They may have the data, but as the account is dead the advertisers FB sold it to cannot present their ads to Doofus. His data is worthless if he doesn't log on.
penetration is so high already, how much bigger can it grow?
THey have 500 million users. Estimates put the number of humans on earth at ~7 billion.
By my count, they could grow by another 6.5 billion people.
Since there are between one and two billion computers presently in use on the entire planet, how do you figure? How much of the third world would place Facebook ahead of not being raped or forced to starve to death?
I'm not aware of any reasonable risk that elementary kids are having unprotected sex at school. And yet it is required for entry where I live. There are more...
That's an excellent point. I do hope she's willing to consider the new information in the article. I'd hate to see all the haters in this post and their peers get their way and see her give up.
Scroll up. This entire chain is MY topic. You're all replying to MY statement that she's in a better position to explore this than I am. In fact, you're the one replying to MY post!!!
What kind of insane tactic is that, to enter into a thread and attempt to redefine the topic by say-so alone. Are you actually stating that you, Mister Whirly, have been discussing anything other than JM in this thread with anyone other than me, and that I'm replying in the midst of your conversation?
Note that this is only true from the human's perspective. From the Earth's, it has actually traveled all the way to the other side and back, many times over.
No, I said that if the tiny amount of dead virus in a flu shot overwhelms your immune system, then you have a weak immune system.
Don't fence in the premise so tightly. I never said that 'a tiny amount of dead virus' did or did not do anything. I said the shot did. The shot, clearly and demonstrably, contains more than just that. The fact of the matter is that I simply do not care what part of the act makes me get sick. I can demonstrate that it does. Maybe I'm allergic. Don't care. It does me more harm than good, but no one believes me, due to 'facts' such as what you've presented here. You plug your ears and refuse to listen. Why?
They don't sequester patients in a sterile environment, but if you know anything at all about clinical studies, you know that this is not required to produce significant results, and in fact is a purely arbitrary and imaginary condition concocted because it would support your case.
It's been a while since I was in a science class, but are they filling petri dishes with pond water these days? Because I thought the whole point was to reduce the number of variables. Otherwise we'd just draw all our conclusions from phone surveys or whatnot and needn't bother experimenting at all.
Your point was that the flu shot knocks down your immune system and you aren't strong enough to have resisted secondary infection as a result. I countered that this makes you immunocompromised, because the standard treatment for weak immune systems is a higher dose. The rules are different if you're immunocompromised, and you should talk to a doctor if so.
My point is the damn shot makes me get sick. You're the one adding imaginary criteria to that point. My immunity being reduced is only a single possibility. Perhaps that is easily ruled out, but the over all effect - that I get sick - is not.
We don't know in advance what strains of flu you'll be exposed to, if even any at all
That's the best reason I've heard thus far to not force me to get sick because of that shot.
But the core of your whole argument seems to be that an imperfect vaccine is not better (or possibly even worse) than no vaccine at all. That's simply not true.
It is measurably worse for me. Please do demonstrate how it is not. Please show your work.
We disagree on the level of danger. It is quite dangerous to the profits of drug companies, to be sure, but the danger to children is exaggerated.
Put it this way, is there a greater than 1-in-100 chance of 'danger' due to non-vaccination? Because those are the odds for autism.
Also, and I've said this many times, each vaccine should be weighed individually. Some of them are genuinely not necessary. There exists a conflict of interests which is undeniable. Look at HPV. There's not even any proof that it works, let alone that it should be required.
I'm willing to stipulate that vaccines do not cause autism. I'm not going to defend the opposite position.
However, I'm not willing to stipulate that they are harmless, because they clearly are not.
So, I suggest a balance. Vaccinate only when absolutely necessary and avoid the rest.
ANYWAY, the entire topic of vaccination isn't germane to the topic I presented with my tangent. I find that particular topic really boring. Nobody has any proof either way and no one is EVER moved even an INCH by debating it. I'm not ever even allowed to take a cautionary stance. Unthinking dogma is boring.
So, it is in this light that I disagree with your statement:
She's using her position as a celebrity to give parents harmful advice: "Don't vaccinate."
That's incomplete. The truth of it is closer to this:
She's using her position as a celebrity to share her experiences with treating her son's autism.
You can take or leave each of these findings she shares individually and no one will kill any kittens, I promise.
It seems, though, that most if not all of the posters who have come to reply to my tangent only care about the vaccines. None of you care one whit about that ACTUAL topic here - autism. It isn't like we all woke up one day and decided to launch an attack on big pharma. We're actual people trying to deal with an actual problem. It's real damn easy to sit there and shout down explorations, but are any of you doing anything to solve the problem?
Say what you will about the harm she's causing. You might even be right. But her action is a million times more worthy than your pedantry. She's at least trying to help. You're only trying to make yourself look cool on slashdot.
Again, though, she is researching the problem and taking action, with observable results. This has value, period.
She can try all the wacky experiments she wants, I just want her to stop giving others the impression that vaccinating children isn't a good idea.
That's fine. Say so. What does it have to do with the topic I presented, namely that her looking for solutions and using her means to do so is more likely to achieve a result than my not having the means to do so?
You're focusing on the vaccines, but that is just a tiny piece of it. Her advice is 'do not vaccinate, AND do all these other things as well'. It isn't as if she only stopped vaccinating him and suddenly saw the result. It is a single piece of her opinion, and COULD be rejected individually without burning her as a heretic. I say 'could' because I want to ease you into the concept of having a discussion with nuances in it.
No, I established a tangent in the post above. That's what you're all replying to. I said, and I'll quote it one more time for you guys who aren't paying attention:
If she's able to use that power to explore more solutions to this issue than I am, then why would she be less likely than I am to find a solution?
Her motives got questioned, and I'm refuting the 'she is just an attention whore' claim by pointing out that she loves her son. She wants the problem solved. She doesn't necessarily want all vaccines stopped, but if she can spare another parent her pain with her warning, then she'll damn sure give it.
You don't have to understand. You probably can't. But you may just have to stipulate that she's an interested party actively using her means towards an end that doesn't necessarily involve vaccines.
While you're free to disregard her anecdote, it is still more than YOU personally have done towards finding a cure. I'm more inclined to ask you to butt out. You're just the pundit, adding no value.
Labeling everything a strawman doesn't make one good at argumentation. It's kind of a rookie thing to do, and it is really getting old.
Again, she's done more than bitch about vaccines. Arguably she's done more to try and help her son than anyone else on the planet. Why? Because she loves him and these doctors and whatnot do not. To deny this motivation as a 'strawman' is weak, weak, weak.
If she didn't want to help him could she not just put him in a home?
My point is, she's at least trying. That and she has more means than the rest of us do to experiment. She deserves to share what she's found.
Educate yourself just a tiny bit. Maybe you'll find the maturity enough to say something like, 'while we disagree about vaccines, she has tried to help her son'. Maybe, maybe not.
You're the one with a strawman. You're stating that she's only ever drawn attention to herself. You're denying that she's hired therapists, dietitians, etc ad naseum, in order to find a solution. She submitted the boy to a complete anti-fungal routine. Were you aware of that?
I understand how you feel confident in saying what you're saying, but I'd like you to reflect on the hubris of it. What experiments, involving me, have you conducted to come to this seemingly-scientific conclusion?
If that's the case, then you're in the high risk category, and it's actually quite important for you to get vaccinated, because with that level of sensitivity, an actual infection would probably kill you.
So you're calling me a liar. Fabulous. In point of fact, I'm one of the hardiest people I know. I rarely, if ever, miss work due to illness. I recover very quickly from just about everything but a flu shot. But what would I possibly know about my own experiences? SURELY you know more than I do about my own life. Please go on.
Most doctors use a flu test kit for diagnosis since symptoms alone are not always sufficient.
This is an outright lie. Most, if not all, doctors use the 'sounds like' diagnosis test. As in 'it sounds like you have the flu, go home and rest'. Period, end of story. Never once in the history of my life have I known a single person to report with these symptoms and receive a single test. Not ever. Please don't make crap up about 'most doctors use a flu kit' when it is patently false.
However there are no studies that I'm aware of which provide any significant support for the notion that there is any causal link.
And do you know WHY this is the case? Have you actually looked into it? The actual fact of the matter is, there is no ethical way to conduct a flu shot trial, and it hasn't ever happened. Never once have they vaccinated half of a group of humans and then exposed them to the virus. Further never once have they sequestered a group of humans, gave half the shot, and kept them in a sterile environment to observe the results. All the studies you cite are anecdotal and they can all be obfuscated with the exact same fuzz you're casting here.
Check it out:
A) I get the shot. I get sick. Your claim - I would have gotten sick anyway.
B) I don't get the shot. I get sick. Your claim - I should have gotten the shot.
C) I get the shot. I don't get sick. Your claim - I should be glad I got the shot.
D) I don't get the shot. I don't get sick. Your claim - I just got lucky.
Does any of that sound like actual science to you?
Contrast this, if you can, with this simple statement:
The flu shot makes me sick every time I take it.
