I'm trying to find any citations that go back to anything like the CDC to support your x/10,000 claims.
I have no confidence that you are trying to find anything at the CDC, but merely trying to claim that I'm wrong and people should have no choice in the matter.
I don't require the CDC to have a stat especially for a vaccine. The CDC would have a report for the diseases but not issues with the vaccines. Vaccine problems are reported in numerous ways, and often the vaccines are outright refused as the cause of medical problems even when problems occur right after the person requiring attention has received a vaccine.
I provided a link to the Gardasil issue which are admitted to. From this page the reports are roughly 25,000 reported serious problems from the vaccine. Looking at the total of 600,000 vaccines given that is a 4% chance that a person can have a serious side effect. The numbers I provided were actually being extremely kind to Gardasil.
It's really not difficult to Google "gardasil vaccine harm" to find all kinds of reports on the vaccine. Problems from Gardasil on many medical sites shows a 1 in 10 chance for the most minor side effects and scale upward based on severity. Are some cases inflated? Sure, but other cases are simply ignored and discounted before any evaluation is done.
Claiming 1 in a million chance for problems is way more exaggerated than what I gave. And as mentioned before, we don't know that the vaccine is truly effective. We know it does not prevent all cases of cervical cancer and a recent doctors report claims that it does not even prevent cancer from HPV but simply masks the Pap smear. We have no realistic method of knowing if Gardasil helped more than it hurts, and the class action lawsuits against the company seem to discount any claims of superior benefits. Or did you not know about these? (and these are only US cases, not the non-US cases that have sued the same company).
I'm advocating no choice in severe cases (say, polio). And I'm all for education. Like, show me the data that supports you claims. Not "my sister's friend talked to a guy on the Internet who got a vauge and difficult to diagnose disease whose cause is uncertain right after a vaccine." If that's the burden of proof, I just just go looking for a geocities site that claims that the polio vaccine gave a guy super powers. I'm sure there's one out there.
I really should not have to argue with you that Polio vaccines should be subject to the same freedom of choice as any other vaccine should I? Can you see without me telling you how absolutely irrational that perspective is since we know that there are risks for _ALL_ vaccines? It would be different for society if our tax money paid all medical expenses. They don't, and many families lose their life savings every year supporting loved ones. that won't change even with ACA.
If you educated someone, as you claimed you were "all for", they could learn the risks Polio vaccine really does have a 1/50,000 chance for problems. That risk is much different than "Flu" vaccines, Gardasil, or Plague where more people would probably decline the vaccine.
That link just reiterates all of the things I said (plus more) and notes that all of the evidence points to the HPV vaccine being very safe and the minimal risks are vastly outweighed by the benefits. In fact, it specifically knocks down the arguments you made above about Guardasil.
I think you should read it again without your bias goggles on. The words don't say 1 thing, they state a couple things because the author was intelligent. Such as "all medical procedures have risk".
Those risks aren't always just yours. Polio is out there. It's almost extinct. Gone forever. We could
As a gun owner and Veteran I have never heard of this classification (probably because it does not exist). Guns and ammo are referred to with the manufactured size as the description. According to this link, a.306 is the same thing as a.30 caliber, 7.62 NATO, and a.308 which is absolutely false. If you have doubts, go ahead and mix rounds at the range. Make sure you are recording a video to submit as a Darwin Award candidate.
The source listed in this Wiki page is "Barnes, Frank C., ed. Amber, John T., Cartridges Of The World (3rd Edition), (DBI, 1978), ISBN 0-695-80326-3" and later versions of the same book. This is not a standards body, but rather someone who made up an easy naming method for organizing their book.
I'm sure you can see a problem claiming "precedent" which implies a recognized classification, when it is simply an authors simplified organization method. The only people I have known to use this method is you. I was trying to think of an analogy, but I can't think of anything this bad. No offense intended, I give points for creative thinking.
To be pedantic a 7mm would not include an AK47 unless you fail to round properly. 7.62mm rounds to 8mm, not 7mm. You correct that later by mentioning a 50 caliber size round.
The military does a lot to get people to conform, and that's a good example (I'm a veteran and have much more extreme examples if you like). That said, many people outside of the military refer to rifles as "long guns". I'm fine with that.
