# To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate - that is the question



## DVINNY (Feb 5, 2015)

I've seen debates for weeks about this vaccination thing, I shake my head, as I believe people are completely missing the larger threat. 

They are concerned about a few 'anti-vax' people, while millions of illegal immigrants are allowed into the country each year, and I doubt very many of them at all have been vaccinated. I'd be less concerned about the soccer mom who wants to hold off on getting a shot for her kid, then the guy coming from an Ebola breakout area and crossing our borders.

How many foreign people visit Disneyland? and do they have to meet vaccination requirements? (I'm seriously asking, as I do not know the regulations)


All I know, it seems like these National 'crisis' type events and arguments happen, then the government seems to have just the right fix. I suspect something is coming.


And just for the record, my opinion on vaccinations:
1. Yes, my kids are vaccinated
2. We did not do any combo vaccines, but scheduled more visits for individual shots.
3. I do struggle with freedoms vs. having government force us to do anything, but the risk/reward ratio is very high in this instance, IMO


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 5, 2015)

I agree with you

But I will add, as someone whose kid was (mis) diagnosed with having autism at 2 years old (he didn't talk till he was nearly 4) people cant understand the range of emotions that happen when you are faced with the possibility that something has happened to your child that YOU were essentially the cause of. Weird shit goes through your mind. For our other two kids we spaced the vaccines out as far as possible based on the emotions that we went through, but we still got them vaccinated.

However I can understand where peoples emotions come from and for people that have never had something like to deal with they need not be so quick to judge. Hell our physician, who said he had autism, looked up our kids records and said "Wow he got the vaccine that had the really high mercury content" That alone would cause most people to freak out, as it did us..

And most schools you cannot enroll in without vaccination records. Maybe in California they don't require it but I have never enrolled my kid in any school that didn't require proof of vaccines..


----------



## Dleg (Feb 5, 2015)

One of the reasons the government responded to the undocumented children crisis was exactly for that reason - it was declared to be a public health emergency, and that gave the federal government the ability to hold the immigrants and administer the necessary vaccinations and medical exams. As for the other illegal immigrants, you got me. :dunno: By definition, they sneak in a few at a time, across several thousand miles of borderland, and intentionally evade detection. Is that a public health problem? Probably. What can be done about it? Probably exactly what is happening now - a whole lot of arguing between different political parties, governments, federal, state, and local agencies.

As for the foreign tourists at Disneyland, you might be surprised to learn that the developed world is, in large part, extremely well vaccinated, and likely better vaccinated than the American public because there is no tolerance for idiotic personal decisions that endanger everyone else.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 5, 2015)

the undocumented children, when they go sign up for their free school, they usually get told where they can go receive some free vaccinations.. so they eventually get caught up...


----------



## Dleg (Feb 5, 2015)

Oh and by the way I also have a child with autism, which fortunately has turned out to be pretty high functioning. There is a lot of bad information out there about vaccinations. If you Google it, and aren't inclined to do extensive research, aren't scientifically educated, or are susceptible to paranoia and conspiracy theories, you will likely come away not trusting vaccination. I felt that way for about the first week or so after receiving my son's diagnosis, until I was able to wade through all the Google hits and come upon the AMA and CDC information. After reading that, I felt confident that the vaccinations had not been the cause, because if well-designed and carefully controlled studies do not show a correlation, that outweighs any number of anecdotal stories about kids developing autism right away after receiving the shots. And since then, there have been dozens more studies that have found the same thing, and none that have not (none that were properly designed, conducted, and peer reviewed, that is).

Like DVINNY, I think there is a larger threat out there. We have people concerned about a handful of vaccinations, while every day we eat, drink, breathe, and surround our bodies with hundreds of thousands of man-made chemical compounds, of which only a few hundred or so have ever been tested to any degree. Most are not, and nor are the billions of possible combinations of these substances, or the other substances that are created when our bodies (and the microorganisms that live in our bodies) metabolize them.

I took an environmental toxicology course through Johns Hopkins a couple of years ago. Most interesting course I have ever taken. Many scientists believe that there very well may be some environmental cause behind the increase in autism we have seen in the U.S., but it is extremely unlikely to be vaccinations, because that link has been studied exhaustively. There are massive studies underway (the National Children's Study is one of many), which are measuring exposures and what turns up in hundreds of thousands of kid's blood and bodily fluids over time. Hopefully studies like that will lead to the identification of substances that are behind autism and other disorders. There's even some thought that the obesity epidemic may have an environmental trigger. It may very well turn out that something as ubiqiutous as some food packaging material, or dyes used in children's books, or some household cleaner or shampoo is the root cause of autism, or even something like Alzheimer's. But it's like looking for a needle that is disguised as a piece of hay, hidden somewhere in a million haystacks. Which of course makes it so tempting to just lay the blame on vaccinations.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 5, 2015)

I thought Climate Change was responsible for the Obesity Epidemic?

Is it really an epidemic?


----------



## Dleg (Feb 5, 2015)

^I don't know. Some people say it is. I don't live there, so I really can't say. When I visit Denver, people look reasonably fit and healthy. When I watch TV, it seems like everyone in the US is overweight, especially the kids. I'm tempted to just think it's a lifestyle thing - everyone sits on their asses playing videogames and surfing facebook on their phones and tablets. But I have read stuff from actual scientists (some, not many) who have speculated that there could be some environmental trigger that people are being exposed to.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 5, 2015)

Oh they are definitely fatter, but who really cares, I wouldn't call it an epidemic. The world is overpopulated. People were not meant to live this long. So to counteract all the people that don't die due to vaccinations, people need to die off due to being overweight, smokers, binge drinkers, etc. every action has an equal and opposite reaction (or some shit)...


----------



## Dleg (Feb 5, 2015)

I'd be in full agreement of that if it was true, but unfortunately the only thing a fat population does is increase health care costs for the rest of us, in order to medically provide for the same longevity through bypass surgeries, diabetes care, and the hundreds of other disorders and diseases that result from lack of exercise and a poor diet. We've simply gotten too good, as a species, of keeping people alive. Kind of like the opposite of evolution.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 5, 2015)

Well since obamacare only raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans I guess it won't cost me anything...


----------



## DVINNY (Feb 5, 2015)

Dleg said:


> you might be surprised to learn ............. there is no tolerance for idiotic personal decisions that endanger everyone else.





for years I've used that same argument about smoking. (most on here know how anti-smoking I am)

I call it someone's idiotic personal decision that endangers everyone else.

Smoking is still legal, so I suppose using that same logic, people should be able to opt-out of vaccines.

My opinion is to get vaccinated and ban smoking. Other than that, I'm all about keeping freedoms.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 5, 2015)

I don't know. Every time I see a fat guy smoking I think to myself "just a tad more social security money for me".......(not that I am not just a little fat )


----------



## Dleg (Feb 5, 2015)

If people want to be free to choose whether to vaccinate or not, then they should also be required to accept legal responsibility for that decision. If their sick child infects someone else's infant and that infant dies, then the parents of that infant, as well as hospital that provided the care, should be able to recover damages on principle of negligence. And likewise, any school, restaurant, or theme park that allows unvaccinated kids should also be subject to liability for that decision.

That's fair, right?


----------



## Lumber Jim (Feb 5, 2015)

We opted out of the hep A vaccine since It usually doesn't show much for symptoms, is rare, and is not a chronic illness. Our doctor told us that he can't tell us not to get it but he said his children did not receive it. We like our doctor and trust him. (Similar values, a little older than we are, and we see him in church...)

We also believe that if our kids play in the sand box at our house and end up eating a little dirt, no biggie. If you bring your kid over to our house and he eats a little dirt and gets sick, not my problem. It's dirt. I can't see how I would be responsible for it. If I bring my sick kid to your house knowing he's sick and he infects your kid, I'm an a$$ and should take responsibility. I think the role switches again if you sue me over the sniffles...

