Vaccinations; recent developments

[sarkeizen]

Because it is just a BARRIER of just understanding the word definitions.

That doesn't explain how you know what the word means.  Either you looked it up or you didn't.  If you looked it up then why didn't you look up all those other words that you used poorly and if you didn't why would you keep using a word without knowing what it means?

Now that I understand what you mean by 'affectioning'

Someone who knows what affectation means doesn't use 'affectioning' as an inflection.

The facts still remain that the flu shot only helps to prevent the predominant flu strain

Wrong. As discussed vaccines promote immunity against a serotype not a strain.  There are many strains to the serotype.  This means that vaccines do not only protect against a single strain.  Furthermore there is always the possibility of cross-species protection.  As, again discussed the example of vericella vaccine providing protection against HSV I and HSV II.   

and that is not a 100% sure guarantee that it will help you 100% sure you will not get the flu

This is irrelevant to the discussion.

cause the virus will always MUTATE!

Not necessarily to the degree which will allow it to avoid being stopped by the vaccine.

that it is WAYYY better to not get sick in the fist place than to get vaccinated from all viruses in the world!

Probably not.  Viruses as we now know can be precursors to all sorts of other diseases.  Even if you don't appear sick you can get sick much later on.

Well that is the word you choose to try to DEFINE my intentions. I just learned that word by "debating" with you

Doesn't seem like you did - since you inflected it wrong.

And you still can't accept the fact that there is a lot of miscommunication in this world

I can accept it however it is still enormously off-topic.  The point I was making when you decided to lecture about this is that you have a responsibility to be able to talk competently about what you're arguing.  If you can't, go back and read a book...or at least don't dictate that people who find your "trollish affectation language" vague to the point of being useless.

stitches are better than avoidance of the cut?

Different thing.  Stitches do not prevent further cuts.  Vaccines prevent further infections

Please allow your ego of trying to teach me the English language

Again you are expected to be able to speak competently about the subject you are arguing.  So far you fail.

As a matter of fact, affectation only lives in your world of trying to define how viruses work since you used it to define how viruses work. When you told me AFFECTATION, is when I understood that word ONLY!

You don't seem to understand it now.

I'm sure a lawyer or a judge has never used that word in their everyday life!

You're probably wrong.

Why have you deviated so far

Dude.  You decided to go on about how poorly you understand the word "affectation".  Not me.  I've just been using it to describe your behavior.  You can change the subject as many times as you want but don't blame me for your lack of focus.

Yes I'm qualified to diagnose ADHD because I "suffer" from it too

So everyone who has a disease is qualified to diagnose it?  LOL.  Uh no. 

And 100000% sure

Another good reason to believe you're stupid.

since if there was, it should have been LOOOONG gone like chicken pox!

Chicken pox isn't treated with a pill.  It's vaccinated against - vaccines aren't the same as heredity.  Just because you can successfully treat a disease doesn't change a persons DNA.  Chicken pox is also an illness, the underlying virus varicella is still around and still causes problems.

It is pretty simple! You don't need to think that hard

...and you are certainly the expert in not thinking hard

to figure it out in fact COMMERCIALS also cause  OCD = obsessive compulsive disorder!

OCD isn't the same as AD/HD although they have a number of common symptoms.  OCD is an anxiety disorder - AD/HD isn't.

I kind of find it weird that these experts CANNOT see this obvious things!

Again simple epidemiology shows that OCD does not correlate with TVs per capita.

I don't know why shaking hands has not being made illegal.

You only say things like that because you're trolling.

You need to BREAK FREE FROM IGNORANCE!

Advice better followed by you.  Let me know when you stop saying "100%"

Words don't just come to existence by themselves!

Change of topic again #29?. Made entirely by you and you will attempt to blame on me.   

Yeah, well you see PILLS don't work that WAY.

What way?  Have a dose response relationship?  They sure do.  Sorry you're just plain wrong.  In any case if what you had said was true - that I have ADHD and it was caused by TV/Radio commercials.  Then I simply would not have it today because I have an exceptionally low exposure to commercials.   If I do have ADD then it can't be because of commercials because everyone else would have dose which is 100x stronger.  Unless there was an inherent variability which you already said there isn't.  So take your pick, either I don't have AD/HD by your own logic...or by your own logic AD/HD isn't caused by commercials.

ADD starts as  as KID watching sponge bob square pants!

Nothing to do with me.

Your ADD will never go away that simple nor by taking pills IF IT CANNOT BE CURED FROM THE ROOTS!

You said that ADD is cured by getting rid of commercials.  If commercials have a dose/response relationship then I am very likely to be cured.   If they don't have a dose/response relationship then there has to be an inherent variability. But you already said there wasn't....soooo again make up your mind which way you want to be wrong and get back to me.

Since tell me of a MAGIC PILL that cures it?

I don't take any regular medication but if I had ADHD which stopped me from holding down a good job even with psychosocial therapy.  I'd at least consider trying Adderal

The same thing is with OCD

Well is this change of topic #30?  Seems like it is.

Well I wish but I don't have the time nor the years.

What? You can't even cure yourself? LOL

I'm just trying to ENLIGHTEN those that want to be enlighten!

When you give someone a "cure"  that you can't provide experimental evidence for in any way.  "Enlightenment" isn't as good a word as "Ignorance" is.

there are VARIABLES (genetic and behavioral)

All of a sudden genetics are a risk factor but a few 100%'s ago it was all about TV, then TV commercials, then TV and radio commercials and then magazine commercials and then poorly defined terms like "distractions".

From looking at different angles

There is really no evidence you do this.  The only angle you look at things from is from your pre-existing stupid prejudices.

many UPON many studies that other people do always points to BEHAVIRAL "disease".

Please point out a study from a medical journal.

NO! we only learn in this world

This is not really responding to what I said.  You called me stubborn.  I'm just saying that your argument is stupid and your evidence laughable, inconsistent and contrary to much better research. So that's why I don't believe you. 

You just not that informed about the world

well that's what you need to tell yourself to avoid thinking about what I say.

I'm pretty sure someone is being enlighten by what I type

Ahh but you said "ONLY" and now you're saying that you're mostly doing it for entertainment.  One of those is a lie.  Let me know.

I said "I 100% sure know that KNOWLEDGE is the CURE!"

Actually you said that you know a number of things "100%" all of which mean you have a problem with ego and arrogance.

you keep on dis...

Only when it's funny.

..secting everything I say and take it out of context!

I'm taking it in the context it appears to be offered.  Again you're off topic (about being off-topic which is kind of awesome).  So if you want to stop talking about different things.  You need to stop mentioning irrelevant things because your knowledge of medical is so bad that you just end up making dumb mistakes.

, you just chop

...when it's funny.

It has been obvious that you are just NIT PICKING my answers for a while now!

Here'os another theory. You are so woefully uninformed and ignorant about virology that things which are important (like the difference between strain and serotype) seem like nit picking because you are literally so dumb you don't know what is important and what isn't.

I understand that you believing that i'm 26 times OFF TOPIC of what you speak off...because you are not looking at things from different ANGELS!

Dude you're the one who is calling me talking about a topic you brought up as "off topic".  So, if you want me to respond about different things.  Then you need to talk about different things.  Let me know when you can admit fault.

That is how wireless electronics work too!

By being off-topic? lol - this is #30 - congratulations!

"evolution"? = mistakes gives knowledge

Off-topic #31. Not really about mistakes.  It's more about knowledge being generated by imposing a validating structure on data.

Or did you take a pill?

False dichotomy.

Ok what's your pick?

I'll pick a game where the rules can be explained in a few minutes.  Sound good to you?

[sarkeizen]

As you must be well aware by now, in the Land of Looney Tunes (U.S. Medical Establishment) anything is possible.

Seems like you want to squirm some more.  Awesome! This makes my day.  I really appreciate it.

So you believe it's possible that someone with a real medical problem (for which there is no existing diagnosis) can come into a doctors office and get a diagnosis of ADHD.

The obvious question then is do you believe that this represents a significant number of people who walk into a doctors office and get an ADHD diagnosis.

Again, simple yes or now will do but if you really want to make me happy you'll waffle some more.

[sarkeizen]

why would you spend taxpayer dollars playing radio ads suggesting the above?  There MAY be some benefit?

Well....

a) The added cost to taxpayers to administer the vaccine for the few people who are sitting on the fence and would be swayed with a radio commercial is negligible.
b) It's still considered somewhere between 10% and 23% effective which is still many orders of magnitude greater than the risk
c) Most people take more action for less effect.  Which means it's as least, if not more rational as the actions of the majority of people.

[Pirate88179]

Well....

a) The added cost to taxpayers to administer the vaccine for the few people who are sitting on the fence and would be swayed with a radio commercial is negligible.
b) It's still considered somewhere between 10% and 23% effective which is still many orders of magnitude greater than the risk
c) Most people take more action for less effect.  Which means it's as least, if not more rational as the actions of the majority of people.

OK.  Item B explains their use of the phrase "not likely to help prevent".
       Item C does not concern me as I don't really care what most people do.
       Item A tells me that they are spending our money to promote a product made by a private company.  Taxpayers do not spend money to promote my company...right?  I have a problem with this.

Now, if I were seriously ill and clinging to life, and any kind of flu might kill me, I would surely take the shot, just to be safe, and I would not need any taxpayer to spend a dime to convince me to do so.

This is not meant to be any type of indictment on vaccines in general, which in my opinion do much more good than harm, but specifically this year's
"batch" and the use of our money to promote a private company's product.

Bill

[SeaMonkey]

Ain't the FDA just wonderful in how it so
carefully protects the health of 'Merkun
kids?