Wrong. There are plenty of published and peer reviewed studies that do show injury, such as adjuvant induced autoimmune diseases. There are also issues of ineffectiveness, bad batches, etc. and things like serotype replacement where bugs mutate into something even worse. We know of several events in history where vaccines HAVE directly caused harm, such as the polio outbreak in Nigeria that was directly caused by the oral polio vaccine and the swine flu vaccine that caused GBS. It's also a widely accepted fact that for a very small portion of population, there will be significant adverse reaction. It's not universal that all vaccines are good, safe and infallible; you can't lump them all together in one basket.
Now, I'm definitely not arguing that all vaccines are ineffective either and agree the anti-vax crew do have a lot of crazy theories that are unproven or anecdotal (including some comments made by the OP). But on both sides of the vaccine debate there is a lot of misinformation. And the problem IMO is that there should be NO area of science where we're not constantly evaluating, but for some reason, this is one of the only areas where questions do not seem to be allowed. Instead of people showing why you're wrong, they yell at you for even asking questions. I've experienced this firsthand on many occasions.
You knew by posting this here you were going to get slammed, right? When it comes to vaccines, the scientific minded community does not allow any room for criticism, doubt or deviation from their position that all vaccines are a godsend and beyond reproach. Doubts and skepticism are at the core of the scientific movement-- except when it comes to this issue. Instead you're just called a conspiracy theorist and a nut.
I also had red hair when young, red/brown now. Something similar happened to me as well, woke up early from my tonsillectomy surgery when I was in HS and the nurse ran in and was saying I wasn't meant to be awake yet, gave me some morphine quickly. Not fun.
And I've had the same issue with dental work. Whenever possible, e.g, small fillings,I now go without anesthetic. Because if it's going to hurt anyway, why bother with the numbing in the first place. I can handle intense pain for a short duration, and it saves all the time having to wait for it to wear off. The dentist I have now has hesitantly complied, says it unnerves him to know I am feeling everything. I can tell a difference in how he works when I am numbed versus not.
Do you also have issues with some pain relievers not working, or wearing off almost instantly? I can find some relief from ibuprofen, but acetaminophen is useless.
I understand your point, but I think you're underestimating the impact of grain fed to animals. I'm more likely to trust info with a credible source, like the reports put out by the UN
I really think the 90% number is inaccurate. That is true in part, but it's certainly not a universal truth, definitely not for all animal types. Here in the midwest US 99% of hogs are kept in confinements and fed grain.Cattle, many of those used for beef are grazed, but not all, and dairy cows are fed indoors, mostly hay or silage plus grain. Poultry animals, again mostly if not all, grain. Come see the volume of corn that is grown that is not designed for human consumption-- millions of acres grown across several states, elevators full of it.
I'll admit I don't know anything about Righthaven, had to look them up, but I'm wondering why they would ask for (or have any hope of getting) control of the web site? The statutory damages and removal of infringing content I can understand, but why would they possibly get control over something due to copyright infringement, especially for content they don't own? Are they filing at the request of the News Media Group?
Our soon-to-be-4yo has gcompris, firefox, abiword and an icon to get to the the network drive where all his media is stored. In FF, we've set it up with bookmarks toolbar that shows his favorite web sites - pbskids.org, starfall.com, cbeebies.co.uk, etc. It seems to work well for him. Gcompris really ramped up his mousing skills quickly, and now he's learned how the arrow keys work so can play pretty much any of the games on those sites without help. In addition to games you can also watch videos, print things out, etc.- enough to keep a kid busy for hours if they're interested. He also loves to type in abiword, then delete it all and start again.
I'm guessing this point in particular - "Share revenue from relevant InVideo ads overlaid on your videos and banner ads running next to your videos to earn money"
The odds of transmitting the virus after receiving the nasal spray are about 2.5 percent.
I totally agree that if you're planning to get vaccinated that waiting a week or two for the shot is a better option. From what I've read most hospitals are having their staff vaccinated against the seasonal flu now, and they have a few more weeks to get the H1N1 vax, so most if not all should be able to wait and avoid the mist.