We have the rest of the vaccines administered when recommended per our doctor's recommendations.

I don't think we are being negligent.


----------



## ALBin517 (Feb 6, 2015)

I had to double-up on a couple vaccines when I enrolled at Florida State.

I'd got them all as an infant and had the records to prove it but needed a second shot of some.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 6, 2015)

The country is still too populated I say get you and your children vaccinated and then encourage as many people as you can to not get vaccinated.

Especially if you haven't had children yet and you plan to vote for Hillary then I would recommend not getting vaccinated


----------



## envirotex (Feb 6, 2015)

So my kids have been vaccinated...but here's my experience.

Kid #1: Got the measles from the vaccine (and so did I when a got a booster in my late teens because it was going around at my university).

Kid #2: Vaccinated for chicken pox, got them anyway.

Also, I think SOME of the hysteria about the measles is unwarranted because when the measles were prevalent in the US, the medications (in the US) that we had to treat the symptoms are not as good as what were have today (in the US), so my guess is that the mortality from the measles would be significantly less than is was the last time we had an outbreak in the 1970s.

That being said, vaccinations (especially MMR and varicella) are very safe and prevent most children from ever having the discomfort of going through these diseases. So vaccinate your children.


----------



## SNAPE/SMOTT PE (Feb 6, 2015)

As a parent who has an autistic child....eerily similar to Temple Grandin (did not speak until 1 week before 5th birthday, we should take out stock in yoplait yogurt she eats so much), I do not believe vaccinations caused the autism.

She had signs from an infant of being autistic (only played with orange colored blocks, lining up toys). I believe she inherited autism from me, and definitely feel genetics has a lot to do with it.

Still had my youngest vaccinated....she's neurotypical. Both my kids have the same biological parents....same genes.

And I agree that there are greater threats coming across our southern border.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 6, 2015)

In the mid to late 90's there were lots of doctors who told their patients parents it was the mercury in the vaccines... People put too much trust in their doctors and most doctors dot know how to give bad news or even have the humble ability to say " I don't know / there is no reason.. Maybe these days they don't say that to parents but a lot of this started because some doctors didn't know the answer but felt like they had to say something...

I got so many vaccines when I joined the army I think my system could take just about anything because we got 6-7 shots in BOTH arms... And then they made us do push-ups till we couldn't move our arms....


----------



## engineergurl (Feb 6, 2015)

Road Guy said:


> I got so many vaccines when I joined the army I think my system could take just about anything because we got 6-7 shots in BOTH arms... And then they made us do push-ups till we couldn't move our arms....




I am going to pull a Capt. (MISS YOU CW) - guess what happened this week? everybody we know went red for their vaccines and guess which one they need to go get?

I looked it up last week and supposedly the MMR is good for a lifetime after you get the second shot, and like you said, you get a ton when you first get in, so shouldn't have they gotten another booster or something. Just saying.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 6, 2015)

There is so much in this thread that I want to respond to, but no where near enough time to do it.

These are the facts:

Vaccines do not cause autism. This is one of the most studied things in the US. It is fact, not belief. This does not mean they are risk-free. Just under 1% of people around the world either have an allergic reaction or the vaccine does not work. List of known side effects here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm

Vaccines do not work for everyone. Infants cannot be immunized until they are 6 months old, and a small percentage of people either have adverse reactions to the immunization or the immunization just does not work (my neighbor is one). Herd immunity is still their best chance to keep from catching the disease because the odds of encountering another un-vaccinated person carrying the disease is very small. The more un-vaccinated people there are, the higher the risk of your infant (who cannot get immunized yet) will be exposed.

Measles are more contagious than Ebola. Ebola requires direct fluid contact whereas the Measles can be spread with a sneeze or cough. The average Ebola patient will infect 2-3 people. The average Measles patient can infect up to 20. A Measles patient is contagious for up to 21 days before showing symptoms.

20% of children who catch measles will die, even in today's medical world. Doctors can only treat the symptoms to make you feel better, but the body has to fight the disease by itself. ~150k people died in 2013 due to Measles. It is still one of the leading cause of death for children under the age of 5. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

Southern California has a lower immunization rate than many 3rd world countries.

My wife works at one of the handful of hospitals in the country that has an infectious disease ward initially built for Ebola, but it has been primarily used for the treatment of Measles.

Immunization production is one of the most heavily regulated and monitored industries in the planet. The levels of chemicals used to produce immunizations are so infinitesimally small that you are more exposed when drinking a Starbucks coffee, eating McDonalds and sitting in the sun. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/Supplement_1/S23.full

Having illegal immigrants in the country is all the more reason to have your children vaccinated. If you fear the disease, protect yourself and your kids.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 6, 2015)

Not getting your children vaccinated is one of the stupidest things you can (not) do as a parent. Not getting vaccinated is not exercising your freedoms. With the ever-increasing global exposure our society faces, all it takes is one sneeze in an airport...


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 6, 2015)

I believe the issue with anti-vaxers is not about the science, but rather the desire of parents to "exercise their freedom". Here are a couple good articles on it:

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-anti-vaccine-parents-fiff/

http://news.yahoo.com/what-anti-vax-parents-get-wrong-about-personal-liberty-213257756.html

Edit: if you can't tell, this is something I am very passionate about, like Dvinny with anti-smoking (which I also agree with)


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 6, 2015)

Forgot to mention: Religion is one of the worst excuses on the planet to not get vaccinated. Religion should only be used to justify how/why you are a becoming a better person.


----------



## engineergurl (Feb 6, 2015)

Used to be the only people who didn't get vaccinated was the Amish which didn't seem like a big deal because they pretty much keep to themselves, don't they? I actually understand it because it goes against their religious beliefs, but also haven't heard of any Amish people getting the measles yet. I get frustrated because it's a group of people who could potentially have a right that they have exercised for years taken away from them, because someone wanted to take a stand against the government and twisted the situation to suit their own agenda.

And Dex, you can say what you will about religion, and I know we will probably never agree with it, but a lot of people are very passionate about their churches rules. It's not an excuse to them, it's what they feel. Trying to fight government control, making an uneducated choice, or listening to a celebrity are all much worse excuses than standing up for something you live, breath and believe in.


----------



## Dark Knight (Feb 6, 2015)

For some reason just remembered when VT got sick after the flu shot. What were the chances?

However, without getting deep into the debate, I believe responsible parents should vaccinate their children. This is not about freedom to do whatever you want, is about the children health.


----------



## engineergurl (Feb 6, 2015)

I stand corrected... now that I looked into it, there have been Amish with an outbreak... but guess what... the community impacted had people who went and protected themselves once they recognized the risk...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/06/24/323702892/measles-outbreak-in-ohio-leads-amish-to-reconsider-vaccines


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 6, 2015)

This is going to sound very harsh, but I fail to understand how essentially a belief in an imaginary friend/father figure would think it is ok to put you and your children's health at risk. The reason it was an abomination to eat shellfish and pork in the Bible was because at the time food could not be handled/stored/cooked properly and was causing serious health problems. They didn't understand medicine, so instead used "god's wrath" and the fact that religion was their government to get people to stop doing it. It is no different than having today's government set regulations requiring vaccination.

Edit: a quick google search came up with this short list of religions vs vaccines: http://www.immunizeca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Religious-Views-of-Vaccination-At-a-Glance.pdf Essentially, every major religious faction either allows or encourages vaccines and only a handful of very small sects don't allow it (Christian Science &amp; those who "heal through prayer").


----------



## engineergurl (Feb 6, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> imaginary




This is why you fail to understand, but that's a debate we won't go near, thank you


----------



## ptatohed (Feb 6, 2015)

I don't believe in vaccinating my kids. And if they come down with anything, I'll rely on faith healing.


