For a native English speaker that likes to bash a non-native one about his errors, your English really sucks. How in earth am I (or whatever other English reader) supposed to understand what you mean by:
X is complicated enough that Y isn't incompatible with Z???
I would be a bit more humble about my English before criticizing another's use of that language.
You seem to be referring here to a paper without actually referring to it. How are we supposed to understand that gibberish of yours?
The 'herd immunity' theory is not proven, Mr.
And your other error is that people who are asking to vaccinate with caution are NOT 'vaccine deniers', whatever that might mean...
As it stands now, vaccination is about the single most profitable product for the pharmaceutical industry, and in the US they are given indemnity for whatever damage may occur as a result of their products.
So they can make as much profit as they can scare you into taking 'for your protection' and can make the product as bad as they want.
A behaviour stimulated by the same mass media that refuse to report on things that are really important, and given no choice, will miss-report those events.
So there is no more real journalism. Except of course by the 'alternative' media.
Who decided that one is 'required' to vote for someone who miss-represent him?
If nobody represents me enough, and that happens a lot, I won't vote, which also happens a lot.
In the US you can vote for people who represent you in congress. In the US the presidential candidate is selected by the party, and just continues the policy of his/her predecessor, regardless whatever party that one may have been from.
If you consider your representatives as your 'political masters', then something is seriously wrong with your mental condition. }snip history{
Useful to secure research grant, which of course requires at least one apocalyptic prediction for the near future. Further their correctness is wholly unproven, but for some that doesn't seem to matter.
It's too difficult for you? Tough. It was good enough for my employers for about thirty years - nobody asked me to re-write stuff with shorter sentenc es or simpler clause structure.
Easy. Get an education.
You have a lot to be humble about. Me, less so.
In your case, use your memory.
ng
Since it's blindly obviously true, it doesn't take much proving. You can't do the joined-up logic required to follow the arguments, so you beg to diff er, but your stupidity doesn't make the evidence any less convincing.
Nobody cares how cautiously you vaccinate, so long as the kids get vaccinat ed in the first year or two of life. the problem is the kids who don't get vaccinated at all.
Sounds good. It's also the most effective product of the pharmaceutical in dustry, and has saved a lot more lives than anything else they make. A blanket indemnity is taking things too far, but the peculiar defects of t he US political system do lay it open to this sort of abuse.
Reality is what scares people into getting vaccinated for their own protect ion. The FDA in the US exists to makes sure that what the pharmaceutical industr y makes is as good as is economically feasible. Scares about drug and vacci ne safety don't do the pharmaceutical industry any good at all - every over
-anxious half-wit like you costs them money in lost sales - and they are ca reful to avoid provoking them.
Sure. But people also need to be cautious about taking self-declared "exper ts" like you seriously. Your silly ideas, spread primarily to make you stan d out from the crowd of more sensible people, can have unfortunate conseque nces.
Obviously not. An expectation is of something that is likely to happen, and a factual causation is of something that has already happened, after the facts are available for inspection.
Equally obviously, you don't share my expectations, because you haven't got a clue about what's going on - give or take a few obviously bogus conspiracy theories. Survive a few more years and you may be able to make a better informed judgement.
If you think they are "servants of all" there's something wrong with your m ental condition - as if we didn't know that already.
You don't know much about grant-getting, do you. My friends get them from t ime to time, and they've never included an apocalyptic prediction in any of their research plans.
Since you haven't the vaguest idea what the models look like, or the behavi our they are designed to model - have you worked out what a Hadley Cell is yet? - you claim about whether their correctness is "proven" or not is just one more example of you not having a clue about what's going on.
And where did I 'imply' that I know anything about the climate part in those (unverified) models?
You're trying to change the subject here. You said "it's clear" that I have never heard of FEMs, to which I replied that those are totally your words, which you claim is disputed by others, while posting some stupid link.
I can't see the logic here, and that's not my fault either.
'manageable' is not the same as correct, or comprehensive. Here it more indicates your inability to model it comprehensively (and if you could, chaos theory would bite you) and so you create a short cut by just getting some points, and declare those points to represent 'lumps', the correctness of which, of course, is also totally unproven.
And then again, you try to use a historically 'more or less' correct (or is that 'faulty'?) model to predict the future, which of course is catastrophically different from the history, in the same process invalidating the use of the model.
That approach is wrong on so many levels...
And then of course, it's time to pay up for the A-part in AGW. Trillions of dollars to... whom? Ah, speculators of course, in carbon certificates. Like Al Gore, not surprisingly also a staunch supporter of both the apocalypse and the carbon certificates.
You still don't see the pattern here?
And the other one is 30-90 days. I simply haven't been able to explain those atmospheric phenomena because YOU NEVER ASKED ME!
On the other hand, please do tell where that unbelievably accurate number of 236 years comes from in relation to the Hadley Cell... Some people [Jian Lu 2007] seem to believe that there is a consistent weakening and poleward expansion of the Hadley circulation going on, with the widening of which a poleward expansion of the subtropical dry zone is associated, which is caused by an increase in the subtropical static stability, which pushes poleward the baroclinic instability zone and hence the outer boundary of the Hadley cell. Or so they say...
The real ignorance is shown by people who call a universal truth a mere generalisation.
That's what I'm telling all the time: it isn't science.
All the while abruptly changing harmless temperature graphs into hockey sticks of apocalyptic proportions.
You frequently demonstrate that this world isn't ideal.
That's what I'm also trying to make clear all the time: It's a believe, and people who don't believe are treated as heretics.
There's not much 'deep thinking' needed to dismiss the claim that a wacky model based on estimates and some history can accurately predict a future it has never been 'calibrated' for. Yes, that's the climate models I'm talking about, and it could as well have been any model that's used outside the bounds wherein it has been confirmed to 'seem to work'.
Which would have made it an entirely different statement.
Much like firstly saying "X is guilty of Y as charged, and then saying "maybe I should have written 'innocent' but the remaining sentence stays unmodified" :)
No, I'm just trying to 'help' you, because you stated previously (forgotten?) that your replies are mainly meant to influence other readers and warn them about my supposedly 'dangerous advice'.
It can't. It's a theory which you just seem to believe in, but is not proven to be true.
Theories can sound nice, but the proof is in the eating of the pudding. Not in the talking about how you cook it.
Your first point is not true. If you load up the vaccine with mercury, squalene, alumin(i)um, formaldehyde, mono-sodium glutamate, xenotropic murine retrovirus, SV40 and 39 or more other vaccines, then you'd better be cautious about which vaccine you buy.
And can you explain how 11% unvaccinated children can cause an epidemic?
Exactly, hence cause for caution.
I think your 'economically feasible' has a different definition for everyone, so the meaning of 'as good as' is also undetermined.
}snipped religious anti-heretic zealottery{
Yes, don't be scared, we make vaccines as cheap as we can and like, safety is no issue as we pay the guys at the FDA, or at least either paid their previous salary, or their next salary. Just take your goddamn jab and don't panic. Right...
}snipped more uneducated discussion 'techniques'{
People should be fully informed, about probability of vaccine failure, as well as probability (and severity) of adverse effects, and then have the freedom to decide.
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.