Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Keywebcomic. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Random Topic; Come... be Random!
Topic Started: Dec 5 2007, 06:29 PM (36,001 Views)
Elystriana
Member Avatar
Guardian and Healer of the Silyena Woods
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Oooookay....why are we discussing the pros and cons of milk over milk? :blink:

And Jason, do you mean you don't think people should be vaccinated?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack
Member Avatar
reduced in size to five inches tall
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't mind vaccinations for smallpox or tetanus. Those have extremely low infection rates, and they're extremely beneficial. However, vaccinating for something like the flu is really a very stupid idea because the infection rate is high, and the flu virus is constantly mutating, so you can never really vaccinate effectively. My recommendation? Sleep lots and drink lots of water.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
towr
Member Avatar
Defender of the pie
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jason
Mar 5 2009, 08:54 PM
What you don't realize is that the human body can handle those pathogens.
A healthy one, yes. But people still die yearly of E. Coli, Salmonella etc; because nto everyone's immune system is always in tip-top shape. Especially for the elderly and the young salmonella tends to be a serious risk.
And sometimes it's even linked to drinking raw milk. e.g. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/281/19/1805

Quote:
 
It's what I tell people - don't bother washing out a scrape; let it bleed out.
Well, as long as it bleeds well, then that has the same effect as washing it out. That's what bleeding is for. But if it doesn't bleed well, I'd really suggest washing it, because infections are not much fun. Blood poisoning isn't either.

Quote:
 
Let the body heal on its own, with as little outside intervention as possible. You end up stronger in the end.
Yeah, or with limbs amputated due to gangrene.
Sure, the odds are good. But even with good odds you can lose out, and few people have ever been reported to come back stronger from death. And I don't imagine myself an Obi Wan Kenobi.

Quote:
 
I apply the same rule to vaccinations - because they have quite a nasty infection rate.
?!?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
towr
Member Avatar
Defender of the pie
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Elystriana
Mar 5 2009, 09:05 PM
Oooookay....why are we discussing the pros and cons of milk over milk? :blink:
Well, this is "The Random Topic" :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
towr
Member Avatar
Defender of the pie
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jason
Mar 5 2009, 09:08 PM
However, vaccinating for something like the flu is really a very stupid idea because the infection rate is high
Is it? Any evidence?
Don't they use new, sterile needles for each patient, and sterile vaccines, and sterilize the spot where they inject, like in a civilized country?

Quote:
 
and the flu virus is constantly mutating, so you can never really vaccinate effectively.
Each year they pick the most likely strains to cause problems and vaccinate against it.
Oh, and just very recently they have discovered a way which may in a few years work against nearly every strain. ( http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v16/n3/abs/nsmb.1566.html )

Quote:
 
My recommendation? Sleep lots and drink lots of water.
If you're not among the demographic at risk, I'd agree. But the elderly tend to have a rather higher mortality rate from the common flu. *)
People wouldn't vaccinate if the "cure" wasn't quite a bit better than the disease. The evidence bears it out. Life expectancy has soared to three times what it was thanks in large part due to modern medicine.


*) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5539a2.htm
CDC
 
Vaccination of persons at increased risk for complications from influenza and pneumococcal disease is a key public health strategy in the United States. During the 1990--1999 influenza seasons, approximately 36,000 deaths were attributed annually to influenza infection, with approximately 90% of deaths occurring among adults aged >65 years.
Edited by towr, Mar 5 2009, 10:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack
Member Avatar
reduced in size to five inches tall
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You can't vaccinate for the flu because it's a virus. Viruses mutate too quickly to lock down an effective vaccine.

What I mean by 'infection rate' for a vaccine is infection BY THE VACCINE ITSELF. If it's a live virus vaccine - which viral vaccines almost invariably are - there's a chance that it will infect the person with the disease. The rate is pretty high, and I personally don't feel like going to the doctor to get shot up with a live virus.
Edited by Jack, Mar 5 2009, 11:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
towr
Member Avatar
Defender of the pie
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jason
Mar 5 2009, 11:30 PM
You can't vaccinate for the flu because it's a virus. Viruses mutate too quickly to lock down an effective vaccine.
Wrong. what you're saying is quite simply contrary to established fact
How do you think they got rid of smallpox? That was a virus too.
Sure, flu mutates quickly, quicker than smallpox. Which is why we cannot (yet) eradicate it. But it doesn't mutate so quickly that you can't make a yearly vaccine that is affective against the dominant current strains. The evidence bears that out. And as the article in Nature I posted above shows, not every part of the virus mutates, and you can quite probably make a vaccine from that part. Which means you can have a broad spectrum vaccine against the flu, that will be effective despite most mutations of the virus.

Quote:
 
What I mean by 'infection rate' for a vaccine is infection BY THE VACCINE ITSELF. If it's a live virus vaccine - which viral vaccines almost invariably are
Looking at the wikipedia page on the types of vaccines, flu vaccines are listed among the type made of dead viruses. The CDC also states that: "The flu shot is an inactivated vaccine (containing killed virus)". It is not live.
And there are also many vaccines that are made from inactive parts of viruses. You only really need the antigens on their capsule(? or whatever its called in English), which can be sugars or proteins. Live vaccines, which are made of much weakened viruses (i.e. even in the unlikely event you do get sick, it will be much better than getting the real thing), seem to be preferred because they give longer protection. And they wouldn't be used if it wasn't a lot better than the alternative. Because medical doctors are not on the whole freaking insane.

Quote:
 
- there's a chance that it will infect the person with the disease. The rate is pretty high
I don't believe that's born out by fact.
If we take a look at http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/about/qa/nasalspray.htm (where in contrast to wiki's claims they do use a live flu vaccine, apparently):
" In one large study among children aged 15-85 months, the nasal-spray flu vaccine LAIV (FluMist®) reduced the chance of influenza illness by 92% compared with placebo. "

If there were such a high risk of getting the flu from the vaccine itself as you claim, there wouldn't be a 92% reduction.

From the same page:
"Unlike the flu shot, the nasal spray flu vaccine does contain live viruses. However, the viruses are attenuated (weakened) and cannot cause flu illness."
So, to reiterate, the flu shot is NOT a live vaccine. And even LAIV cannot cause the flu.
So where is your evidence? What are your assertions based on?

Quote:
 
and I personally don't feel like going to the doctor to get shot up with a live virus.
Well, you wouldn't. Since the flu shot isn't a live vaccine.
Look, what you do with your own life is fine by me. But I'm not going to stand by letting you disseminate untruths*) and put other people at risk. Health is "serious business", and I don't mean that in the "big farma" sense, there are people out there dying because they base their medical decisions on false information.
Now for the most part, I don't know them, and I hate humanity in general, so whatever. But I actually like most of the people on this board somewhat.

*) I'm sure you believe it, so I won't call them lies.
Edited by towr, Mar 6 2009, 10:12 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack
Member Avatar
reduced in size to five inches tall
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
towr
Mar 6 2009, 09:20 AM
*) I'm sure you believe it, so I won't call them lies.
Well, you just did call them lies.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but most of it's wrong...the flu shot has to be a live virus because the human body doesn't react strongly enough to a dead one. And the reason there hasn't been a flu vaccine made to combat all the strains of the flu virus is because one can't be made out of that 'portion that doesn't mutate'. If you could do that - with any virus! - we'd have an AIDS vaccine already! It can't be done. Ask the geneticists.

Added on to that, a great deal of information on the web is highly suspect, so I'd be careful getting my sources there...most colleges won't take a lot of your sources as valid ones. Believe me, I've tried. ;)

I dunno. Maybe in thirty/forty years they'll have some kind of breakthrough that will allow them to do such a thing with the flu, but they haven't done it yet - and, considering the way the world's economy is going, I don't think it's going to matter in a few years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack
Member Avatar
reduced in size to five inches tall
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
As I read over the rest of the topic, I can't help but think we're getting a little out of character...less friendly. Mayhaps we should change the subject.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
towr
Member Avatar
Defender of the pie
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jason
Mar 6 2009, 12:44 PM
towr
Mar 6 2009, 09:20 AM
*) I'm sure you believe it, so I won't call them lies.
Well, you just did call them lies.
No, I didn't, I called them misinformed.

Quote:
 
I don't know where you're getting your information, but most of it's wrong...
I get it from Pubmed, the CDC and nature.

Quote:
 
the flu shot has to be a live virus because the human body doesn't react strongly enough to a dead one.
The CDC is the institution that provides them, I have more reason to trust them to know what's in it than you. Nevermind that you haven't produced any source for your claims.

Quote:
 
And the reason there hasn't been a flu vaccine made to combat all the strains of the flu virus is because one can't be made out of that 'portion that doesn't mutate'.
Read the Nature article! Why are you ignoring science?

Quote:
 
If you could do that - with any virus! - we'd have an AIDS vaccine already! It can't be done. Ask the geneticists.
We have it for many viruses. Broad spectrum vaccines are a fact. But not all virsuses are created equally, and so it takes time to find the right parts to make a vaccine from. The one's for flu were just found in the last year.

Quote:
 
Added on to that, a great deal of information on the web is highly suspect, so I'd be careful getting my sources there...most colleges won't take a lot of your sources as valid ones. Believe me, I've tried. ;)
Pubmed and Nature are academic sources. That's why I used them. The CDC is the most important institution of the US for controlling and documenting disease.

Stop making baseless accusations and stop trying to poison the well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
towr
Member Avatar
Defender of the pie
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jason
Mar 6 2009, 12:54 PM
As I read over the rest of the topic, I can't help but think we're getting a little out of character...less friendly. Mayhaps we should change the subject.
Yeah, I did notice I was starting to shake in furious indignation.
I could hardly type starting the previous post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
towr
Member Avatar
Defender of the pie
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Leif
Unregistered

come be random? ok!

lesse how this works :evil:

<a href="http://dragcave.net/view/JPiu"><img src="http://dragcave.net/image/JPiu.gif" style="border-width: 0" alt="Adopt one today!"/></a>

Posted Image

<a href="http://dragcave.net/view/6JM7"><img src="http://dragcave.net/image/6JM7.gif" style="border-width: 0" alt="Adopt one today!"/></a>

Posted Image

<a href="http://dragcave.net/view/8Arh"><img src="http://dragcave.net/image/8Arh.gif" style="border-width: 0" alt="Adopt one today!"/></a>

Posted Image

<a href="http://dragcave.net/view/6wLt"><img src="http://dragcave.net/image/6wLt.gif" style="border-width: 0" alt="Adopt one today!"/></a>

Posted Image
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack
Member Avatar
reduced in size to five inches tall
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Okay...that was random.

One last thing, towr...I don't have a lot of faith in 'science' because of two things...

1) Science can never 'prove' anything. It can only provide evidence for an argument.
2) Modern science believes in evolution - which isn't exactly supported by the vast majority of the evidence.

But aside, it was an interesting discussion (not to mention a hilarious cartoon! :lol: ).
Edited by Jack, Mar 6 2009, 02:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
towr
Member Avatar
Defender of the pie
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Jason
Mar 6 2009, 02:16 PM
One last thing, towr...I don't have a lot of faith in 'science' because of two things...

1) Science can never 'prove' anything. It can only provide evidence for an argument.
Only math/logic can prove anything, that's not really a fault of science. Evidence based assertions are better than free-floating ones.

Quote:
 
2) Modern science believes in evolution - which isn't exactly supported by the vast majority of the evidence.
I'm sure you won't be the least bit surprised that I strongly disagree with that assertion, and in fact support the opposite one: that the vast majority of evidence does support evolutionary theory.
But that would be a worse argument to get started on than the previous one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Random Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply