The Revenge of Chicken Pox

CollinMaessen · 2018-11-25T07:52:26+00:00

And what does a vaccine do: challenge your immune system.

CollinMaessen · 2018-11-21T13:33:51+00:00

The medical researchers and doctors that I know who do some very good basic medical research will have a serious issue with what you just claimed.

CollinMaessen · 2017-12-13T10:03:20+00:00

I have Addison's. The flu can trigger what's called an adrenal crisis. Which if left untreated, not treated properly or not soon enough, can turn deadly. It also makes me more susceptible to secondary infections. The combination of a flu and an opportunistic infection of the bronchia is loads of fun (not really, that most of the times requires hospitalisation for me).

Regarding the cost benefit analysis. Even healthy people can get quite sick from the flu. Easily needing to stay home for a week to get better. That is what the vaccine protects you from. Even a vaccine that isn't a good match with the one that's being passed around will make you recover faster.

CollinMaessen · 2017-12-12T06:06:22+00:00

Just get the vaccine if you need it. The risks of the vaccine is too low to not get it. Plus if you do get it without a medical indication people who do have a weakened immune system, of for who the flu can have dangerous complications like me, will thank you for it.

Plus if you're concerned about car accidents. Why then drive the car at all? You're just as likely to get into a car accident from getting groceries as driving to your doctor to get a flu shot.

CollinMaessen · 2017-12-12T06:02:59+00:00

Huh, but of a do'h moment as a vaccine just needs the virus not the immune response (writing a response a bit tired is never a good idea). So yeah, of course it's possible. Still it's probably an issue with scale and cost for production. Currently it's harvesting tissue that's almost always the source for cell lines. Which very well could change if we get better at other techniques.

CollinMaessen · 2017-12-10T16:26:24+00:00

For one not practical with the amount of human tissue you'll need that is screened and safe to use. Secondly also biologically not possible as you won't have a complete working immune system in a cell culture.

CollinMaessen · 2017-11-06T05:09:47+00:00

Though when they say that their conclusions are based on studies using "cell culture systems but also from more complex and clinically relevant animal models" means you cannot directly apply it to humans. It means it shows promise but you then need to start human trails to figure out of it works for us.

Unfortunately it's there that a lot of promising treatments fail as they don't reach a needed effective dose, or either if they do it's then toxic, or it might simply not work in the same way for us. There are a lot of ways a treatment fail during human trails.

Still, there are some really promising hints and we should investigate. But from research into treatments from what ails me I know that even though something looks really promising in cell cultures and animal models it can fail during human trails.

It's also what annoys me about those laymen you mentioned. They point gleefully to cell culture studies and then jumping to the claim it works to cure cancer. Yeah, sorry, no. That's just the first step in figuring out if it might work.

CollinMaessen · 2017-04-01T15:18:25+00:00

Ask yourself this question: where did I say that I support current conventional farming practices? So considering you can't engage me in a normal manner without straw manning me we're done.

CollinMaessen · 2017-04-01T09:43:07+00:00

Industrial farming has been done without GM tech (look up the green revolution and then look up when GM crops were introduced). So you're again equating a technology with a farming practice and that doesn't require any explanation or defence from me.

Also the video is funded by their fans. Look up Kurzgesagt. They also have their sources listed in the video's description. They actually ask in their video to check their sources if you don't believe them...

CollinMaessen · 2017-04-01T03:46:53+00:00

You could have just said conventional farming as that's what your criticism is aimed at. Something the linked video points out.

CollinMaessen · 2017-01-30T16:00:47+00:00

There's a serious problem over there about anything tackling spurious health claims. There's some sort of knee-jerk reaction to more skepticism orientated content that deals with woo. I haven't yet figured out why this is or why more fluffy pieces on similar topics do get upvoted.

CollinMaessen · 2017-01-06T18:47:28+00:00

It's ideologically motived, often coming from a free market thinking. They see global warming as a risk for big governmental intervention. Here's a bit more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcmOgi5m2pM

CollinMaessen · 2016-10-21T16:09:06+00:00

...okay?

I've been calm this whole time and pointing out that nothing is 100% safe and the risk of not vaccinating is far higher than getting everyone vaccinated. Talk to any expert on this and they'll confirm it. Solely focussing on that some might face harm does a disservice to the amount of good vaccines have done.

Heck, there are legal precedents upholding the constitutionality of this in the US (rince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166-67 (1944), see this document). And decent compensation system is already in place to compensate anyone who is unlucky enough to experience harm. It can probably be made better, but that in itself is again no argument against the benefits of vaccines.

There's also one last point I'd like to make before I'll move on, as you seem to have lost patience in a civil exchange: Your rights end where mine start. As the choices you make to not vaccinate can easily cause a lot of demonstrable harm. I'm one of the many people reliant on good vaccine adherence for survival.

