Back to TheU.ca
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Banned Users List
Usergroups
RSS Feeds
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log inTheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Flu shots - Reply to topic
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
To move things back on topic, check, this link out: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14891/ Just think! PS I realize not everyone will agree with that site. But try to take its information with an open mind, these are real doctors talking at the very least. |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine  Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place    votes: 6 View user's profile |
From a website wIth a countdown "until Obama leaves office." |
|
Right I didn't read the website too caerfully when I posted it. But again, everyone has their share of biases, so I odn't think we should let that invalidate the whole point of the article, which is that you should do your research, get familiar with what goes into the vaccine, and then decide for yourself. |
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter  Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights  votes: 42 View user's profile |
Here's that Doctor's wikipedia page. Personally, my favorite part is his belief that America's drug problem is actually a Soviet plot. Scoundrels! So yeah, please stop spewing your garbage "research". _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster  Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University  votes: 38 View user's profile |
Senther wrote: Here's that Doctor's wikipedia page.
That one is borrowed from the John Birch Society's fear that putting fluoride in the water was a Communist plot. Of course, they also thought that Dwight D. Eisenhower was the number two man in a Russian plot to take over America. @ ajs: there are a few strange people in every profession. The fact is that tens of thousands of US doctors including the State Health Department's people are hugely behind the vaccine. When 99+% are behind it, it's for a reason. Frankly I think 99% of doctors is lowballing it.Personally, my favorite part is his belief that America's drug problem is actually a Soviet plot. Scoundrels!So yeah, please stop spewing your garbage "research". pedal2000 wrote: Jimmy Big Ears wrote: but going too far just lets people indulge in the shock tactic of "I'm going to show you the most gruesome image possible" Google it.Tell me I picked the most gruesome image possible.Out of curiosity, what made you think that I said you picked the worst image? It wasn't anywhere in the post. I said going over a certain line lets people use sick images for shock tactics, which is something I'm almost sure you've seen. Lock wrote: If you say so. That's more or less the opposite of how I see things. I don't quite believe that. To believe the opposite you'd have to believe that there aren't people on the internet posting gruesome things for shock value, and if you believe that (which I'm not asserting here, actually) you haven't seen some of the Internet's hairier armpits.
I'm guessing that you actually do have a limit to what you would say is postable, no? If it's a less public forum and you give sufficient warning it's different but I doubt you would approve of some of the violent images currently online being posted here. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place votes: 6 View user's profile |
I don't think there is a limit to what should be posted, as long as it's in the right context. I think people spend too much time hiding from unpleasant things. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
Yes, but the right context isn't here. The right context is either a different board or a link with a warning. Hiding from unpleasant things is rather different than preferring not to view nauseating images. It's only hiding from unpleasant things if you also ignore the reality that the facts demonstrate. Even then, people do have a right to avoid viewing what they don't want to view, and this is a board for the general StFX population. Hence if you must post something terribly unpleasant it should be put in link form and include a warning. It's basic courtesy not to start pushing people off of a thread with gruesome images since discussions are supposed to be inclusive. And message board lowlifes need some restraint. People who typically post worse things on boards than what pedal posted are generally interested in attacking people or doing it for shock value. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Genghis Khanada
Eulogy reader  Joined: 06 Jul 2006 Posts: 727 Location: The Front Pew  votes: 16 View user's profile |
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: People who typically post worse things on boards than what pedal posted are generally interested in attacking people or doing it for shock value. Seumas if a voice calling the wilderness. If you're torn between hating him and tossing lilies at his feet, you'll love the Beatles. _________________ Milkis: New feeling of soda beverage |
|
Chesty LaRue
X-Talk Pervert  Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 4166 Location: Up Yours votes: 29 View user's profile |
We should have absolute faith in the medical institution. It's based on science, afterall. _________________ Who said that?! |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place votes: 6 View user's profile |
Chesty LaRue wrote: We should have absolute faith in the medical institution. It's based on science, afterall. No, I think you were right the first time, we should believe what we hear from wingnuts and our own superstitions instead of people who have spent their lives studying things.
|
|
Chesty LaRue
X-Talk Pervert Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 4166 Location: Up Yours votes: 29 View user's profile |
Lock wrote: Chesty LaRue wrote: We should have absolute faith in the medical institution. It's based on science, afterall. No, I think you were right the first time, we should believe what we hear from wingnuts and our own superstitions instead of people who have spent their lives studying things.I'm sorry, I don't recall making such a statement. _________________ Who said that?! |
|
Chesty LaRue wrote: I'm not getting the vaccination because I have an immune system. It's just the flu with a lot of hype surrounding it.
Lock wrote: No, I think you were right the first time, we should believe what we hear from wingnuts and our own superstitions instead of people who have spent their lives studying things.
|
|
Chesty LaRue
X-Talk Pervert Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 4166 Location: Up Yours votes: 29 View user's profile |
pedal2000 wrote: Chesty LaRue wrote: I'm not getting the vaccination because I have an immune system. It's just the flu with a lot of hype surrounding it.
Lock wrote: No, I think you were right the first time, we should believe what we hear from wingnuts and our own superstitions instead of people who have spent their lives studying things.
What are you trying to say? _________________ Who said that?! |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
He's trying to communicate psychically. It's the new fad; you quote a comment and don't say anything yourself. Unfortunately, the comments that actually speak for themselves with only one meaning is pretty rare. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8493753.stm Quote: The medical journal which originally published the discredited research linking autism and MMR has now issued a full retraction of the paper.
The Lancet said it now accepted claims made by the researchers were "false". It comes after Dr Andrew Wakefield, the lead researcher in the 1998 paper, was ruled last week to have broken research rules by the General Medical Council. The publication caused vaccination rates to plummet, resulting in a rise in measles. |
|
This surely does not help The Lancet's rep as the "journal of irreproducable results." Glad to see this story getting plenty of national media attention though. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
The way I understood it, though, the study never even asserted that the link was as certain as Dr. Wakefield presented it. I was happy to see it debunked, though. I hope he loses his medical license. Paying kids about $10 Cdn for blood without consulting their parents is kind of creepy, no matter how harmless. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
It's a weird paper, to be sure. It's somewhat obvious reading it that Wakefield had an agenda as lead author and it delves into a lot of strange arguments outside of what are supposed to be the main research questions and what the data says. It doesn't actually confirm a link between MMR and autism, though. The Lancet has a reputation (at least in the epidemiology/biostats community) of publishing these sorts of irreproducable papers with outlandish claims though, which is a bit scary considering it has the 3rd highest impact factor among medical journals. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
What's number one, the British Medical Journal? _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpe1u4cKbTk |
TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Flu shots - Reply to topic