This isn't just Zuckerberg's plaything anymore. There are investors to whom they must answer.
You think Facebook is worried about investors, or that the investors are any different than the people demanding censorship? Does the current political powers have say in this regardless of the investors desires? Facebook has already stated that they plan to censor. Not only sales mind you but any pro 2nd amendment discussion could be blocked to anyone under 18.
Facebook has already been banning members and hiding discussion regarding pro 2nd amendment rights (as well as other topics the Government does not want people discussing). The bans stick method of censorship has been used for a couple years already. Censorship is not only happening there, Reddit had a nice article about the same thing, and Slashdot could suffer similar problems to Reddit and Digg.
In all of the yelling about 2nd amendment we should not lose sight of the real problem which is censorship and conditioning.
The citation you mention did not have anything to do with the statistics I mentioned, but something to read regarding the industry as a whole. Unless you meant a citation outside of what you replied to. That source mentions released information from CDC which you can go read for yourself.
Like most of life, vaccination vs. anti-vaccination is not a clear black and white issue. If you are educated you may change your opinion and that is your right. I'm not claiming vaccines should be outlawed as you seem to be implying, I'm claiming that people should have a freedom of choice to make educated decisions.
Lets go back to Gardasil. First, there are many potential permant side effects with the vaccine. Chronic permanent migraine headaches are one, sterilization is another, and chronic fatigue syndrome is another. A complete list is here. When you separate them out the numbers look pretty low. However if you have a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting any one of these things the risk from the vaccine is really 3/10,000 and not 1/10,000. Extrapolate that out further, and suddenly it's not a 1 in a million chance of something happening. This is basic mathematics and should not provide any challenge to you.
To go a bit further, the vaccine only prevents certain types of cervical cancer and not all cervical cancer. Claiming any number of saved lives due to the vaccine is simply fallacy.
Sure, numbers can be skewed in either direction to try to make "my way" should be the rule. I have not argued that "my way" should be the rule, I have advocated educated choice. You on the other hand are advocating no choice and no education.
Again, that does not mean vaccines are evil and should be banned. That means that people should be aware of the risks and be able to choose whether or not they want to get the vaccine. Let me extract that same advocacy and question from a different source here.
The HPV vaccine is at least as safe, if not safer, than the other recommended vaccines in use today in the U.S. Is it 100% safe? Of course not. No medical intervention is. And anybody demanding (or offering) absolute guarantees doesn't understand medicine. Because like it or not, all medical interventions have risks. There will always be someone who is allergic to something or doesn't respond properly or who has something going on that we don't know about. Medicine is not one-fits-all, and so there will be risks for some people. The big question is: do the benefits outweigh those risks?
Since those risks are not _yours_ why not drop the "do it my way" nonsense and let people choose?
Google search it, you will find more. You can even find leaked audio recordings from a scientist admitting it. No, I can't prove it but it's interesting to contemplate and compare cancer rates before the 1940s and after. Sure, pollution played a role as did nuclear power and weapons but there potentially much more involved.
To your first point, did I not state that the statistics would vary for each type of vaccine? If you wish to argue the points I made, at least argue the complete point instead of a fragment. I gave Gardasil as an example which for years was touted as completely safe by manufacturers, the CDC, and the US Department of Health. It was not, but took years to prove otherwise. Meanwhile many young women have become sterile and permanently damaged by the vaccine.
To the second point again you choose a fragment to argue instead of what was actually said. We know that there are risks from the vaccine just like there are risks from the disease. Therefor a person should be able to choose their own fate and not be forced to vaccinate. Interesting that you take one very rare extreme condition as the only argument to the Polio disease yet ignore the other side of the equation where people had debilitating impact from the vaccine. You can find both ways if you look, but the pro-vaccine crowd certainly gets more air time. Censorship is not new.
It's odd to me that people are so apt to "persuade" others using various methods instead of simply educating people so that they make informed decisions. Epecially from people on tech sites where it would be assumed that we subscribe to science and education. Read this thread and you will see everything from threats to blocking information from people to accomplish the 'everyone gets vaccinated' theme.
