Slashdot Mirror

I'm not saying you should eat stinking fish oil tablets, but them stinking should not affect their effect on the body.

Citation please? What makes you so confident that's true? Fish oil oxidizes easily.

The smell is at least partly due to oxidation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Effects of oxidized fish oil:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (affects lipid profile)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (but does not affect oxidative stress markers)
See also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (fish oil easily oxidized)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

I'm not saying you should eat stinking fish oil tablets, but them stinking should not affect their effect on the body.

Citation please? What makes you so confident that's true? Fish oil oxidizes easily.

The smell is at least partly due to oxidation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Effects of oxidized fish oil:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (affects lipid profile)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (but does not affect oxidative stress markers)
See also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (fish oil easily oxidized)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

I'm not saying you should eat stinking fish oil tablets, but them stinking should not affect their effect on the body.

Citation please? What makes you so confident that's true? Fish oil oxidizes easily.

The smell is at least partly due to oxidation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Effects of oxidized fish oil:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (affects lipid profile)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (but does not affect oxidative stress markers)
See also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... (fish oil easily oxidized)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

You may be interested in publications such as this: "An ecological study of tuberculosis transmission in California." If you're going to question the veracity of a statement, you should invest some effort into fact-finding on your own. The referenced publication is one of many you can find without much trouble.

From your link: "cowpox bears no analogy to smallpox." Cowpox and smallpox viruses are very similar, assigned to the same viral genus. We have sequenced the entire genome of each and their close relationship is undeniable. Here's an article for exampleAnalysis of the complete genome of smallpox variola major virus strain Bangladesh-1975. From the abstract: "Most of the virus proteins correspond to proteins in current databases, including 150 proteins that have > 90% identity to major gene products encoded by vaccinia virus, the smallpox vaccine." I'm sure if I spent more than 10 seconds on google I could find a lot more.

This is really interesting and exciting work. In 2010, we showed that nearly this exact algorithm is used by neonates (newborns) to govern their visual attention and eye movements, and it explains much of what we know about newborn visual attention. It's exciting to see that when you essentially parallelize the algorithm with multiple agents that are aware of each other, it becomes an extremely efficient algorithm for resource collection in a completely different field/task. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Citation needed.

I just looked for a minute and found This NIMH study. If you look at the percentages per year they are astonishingly high. 9% of people in any particular year just for mood disorders, and that's just the first on the list. Then they go down the list of other disorders. The implication is that everyone suffers some incident of mental illness in their lives. And given the number of psychiatrists, psychologists, and lay practitioners in practice, it seems like much of the population try to get help at times, if only from their priest or school guidance counselor.

You are not a rock. Can you honestly tell me that you haven't ever suffeed a moment of irrationality?

FWIW, they apparently have a paper and a website...

As I understand it, although many previous hemoglobin substitutes have been tried and tested, the hemoglobin tends to eventually becomes toxic. Their new approach is to re-engineer the hemoglobin molecule to attach tyrosine which apparently has the effect of allowing some natural cleaning processes in the blood to reduce toxic build up before it gets to bad (in theory)...

Of course they'll have to test it eventually. Hopefully it won't be a *opt-out* processes the way they attempted to test Polyheme (an earlier effort by Northfield labs). To opt-out, of the Polyheme trial, you had to pre-order a bracelet and *wear-it-all-the-time* to prevent being randomly given Polyheme instead of blood as part of your emergency treatment by a hospital participating in that trial.

Perhaps if we can dump the Ruskies...

Actually, when it comes to the ISS, the "ruskies" might decide to dump the US first (at least the Russians claim that, "The Russian segment can exist independently from the American one. The U.S. one cannot."). Apparently Russia has already "banned" the US from using their RD-180 engines which power the Atlas V rockets used to launch our military satellites as a consequence of this Ukraine tiff...

Perhaps you are unaware of how much regression has occurred the US space program. You talk about the science of space travel from a knowledge point of view, but that is currently a moot problem from the US point of view, we don't have launchers at the moment. If you are in a hurry, you might have better luck if you direct your scientific requests to Roscosmos... Maybe the "ruskies" can dump the US from the ISS and build the centrifuge you seek...

While you're at it, you can probably look into this study of circadian rhythms on MIR cosmonauts

That's like telling Muslims that it's their responsibility for policing terrorists. Thinking like yours is what led to internment camps for Japanese and German American citizens.