----------



## matt267 PE (Feb 6, 2015)




----------



## knight1fox3 (Feb 6, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> There is so much in this thread that I want to respond to, but no where near enough time to do it.
> 
> These are the facts:
> 
> ...


+1000



matt267 said:


>


Agreed. Didn't see that coming from ptato.


----------



## Lumber Jim (Feb 6, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> Forgot to mention: Religion is one of the worst excuses on the planet to not get vaccinated. Religion should only be used to justify how/why you are a becoming a better person.


I feel this is directed at me. I wasn't implying that we make our health decisions based on religion. Only that my wife and I trust our doctor since he's not some Walgreen's vaccinator. He's intelligent and has good answers to the questions we ask and has an invested interest in us since he's invested in our community (at our church and outside of it). It would be easy for him to just tell everyone they absolutely need it.

I don't think you meant the God and religion references how I'm reading it. Debates on that front never quite work out. I can never get the words organized the right way when I try a rebuttal (I'm probably doing a bad job right now...) so all I can say is I'd be happy to show you why we like church and also why we don't always agree with our church but still continue to go.

We aren't exercising our freedoms or taking a stand against the government but I do believe there is such a thing as over medicating. I'm just not convinced we're at a major risk living in the Midwest in a rural area for the HEP A virus. Near as I can tell our risk across the U.S. is .006%. Our state specifically: .0009% (rounding up)

Relatively speaking, the symptoms for the virus sound easier to deal with than when the family dines at our local Indian, Chinese, or Mexican restaurants. That said, if I'm looking at this from the wrong perspective I'm open to someone changing my mind.

DISCLAIMER: DO not take 2nd hand medical advice from Lumber Jim on the interwebs.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 6, 2015)

It was not directed at anyone in particular.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 6, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> I don't believe in vaccinating my kids. And if they come down with anything, I'll rely on faith healing.


And I believe this post is missing an [/sarcasm]


----------



## ptatohed (Feb 6, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe in vaccinating my kids. And if they come down with anything, I'll rely on faith healing.
> ...




lol. I thought about it ....... but then I thought it might be funner without it.


----------



## Dleg (Feb 6, 2015)

Hepatitis A and B have always been sort of optional vaccines... CDC's stance for sewer workers even says they are not recommended, but should only be "considered" if there is an outbreak in the community, or a person has been exposed by ingesting sewage. What we're talking about here are the biggies, the ones that can KILL children and old people and people who otherwise are immunocompromised. The measles, pertussis, influenza, etc. - all of the "required" vaccinations.


----------



## Dleg (Feb 6, 2015)

And I wish I could agree with RG, because the population could indeed use some thinning, but as Dex points out, those people put the infants of the smart people at risk, as well as our grandparents and relatives who are suffering through treatments for cancer or organ transplants, etc.


----------



## matt267 PE (Feb 6, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> lol. I thought about it ....... but then I thought it might be funner without it.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 6, 2015)

so why are these all hitting Disneyland? Doesn't really make sense unless its influx of foreigners and So Cal's who are apparently not as smart as they think they are?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Feb 6, 2015)

Road Guy said:


> Doesn't really make sense unless its influx of foreigners and So Cal's who are apparently not as smart as they think they are?




I think the latter is a bigger epidemic than measles.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 6, 2015)

Road Guy said:


> so why are these all hitting Disneyland? Doesn't really make sense unless its influx of foreigners and So Cal's who are apparently not as smart as they think they are?


Disneyland was the only common thing between ~70 of those infected. It is likely the original carrier was local as they already have a rapidly growing infection rate due to their low immunization levels, but Disneyland was essentially the same as the "airport" scenario I posed above.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/22/disney-measles-outbreak-strikes-in-anti-vaccination-hotbed-of-california/


----------



## ptatohed (Feb 6, 2015)

Road Guy said:


> so why are these all hitting Disneyland? Doesn't really make sense unless its influx of foreigners and So Cal's who are apparently not as smart as they think they are?


We just went to D'Land on Tuedsay. 

I think it's "hitting" DL simply because all it takes is one person with contagious measles to go there and, since there are so many people at DL, there is a huge opportunity for passing it. Measles is very easy to catch. It can stay airborne in a room for up to 2 hours. So if one person with measles goes on, say, Star Tours and leaves, the next X,XXX people riding that ride in the following 2 hours are exposed. Multiply this by all the rides the infected person went on.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 6, 2015)

I don't see many LA types as being religious? I've only been there once but the part that I saw could use some napalm.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 6, 2015)

It's also very likely one who "caught it" at Disneyland was actually the one who infected everyone else since Measles do not show symptoms for up to 3 weeks. Most of the people who opt out of vaccines use the religious loophole of "personal belief".


----------



## ptatohed (Feb 6, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> It's also very likely one who "caught it" at Disneyland was actually the one who infected everyone else since Measles do not show symptoms for up to 3 weeks. Most of the people who opt out of vaccines use the religious loophole of "personal belief".




Is that right? Is there a connection between those with religious beliefs and those who believe vaccines cause autism? I assumed they were exclusive beliefs.


----------



## Dleg (Feb 6, 2015)

There's a lot of antivax people who aren't opting out in the name of religion, in fact that's pretty rare in most of the excuses I have heard about. It's usually just people who are susceptible to the internet, celebrities giving medical advice, and conspiracy theories and such. You know, dumb people.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 7, 2015)

Probably the same type people that look to Alex Baldwin, Rosie Odonnel and others for political advice....


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 7, 2015)

And I am not an "anti vaxer" I was just tying to say that most doctors are not as smart as people give them credit for and I can see where people effected directly by a certain action could be persuaded... I don't think that makes them dumb to think about the cause

Medicine is not really that much of an exact science and isn't really " fact/fiction". It's basically an educated guess.... This is a group of people that still haven't figured out a fix for the common cold.. Which probably kills more people than measles....


----------



## SNAPE/SMOTT PE (Feb 7, 2015)

Found this meme, thought it was appropriate.View attachment 7145


----------



## Dleg (Feb 8, 2015)

This isn't an issue of how smart or not smart your family physician is. In my experience, most doctors have a fatal combination of flaws that make them lousy at giving advice: a.) extreme hubris/arrogance; b.) they've been trained to give any single problem a maximum of 10 minutes of research and thought, so they can rush to the next patient, and c.) not nearly as much education in specific public health type stuff as non-doctors might expect. The issue is also not that medical science is inexact. The issue is that numerous scientific studies have been conducted, which measure real observations and are carefully designed to reject false correlations and such, which show no connection between autism and vaccines. The anti-vaxers can't argue with the science, so they instead manufacture conspiracy theories to discredit these studies. The problem with conspiracy theories is that, if they were true, thousands of people would be involved, from big pharma to your local health department, and if that was the case there would be hundreds of whistleblowers. And there are not.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 9, 2015)

An interesting counter-point/conspiracy theory:



> "Herd immunity"? You mean like we do with dumb animals,right? This person brings up a "line in the sand" question everyone should be thinking about. We have discovered critters we don't even have names for yet. How many vaccines are you willing to tolerate? Pick a number. Corporate greed,as we see with pharmaceuticals in general, has no stop sign. Childhood health is in a shit hole today because you trusted "good science":Whether you're pro-vaccine, anti-vaccine, or fall somewhere in the middle, the questions you need to ask yourselves are as follows: Do you want to live in a world, where you cannot freely refuse a medical procedure that carries risk of injury or death?
> 
> I'm not questioning your comfort level with today's vaccine schedule, because today's vaccine schedule will change. New vaccines and additional doses are added all the time. Children today receive as many as 49 doses of 14 vaccines before they reach age six, which is roughly 12 times higher than the number of vaccines administered to children back in 1940.
> 
> ...


