>> ^spoco2:

@marbles: The vaccine industry is run on dogma, not science.
Seriously... you are off the fucking deep end. Go and look into the science of vaccines.
Or do you ignore science and instead try to ward off evil with homoeopathy?


No, I just have faith in the government and big business.

Thanks for the double promote!

In reply to this comment by Tymbrwulf:
*doublepromote for awareness

>> ^Enzoblue:

Again, why is the left media so angered by this? The vaccination is stretching the connection of HPV with cervical cancer with some seriously dubious numbers. 6 MILLION women get HPV and only 4000 die from the cancer??? The reason the vaccine is a topic, is because Governor Perry tried to force, BY LAW, all little girls in his state to get it because he was getting kick backs from Merck - the sole producer of this vaccine.
I'm all for vaccines, but this one smells of sleeze. It's curious why the media is taking such an "OMG anti-science" stance.


The HPV variants that are covered by this vaccine are well known risk factors for invasive cervical cancer and have been for over 10 years. It's more common in developing countries.

The only reason there is even a discussion about this is because the media are reporting on this negatively. You will not find a Doctor who disagrees with these studies.

>> ^DerHasisttot:


The more people are vaccinated, the more likely it is that HPV is not transmitted to the women's children, the more likely it is that HPV is eradicated in the future: No more genital warts and hopefully, no more deaths. Compare smallpox.
Additionally, afaik and researched, there are no serious side-effects.
To be against the vaccine is demonstrably going against the science. Again: No significant negative, much positive.


To be "with the science", you sure are making a lot of unscientific claims. The vaccine industry is run on dogma, not science.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Again, why is the left media so angered by this? The vaccination is stretching the connection of HPV with cervical cancer with some seriously dubious numbers. 6 MILLION women get HPV and only 4000 die from the cancer??? The reason the vaccine is a topic, is because Governor Perry tried to force, BY LAW, all little girls in his state to get it because he was getting kick backs from Merck - the sole producer of this vaccine.
I'm all for vaccines, but this one smells of sleeze. It's curious why the media is taking such an "OMG anti-science" stance.


The more people are vaccinated, the more likely it is that HPV is not transmitted to the women's children, the more likely it is that HPV is eradicated in the future: No more genital warts and hopefully, no more deaths. Compare smallpox.

Additionally, afaik and researched, there are no serious side-effects.
To be against the vaccine is demonstrably going against the science. Again: No significant negative, much positive.

@spoco2

Let me get this straight... A young kid gets vaccinated, suffers an adverse reaction to it which leads to "autism like" symptoms. And the vaccine did NOT cause autism? The kid was going to get autism anyway? Bullshit. You have no evidence to back up that position.

BTW, they can make mercury-free vaccines. So why do you statist idiots want to mandate everyone get blasted with neurotoxins?

And typical deflecting argument... you can't argue a position without blurring the debate with ad hominem static. What happened to your false analogy? Did you fart again? You must have if you thought HPV vaccines lower cervical cancer rates. And you're ignoring the unintended consequences of trying to vaccinate a relatively common STD that's usually harmless and goes away without treatment. How's that happen you say? Our body has it's own defense system that eliminates the virus. Maybe we should start vaccinating people for colds, you think? Then no one will have colds anymore!

Neil Miller: "Research has shown that when vaccines only target a small number of strains capable of causing disease, less prevalent strains can replace the targeted vaccine strains. These less prevalent strains graduate from minor factors to major influences and may even become more dangerous. Scientists are now concerned that Gardasil -- which only targets two of at least 15 different cancer-causing HPV strains -- might be allowing HPV strains previously considered minor to flourish and become major influences."

More from the article:
By February 2011, more than 20,500 adverse reaction reports pertaining to Gardasil were filed with the U.S. government -- an average of 12 reports per day [VAERS]. Nearly half of all reports required a doctor or emergency room visit, with hundreds of teenage girls and young women needing extended hospitalization.