It is our responsibility as parents to look after our children, not the medical establishment or the state. The responsibility of officials, doctors, etc. is to look after public health as a whole. They realize that there will be collateral damage and that some number of adverse events is guaranteed to happen as the number of people inoculated grows, but they believe it's worth it for the public good. It may be a selfish perspective, but in this case I am solely looking at what's best for my child.
It's up to the parent to weigh the risk vs. benefit and make a decision for the child until they are old enough to do that for themselves, same way as you make that call for yourself. In this case, I have looked at the risk of getting the nasal spray/shot for my son and in his age group 4.2% were hospitalized from the vaccine. Also in his age group, 4.5% have been hospitalized from the flu, with the majority of those being children with underlying conditions. Looking at those statistics, along with other collective information about what's in the shots, adverse effects reported, etc. as well as current information on how prevalent flu is in our area, reports on cause of death, etc. I have decided that at this point the risk does not outweigh the benefit he would receive. (This is all based on information from the CDC and the manufacturers of the vaccines, not from any site like whale.to.) Now, this decision is not set in stone and could change at any time, as the situation evolves every day! I am not patently anti-vaccine; a different decision is made for each one available.
As to bias, the medical professionals have an obvious bias too and many of them are similarly ignorant on the subject matter. They may know that statistically vaccines are a net positive, but know little of this particular shot. Because they are busy with the day to day work, they don't have time to read up on the latest information available (or even read the package insert) and are pressured by outside influence such as their employers, the government, media, etc.
IMO health care professionals as a group often think that they know what's best and don't remember that they are in a service position. Some people see them as God, but they are really just trained professionals like those in other areas of the economy. Just as you would with other advice you are given, you get to determine whether you want to follow it.
Now granted, this may not be why most people are avoiding the shots for their kids...
They must share a marketing firm with The Hut (formerly know as Pizza Hut). God forbid you give somebody an idea what you sell at your store, even if it's not the only thing you sell.
Ok, I'm a geek and I love to have the Internet wherever I am but why in the kitchen?
Because in many households with families the kitchen is the hub of the house. They spend a lot of their time hanging out there, ie: kids do their homework while mom makes dinner.
Also, some people have their computer in this area because it's not a comfy place to hang out and veg all night watching DVDs, surfing or playing games, but rather a productive place to do homework, pay bills, etc. And for younger kids using computers, a place where their usage can always be monitored to some extent.
According to a BBC article today, so far they'll be digitizing the full libraries of Michigan and Stanford universities, as well as archives at Harvard, Oxford and the New York Public Library.
Some of the places are limiting their participation to just certain collections though.
According to a BBC story, so far it will be the full libraries of Michigan and Stanford universities, as well as archives at Harvard, Oxford and the New York Public Library.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4094271.st m
Peroutka was unable to attend the Miami third-party debate due to a scheduled event in Utah, but he was invited and will be at future third party debates.
Unfortunately in my state, you're not allowed to work at the polls if you are registered with no party - what they consider an independent. And currently you're only allowed to register as an R or D (or N, for no party), because we didn't have any other parties meet the 2% threshold for a statewide or federal race in 2002. So sorry! All actions would have to be taken remotely, not that I condone such actions anyway.
Jesse won that race almost entirely because of the debates!! He was lucky enough to be let in with 8% of the vote and got incredible mainstream exposure out of the deal. He won the debates hands down for his honesty and straightforward answers to the questions. The debates made all the difference for him, and I think it would do the same for the presidential contenders. http://www.findarticles.com/p/article s/mi_m2519/is _1_20/ai_53889303
Nobody knows who the third party candidates are because there is a virtual media blackout going on. They don't have the money to buy media like the candidates (and the RNC and DNC) spending multiple millions, and they're not getting most of the earned media they should be. They send out press releases, campaign across the country, visiting as many or more places than the major two, and overall do what they can, but the press refuses to cover them. The places they usually get coverage are a few of the small papers that find it notable that they visited. Despite the fact that in some states the third party candidates are polling as high as 5%, take a look at the big time papers. Do a search on the NY Times - there are NO results for most of the candidate's names!! Yet there are whole sections and daily stories on the major two. Have you ever seen a mention of Cobb, Badnarik, Peroutka, etc. on MSN, CNN, or ABC News?? Additionally there are documented examples of shows like O'Reilly refusing to let their guests even mention the third party candidates names, or cancelling on guests when they find out they intend to do so.