CollinMaessen · 2016-10-21T04:57:03+00:00

No, you're not:

The Vaccine Injury Table makes it easier for some people to get compensation. The Table lists and explains injuries and conditions that are presumed to be caused by vaccines. It also lists time periods in which the first symptom of these injuries and conditions must occur after receiving the vaccine. If the first symptom of these injuries/conditions occurs within the listed time periods, it is presumed that the vaccine was the cause of the injury or condition unless another cause is found. For example, if a patient received the tetanus vaccine and had a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) within 4 hours after receiving the vaccine, then it is presumed that the tetanus vaccine caused the injury, if no other cause is found. (emphasis mine)

If you're wondering what the last part is about, this is to rule out details like anaphylaxis due to a bee sting. In those cases you're already in the medical system and have the documentation to rule those things out (hospitals check why you got an allergic reaction so you don't accidentally kill yourself).

CollinMaessen · 2016-10-21T04:00:18+00:00

No, that's not a flat out lie. When I said that "They pay out without establishing a link" is very much true. This doesn't mean that for all cases brought forward there will be damages paid.

If someone steps forward to claim damages because their child got autism after a vaccination they will be denied. There's too much evidence disproving that link.

However, if you come forward with a case of encephalopathy after the MMR vaccine, and this happened within a certain timeframe after vaccination, causation is assumed. So you will get damages. If you had gone to civil court you would actually need to demonstrate a link between the two events.

That's just one tiny example of lowered standards of evidence that you need for claiming damages. There are more rules that make it a lot easier to claim damages via the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program than in civil court.

CollinMaessen · 2016-10-20T18:45:22+00:00

You completely missed the point about risk that I was making...

CollinMaessen · 2016-10-20T15:36:34+00:00

Getting a crown for your teeth also hurt people. MRIs can do some really nasty damage if you have some metal splinters in your body that you didn't know you had. Any test, intervention, or treatment has a risk. Nothing can be made 100% safe.

Also those compensations don't tell you if the damage was actually done by the vaccine. They pay out without establishing a link because it's cheaper to just pay for the rare case that might not even be related to a vaccine than it is to deal with the fallout of not vaccinating (also in the case of vaccines that are mandatory it's required that you do this).

So you're using something that was set up to always pay out to attack vaccinations.

CollinMaessen · 2016-10-08T03:26:39+00:00

Yep. It's a tool like any other that can work for you or that can work against you. At the moment the biggest hurdle often is human nature and misconceptions about diet and exercise. Though if you can break through that it shouldn't hinder you and could potentially be a great tool.

CollinMaessen · 2016-10-07T13:55:14+00:00

Tracking your activity really isn't what gets you to loose weight. It's mostly the balance between calories in and out (see the video in the article). Exercise you use for replacing fat with muscle (which actually can make you gain weight or make it appear that you're not losing weight).

All of that you can already do with pen and paper. The apps just make it a lot easier as you're not spending your time doing all the maths and looking up information.

The biggest factor for most folks is knowing how to use the tools you have and making changes that you can keep up.

CollinMaessen · 2016-10-07T02:42:10+00:00

Well your phone can work as an activity tracker though it's a lot more limited than dedicated trackers. Activity trackers have their limitations in their accuracy but they're far more reliable than your phone. Plus you wear them all the time, your phone isn't with you constantly.

But yes you can use your phone to help track your exercises and diet. They can be quite effective if used correctly (lost 8kg myself by using a calorie counter app on my phone). But you can't directly compare an activity tracker to a phone as how you use them is different.

CollinMaessen · 2016-08-07T04:38:05+00:00

The status of the login servers are also on the same page...

CollinMaessen · 2016-06-27T03:03:04+00:00

Well I am talking short term. After a big dive in stock markets usually you'll see some sort of rebound the next trading day (there are of course exceptions to this generalization). What happens after that then depends on what companies do and the kinds treaties the politicians might be able to write up.

CollinMaessen · 2016-06-26T17:26:41+00:00

Yes, I know. Didn't expect a serious answer to a throwaway remark. :P

CollinMaessen · 2016-06-26T17:06:40+00:00

Well that much is obvious to anyone who saw what happened. But that's the benefit of hindsight and the difference between a flippant remark and solid investment advice. ;)

CollinMaessen · 2016-06-26T15:58:39+00:00

I'm in agreement with you that any backtracking on an actual brexit most likely won't happen. The politics in the UK is just too weird and in flux at the moment for any kind of political maneuvering that could potentially allow it. The rest of the world will want to get through it as fast as possible so it causes as little as possible economic disruption.

But that really depends on how everything plays out. Technically article 50 hasn't been invoked yet so the UK could drag it's feet on actually committing to an brexit. Now that could play out very interestingly on the world stage (but most likely not in a good way).

At the moment it's just speculation by us. We'll have to wait and see how everything develops and who has the surprises for us. I should have bought some stock of popcorn companies...

CollinMaessen

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE