Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
I subscribed to this list to read about a lot of things, but grammer is not one of them. I going to stop reading this thread not because I am not interested in the subject, but because it has become an argument over what the definition of a word is. Come on, we're actual people here, not politicians. I please me greatly if people would post about issues and not just bicker and snipe. Just my two cents, Paul WebberOn 12/8/05, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well Bob, that's certainly one way to avoid addressing an incongruity.It's a darned good thing that there's a second ball around here so thatwhen you take yours and go home the rest of the world doesn't have to stop. May poles for you and back to work for me.Todd Swearingen>Todd, you are repeating yourself and to be honest it is both tedious and>boring. toodles>>Appal Energy wrote:> >>>Bob,You've surely noticed by now that I'm somewhat of a literalist. Yes,>>there are nuances to everything which can dampen the literal. But for>>claims of eradication to exist in the literal sense, that would mean no >>stores, no inventories, no weapons, no stockpiles and no incidents in>>the human population whatsoever.Now if you wish to discuss the issue in the figurative sense, that's an >>entirely different ball of wax.>here is another straw man Todd, I said and mean>>>no such thing. I accept the word could as the>>>same where ever it is used, and I have said >>>nothing to the contrary.Oh but you have issued contradictory comments that "allude" to something>>akin to two different approaches. On the one had you stated that the >>word "could" in a sentence raises red flags and clouds an issue across>>the entire harbour for you. On the other hand, when it was noted that>>such a word is a simplified cautionary statement, you suggested that I >>had apparently not read many inserts from various drugs. This in turns>>gives the appearance of two different standards - one where the word>>"could" raises red flags and one where the word "could" is acceptable >>and apparently not to be questioned.Same word. Two different applications.You didn't have to say something directly in order to give the implication.>> >>What I said was that the word "could" means precisely that - an>>occurrence "could" take place. It doesn't indicate that it will occur>>each and every time. But it does or can indicate that something is >>liable to happen on an occasional instance.This is by and large no different than the term "acceptable risk," save>>for the fact that in the latter it's not a matter of if, but whom and when. All a bit like Russian roulette in both cases. You know it and I know it.Now if you'd like to take issue with the charlatans who prey upon others>>by using the same terminologies in an abject manner, then let's do so. >>But let's not mix the two and lend the appearance that all who use the>>word "could" or "might" are out to fleece the world in order to gain>>leverage for their own particular special interest. >let's try to keep it in context. What I said was in>>>the context of an article that stated that inoculations>>>could be worse than the cure. In the face of >>>overwhelmingly evidence to the contrary, testimonials>>>about injury to individuals does nothing to advance>>>knowledge of the subject.Nothing? Nothing at all? Are you suggesting that bringing to light the >>negative of any course of action furthers nothing?I believe I've mentioned once before that one of the most worthwhile>>lines I've ever read in any biblical text is that "My people perish for >>lack of knowledge." Yet here you're discounting knowledge, or only>>accounting knowledge as that which happens in a laboratory under a>>double blind study. I wonder from what pool only that the studies of >>investigators and scientists stem from? The sterile lab or life in its>>entirety?I believe I've stated before that the practice of discounting so readily>>can lend all too well to a broad chasm in understanding. > you're beginning to repeat yourself, Todd.Of course I am Bob. But that wouldn't have to happen if you'd stop>>dancing around the May pole.As for vide infra? What's above addresses precisely that. Todd Swearingen>>___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ -- Paul Webber[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
Well Bob, that's certainly one way to avoid addressing an incongruity. It's a darned good thing that there's a second ball around here so that when you take yours and go home the rest of the world doesn't have to stop. May poles for you and back to work for me. Todd Swearingen >Todd, you are repeating yourself and to be honest it is both tedious and >boring. toodles > >Appal Energy wrote: > > >>Bob, >> >>You've surely noticed by now that I'm somewhat of a literalist. Yes, >>there are nuances to everything which can dampen the literal. But for >>claims of eradication to exist in the literal sense, that would mean no >>stores, no inventories, no weapons, no stockpiles and no incidents in >>the human population whatsoever. >> >>Now if you wish to discuss the issue in the figurative sense, that's an >>entirely different ball of wax. >> >> >> >>>here is another straw man Todd, I said and mean >>>no such thing. I accept the word could as the >>>same where ever it is used, and I have said >>>nothing to the contrary. >>> >>> >>Oh but you have issued contradictory comments that "allude" to something >>akin to two different approaches. On the one had you stated that the >>word "could" in a sentence raises red flags and clouds an issue across >>the entire harbour for you. On the other hand, when it was noted that >>such a word is a simplified cautionary statement, you suggested that I >>had apparently not read many inserts from various drugs. This in turns >>gives the appearance of two different standards - one where the word >>"could" raises red flags and one where the word "could" is acceptable >>and apparently not to be questioned. >> >>Same word. Two different applications. >> >>You didn't have to say something directly in order to give the implication. >> >>What I said was that the word "could" means precisely that - an >>occurrence "could" take place. It doesn't indicate that it will occur >>each and every time. But it does or can indicate that something is >>liable to happen on an occasional instance. >> >>This is by and large no different than the term "acceptable risk," save >>for the fact that in the latter it's not a matter of if, but whom and when. >> >>All a bit like Russian roulette in both cases. You know it and I know it. >> >>Now if you'd like to take issue with the charlatans who prey upon others >>by using the same terminologies in an abject manner, then let's do so. >>But let's not mix the two and lend the appearance that all who use the >>word "could" or "might" are out to fleece the world in order to gain >>leverage for their own particular special interest. >> >> >> >>>let's try to keep it in context. What I said was in >>>the context of an article that stated that inoculations >>>could be worse than the cure. In the face of >>>overwhelmingly evidence to the contrary, testimonials >>>about injury to individuals does nothing to advance >>>knowledge of the subject. >>> >>> >>Nothing? Nothing at all? Are you suggesting that bringing to light the >>negative of any course of action furthers nothing? >> >>I believe I've mentioned once before that one of the most worthwhile >>lines I've ever read in any biblical text is that "My people perish for >>lack of knowledge." Yet here you're discounting knowledge, or only >>accounting knowledge as that which happens in a laboratory under a >>double blind study. I wonder from what pool only that the studies of >>investigators and scientists stem from? The sterile lab or life in its >>entirety? >> >>I believe I've stated before that the practice of discounting so readily >>can lend all too well to a broad chasm in understanding. >> >> > you're beginning to repeat yourself, Todd. >> >>Of course I am Bob. But that wouldn't have to happen if you'd stop >>dancing around the May pole. >> >>As for vide infra? What's above addresses precisely that. >> >>Todd Swearingen >> >> >> ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