Also: what proof do you even have that kick6's friends are raping or assaulting women?

When are you going to ask women to police their female friends about domestic violence? Study after study shows that women are equally as physically aggressive, or moreso, than the men in their relationships.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert...

Want an even more authentic source? The CDC provides that.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

You don't even want to know what the stats are for lesbian partner violence.

Its not the job of any third level course to teach basic spelling and grammar to anyone, or it shouldn't be. That's a failure of primary and secondary education.

Or: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disor...
Which I have. I spent years in handwriting classes. Thank god computers came along. Those classes didn't help at all. I can't even read my own handwriting.

Homophone mistakes are my biggest problem, followed closely by just general spelling. I literally don't even see what I'm typing. I think "Write" and a word pops out on the screen which my brain sees and it sounds correct so on I go. But spellcheck helps immensely (again, thank god for computers) Though I love Firefox which has about the worst spellcheck I've ever seen. I've been thinking of switching for that very reason.

And for the record, I nearly got my degree in English. I was getting very good grades before I switched focus so I could, you know, actually get a job. Granted my professors were all aware of my problems and I got a bit of a pass in that regard. I'll admit, had I finished I'd have definitely needed a very good editor :-)

The biggest problem with MDMA is toxicity. It's highly excitotoxic, among other things: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... It's ability to cause depencency has not been as well studied, but stimulants in general are addictive (including legal prescription ones like Adderall and Ritalin). The fleeting nature of any benefit, as http://science.slashdot.org/co... notes, makes this not worth it given permanent nature of the neurotoxic effects. If you've got to do something, stick with psychedelics--generally non-addictive, low toxicity, and bad reactions are rare and generally limited in scope (unless, you know, you jump out of a window or something).

The biggest problem with MDMA is toxicity. It's highly excitotoxic, among other things: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... It's ability to cause depencency has not been as well studied, but stimulants in general are addictive (including legal prescription ones like Adderall and Ritalin). The fleeting nature of any benefit, as http://science.slashdot.org/co... notes, makes this not worth it given permanent nature of the neurotoxic effects. If you've got to do something, stick with psychedelics--generally non-addictive, low toxicity, and bad reactions are rare and generally limited in scope (unless, you know, you jump out of a window or something).

Should DNA sequencers contain hashes of the DNA of virulent organisms so they can call the NSA/CIA/SAS/UN/boy scouts when they are being used for possible bioweapon related work? (Hopefully they don't rain hellfires on the CDC.)

Some people have indeed suggested that both DNA synthesizers (which write the sequence) and DNA sequencers (which read it) should have such safeguards:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

At least some companies that synthesize custom DNA commercially already have pathogen sequence screening in place, but this doesn't seem to be universal or necessarily effective. A few years ago The Guardian had a (small, defective) fragment of the smallpox virus genome synthesized without setting off any alarms, and wrote a rather hyped-up article about it:

http://www.nature.com/news/200...

Practically, this sort of thing is always going to be hard to police, much like the situation with 3D weapon printing - e.g., a terrorist could always use older technology that lacks the safeguards. On the other hand, assembling a dangerous microorganism from the genome up is hardly the most cost-effective way of causing mayhem - you'd need a proper, well-equipped lab and a terrorist cell of trained scientists to carry out your evil schemes.

I guess you missed this article from two days ago, then? (The classic "mystery" in neural nets is how they distribute weights during learning, the answer to which is "rarely better than a human would, and according to the algorithm they train by.") I know you saw this one; you commented on it. Or perhaps you were talking about computer-automated proofs? Those aren't sophisticated, merely long-winded; the result of applying simple propositional logic over and over again.

If we had algorithms that were actually capable of exceeding human comprehension in a meaningful way—and not just outpacing or outlasting us at regression and tree search—the world would be a much different and more exciting place. It is very unlikely we will have AGI until the human brain is almost fully understood, simply because we don't know what direction we really need to be pushing in. Given that there's now evidence that the brain's neurons could be DNA computers, that definitely has a long way to go.

" bacteria growing in it within a week due to the ethanol being a great thriving place for it."

You apparently don't know biology either. In "the real world" alcohol is actually used as an antiseptic (ie a compound which KILLS various microbes) From 12 year old bottles of scotch, to vodka, wine, and even that sterilizing cotton swab the doc uses before a shot, ethanol kills bugs dead.