Now, please explain to me how I am wrong and how you know everything without conducting a single test or experiment. Please.
Take vaccines. She can elect to not vaccinate her child. Why? Because she doesn't have to send him to public school. Not every parent has this choice.
Also there are therapies, diets, anti-fungal treatments - really quite a variety of things she has tried thus far. None which could I afford to attempt, let alone rule any in or out.
If she were just up on a soap box you might be right. But as it is, in reality, she's practicing what she's preaching and believes it to be helping her son. Therefore, she's qualified to share. Just as you or I would be.
Same as, really. They fake an infection in the same way taking minute quantities of poison can build up an immunity. Doesn't mean you're not drinking poison.
I've already mentioned this to others, so forgive me if it's getting tiresome, but her conclusions aren't limited to vaccines. You do realize this, right? She didn't just say 'no more vaccines and he is fine'. Surely you're not making this claim? You have at least a tiny idea what, other than vaccines, you're talking about, right?
I understand that the shot itself is 'harmless' so I can only assume that this is due to lowered immunity while my body adapts to the foreign organism I've been injected with.
I also always still get some form of flu. It has never, to my knowledge, actually benefited me in any way.
As to herd immunity, I suppose that's sort of a non-topic. Just as you cannot kill me to keep me from making you sick, so can you not forcibly immunize me. Therefore, unless the vaccine is of discernible benefit to me, there goes your hopes of herd immunity. It really is sort of a catch-22, isn't it? If everyone were immunized, would you still need the vaccine? If anyone is not immunized, why are their rights and freedoms superior to those within the herd?
Slashdot Mirror
They may have the data, but as the account is dead the advertisers FB sold it to cannot present their ads to Doofus. His data is worthless if he doesn't log on.
This assumes that he had no Facebook friends.
THey have 500 million users. Estimates put the number of humans on earth at ~7 billion.
By my count, they could grow by another 6.5 billion people.
Since there are between one and two billion computers presently in use on the entire planet, how do you figure? How much of the third world would place Facebook ahead of not being raped or forced to starve to death?
Hep B?
I'm not aware of any reasonable risk that elementary kids are having unprotected sex at school. And yet it is required for entry where I live. There are more...
That's an excellent point. I do hope she's willing to consider the new information in the article. I'd hate to see all the haters in this post and their peers get their way and see her give up.
Right, but their purpose is to dispense the most profitable drugs and insurance claims possible. This alone is why the modern doctor exists.
Autism doesn't have a drug yet. Nor are there any really juicy, profitable codes to bill.
Ergo, the doctors will NOT help you. They can't.
Scroll up. This entire chain is MY topic. You're all replying to MY statement that she's in a better position to explore this than I am. In fact, you're the one replying to MY post!!!
What kind of insane tactic is that, to enter into a thread and attempt to redefine the topic by say-so alone. Are you actually stating that you, Mister Whirly, have been discussing anything other than JM in this thread with anyone other than me, and that I'm replying in the midst of your conversation?
Really??
She is probably trying to help her son, but in the process she is harming other children.
That's too stringent.
She is probably trying to help her son, but in the process she is convincing other parents to put their children at risk.
I'd give you that.
Acceptable risk, though, considering the gravity of the situation.
And if she sticks to fart noises and naked pictures, who will care for her son?
Certainly not the doctors. They don't give a rat's ass. That's the problem, actually.
So your complaint is against the regulation, or the logic of parent's post?
Note that this is only true from the human's perspective. From the Earth's, it has actually traveled all the way to the other side and back, many times over.
No, I said that if the tiny amount of dead virus in a flu shot overwhelms your immune system, then you have a weak immune system.
Don't fence in the premise so tightly. I never said that 'a tiny amount of dead virus' did or did not do anything. I said the shot did. The shot, clearly and demonstrably, contains more than just that. The fact of the matter is that I simply do not care what part of the act makes me get sick. I can demonstrate that it does. Maybe I'm allergic. Don't care. It does me more harm than good, but no one believes me, due to 'facts' such as what you've presented here. You plug your ears and refuse to listen. Why?
They don't sequester patients in a sterile environment, but if you know anything at all about clinical studies, you know that this is not required to produce significant results, and in fact is a purely arbitrary and imaginary condition concocted because it would support your case.
It's been a while since I was in a science class, but are they filling petri dishes with pond water these days? Because I thought the whole point was to reduce the number of variables. Otherwise we'd just draw all our conclusions from phone surveys or whatnot and needn't bother experimenting at all.