In the case reports submitted to the FDA, 89 deaths were described due to blood clots, heart disease and other causes. In addition, many of the vaccine recipients -- young women -- were stricken with serious and life-threatening disabilities, including Guillain-Barre syndrome (paralysis), seizures, convulsions, swollen limbs, chest pain, heart irregularities, kidney failure, visual disturbances, arthritis, difficulty breathing, severe rashes, persistent vomiting, miscarriages, menstrual irregularities, reproductive complications, genital warts, vaginal lesions and HPV infection -- the main reason to vaccinate.

According to Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, 'The rate of serious adverse events [from Gardasil] is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.' [ABC News (August 19, 2009).]

Gardasil is being promoted as 100 percent effective. However, this is a deceptive assessment of its true ability to protect against cervical cancer. Gardasil is effective against just two strains of cancer-causing HPV -- the ones included in the vaccine -- but researchers have identified at least 15 cancer-causing HPV strains!

Gardasil will not prevent infection with HPV types not contained in the vaccine. In fact, during clinical trials of the vaccine, hundreds of women who received Gardasil contracted HPV disease. Furthermore, the drug maker warns women (in its product insert) that 'vaccination does not substitute for routine cervical cancer screening.'
/source
In other words, your propaganda quote from the NCI is horseshit.

You are truly a moron. I've tried not to say so, but you are. Your conspiracy theory videos and this retarded attack on immunisation just prove it.

Widespread vaccination has the potential to reduce cervical cancer deaths around the world by as much as two-thirds, if all women were to take the vaccine and if protection turns out to be long-term. In addition, the vaccines can reduce the need for medical care, biopsies, and invasive procedures associated with the follow-up from abnormal Pap tests, thus helping to reduce health care costs and anxieties related to abnormal Pap tests and follow-up procedures.
—American National Cancer Institute, [22]
(source)

If you're all fine with NOT trying to prevent two thirds of cervical cancer deaths based on a misguided fear of immunisations, then have at it sir, and then don't bitch when any woman you knows dies of it.

Go and look up what immunisation has done for the world, go on...

Children DIED because of the hysteria created around the MMR vaccine by the slime ball Andrew Wakefield. Children who would NOT have died did so because idiots like you made parents incorrectly fear a vaccine, so their children were not immunised, infection rates sky-rocketed, and children DIED.

I mock the fucking shit out of you because you are wrong, and your decisions put the lives of other people at risk too, not just your own. There's no two ways about it, vaccinations are a HUGE benefit to society, a HUGE life saver, a HUGE preventer of pain and suffering.

Do you use homoeopathic remedies to ward off evil do you?


>> ^marbles:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^marinara:
mercury causes mental retardation, vaccines contain mercury, therefore vaccines=retardation.

A 6-ounce can of tuna fish contains an average of 17 micrograms of mercury, vaccines that contain mercury contain roughly 25 micrograms.
You think you're going to become mentally retarded by eating two cans of tuna?
No?
Then what you're saying is retarded.
That sort of knee-jerk, mindless shit is what causes people to stop getting their kids immunised and starts getting kids killed.

There's a big difference between ingesting mercury and injecting it straight into the vein.
Do junkies eat heroin? Why the fuck do you think they go to the trouble of injecting smack, why don't they just eat it?
Hardly any mercury is absorbed through ingesting, like around .01%. So that would be 1/1000 of 17 micrograms actually absorbed or .0017 micrograms / 6oz can of tuna.
And what do we actually know about mercury? Well, we know it's HIGHLY toxic. Let's go to the wikipedia page for Mercury poisoning:
Mercury is such a highly reactive toxic agent that it is difficult to identify its specific mechanism of damage, and much remains unknown about the mechanism. It damages the central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs, and adversely affects the mouth, gums, and teeth. Exposure over long periods of time or heavy exposure to mercury vapor can result in brain damage and ultimately death. Mercury and its compounds are particularly toxic to fetuses and infants. Women who have been exposed to mercury in pregnancy have sometimes given birth to children with serious birth defects (see Minamata disease).
Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences, preventing nerve sheaths from forming properly. Mercury inhibits the formation of myelin.
/source

And since we're at it, let's have a peak at Thiomersal's wikipedia page:
Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin, with a danger of cumulative effects. ...
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Cases have been reported of severe poisoning by accidental exposure or attempted suicide, with some fatalities. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown.
/source
But you can keep talking out of your ass like you actually have a fucking clue. And keep shooting up your children with neurotoxins too, while mocking those that oppose forced inoculations.
BTW statist idiot, the video is referring to the HPV vaccine. Why do fucking 10 year olds need to be vaccinated for STDs?