----------



## engineergurl (Feb 9, 2015)

http://www.amazon.com/Melanies-Marvelous-Measles-Stephanie-Messenger/dp/1466938897

The reviews are pretty funny.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Feb 9, 2015)

I don't really have a position on the vaccine argument, but I have seen some of the "herd mentality" with regards to the flu vaccine. There seems to be a lot of pressure from the government, employers, friends and family to get the flu vaccine every year. However, getting the flu vaccine doesn't guarantee that you won't get the flu that year (see: this year's vaccine that totally whiffed on the strain that ended up hitting the populace). I have also heard several anecdotal stories from friends and family about having negative reactions to the vaccine which produces flu-like symptoms. I have never gotten the flu vaccine, and (knock on wood) have never gotten the flu. Given their recent track record, I don't expect to get the vaccine in the near future. I don't care if you want to, just don't push your decision on me.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 9, 2015)

My wife was telling me about her employer's policy on vaccines (she works at a major hospital). It is basically, you will get vaccinated or you will find another job. They technically have a religious waiver that you can apply for, but it involves at least 2 written statements by leaders from your religious institution plus multiple meetings to discuss the pros and cons of vaccines, then the hospital will still tell you to find another job. Working in a place where disease is literally everywhere requires the staff to have as much protection as they can possibly get. Anyone who has taken their kids to any public child play area (park, daycare, McDonalds play place, etc), should know those places are just as nasty.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 9, 2015)

I think most all hospitals have that policy now, my wife (who has always gotten flu shot) when they first implemented this at her job in Atlanta, was upset that even though she always got one anyway, that it was now mandatory. I think they build up an immunity over time so they probably really don't need it ,but what are you going to do..

the kids get one but except for when I was in the army and it was mandatory I have never received a flu shot...


----------



## Ramnares P.E. (Feb 9, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> My wife was telling me about her employer's policy on vaccines (she works at a major hospital). It is basically, you will get vaccinated or you will find another job. They technically have a religious waiver that you can apply for, but it involves at least 2 written statements by leaders from your religious institution plus multiple meetings to discuss the pros and cons of vaccines, then the hospital will still tell you to find another job. Working in a place where disease is literally everywhere requires the staff to have as much protection as they can possibly get. Anyone who has taken their kids to any public child play area (park, daycare, McDonalds play place, etc), should know those places are just as nasty.


This work place sounds pretty awesome. Now we just need a similar approach to schools.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 9, 2015)

Pretty good clip on doctors &amp; big pharmacy:

&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQZ2UeOTO3I


----------



## csb (Feb 10, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> I don't really have a position on the vaccine argument, but I have seen some of the "herd mentality" with regards to the flu vaccine. There seems to be a lot of pressure from the government, employers, friends and family to get the flu vaccine every year. However, getting the flu vaccine doesn't guarantee that you won't get the flu that year (see: this year's vaccine that totally whiffed on the strain that ended up hitting the populace). I have also heard several anecdotal stories from friends and family about having negative reactions to the vaccine which produces flu-like symptoms. I have never gotten the flu vaccine, and (knock on wood) have never gotten the flu. Given their recent track record, I don't expect to get the vaccine in the near future. I don't care if you want to, just don't push your decision on me.




I think bringing flu into this argument is stretching. We're not talking about multiple strains of polio, measles, etc. like for flu. The vaccines in question are very effective at preventing those particular infections.

Count me in on we've had our kid vaccinated.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Feb 10, 2015)

csb said:


> I think bringing flu into this argument is stretching. We're not talking about multiple strains of polio, measles, etc. like for flu. The vaccines in question are very effective at preventing those particular infections.
> 
> Count me in on we've had our kid vaccinated.




I know...I'm firmly in the camp of measles, polio, etc. vaccines. But I was just talking about the peer pressure surrounding flu vaccines.


----------



## Road Guy (Feb 10, 2015)

Fuck a tetanus shot also!


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Feb 10, 2015)

Road Guy said:


> Fuck a tetanus shot also!




I only get those if I step on a rusty nail (which happened when I was a kid).


----------



## Dleg (Feb 11, 2015)

In my job we are required to respond to public health emergencies, yet all we are required to receive are the standard childhood and adult vaccinations. There are plenty more that are available, but required only if you are going in to a situation where that disease is prevalent or in an outbreak (typhoid, yellow fever, etc,) So I think it is not really a serious fear that "200" vaccines will be mandatory for children in the near future. There simply aren't that many pathogens that can't be controlled through standard public health practices (safe drinking water, sewage treatment, mosquito control, garbage collection) and are dangerous enough to warrant a mandatory vaccine. The 200-vaccines in the near future arguments are just smoke screens thrown up by the folks who would refuse even a single vaccine for their children, to make them appear less unreasonable.


----------



## csb (Feb 11, 2015)

That was the argument the essential oils people were throwing up. You only need clean drinking water and lavender oil to be healthy.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 11, 2015)




----------



## Road Guy (Feb 11, 2015)

But they blew up the CDC, so they'll never be able to get it approved.

I also heard that Pfizer has the vaccine but they just won't sell it to rick


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 11, 2015)

http://boingboing.net/2015/02/08/having-the-brakes-removed-from.html



> Scientists may say that brakes save lives, but virtually every car-wreck co-occurs with panicked braking -- did you know that in the old days, cars didn't have brakes?It's true: engine braking was once the norm. And back then, I've heard there were a lot fewer automotive fatalities (and there were none involving brakes, because there weren't any brakes!). Mechanics get paid to service our brakes; they make our cars sick (brakes can warp your rotors) and then charge us money to repair them. Everyone knows that mechanics, as a class, are crooked -- why wouldn't they do this if they could get away with it?





> The government wants to force you to have brakes, but brakes or no brakes is a personal decision. Do your research and make your own decision, for you and your family.
> 
> So I talked to my Mechanic about taking the brakes off my car and I was disgusted by how poorly he treated me. He accused me of being ignorant, when I was the one that looked up how much rotational torque brakes can put on your rotors. He didn’t even know how much torque a rotor can take before being warped!!! He said “rotors are designed to be compressed, that it isn’t actually a problem” just completely dismissing me.
> 
> ...


----------



## engineergurl (Feb 11, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> http://boingboing.net/2015/02/08/having-the-brakes-removed-from.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...






While I get the point in this, it makes no sense. Owning a car is not the same as going to school. If you don't own a car, they won't throw you in jail. Therefor, the regulations are avoidable by choosing not to have car. I don't know, but aren't there laws that say you have to send your kid to school or show that they are being home schooled or something? So they are TELLING you that you HAVE to send your kid to school, but in order to fulfill the requirement, you HAVE to vaccinate your kid.

FYI- my dogs and cats are vaccinated, I am not anti-vax, just get annoyed by all this nonsense from both sides.


----------



## csb (Feb 11, 2015)

If you don't want to be part of the herd, keep your cows at home.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Feb 11, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> Dexman PE PMP said:
> 
> 
> > http://boingboing.net/2015/02/08/having-the-brakes-removed-from.html
> ...


The analogy goes back to owning the car. You don't have to have a car, just like you don't have to have kids. Having either means you have responsibilities.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Feb 24, 2015)

[No message]


----------



## Exengineer (Mar 6, 2015)

The only vaccinations I need are rabies--distemper--bordetella.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 6, 2015)

Mom flees with son to fight circumcision order

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/trending/jail-looms-for-heather-hironimus-florida-mom-who-fled-with-son-to-fight-circumcision_03062015_


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 6, 2015)

I'd like to know the rest of the story on that link above


----------



## matt267 PE (Mar 6, 2015)

They'll have to keep their heads hooded to get away.