Todd, you are repeating yourself and to be honest it is both tedious and boring. toodles Appal Energy wrote: > Bob, > > You've surely noticed by now that I'm somewhat of a literalist. Yes, > there are nuances to everything which can dampen the literal. But for > claims of eradication to exist in the literal sense, that would mean no > stores, no inventories, no weapons, no stockpiles and no incidents in > the human population whatsoever. > > Now if you wish to discuss the issue in the figurative sense, that's an > entirely different ball of wax. > >> here is another straw man Todd, I said and mean >> no such thing. I accept the word could as the >> same where ever it is used, and I have said >> nothing to the contrary. > > Oh but you have issued contradictory comments that "allude" to something > akin to two different approaches. On the one had you stated that the > word "could" in a sentence raises red flags and clouds an issue across > the entire harbour for you. On the other hand, when it was noted that > such a word is a simplified cautionary statement, you suggested that I > had apparently not read many inserts from various drugs. This in turns > gives the appearance of two different standards - one where the word > "could" raises red flags and one where the word "could" is acceptable > and apparently not to be questioned. > > Same word. Two different applications. > > You didn't have to say something directly in order to give the implication. > > What I said was that the word "could" means precisely that - an > occurrence "could" take place. It doesn't indicate that it will occur > each and every time. But it does or can indicate that something is > liable to happen on an occasional instance. > > This is by and large no different than the term "acceptable risk," save > for the fact that in the latter it's not a matter of if, but whom and when. > > All a bit like Russian roulette in both cases. You know it and I know it. > > Now if you'd like to take issue with the charlatans who prey upon others > by using the same terminologies in an abject manner, then let's do so. > But let's not mix the two and lend the appearance that all who use the > word "could" or "might" are out to fleece the world in order to gain > leverage for their own particular special interest. > >> let's try to keep it in context. What I said was in >> the context of an article that stated that inoculations >> could be worse than the cure. In the face of >> overwhelmingly evidence to the contrary, testimonials >> about injury to individuals does nothing to advance >> knowledge of the subject. > > Nothing? Nothing at all? Are you suggesting that bringing to light the > negative of any course of action furthers nothing? > > I believe I've mentioned once before that one of the most worthwhile > lines I've ever read in any biblical text is that "My people perish for > lack of knowledge." Yet here you're discounting knowledge, or only > accounting knowledge as that which happens in a laboratory under a > double blind study. I wonder from what pool only that the studies of > investigators and scientists stem from? The sterile lab or life in its > entirety? > > I believe I've stated before that the practice of discounting so readily > can lend all too well to a broad chasm in understanding. > > > you're beginning to repeat yourself, Todd. > > Of course I am Bob. But that wouldn't have to happen if you'd stop > dancing around the May pole. > > As for vide infra? What's above addresses precisely that. > > Todd Swearingen > >> Appal Energy wrote: >> >> >>> Bob, >>> > It's a speed bump at best, as are all vaccines. Some are more > effective than others. We certainly haven't eradicated any maladies, > despite many proclamations to the contrary over the decades. global small pox and almost global polio? >>> Lest we forget, the claim was but a few years ago that polio had been >>> eradicated. >>> >>> >> see above Todd, I said _almost_ >> >> >> Yet the claim was false, with several outbreaks across the >> >> >>> globe, inclusive of one at an Amish enclave in the mid-west this summer. >>> There is no reason to believe that this error has not been or could not >>> be duplicated relative to other diseases. As well, viruses such as small >>> pox haven't been erradicated at all when viral inventories are stored >>> in >>> numerous labs on multiple continents. Forget whatever their purpose of >>> existance is reported to be. >>> >>> >> Todd, I think most would agree that a disease is eradicated if it no >> longer exists in the wild. Of course there are stores in laboratories, >> which constitute a risk of reintroduction to human populations, but as >> of right now that is not the case. >> >> >> >> >>> Perhaps a high incident declination has occurred, but certainly not >>> erradication . >>> you must not read many drug package inserts. they are full
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
Bob, You've surely noticed by now that I'm somewhat of a literalist. Yes, there are nuances to everything which can dampen the literal. But for claims of eradication to exist in the literal sense, that would mean no stores, no inventories, no weapons, no stockpiles and no incidents in the human population whatsoever. Now if you wish to discuss the issue in the figurative sense, that's an entirely different ball of wax. > here is another straw man Todd, I said and mean > no such thing. I accept the word could as the > same where ever it is used, and I have said > nothing to the contrary. Oh but you have issued contradictory comments that "allude" to something akin to two different approaches. On the one had you stated that the word "could" in a sentence raises red flags and clouds an issue across the entire harbour for you. On the other hand, when it was noted that such a word is a simplified cautionary statement, you suggested that I had apparently not read many inserts from various drugs. This in turns gives the appearance of two different standards - one where the word "could" raises red flags and one where the word "could" is acceptable and apparently not to be questioned. Same word. Two different applications. You didn't have to say something directly in order to give the implication. What I said was that the word "could" means precisely that - an occurrence "could" take place. It doesn't indicate that it will occur each and every time. But it does or can indicate that something is liable to happen on an occasional instance. This is by and large no different than the term "acceptable risk," save for the fact that in the latter it's not a matter of if, but whom and when. All a bit like Russian roulette in both cases. You know it and I know it. Now if you'd like to take issue with the charlatans who prey upon others by using the same terminologies in an abject manner, then let's do so. But let's not mix the two and lend the appearance that all who use the word "could" or "might" are out to fleece the world in order to gain leverage for their own particular special interest. > let's try to keep it in context. What I said was in > the context of an article that stated that inoculations > could be worse than the cure. In the face of > overwhelmingly evidence to the contrary, testimonials > about injury to individuals does nothing to advance > knowledge of the subject. Nothing? Nothing at all? Are you suggesting that bringing to light the negative of any course of action furthers nothing? I believe I've mentioned once before that one of the most worthwhile lines I've ever read in any biblical text is that "My people perish for lack of knowledge." Yet here you're discounting knowledge, or only accounting knowledge as that which happens in a laboratory under a double blind study. I wonder from what pool only that the studies of investigators and scientists stem from? The sterile lab or life in its entirety? I believe I've stated before that the practice of discounting so readily can lend all too well to a broad chasm in understanding. > you're beginning to repeat yourself, Todd. Of course I am Bob. But that wouldn't have to happen if you'd stop dancing around the May pole. As for vide infra? What's above addresses precisely that. Todd Swearingen >Appal Energy wrote: > > >>Bob, >> >> >> It's a speed bump at best, as are all vaccines. Some are more >> >> effective than others. We certainly haven't eradicated any maladies, >> >> despite many proclamations to the contrary over the decades. >> >> > global small pox and almost global polio? >> >>Lest we forget, the claim was but a few years ago that polio had been >>eradicated. >> >> > > see above Todd, I said _almost_ > > >Yet the claim was false, with several outbreaks across the > > >>globe, inclusive of one at an Amish enclave in the mid-west this summer. >>There is no reason to believe that this error has not been or could not >>be duplicated relative to other diseases. As well, viruses such as small >>pox haven't been erradicated at all when viral inventories are stored in >>numerous labs on multiple continents. Forget whatever their purpose of >>existance is reported to be. >> >> > >Todd, I think most would agree that a disease is eradicated if it no >longer exists in the wild. Of course there are stores in laboratories, >which constitute a risk of reintroduction to human populations, but as >of right now that is not the case. > > > > >>Perhaps a high incident declination has occurred, but certainly not >>erradication . >> >> > you must not read many drug package inserts. they are full of >> > disclaimers. >> >>Bob, you're apparently postulating that a cautionary word relative to >>animal care - a word such as "could" - is a certifiable indicator for >>disbelief, while on the other hand the same word of caution when applied >>relative to human care it is to be accepted as valid
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
Appal Energy wrote: > Bob, > > >> It's a speed bump at best, as are all vaccines. Some are more > >> effective than others. We certainly haven't eradicated any maladies, > >> despite many proclamations to the contrary over the decades. > > > global small pox and almost global polio? > > Lest we forget, the claim was but a few years ago that polio had been > eradicated. see above Todd, I said _almost_ Yet the claim was false, with several outbreaks across the > globe, inclusive of one at an Amish enclave in the mid-west this summer. > There is no reason to believe that this error has not been or could not > be duplicated relative to other diseases. As well, viruses such as small > pox haven't been erradicated at all when viral inventories are stored in > numerous labs on multiple continents. Forget whatever their purpose of > existance is reported to be. Todd, I think most would agree that a disease is eradicated if it no longer exists in the wild. Of course there are stores in laboratories, which constitute a risk of reintroduction to human populations, but as of right now that is not the case. > > Perhaps a high incident declination has occurred, but certainly not > erradication . > > > you must not read many drug package inserts. they are full of > > disclaimers. > > Bob, you're apparently postulating that a cautionary word relative to > animal care - a word such as "could" - is a certifiable indicator for > disbelief, while on the other hand the same word of caution when applied > relative to human care it is to be accepted as valid. here is another straw man Todd, I said and mean no such thing. I accept the word could as the same where ever it is used, and I have said nothing to the contrary. > > Lest we forget, you did say > > >>> the one word "could" leaves enough wiggle room for > >>> anything to be possible, hence casting a cloud > >>> over all other material therein. let's try to keep it in context. What I said was in the context of an article that stated that inoculations could be worse than the cure. In the face of overwhelmingly evidence to the contrary, testimonials about injury to individuals does nothing to advance knowledge of the subject. > > And you did say that relative to an article on animal vaccination. > > Are you also saying that the inclusion of "might" or "could" on the > consumer insert of an over-the-counter or prescription drug casts the > same "cloud over all other material therein?" _vide infra_ > > And if you're not applying the same standard to both fields, then you > must be saying something else. you're beginning to repeat yourself, Todd. > > Are you saying that over vaccinating doesn't increase the potential for > and actual instance of injury and death and that such a claim is > balderdash? no I said no such thing Are you saying that the author is full of horse muffins? The > poster? Would an application of double-standard be simply towards a > profession that doesn't "practice" on bi-peds? That those things > attributable to veterinary medicine are somehow to be more suspect > and/or ascribed as hooey? That veterinary medicine is for those who are > incapable of making the cut in the human medical field and that their > work should therefore be suspect? I don't know where you are going with this track. It has stray so far afield of anything I said as to be > > Just precisely what is it that you're saying Bob? It's got to be something. > > No doubt, words such as "could" and "might" are indeed cautionary > modifiers and can be manipulated to any degree by anyone with a purpose. > But to discount a caution indicator relative animal vaccines as if it > approaches poppycock and to openly accept caution indicators for human > vaccines (or drugs) as valid warnings and the acceptable norm isn't > exactly even handed. Whew, one more time, I didn't. > > Just a minor observation on the part of this mule skinner... > > Todd Swearingen > > > >> good morning Todd >> >> Appal Energy wrote: >> >> >>> Salute Bob, >>> I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a good analogy for how science is done. >>> I wasn't thinking of court precedings when I made mention of >>> "testimonials." If you'll note, a great number of medical studies rely >>> in part upon personal testament. Take aspirin for instance. Range of >>> motion may be one thing. But level of pain subsidence is all together >>> another. All rather personal and, of course, subjective. >>> >>> >> >> but carefully controlled via double blind, placebo control. >> >> >> >> >>> The same would have to hold true for persons who have a close existence >>> with their pets. As the pets can't talk, at least not in the Queen's >>> English, much reliance is made upon an owner's >>> interaction/interpretation/understanding - transcribed as "testimonial." >>> >>> >> >> that's how we got the "Clever Hans" phenom
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
Bob, >> It's a speed bump at best, as are all vaccines. Some are more >> effective than others. We certainly haven't eradicated any maladies, >> despite many proclamations to the contrary over the decades. > global small pox and almost global polio? Lest we forget, the claim was but a few years ago that polio had been eradicated. Yet the claim was false, with several outbreaks across the globe, inclusive of one at an Amish enclave in the mid-west this summer. There is no reason to believe that this error has not been or could not be duplicated relative to other diseases. As well, viruses such as small pox haven't been erradicated at all when viral inventories are stored in numerous labs on multiple continents. Forget whatever their purpose of existance is reported to be. Perhaps a high incident declination has occurred, but certainly not erradication. > you must not read many drug package inserts. they are full of > disclaimers. Bob, you're apparently postulating that a cautionary word relative to animal care - a word such as "could" - is a certifiable indicator for disbelief, while on the other hand the same word of caution when applied relative to human care it is to be accepted as valid. Lest we forget, you did say >>> the one word "could" leaves enough wiggle room for >>> anything to be possible, hence casting a cloud >>> over all other material therein. And you did say that relative to an article on animal vaccination. Are you also saying that the inclusion of "might" or "could" on the consumer insert of an over-the-counter or prescription drug casts the same "cloud over all other material therein?" And if you're not applying the same standard to both fields, then you must be saying something else. Are you saying that over vaccinating doesn't increase the potential for and actual instance of injury and death and that such a claim is balderdash? Are you saying that the author is full of horse muffins? The poster? Would an application of double-standard be simply towards a profession that doesn't "practice" on bi-peds? That those things attributable to veterinary medicine are somehow to be more suspect and/or ascribed as hooey? That veterinary medicine is for those who are incapable of making the cut in the human medical field and that their work should therefore be suspect? Just precisely what is it that you're saying Bob? It's got to be something. No doubt, words such as "could" and "might" are indeed cautionary modifiers and can be manipulated to any degree by anyone with a purpose. But to discount a caution indicator relative animal vaccines as if it approaches poppycock and to openly accept caution indicators for human vaccines (or drugs) as valid warnings and the acceptable norm isn't exactly even handed. Just a minor observation on the part of this mule skinner... Todd Swearingen >good morning Todd > >Appal Energy wrote: > > >>Salute Bob, >> >> > I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a >> > good analogy for how science is done. >> >>I wasn't thinking of court precedings when I made mention of >>"testimonials." If you'll note, a great number of medical studies rely >>in part upon personal testament. Take aspirin for instance. Range of >>motion may be one thing. But level of pain subsidence is all together >>another. All rather personal and, of course, subjective. >> >> > > >but carefully controlled via double blind, placebo control. > > > > >>The same would have to hold true for persons who have a close existence >>with their pets. As the pets can't talk, at least not in the Queen's >>English, much reliance is made upon an owner's >>interaction/interpretation/understanding - transcribed as "testimonial." >> >> > > >that's how we got the "Clever Hans" phenomena > > > > >>>similarly I think that requiring rabies >>>inoculations is sound social policy. >>> >>> >>It's a speed bump at best, as are all vaccines. Some are more effective than >>others. We certainly haven't eradicated any maladies, despite many >>proclamations to the contrary over the decades. >> >> >> > > global small pox and almost global polio? > > > > >>>Yes, risk assessment is in the end is a subjective >>>determination, decided by society, but hopefully >>>guided by valid statistics. >>> >>> >>Actually, decided by a select few within the greater hall of society, rather >>than society in general, and all too often predicated upon politics rather >>than sound social benefit for the greater good. With the Bush admin being but >>one indicator, valid statistics is often the least of all qualifiers in the >>development of policy. >> >> >> > >I am referring to society in the ideal sense, as I am certainly no shill >for bush. > > > >>>the one word "could" leaves enough wiggle room for >>>anything to be possible, hence casting a cloud >>>over all other material therein. >>> >>> >>That "cloud" is more a conseque