Your point was that the flu shot knocks down your immune system and you aren't strong enough to have resisted secondary infection as a result. I countered that this makes you immunocompromised, because the standard treatment for weak immune systems is a higher dose. The rules are different if you're immunocompromised, and you should talk to a doctor if so.
My point is the damn shot makes me get sick. You're the one adding imaginary criteria to that point. My immunity being reduced is only a single possibility. Perhaps that is easily ruled out, but the over all effect - that I get sick - is not.
We don't know in advance what strains of flu you'll be exposed to, if even any at all
That's the best reason I've heard thus far to not force me to get sick because of that shot.
But the core of your whole argument seems to be that an imperfect vaccine is not better (or possibly even worse) than no vaccine at all. That's simply not true.
It is measurably worse for me. Please do demonstrate how it is not. Please show your work.
We disagree on the level of danger. It is quite dangerous to the profits of drug companies, to be sure, but the danger to children is exaggerated.
Put it this way, is there a greater than 1-in-100 chance of 'danger' due to non-vaccination? Because those are the odds for autism.
Also, and I've said this many times, each vaccine should be weighed individually. Some of them are genuinely not necessary. There exists a conflict of interests which is undeniable. Look at HPV. There's not even any proof that it works, let alone that it should be required.
I'm willing to stipulate that vaccines do not cause autism. I'm not going to defend the opposite position.
However, I'm not willing to stipulate that they are harmless, because they clearly are not.
So, I suggest a balance. Vaccinate only when absolutely necessary and avoid the rest.
ANYWAY, the entire topic of vaccination isn't germane to the topic I presented with my tangent. I find that particular topic really boring. Nobody has any proof either way and no one is EVER moved even an INCH by debating it. I'm not ever even allowed to take a cautionary stance. Unthinking dogma is boring.
So, it is in this light that I disagree with your statement:
She's using her position as a celebrity to give parents harmful advice: "Don't vaccinate."
That's incomplete. The truth of it is closer to this:
She's using her position as a celebrity to share her experiences with treating her son's autism.
You can take or leave each of these findings she shares individually and no one will kill any kittens, I promise.
It seems, though, that most if not all of the posters who have come to reply to my tangent only care about the vaccines. None of you care one whit about that ACTUAL topic here - autism. It isn't like we all woke up one day and decided to launch an attack on big pharma. We're actual people trying to deal with an actual problem. It's real damn easy to sit there and shout down explorations, but are any of you doing anything to solve the problem?
Say what you will about the harm she's causing. You might even be right. But her action is a million times more worthy than your pedantry. She's at least trying to help. You're only trying to make yourself look cool on slashdot.
Again, though, she is researching the problem and taking action, with observable results. This has value, period.
She can try all the wacky experiments she wants, I just want her to stop giving others the impression that vaccinating children isn't a good idea.
That's fine. Say so. What does it have to do with the topic I presented, namely that her looking for solutions and using her means to do so is more likely to achieve a result than my not having the means to do so?
You're focusing on the vaccines, but that is just a tiny piece of it. Her advice is 'do not vaccinate, AND do all these other things as well'. It isn't as if she only stopped vaccinating him and suddenly saw the result. It is a single piece of her opinion, and COULD be rejected individually without burning her as a heretic. I say 'could' because I want to ease you into the concept of having a discussion with nuances in it.
lol
No, I established a tangent in the post above. That's what you're all replying to. I said, and I'll quote it one more time for you guys who aren't paying attention:
If she's able to use that power to explore more solutions to this issue than I am, then why would she be less likely than I am to find a solution?
Her motives got questioned, and I'm refuting the 'she is just an attention whore' claim by pointing out that she loves her son. She wants the problem solved. She doesn't necessarily want all vaccines stopped, but if she can spare another parent her pain with her warning, then she'll damn sure give it.
You don't have to understand. You probably can't. But you may just have to stipulate that she's an interested party actively using her means towards an end that doesn't necessarily involve vaccines.
While you're free to disregard her anecdote, it is still more than YOU personally have done towards finding a cure. I'm more inclined to ask you to butt out. You're just the pundit, adding no value.
Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't have a much-improved son to demonstrate his success either.
This isn't about unfounded belief. This is about what she believes is demonstrable improvement.
Surely you can admit that this is not the same thing?
Labeling everything a strawman doesn't make one good at argumentation. It's kind of a rookie thing to do, and it is really getting old.
Again, she's done more than bitch about vaccines. Arguably she's done more to try and help her son than anyone else on the planet. Why? Because she loves him and these doctors and whatnot do not. To deny this motivation as a 'strawman' is weak, weak, weak.
If she didn't want to help him could she not just put him in a home?