As for focusing on local elections, there is a big disagreement in the third parties about this very subject. The argument is that the presidential races get us the maximum exposure, and if they can just get the __% (different in each state) they will have automatic ballot access. In my state, this also allows voters to register with your party name, rather than just as None (Independent). This would mean that instead of spending all our time and money trying to get our candidates on the ballot, we'd be able to refocus those resources on publicity and other efforts.
I've been closely involved with one of the third party campaigns this time around (working for one of the VP candidatess) and what I can tell you is that the system is broken beyond repair. I don't know how it's ever going to be possible to break through at the presidential level and agree that we're probably going to have to change strategies to focus on local elections and build from the ground up.
And the main two are on by default in most cases. They have to meet a set of requirements, but as large as their parties are and with the resources at their disposal, it's hardly a challenge for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. There are plenty of published and peer reviewed studies that do show injury, such as adjuvant induced autoimmune diseases. There are also issues of ineffectiveness, bad batches, etc. and things like serotype replacement where bugs mutate into something even worse. We know of several events in history where vaccines HAVE directly caused harm, such as the polio outbreak in Nigeria that was directly caused by the oral polio vaccine and the swine flu vaccine that caused GBS. It's also a widely accepted fact that for a very small portion of population, there will be significant adverse reaction. It's not universal that all vaccines are good, safe and infallible; you can't lump them all together in one basket.
Now, I'm definitely not arguing that all vaccines are ineffective either and agree the anti-vax crew do have a lot of crazy theories that are unproven or anecdotal (including some comments made by the OP). But on both sides of the vaccine debate there is a lot of misinformation. And the problem IMO is that there should be NO area of science where we're not constantly evaluating, but for some reason, this is one of the only areas where questions do not seem to be allowed. Instead of people showing why you're wrong, they yell at you for even asking questions. I've experienced this firsthand on many occasions.
You knew by posting this here you were going to get slammed, right? When it comes to vaccines, the scientific minded community does not allow any room for criticism, doubt or deviation from their position that all vaccines are a godsend and beyond reproach. Doubts and skepticism are at the core of the scientific movement-- except when it comes to this issue. Instead you're just called a conspiracy theorist and a nut.
I wonder if maybe people can have a latent red head gene that produces the same effects but without the red hair to go with it?
I also had red hair when young, red/brown now. Something similar happened to me as well, woke up early from my tonsillectomy surgery when I was in HS and the nurse ran in and was saying I wasn't meant to be awake yet, gave me some morphine quickly. Not fun.
And I've had the same issue with dental work. Whenever possible, e.g, small fillings,I now go without anesthetic. Because if it's going to hurt anyway, why bother with the numbing in the first place. I can handle intense pain for a short duration, and it saves all the time having to wait for it to wear off. The dentist I have now has hesitantly complied, says it unnerves him to know I am feeling everything. I can tell a difference in how he works when I am numbed versus not.
Do you also have issues with some pain relievers not working, or wearing off almost instantly? I can find some relief from ibuprofen, but acetaminophen is useless.
I understand your point, but I think you're underestimating the impact of grain fed to animals. I'm more likely to trust info with a credible source, like the reports put out by the UN
I really think the 90% number is inaccurate. That is true in part, but it's certainly not a universal truth, definitely not for all animal types. Here in the midwest US 99% of hogs are kept in confinements and fed grain.Cattle, many of those used for beef are grazed, but not all, and dairy cows are fed indoors, mostly hay or silage plus grain. Poultry animals, again mostly if not all, grain. Come see the volume of corn that is grown that is not designed for human consumption-- millions of acres grown across several states, elevators full of it.
