I would agree that Mr. Miskatonic’s cryptic comment was ill considered, having taken one sentence a bit out of context. Often immune systems are strengthened by encountering disease. (In fact, that is how vaccines work.) However, the more extended comment by jrodefeld was that we should not generally employ vaccines because getting sick was “better” for us, (despite the number of people who actually die from many of those diseases–a fact denied and ignored by jrodefeld).
There is some evidence that fighting a viral infection helps you to develop antibodies that recognize core viral proteins and not just the surface hemaglutinin and neurominadase compounds on the surface - which is what vaccines are geared to. Also, by doing this, you may obtain partial immunity to related strains which you do not get from a vaccine. That is why, it is believed, older people did not have as much of a problem with last year’s H1N1 virus - they had been exposed to previous viruses in the same family (1918 pandemic, 1970’s swine flu, etc) and had developed immunity to parts of the virus other than the shell proteins.
This is not to support the idea that there should be no vaccines of course - that’s just stupid.
I started to look for the context of that quote, but got a headache in the process. All I could tell was that he was advocating reducing the number of vaccinations, not eliminating them altogether. I couldn’t figure out what he thought were the “right” ones, and the bigger issue seemed to be whether the government should mandate vaccinations. At any rate, iff Mr. Miskatonic wants to point and laugh, he should do a better job of pointing.
I thought the references to homeopathy were worse.
Can you quote where he said that?
So you haven’t read any of the threads about whether or not you should wash your hands after you pee, then? The anti-washers have said almost exactly the same thing in every damn thread.
I understand that’s actually true to a degree. What he’s ignoring is that trying to “exercise” your immune system by getting the kinds of diseases vaccines are generally made for is like deciding to exercise your muscles by trying to win a tug of war with a horse. Getting your arms ripped off isn’t exercise.
“Let your kids play outside and get a little dirty instead of always staying in the house” is the kind of recommendation for exercising the immune system I hear quoted from actual doctors, not “expose yourself to deadly diseases”.
If that’s what he’s saying, then that is nuts. But it would better to quote what he says rather than paraphrase. It’s too hard to find anything in that 14 page thread…
I did quote. Thank you very much. I thought most folks understood the basics of how diseases work.
Before we start declaring something as broad as ‘getting a disease makes you stronger’ you should understand this: Getting a virus will eventually get you immune - to THAT virus and ones very, very similar (this is how vaccines work, BTW). But it doesn’t make your health stronger in any way that a vaccine would not be a vast improvement. Get over a cold? Good! You are now immune to that cold virus - shake hands with an entire school’s worth of kids in winter and odds are you will get another one and that virus won’t care a whole lot. Of course, we can’t do anything about colds, but we sure have vaccines for other stuff.
Jro’s suggestion is also is so broadly stated as to cover things besides virii. By his standards getting diseases of any kind makes you stronger! So let’s chuck all that sanitation and sewage systems and all get lots of cholera and dysentery - that’ll make us all super-strong, right?
I confess I have not.
Be proud of that.
First of all, my post was directed at Lobahan, notyou.
Secondly, your paraphrasing is grossly out of whack with what you did quote, upthread. There is simply nothing wrong with the snippet you quoted. Again, if you’re going to point and laugh, you need to point better.
I did no paraphrasing. There is one quote., with two sentences added by me.
Yes there is. There is plenty wrong with it - on its own and in the context of the person being quoted it is even more so.
I’m sorry, I had made the assumption that people reading this thread would at least take a few seconds to familiarize themselves slightly with the threads & the targets linked in the OP.
Eh, in the interest of being fair, Nelson Muntz has really fat fingers that project laughter at a wider range than normal cartoon character fingers…
Here’s what you quoted:
And here’s what you interpreted that as:
That’s ridiculous. If it’s in the original thread, quote what he says, not what you think he says. That thread is 14 pages long. I actually tried to figure out the context of your original quote, and there’s just too much going on in that thread.
There is nothing wrong with it, on its own. If there is, you haven’t told us what that is. You’ve added a lot of stuff completely unrelated to that quote, on its own, but that’s not the same thing as the quoting being wrong.
I did. See post 43.
Jesus merciful fuck aigonz is a fucking retard. I sure wish he’d suffer the worst possible harm I can wish someone under the new pit rules.
He’s explaining how evolution involves leaps of faith, but assuming God instilled morality is sound.
:rolleyes:
That is you definition of paraphrasing?
And it is not an interpetation, it is an explanation as to why the original quote is wrong. You may not like it, but it is accurate.
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that I had to define all terms for the folks who wander in, refuse to familiarize themselves with the subject material, yet feel free to mouth off to the people who actually know what and who they are discussing.
Poor baby.
Yes there is. Especially in context.
You are completely wrong about this. Even with minimal context, such as the comment in the first sentence of the OP about his anti-vax standpoint should give you the perspective needed.
No. I explained what is wrong with the quote, and those who were familiar with jro’s antics - such as EVERYONE WHO HAD POSTED IN THIS THREAD already understood the problem. But you had me pegged with insults before I even got a chance to explain the situation.
Let us see what you wrote.
Then your reading is very, very incomplete… Perhaps you should have at least noted his use of scare tactics with regards to vaccine (listing false ingredients in vaccines to scare people, calling them ‘poisons’, etc.) - not the tactics of someone with the stance you claim. Then you laid into me based on this this low level of understanding, simply because I didn’t spell out everything for your benefit.
Jesus wept.
Yes, the more organisms your immune system and your mother’s have fought off, the more varied your immune response is.
You’re right. There was nothing wrong with the sentence quoted.
Stop squabbling.
Well, I just pointed out the obvious and asked a question. Mr. M insisted I was wrong, so I think I have the right to defend myself.
But you’re right. I will not continue to hijack this thread, and I’ll thank you for jumping in and defending my statements. Had someone else done that earlier, I would not have had to continue to respond to the nonsense that Mr. M was posting.
Why would Jesus weep over keeping things in context? Perhaps he would weep over your laziness in checking the perspective others were coming from.
Next time, get a clue about the thread that was being commented about in the OP before you comment, OK?