Yeah, my bad. Lysenko was a late Lamarckian, and a bad apple in a number of respects. I'm not really familiar with Lamarck, but he couldn't have had any repeatable observations to support his theory, either, or it wouldn't have been discredited. Lysenko's disciples did fraudulent verifications.
Nothing works they way they taught you in high school except basic redox reactions and the Quadratic Formula.
Has somebody covered epigenetics yet in this thread?
( Child #2 has a masters in bio so she told about it )
-- Les Cargill
I've heard the first argument and will now consider your argument. Thanks for the feedback.
However, one might be careful with some vaccines, as they also tend to cause damage to an extent that one wouldn't want to experience.
So here's a tip for you:
To me that's quite disconcerting...
joe
The death toll from the Spanish flu epidemic in the UK in 1918 was 228,000.
Sixty people with narcolespy is an unfortunate side effect of vaccinating against swine flu, and swine flu might not have gone pandemic if nobody had been vaccinated against it, but 228,000 potential casualties does motivate a precautionary approach.
In wartime the UK conscripts people to fight in the army, and rather more than 60 of them have been killed an innjured in consequence.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
heck was going in your parents' lives at the time of your conception that had them so confused. I'm not reading any of those sweeping generalities in the article.
Fred Bloggs seems to be perfectly capable of thinking for himself, when it' s worth the effort.
You have along history of posting denialist propaganda, and defending it in a way that clearly demonstrates that you can't be bother thinking for your self. You happily recycle obvious nonsense if you find it entertaining, or if it fits with your fatuous prejudices.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
If you get excited by the chance of being harmed by medicine, I suggest you never look at the statistics for automobiles. You'll never leave home again... no, wait! Homes are very dangerous too!
-- Rick
I did mention it yesterday - I didn't make any fuss about it, because I thought that everybody who knew even a bit more science than John Larkin (who is at the bottom of the class, down there with Jamie and Joey Hey) would have known about it.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Evolution doesn't work the way they taught you in high school.
I don't think that is an accurate statement. DNA was known as the material of heredity, although not for more than a decade before. Watson and Crick deduced the structure and opened the door for understanding the mechanism. Interestingly enough, the basic double stranded structure and replication function of DNA was anticipated by Nikolai Koltsov in 1927.
-- Rick
That's a typical uninformed MSM superficial reporting of the news. It was n ot the vaccine so much as the adjuvant GSK used. This is not the first time squalene has been implicated in highly unusual adverse events, it has also been linked to Gulf War Syndrome disease associated with the original anth rax vaccine. What the hell is the matter with GSK? There was absolutely no need for inclusion of this adjuvant. Oh wait a minute, I think I know why: people are morons.
You gotta ask yourself "Do you feel lucky, punk"?
Go back to your socialist slumber.
Jamie
thought that everybody who knew even a bit more science than John Larkin ( who is at the bottom of the class, down there with Jamie and Joey Hey) woul d have known about it.
Jamie wouldn't qualify as "punk".
noun
He's certainly decayed and spongy, but there's no way he could used as tind er or to light a fire.
Nor would he know how socialist slumber might differ from any other. Since slumber is entirely apolitical, it can't. One of the many facts he has yet to master, along with the salient points that he doesn't actually know much , and what he thinks he knows is mostly wrong.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Your humor is as dry as your well of knoweldge.
Jamie
tinder or to light a fire.
nce slumber is entirely apolitical, it can't. One of the many facts he has yet to master, along with the salient points that he doesn't actually know much, and what he thinks he knows is mostly wrong.
Flattery won't make you look clever - or perhaps you didn't know that "dry" humour is slightly superior to regular humour.
Your opinion about the depth of my well of knowledge, and the value that mi ght be drawn from it, is well-known, as is the fact that you can't tell shi t from shinola. Your own well of knowledge smells rather like a cesspit,or at least the samples from it you ventilate here.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
No, vaccines do not "tend to cause damage". On rare occasions, vaccines have caused unwanted side effects. On /very/ rare occasions, they have caused serious side effects - including giving people the disease they were vaccinating against, causing severe allergic reactions, or provoking or inducing dangerous effects.
In comparison to the benefits of the vaccines, these risks are negligible. Clearly we should always encourage the drug companies to do what testing they can in order to minimise the risks of side-effects, and reduce their levels, and we must be particularly careful with high-risk patients (imuno-compromised patients, young babies, etc.). But avoiding vaccines because of these risks is, frankly, insane.
There are three things that I find disconcerting with this.
One is the totally unjustified claims used here that the vaccine can /cause/ narcolepsy and cataplexy. Neither of these conditions is well understood, and their causes are basically unknown. There is absolutely no basis for claiming that the vaccine caused them - at best, one could say there is some limited statistical justification for suspecting that the vaccine activated or aggravated an underlying condition, causing it to be symptomatic earlier than usual. In other words, the statistics is perfectly consistent with the idea that these children would have developed narcolepsy in adulthood, and that the vaccine only made it develop faster.
Second is the resounding lack of understanding about swine flu, and the need for the vaccination program. Such a large proportion of media, and of the general populace, seem to think the mass vaccination was unnecessary because there was no epidemic, and because the death rate for the disease was so low. But the reason there was no epidemic, is that almost everyone was vaccinated - the vaccination program worked! It did its job. If there had not been a mass vaccination, there is a very high probability that there would have been a huge pandemic in the western world, with something like 90% of the population being incapacitated for a couple of weeks each with the disease. It doesn't matter that the disease did not kill people directly - the proportion of people unable to function in society would be so high that people would be dying of the side effects. And of course the more people that got the disease, the higher the chances of it mutating into something as infectious as swine flu, and as deadly as bird flu.
Third is that people without the faintest understanding of diseases, epidemiology, or basic statistics, and without any consideration for the damage the cause, use this kind of nonsense for publicity and to sell newspapers - the result being that the ordinary ignorant man-in-the-street might refuse vaccination. People /die/ as a result of this crap. People refuse vaccination for their children because some brain-dead film star says vaccines cause autisme - then their kids die of measles and other preventable diseases.
Yes, stories such as the one you linked are very disconcerting.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.