Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
PM to Pawz
Comments
-
Anyway, the point of all this is that there are benefits and risks inherent in every healthcare decision. Yes, vaccines have risks. Yes, vaccines have benefits. And for 99.99% of people, the benefits outweigh the risks.pawz said:
more stuffwhatshouldicareabout said:stuff
To address your specific points: yes, you'll read stories on the internet or in the news about parents concerns with vaccines. It happens. I read a report about a 20-year old male who developed 46DD breasts on one drug. Things happen. The thing you need to consider in these situations is power and bias. How many people were involved? Who is doing the reporting? What objective evidence did they present? Did they present everything about the patient or the incident?
Here is a quick and easy guide to understanding medical literature: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/gim/training/Osler/osler_JAMA_Steps.html Make sure you read everything.
Yes, medications are over-prescribed but it goes back to the risks versus benefit thing earlier.
Yes, vaccines have had adverse events for 20+ years. So does everything. There are cancer drugs that cause cancer. Just because one thing has some serious events doesn't mean it needs to be avoided, especially if it isn't killing them. -
PM to @DerekJohnson, can we get a badge for the bored predicated on how many times HondaFS calls someone FS? I wanna wear that shit with pride. (not suchfagJ pride)2001400ex said:
You must have received 156 to be this FS.pawz said:
Vaccines have been great for things like polio and the like that are all but eradicated. I don't even have a problem with MMR and others that have been around for a long time.RaceBannon said:
2 different issues. Pawz is right on the lifestyle stuff for heart disease and the like. Maybe even RESTLESS LEG SYNDROME a real killer in American life.AIRWOLF said:
What a coincidence, that's how smallpox and polio were eradicated.pawz said:
If people simply worked out for 20 minutes a day, meditated for 20 minutes a day and ate non-processed, vegetable based diets, we would lose the need pharmaceuticals and healthcare at a rate that would be staggering.
But not for the stuff we vaccinate for. I lived when there were still a couple of polio kids in our grade school. Not pretty. We got all our shots and were thankful for it.
The live a healthier lifestyle stuff will be a part of Big Brother in a couple of decades when we all have free healthcare and death panels.
What I'd like to know more about is the compounding effects of all the neuvo vaccines in the schedule.
In 1983 children would receive 10 vaccines before the age of 6. As of 2013 it's 36 before age 6. -
This is coming across as extremely disingenuous. The whole point of the debate is if the pendulum has swing too far. Your tone suggests that isn't possible and so what if it does.whatshouldicareabout said:
Anyway, the point of all this is that there are benefits and risks inherent in every healthcare decision. Yes, vaccines have risks. Yes, vaccines have benefits. And for 99.99% of people, the benefits outweigh the risks.pawz said:
more stuffwhatshouldicareabout said:stuff
To address your specific points: yes, you'll read stories on the internet or in the news about parents concerns with vaccines. It happens. I read a report about a 20-year old male who developed 46DD breasts on one drug. Things happen. The thing you need to consider in these situations is power and bias. How many people were involved? Who is doing the reporting? What objective evidence did they present? Did they present everything about the patient or the incident?
Here is a quick and easy guide to understanding medical literature: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/gim/training/Osler/osler_JAMA_Steps.html Make sure you read everything.
Yes, medications are over-prescribed but it goes back to the risks versus benefit thing earlier.
Yes, vaccines have had adverse events for 20+ years. So does everything. There are cancer drugs that cause cancer. Just because one thing has some serious events doesn't mean it needs to be avoided, especially if it isn't killing them.
So what if autism rates are off the charts and growing.
So what if people are chasing opioid addiction untill they have Pennsylvania railroad track marks from their taint to their navel.
So what if there is another movie theater shootout each week due to the deleterious effects of the over prescribed effects of psychotropic meds.
So fucking what. -
You got a link for that 36 vaccine figure? Is it required? I don't think I had that many. Maybe more like 5 or 6 for me, and I was born in 88.
-
KOMO 4 BUTTFUCKERPurpleJ said:You got a link for that 36 vaccine figure? Is it required? I don't think I had that many. Maybe more like 5 or 6 for me, and I was born in 88.