I'll admit I don't know anything about Righthaven, had to look them up, but I'm wondering why they would ask for (or have any hope of getting) control of the web site? The statutory damages and removal of infringing content I can understand, but why would they possibly get control over something due to copyright infringement, especially for content they don't own? Are they filing at the request of the News Media Group?
"The viewer renders PDF documents as HTML-based pages"
I hope it does a better job than the PDF viewer built into Google search...
Was the purpose of posting this story solely to give /.ers the chance to attack PETA? That's what all comments seem to revolve around.
FWIW, most vegans and/or animal activists I know hate PETA, myself included. They bring a bad name to a good cause.
Our soon-to-be-4yo has gcompris, firefox, abiword and an icon to get to the the network drive where all his media is stored. In FF, we've set it up with bookmarks toolbar that shows his favorite web sites - pbskids.org, starfall.com, cbeebies.co.uk, etc. It seems to work well for him. Gcompris really ramped up his mousing skills quickly, and now he's learned how the arrow keys work so can play pretty much any of the games on those sites without help. In addition to games you can also watch videos, print things out, etc.- enough to keep a kid busy for hours if they're interested. He also loves to type in abiword, then delete it all and start again.
http://www.youtube.com/t/partnerships_benefits
I'm guessing this point in particular
- "Share revenue from relevant InVideo ads overlaid on your videos and banner ads running next to your videos to earn money"
A lot of the copies on torrent sites ARE filmed in theaters (especially just after release) however definitely not by anyone using a laptop!
For the regular FluMist:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm123743.pdf
"FluMist® recipients should avoid close contact with immunocompromised individuals for at least 21 days."
For the new H1N1 mist, here is the insert:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM182406.pdf
The odds of transmitting the virus after receiving the nasal spray are about 2.5 percent.
I totally agree that if you're planning to get vaccinated that waiting a week or two for the shot is a better option. From what I've read most hospitals are having their staff vaccinated against the seasonal flu now, and they have a few more weeks to get the H1N1 vax, so most if not all should be able to wait and avoid the mist.
It is our responsibility as parents to look after our children, not the medical establishment or the state. The responsibility of officials, doctors, etc. is to look after public health as a whole. They realize that there will be collateral damage and that some number of adverse events is guaranteed to happen as the number of people inoculated grows, but they believe it's worth it for the public good. It may be a selfish perspective, but in this case I am solely looking at what's best for my child.
It's up to the parent to weigh the risk vs. benefit and make a decision for the child until they are old enough to do that for themselves, same way as you make that call for yourself. In this case, I have looked at the risk of getting the nasal spray/shot for my son and in his age group 4.2% were hospitalized from the vaccine. Also in his age group, 4.5% have been hospitalized from the flu, with the majority of those being children with underlying conditions. Looking at those statistics, along with other collective information about what's in the shots, adverse effects reported, etc. as well as current information on how prevalent flu is in our area, reports on cause of death, etc. I have decided that at this point the risk does not outweigh the benefit he would receive. (This is all based on information from the CDC and the manufacturers of the vaccines, not from any site like whale.to.) Now, this decision is not set in stone and could change at any time, as the situation evolves every day! I am not patently anti-vaccine; a different decision is made for each one available.
As to bias, the medical professionals have an obvious bias too and many of them are similarly ignorant on the subject matter. They may know that statistically vaccines are a net positive, but know little of this particular shot. Because they are busy with the day to day work, they don't have time to read up on the latest information available (or even read the package insert) and are pressured by outside influence such as their employers, the government, media, etc.
IMO health care professionals as a group often think that they know what's best and don't remember that they are in a service position. Some people see them as God, but they are really just trained professionals like those in other areas of the economy. Just as you would with other advice you are given, you get to determine whether you want to follow it.
