>> ^spoco2:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^spoco2:
Ha! She really got him with that last comment...
Where's marbles to arc up about vaccines then?

When you've got liberals quoting Rush Limbaugh as the authority, then you know something is seriously fucked up.

OR, if everyone INCLUDING Limbaugh admits that there is ZERO evidence for the claims then you know the claims are utter bullshit.


Ok pal. Gardasil contains aluminum, polysorbate 80 and sodium borate.

aluminum: Toxic. Linked to Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Can cause memory loss and speech problems. Linked to a wide variety of other health problems. Side effects and severe allergic reactions include rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing, tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue, loss of appetite, muscle weakness, nausea, slow reflexes, and vomiting.

polysorbate 80: Carcinogenic as well as mutagenic. When injected into prepubescent rats, it caused abnormal growth of reproductive organs and made the rats sterile. When used intravenously with vitamins it has been known to cause anaphylactic shock.

sodium borate: Roach pesticide, i.e. poison. Listed side effects include: vomiting, collapse, coma, convulsions, low blood pressure and twitching of facial muscles, arms, hands, legs, and feet.


According to VAERS – the following reports have been listed for HPV, HPV2 & HPV 4 and "mental disorders." This is an estimated 1 to 10% of the vaccine-injured population reporting:

VAERS Analysis / HPV, HPV2, HPV4 – U.S. & Foreign / HPV4 U.S. Only


1. Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) / 21 / 7
   
2. Encephalitis / 53 / 27
   
3. Demyelination / 60 / 28
   
4. Psychotic Disorder / 14 / 5
   
5. Abnormal Behaviour / 49 / 41
   
6. Cognitive Disorder / 22 / 19
   
7. Mental Status Changes / 41 / 38
   
8. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging Brain Abnormal / 132 / 95
   
9. Speech Disorder / 90 / 67
   
10. Myelitis Transverse / 30 / 21
    
11. Facial Palsy / 138 / 105

>> ^blankfist:

And I too could recite your position. In my sleep. In a coma. In my grave.

But you can't. You're constantly misapprehending and misrepresenting my position on things, and you don't listen when I try to correct you on what I think.

>> ^blankfist:
If no one is willing to help someone who is dying, then they would die. I felt like I've answered this. But you want me to say something sensational and controversial, that I want people to die or think they should. But my point is it shouldn't be up to me or you. It should be up to the individual how he handles his life even in life-saving health treatment.

So it's okay for a doctor to choose to let the guy die if he wants to? Morally and legally, that's his right?

Keep in mind that at the same time, you're saying it's totally off-limits for there to be any kind of compulsory solution. No law saying that patients in life-threatening situations need to be treated regardless of their ability to pay. No taxes collected to compensate doctors for the services they render to people who are unable to pay. No collective bargaining to keep prices on drugs and treatments low. No national health insurance program, or even health insurance regulation, and definitely no subsidization of anything.

Maybe doctors are supermen who have an infinite wellspring of compassion, but they still live in a market-dominated world. They're going to need money to pay off their college debt. They're going to need a place to live, food to eat, etc. The hospital is going to demand some level of compensation for the use of rooms, equipment, and medical supplies. Once all the donations and his own savings are exhausted, even the most noble doctor is going to eventually have to say no to somebody, whether he wants to or not.

So, you're saying the patient who's dying must not be given guarantees of any kind, while the doctor must as a matter of moral imperative, be guaranteed the right to refuse to treat people, even if that's a death sentence for their potential patient.

That is sensational, controversial, and in my opinion, morally reprehensible.

I'm not asking you this as some sort of "gotcha" question. I'm mostly using the question to try to get you to think about this conflict between mainline libertarian ideology, and what you know is right in your heart.

There's gotta be a better way. I'm not married to any one way to solve the issue, but I definitely reject the way you and Paul are insisting is the only way society can handle these kinds of situations.

