look around without leaving my house and see a vehicle in use. Many others can say the same. Can they say the same for firearms?

Sure, just try and talk to them about a social contract to reduce the harm that comes from widespread ownership of firearms

According to PEW Research, there are approximately 300 million guns in the US. Almost 40% of Americans claim to own guns. According to the CDC, there were 11,000 deaths by firearms in 2013. According to Wikipedia, there were 33,000 traffic fatalities in the US in 2011. It sounds to me like vehicles are far more dangerous than firearms are.

I'm not trying to say that firearms are more useful than vehicles, but I think you'll find that you can save more lives by making the roads safer than you can by repealing the 2nd amendment.

Cyanide eating bacteria.
Cyanide eating Bamboo Lemurs.

You have a link for that story? Denver has higher radiation levels than cities at sea level, that don't have large uranium deposits around them. Please stop spreading FUD.

Oh, and despite the higher radiation levels, Colorado generally has a lower incidence of cancer than many other states: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc...

So I went to http://www.cdc.gov/violencepre... but nothing on the visible page displayed (AFAICT) a link to the raw data. It did say
"Note: Javascript is disabled or is not supported by your browser. For this reason, some items on this page will be unavailable. For more information about this message, please visit this page: About CDC.gov."
which may explain that. But I don't think I'm going to enable JavaScript.

I was actually hoping for a link, but perhaps they don't have the data in a form accessible without JavaScript.

Additional information, from http://www.cdc.gov/mrsa/tracki... : Studies show that about one in three (33%) people carry staph in their nose, usually without any illness. Two in 100 people carry MRSA. There are not data showing the total number of people who get MRSA skin infections in the community. Additionally, it is particularly a problem in hospitals because of sick people that go through there and the number immunocompromised. As you pointed out, MRSA is actually very similar to Staph aureus. The main place it differs is treatment with antibiotics. Mutations to antibiotics do not make bacteria less susceptible to disinfectants (in fact the mutations may take additional energy, making the bacteria slightly more susceptible). For skin infections, one can potentially get higher local concentrations of topical medications without exposing the whole body to the same concentration (e.g., the use of disinfectants like betadine and chlorhexidine to help treat skin infections). For blood borne infections, I'm sure someone will look at the toxicity in mice; that's part of research. As the article states, they still don't know the mechanism or compounds involved. As medieval people demonstrated, one does not always need to. However, it can be useful for reducing toxicity if needed. Overall, it's an neat article due to the methodology and a fun read. It may go somewhere, but many of these things don't.

I assume this is all actually FB trying to stave off lawsuits, but I don't see that they could do more, nor that they could afford to ignore the issue.

Doubtful, since when have you heard of a social networking site getting sued for failing to prevent a crime by snooping on its users?

Far more likely this is actually a sincere attempt to save lives. The US has 41,000 suicides annually. Assume 50% of those people are on FB, and 10% of those actually post stuff that's a really strong indicators (guesstimates). That would mean that every year there are 2,000 deaths that FB could prevent if they intervened early enough.

The realization you could save thousands of lives isn't something many people would take lightly. True there are some creepy aspects too this project, but if this is effective you have to admit that FB has the opportunity to perform a pretty spectacular amount of good.

Chemical Disinfectants

Alcohol

Overview. In the healthcare setting, "alcohol" refers to two water-soluble chemical compounds—ethyl alcohol and isopropyl alcohol—that have generally underrated germicidal characteristics 482. FDA has not cleared any liquid chemical sterilant or high-level disinfectant with alcohol as the main active ingredient. These alcohols are rapidly bactericidal rather than bacteriostatic against vegetative forms of bacteria; they also are tuberculocidal, fungicidal, and virucidal but do not destroy bacterial spores. Their -cidal activity drops sharply when diluted below 50% concentration, and the optimum bactericidal concentration is 60%–90% solutions in water (volume/volume)

http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/disi...

Keep in mind that alcohol is a disinfectant however it is not an effective sterilizing agent as some things can survive. Alcohol is not very effective against bacterial spores. Sterilization implies that there is no living organism left whereas disinfection eliminates or reduces the harmful organisms present.