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
ok so I need a little more rigor here, I got my costs and benefits reversed. Please substitute benefit/cost ratio below and it makes sense. bob allen wrote: > Perry, you are mixing the issues. Careful observation with appropriate > controls can tell one the cost, be it monetary, or in human suffering. > Likewise the same procedure will afford information on the benefit- > numbers of lives saved or money not spent on treating an infection. > > The societal decision is just what ratio to accept. What if a vaccine > saved 10 lives by preventing an infection but killed one life, due an > autoimmune reaction? simplistically that would have a cost/benefit > ratio of 10. is that acceptable? what if it were 1000, surely that > would be more acceptable, so you see we have to decide on what we > accept, science can only give us the ratio, the decision is ours as to > how we use it. > > > > Perry Jones wrote: >> Actually, I thought the issue was science and what we know about >> vaccinations and its effects. Cost/benefit has nothing more to do with >> science than do testimonials. If you want to discuss cause and effect, >> kindly maintain the same standards throughout all your discussions. > >where did cause and effect come in here. (cause and effect is also > amenable to the scientific method.) If you want to talk about cause and > effect then we need to consider immunological principles. and that is a > whole new discussion > >As >> Todd points out, you tend to cherry pick. > > I disagree > > Worse, you change your >> standards to suit a point. > > no I don't. show me where I have used any standard other than the > scientific method as a means of gathering the facts. How those facts, > as in a cost benefit ratio, are used is out of the realm of science. > > > Frankly, I would expect more rigor from a >> college professor, even one who may be playing Devil's Advocate (to >> afford some benefit of doubt). > > be explicit then. You are making an accusation. show me where more > rigor is to be expected. > > toodles > >> Perry Jones >> >> >> bob allen wrote: >> >>> good evening Todd, >>> >>> Appal Energy wrote: >>> >>> Bob, > as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling > used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does > little or nothing to advance your point. U, it's collective "testimonials" that are oft sought out in trials. If they can be accepted en masse as evidentiary, then they shouldn't be pooh poohed as readily as you would care to. >>> I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a good analogy for >>> how science is done. >>> >>> When it comes to vaccinations the issue is one of cost/benefit, which >>> ultimately will be decided by >>> society. Just what the costs and benefits are I believe are best determined >>> by the scientific >>> method, rather than the squeaky wheel. >>> >>> the costs of vaccination, other than monetary costs for production, are >>> harm to individuals, where >>> as the benefits accrue to society. Individuals have died from small pox >>> vaccinations, but small pox >>> is no longer a global scourge due to the vaccinations. Should we as a >>> global society not have >>> vaccinated? I submit that many many more would have died, and would still >>> be dying had not the >>> small pox vaccine been deployed. Individuals have died from polio >>> vaccinations, but I am proud to >>> have participated as a "polio pioneer" and now a bunch of people alive >>> don't know what an iron lung >>> is, again due the blocking of transmission of a viral infection. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ___ >> Biofuel mailing list >> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org >> >> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >> >> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ >> >> >> >> > > -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" — Richard Feynman ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
Perry, you are mixing the issues. Careful observation with appropriate controls can tell one the cost, be it monetary, or in human suffering. Likewise the same procedure will afford information on the benefit- numbers of lives saved or money not spent on treating an infection. The societal decision is just what ratio to accept. What if a vaccine saved 10 lives by preventing an infection but killed one life, due an autoimmune reaction? simplistically that would have a cost/benefit ratio of 10. is that acceptable? what if it were 1000, surely that would be more acceptable, so you see we have to decide on what we accept, science can only give us the ratio, the decision is ours as to how we use it. Perry Jones wrote: > Actually, I thought the issue was science and what we know about > vaccinations and its effects. Cost/benefit has nothing more to do with > science than do testimonials. If you want to discuss cause and effect, > kindly maintain the same standards throughout all your discussions. where did cause and effect come in here. (cause and effect is also amenable to the scientific method.) If you want to talk about cause and effect then we need to consider immunological principles. and that is a whole new discussion As > Todd points out, you tend to cherry pick. I disagree Worse, you change your > standards to suit a point. no I don't. show me where I have used any standard other than the scientific method as a means of gathering the facts. How those facts, as in a cost benefit ratio, are used is out of the realm of science. Frankly, I would expect more rigor from a > college professor, even one who may be playing Devil's Advocate (to > afford some benefit of doubt). be explicit then. You are making an accusation. show me where more rigor is to be expected. toodles > Perry Jones > > > bob allen wrote: > >> good evening Todd, >> >> Appal Energy wrote: >> >> >>> Bob, >>> as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does little or nothing to advance your point. >>> U, it's collective "testimonials" that are oft sought out in >>> trials. If they can be accepted en masse as evidentiary, then they >>> shouldn't be pooh poohed as readily as you would care to. >>> >>> >> >> I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a good analogy for >> how science is done. >> >> When it comes to vaccinations the issue is one of cost/benefit, which >> ultimately will be decided by >> society. Just what the costs and benefits are I believe are best determined >> by the scientific >> method, rather than the squeaky wheel. >> >> the costs of vaccination, other than monetary costs for production, are >> harm to individuals, where >> as the benefits accrue to society. Individuals have died from small pox >> vaccinations, but small pox >> is no longer a global scourge due to the vaccinations. Should we as a global >> society not have >> vaccinated? I submit that many many more would have died, and would still >> be dying had not the >> small pox vaccine been deployed. Individuals have died from polio >> vaccinations, but I am proud to >> have participated as a "polio pioneer" and now a bunch of people alive don't >> know what an iron lung >> is, again due the blocking of transmission of a viral infection. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" — Richard Feynman ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
Actually, I thought the issue was science and what we know about vaccinations and its effects. Cost/benefit has nothing more to do with science than do testimonials. If you want to discuss cause and effect, kindly maintain the same standards throughout all your discussions. As Todd points out, you tend to cherry pick. Worse, you change your standards to suit a point. Frankly, I would expect more rigor from a college professor, even one who may be playing Devil's Advocate (to afford some benefit of doubt). Perry Jones bob allen wrote: >good evening Todd, > >Appal Energy wrote: > > >>Bob, >> >> > as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling >> > used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does >> > little or nothing to advance your point. >> >>U, it's collective "testimonials" that are oft sought out in >>trials. If they can be accepted en masse as evidentiary, then they >>shouldn't be pooh poohed as readily as you would care to. >> >> > > >I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a good analogy for how >science is done. > >When it comes to vaccinations the issue is one of cost/benefit, which >ultimately will be decided by >society. Just what the costs and benefits are I believe are best determined by >the scientific >method, rather than the squeaky wheel. > > the costs of vaccination, other than monetary costs for production, are harm > to individuals, where >as the benefits accrue to society. Individuals have died from small pox >vaccinations, but small pox >is no longer a global scourge due to the vaccinations. Should we as a global >society not have >vaccinated? I submit that many many more would have died, and would still be >dying had not the >small pox vaccine been deployed. Individuals have died from polio >vaccinations, but I am proud to >have participated as a "polio pioneer" and now a bunch of people alive don't >know what an iron lung >is, again due the blocking of transmission of a viral infection. > > > > > > ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