>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist I'm pretty confident that by this point I could recite your position on health care and government in my sleep.
That's why I'm still waiting for you to answer the question. "Free market" rules work like this:
Person A has X dollars, and wants cherries. The market price of cherries is Y dollars. If X < Y, then Person A can't have cherries, no matter how badly he might want them.
Should those rules ever be different if we're talking about life-saving medical procedures?
Since this keeps being answered with cries of "Charity!" I guess I need to point out that charity doesn't change that fundamental picture, nor does it eliminate the possibility of that ever happening to anyone.
So we're back to the same question, with just one more caveat. What should be done with people who can't pay, and didn't get helped by charity? Leave them to die?


And I too could recite your position. In my sleep. In a coma. In my grave.

If no one is willing to help someone who is dying, then they would die. I felt like I've answered this. But you want me to say something sensational and controversial, that I want people to die or think they should. But my point is it shouldn't be up to me or you. It should be up to the individual how he handles his life even in life-saving health treatment.

What you've created is a very specific scenario that appeals to our fears as mortal beings. And using it to promote a political agenda is just as disgusting as those who used 9/11 to justify taking away our liberties and rights.

What's worse, you think you've discovered some big gotcha question to rule them all. You didn't. It appeals to the basest of emotions instead of reason. And it shows the narrow-mindedness of your movement. We let people die all the time. It's almost an accepted part of our lives. You thump your chest over saving lives with universal healthcare, yet say nothing about military aggressions that lead to large scale life loss. At least dying in a hospice gives you some dignity and comfort unlike dying in a wartorn street from phosphorus burns.

In reply to this comment by steama:
Deepak talk total crap. He mixes his breed of mythology psycho-babble to the point it is sickening. I have never heard a man make more unsubstantiated claims than Chopra.

Sorry, I assumed that people would get the sarcasm using the bug and windshield analogy. As for Gupta, of course death has a process if there is 'time' but often the luxury of time would be gone if we were squished by a large boulder let's say! Science will continue to uncover the mysteries of the human mind. It's amazing.

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
actually, check out "The Serpent and the Rainbow." In it, Wade Davis describes that the pronouncement of death is actually a much trickier and more ambiguous process than is commonly understood. People have recovered after being "clinically dead" (i.e., no brain activity, no heart rate, etc.) for several minutes, or even longer. If a person goes into cardiac arrest during a coma, the declaration of the time of death is, in this sense, simply the time at which the doctors have decided to stop working on revival.

>> ^steama:

Deepak make statements regarding the brain, mind, consciousness, that he cannot back-up with any evidence at all. He obviously likes to hear himself talk.
When the brain dies the mind is gone — period.
Also, Gupta stating that death is a process and doesn't happen all at once. Well ask that bug that hit your windshield how long the death process took.

Deepak talk total crap. He mixes his breed of mythology psycho-babble to the point it is sickening. I have never heard a man make more unsubstantiated claims than Chopra.

Sorry, I assumed that people would get the sarcasm using the bug and windshield analogy. As for Gupta, of course death has a process if there is 'time' but often the luxury of time would be gone if we were squished by a large boulder let's say! Science will continue to uncover the mysteries of the human mind. It's amazing.

In reply to this comment by Trancecoach:
actually, check out "The Serpent and the Rainbow." In it, Wade Davis describes that the pronouncement of death is actually a much trickier and more ambiguous process than is commonly understood. People have recovered after being "clinically dead" (i.e., no brain activity, no heart rate, etc.) for several minutes, or even longer. If a person goes into cardiac arrest during a coma, the declaration of the time of death is, in this sense, simply the time at which the doctors have decided to stop working on revival.

>> ^steama:

Deepak make statements regarding the brain, mind, consciousness, that he cannot back-up with any evidence at all. He obviously likes to hear himself talk.
When the brain dies the mind is gone — period.
Also, Gupta stating that death is a process and doesn't happen all at once. Well ask that bug that hit your windshield how long the death process took.

actually, check out "The Serpent and the Rainbow." In it, Wade Davis describes that the pronouncement of death is actually a much trickier and more ambiguous process than is commonly understood. People have recovered after being "clinically dead" (i.e., no brain activity, no heart rate, etc.) for several minutes, or even longer. If a person goes into cardiac arrest during a coma, the declaration of the time of death is, in this sense, simply the time at which the doctors have decided to stop working on revival.