Maybe you're thinking of diesel fuel or even gasoline - which can host notable bacterial colonies?

Oh yea? Microbial contamination of fuel ethanol fermentations
Ethanol-loving bacteria accelerate cracking of pipeline steels Plus what the guy with the motorcycle upthread is complaining about.

I came to post something along the same lines as well, it's a shame to have to scroll so far down for a decent answer to the actual question. I'm not sure if this is the same technology, but I've seen something like this demonstrated: http://www.gizmag.com/ibrain-stephen-hawking-communicate-brainwaves/23182/

What I saw (a few years back) looked like a Sharper Image gadget that wrapped around the base of the neck that intercepted speech on the way from the brain, and without the person having to say a thing, could play the words aloud over a speaker. I can't find that exact thing for the life of me, but this technology may be related: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21750369

In the case that she is unable to stimulate whatever nerves allow these systems to work, I would look into any sort of interaction she can do which is not tiring, as any movement that could suffice simply to correlate 0 or 1 could allow her to interact with an electronic interface, similar to Stephen Hawking's screen but possibly simplified further, even if it's simply "next letter" or "this letter" she would be able to start words from an alphabetical listing, and like auto-complete on a smartphone it may not take too long to narrow down the word she wants to use.

This must be devastating for your whole family, but her retention of higher brain function is a tremendous boon and with time she may be able to interact with you somewhat normally once again. I hope for the best for you.

Yes, good points about the importance of good nutrition for recovery (although now might not be the best time to focus on cleaning out sequestered toxins, although a good long-term goal). Most mainstream medicine pays at best lip service to nutrition. Omega 3 fatty acids might help rebuild the brain, given the brain is mostly fat. Eggs have some as you say, but there are probably better choices. This is worthy of lot of further research to learn all that is needed. Don't count on a typical MD including even a brain specialist to know much about this.

Bear in mind there are different kinds of strokes which might need somewhat different nutrition depending on the causes and other complications. Specifically, clogged arteries causing one kind of stroke probably need a somewhat different approach than rebuilding damaged arteries that caused a different kind of bleeding stroke, since there is a balance of processes going on to strengthen or tear down the walls of arteries. But in either case, the body can't do the right thing without the needed building blocks and the control of inflammation caused by poor nutrition.

Places to start from my searching just now, but do a lot of research yourself (a long path for most US Americans to learn about eating healthy despite all the misinformaiton out there...):
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/...
(Different stroke type, but maybe some overlap:) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.stroke.org/site/Doc...
http://www.strokeassociation.o...

Other things can help too to reduce inflammation and then physical therapy: http://healyourbrain.wordpress...

Check her vitamin D level regularly as that is involved with inflammation management. Here is a good standard to work towards:
http://www.grassrootshealth.ne...

I've posted lots of other general nutrition links in the past, especially by Dr. Fuhrman. But again do your own research on what is best since a lot of his general diet advice is more for people with clogged arteries and at risk of ischemic stroke than for those with weakened arteries as he focuses on salt-restriction instead to minimize the risk of hemorrhagic stroke. There are processes in the body that both tear down and build up arteries, and they probably must be kept in balance to avoid both kinds of strokes, even though most US Americans are far more at risk of strokes from clogged arteries of the building up process going too far (from both inflammation and bad fats). Links about stroke from him though:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/disea...
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...
http://www.diseaseproof.com/ar...

I see a whole bunch of books on Amazon on "Stroke Recovery". Probably all sorts of good stuff there.

I agree with Richo's comment here that it is too soon to focus on fancy communications gear and you need to focus on just the basics (like yes. no, pain, thirsty, etc.):
http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

That said, here is what Hawking uses:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-...

Also other tools discussed previously on Slashdot may be helpful in the long term:

There are still several other top causes of death to tackle. Cancer (#2) is a good one, and it's only barely behind heart disease.

For comparison, 9/11 would have to happen once a month to crack the top 10 and weekly to hit the top 5.

The only energy that has "gone into preserving them" is the energy wasted when they mutate and result in a lifeform that doesn't survive long enough to reproduce.