Marylynn Schmidt wrote: > This needs to be highlighted > > If being vaccinated protected the individual it really wouldn't matter if > others were vaccinated at all .. or even sick. vaccinations are a simple method by which society can lessen the injury to many, even though a few will be injured in the process. As I said, you get more bang for your health care buck with vaccinations compared to any post infection treatment regimen. > > THAT IS WHAT BEING VACCINATED IS SUPPOSE TO BE ABOUT .. and now you're > telling us that .. well .. maybe no .. maybe it's about something else. > > "Forced for the common good" is such a grandiose concept in the mind of > those who utter loudly from the rooftops that they have the ABSOLUTE ONLY > VIEW POINT THAT MATTERS and they are SO RIGHT they are willing to enforce > that view point by threat of martial law and/or gun point. with highly communicable diseases, quarantine is a very, very important measure. What is the first thing done if an animal is suspected of having rabies- quarantine. > > sort of like .. well the rest of them simply don't have the ability to > understand so I must decide for them!! > > New England Journal of Science has had to reduce it's standards because they > can no longer get an unbiased peer review on any subject because > Corporations have funded through grants that affect the pocketbook of those > individuals who would and/or could give a peer review. > so maybe we should have more public expenditures to do research, so corporate money won't compromise the opinions? > If there is an independent individual out there capable of giving an > unbiased peer review one of the leading Journals of Science hasn't been able > to find them. Hey, I am a war resisting, draft dodging, red blooded American. > > Our military was taken to court for using our troops as unknowing test > subjects on experimental drugs .. the military lost. > > This was proven .. this was admitted .. > > Now Bush has requested the courts to resend their decision and allow forced > vaccinations on military personal. > > I guess if the draft ever comes back into play, the decision to take the > shot(s) or spend time in jail will become a real choice .. let's see .. take > the shot and maybe spend the rest of my life in a institution having my > diapers changed .. or a couple of years in jail .. > > In England the military has already been ordered to pay war time medical > benefits to service men and women stricken with the "so called" Gulf War > Syndrome even though some were never deployed .. they just received the > vaccinations. > > In England at least 1 parent who was jailed after trial for killing their > baby by shaking (Shaken Baby Syndrome) has been released from prison with no > chance of a re-trial because it was discovered that the prosecution had > withheld medical evidence that vaccination death and Shaken Baby death could > not be determined. this is an interesting issue, can you provide links other than antivax sites? > > Other parents convicted of these same charges are having their cases studied > with good prospects of having their convictions overturned. > > But in America the story is still very different. > > I would ask who were you planning on being the individual(s) who will be > deciding these important matters for the rest of us? In the end we must trust our own judgment to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. > > > > > >> From: bob allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >> To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets >> Kills and Injures >> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:42:32 -0600 >> >> good evening Todd, > > > Yes, risk assessment is in the end is a subjective determination, > decided by society, but > hopefully guided by valid statistics. Society has to determine how much > risk to force on an > individuals and their pets and for how much protection to the common good. > Generally I think we > (society) have done a pretty decent job of it. In terms of public health > care, there is no better > bang for the buck than vaccinations. > > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@s
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
good morning Todd
Appal Energy wrote:
> Salute Bob,
>
> > I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a
> > good analogy for how science is done.
>
> I wasn't thinking of court precedings when I made mention of
> "testimonials." If you'll note, a great number of medical studies rely
> in part upon personal testament. Take aspirin for instance. Range of
> motion may be one thing. But level of pain subsidence is all together
> another. All rather personal and, of course, subjective.
but carefully controlled via double blind, placebo control.
>
> The same would have to hold true for persons who have a close existence
> with their pets. As the pets can't talk, at least not in the Queen's
> English, much reliance is made upon an owner's
> interaction/interpretation/understanding - transcribed as "testimonial."
that's how we got the "Clever Hans" phenomena
>
>> similarly I think that requiring rabies
>> inoculations is sound social policy.
>
> It's a speed bump at best, as are all vaccines. Some are more effective than
> others. We certainly haven't eradicated any maladies, despite many
> proclamations to the contrary over the decades.
>
global small pox and almost global polio?
>> Yes, risk assessment is in the end is a subjective
>> determination, decided by society, but hopefully
>> guided by valid statistics.
>
> Actually, decided by a select few within the greater hall of society, rather
> than society in general, and all too often predicated upon politics rather
> than sound social benefit for the greater good. With the Bush admin being but
> one indicator, valid statistics is often the least of all qualifiers in the
> development of policy.
>
I am referring to society in the ideal sense, as I am certainly no shill
for bush.
>> the one word "could" leaves enough wiggle room for
>> anything to be possible, hence casting a cloud
>> over all other material therein.
>
> That "cloud" is more a consequence of intentional manipulation/semantics than
> it is a modest or moderate application of the word. Perhaps you would sense
> greater accuracy if the headline read "creates a small percentage..." rather
> than "could?" Just a wee tad curious as to where you might think the "could"
> actually came from? Thin air or documented occurances, boiled down to an
> editor's headline "sound bite?"
>
> Going the next step using your interpretational method, the same application
> would necessarily have to be made relative to humans who "could" suffer ill
> effects from a vaccine.
I have already said that
Whilst such is documented fact in numerous instances with all
vaccinations, the very second a physician or attendant included the word
"could" in a "disclaimer," everything would be instantly clouded -
apparently enough so that all previous data ("all other material
therein") becomes candidate for the round file as well.
>
you must not read many drug package inserts. they are full of
disclaimers.
> If it would help Bob, I'll put in a personal word with Santa Claus this year.
> I could let him know that you're not such a bad chap and that you're in need
> of a strainer rather than a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking this
> year. At least that way you "MIGHT" avoid throwing the baby out along with
> the bath water next time..
>
> Todd Swearingen
>
>
>
>
>> good evening Todd,
>>
>> Appal Energy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling
used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does
little or nothing to advance your point.
>>> U, it's collective "testimonials" that are oft sought out in
>>> trials. If they can be accepted en masse as evidentiary, then they
>>> shouldn't be pooh poohed as readily as you would care to.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a good analogy for
>> how science is done.
>>
>> When it comes to vaccinations the issue is one of cost/benefit, which
>> ultimately will be decided by
>> society. Just what the costs and benefits are I believe are best determined
>> by the scientific
>> method, rather than the squeaky wheel.
>>
>> the costs of vaccination, other than monetary costs for production, are
>> harm to individuals, where
>> as the benefits accrue to society. Individuals have died from small pox
>> vaccinations, but small pox
>> is no longer a global scourge due to the vaccinations. Should we as a global
>> society not have
>> vaccinated? I submit that many many more would have died, and would still
>> be dying had not the
>> small pox vaccine been deployed. Individuals have died from polio
>> vaccinations, but I am proud to
>> have participated as a "polio pioneer" and now a bunch of people alive don't
>> know what an iron lung
>> is, again due the blocking of transmission of a viral infection.