>> ^steama:

Deepak make statements regarding the brain, mind, consciousness, that he cannot back-up with any evidence at all. He obviously likes to hear himself talk.
When the brain dies the mind is gone — period.
Also, Gupta stating that death is a process and doesn't happen all at once. Well ask that bug that hit your windshield how long the death process took.

http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2011/warning-graphic-photo-of-fpd-beating-victim/

Here's a picture of the man. He lingered in a hospital in a coma for a week until he succumbed to his injuries. Admittedly, it doesn't take much to bring me to tears, but this is so frightening to me.

ps, i came .. matrixstyle-coma-nutrient-bulb-HID, here i come again baby

I'm way more into Red Bull these days. For years I drank up to fifteen cups of coffee per day, but it's too hard on the stomach and I could never predict when it would send me into a coma late in the afternoon... sometimes I get this thing with coffee where the first sip in a while actually makes me feel incredibly tired and I have to go lie down. I'm sure it's blood pressure related. So I prefer red bull which has the benefits of caffeine without raising blood pressure.

Same place as Karl Wendlinger's crash in '94 that left him in a coma for weeks. Props to the engineers of both the cars and the tracks for their continous efforts to increase safety features.

But that was just a side-effect of Callie's coma...

Yeah, okay, except that episode.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I assume you're excluding the episode where everybody sang
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I think they've kept surprisingly effective at it though. With ER I got numb to the goings on pretty quickly. With Grey's Anatomy they still manage to get a tug of emotion out of me pretty much every episode.

I do realize that there's a pretty standard template for what they're doing, but it always gets presented in a way that feels authentic.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I'll admit, there's been some good ones, but most of the over-the-top emotional tugs feel forced.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Admit it, that show makes you cry like a baby.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I can see you have a girlfriend as well...
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I thought the blonde girl went to Africa after she broke Alex Carev's heart.

sorry at least she was a suspect disobeying a lawful order.... unlike that kid in seattle who got clocked INTO the wall and went into a coma and he didn't even do anything.


the cop tells her to comply, she doesn't. nothing to see here.

Curse you for giving away the (possible) endings!


>> ^Payback:

1) She's crazy/in a coma. No second planet.
2) It's some sort of cosmic mirage. Light can be shared, but not matter. Might explain why there's no gravity-related effects (like in 2012 but for realistic reasons) in the trailer.
3) The actual story is 100% about her inner guilt. She decides not to go and the movie ends.
#1 or 2 type movie? I can handle that. I would even say I would prefer #2.
#3 movies piss me off. I mean, it would be just fine if they changed going to Earth2 over to maybe her dream job, somewhere in Europe or something, that she had spent her life preparing for. None of a #3 kind of movie needs to be in SciFi at all. Gattaca HAD to be SciFi, as it was commenting on genetic manipulation. If we don't get any spacy stuff in this movie, I'll be pissed.


EDIT: I would be satisfied with her getting over there, and finding out her double still killed that guy's family. Which then causes her to lose it, feeling double the guilt, or releases her, as it was obviously unavoidable.

1) She's crazy/in a coma. No second planet.
2) It's some sort of cosmic mirage. Light can be shared, but not matter. Might explain why there's no gravity-related effects (like in 2012 but for realistic reasons) in the trailer.
3) The actual story is 100% about her inner guilt. She decides not to go and the movie ends.

#1 or 2 type movie? I can handle that. I would even say I would prefer #2.

#3 movies piss me off. I mean, it would be just fine if they changed going to Earth2 over to maybe her dream job, somewhere in Europe or something, that she had spent her life preparing for. None of a #3 kind of movie needs to be in SciFi at all. Gattaca HAD to be SciFi, as it was commenting on genetic manipulation. If we don't get any spacy stuff in this movie, I'll be pissed.




EDIT: I would be satisfied with her getting over there, and finding out her double still killed that guy's family. Which then causes her to lose it, feeling double the guilt, or releases her, as it was obviously unavoidable.

>> ^rottenseed:

That's why I hide candy under my paperwork. When I'm done "oooh...piece 'o' candy". Usually it just ends up with my paper all over the floor and me in a sugar-coma


Ha! James Woods.