".... every single day there is at least one innocent child in this county who is shot as a direct result of an irresponsible owner."

I assume you're talking about "irresponsible" but otherwise law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
What's your definition of "child"? Anti-gun groups will frequently define anyone under 21 as a "child" to pad their data. As if an 18 year old gang-banger is a "child".

Let's suppose anyone under 14 y/o is a "child", which makes it convenient to analyze CDC data:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...

For 2013. Deaths by accidental discharge of firearms:

Age : Number
0- 1 : 3
1-4 : 27
5-14 : 39

Doesn't exactly square with one "every day" and I think that even age '14' is a bit of a stretch in defining a "child".

Companies are tracking you. Period. Whatever you do, on whatever site. That site and its partners are tracking you — as much as you can be identified, that is. And before you blame "KKKorporations", ask yourself, why a page like this has elements from AddThis and Google Analytics...

AdBlock to the rescue. Sort of.

...spending billions of dollars so Gay Boys can fuck each other up the ass with impunity.

you are severely overestimating the ability of an educational system

Negative. I your are underestimating the desire for the common person to be stupid. For a long time modern education has been designed to neuter the brightest minds and indoctrinate the rest. It's just more apparent now. Ever wondered why it's so common for "bright kids" to flunk out? No one's trying to fix that, it's how "normalizing" education is supposed to work; Bring everyone down to a common denominator so they can be "equal", interchangeably so. Check your "intelligence privilege" -- ugh -- "Everyone's a winner", because competition is an evil "masculine" trait, thus no one should be exceptional (or male, for that matter; Men being the only threat to any ideology, must be sufficiently cowed and shamed). That's what your education system is teaching kids of all ages today. It's literally retardation by design.

About those vaccinations... That's mostly just a money grab, mandating them is primarily just government pork. Remember the outbreak of measles? Did you know it was vaccinated people getting sick too? So, how important are vaccinations that don't even work? Oh, the virus "drifted", eh? Yeah, they all do, every last one. Not saying that no vaccination is worthwhile, just that if you look at the facts, they're far less effective than morons like you (that don't do any research) have been led to believe. Sadly, you're the very same sort that can't be educated because you're so easily indoctrinated by "science" reported in the news which is naught but propaganda. Hint: Scientists are skeptics. I guess you'll be calling me a "denier" if I question the "science" of man made global warming? Even though I believe it's happening, I don't think it's causing the effects claimed, and it certainly isn't a serious enough problem to engage a heinous eugenic program for systematic population reduction (oh, sorry, that part of the "climate change" propaganda plan hasn't been revealed in the public media just yet).

You don't do fact checking and dismiss folks who do check facts, that's not very smart, eh? Case in point: 9/11 was an inside job, those buildings were obviously demolished; It was so obvious that structural engineers petitioned NY to reinspect every building because no building should come down on itself like that due to a mere plane crashing into it -- They're designed to burn out to a husk and still stand, even in the face of hurricane winds. What were the armed guards doing protecting a 9 month long "elevator modernization" project just prior to the demolition of the towers? Perhaps they were making sure no one saw people weakening the structures and installing micro-aluminum thermite charges for quiet (but expensive) demolition (patented in 1984)? You can see molten steel pouring from the buildings. Jet fuel and building material doesn't burn hot enough to do that, and that's why nearby vehicles had melted bumpers and the wreckage contained melted steel; That's why folks near the buildings said they heard a second detonation; Ever wonder why the wrong type of plane engine was "found" at the scene? Have you even watched any of the videos of the towers falling straight down into themselves -- not falling over the least bit... not once but twice? Terrorists just beat lottery level odds, twice? Nope, but you aren't supposed to think for yourself, you aren't supposed to go verify any claims yourself, you're supposed to be a good little shitizen and believe the lies media tells you. The average slashdaughter couldn't be fucked to do any fact checking. You're all conditioned to dismiss what doesn't fit the propaganda's narrative, yes, even you, and that conditioning starts in school.

So, now, if 9/11 were a ploy to start a war, wouldn't it make more sen

It makes a good preservative, and it tested as safe - but since it became controversial, manufacturers have indeed mostly phased it out, as a further precaution.