You hint at it, but don't say it like I do above. Different vaccines have different levels of risk for both potential harm from the disease and potential harm for the vaccine. Some of these are extremely high (Plague/Gardasil) while others are in my opinion acceptable (Measles/Mumps). Claiming a risk is high or low does not remove the risk and make vaccines perfectly safe. My level of acceptance does not mean that you as a "Free" person have the same level of acceptance. I'd rather show you the risks and let you decide from an educated perspective. This is especially true when you have an infant of your own that has to start on immunizations.
Statistics are used to skew numbers drastically in favor of vaccines. Doctors questioning the statistics are smeared and won't get published in a science journal, but the papers exist. I found this in a quick search which shows how the statistics are simply wrong for measles. Any reduction in outbreak is credited to the vaccine, while we know that there are numerous other factors. Diseases like Polio have been reduced at least as much by sanitation as by the vaccine. If you do a bit of research on your own (Google) you will find similar papers/presentations/statistics showing that the vaccine is probably not as good as certain marketing campaigns tell you.
The point was, and is, why not let people make an educated decision for themselves and their children? As a veteran, I have had more vaccines than most people. I'm not against vaccines at all personally. My son however had the chicken pox vaccine and became seriously ill right after the vaccine. The vaccine also caused him to get chicken pox a second time. The state of Michigan required it for all children even if they had chicken pox, then due to numerous cases similar to my son's they dropped the requirement (that was over a decade ago and since he's been immunizes I don't honestly know the current laws). If I had a 2nd kid I would have refused to allow them to get the vaccine. Not because I believe _all_ vaccines are bad but because some are simply not worth the risk.
There is middle ground on normally nonlife threatening diseases like chickenpox and the average flu bug, the problem is dumbasses that won't vaccs their kids against anything for fear they might be one of the couple hundred out of billions that would have a reaction then insted their kid get a disease and spread it to the immunocompromised that genuinely cannot get vaccinated.
So you are saying that a person should have the choice over a non life threatening disease vaccine? If so we agree on the first part but not completely because your odds are absolutely wrong. Here is an interesting read for you, but the odds for becoming critically ill from a vaccine is dependent on the vaccine. None of them are in the 1 in X00,000 range, more like 1 in 10,000.
To the second part about life threatening, I don't get it. Polio is has been removed in the US due to both vaccination and increased sanitation. Even so, it's not "life threatening" it was crippling. Very few of the diseases we are told to get vaccines for are actually 'life threatening'.
Then you have a completely false statement. A person can not leave the US and head anywhere without vaccines. Any country can require people coming in to have X vaccines. This prevents the "you exposed us to X" issue from happening. And good grief, if you head into a foreign country with a disease and someone gets ill you probably end up dead pretty quickly (especially those areas that can't afford vaccines).
Now, back to my first paragraph. If I have to choose for my kid to be 1 in 10,000 with death from gardasil do I get my daughter vaccinated? Maybe, but then we have a 1 in 100 chance of becoming permanently damaged in other ways from the vaccine, a 1 in 1,000 chance of becoming sterile, etc..
My point was and is that because the risks are real, there should be a freedom of choice. Your point regarding travel is understood, and I agree that if you are going to a remote place with risk you should be vaccinated. That is not the real reason to force people to get vaccines.
Many members were threatened not to vote, others have been ousted by the mob. I'll have to dig for sources, but it's fresh enough where a google search should work. While this link is to RT (subject to bias) this shows a different view of what's happening than US media. This is why I suggested to look at both pieces media and look toward the middle. RT and Al Jazeera both have completely different "news" from the Western AP.
Before you say it, yes I read each source as biased and try to do a bit of research. The point is that the US and UK media is just as biased in the opposite direction. I work with and discuss politics with people from those areas. One would guess that these people would side with the US on most of these issues because they have no fear of being sent to a Russian jail. You will find the contrary however.
Vaccines have had numerous concerns over many decades, so the latest batch does not make people sinister it makes them cynical and skeptical. Start here.
As much as vaccines help the majority of people, other people have been crippled and killed by the same vaccines. The latest MMR vaccine is linked to a couple hundred (237 last I looked) of narcolepsy, the latest polio vaccine is linked to numerous deaths and various levels of paralysis. Sometimes these are blamed on contamination in the vaccine, and other times we have no explanation.
If you are a parent and know about the potential for harm, you may not wish to give your kid a vaccine. Especially for something generally not life threatening like chicken pox.
Why not educate people to both sides of the argument and let them make an educated choice?
The Oracles of Delphi had no such book or belief, which was the historically significant part of the satire. Come now, the first sentence should have made that obvious.
Correct. The difference between now and then is that the US Government employs shitheads like the person I responded to for furtherance of their agenda. Based on their post topics/subjects/points and time (frequency), I believe that this person has an 8 hour a day job at a government office spreading this type of propaganda and bullshit.
The president is paid 400,000 in cash but has -0- expenses. Why don't you add in all of the tax payer funded junkets and vacations, clothing, transportation (which is not just for business), and food? Add in his speaking engagement revenue, book revenue, and campaign fundraisers. In fact in 2011 Obama spent 1.4 BILLION (yes, that is with a B) on travel expenses.
I get it! Western leaders hide how much they make better than those in other countries. It makes them better liars, not better for their populace. Worse is that idiots believe the hand waiving while refusing to look at facts.
I have not seen very man pro Russian comments. I have seen people questioning the US hypocrisy, and questioning how "natural" this revolution is. Obviously you are trying to espouse the "if you are not with us you must be the enemy" rhetoric, which is absolutely false.
It is a well known fact that the US Government spent our tax dollars on the Orange revolution. It did not end up with the Ukraine throwing Russia away as they hoped, and the Ukraine didn't jump into debt with the EU as the west hoped. So now, we have another revolt which even according to Faux News was due to the Ukraine voting not to join the EU. It had nothing to do with the alleged crimes of the Ukraine president until days after the "peaceful uprising" started. (Quoted because every source except for US media shows the protesters armed, throwing gas bombs at police. Compare the police tolerance of protesters in the Ukraine with the police tolerance at a real peaceful protest in the US for a taste of hypocrisy.)
If you want to complain about the excesses of the Ukraine president, again you are a hypocrite. The US president is no better than him, and quite possibly worse. I'm not sure this guy was sending his family on multimillion dollar vacations several times a year. It's not like the US has no issues regarding money and poverty. The White House has more valuables than this guy had in his presidential palace, but of course the US does not call it's presidential building a palace so it has to be better right?. Don't answer that, that is a rhetorical question only.
If you read anything other than US release propaganda you should start to question what the US Government is doing and what the motives are. You should question whether the revolt was truly natural.
Questioning the morality of the USA foreign policies and actions is a logical and responsible path for a US Citizen to take. That does not make a person pro-foreign anything. It makes them a pro-American!
I was about to post this same thing, but in a different way.
As an Oracle of the Bordland Delphi, I look into my magical book of syntax. I breath deeply the fumes of the mighty Pascalious Flowerus. Your future is very clear. I see a person, at a desk with a book. No wait! Two books!. The person sitting asks people for identification, and validates this against one book. If their name is found, they ask them to sign in to the other book. There is more! The desk sits sideways, so this person not only controls who enters the room, but also asks those leaving to sign out.
This will be as it must be due to your mighty constraints of continual lightning and desire to have doors without locks!
I believe this is faulty logic. If you have a camera and microphone both can be used for spying on you. Taking away the microphone does not take away the camera and visa versa. It's not one or the other, it's both and should be treated as both. Sensors can help them pinpoint which is the best to use at any given time (give or take communications time to/from the towers)
One gets what the cable company provides, and not all of them have the option. You go ahead and try to rig up your own box with Comcast and be amazed at how fast they cut your service off.
Do you work in a Chines Firework factory or something? My office has about 100 people and we have 2 Starbucks machines in our cafeteria. That's in addition to 5 Microwaves, a convection oven (no conventional oven), dishwasher, and even a toaster oven. Any office/warehouse/shop/etc.. with more than a couple workers will have a break room where something can be plugged in.
Nope, it's the dependence on an electronic box where you would worry or brag about it being voice capable. If I had an option of changing channels on the TV like in the old days I would not worry about a remote either. Cable and DSL require a remote, what you are doing goes well beyond a requirement.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm trying to find any citations that go back to anything like the CDC to support your x/10,000 claims.
I have no confidence that you are trying to find anything at the CDC, but merely trying to claim that I'm wrong and people should have no choice in the matter.
