birdog1960

you can fool some of the people all of the time… i never encountered this shyster before. seems he was on the dr oz show - now there's a surprise. here's a hint to barbarian: if an "expert" posts a copy of his medical license on his website http://www.mercola.com/forms/background.htm, he's probably not considered an expert by his colleagues. same for bragging about being a dept head at a largely unknown small hospital. at any rate, this is data cherry picking at it's worst. i don't know how this guy sleeps at night unless he really believe this crap. that would actually be worse.

you're the laissez faire freemarket, liberterian. how bout you tell me why artificially maintained low interest rates are justified in light of your political philosophy. i think you can reason why i'm not a fan in regards to this thread.

we can thank a majority on the supreme court that ruled for citizens united for this.

i think the stock market bubble will burst like a balloon stck by a dart.

seems janet yellen finds income inequality (or is that wealth?....janet! gg has a burning question) a big problem. http://finance.yahoo...-123219309.html. sounds like it's time to raise interest rates. btw gg, she says it's both.

in many observational studies, yes. if you're really interested this paper, while not particularlyflattering to the vaccine, does a nice job of summarizing the studies. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=486407

honestly, a cross section of the people i work with would be less frustrating than this. hopefully, this is not a representative sample. if it is, a bills game in buffalo in dec is likely a very good place to catch the flu.

yeah, the fear is totally irrational. the money folks have no access to information. (although when a vaccine is developed the elite ones will have first access to it)

it's all fair game. the stories on palin don't bother the repug base. the stories on biden's son are unlikely to change the dems base. what about moderates? i'm betting more have engaged in "recreational" drug use than bar fights but who knows.

google biden this am. in this case, anger is almost quantifiable.

and it will be rightfully discussed and result in multiple pages of print all over the media, papers, magazines and blogs. just like the palins, um, indiscretions.

bs. i'm condensing what little is known and the possible consequences. it doesn't require sensationalizing to be concerned about potentially dire consequences. many would describe them as dire already in affected areas. 3.2 million americans. that's the analogy. i don't think we even remotely approach that with ebola but no one knows. and the mortality from hep c is less than 5% from liver failure/hepatoma. much higher with ebola, currently. that's a significant distinction. at any rate, let's hope the analogy was terribly inaccurate.

or even the frail, elderly or young, susceptible stranger…

please explain how not knowing more than one knows and being uncertain are incompatible or inconsistent descriptions. and while you're at it, cite a more respected source for information on current infectious disease issues than the cdc.

the scientists at the cdc truly include some of the worlds most accomplished and recognized experts in infectious disease. some of them literally wrote the textbooks. their uncertainty only reflects the overall and actual uncertainty regarding this virus.

our definitions of common sense differ greatly. i would see common sense in being extremely vigilant and highly concerned about an infectious disease that is poorly understood, has no vaccine, is untreatable and highly lethal. about 3.2 million americans have chronic hep c. there were only 849 confirmed acute cases in america in 2007. i sure hope you're wrong in your analogy.

and what do you base that statement on? do you think that's true of health care workers? you seem to know a lot more about transmission of the virus than the cdc http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/transmission/, for example. they admit to not even knowing the initial vector. there's a lot more unknown then known. never a good thing.

there is no vaccine. there is no specific treatment. the virus is quite readily transmitted. what is so difficult to comprehend? even the stock market vultures get it. and so far the vaunted american health system hasn't performed so well. the ehr didn't mention that the dallas pt had travelled from africa so the er doc didn't catch it and didn't bother to ask. the triage nurse had obtained that history but it was missed. how does that happen? how does she/he not say "doc, you know this guy might have ebola?". and how do we not already have a designated hospital for suspected and confirmed ebola cases? your faith is misplaced.

it's about palin. it's about the fact that so many republicans could support a whacked out, block party agitator. and no, you aren't likely to see biden or warner or kaine doing anything similar or nearly as unseemly. this type of activity seems reserved for folks like palin and her far right henchpeople. the saddest part is that they're not the least embarrassed by it. just like you all.

then you are lacking in a basic mammalian instinct: survival. a highly lethal disease threatens your life (yes, it really does in a small but finite and ever increasing way) and everyone's around you and you could decrease that risk by more than 1/2 and you wouldn't do it. this is a case study in the problems involved with controlling preventable infections in this country. policy doesn't matter if people don't recognize common sense measures.

from the same article (paraphrasing) "the best way to protect yourself from getting the flu or prevent giving it to others is the flu shot". there is no better way and it's much better than no immunization - about 70% effective on avg http://www.ncbi.nlm....fluenza season.. a yearly shot with minimal side effect risk seems a small price for the benefit of cutting down the occurence of a potentially fatal disease by 70%. hypothetically, let's say there was a vaccine 70% effective at lowering your risk of transmitting or contracting ebola. would you take that?

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm

to prevent epidemics/pandemics. also to prevent transmission to frail people that could well die or suffer serious morbidity from an infection. i might manifest mild symptoms from the flu while the person i gave it to might die. sound melodramatic? nope. many people die every year from the flu.

this is partially true. the fda approved it for 50-59 but the ACIP has not recommended it in this age group http://www.cdc.gov/v...recommendations. for this reason, it will often not be cobered by insurance in this age group. having RA would move the bvalance even further towards taking the shot especially if you are on immunosuppresive meds. unlikely since the strain changes every year. the changes in the vaccine are the manufacturers best guess at what the most prevalent flu viruses for a given year will be. sometimes they're wrong hence, ineffective. and i absolutely will be getting the vaccine. besides it being a requirement for employment, it's the ethical thing to do ...for just about everyone except those few with a valid medical reason for exclusion.

i've liked popular science since I was a kid. I think my credentials qualify me as a real scientist. Do yours?