If I had kids I wouldn't vaccinate them, no. There's no law saying you have to.
That's fine, just hope most people don't follow in your footsteps or you'll see another outbreak of the measles or something like there was in the early 90s.
The f*** does this have to do with the actual rates of child cancer going up? 41 kids per day are told they have cancer today. Not 100 years ago a child getting cancer was almost impossible.
You think there was proper testing 100 years ago? Back then children were dying of "unknown causes".
But you think you know more than anyone, so go ahead and tell us why this is. Or why sodium fluoride is in the water supply at all if it has no adverse health effects.
Better teeth, kills microbes...
--
BOP Results: http://charmander6000.webs.com/GotD%20BOP.xls Congratulations to Black Turtle for winning the guru contest.
Why is it again people think rich people care to "systematically push down" the middle class? It's not like they are very threatened by them. In fact, it's probably in their best interest that there is a strong middle class, so this very type of thing doesn't happen. You know, like, if this were actually anything serious, that is.
--
How should I put it? Life is like video footage. Hard to edit. Directors, they never understood it.
UltimaterializerX posted... charmander6000 posted... People who think vaccines cause autism pointed to the mercury in Thimerosal as a cause, and even though no causal link was found it was removed anyway.
I actually learned a few weeks ago that the scientist that wrote that paper was found to be a fraud.
Andrew Wakefield is hardly the only doctor who has studied these links.
If I had kids I wouldn't vaccinate them, no. There's no law saying you have to.
If you want them to attend kindergarten there is
--
Donny: Are they gonna hurt us, Walter? Walter: No, Donny. These men are cowards.
trizob the hedgehog posted... Why is it again people think rich people care to "systematically push down" the middle class? It's not like they are very threatened by them. In fact, it's probably in their best interest that there is a strong middle class, so this very type of thing doesn't happen. You know, like, if this were actually anything serious, that is.
If you go back 220 years ago or so, rich people pushing down the middle class was not uncommon. And yeah, it turns out it wasn't in their best interest--the middle class in France rose up and decapitated their nobles.
If you snap forward to earlier this year, rich people pushing down the middle class was happening in Egypt, and, it...actually didn't turn out that bad for most of the rich, but their government was overthrown, and the new government will likely be much more into redistribution of wealth.
So..."rich people wouldn't do that," doesn't really work as a dismissal of the argument. (There are other counterarguments to be made, of course, but rich people can and have done stuff like that...).
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
Why is it again people think rich people care to "systematically push down" the middle class? It's not like they are very threatened by them. In fact, it's probably in their best interest that there is a strong middle class, so this very type of thing doesn't happen. You know, like, if this were actually anything serious, that is.
You underestimate the power of greed.
--
The box says "Online Gameplay not rated by ESRB", I should be able to trade my phallic named Wobbufetts to a bunch of 8 year olds. - MarvelousGerbil
The f*** does this have to do with the actual rates of child cancer going up? 41 kids per day are told they have cancer today. Not 100 years ago a child getting cancer was almost impossible.
As others have already noted, kids almost certainly were getting cancer 100 years ago, we just massively failed at diagnosing it. One thing we do know, though: child mortality was waaay the heck higher 100 years ago!
41 US children being diagnosed per day sounds scary, but consider the denominator of well over 41 million. Even multiplying by 365 to get the yearly figure of 15k (which is about 20-40% higher than statistics I found*), you have to consider that only 1 in 6 die to this, so there's a child mortality rate in the general ballpark of 1/25000 due to cancer. I'm all for reducing that, but seriously, that's a pretty negligible number. Child mortality below 1% is generally seen as excellent.
Since we're talking about vaccinations, do you know how many children died of measles, mumps, and rubella before we had those? Or polio? I'll give you a hint: way, way more. Heck, even today, WITH vaccinations, more children die from measles than cancer (165000 per year), mostly in countries that don't vaccinate. So even if we assume that 100% of child cancer deaths could be prevented by eliminating vaccinations (a completely laughable claim, of course!), it would not be worth it; you'd lose more lives to measles alone. Never mind the nightmare that a return of polio would be.
(The numbers found in each differ presumably due to a difference in the definition of "child").
Oh yeah, and if there's some conspiracy in the scientic and medical community to cover up vaccination problems, why do both scientists and doctors get their children vaccinated at an extremely high rate? Surely the ones in on the conspiracy would know better! Or I guess they're just sacrificing their children for some bizarre, inexplicable cause. Yeah, that makes more sense.
Science denial, just as embarrassing from the left as when from the right!
-- The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion
EDIT: Also funny how who'd knock Republicans for being anti-evolution and anti-climate change are on the anti-vaccination bandwagon. If you want to ignore science, you might as well be consistent with it.
never said I was anti-vaccination, I'm against vaccinations containing neurotoxins. this is about the level of reading comprehension I would expect from republican apologists though
Oh god the Fluoride conspiracists are the worst. My older brother is like that... when he goes to the dentist he makes them use non-Fluoride paste, and he uses children's toothpaste with cartoon animals on it.
p sure he was talking about Ulti and not you Liquid
a few people said I was anti-vaccination and his other statement was clearly directed at me
Oh god the Fluoride conspiracists are the worst. My older brother is like that... when he goes to the dentist he makes them use non-Fluoride paste, and he uses children's toothpaste with cartoon animals on it.
I still use fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash because my teeth aren't very good so I have to do whatever I can with that, but it is a known neurotoxin that crosses the blood-brain barrier, the only "conspiracy theory" is WHY it is prevalent. I can see "the ruling class has instituted it in order to keep the worker ants docile and intellectually incapable of rebellion" as being a little too cynical for most, but fluoride being bad for your brain is fact.
I'm certainly not arguing against evolution or climate change. I'm just saying it seems strange to be accepting of those things but critical of vaccinations when all research done on them shows they are safe and beneficial. I'm no Republican apologist.
And yes, rich people are greedy. They want to make more money themselves, but so long as they do so, I don't think they're going to go out of their way to make everyone else poorer. That is all I'm saying.
If you snap forward to earlier this year, rich people pushing down the middle class was happening in Egypt, and, it...actually didn't turn out that bad for most of the rich, but their government was overthrown, and the new government will likely be much more into redistribution of wealth.
So they are going to have their wealth redistributed to the middle class. Assuming that rich people like being rich and having money, that sounds quite bad for them, actually.
--
How should I put it? Life is like video footage. Hard to edit. Directors, they never understood it.
You need about 95% of the population vaccinated to achieve "herd immunity" where the unvaccinated 5% are protected the way you describe, Ulti.
A certain percentage of the population can't be vaccinated, because they are too young or because of other factors.
It doesn't take much to move out of the herd immunity range, and if otherwise healthy people are foregoing vaccination, it's not helping those who are vulnerable.
There is NO scientifically proven link between vaccines and autism.
Most of the problem can be traced to Dr. Wakefield, who was trying to show that a specific vaccine was bad when he was applying for a patent on an alternate vaccine. The experiment was improperly interpreted and excessively extrapolated, could not be reproduced, and Wakefield eventually lost his medical license due to his misconduct in the experiment. It was a business move. -http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full -http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full
Meanwhile, there was never any link shown between thiomersal and autism, however the CDC/FDA did a review and found that while mercury levels were not above WHO guidelines, they could be above EPA guidelines in infants if going off a certain set of data. Therefore they suggested getting rid of it without any data to illustrate that thiomersal had been a problem. It has been studied since, and there is no evidence that thiomersal is linked to autism. In fact, autism rates have risen since thiomersal removed from vaccines (even more proof that correlation =/= causation) - http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full
Yes, diagnosis rates are rising. That is largely due to better diagnosis (and decreased youth mortality), but I will concede that there are probably things in our environment that are contributing. But stop blaming vaccines without any evidence just because "since vaccines came along we have higher incidence". We've had a lot of stuff happen since vaccines came along. And the dangers of not vaccinating children is far worse than the risk that is posed by vaccinating them.