>>
>>
>> similarly I think that requiring rabies inoculations is sound social
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
This needs to be highlighted If being vaccinated protected the individual it really wouldn't matter if others were vaccinated at all .. or even sick. THAT IS WHAT BEING VACCINATED IS SUPPOSE TO BE ABOUT .. and now you're telling us that .. well .. maybe no .. maybe it's about something else. "Forced for the common good" is such a grandiose concept in the mind of those who utter loudly from the rooftops that they have the ABSOLUTE ONLY VIEW POINT THAT MATTERS and they are SO RIGHT they are willing to enforce that view point by threat of martial law and/or gun point. sort of like .. well the rest of them simply don't have the ability to understand so I must decide for them!! New England Journal of Science has had to reduce it's standards because they can no longer get an unbiased peer review on any subject because Corporations have funded through grants that affect the pocketbook of those individuals who would and/or could give a peer review. If there is an independent individual out there capable of giving an unbiased peer review one of the leading Journals of Science hasn't been able to find them. Our military was taken to court for using our troops as unknowing test subjects on experimental drugs .. the military lost. This was proven .. this was admitted .. Now Bush has requested the courts to resend their decision and allow forced vaccinations on military personal. I guess if the draft ever comes back into play, the decision to take the shot(s) or spend time in jail will become a real choice .. let's see .. take the shot and maybe spend the rest of my life in a institution having my diapers changed .. or a couple of years in jail .. In England the military has already been ordered to pay war time medical benefits to service men and women stricken with the "so called" Gulf War Syndrome even though some were never deployed .. they just received the vaccinations. In England at least 1 parent who was jailed after trial for killing their baby by shaking (Shaken Baby Syndrome) has been released from prison with no chance of a re-trial because it was discovered that the prosecution had withheld medical evidence that vaccination death and Shaken Baby death could not be determined. Other parents convicted of these same charges are having their cases studied with good prospects of having their convictions overturned. But in America the story is still very different. I would ask who were you planning on being the individual(s) who will be deciding these important matters for the rest of us? >From: bob allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets >Kills and Injures >Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:42:32 -0600 > >good evening Todd, Yes, risk assessment is in the end is a subjective determination, decided by society, but hopefully guided by valid statistics. Society has to determine how much risk to force on an individuals and their pets and for how much protection to the common good. Generally I think we (society) have done a pretty decent job of it. In terms of public health care, there is no better bang for the buck than vaccinations. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
Salute Bob,
> I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a
> good analogy for how science is done.
I wasn't thinking of court precedings when I made mention of
"testimonials." If you'll note, a great number of medical studies rely
in part upon personal testament. Take aspirin for instance. Range of
motion may be one thing. But level of pain subsidence is all together
another. All rather personal and, of course, subjective.
The same would have to hold true for persons who have a close existence
with their pets. As the pets can't talk, at least not in the Queen's
English, much reliance is made upon an owner's
interaction/interpretation/understanding - transcribed as "testimonial."
> similarly I think that requiring rabies
> inoculations is sound social policy.
It's a speed bump at best, as are all vaccines. Some are more effective than
others. We certainly haven't eradicated any maladies, despite many
proclamations to the contrary over the decades.
> Yes, risk assessment is in the end is a subjective
> determination, decided by society, but hopefully
> guided by valid statistics.
Actually, decided by a select few within the greater hall of society, rather
than society in general, and all too often predicated upon politics rather than
sound social benefit for the greater good. With the Bush admin being but one
indicator, valid statistics is often the least of all qualifiers in the
development of policy.
> the one word "could" leaves enough wiggle room for
> anything to be possible, hence casting a cloud
> over all other material therein.
That "cloud" is more a consequence of intentional manipulation/semantics than
it is a modest or moderate application of the word. Perhaps you would sense
greater accuracy if the headline read "creates a small percentage..." rather
than "could?" Just a wee tad curious as to where you might think the "could"
actually came from? Thin air or documented occurances, boiled down to an
editor's headline "sound bite?"
Going the next step using your interpretational method, the same application
would necessarily have to be made relative to humans who "could" suffer ill
effects from a vaccine. Whilst such is documented fact in numerous instances
with all vaccinations, the very second a physician or attendant included the
word "could" in a "disclaimer," everything would be instantly clouded -
apparently enough so that all previous data ("all other material therein")
becomes candidate for the round file as well.
If it would help Bob, I'll put in a personal word with Santa Claus this year. I
could let him know that you're not such a bad chap and that you're in need of a
strainer rather than a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking this year. At
least that way you "MIGHT" avoid throwing the baby out along with the bath
water next time..
Todd Swearingen
>good evening Todd,
>
>Appal Energy wrote:
>
>
>>Bob,
>>
>> > as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling
>> > used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does
>> > little or nothing to advance your point.
>>
>>U, it's collective "testimonials" that are oft sought out in
>>trials. If they can be accepted en masse as evidentiary, then they
>>shouldn't be pooh poohed as readily as you would care to.
>>
>>
>
>
>I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a good analogy for how
>science is done.
>
>When it comes to vaccinations the issue is one of cost/benefit, which
>ultimately will be decided by
>society. Just what the costs and benefits are I believe are best determined by
>the scientific
>method, rather than the squeaky wheel.
>
> the costs of vaccination, other than monetary costs for production, are harm
> to individuals, where
>as the benefits accrue to society. Individuals have died from small pox
>vaccinations, but small pox
>is no longer a global scourge due to the vaccinations. Should we as a global
>society not have
>vaccinated? I submit that many many more would have died, and would still be
>dying had not the
>small pox vaccine been deployed. Individuals have died from polio
>vaccinations, but I am proud to
>have participated as a "polio pioneer" and now a bunch of people alive don't
>know what an iron lung
>is, again due the blocking of transmission of a viral infection.
>
>
>similarly I think that requiring rabies inoculations is sound social policy.
>
>
>
>
>>Besides, it's rather difficult to get a dog to tell you that his joint
>>and muscle tissue feels like mush for weeks after a vaccination.
>>
>>
>
>that doesn't negate the need for sound data, free of preconceptions, observer
>bias, placebo effects
>etc.
>
> Short
>
>
>>of an entire herd of animals being on death's door shortly after a
>>vaccination, there's a high probability that "testimonials" play a far
>>more significant role in this venue than in "selling used cars and
>>various and sundry nostrums."