My point is, she's at least trying. That and she has more means than the rest of us do to experiment. She deserves to share what she's found.
I did in my other post. I'm not niave enough to think you've ever encountered her book, but take a look here at the comments section over at amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Louder-Than-Words-Mothers-Journey/dp/0525950117
Educate yourself just a tiny bit. Maybe you'll find the maturity enough to say something like, 'while we disagree about vaccines, she has tried to help her son'. Maybe, maybe not.
You're the one with a strawman. You're stating that she's only ever drawn attention to herself. You're denying that she's hired therapists, dietitians, etc ad naseum, in order to find a solution. She submitted the boy to a complete anti-fungal routine. Were you aware of that?
And you call me names. How intellectual of you.
I understand how you feel confident in saying what you're saying, but I'd like you to reflect on the hubris of it. What experiments, involving me, have you conducted to come to this seemingly-scientific conclusion?
If that's the case, then you're in the high risk category, and it's actually quite important for you to get vaccinated, because with that level of sensitivity, an actual infection would probably kill you.
So you're calling me a liar. Fabulous. In point of fact, I'm one of the hardiest people I know. I rarely, if ever, miss work due to illness. I recover very quickly from just about everything but a flu shot. But what would I possibly know about my own experiences? SURELY you know more than I do about my own life. Please go on.
Most doctors use a flu test kit for diagnosis since symptoms alone are not always sufficient.
This is an outright lie. Most, if not all, doctors use the 'sounds like' diagnosis test. As in 'it sounds like you have the flu, go home and rest'. Period, end of story. Never once in the history of my life have I known a single person to report with these symptoms and receive a single test. Not ever. Please don't make crap up about 'most doctors use a flu kit' when it is patently false.
However there are no studies that I'm aware of which provide any significant support for the notion that there is any causal link.
And do you know WHY this is the case? Have you actually looked into it? The actual fact of the matter is, there is no ethical way to conduct a flu shot trial, and it hasn't ever happened. Never once have they vaccinated half of a group of humans and then exposed them to the virus. Further never once have they sequestered a group of humans, gave half the shot, and kept them in a sterile environment to observe the results. All the studies you cite are anecdotal and they can all be obfuscated with the exact same fuzz you're casting here.
Check it out:
A) I get the shot. I get sick. Your claim - I would have gotten sick anyway.
B) I don't get the shot. I get sick. Your claim - I should have gotten the shot.
C) I get the shot. I don't get sick. Your claim - I should be glad I got the shot.
D) I don't get the shot. I don't get sick. Your claim - I just got lucky.
Does any of that sound like actual science to you?
Contrast this, if you can, with this simple statement:
The flu shot makes me sick every time I take it.
Now, please explain to me how I am wrong and how you know everything without conducting a single test or experiment. Please.
Take vaccines. She can elect to not vaccinate her child. Why? Because she doesn't have to send him to public school. Not every parent has this choice.
Also there are therapies, diets, anti-fungal treatments - really quite a variety of things she has tried thus far. None which could I afford to attempt, let alone rule any in or out.
If she were just up on a soap box you might be right. But as it is, in reality, she's practicing what she's preaching and believes it to be helping her son. Therefore, she's qualified to share. Just as you or I would be.
Same as, really. They fake an infection in the same way taking minute quantities of poison can build up an immunity. Doesn't mean you're not drinking poison.
Since you're replying to my post, how are we to assume that _I_ have the wrong person?
I said:
If she's able to use that power to explore more solutions to this issue than I am, then why would she be less likely than I am to find a solution?
And your only response thus far has been:
Vaccines are good.
In keeping with the question I posed, you're off topic.
I've already mentioned this to others, so forgive me if it's getting tiresome, but her conclusions aren't limited to vaccines. You do realize this, right? She didn't just say 'no more vaccines and he is fine'. Surely you're not making this claim? You have at least a tiny idea what, other than vaccines, you're talking about, right?
Maybe you are. Please clarify before we continue.
The flu shot makes me sick. Every. Single. Time.
I understand that the shot itself is 'harmless' so I can only assume that this is due to lowered immunity while my body adapts to the foreign organism I've been injected with.
I also always still get some form of flu. It has never, to my knowledge, actually benefited me in any way.
As to herd immunity, I suppose that's sort of a non-topic. Just as you cannot kill me to keep me from making you sick, so can you not forcibly immunize me. Therefore, unless the vaccine is of discernible benefit to me, there goes your hopes of herd immunity. It really is sort of a catch-22, isn't it? If everyone were immunized, would you still need the vaccine? If anyone is not immunized, why are their rights and freedoms superior to those within the herd?