From: UltimaterializerX | #068 charmander6000 posted... If I had kids I wouldn't vaccinate them, no. There's no law saying you have to.
That's fine, just hope most people don't follow in your footsteps or you'll see another outbreak of the measles or something like there was in the early 90s.
If most kids are vaccinated for measles, how would non-vaccinated kids possibly cause a measles outbreak? The ones who got the shots should be fine, right?
I know most of you lack common sense, but you can't possibly be this far gone.
Ulti, you're supposed to be going into medicine. You should know better than to believe that.
I don't have a problem with the nanomachines, etc., that the government is injecting into my children with the vaccines. I plan to put in my own nanomachines anyways, and I can easily upgrade them to destroy the government machines.
-- _foolmo_ 'Oh please, if foolmo made that analogy you'd think it was picture perfect' - Biolizard28
Liquid Wind posted... I still use fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash because my teeth aren't very good so I have to do whatever I can with that, but it is a known neurotoxin that crosses the blood-brain barrier, the only "conspiracy theory" is WHY it is prevalent. I can see "the ruling class has instituted it in order to keep the worker ants docile and intellectually incapable of rebellion" as being a little too cynical for most, but fluoride being bad for your brain is fact.
Ehh...the biggest conspiracy I can see is of bottled water:
And as for fluorine messing up people's brains...test scores have definitely been going up pretty steadily for each successive generation. Now, maybe they would be even higher without fluorine, but if fluorine is a plot to keep the masses stupid it's doing a remarkably poor job of it.
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
I suppose it's possible for fluoride in water to be bad for you and that vaccinations cause cancer, sure, whatever.
But it seems like some of you actually believe that the highly organized upper class instituted fluoride in water and the concept of vaccinations.... to kill us all or something.
What the **** is wrong with you.
--
The batman villians all seem to be one big joke that batman refuses to laugh at - SantaRPG
I suppose it's possible for fluoride in water to be bad for you and that vaccinations cause cancer, sure, whatever.
But it seems like some of you actually believe that the highly organized upper class instituted fluoride in water and the concept of vaccinations.... to kill us all or something.
What the **** is wrong with you.
I threw it out there as a possibility, not as a matter of fact
but it is bad for you, and for whatever reason, the exposure to these things increases as wealth decreases, inner city tap water? fluoridated. cheap food? almost all has HFCS in it or an ungodly amount of salt that will destroy your heart by the time you're 30. maybe it isn't anyones grand plan, but to say that living standards for poor people are great now so it's fine if most of america's wealth is held by 1% of the population is just sillyness, being poor is still, as it always has been, a terminal condition
UltimaterializerX posted... I don't think you know what 'conspiracy' actually means. Verified facts and fools denying them because they believe people in charge are incapable of evil is not the working definition. You're free to deny links between sodium fluoride and stuff like how it triples bone cancer in young males, but facts are facts. You can have your own opinion and laugh at truth all you want because you're scared of it, but you can't have your own facts.
Actually cancer studies tend to be pretty sketchy as far as scientific results go. It's common for one study to find a link between cancer and a cause, and another study to be unable to reproduce the results. Or, one that has been verified, Asparagus is known to "cause cancer", which is to say your odds of getting cancer go up if you eat Asparagus daily. But it's such a minimal increase that asparagus is still considered healthy for you overall.
EDIT: which is not to say that there aren't known major cancer causers (smoking, for instance, exposure to heavy radiation for another) just that you shouldn't panic when a single research paper is published suggesting a link between something and cancer.
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
Someone took a picture from Google Maps and then altered that picture using picture altering technology, perhaps glue and magazine cut-outs, perhaps MS Paint, to make it look like the streets were flooded with people.
-- For your BlAcK TuRtLe. At least Kupo has class and doesn't MESSAGE the people -Dr Pizza