----------



## Dleg (Mar 6, 2015)

This month's National Geographic cover seems to cover this pretty well:


----------



## SNAPE/SMOTT PE (Mar 7, 2015)

matt267 said:


> They'll have to keep their heads hooded to get away.


Omg, ha!!!!


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Mar 12, 2015)

The public wonders why the US is falling so far behind India and China, but then publicly shames/argues anything science based. It's cool to be a nerd, but apparently not cool to actually know what the f*ck you're talking about.


----------



## engineergurl (Mar 12, 2015)




----------



## Road Guy (Mar 24, 2015)

Smh


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Mar 24, 2015)

Are you fucking kidding me?


----------



## matt267 PE (Mar 24, 2015)

Wow, that's messed up.


----------



## csb (Mar 24, 2015)

BAD, STATISTICS! BAD!


----------



## engineergurl (Mar 24, 2015)

I saw that the other day but was comforted by the fact that it was accompanied by a snarky comment that feeding babies will make your kids grow up to be fat too.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 24, 2015)

I kid you not

It was posted on Facebook by a group called "feminist against vaccinations"


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 24, 2015)

Here's another Gem

This one may perplex some of you






Because you know,......science


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Mar 24, 2015)




----------



## Road Guy (Mar 24, 2015)




----------



## Supe (Mar 24, 2015)

This is not a good thread to view when you're already pissed off about your work day.


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 24, 2015)

You guys can laugh if you want but I am not totally convinced man went to the moon. I am one of the most logical, rational, reasonable, evidence-based thinking guys you'll meet and I don't normally subscribe to anything labeled as a conspiracy theory but I, seriously, am not convinced we went to the moon. Am I the only one here?


----------



## Supe (Mar 24, 2015)

Yes.


----------



## matt267 PE (Mar 24, 2015)

No, you should meet oz.


----------



## Ramnares P.E. (Mar 24, 2015)

Oh no, not you too ptato. Had an intense debate with a good friend of mine about this exact subject. To each his own I suppose.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 24, 2015)

50-60 years is hard for a few hundred / thousand people to pull off a lie...

Plus I stayed at Space Camp in Huntsville,AL, had astronaut ice cream and saw a moon rock full of holes...that pretty much makes me an astronaut.....


----------



## Ramnares P.E. (Mar 24, 2015)

It's like Hawking said, " If the government is covering up knowledge of aliens, they are doing a better job of it than they do of anything else.". Substitute moon landing for aliens...


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 24, 2015)

Ramnares P.E. said:


> Oh no, not you too ptato. Had an intense debate with a good friend of mine about this exact subject. To each his own I suppose.



Sorry RPE! I am totally open to you convincing me that we went, please debate away. I just think there is 'reasonable doubt' that we didn't go. I just really don't think we had the technology at the time. (Maybe we do now? But if we do, why haven't we gone back?)

I won't even bother with the lame arguments like flags waving, or non-parallel lighting, space rocks with prop letters on them, or missing thruster craters. Here's why I 'think' we may not have gone:

We were getting clobbered by the Russians in the space race. Clobbered! They were beating us to everything (first man in space, first women in space, first man in orbit, first spacewalk - the Cosmonauts had five times as many logged space hours as our Astronauts). But then, all of a sudden, we’re the ones walking on the moon?

The moon is 250,000 miles away, right? Well, if you don’t count the trips to the moon, as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong), the furthest from earth any human has ever gone is 400 miles (low earth orbit). To go beyond 400 miles, you’d have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts. The one time the space shuttle did go 400 miles, they got too close to the Van Allen belts and reported ‘seeing stars’ and being blinded due to the radiation and they had to lower their altitude. But the Apollo astronauts seemed to have zipped right through the belts with no problem. When interviewed, the Apollo astronauts had no idea of these belts. It’s been a while since I have seen the interview, but when told about the reported symptoms of the belts, I remember one astronaut changed his story and said “Oh yeah, I might have experienced some stars and impaired vision”.

Why no visible stars from the moon’s surface? Why the inconsistency amongst astronauts in testimony about visible stars?

Have you seen that video of the Apolo 11 crew clearly staging and filming themselves as if they were halfway to the moon when they were clearly still in Earth’s orbit? They used the circular window on the craft to make the earth look smaller than it was. This doesn’t mean with certainty they did not go to the moon but it sure shows they faked being halfway to the moon when they were not.

I don’t know. I’d like to think we went but, as I said, I am not entirely convinced.


----------



## matt267 PE (Mar 24, 2015)

Holograms.


----------



## Dleg (Mar 24, 2015)

:facepalm:


----------



## knight1fox3 (Mar 24, 2015)

I have definitely seen convincing arguments for both sides of the story regarding the moon landing.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 24, 2015)




----------



## Road Guy (Mar 24, 2015)

Can't we do some type of velocity calculation and determine how long it should take in someone to get there..I think most of us took calculus based physics so we should be able to figure out that whole slingshot around the earth nonsense


----------



## frazil (Mar 24, 2015)

^no kidding, it's not rocket science...


----------



## Dleg (Mar 24, 2015)




----------



## Road Guy (Mar 24, 2015)

^- most all the people that benefit from the military industrial complex started by that god damned Kennedy!


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 24, 2015)

But seriously, this is a healthy problem solving exercise, 250K miles, that a long way to transmit a video isn't it? Even by todays standards?

_Do you have a TV Marty?_

_Yeah of course, we have two of them._

_Really! You must be Rich!_

_Don't be an idiot, no one has two TV's..._


----------



## The Wizard (Mar 25, 2015)

For sake of argument, some say that if we landed on the moon, then why didn't the Russians follow suit and go themselves? It's only been 46 years.... Is there something wrong with second place? And as Ptatohed pointed out, they were way more advanced and winning the space race by a long shot. Some argue we can't go back now because everyone would expect everything in high def 1080p, not the crappy snowvision videos we saw of the late 60's, and would be able to detect and point out the fraud even easier.


----------



## Dleg (Mar 25, 2015)

The Russians were trying. Their main launch vehicle, the N-1, exploded on the launch pad during more than one test launch, a fact which was covered up for many years. By then, they saw what a colossal waste of resources the whole thing was, and since they had lost anyway, they stopped the fiscal bleeding and gave up on it.

http://www.wired.com/2010/10/russian-moon-mission/


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm actually surprised that for a forum full of engineers, how many just easily "accept science".

I think the true scientific approach is to always question everything. To see if an event is a coincidence, if something is cause &amp; effect, if pesticides are bad, vaccines, etc.

All I know is that in the last 25 years, Autism went from 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 68. Where are the SCIENTISTS we need now to figure this out?

I'm glad people are questioning vaccines, pesticides, older parents, and other theories as the cause, maybe we'll figure out the cause.

What I do not agree with is saying "oh science is great, that shit is safe, continue on, nothing to see here", while we continue to diagnose child after child with Autism.


----------



## mudpuppy (Mar 25, 2015)

DVINNY said:


> I'm actually surprised that for a forum full of engineers, how many just easily "accept science".




Same could be said for religion. I guess in a way science could be viewed as a form of religion because it all comes down to what you believe.


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 25, 2015)

mudpuppy said:


> DVINNY said:
> 
> 
> > I'm actually surprised that for a forum full of engineers, how many just easily "accept science".
> ...


I really disagree with the avowal that science is a religion. Science is no more a religion than, say, mathematics is a religion. What is your definition of religion mp?


----------



## matt267 PE (Mar 25, 2015)

Well, this thread is totally derailed.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Mar 25, 2015)

DVINNY said:


> I'm actually surprised that for a forum full of engineers, how many just easily "accept science".
> 
> I think the true scientific approach is to always question everything. To see if an event is a coincidence, if something is cause &amp; effect, if pesticides are bad, vaccines, etc.
> 
> ...


This argument also holds that everything else is constant (diet, environment, genetics, etc). We also have a significantly higher rate of cancer and nut allergies than we did back in the 50's, but no one blames vaccines for those.

How has the American diet changed since the 1950's when vaccines became part of the US health program?



> Americans at the beginning of the 21st century are consuming more food and several hundred more calories per person per day than did their counterparts in the late 1950s (when per capita calorie consumption was at the lowest level in the last century), or even in the 1970s.






> According to the National Center for Health Statistics, an astounding 62 percent of adult Americans were overweight in 2000, up from 46 percent in 1980. Twenty-seven percent of adults were so far overweight that they were classified as obese (at least 30 pounds above their healthy weight)—twice the percentage classified as such in 1960. Alarmingly, an upward trend in obesity is also occurring for U.S. children.






> In 2000, total meat consumption (red meat, poultry, and fish) reached 195 pounds (boneless, trimmed weight equivalent) per person, 57 pounds above average annual consumption inthe 1950s (table 2-1). Each American consumed an average of 7 pounds more red meat than in the 1950s, 46 pounds more poultry, and 4 pounds more fish and shellfish.






> Americans in 2000 consumed, on average, three-and-three-fifths times more salad and cooking oil than they did annually in the 1950s, and more than twice as much shortening.








> Americans have become conspicuous consumers of sugar and sweet-tasting foods and beverages. Per capita consumption of caloric sweeteners (dryweight basis)—mainly sucrose (table sugar made from cane and beets) and corn sweeteners (notably high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS)—increased 43 pounds, or 39 percent, between 1950-59 and 2000.


http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf

How about our living environment? In 1940 only 56.5% of the population lived in urban areas, and by 1990 it had jumped to 76%. (source)






One of the first things any respectable scientist does is evaluate correlation vs causation.



> The most powerful weapon that debaters wield against the unwary is causation: marijuana use leads to heroin addiction, pornography to rape, video games to mass murder, high consumption of margarine to divorces in Maine.


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-see-correlation-is-not-causation-20140512-column.html

American eat more shitty food, and prefer to live in areas with higher pollution, but you're right. It must be the vaccines. SMH


----------



## engineergurl (Mar 25, 2015)

The day I learned how to lie with statistics, was the day I became a non-believer.


----------



## mudpuppy (Mar 25, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> mudpuppy said:
> 
> 
> > DVINNY said:
> ...



I'm thinking of this in the sense that in both religion and science at some point you have to take something on faith. People who believe in Jesus or Mohammed have faith in the stories they have been told that have been passed down since whenever. In science it is impossible for any one person to observe evidence of every single scientific theory or discovery, so at some point you have to take on faith that someone somewhere, at some time observed the evidence that proves the scientific fact in question--just like Christians may believe someone watched Jesus walk on water.

I do agree that science isn't really a religion, since in science you should be able to recreate whatever experiment proved a fact, while that's not possible in religion.


----------



## matt267 PE (Mar 25, 2015)

Is Scientology a religion? Or is it based more on science.


----------



## IlPadrino (Mar 25, 2015)

DVINNY said:


> All I know is that in the last 25 years, Autism went from 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 68.




Or, rather, all you know is that diagnoses of Autism increased. How much of that is simply increased access to those who diagnose or change in diagnosis criteria?


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 25, 2015)

mudpuppy said:


> I'm thinking of this in the sense that in both religion and science at some point you have to take something on faith. People who believe in Jesus or Mohammed have faith in the stories they have been told that have been passed down since whenever. In science it is impossible for any one person to observe evidence of every single scientific theory or discovery, so at some point you have to take on faith that someone somewhere, at some time observed the evidence that proves the scientific fact in question--just like Christians may believe someone watched Jesus walk on water.
> 
> I do agree that science isn't really a religion, since in science you should be able to recreate whatever experiment proved a fact, while that's not possible in religion.


Science is based on testable observable imperical evidence based in the natural world, it is not a faith. Faith is believing in the existence of something based on no evidence. Science does not need to assume anything supernatural to operate.


----------



## Ship Wreck PE (Mar 25, 2015)

IlPadrino said:


> DVINNY said:
> 
> 
> > All I know is that in the last 25 years, Autism went from 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 68.
> ...


Exactly, I am sure that the definition has gotten broader.


----------



## engineergurl (Mar 25, 2015)

IlPadrino said:


> DVINNY said:
> 
> 
> > All I know is that in the last 25 years, Autism went from 1 in 250,000 to 1 in 68.
> ...




...in the last ten years the mortality rate of children 5 and under was nearly cut in half... just saying there could be a slight connection, maybe?


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Mar 25, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> The day I learned how to lie with statistics, was the day I became a non-believer.


lies, damn lies, &amp; statistics


----------



## mudpuppy (Mar 25, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> mudpuppy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm thinking of this in the sense that in both religion and science at some point you have to take something on faith. People who believe in Jesus or Mohammed have faith in the stories they have been told that have been passed down since whenever. In science it is impossible for any one person to observe evidence of every single scientific theory or discovery, so at some point you have to take on faith that someone somewhere, at some time observed the evidence that proves the scientific fact in question--just like Christians may believe someone watched Jesus walk on water.
> ...


I've never observed an atomic clock fly around in an airplane and come back with a few nanoseconds off from a terrestrial atomic clock so I have no direct empirical evidence Einstein's theory of relatively is true. I don't even have the ability to build an atomic clock and test it myself, yet I still believe this theory is true because I have faith in the people who did actually perform this experiment.


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 25, 2015)

mudpuppy said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > mudpuppy said:
> ...


True, but your beliefs and trust in science is not the same as religious faith. Science is not a religion. It operates in the real natural world and is based on facts and evidence. Even if you or I can't see it, it is still based on observable, testable, and verifiable data.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 25, 2015)

Have you ever read a traffic signal warrant analysis submitted by a developer when they want a traffic signal (for their development)?

Lots of liberties undertaken by the "scientist/engineer" who should know better..

not saying I agree or disagree with any of you but science is only as good as the person manipulating the data..


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 25, 2015)

Road Guy said:


> Have you ever read a traffic signal warrant analysis submitted by a developer when they want a traffic signal (for their development)?
> 
> Lots of liberties undertaken by the "scientist/engineer" who should know better..
> 
> not saying I agree or disagree with any of you but science is only as good as the person manipulating the data..


Science is as good as science is. The person manipulating the data is only as good as the person manipulating the data.


----------



## engineergurl (Mar 25, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> True, but your beliefs and trust in science is not the same as religious faith. Science is not a religion. It operates in the real natural world and is based on facts and evidence. Even if you or I can't see it, it is still based on observable, testable, and verifiable data.


That depends on your beliefs. In some people's eyes when a prayer is answered, then another prayer is answered, and another and another... that is observable, testable and verifiable data. In others, manifestation of situations and things is totally real if done correctly.


----------



## Dark Knight (Mar 25, 2015)

Am late to this so my opinion is irrelevant. But here is it anyways...

I have serious doubts about the man really stepping on the Moon.

I have three kids, all vaccinated, nothing happened.

My SIL has three, all vaccinated, all have to low to moderate level of autism. Quite frankly, sometimes I do not know what to think.

Religion, well...is religion. Am not touching that topic because no matter what I say will not change what you think anyways.


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 25, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > True, but your beliefs and trust in science is not the same as religious faith. Science is not a religion. It operates in the real natural world and is based on facts and evidence. Even if you or I can't see it, it is still based on observable, testable, and verifiable data.
> ...