I don't require the CDC to have a stat especially for a vaccine. The CDC would have a report for the diseases but not issues with the vaccines. Vaccine problems are reported in numerous ways, and often the vaccines are outright refused as the cause of medical problems even when problems occur right after the person requiring attention has received a vaccine.
I provided a link to the Gardasil issue which are admitted to. From this page the reports are roughly 25,000 reported serious problems from the vaccine. Looking at the total of 600,000 vaccines given that is a 4% chance that a person can have a serious side effect. The numbers I provided were actually being extremely kind to Gardasil.
It's really not difficult to Google "gardasil vaccine harm" to find all kinds of reports on the vaccine. Problems from Gardasil on many medical sites shows a 1 in 10 chance for the most minor side effects and scale upward based on severity. Are some cases inflated? Sure, but other cases are simply ignored and discounted before any evaluation is done.
Claiming 1 in a million chance for problems is way more exaggerated than what I gave. And as mentioned before, we don't know that the vaccine is truly effective. We know it does not prevent all cases of cervical cancer and a recent doctors report claims that it does not even prevent cancer from HPV but simply masks the Pap smear. We have no realistic method of knowing if Gardasil helped more than it hurts, and the class action lawsuits against the company seem to discount any claims of superior benefits. Or did you not know about these? (and these are only US cases, not the non-US cases that have sued the same company) .
I'm advocating no choice in severe cases (say, polio). And I'm all for education. Like, show me the data that supports you claims. Not "my sister's friend talked to a guy on the Internet who got a vauge and difficult to diagnose disease whose cause is uncertain right after a vaccine." If that's the burden of proof, I just just go looking for a geocities site that claims that the polio vaccine gave a guy super powers. I'm sure there's one out there.
I really should not have to argue with you that Polio vaccines should be subject to the same freedom of choice as any other vaccine should I? Can you see without me telling you how absolutely irrational that perspective is since we know that there are risks for _ALL_ vaccines? It would be different for society if our tax money paid all medical expenses. They don't, and many families lose their life savings every year supporting loved ones. that won't change even with ACA.
If you educated someone, as you claimed you were "all for", they could learn the risks Polio vaccine really does have a 1/50,000 chance for problems. That risk is much different than "Flu" vaccines, Gardasil, or Plague where more people would probably decline the vaccine.
That link just reiterates all of the things I said (plus more) and notes that all of the evidence points to the HPV vaccine being very safe and the minimal risks are vastly outweighed by the benefits. In fact, it specifically knocks down the arguments you made above about Guardasil.
I think you should read it again without your bias goggles on. The words don't say 1 thing, they state a couple things because the author was intelligent. Such as "all medical procedures have risk".
Those risks aren't always just yours. Polio is out there. It's almost extinct. Gone forever. We could
As a gun owner and Veteran I have never heard of this classification (probably because it does not exist). Guns and ammo are referred to with the manufactured size as the description. According to this link, a .306 is the same thing as a .30 caliber, 7.62 NATO, and a .308 which is absolutely false. If you have doubts, go ahead and mix rounds at the range. Make sure you are recording a video to submit as a Darwin Award candidate.
The source listed in this Wiki page is "Barnes, Frank C., ed. Amber, John T., Cartridges Of The World (3rd Edition), (DBI, 1978), ISBN 0-695-80326-3" and later versions of the same book. This is not a standards body, but rather someone who made up an easy naming method for organizing their book.
I'm sure you can see a problem claiming "precedent" which implies a recognized classification, when it is simply an authors simplified organization method. The only people I have known to use this method is you. I was trying to think of an analogy, but I can't think of anything this bad. No offense intended, I give points for creative thinking.
To be pedantic a 7mm would not include an AK47 unless you fail to round properly. 7.62mm rounds to 8mm, not 7mm. You correct that later by mentioning a 50 caliber size round.
The military does a lot to get people to conform, and that's a good example (I'm a veteran and have much more extreme examples if you like). That said, many people outside of the military refer to rifles as "long guns". I'm fine with that.
You should read a history book one day, it's kind of interesting how we have this pattern of exactly this thing happening.
This isn't just Zuckerberg's plaything anymore. There are investors to whom they must answer.
