9 Reasons to NOT get the H1N1 Vaccine

[Anonymous]

Uh oh, I think 27 YO virgin and her nemesis are back...

[Anonymous]

That thought crossed my mind, but I decided probably not. The 27-year-old virgin sounded much more intelligent and mentally stable than this whack-job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the most part, this latest post contains nothing worth responding to in substance. You continue to mischaracterize my statements, babble on incoherently about statistics, mischaracterize the very on-point links I referenced and which speak for themselves, and maintain that, if you had the tiniest bit greater than 50% odds in Vegas, you'd be "the richest person in America".

You end this incoherence by stating that this thread has, all along, been about scientific method, and not vaccinations.

I think most of us are much more interested in the flu and vaccinations than we are in some dreary, esoteric discussion about scientific method. Frankly, at this point, you're starting to sound as crazy as the OP (whom, as I've already explained, was never worthy of much response).

I think we're done here.

If it sounds like incoherent babble, it is because you don't understand statistics. That does not make it less real. You might think that physics is incoherent, too. But you would not be typing on a computer if the field did not exist. Sorry if you think the Vegas thing is unbelievable, but it's just true. The casino's advantage in blackjack ranges from 0.17% to 0.66%. That means you have a tiny disadvantage, and as a result the casinos make billions.

Calling it dreary and esoteric is like the kid flunking math who calls it "boring".

And I didn't mean to say it is not about vaccinations at all. You asked where the hostility comes from. My family has a personal stake in autism. And this nonsense that Jenny McCarthy pushes in her book is a bunch of anecdotal information, and it's total crap. As a result of her public campaigning, large amounts of research money is wasted chasing down the accusations made by her and her ilk. So instead of spending money on things we think really might influence autism, we waste it in an effort essentially to defend the integrity of vaccines from charges that are not well-grounded. The only reason that Jenny McCarthy has influence is because people do not understand the difference between good science and anecdotal information. It just can't get any more real than that.

[Anonymous]

Eyes glazing over..... can't.... read....anymore.....

[Anonymous]

Me too. And I'm the pig flu poster. I'm not interested in talking to this woman anymore. Talking to her is like trying to have a conversation with my dining room table. I don't want to do it.

[Anonymous]

To the extent there is autism in your family, I think the link may lie with you. You exhibit a lot of the symptoms. You are unable to focus on or respond to the topic that is right in front of you. Instead you jump from one tangent to another and ramble on incoherently. You consistently show an inability to understand what someone has just said, even when it's right in front of you, in writing. You kept saying I had said things I had never said. Over and over and over again. I thought that if I pointed it out, you would stop. But you didn't. At first I thought this was because you are not intellectually honest. Now I realize it's most likely because you can't keep what someone just said straight in your own head.

With each post, you started sounding nuttier and nuttier. More disorganized. Less focused. Your remarks became less and less relevant to the topic at hand, and ended with a rant about a woman named Jenny McCarthy -- a woman whom you and I had never discussed and who is not relevant to anything we discussed.

I'm really sorry that it did not occur to me sooner that you may be suffering from a disability that impairs your intellect in certain respects. If I had even had an inkling of this, I never would have been snarky, and I certainly never would have insulted you. My heart goes out to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the extent there is autism in your family, I think the link may lie with you. You exhibit a lot of the symptoms. You are unable to focus on or respond to the topic that is right in front of you. Instead you jump from one tangent to another and ramble on incoherently. You consistently show an inability to understand what someone has just said, even when it's right in front of you, in writing. You kept saying I had said things I had never said. Over and over and over again. I thought that if I pointed it out, you would stop. But you didn't. At first I thought this was because you are not intellectually honest. Now I realize it's most likely because you can't keep what someone just said straight in your own head.

With each post, you started sounding nuttier and nuttier. More disorganized. Less focused. Your remarks became less and less relevant to the topic at hand, and ended with a rant about a woman named Jenny McCarthy -- a woman whom you and I had never discussed and who is not relevant to anything we discussed.

I'm really sorry that it did not occur to me sooner that you may be suffering from a disability that impairs your intellect in certain respects. If I had even had an inkling of this, I never would have been snarky, and I certainly never would have insulted you. My heart goes out to you.

Nice thing to say. I have a sister who has devoted her life to working with autistic children. She runs group homes for them, and her work takes a pretty big toll on her both financially and emotionally, but she won't give it up. But no, we don't have autism in our family.

It is really stunning that you would actually taunt someone you thought might have a disease like autism, or even someone who had it in their family. I still think you don't understand science, but now I don't really care.

[Anonymous]

No taunt was intended. I was simply stating my honest perceptions of what may be going on with you. These perceptions were based on your statement that your family has a personal stake in autism, coupled with the many obvious ways you degenerated during the course of our discussion. You not only showed an inability to understand things that I had written, but you also showed that you could not understand the articles I provided you which clearly support the proposition that anecdotal evidence can be statistically significant. I mean, it would have been one thing if you had stated some -- indeed any -- disagreement with the content of the articles. But you didn't do that. Instead, you grossly misstated what those articles actually say.

Now you tell us that there is no autism in your family, and I have no reason to disbelieve you. I'm glad you are not affected by autism. However, it is clear that any further conversation with you will not be productive. It is also clear that this has something to do with you and the machinations of your mind, rather than me. I wish you well, but will not respond to you any further. And yes, this time I really mean it.

[Anonymous]

I am a new poster. 22:42, I just wanted to let you know that you have been extremely patient, logical, well-reasoned, and articulate in your responses. I am sorry you repeatedly encountered the poster and that the poster choose to launch a personal attack.

[Anonymous]

Pro-vax, by any chance, NP?

[Anonymous]

As a "new poster" you came out of the woodwork very quickly after 23:19 posted her last post to 22:42, claiming that you had been following the whole thread all along. Maybe a coincidence, but you certainly popped up at a most interesting time.

[Anonymous]

I am NP from last night. I am pro-vax, and I haven't posted on this thread before. Frankly, I couldn't be sure that my pro-vax outlook wasn't coloring my intellectual response to the quality of the poster's arguments and the level of the poster's discourse. I know my position on vaccines is not coloring my reaction to

To the extent there is autism in your family, I think the link may lie with you.

. I continue to be disturbed that anyone would write such a thing, and I reiterate my apology to 22:42 that she had to encounter it.

[Anonymous]

That's straightforward and honest. I'm sorry that you were so offended by my remarks. I had really been scratching my head as to what could possibly explain the disintegration of the poster's thought process that I have described and pointed to extensively above. She offered a possible explanation, and I siezed it. I can appreciate that you found it hurtful and insensitive. However, for you to assert, after a careful reading of the poster's texts, that she is articulate, logical and well-reasoned is, frankly, absurd.

I also take exception to your statement that I launched an attack on her. The word "launch" conveys to me that you have some perception that I initiated the personal attacks. The reverse is true. In response to my very first post she came back with:

You use as proof something that by definition is not proof. And you do something to your children that you would not do to yourself. You don't need anyone to flame you. You actually flame yourself.


Main Entry: anecdotal evidence
Part of Speech: n
Definition: non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts
Example: This chapter provides anecdotal evidence from personal interviews, public hearings, and surveys.
Etymology: from the sense of anecdote 'unpublished narratives or details of history'

That was the first attack. I may have finished it, but she started it, and there's no denying that.

Again, I appreciate your honesty and the straightforward manner in which you explained what triggered your response last night. I hope that, if you chose to look again at the record, you will see part of this differently in the light of a new day.