It's hard to reply to this eg. There is absolutely no way prayer is scientifically testable. Nice try though.  It may be observable in an individual’s mind, I don't doubt that, but scientifically observable, testable, and verifiable? Absolutely not. There have been some studies to try to test prayer by using ill and sick patients and it turned out there was no noticeable increase in recovery rates for those being prayed for. In fact, in some cases, they did worse! The theory for that is 1.) When the patient heard the prayers for them, they might have thought their condition was worse than it was and/or 2.) When they heard the prayers they might have felt their health was in God's hands now and they stopped fighting. How would you propose that prayer could be observed, tested, and verified?Let's put it this way, if you could prove prayer worked, you'd be the first person in history. 

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this: "In others, manifestation of situations and things is totally real if done correctly." ?


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 25, 2015)

engineergurl said:


> IlPadrino said:
> 
> 
> > DVINNY said:
> ...






Going by the same correlation, it must be obvious that they were just under-diagnosing deaths in children 5 and under before. If a rate of 1 in 200,000+ can increase to a rate of 1 in 68 by proper diagnostics alone, then I'm sure that only cutting a rate in half is most definately done by changing the diagnostic standards of death.

just sayin


----------



## knight1fox3 (Mar 25, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> Science does not need to assume anything supernatural to operate.


I'm not trying to draw this out any but that particular statement is not entirely accurate if you've ever taken a modern physics course vs. the more traditional classical physics. There are phenomena in modern physics where assumptions have to be made because the actual result hasn't been proven due to events that usually cannot be re-created. Such events could be construed as "supernatural".


----------



## matt267 PE (Mar 25, 2015)

^ like Absolute Zero?


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 25, 2015)

knight1fox3 said:


> ptatohed said:
> 
> 
> > Science does not need to assume anything supernatural to operate.
> ...


Can you give an example? Well, I would contend that as long as the unexpected results can be expected, there is nothing supernatural going on.  What does supernatural mean anyway? If something new happened, no matter how shocking or unpredicted, in our natural world, wouldn't it be natural, not supernatural? :S


----------



## knight1fox3 (Mar 25, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> knight1fox3 said:
> 
> 
> > ptatohed said:
> ...


Of course. Like I said, wasn't intending to sway the convo or drag it out. But when certain aspects can't be completely explained or justified, perhaps it could also be considered "supernatural". A few instances are things like what actually takes place within a black hole. Or when something exceeds the speed of light, how that affects dimensional space and time. Of course there are theories and corollaries, but there are most definitely aspects of things like this that simply cannot be explained.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 25, 2015)

So if the moon is 250,000 miles away and it took the Apollo crew 3 days to get there that means they wee traveling at about 3400 miles per hour?

Is that like Mach 3? I suppose SR.-71 pilots spent some lengthy time at those speeds but eight days?

I'm going on 2 hours of sleep so maybe my math is wrong....


----------



## Dleg (Mar 26, 2015)

Good Lord you people are making me depressed.

I am forming a hypothesis that it is not vaccines that are causing autism, but something every single person in the continental U.S. is consuming that is causing it AND making the majority of you mildly paranoid, to the point of believing crazy conspiracy theories and conflating religion with science!

I suppose an engineering degree is not a science degree, but still, you guys all should have had enough of the basic science courses to understand the scientific process and its basis in data and repeatability, and how that differs from religion or conspiracy theories. The "faith" required to believe someone else's scientific conclusions is not the same as the "Faith" required to believe in a supernatural diety or shadow government that you have never directly seen or have evidence of. The scientific data is there for you and others to examine and test for yourself, at any time. The diety never has been - all you have is someone else's word that it exists - and hence the necessity of the word "Faith" in describing any religion.

:suicide1:

And RG, I am not sure what you are saying about spending 8 days at a speed of 3400 miles per hour, but speed is a relative thing. You and I have currently spent all of our lives traveling at a speed of about 1,000 miles an hour relative to the center of the earth, and about 67,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 26, 2015)

Dleg said:


> Good Lord you people are making me depressed.
> 
> I am forming a hypothesis that it is not vaccines that are causing autism, but something every single person in the continental U.S. is consuming that is causing it AND making the majority of you mildly paranoid, to the point of believing crazy conspiracy theories and conflating religion with science!
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you said Dleg............ except................................ I am still not convinced we went to the moon...... :run and hide:


----------



## matt267 PE (Mar 26, 2015)

If the US didn't land on the moon, don't you think the Russians would have been all over it call our bluff?


----------



## NJmike PE (Mar 26, 2015)

It's all just a hologram.


----------



## Supe (Mar 26, 2015)

NJmike PE said:


> It's all just a hologram.




And lunar eclipses are just the stupid government interns walking in front of the projector.


----------



## roadwreck (Mar 26, 2015)




----------



## mudpuppy (Mar 26, 2015)

LOL, I was stirring the pot, but dleg was definitely not the one I expected to catch with my comparison of science to religion.


----------



## engineergurl (Mar 26, 2015)

Dleg said:


> I suppose an engineering degree is not a science degree, but still, you guys all should have had enough of the basic science courses to understand the scientific process and its basis in data and repeatability, and how that differs from religion or conspiracy theories.




some of us have degrees in science.

and Ptatohed, read the book "The Science of Getting Rich" by Wallace Wattles. now THAT is some supernatural, religious manifestation explanation

.


----------



## goodal (Mar 26, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> knight1fox3 said:
> 
> 
> > ptatohed said:
> ...


The big bang was not observed, cannot be proven or repeated, yet it is held up as scientific fact. Yes, I heard it said again yesterday. Its a fact. There is no doubt it happened in "anyone's" mind, but it doesn't even hold up to their own definition of science.


----------



## roadwreck (Mar 26, 2015)

goodal said:


> The big bang was not observed, cannot be proven or repeated, yet it is held up as scientific fact.


I'm pretty sure that's why they named it the Big Bang *Theory*. Does a lot of the scientific community believe that it happened that way? Sure. Is a lot of subsequent science based on that theory? Yes. But that's pretty much the way it has to be because as you pointed out, no one was around to observe it but that's this is the best theory put forth based on what we currently know. Can that theory change as we learn more about the universe? Yes.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Mar 26, 2015)

The best part about science is that if something is tested that challenges the theory, the theory is changed.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/quantum-equations-dispute-big-bang



> Two physicists are trying to revive one of the great debates of twentieth-century science, arguing that the Big Bang may never have happened. Their work presents a radically different vision of the universe from the one cosmologists now work with.


----------



## goodal (Mar 26, 2015)

Agreed, but its not taught or even referred to as theory though. The highly credentialed physicist on NPR said a couple of times "this is fact". That's how it is taught in school and people (read: I) are deemed idiots for not believing in it.


----------



## DVINNY (Mar 26, 2015)

Dleg said:


> Good Lord you people are making me depressed.
> 
> I am forming a hypothesis that it is not vaccines that are causing autism, but something every single person in the continental U.S. is consuming that is causing it AND making the majority of you mildly paranoid, to the point of believing crazy conspiracy theories and conflating religion with science!




I very much agree with you on what you say above. I am not saying it is necessarily vaccines either, as you see in my post that I've quoted below. Is it having a set of 'older' parents? is it due to Miracle Grow? is it due to pesticides? I've heard all these theories, and believe there is a cause to be found.

I was saying that dismissing any of those because "Science is science" is VERY short-sighted and quite sad.

I also do not accept that it was under-diagnosed prior as a valid dismissal either.



DVINNY said:


> I'm actually surprised that for a forum full of engineers, how many just easily "accept science".
> 
> I think the true scientific approach is to always question everything. To see if an event is a coincidence, if something is cause &amp; effect, if pesticides are bad, vaccines, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 26, 2015)

matt267 said:


> If the US didn't land on the moon, don't you think the Russians would have been all over it call our bluff?