>>
>> > note the operati
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
good evening Todd, Appal Energy wrote: > Bob, > > > as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling > > used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does > > little or nothing to advance your point. > > U, it's collective "testimonials" that are oft sought out in > trials. If they can be accepted en masse as evidentiary, then they > shouldn't be pooh poohed as readily as you would care to. I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a good analogy for how science is done. When it comes to vaccinations the issue is one of cost/benefit, which ultimately will be decided by society. Just what the costs and benefits are I believe are best determined by the scientific method, rather than the squeaky wheel. the costs of vaccination, other than monetary costs for production, are harm to individuals, where as the benefits accrue to society. Individuals have died from small pox vaccinations, but small pox is no longer a global scourge due to the vaccinations. Should we as a global society not have vaccinated? I submit that many many more would have died, and would still be dying had not the small pox vaccine been deployed. Individuals have died from polio vaccinations, but I am proud to have participated as a "polio pioneer" and now a bunch of people alive don't know what an iron lung is, again due the blocking of transmission of a viral infection. similarly I think that requiring rabies inoculations is sound social policy. > > Besides, it's rather difficult to get a dog to tell you that his joint > and muscle tissue feels like mush for weeks after a vaccination. that doesn't negate the need for sound data, free of preconceptions, observer bias, placebo effects etc. Short > of an entire herd of animals being on death's door shortly after a > vaccination, there's a high probability that "testimonials" play a far > more significant role in this venue than in "selling used cars and > various and sundry nostrums." > > > note the operative word could. I could be hit by a meteorite, > > and a tin foil hat might help... > > You could indeed be. But nobody is aiming a meteorite at you or > introducing one into your vacinity in the same manner or frequency as > vaccinations are upon living creatures - four legged or other. As for > the tin hat? A bit doubtful that it would help. At least not unless the > last of the mass had been expended to the point of a dust spec within > the last few inches of your noggin. granted that was a rather flippant example. I'll leave it alone. > > >>I don't doubt that there are occasional allergic >>reactions to vaccinations among animals just as >>among humans, but but these are idiosyncratic. > > > You state this as if it were an absolute and as if the "idiosyncra[cies]" are > not germane. All a bit subjective on your part, albeit espoused as a > definitive. I suppose this is where the "discussion" over what is > "significant" and "insignificant" begins? Clinically or statistically > significant? How many sig figs would you care to include or discount? > Yes, risk assessment is in the end is a subjective determination, decided by society, but hopefully guided by valid statistics. Society has to determine how much risk to force on an individuals and their pets and for how much protection to the common good. Generally I think we (society) have done a pretty decent job of it. In terms of public health care, there is no better bang for the buck than vaccinations. > >>which is just what I am saying. > > > But you didn't comment on what they were saying after you found your place of > agreement. Much like reading half the book, discounting the rest and making > up your own ending. > > Sound science (and/or wise observation) includes everything, not just what is > cherry picked. the one word "could" leaves enough wiggle room for anything to be possible, hence casting a cloud over all other material therein. toodles > > Todd Swearingen > > > > >>cripes, what is it that folks seem to want to put my name in the subject >>line? please stop- it adds >>nothing to the conversation and makes searches in the archives difficult. >> >> >>as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling used cars and various >>and sundry nostrums, >>but it does little or nothing to advance your point. >> >> >>Marylynn Schmidt wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Vaccine Info] Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 09:21:17 +0100 If giving pets too many vaccines is injuring and killing them, why would this not be true for humans? http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4448558/detail.html NBC4.TV, CA Vaccinating Pets Could Do More Harm Than Good May 4, 2005 >> >>note the opera
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
Bob, > as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling > used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does > little or nothing to advance your point. U, it's collective "testimonials" that are oft sought out in trials. If they can be accepted en masse as evidentiary, then they shouldn't be pooh poohed as readily as you would care to. Besides, it's rather difficult to get a dog to tell you that his joint and muscle tissue feels like mush for weeks after a vaccination. Short of an entire herd of animals being on death's door shortly after a vaccination, there's a high probability that "testimonials" play a far more significant role in this venue than in "selling used cars and various and sundry nostrums." > note the operative word could. I could be hit by a meteorite, > and a tin foil hat might help... You could indeed be. But nobody is aiming a meteorite at you or introducing one into your vacinity in the same manner or frequency as vaccinations are upon living creatures - four legged or other. As for the tin hat? A bit doubtful that it would help. At least not unless the last of the mass had been expended to the point of a dust spec within the last few inches of your noggin. > I don't doubt that there are occasional allergic > reactions to vaccinations among animals just as > among humans, but but these are idiosyncratic. You state this as if it were an absolute and as if the "idiosyncra[cies]" are not germane. All a bit subjective on your part, albeit espoused as a definitive. I suppose this is where the "discussion" over what is "significant" and "insignificant" begins? Clinically or statistically significant? How many sig figs would you care to include or discount? > which is just what I am saying. But you didn't comment on what they were saying after you found your place of agreement. Much like reading half the book, discounting the rest and making up your own ending. Sound science (and/or wise observation) includes everything, not just what is cherry picked. Todd Swearingen >cripes, what is it that folks seem to want to put my name in the subject line? > please stop- it adds >nothing to the conversation and makes searches in the archives difficult. > > >as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling used cars and various >and sundry nostrums, >but it does little or nothing to advance your point. > > > > >Marylynn Schmidt wrote: > > >> >> >> >> >> >>>From: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>To: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Subject: [Vaccine Info] Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures >>>Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 09:21:17 +0100 >>> >>> >>>If giving pets too many vaccines is injuring and killing them, why would >>>this not be true for humans? >>> >>> >>>http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4448558/detail.html >>>NBC4.TV, CA >>> >>>Vaccinating Pets Could Do More Harm Than Good >>>May 4, 2005 >>> >>> > >note the operative word could. I could be hit by a meteorite, and a tin foil >hat might help... > >I don't doubt that there are occasional allergic reactions to vaccinations >among animals just as >among humans, but but these are idiosyncratic. > > > >>>LOS ANGELES -- Many people get their pets vaccinated every year for health >>>and protection. >>> >>>But is it possible those same vaccinations could be harming your pet or >>>worse? Some veterinarians are starting to look more closely at those >>>claims, >>>reported NBC4's David Cruz. >>> >>>Today, Molly is a playful 4-year-old Basenji, but at 2 years old, she was >>>covered in sores and fighting for life. >>> >>>"She was dying," her owners told NBC4. "Laying in her bed, she wouldn't get >>>up. She would hardly eat." >>> >>>Doctors were baffled by the dog's mystery illness until they narrowed it >>>down to a most likely cause, a severe reaction to multiple vaccines, given >>>at the rescue shelter where her owners adopted her. >>> >>>"What I understand now is that that can potentially overload the immune >>>system," said Molly's owner. >>> >>>You do not need to vaccinate your pet every year and it may not be safe to >>>do so, reported NBC4's Cruz. >>> >>>One veterinarian told NBC4 that millions of pets get booster shots every >>>year, for everything from rabies and distemper to parvovirus and lyme >>>disease, and most suffer no ill effects. >>> >>> > >which is just what I am saying. > > > >>>But these days, many veterinarians are taking a "less is better" approach. >>> >>>People often are so hysterical, they put the animals to sleep because it's >>>an acute vaccine reaction and has to be treated rapidly to have the animal >>>recover, but then you don't vaccinate again because the next one could kill >>>the animal, the veterinarian said. >>> >>>One Los Angeles veterinarian said vaccines can remain effective for years >>>without booster shots. >>> >>>He did a survey of more than 100,000 dogs that were vaccinated once for >>>distemper and p
[Biofuel] new subject line!!!