Ironically, '88 is the year Congress passed tort indemnity for vaccine makers. -
Could you move this to a board on Vashon? They got all kinds of rabid anti-vax fanatics over there. And when the Pox gets 'em, hey, cheap waterfront land. Sorry Swaye. Nothing personal. And they're all snow white anyway.
-
Tort indemnity superiority guy.
I'm pretty sure I got all those vaccines now that you mention that. I probably just don't remember the ones before age 3-4.
I'm cool with it though because the more drugs the better IMO. Drugs are fuckin sweet.
If "they" (fuck "they" by the way) wanna pump my kids full of vaccines, that's cool. I'm fine with that. I'm sure my kids would take the minuscule chance of getting cancer or autism over the alternative which is a chance of getting an equally fucked up preventable disease and dying young. -
of course there is a burn hazard when dealing with coffee. However there should not be a risk of 3rd degree burns. McDonalds was negligent and deserved to get the fuck sued out of them in that case. Doesn't surprise me that you are one of the many ill-informed on this issue though2001400ex said:
Still doesn't excuse the fact that people should know coffee is hot and not be surprised when it burns them.TurdBuffer said:
Okay, some dumbass had to bring it up, so here you go:2001400ex said:
Holy shit you got destroyed and you don't even realize it. Here's another example. The lady that spilled McDonald's coffee on her and win millions.pawz said:
As always, another pleasant discourse. It's too bad you can't stay on track, this is clearly a hot-button topic for you that may require closure.dflea said:Go fuck yourself - I don't give a fuck what you were referencing.
I'M referencing you being a stupid asshole, and that IS on topic.
My only regret is that I couldn't get you to drop the 'fucking goat' bomb. That would have been a success.
Have another jack-and-coke. Hold the coke.
The point he's making that's clearly lost on you, is that using settlements to show someone was right is fucktarded.
McD's Hot Coffee Facts: 79 y.o. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years. (Scorched pussy takes awhile to heal.)
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about.
Lieback offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. Jury awarded 2.86 million. Judge reduced it to 640k. McDonald's appealed & settled case during appeal.
No matter how you feel about the outcome, that's one dumbass corporation begging to have the fuck sued out of it.
And you are illustrating the point. The science on hot things burning you is settled. But people won money in settlements even tho we know that for a fact. -
Step back from you McDonald's soapbox for a second. And realize the point that's being illustrated.dhdawg said:
of course there is a burn hazard when dealing with coffee. However there should not be a risk of 3rd degree burns. McDonalds was negligent and deserved to get the fuck sued out of them in that case. Doesn't surprise me that you are one of the many ill-informed on this issue though2001400ex said:
Still doesn't excuse the fact that people should know coffee is hot and not be surprised when it burns them.TurdBuffer said:
Okay, some dumbass had to bring it up, so here you go:2001400ex said:
Holy shit you got destroyed and you don't even realize it. Here's another example. The lady that spilled McDonald's coffee on her and win millions.pawz said:
As always, another pleasant discourse. It's too bad you can't stay on track, this is clearly a hot-button topic for you that may require closure.dflea said:Go fuck yourself - I don't give a fuck what you were referencing.
I'M referencing you being a stupid asshole, and that IS on topic.
My only regret is that I couldn't get you to drop the 'fucking goat' bomb. That would have been a success.
Have another jack-and-coke. Hold the coke.
The point he's making that's clearly lost on you, is that using settlements to show someone was right is fucktarded.
McD's Hot Coffee Facts: 79 y.o. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years. (Scorched pussy takes awhile to heal.)
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000. McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about.
Lieback offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. Jury awarded 2.86 million. Judge reduced it to 640k. McDonald's appealed & settled case during appeal.
No matter how you feel about the outcome, that's one dumbass corporation begging to have the fuck sued out of it.
And you are illustrating the point. The science on hot things burning you is settled. But people won money in settlements even tho we know that for a fact.
I hope your next big Mac gives you diarrhea for a week. -
California requires 15 or 11 DOSES (depending on admission age) covering 5 different specific vaccinations.PurpleJ said:You got a link for that 36 vaccine figure? Is it required? I don't think I had that many. Maybe more like 5 or 6 for me, and I was born in 88.
http://www.shotsforschool.org/k-12/