I'm still curious why they never went?



goodal said:


> The big bang was not observed, cannot be proven or repeated, yet it is held up as scientific fact. Yes, I heard it said again yesterday. Its a fact. There is no doubt it happened in "anyone's" mind, but it doesn't even hold up to their own definition of science.


 I don't agree with this. Something does not have to be observed to be fact. By definition of the process, evolution takes a very long time to make tiny changes in species. We can't view it. But it is a fact that it happened. There are mounds of evidence all over the planet. There is plenty of evidence that the universe had a beginning at a single point some 14.5B years ago. Just as in forensics, a murder can be solved by piecing together the clues, even if there was no witness.



roadwreck said:


> goodal said:
> 
> 
> > The big bang was not observed, cannot be proven or repeated, yet it is held up as scientific fact.
> ...


Well put.



Dexman PE PMP said:


> The best part about science is that if something is tested that challenges the theory, the theory is changed.


Very true. Unlike bible literalists who will not even consider changing their beliefs even when presented with evidence. As they say, the facts should define your beliefs; your beliefs should not define the facts.



goodal said:


> Agreed, but its not taught or even referred to as theory though. The highly credentialed physicist on NPR said a couple of times "this is fact". That's how it is taught in school and people (read: I) are deemed idiots for not believing in it.


Many things are fact and theory. The fact is that it happened. Evolution is a fact. It happened (and is happening). The theory is the "how?". Right now the leading theory is natural selection. Even gravity is fact and theory. We take it as fact that if I throw a ball up, it will come down. But why does it come back down? Well, the best leading theory we have for the why is that objects are attracted to other objects proportionally to the mass of their bodies multiplied, and inversely proportional to the distance between them, squared. This is the theory or the how/why - part of gravity. That gravity exists, is a fact.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Mar 26, 2015)

goodal said:


> Agreed, but its not taught or even referred to as theory though. The highly credentialed physicist on NPR said a couple of times "this is fact". That's how it is taught in school and people (read: I) are deemed idiots for not believing in it.




I think some outspokenly atheistic scientists have started taking a hard line on the Big Bang Theory to counteract fundamentalist Christians that take a hard line on creationism. In my mind, they are both equally wrong because neither of their theories have been tested or proven.


----------



## Road Guy (Mar 26, 2015)

The Russians are mere amateurs on the global stage in all reality


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 26, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> goodal said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed, but its not taught or even referred to as theory though. The highly credentialed physicist on NPR said a couple of times "this is fact". That's how it is taught in school and people (read: I) are deemed idiots for not believing in it.
> ...


I don't see how you can compare and equate any creation myth to a true scientific theory derived from evidence and facts and observation.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Mar 27, 2015)

wilheldp_PE said:


> goodal said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed, but its not taught or even referred to as theory though. The highly credentialed physicist on NPR said a couple of times "this is fact". That's how it is taught in school and people (read: I) are deemed idiots for not believing in it.
> ...


Religion is not a theory. It cannot be tested, therefore cannot become a theory. It is a belief system originally used as a form of government to control people through emotion, fear, and superstition.


----------



## engineergurl (Mar 27, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> wilheldp_PE said:
> 
> 
> > goodal said:
> ...




Or is that just your theory on it?

lmao, but really, the word theory has a different meaning in philosophy than in science so according to the English language, it can be a theory, just not a scientific theory.


----------



## Lumber Jim (Mar 31, 2015)

I saw on "the big bang theory" that Leonard confirmed that we visited the moon by measuring the time it takes a laser beam to bounce off of a reflector placed at a specific location on the moon's surface.(you know, distance over time = velocity and with a known distance and known velocity you can theorize the flight time (X2) and then confirm it)

That show is based on science, isn't it?

or am I believing in the wrong thing?

(obviously they would need to simplify it a bit for T.V. since I don't remember them talking about the variables required to take the measurement in order to confirm the results so the variables must have already been factored in) 

Does my response hold any less weight as a devout catholic that isn't always as devout as I should be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment


----------



## matt267 PE (Mar 31, 2015)

Yes, but can you write in your reference material with pencil?


----------



## Lumber Jim (Mar 31, 2015)

Are you feeling like taking on some risk?


----------



## matt267 PE (Mar 31, 2015)




----------



## Road Guy (Mar 31, 2015)

I wonder what the effect space would have on measuring the distance from the earth to the moon with surveying chains?


----------



## ptatohed (Mar 31, 2015)

Road Guy said:


> I wonder what the effect space would have on measuring the distance from the earth to the moon with surveying chains?




lol. You wouldn't have to worry about the catenary!


----------



## ptatohed (Apr 22, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/no-link-between-mmr-and-autism-major-study-concludes


----------



## matt267 PE (Apr 22, 2015)

ptatohed said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/no-link-between-mmr-and-autism-major-study-concludes


I need to hear this from Jenny McCarthy before I believe it.


----------



## NJmike PE (Apr 22, 2015)




----------



## matt267 PE (Apr 22, 2015)

NJmike PE said:


>


Well then. I'm in.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Apr 22, 2015)

My wife and I were discussing it the other night about why there are more food allergies and an increase in genetic disorders like autism. I think medicine is to blame, but not directly. I know shots and modern medicine do not cause these problems, but rather they allow people who have these disorders (or the genetic markers that cause them) to live and pass their genes on to the next generation.

For example, my wife develops hyperemesis when pregnant. In her case, had she been pregnant 75 years ago she would not have survived her pregnancy with our first child. The genetic markers that cause the disease would have died with her. Instead, because she was able to be treated with medicine to survive the ordeal, those markers are now passed on to our children. My daughter has a very high chance of developing the same problems if she decides to have kids, and my son has the chance to pass it on to his children.

We now live in a time where procreation is no longer necessary for the survival of humans as a species. People now have kids because they want to, and as callous as it sounds, not everyone should be able to. We've reached a point where modern medicine lets [almost] anyone who wants kids to have them despite huge risks.


----------



## ptatohed (Apr 22, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> My wife and I were discussing it the other night about why there are more food allergies and an increase in genetic disorders like autism. I think medicine is to blame, but not directly. I know shots and modern medicine do not cause these problems, but rather they allow people who have these disorders (or the genetic markers that cause them) to live and pass their genes on to the next generation.
> 
> For example, my wife develops hyperemesis when pregnant. In her case, had she been pregnant 75 years ago she would not have survived her pregnancy with our first child. The genetic markers that cause the disease would have died with her. Instead, because she was able to be treated with medicine to survive the ordeal, those markers are now passed on to our children. My daughter has a very high chance of developing the same problems if she decides to have kids, and my son has the chance to pass it on to his children.
> 
> We now live in a time where procreation is no longer necessary for the survival of humans as a species. People now have kids because they want to, and as callous as it sounds, not everyone should be able to. We've reached a point where modern medicine lets [almost] anyone who wants kids to have them despite huge risks.




I think stuff like this but never dare say it out loud. Dex has bigger nuts than I do.


----------



## Dleg (Apr 22, 2015)

^Me too, and even worse things, and yet I'm "in the business" of helping ruin the sanctity of our genes. Human morals, in general, are in conflict with mother nature's designs (or God's, depending on your view).

The final answer is that humanity is rapidly becoming capable of engineering its own evolution, to become mother nature or "God" on its own.

We'll be the cockroaches of the universe, eventually.


----------



## mudpuppy (Apr 23, 2015)

Dexman PE PMP said:


> We now live in a time where procreation is no longer necessary for the survival of humans as a species. People now have kids because they want to, and as callous as it sounds, not everyone should be able to. We've reached a point where modern medicine lets [almost] anyone who wants kids to have them despite huge risks.




I think I could come around to this point of view, as long as those who aren't allowed to have kids don't have to financially subsidize those who do.


----------