Incorrect. Every day, your body corrects fifty quadrillion or more DNA mutations that happen as the result of random bumping around inside the cell. See, for example DNA Repair. 5000 purine bases lost every day from every cell in the human body that have to be repaired, and that's only one type of mutation which has to be constantly corrected.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
'blocking facial afference with botox selectively slows comprehension of emotional sentences. Therefore, theories of cognition should account for emotion-language interactions above the level of explicit emotion words, and the role of peripheral feedback in comprehension. '

Refuted here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

BMI is not perfect. However, unless you are a weightlifter or outrageously fit (not just "skinny fit", but bulging muscles) it's a pretty good indicator.

No it is NOT. SERIOUSLY. It is absolutely NOT a good indicator.

See, for example, this actual study on correlation between BMI and obesity measured by bodyfat percentage. The main finding, according to the study: "A BMI >= 30 had ... a poor sensitivity (36% and 49 % [in men and women], respectively) to detect [Body-fat %]-defined obesity."

In other words, the current BMI cut-off of 30 only correctly identifies 36% of male obese people correctly, and only 49% of females. Does that sound like a "pretty good indicator" to you?

Now, most of the error here is actually underreporting obesity. So, you might say, let's decrease the threshold. But again, from the study: "Decreasing the BMI cut-off for obesity to >= 25 kg/m2 for instance, will still result in misclassifying as obese 38% of men and 16% of women."

In other words, if we lower the BMI threshold enough to capture more than 90% of obese people, we end up misdiagnosing about 1/3 of them as obese. The article summarizes these problems:

The implications of mislabeling patients are not trivial. By using BMI as a marker of obesity, we misclassify >= 50% of patients with excess body fat as being normal or just overweight and we miss the opportunity to intervene and reduce health risk in such individuals. Conversely, BMI may lead to misclassification of persons with normal levels of fat as being overweight...

In other words, BMI is a TERRIBLE indicator of actual obesity. It ends up massively underreporting actual obesity, but it misclassifies a similarly large number as "overweight" even when those pounds represent extra muscle mass or other things unlikely to lead to health problems.

Seriously. People need to stop saying "Yeah, BMI's okay for most people." It is NOT okay. We need to stop using it, if we want to be accurate in classifying obesity.

BMI gives some rough, useful information and correlates decently with obesity:

http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detai...

It is known that for tall people, BMI overestimates obesity, but that just knocks you down from a BMI of about 28.3 to 27.3, still way too high.

http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/t...

You're not obese, but you are almost certainly overweight, since you are not a body builder.

That's not a judgment, it just should encourage you to get your actual body fat measured (a few dollars for calipers), and then take steps to get it down to some reasonable level. You should aim for less than 20% (you're probably somewhere around 25%). Also have regular physicals and check your blood pressure.

It can falsely flag you as overweight, but if it marks you obese you have a serious problems.

It depends. Overweight seems to be very healthy and results in a quite significant reduction of mortality. Obesity class I (BMI 30-35) seems to still provide a slightly lower mortality than normal weight. "BMI and mortality: results from a national longitudinal study of Canadian adults." So do you also consider normal weight to be a serious problem?

A recent study of elderly who lived past 80 (was on 60 minutes) indicated that being a bit overweight (not obese) as you get older tends to protect you from a wide range of old age diseases and results in longer life.

Too much negativity, the little silly faggots out there are trying to hide the deranging truth with minuses, it would appear. (Do you understand, O brainless faggot or, rather, let me call you "Colorectal Cancer", that by minusing this here post you, CC, will only augment the likelihood of what it says?). Faggots must be stopped (killed), they're pedophiles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

It can falsely flag you as overweight, but if it marks you obese you have a serious problems.

It depends. Overweight seems to be very healthy and results in a quite significant reduction of mortality. Obesity class I (BMI 30-35) seems to still provide a slightly lower mortality than normal weight. "BMI and mortality: results from a national longitudinal study of Canadian adults." So do you also consider normal weight to be a serious problem?

You think they didn't have sugar, fatty foods and exercising decades ago?

They did, but now it is in every thing you eat. Because we love the taste of fat and sugar.

Instead of a special occasion of the day when you eat sugar, it is eaten routinely. That is what is new.

For instance, replacing a piece of bread with a thin layer of bread and jam in the morning with a muffin (so essentially eating cake for breakfast).
Drinks also have vast amounts of sugar in them. A typical Starbucks coffee contains tons of fat and sugar to make it tastier, whereas black coffee does not.

Animals are getting fatter too though. link, link paper

More data: Haplotype "KL-VS" refers to the V and S alleles of the SNPs respectively. It contains six sequence variants in complete linkage disequilibrium, two of which result in amino acid substitutions F352V (rs9536314) and C370S (rs9527025, not on 23andme btw). It is present in 15% of Caucasians.

More data: Haplotype "KL-VS" refers to the V and S alleles of the SNPs respectively. It contains six sequence variants in complete linkage disequilibrium, two of which result in amino acid substitutions F352V (rs9536314) and C370S (rs9527025, not on 23andme btw). It is present in 15% of Caucasians.

Yeah, that sounds about right:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
a paper found by a google search on amonia regulation in the body. It mentions that amonia is important for creating "hepatic coma" and high amonia levels are correlated to "meat intoxication".

It's interesting that the symptoms sounds remarkably similar to the dementia old people often get. I wonder if one could treat exess amonia with dialysis?

Taxpayers in the United States spend $139 billion a year on scientific research, yet much of this research is inaccessible not only to the public

The largest - by dollar amount - government funding agency is The National Institutes of Health (NIH). For some time now they have required that research they fund is published in publicly-accessible ways. This means that all new grants they have handed out have been required to make their published results viewable by anyone, from anywhere.

Similarly, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is planning to go the same way very soon.

So while the for-profit publishing model is generally bad, it is being chipped away at. And with each passing year, more of what taxpayers fund is made publicly accessible immediately; we are already at the point where only the oldest and longest-running NIH grants (and there aren't many left as very few grants go more than 5 years) are exempt from this policy.

Taxpayers in the United States spend $139 billion a year on scientific research, yet much of this research is inaccessible not only to the public

The largest - by dollar amount - government funding agency is The National Institutes of Health (NIH). For some time now they have required that research they fund is published in publicly-accessible ways. This means that all new grants they have handed out have been required to make their published results viewable by anyone, from anywhere.

Similarly, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is planning to go the same way very soon.

So while the for-profit publishing model is generally bad, it is being chipped away at. And with each passing year, more of what taxpayers fund is made publicly accessible immediately; we are already at the point where only the oldest and longest-running NIH grants (and there aren't many left as very few grants go more than 5 years) are exempt from this policy.

It's not just humans. You may find this interesting to read, as well as this. Male fish are definitely not supposed to have female characteristics.

Oh really?

The NIH disagrees with you, and I would trust them a little more than a random internet commenter. Oh and the fact that I have been getting B12 from supplements for years with no ill effect, thanks.

"The Rat Grimace Scale: A partially automated method for quantifying pain in the laboratory rat via facial expressions" http://www.molecularpain.com/c...

Here is another paper where the researches used a patch clamp to interface the spinal cord. (A patch clamp is a very low noise/high gain amplifier that can measure single cell ion channels, etc -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

I wonder what methods are typically used? Do researchers videorecord grimacing rats? That seems rather tedious and subjective.

BPA is harmless. It's toxic at levels far above normal intake and concentration in the blood. BPA-Free polycarbonate now uses BPS, which is exactly as toxic as BPA but leaches at a rate 20 times that of BPA. It breaks the toxicity barrier with gusto, so enjoy your new toxic world.

Water bottles are most often PET or LDPE. These plastics aren't made with BPA or any analog.

It's not just humans. You may find this interesting to read, as well as this. Male fish are definitely not supposed to have female characteristics.

As far as humans are concerned, you may find this an interesting read. It indicates that humans may be more susceptible to such endocrine disruptors (like BPA) than previous studied using rodents initially indicated.

So then we're back to what constitutes good decision-making. Fact: I have no overriding reason why I absolutely must use containers made with BPA. Fact: not only are alternatives to such containers readily available, I also happen to like them better for aesthetic and durability reasons. Conclusion: exposing myself to BPA is an unnecessary risk.

Still, if you think it's harmless you are free to continue using it. At one time people were told (by doctors no less) that cigarettes were beneficial. Now if I had some dire need (as in my life and well-being absolutely depended on it) to use BPA-containing plastics, perhaps I'd take my chances. But I don't.

just because prohibition didn't make the nation go cold turkey, doesn't mean that it had no effect whatsoever. I find it hard to believe that removing easy access to alcohol had no impact whatsoever on the rate of consumption. which is why i did a quick google search and http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10...

which, granted was from 1989, and has some flaws in conclusions drawn. but if its numbers are to be believed prohibition reduced alcohol by any measureable metric. and yeah

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

just because it didn't succeed at its aims, does not mean it was absent accomplishment.