Now granted, this may not be why most people are avoiding the shots for their kids...
They must share a marketing firm with The Hut (formerly know as Pizza Hut). God forbid you give somebody an idea what you sell at your store, even if it's not the only thing you sell.
Not dramas, but try Corner Gas and Little Mosque On The Prairie.
First line of the article:
A U.S teenager has become the first person to be arrested on suspicion of sending unsolicited instant messages--or spim.
Ok, I'm a geek and I love to have the Internet wherever I am but why in the kitchen?
Because in many households with families the kitchen is the hub of the house. They spend a lot of their time hanging out there, ie: kids do their homework while mom makes dinner.
Also, some people have their computer in this area because it's not a comfy place to hang out and veg all night watching DVDs, surfing or playing games, but rather a productive place to do homework, pay bills, etc. And for younger kids using computers, a place where their usage can always be monitored to some extent.
According to a BBC article today, so far they'll be digitizing the full libraries of Michigan and Stanford universities, as well as archives at Harvard, Oxford and the New York Public Library.
Some of the places are limiting their participation to just certain collections though.
According to a BBC story, so far it will be the full libraries of Michigan and Stanford universities, as well as archives at Harvard, Oxford and the New York Public Library.
t m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4094271.s
I think DaveTV will have the advantage, mainly because of the lack of additional hardware needed.
Peroutka was unable to attend the Miami third-party debate due to a scheduled event in Utah, but he was invited and will be at future third party debates.
Unfortunately in my state, you're not allowed to work at the polls if you are registered with no party - what they consider an independent. And currently you're only allowed to register as an R or D (or N, for no party), because we didn't have any other parties meet the 2% threshold for a statewide or federal race in 2002. So sorry! All actions would have to be taken remotely, not that I condone such actions anyway.
Jesse won that race almost entirely because of the debates!! He was lucky enough to be let in with 8% of the vote and got incredible mainstream exposure out of the deal. He won the debates hands down for his honesty and straightforward answers to the questions. The debates made all the difference for him, and I think it would do the same for the presidential contenders.e s/mi_m2519/is _1_20/ai_53889303
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl
Nobody knows who the third party candidates are because there is a virtual media blackout going on. They don't have the money to buy media like the candidates (and the RNC and DNC) spending multiple millions, and they're not getting most of the earned media they should be. They send out press releases, campaign across the country, visiting as many or more places than the major two, and overall do what they can, but the press refuses to cover them. The places they usually get coverage are a few of the small papers that find it notable that they visited. Despite the fact that in some states the third party candidates are polling as high as 5%, take a look at the big time papers. Do a search on the NY Times - there are NO results for most of the candidate's names!! Yet there are whole sections and daily stories on the major two. Have you ever seen a mention of Cobb, Badnarik, Peroutka, etc. on MSN, CNN, or ABC News?? Additionally there are documented examples of shows like O'Reilly refusing to let their guests even mention the third party candidates names, or cancelling on guests when they find out they intend to do so.
As for focusing on local elections, there is a big disagreement in the third parties about this very subject. The argument is that the presidential races get us the maximum exposure, and if they can just get the __% (different in each state) they will have automatic ballot access. In my state, this also allows voters to register with your party name, rather than just as None (Independent). This would mean that instead of spending all our time and money trying to get our candidates on the ballot, we'd be able to refocus those resources on publicity and other efforts.
I've been closely involved with one of the third party campaigns this time around (working for one of the VP candidatess) and what I can tell you is that the system is broken beyond repair. I don't know how it's ever going to be possible to break through at the presidential level and agree that we're probably going to have to change strategies to focus on local elections and build from the ground up.
http://ballot-access.org/
and in more depth by state
http://ballot-access.org/2004/electoral.html
And the main two are on by default in most cases. They have to meet a set of requirements, but as large as their parties are and with the resources at their disposal, it's hardly a challenge for them.
The larger our community grows, the greater likelihood that someone from our group will be affected.