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^marinara:
mercury causes mental retardation, vaccines contain mercury, therefore vaccines=retardation.

A 6-ounce can of tuna fish contains an average of 17 micrograms of mercury, vaccines that contain mercury contain roughly 25 micrograms.
You think you're going to become mentally retarded by eating two cans of tuna?
No?
Then what you're saying is retarded.
That sort of knee-jerk, mindless shit is what causes people to stop getting their kids immunised and starts getting kids killed.


There's a big difference between ingesting mercury and injecting it straight into the vein.

Do junkies eat heroin? Why the fuck do you think they go to the trouble of injecting smack, why don't they just eat it?
Hardly any mercury is absorbed through ingesting, like around .01%. So that would be 1/1000 of 17 micrograms actually absorbed or .0017 micrograms / 6oz can of tuna.

And what do we actually know about mercury? Well, we know it's HIGHLY toxic. Let's go to the wikipedia page for Mercury poisoning:

Mercury is such a highly reactive toxic agent that it is difficult to identify its specific mechanism of damage, and much remains unknown about the mechanism. It damages the central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs, and adversely affects the mouth, gums, and teeth. Exposure over long periods of time or heavy exposure to mercury vapor can result in brain damage and ultimately death. Mercury and its compounds are particularly toxic to fetuses and infants. Women who have been exposed to mercury in pregnancy have sometimes given birth to children with serious birth defects (see Minamata disease).

Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences, preventing nerve sheaths from forming properly. Mercury inhibits the formation of myelin.
/source


And since we're at it, let's have a peak at Thiomersal's wikipedia page:

Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin, with a danger of cumulative effects. ...

Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Cases have been reported of severe poisoning by accidental exposure or attempted suicide, with some fatalities. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown.
/source

But you can keep talking out of your ass like you actually have a fucking clue. And keep shooting up your children with neurotoxins too, while mocking those that oppose forced inoculations.

BTW statist idiot, the video is referring to the HPV vaccine. Why do fucking 10 year olds need to be vaccinated for STDs?

All I see is a colourful mix of STDs.

Nah, looks like fun, perhaps too much for me. Didn't seem to be that much seating at the venue either. And I hate sand.













and smelly Hippies

I upvoted your comment before reading the last paragraph, so let me rephrase it to something I would agree with (although I believe we share the same sentiment):

The social construct of "the sanctity of marriage" stems from its origins as a commercial/social (and sometimes political) contract which was not to be broken*. When/where it was no longer considered acceptable to marry off one's daughter/sister as property, religion invented the notion of "spiritual contract". "Adultery" is the oh-so terrible "sin" of having sex outside of that contract, and is really only reprehensible when it consists of lying and risking the transmission of STDs to an unknowing partner. Spousal abuse has always existed, but has been "protected" by the "sanctity of marriage"; it's their private relationship after all (and she's his property).
A happy and loving home is far more important than the gender of the parents.



*speaking of which, the Bible Mr FrothyFecalMix keeps defending as the pillar of marital morality commands a "you break it you buy it" approach to rape, literally (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).
>> ^Trancecoach:

Santorum's philosophy here seems to be, "If you don't like the message, attack the messenger."
The APA didn't just decide to "support" gay marriage. They performed the studies (which this student was citing) that found that the children of homosexual couples are no less happy or well-adjusted (or prone to homosexuality) than the children of heterosexual couples.
And, by the bye, the "sanctity" of marriage was destroyed many many years ago with the rise of divorce, adultery, and spousal abuse. A happy and loving home is far more important than the gender of the parents.