"Social scientists will be able to understand and predict the interactions of people the way physicists understand and predict the interactions of objects."

The fact that this is a century-old Asimovian fantasy that's gone nowhere aside (in the late 80's I was being taught that chaos theory had killed that hope; consider a hundred thousand attempts at predicting the stock market)...

Do social scientists even know how to do math? I was in a scholarly seminar a few weeks ago (the only STEM person in the room, everyone else was social scientists), and was nearly shouted out of the room when I did a spit-take on an sample published paper held up that involved a sample size of 8 sociology students keeping journals for two weeks. One of the other participants said out loud that she had know idea what the point was of another paper because it was quantitative (i.e., involved numbers) instead of qualitative (i.e., subjective opinions by the researcher). As far as I can see recently the whole discipline appears to be a "null field".

Imagine if Philip Morris, BAT etc get into the business.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Imagine if Philip Morris, BAT etc get into the business.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/25/...
http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.a...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Need more? I suggest :
http://goo.gl/CNwr5t

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/25/...
http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.a...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Need more? I suggest :
http://goo.gl/CNwr5t

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/25/...
http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.a...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Need more? I suggest :
http://goo.gl/CNwr5t

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/25/...
http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.a...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Need more? I suggest :
http://goo.gl/CNwr5t

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/25/...
http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.a...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Need more? I suggest :
http://goo.gl/CNwr5t

"Vaccine failures among apparently adequately vaccinated individuals were sources of infection for at least 48 per cent of the cases in the outbreak. " (Am J Public Health. 1987 April; 77(4): 434–438. PMCID: PMC1646939) I think it is interesting that you chose to vilify those who would chose a course of medical action, considering the vaccine itself appears to be failing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

it is treading into the realm where the risk of bad outcome from the disease is about the same as the risk of bad outcome from the cure.

I was listening to an interview with Andrew Wakefield about his discredited study, and he referenced other studies that replicated his research that came to the same conclusion. I set out to find them, but only found studies such as this and this that found no direct causal links between the MMR vaccine and mental illness nor, as a population study, evidence that there was an increase in autism diagonosis after the introduction of the MMR vaccine to the general population in 1971 or an increase of diagonosis after 18 months of age, when the vaccine is administered. I then found a website that cites 28 studies that defend Wakefield's research. However, each one only talks about the underdevelopment of immune systems in children with down syndrome and the dangers of this preexisting condition.

As it turns out, Wakefield was offered a chance to reconduct his research, but he denied it. Every dead end I've reached leads me to believe he made this up. And it's sad the influence that this type of fraud has on people. I understand that you're suspicious; if I were an adult before this study was discredited I would be too. But the burden of proof is on anti-vaxxers and they have none besides residual suspicion from this discredited study.

Vaccines make it so that having the measles is no longer a rite of passage. That alone outweighs the "bad outcome" of unfounded suspicion.

it is treading into the realm where the risk of bad outcome from the disease is about the same as the risk of bad outcome from the cure.

I was listening to an interview with Andrew Wakefield about his discredited study, and he referenced other studies that replicated his research that came to the same conclusion. I set out to find them, but only found studies such as this and this that found no direct causal links between the MMR vaccine and mental illness nor, as a population study, evidence that there was an increase in autism diagonosis after the introduction of the MMR vaccine to the general population in 1971 or an increase of diagonosis after 18 months of age, when the vaccine is administered. I then found a website that cites 28 studies that defend Wakefield's research. However, each one only talks about the underdevelopment of immune systems in children with down syndrome and the dangers of this preexisting condition.

As it turns out, Wakefield was offered a chance to reconduct his research, but he denied it. Every dead end I've reached leads me to believe he made this up. And it's sad the influence that this type of fraud has on people. I understand that you're suspicious; if I were an adult before this study was discredited I would be too. But the burden of proof is on anti-vaxxers and they have none besides residual suspicion from this discredited study.

Vaccines make it so that having the measles is no longer a rite of passage. That alone outweighs the "bad outcome" of unfounded suspicion.

http://news.sciencemag.org/hea...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
http://thebulletin.org/threate...
http://armscontrolcenter.org/E...
http://thebulletin.org/unaccep...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.pathobiologics.org/...
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1...
http://news.sciencemag.org/sit...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/n...