cripes, what is it that folks seem to want to put my name in the subject line? please stop- it adds nothing to the conversation and makes searches in the archives difficult. as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does little or nothing to advance your point. Marylynn Schmidt wrote: > > > > > >>From: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: [Vaccine Info] Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures >>Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 09:21:17 +0100 >> >> >>If giving pets too many vaccines is injuring and killing them, why would >>this not be true for humans? >> >> >>http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4448558/detail.html >>NBC4.TV, CA >> >>Vaccinating Pets Could Do More Harm Than Good >>May 4, 2005 note the operative word could. I could be hit by a meteorite, and a tin foil hat might help... I don't doubt that there are occasional allergic reactions to vaccinations among animals just as among humans, but but these are idiosyncratic. >> >> >>LOS ANGELES -- Many people get their pets vaccinated every year for health >>and protection. >> >>But is it possible those same vaccinations could be harming your pet or >>worse? Some veterinarians are starting to look more closely at those >>claims, >>reported NBC4's David Cruz. >> >>Today, Molly is a playful 4-year-old Basenji, but at 2 years old, she was >>covered in sores and fighting for life. >> >>"She was dying," her owners told NBC4. "Laying in her bed, she wouldn't get >>up. She would hardly eat." >> >>Doctors were baffled by the dog's mystery illness until they narrowed it >>down to a most likely cause, a severe reaction to multiple vaccines, given >>at the rescue shelter where her owners adopted her. >> >>"What I understand now is that that can potentially overload the immune >>system," said Molly's owner. >> >>You do not need to vaccinate your pet every year and it may not be safe to >>do so, reported NBC4's Cruz. >> >>One veterinarian told NBC4 that millions of pets get booster shots every >>year, for everything from rabies and distemper to parvovirus and lyme >>disease, and most suffer no ill effects. which is just what I am saying. >> >>But these days, many veterinarians are taking a "less is better" approach. >> >>People often are so hysterical, they put the animals to sleep because it's >>an acute vaccine reaction and has to be treated rapidly to have the animal >>recover, but then you don't vaccinate again because the next one could kill >>the animal, the veterinarian said. >> >>One Los Angeles veterinarian said vaccines can remain effective for years >>without booster shots. >> >>He did a survey of more than 100,000 dogs that were vaccinated once for >>distemper and parvovirus. In every case, those who were tested and did not >>get boosters have remained healthy. >> >>Overvaccination has been suspected in causing tumors in some cats and >>immune >>problems in dogs. >> >>One family said their Yorkshire Terrier, Nicky, nearly died after an annual >>series of booster shots. >> >>"She couldn't breathe well, she was weak, limp," a family member said. "She >>was going to die. They said she probably wouldn't pull through it." >> >>After $6,000 in medical fees and a week in intensive care, Nicky pulled >>through. Doctors suspect an adverse vaccine reaction. >> >>"You bring your dog in because you're trying to keep her healthy, and a >>week >>later you find out you almost killed her," the family member said. >> >>One doctor told NBC4 that if you're getting your pet vaccinated, here's a >>simple plan: Start with the basics, rabies, distemper and parvovirus, then >>consult with your vet. >> >>The doctor said German shepherds, rottweilers and poodles are at higher >>risk >>for adverse vaccine reactions, as are older pets. >> >>Concerned pet owners with questions are encouraged to consult with their >>veterinarian. > > > > > ___ > Biofuel mailing list > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > > -- Bob Allen http://ozarker.org/bob "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] new subject line was personal name, thank you
no comments here just want out of the limelight so to speak Joe Street wrote: > > > Michael Redler wrote: > >> Right-on Todd. >> >> There have been REAL discussions on the disposal radioactive waste in >> any number of consumer products, in trace amounts. > > > The most recent example of this I have heard about is a proposal to add > nuclear waste in small amounts to the smelters during metal > fabrication. In this way it was proposed that the nuclear material can > be diluted and spread around. The proponent's argue that it can be > diluted to the point that radiation levels are in the background noise. > I remember reading this in an article in Scientific American about a > year or two ago but couldn't say which exact issue. The article said > imagine that this means that waste from a nuclear reactor could one day > end up in the braces in your daughter's teeth! > >> >> The most "convenient" method of disposal so far has been in the >> production of depleted uranium munitions which are both horribly >> destructive on the battlefield AND allows one to leave it in the >> country with which they were fighting, with little possibility of >> recovery. > > Yes DU weapons are a crime. One day I hope the criminals will be > brought to justice. But who will do it? > >> >> Those who are too quick to accuse someone of being paranoid are >> watched carefully by those who are thinking of doing the seemingly >> unthinkable. > > I am no conspiracy theorist but this is not to say that those in the > positions of power and wealth definitely like the fact (and probably do > work to maintain) that the public is willing to dismiss much as the > ravings of a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists. Besides it is hard > to really call it a conspiracy when the entire organizational system of > our society works to support and serve the interests of those at the top > of the food chain. It is more like a self fulfilling prophesy than a > diabolical plan of a few spoiled rich greedy megalomaniacs. The system > works so well that they (at the top) don't really have to do a lot > except make a few tweaks now and again. > > > Joe > >> >> */Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: >> >> U., let's see Bob, >> >> Paranoia is it? >> >> You seem to forget at minimum thirty years of using thousand of US >> citizens as human guinea pigs for radioactive materials testing. That >> nasty little "paranoid" conspiracy theory unraveled in the early 90's. >> http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V1N1McCally.html >> >> You seem to forget the thousands of US military personel exposed >> during >> Operation Crossroads as well as thousands more intentionally >> positioned >> to observe atmospheric detonations of nuclear weapons at the >> Nevada test >> sites, not to mention the forty years of denial and deceit that >> followed. >> >> Let's forget the decades that literally millions of US citizens were >> exposed to fad, over-the-counter drugs containing radium, such as >> Dentarium, Ointarium, Kaparium, Linarium and just plain Arium, or the >> water "elixir" labeled "Radithor." They were all being deemed >> perfectly >> safe and denials were issued by all private and government entities >> fifteen years after people started dropping like flies and up to the >> very days that each was separately pulled from the market.. >> >> You seem to forget that for thirty-eight years, between 1932 and >> 1970, >> the US Public Health Service and the Tuskegee Institute conducted >> studies on 399 black men diagnosed with syphilis. They intentionally >> withheld treatment and diagnostic information from these men for >> decades, treating them with "placebos" and setting up elaborate "free >> medical" schemes to keep their "study group" from venturing out of >> their >> purview so that they could maintain the "integrity" of their data. >> >> And even with such a dispersed yet long-lived historical track record >> and monumental data sets, you continually poo-poo and dismiss all >> reports or concerns of all other deceit and debilitating chicanery >> as if >> claims of such are the ravings of lunatics. >> >> Nonsense. >> >> One of us is either really gullible or really stupid Bob. You if you >> don't believe precisely what cold and calculated depths concerted >> public >> and private interests are capable of stooping to, and me if I accept >> your overly eager dismissals of anything and everything as being >> nothing >> more than "paranoia." >> >> Todd Swearingen >> >> ** >> >> bob allen wrote: >> >> >woo-woo alert! >> > >> > >> >Charles Tounah wrote: >> > >> > >> >>Hello, >> >> >> >>As far as the grey layer of crud that's built up in >> >>the atmosphere, there have been airplanes whose sole >>
