The problem is risk assesment - does any vaccination program evaluate your individual risks (hereditary atypical reaction, longterm gene regulation towards depression, batch contamination, increased tumor risks to name few) against average contagion risk at current time, against death risk from disease? What about silent atypical infections (like atypical rubella among vaccinated population, strain accumulating mutations)? I do WANT to vaccinate, I just find it bit weak if typical approach is that it is for common good and statistically you do not win the anaphylactic shock lottery ever.
Long term changes in gene expression possible depending on the age timing of individual immune system loading. Why this sounds familiar - ah, the individual clinical immunology vs. population wide epidemiological benefits fight again. So, any funding to long term research on synapse remodeling connected to induced immune responses in humans (like 10-15 years) or just continue to let the complement cascade to eat the toddlers bit stupid?
Just a question of drastic vs draconian methods in reducing population resource use. But at least a try in a direction of technological escape velocity - why stop at taste or midgets, lets cluster baby brains on city sized monstrosity roaming around in ocean, feeding on any organic substance. Or better yet - one swift blow to population numbers by...
Considering co-authoring industry and overall dilution of academic education (percentage of people having degree rises steadily), it is perfectly normal and reasonable, given the stagnated education system. I would say that the education system is tuned to train future professors (all other not reaching that status are rejects and do not count much in conjuring the educational policies). If you have other goals, then system is formally too inflexible so you cope with gaming it in all possible ways (and it is half legal already). Lets see if online education forces changes - it is probably disruptive technology and major pressure to universities.
is to extend individual lifetime or mental capacity exponentially (or both). We are running dry of the lifetime of our best minds before more complex subjects can be grasped well enough to make progress. If you can extend the productive age even only to 100-150 years, it would allow multidisciplinary research depth unseen at the moment. All else is secondary... (and direct result of extended individual productive lifetime). I always wonder why most humans quietly cope with aging, truly disturbing cognitive dissonance.
http://www.physorg.com/news127915025.htmlhttp://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a790823168~db=all
Subtle and in long term cumulative gene regulation might give unexpected results, especially considering still partly unclear mechanisms causing autoimmune diseases. The effects are agreeably hard to test if time frame extends to 5-20 years. Also, vaccine boosters might have some immunomodulatory effect on immune processes that occur naturally in subject at time. Combined with endemic virus infections (known correlation with autoimmune diseases like type 1 diabetes) at random times might give range of conditions that are difficult notice statistically. Considering previous, one should do risk evaluation taking into consideration hereditary predisposition, antibody titers, current epidemiologic situation to name few of the aspects... There hardly is yes/no clearly defined options. Movement against vaccination seems to be more like movement against indifferent administration without asking any relevant questions that can be asked to avoid possible complications.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is risk assesment - does any vaccination program evaluate your individual risks (hereditary atypical reaction, longterm gene regulation towards depression, batch contamination, increased tumor risks to name few) against average contagion risk at current time, against death risk from disease? What about silent atypical infections (like atypical rubella among vaccinated population, strain accumulating mutations)? I do WANT to vaccinate, I just find it bit weak if typical approach is that it is for common good and statistically you do not win the anaphylactic shock lottery ever.
Long term changes in gene expression possible depending on the age timing of individual immune system loading. Why this sounds familiar - ah, the individual clinical immunology vs. population wide epidemiological benefits fight again. So, any funding to long term research on synapse remodeling connected to induced immune responses in humans (like 10-15 years) or just continue to let the complement cascade to eat the toddlers bit stupid?
Just a question of drastic vs draconian methods in reducing population resource use. But at least a try in a direction of technological escape velocity - why stop at taste or midgets, lets cluster baby brains on city sized monstrosity roaming around in ocean, feeding on any organic substance. Or better yet - one swift blow to population numbers by...
... my fish from refigerator?
Considering co-authoring industry and overall dilution of academic education (percentage of people having degree rises steadily), it is perfectly normal and reasonable, given the stagnated education system. I would say that the education system is tuned to train future professors (all other not reaching that status are rejects and do not count much in conjuring the educational policies). If you have other goals, then system is formally too inflexible so you cope with gaming it in all possible ways (and it is half legal already). Lets see if online education forces changes - it is probably disruptive technology and major pressure to universities.
is to extend individual lifetime or mental capacity exponentially (or both). We are running dry of the lifetime of our best minds before more complex subjects can be grasped well enough to make progress. If you can extend the productive age even only to 100-150 years, it would allow multidisciplinary research depth unseen at the moment. All else is secondary... (and direct result of extended individual productive lifetime). I always wonder why most humans quietly cope with aging, truly disturbing cognitive dissonance.
DOL: "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that." Dave: "Why not, DOL? What's the problem?"
http://www.physorg.com/news127915025.html http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a790823168~db=all Subtle and in long term cumulative gene regulation might give unexpected results, especially considering still partly unclear mechanisms causing autoimmune diseases. The effects are agreeably hard to test if time frame extends to 5-20 years. Also, vaccine boosters might have some immunomodulatory effect on immune processes that occur naturally in subject at time. Combined with endemic virus infections (known correlation with autoimmune diseases like type 1 diabetes) at random times might give range of conditions that are difficult notice statistically. Considering previous, one should do risk evaluation taking into consideration hereditary predisposition, antibody titers, current epidemiologic situation to name few of the aspects... There hardly is yes/no clearly defined options. Movement against vaccination seems to be more like movement against indifferent administration without asking any relevant questions that can be asked to avoid possible complications.