Oh? Lawdeedaw said >>>"Whether done by government..." So government is not big enough? Pre-storm welness is an insurance matter too...please tell me you read and understood that Darken! Please tell me you didn't take my neutral comment as advocating private, greed-based insurance? Oh, you did? Too bad for you.

But here is some fun note...who doooooo you suppose provides these services then? The government that gives STDs to third world-ish countries, fights two wars for the sole purpose of glory and control, the government that advocates people's stupidity?

I am asking in a serious manner. We accuse Republicans of dodging the "hard" questions while ourselves dodging those same ones.

>> ^DarkenRahl:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
@longde
That is what insurance is for---whether done by government or private sector (He would advocate private but that's beside the point.)
As far as AG goes, corn prices are down which means we can enjoy 15% of our income being spent on groceries as opposed to much higher %'s in other countries.
Either way, I don't agree with the subsidies corn gets.
I think Paul's only true problem is that he puts to much stock into lazy, arrogant sons-of-bitches that wouldn't help their neighbors even if they had the means. He is a fool in that regard. Our society, our people are nothing but corruption.
So, that's my pessimistic side... I do all I can to help my fellow man but I worry people like Paul are crazy for believing.

Yes. Insurance is for replacing property that has been destroyed. Like your house, your car, your wife and kids...
Oh, shit. That can't be right.
That kind of stuff needs to be protected from natural disasters by some sort of larger organization that has the resources to do what I, as an individual, cannot.

Agreed. Culture adapts more quickly than evolution.

Now the deserts are paved and irrigated, and little boxes made of ticky-tacky dot the hillside. All with AC and all just the same. Culture can adapt again.

>> ^dag:

I think it could be that STDs have evolved quicker than us. Therefore we use culture as a way to beat their faster microbial evolution. The same goes for dietary laws. There were probably pretty good reasons for not eating shellfish, if you lived in the desert without refrigeration. >> ^notarobot:
I've never understood the argument that a normal body part, found on pretty much every mammal species on earth, evolved over millions and millions of years is flawed.

I dont buy the argument that it had any practical health benefits in the bronze age or anywhen else. It was a massive way to show god whose side you were on by cutting a lump of your(or someone elses) penis off. Performing surgery circa 6,000BC on a newborn (or adult) with a sharpened stone is not going to increase anyones chances of survival. Look at the African tribes that carry out the same ritual today, the families have to wait to see which of the young men even survived the surgery, nevermind the ensuing infections.

If it was a detriment to survival we wouldnt have one, other mammals wouldnt have them, they are there for a reason and has been said for decades about circumcision "Its a cure searching for a disease". The latest attempt to find a disease is the AIDS/STD studies in Africa, none of the findings of which have been borne out in further studies.

I have yet to hear of a boy dying because he didnt have a circumcision, but I have heard (locally) of a baby boy who died as a result of a circumcision, an african immigrant whose mother was following her religious/tribal custom while living in Ireland for example.

I was loling when I first did some reading about this stuff online, so much hysteria about foreskins from people who dont even know what a normal penis looks like flaccid or erect, about how much special maintenance they require etc. (none), propaganda as far as I'm concerned.

My 2 cents

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't think it's the right thing to do now - but maybe in biblical times when hygiene was a real issue, it was a way to give a male offspring a head start against the many ailments that were around at the time. I don't think it's a practice that was just pulled out of a hat- it has some practical background, just like dietary laws. >> ^hpqp:

@dag and @lucky760
Don't be fooled by the studies saying circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV etc. Several factors render those studies' results doubtful and/or moot. For one, many of them concern 3rd world countries where simple hygiene is still an issue (e.g. Kenya). The odds ratios are very low. I would also add (with reserves though) that cultural bias may play a role in some of those studies (look at the names).
Most doctors and doctor associations disprove of neonatal circumcision btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision.
But even if circumcision were proven to drastically reduce the transmission of STDs and/or penile cancer, I would still be against it. How many kids have sex when they're babies? Can't they be given the choice when they reach their teens? As for penile cancer, it tends to develop in old age (60 and on), so plenty of time for a "preventive" chop if one chooses to do so to one's own body.