You think Facebook is worried about investors, or that the investors are any different than the people demanding censorship? Does the current political powers have say in this regardless of the investors desires? Facebook has already stated that they plan to censor. Not only sales mind you but any pro 2nd amendment discussion could be blocked to anyone under 18.
Facebook has already been banning members and hiding discussion regarding pro 2nd amendment rights (as well as other topics the Government does not want people discussing). The bans stick method of censorship has been used for a couple years already. Censorship is not only happening there, Reddit had a nice article about the same thing, and Slashdot could suffer similar problems to Reddit and Digg.
In all of the yelling about 2nd amendment we should not lose sight of the real problem which is censorship and conditioning.
The citation you mention did not have anything to do with the statistics I mentioned, but something to read regarding the industry as a whole. Unless you meant a citation outside of what you replied to. That source mentions released information from CDC which you can go read for yourself.
Like most of life, vaccination vs. anti-vaccination is not a clear black and white issue. If you are educated you may change your opinion and that is your right. I'm not claiming vaccines should be outlawed as you seem to be implying, I'm claiming that people should have a freedom of choice to make educated decisions.
Lets go back to Gardasil. First, there are many potential permant side effects with the vaccine. Chronic permanent migraine headaches are one, sterilization is another, and chronic fatigue syndrome is another. A complete list is here. When you separate them out the numbers look pretty low. However if you have a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting any one of these things the risk from the vaccine is really 3/10,000 and not 1/10,000. Extrapolate that out further, and suddenly it's not a 1 in a million chance of something happening. This is basic mathematics and should not provide any challenge to you.
To go a bit further, the vaccine only prevents certain types of cervical cancer and not all cervical cancer. Claiming any number of saved lives due to the vaccine is simply fallacy.
Sure, numbers can be skewed in either direction to try to make "my way" should be the rule. I have not argued that "my way" should be the rule, I have advocated educated choice. You on the other hand are advocating no choice and no education.
Again, that does not mean vaccines are evil and should be banned. That means that people should be aware of the risks and be able to choose whether or not they want to get the vaccine. Let me extract that same advocacy and question from a different source here.
The HPV vaccine is at least as safe, if not safer, than the other recommended vaccines in use today in the U.S. Is it 100% safe? Of course not. No medical intervention is. And anybody demanding (or offering) absolute guarantees doesn't understand medicine. Because like it or not, all medical interventions have risks. There will always be someone who is allergic to something or doesn't respond properly or who has something going on that we don't know about. Medicine is not one-fits-all, and so there will be risks for some people. The big question is: do the benefits outweigh those risks?
Since those risks are not _yours_ why not drop the "do it my way" nonsense and let people choose?
Google search it, you will find more. You can even find leaked audio recordings from a scientist admitting it. No, I can't prove it but it's interesting to contemplate and compare cancer rates before the 1940s and after. Sure, pollution played a role as did nuclear power and weapons but there potentially much more involved.
To your first point, did I not state that the statistics would vary for each type of vaccine? If you wish to argue the points I made, at least argue the complete point instead of a fragment. I gave Gardasil as an example which for years was touted as completely safe by manufacturers, the CDC, and the US Department of Health. It was not, but took years to prove otherwise. Meanwhile many young women have become sterile and permanently damaged by the vaccine.
To the second point again you choose a fragment to argue instead of what was actually said. We know that there are risks from the vaccine just like there are risks from the disease. Therefor a person should be able to choose their own fate and not be forced to vaccinate. Interesting that you take one very rare extreme condition as the only argument to the Polio disease yet ignore the other side of the equation where people had debilitating impact from the vaccine. You can find both ways if you look, but the pro-vaccine crowd certainly gets more air time. Censorship is not new.
It's odd to me that people are so apt to "persuade" others using various methods instead of simply educating people so that they make informed decisions. Epecially from people on tech sites where it would be assumed that we subscribe to science and education. Read this thread and you will see everything from threats to blocking information from people to accomplish the 'everyone gets vaccinated' theme.
You hint at it, but don't say it like I do above. Different vaccines have different levels of risk for both potential harm from the disease and potential harm for the vaccine. Some of these are extremely high (Plague/Gardasil) while others are in my opinion acceptable (Measles/Mumps). Claiming a risk is high or low does not remove the risk and make vaccines perfectly safe. My level of acceptance does not mean that you as a "Free" person have the same level of acceptance. I'd rather show you the risks and let you decide from an educated perspective. This is especially true when you have an infant of your own that has to start on immunizations.
