Members newholland Posted November 27, 2012 Members Share Posted November 27, 2012 Life Expectancy In 1900 = 47 In 2000 = 75 "we managed to live quite fruitfully BEFORE innoculations..." We managed to live to 47 BEFORE innoculations... http://www.elderweb.com/book/appendix/1900-2000-changes-life-expectancy-united-states dude, can it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ruppert240 Posted November 27, 2012 Members Share Posted November 27, 2012 Life Expectancy In 1900 = 47 In 2000 = 75 "we managed to live quite fruitfully BEFORE innoculations..." We managed to live to 47 BEFORE innoculations... http://www.elderweb.com/book/appendix/1900-2000-changes-life-expectancy-united-states damn I'm good. I pulled the 47 number out my ass earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FourT6and2 Posted November 27, 2012 Members Share Posted November 27, 2012 Really?Cause did you read the title of the article?Here, let me copy/paste it for you.The Shot That Prevents Heart Attacks The article CLEARLY specified that the shot doesn't prevent heart attacks. It prevents the flu, which in turn can cause heart attacks. If you don't understand the difference, I hope you have a heart attack. The title of the article is written to garner attention. And if you don't understand THAT, then I hope you get the flu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rear Naked Posted November 27, 2012 Members Share Posted November 27, 2012 O...I got retarded a LOONNG time ago. So yeah...NaOH isn't bleach...it's lye...got that confused...shoulda remembered there is a Cl in there somewhere...oh well. The point still stands. I KNOW that the placebo SHOULD be harmless...but they present no facts to back up that assertion and the article, while trying to appear sciency ( ) is doing a poor job at actually being scientific. But I also read peer reviewed journals and tend to hold much of what is published as "scientific news" with great contempt...for reasons like this. All we know is there are two groups. One is given a flu shot and the other is given something else. We don't know what that "something else" is. We also know there IS NO CONTROL group. The ones given the flu shot fare better than those given something else. Ergo, the flu shot is less damaging than "something else". Without a control, there is no science. And yeah. A flu vaccine doesn't always "Guard against flu". It only does so under certain circumstances...and my imperical (anecdotal) evidence (sample size = 1) says it doesn't do a good job. YMMV Kisses? Yes, kisses. but: -The placebo group is a control group, yes? -It is not so necessary that we provide evidence that a sugar capsule or small injection of water or saline doesnt affect anything. It is already known and proven that they don't do {censored}. -No, the article doesn't say what the placebo is, but we should assume it not something crazy. Its {censored}ing water, sugar-water, or saline. If/when the paper is published, it will say it in there. This is just some pop science article, so its ok that it doesnt mention it. And the point it is trying to make is correct, so ABSTRACT WHY U SO ARGUMENTATIVE ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Elric Posted November 27, 2012 Members Share Posted November 27, 2012 I never get a flu shot and can't even remember the last time I had the flu. But more to the point, when was your last heart attack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rear Naked Posted November 27, 2012 Members Share Posted November 27, 2012 I can't even remember the last time I died..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mesa4x12er2 Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 somehow, we managed to live quite fruitfully BEFORE innoculations... I'll keep that goin. Actually people died earlier in life and a lot more often. Did someone order the plague? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RUExp? Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 But more to the point, when was your last heart attack? I'm just waiting to get the flu first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ~Abstract~ Posted November 28, 2012 Author Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 -No, the article doesn't say what the placebo is, but we should assume it not something crazy. Its {censored}ing water, sugar-water, or saline. If/when the paper is published, it will say it in there. This is just some pop science article, so its ok that it doesnt mention it. And the point it is trying to make is correct, so ABSTRACT WHY U SO ARGUMENTATIVE ? Cause I'm frustrated...sexually, mentally, emotionally... But good news is always just around the bend. Also...I agree with the generalities of the article. I'm just railing against the method they use. And I think it also has more than a little to do with the STUPID {censored}ING FACE THAT BITCH IN THE ARTICLE HAS>>>OMG!>!>! Don't you just wanna smack that with a {censored}ing shovel? :rage: :hulksmash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ovid9 Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 Abstract, are you trying to be the new charveldan? Its on yahoo, I'm amazed most of their writers can figure out how to post the drivel they write. Though mostly I just want to find whoever writes the headlines and punch them repeatedly in the balls/throat/both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members decode6 Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 I LOVE PLACEBO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members newholland Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 Actually people died earlier in life and a lot more often. Did someone order the plague? my statement was- and i quote myself- people LIVED quite fruitfully. i didn't say anything about them dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Inspector 71 Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 Did the higher infant mortality rate effect the overall life expectancy figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rear Naked Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 Did the higher infant mortality rate effect the overall life expectancy figure? of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rear Naked Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 ABSOLUTELY NOT. It's not a "control" if you're giving two groups two different substances. Dude, its still a control group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rear Naked Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 GAT DAMMIT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Orbis_Mortis Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 We KNOW that vaccine is GOOD for you.They GUARD AGAINST FLU.Flu causes inflammation, which is a cause of heart attacks. Thats what the article says.Placebo's are not bleach. They are water or saline. I'm glad somebody in here is talking some sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry_L Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 It is possible that the stress of receiving the shot induced additional heart attacks, but that is no reason to conclude that is an effect of the inert placebo, as the OP ignorantly suggests. Is there a documented background rate for heart attacks among a similar population with known cardiovascular condition? If the heart attack rate among the placebo study population is not significantly different than the known rate for the background population, and the rate among the flu shot receiving population is significantly lower, than the study's assertion is correct. That's how science works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Orbis_Mortis Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 Cause I'm frustrated...sexually, mentally, emotionally... But good news is always just around the bend. Also...I agree with the generalities of the article. I'm just railing against the method they use. And I think it also has more than a little to do with the STUPID {censored}ING FACE THAT BITCH IN THE ARTICLE HAS>>>OMG!>!>! Don't you just wanna smack that with a {censored}ing shovel? :rage: :hulksmash: Do you know what a control group is? Are you just trolling him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rear Naked Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 HES A-TROLLIN MEH GAT DAMMIT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Miter Gauge Posted November 28, 2012 Members Share Posted November 28, 2012 hey man-- live it your way. i'd rather have a dignified and functional 47 than be some decrepit old thing gimping along on 20 pills a day in a death warehouse.. and meanwhile-- you know anybody who's died of the flu lately? {censored}-- i GOT the avian flu, and survived it without shots. i'll consider myself naturally innoculated. Unless and until the virus mutates to the degree that you aren't. Still, I expect you'd still have a quicker immune response than someone who was neither innoculated nor had the avian flu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.