Statistics are used to skew numbers drastically in favor of vaccines. Doctors questioning the statistics are smeared and won't get published in a science journal, but the papers exist. I found this in a quick search which shows how the statistics are simply wrong for measles. Any reduction in outbreak is credited to the vaccine, while we know that there are numerous other factors. Diseases like Polio have been reduced at least as much by sanitation as by the vaccine. If you do a bit of research on your own (Google) you will find similar papers/presentations/statistics showing that the vaccine is probably not as good as certain marketing campaigns tell you.
The point was, and is, why not let people make an educated decision for themselves and their children? As a veteran, I have had more vaccines than most people. I'm not against vaccines at all personally. My son however had the chicken pox vaccine and became seriously ill right after the vaccine. The vaccine also caused him to get chicken pox a second time. The state of Michigan required it for all children even if they had chicken pox, then due to numerous cases similar to my son's they dropped the requirement (that was over a decade ago and since he's been immunizes I don't honestly know the current laws). If I had a 2nd kid I would have refused to allow them to get the vaccine. Not because I believe _all_ vaccines are bad but because some are simply not worth the risk.
There is middle ground on normally nonlife threatening diseases like chickenpox and the average flu bug, the problem is dumbasses that won't vaccs their kids against anything for fear they might be one of the couple hundred out of billions that would have a reaction then insted their kid get a disease and spread it to the immunocompromised that genuinely cannot get vaccinated.
So you are saying that a person should have the choice over a non life threatening disease vaccine? If so we agree on the first part but not completely because your odds are absolutely wrong. Here is an interesting read for you, but the odds for becoming critically ill from a vaccine is dependent on the vaccine. None of them are in the 1 in X00,000 range, more like 1 in 10,000.
To the second part about life threatening, I don't get it. Polio is has been removed in the US due to both vaccination and increased sanitation. Even so, it's not "life threatening" it was crippling. Very few of the diseases we are told to get vaccines for are actually 'life threatening'.
Then you have a completely false statement. A person can not leave the US and head anywhere without vaccines. Any country can require people coming in to have X vaccines. This prevents the "you exposed us to X" issue from happening. And good grief, if you head into a foreign country with a disease and someone gets ill you probably end up dead pretty quickly (especially those areas that can't afford vaccines).
Now, back to my first paragraph. If I have to choose for my kid to be 1 in 10,000 with death from gardasil do I get my daughter vaccinated? Maybe, but then we have a 1 in 100 chance of becoming permanently damaged in other ways from the vaccine, a 1 in 1,000 chance of becoming sterile, etc..
My point was and is that because the risks are real, there should be a freedom of choice. Your point regarding travel is understood, and I agree that if you are going to a remote place with risk you should be vaccinated. That is not the real reason to force people to get vaccines.
Many members were threatened not to vote, others have been ousted by the mob. I'll have to dig for sources, but it's fresh enough where a google search should work. While this link is to RT (subject to bias) this shows a different view of what's happening than US media. This is why I suggested to look at both pieces media and look toward the middle. RT and Al Jazeera both have completely different "news" from the Western AP.
Before you say it, yes I read each source as biased and try to do a bit of research. The point is that the US and UK media is just as biased in the opposite direction. I work with and discuss politics with people from those areas. One would guess that these people would side with the US on most of these issues because they have no fear of being sent to a Russian jail. You will find the contrary however.
Vaccines have had numerous concerns over many decades, so the latest batch does not make people sinister it makes them cynical and skeptical. Start here.
As much as vaccines help the majority of people, other people have been crippled and killed by the same vaccines. The latest MMR vaccine is linked to a couple hundred (237 last I looked) of narcolepsy, the latest polio vaccine is linked to numerous deaths and various levels of paralysis. Sometimes these are blamed on contamination in the vaccine, and other times we have no explanation.
If you are a parent and know about the potential for harm, you may not wish to give your kid a vaccine. Especially for something generally not life threatening like chicken pox.
Why not educate people to both sides of the argument and let them make an educated choice?
The Oracles of Delphi had no such book or belief, which was the historically significant part of the satire. Come now, the first sentence should have made that obvious.
The parliament was disbanded and replace by members of the mob, so you are still incorrect.
Crimea requested troops and protection from the "mob" that took over Kiev.
I get it, misinformation is the name of the game. All I can suggest is to gather information from every possible source and draw a line in the middle.
Correct. The difference between now and then is that the US Government employs shitheads like the person I responded to for furtherance of their agenda. Based on their post topics/subjects/points and time (frequency), I believe that this person has an 8 hour a day job at a government office spreading this type of propaganda and bullshit.
The president is paid 400,000 in cash but has -0- expenses. Why don't you add in all of the tax payer funded junkets and vacations, clothing, transportation (which is not just for business), and food? Add in his speaking engagement revenue, book revenue, and campaign fundraisers. In fact in 2011 Obama spent 1.4 BILLION (yes, that is with a B) on travel expenses.
I get it! Western leaders hide how much they make better than those in other countries. It makes them better liars, not better for their populace. Worse is that idiots believe the hand waiving while refusing to look at facts.
I was attempting to give the satire a bit of historical significance.. I wonder how many will grasp the completeness
I have not seen very man pro Russian comments. I have seen people questioning the US hypocrisy, and questioning how "natural" this revolution is. Obviously you are trying to espouse the "if you are not with us you must be the enemy" rhetoric, which is absolutely false.
It is a well known fact that the US Government spent our tax dollars on the Orange revolution. It did not end up with the Ukraine throwing Russia away as they hoped, and the Ukraine didn't jump into debt with the EU as the west hoped. So now, we have another revolt which even according to Faux News was due to the Ukraine voting not to join the EU. It had nothing to do with the alleged crimes of the Ukraine president until days after the "peaceful uprising" started. (Quoted because every source except for US media shows the protesters armed, throwing gas bombs at police. Compare the police tolerance of protesters in the Ukraine with the police tolerance at a real peaceful protest in the US for a taste of hypocrisy.)
If you want to complain about the excesses of the Ukraine president, again you are a hypocrite. The US president is no better than him, and quite possibly worse. I'm not sure this guy was sending his family on multimillion dollar vacations several times a year. It's not like the US has no issues regarding money and poverty. The White House has more valuables than this guy had in his presidential palace, but of course the US does not call it's presidential building a palace so it has to be better right?. Don't answer that, that is a rhetorical question only.
If you read anything other than US release propaganda you should start to question what the US Government is doing and what the motives are. You should question whether the revolt was truly natural.
Questioning the morality of the USA foreign policies and actions is a logical and responsible path for a US Citizen to take. That does not make a person pro-foreign anything. It makes them a pro-American!
I was about to post this same thing, but in a different way.
As an Oracle of the Bordland Delphi, I look into my magical book of syntax. I breath deeply the fumes of the mighty Pascalious Flowerus. Your future is very clear. I see a person, at a desk with a book. No wait! Two books!. The person sitting asks people for identification, and validates this against one book. If their name is found, they ask them to sign in to the other book. There is more! The desk sits sideways, so this person not only controls who enters the room, but also asks those leaving to sign out.
This will be as it must be due to your mighty constraints of continual lightning and desire to have doors without locks!
Attempting to defend yourself by attacking others, such class.
I believe this is faulty logic. If you have a camera and microphone both can be used for spying on you. Taking away the microphone does not take away the camera and visa versa. It's not one or the other, it's both and should be treated as both. Sensors can help them pinpoint which is the best to use at any given time (give or take communications time to/from the towers)
One gets what the cable company provides, and not all of them have the option. You go ahead and try to rig up your own box with Comcast and be amazed at how fast they cut your service off.
Do you work in a Chines Firework factory or something? My office has about 100 people and we have 2 Starbucks machines in our cafeteria. That's in addition to 5 Microwaves, a convection oven (no conventional oven), dishwasher, and even a toaster oven. Any office/warehouse/shop/etc.. with more than a couple workers will have a break room where something can be plugged in.
Nope, it's the dependence on an electronic box where you would worry or brag about it being voice capable. If I had an option of changing channels on the TV like in the old days I would not worry about a remote either. Cable and DSL require a remote, what you are doing goes well beyond a requirement.