<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_17_1651206</id>
	<title>On the Efficacy of Flu Vaccine</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255768740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The Atlantic is running a major article <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200911/brownlee-h1n1">questioning the received wisdom about flu vaccines and antivirals</a>, for both seasonal flu and H1-N1. <i>"When Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science. 'People told me, "No good can come of [asking] this,"' she says... Nonetheless, in 2004, Jackson and three colleagues set out to determine whether the mortality difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated might be caused by a phenomenon known as the 'healthy user effect.' Jackson's findings showed that <em>outside of flu season</em>, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the 'frail elderly' didn't or couldn't. In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all."</i> Read below for more excerpts from the article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Atlantic is running a major article questioning the received wisdom about flu vaccines and antivirals , for both seasonal flu and H1-N1 .
" When Lisa Jackson , a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center , in Seattle , began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine , the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science .
'People told me , " No good can come of [ asking ] this , " ' she says... Nonetheless , in 2004 , Jackson and three colleagues set out to determine whether the mortality difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated might be caused by a phenomenon known as the 'healthy user effect .
' Jackson 's findings showed that outside of flu season , the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did , lending support to the hypothesis that on average , healthy people chose to get the vaccine , while the 'frail elderly ' did n't or could n't .
In fact , the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine , suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all .
" Read below for more excerpts from the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Atlantic is running a major article questioning the received wisdom about flu vaccines and antivirals, for both seasonal flu and H1-N1.
"When Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues if maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science.
'People told me, "No good can come of [asking] this,"' she says... Nonetheless, in 2004, Jackson and three colleagues set out to determine whether the mortality difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated might be caused by a phenomenon known as the 'healthy user effect.
' Jackson's findings showed that outside of flu season, the baseline risk of death among people who did not get vaccinated was approximately 60 percent higher than among those who did, lending support to the hypothesis that on average, healthy people chose to get the vaccine, while the 'frail elderly' didn't or couldn't.
In fact, the healthy-user effect explained the entire benefit that other researchers were attributing to flu vaccine, suggesting that the vaccine itself might not reduce mortality at all.
" Read below for more excerpts from the article.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779929</id>
	<title>Re:There are randomized controlled trials</title>
	<author>ahabswhale</author>
	<datestamp>1255774260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>rofl...so the Nordin study you reference is well researched but the one by the OP isn't?  Interesting...based on what fucking information?

I have news for you...seasonal influenza vaccines are bullshit.  They are guesses as to what researchers think people will run into.  In many cases, they don't protect against anything going around because they guessed wrong.  Not to mention the fact that these viruses are constantly mutating.  Sorry, but there's really no evidence that a seasonal vaccines does fuckall. Meanwhile, they are injecting mercury and other poisons into your body with the vaccine that are definitely harmful to your body.</htmltext>
<tokenext>rofl...so the Nordin study you reference is well researched but the one by the OP is n't ?
Interesting...based on what fucking information ?
I have news for you...seasonal influenza vaccines are bullshit .
They are guesses as to what researchers think people will run into .
In many cases , they do n't protect against anything going around because they guessed wrong .
Not to mention the fact that these viruses are constantly mutating .
Sorry , but there 's really no evidence that a seasonal vaccines does fuckall .
Meanwhile , they are injecting mercury and other poisons into your body with the vaccine that are definitely harmful to your body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rofl...so the Nordin study you reference is well researched but the one by the OP isn't?
Interesting...based on what fucking information?
I have news for you...seasonal influenza vaccines are bullshit.
They are guesses as to what researchers think people will run into.
In many cases, they don't protect against anything going around because they guessed wrong.
Not to mention the fact that these viruses are constantly mutating.
Sorry, but there's really no evidence that a seasonal vaccines does fuckall.
Meanwhile, they are injecting mercury and other poisons into your body with the vaccine that are definitely harmful to your body.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782699</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255858080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you in a way, but no effort to eliminate the flu, or even make it less common has ever been put forth.  Flu vaccines are remade every year because it is a retrovirus that mutates and presents a new strain every season.  It is impossible to eradicate using current methods, and difficult to effectively immunize against due to its nature.  I think vaccination is wonderful. Smallpox was wiped out, polio, mumps, rubella, measles used to be childhood illnesses now they are practically unheard of, but influenza is unlikely to ever be on that list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you in a way , but no effort to eliminate the flu , or even make it less common has ever been put forth .
Flu vaccines are remade every year because it is a retrovirus that mutates and presents a new strain every season .
It is impossible to eradicate using current methods , and difficult to effectively immunize against due to its nature .
I think vaccination is wonderful .
Smallpox was wiped out , polio , mumps , rubella , measles used to be childhood illnesses now they are practically unheard of , but influenza is unlikely to ever be on that list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you in a way, but no effort to eliminate the flu, or even make it less common has ever been put forth.
Flu vaccines are remade every year because it is a retrovirus that mutates and presents a new strain every season.
It is impossible to eradicate using current methods, and difficult to effectively immunize against due to its nature.
I think vaccination is wonderful.
Smallpox was wiped out, polio, mumps, rubella, measles used to be childhood illnesses now they are practically unheard of, but influenza is unlikely to ever be on that list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781093</id>
	<title>Education</title>
	<author>mcover</author>
	<datestamp>1255786740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it would be far more effective to educate the people about how to effectively manage or prevent flu right now, than telling people about vaccines, spending millions on them and not even knowing if they are effective. The UK's NHS is running a "wash your hands" campaign, which is a start. General hygiene seems to be misunderstood by many people. Touching a handrail in public and then picking your nose doesn't ring a bell? Seen it too often.

One thing that I've seen a lot in most Asian countries is people just wearing face-masks. It would greatly reduce the risk of the flu spreading, if a person being sick is wearing a face-mask. But it seems that in the western world (Europe, North America) wearing a face-mask does not agree with fashion. And who would want to out themselves by wearing a face-mask anyways. But staying home can't be too hard?! Why are there still millions of people leaving their house while sick? Policies at work, at educational institutions, government institutions, etc. should regulate this and not leave it up to the one being sick.

Now I also have to add that I'm recovering from a flu (be it H1N1 or not, I don't know). I stayed at home the whole time, and worked from home. It was a nasty bugger that one. If a vaccine would have prevented it, I think I would have gladly received any vaccine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it would be far more effective to educate the people about how to effectively manage or prevent flu right now , than telling people about vaccines , spending millions on them and not even knowing if they are effective .
The UK 's NHS is running a " wash your hands " campaign , which is a start .
General hygiene seems to be misunderstood by many people .
Touching a handrail in public and then picking your nose does n't ring a bell ?
Seen it too often .
One thing that I 've seen a lot in most Asian countries is people just wearing face-masks .
It would greatly reduce the risk of the flu spreading , if a person being sick is wearing a face-mask .
But it seems that in the western world ( Europe , North America ) wearing a face-mask does not agree with fashion .
And who would want to out themselves by wearing a face-mask anyways .
But staying home ca n't be too hard ? !
Why are there still millions of people leaving their house while sick ?
Policies at work , at educational institutions , government institutions , etc .
should regulate this and not leave it up to the one being sick .
Now I also have to add that I 'm recovering from a flu ( be it H1N1 or not , I do n't know ) .
I stayed at home the whole time , and worked from home .
It was a nasty bugger that one .
If a vaccine would have prevented it , I think I would have gladly received any vaccine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it would be far more effective to educate the people about how to effectively manage or prevent flu right now, than telling people about vaccines, spending millions on them and not even knowing if they are effective.
The UK's NHS is running a "wash your hands" campaign, which is a start.
General hygiene seems to be misunderstood by many people.
Touching a handrail in public and then picking your nose doesn't ring a bell?
Seen it too often.
One thing that I've seen a lot in most Asian countries is people just wearing face-masks.
It would greatly reduce the risk of the flu spreading, if a person being sick is wearing a face-mask.
But it seems that in the western world (Europe, North America) wearing a face-mask does not agree with fashion.
And who would want to out themselves by wearing a face-mask anyways.
But staying home can't be too hard?!
Why are there still millions of people leaving their house while sick?
Policies at work, at educational institutions, government institutions, etc.
should regulate this and not leave it up to the one being sick.
Now I also have to add that I'm recovering from a flu (be it H1N1 or not, I don't know).
I stayed at home the whole time, and worked from home.
It was a nasty bugger that one.
If a vaccine would have prevented it, I think I would have gladly received any vaccine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779741</id>
	<title>A confession: I smell my own farts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255772640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true- I'll waft them up to my face, or fart on something then smell that. I've noticed a difference between smelling farts off my fingers and farting into a towel and smelling that. I prefer the towel. Sometimes, right before I take a shower, I'll wipe my ass with a towel or my underwear to smell my butt-perfume. I frequently pull the covers over my own head when I fart between the sheets. Oh, and I love the smell and frequency of my hangover farts. I love leaving my room for a few minutes and coming back to smell my still-lingering farts hanging in the air. To me its kind of like climing out of the swimming pool, getting in the hot tub for a few minutes, then going back into the pool. If I want to fart without making a lot of noise I'll reach into my pants and hold my buttcheeks apart with my fingers so the gas can leave my asshole unobstructed. it actually makes a very audible "pssssssssssssss" sound. Like if someone was in earshot but they couldn't see me, they would probably be wondering if i was farting with my fingers in my ass.</p><p>Sometimes if I'm in public I'll find "discreet" ways to indulge my fart-sniffing penchance. For example I'll try to pass gas as quietly as possible, then discreetly fan my thighs open and closed so the gas is wafted up to my face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true- I 'll waft them up to my face , or fart on something then smell that .
I 've noticed a difference between smelling farts off my fingers and farting into a towel and smelling that .
I prefer the towel .
Sometimes , right before I take a shower , I 'll wipe my ass with a towel or my underwear to smell my butt-perfume .
I frequently pull the covers over my own head when I fart between the sheets .
Oh , and I love the smell and frequency of my hangover farts .
I love leaving my room for a few minutes and coming back to smell my still-lingering farts hanging in the air .
To me its kind of like climing out of the swimming pool , getting in the hot tub for a few minutes , then going back into the pool .
If I want to fart without making a lot of noise I 'll reach into my pants and hold my buttcheeks apart with my fingers so the gas can leave my asshole unobstructed .
it actually makes a very audible " pssssssssssssss " sound .
Like if someone was in earshot but they could n't see me , they would probably be wondering if i was farting with my fingers in my ass.Sometimes if I 'm in public I 'll find " discreet " ways to indulge my fart-sniffing penchance .
For example I 'll try to pass gas as quietly as possible , then discreetly fan my thighs open and closed so the gas is wafted up to my face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true- I'll waft them up to my face, or fart on something then smell that.
I've noticed a difference between smelling farts off my fingers and farting into a towel and smelling that.
I prefer the towel.
Sometimes, right before I take a shower, I'll wipe my ass with a towel or my underwear to smell my butt-perfume.
I frequently pull the covers over my own head when I fart between the sheets.
Oh, and I love the smell and frequency of my hangover farts.
I love leaving my room for a few minutes and coming back to smell my still-lingering farts hanging in the air.
To me its kind of like climing out of the swimming pool, getting in the hot tub for a few minutes, then going back into the pool.
If I want to fart without making a lot of noise I'll reach into my pants and hold my buttcheeks apart with my fingers so the gas can leave my asshole unobstructed.
it actually makes a very audible "pssssssssssssss" sound.
Like if someone was in earshot but they couldn't see me, they would probably be wondering if i was farting with my fingers in my ass.Sometimes if I'm in public I'll find "discreet" ways to indulge my fart-sniffing penchance.
For example I'll try to pass gas as quietly as possible, then discreetly fan my thighs open and closed so the gas is wafted up to my face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782675</id>
	<title>Re:Editorializing</title>
	<author>Saysys</author>
	<datestamp>1255857300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You either 1.) didn't even bother to RTFS or 2.) did not comprehend that these claims are about a lack control for other factors that lead to misleading statements about the efficacy of the flu vaccine</htmltext>
<tokenext>You either 1 .
) did n't even bother to RTFS or 2 .
) did not comprehend that these claims are about a lack control for other factors that lead to misleading statements about the efficacy of the flu vaccine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You either 1.
) didn't even bother to RTFS or 2.
) did not comprehend that these claims are about a lack control for other factors that lead to misleading statements about the efficacy of the flu vaccine</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782039</id>
	<title>Re:Editorializing</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1255803060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't prove it does nothing, but that SHOULDN'T be the point. In the U.S. medical treatments are supposed to be proven effective. Then they have to prove that they present more benefit than risk and that their effect is useful. For all we know given that the studies showing effectiveness are debunked, the flu vaccine is NEARLY as good as the tiger repelling rock.</p><p>Meanwhile, vaccine carries a non-zero risk of death, permanent disability, or other serious side effects. If it is effective against the flu, the risk benefit favors those most  vulnerable to the flu getting the vaccine. It may also suggest those close to them getting it and less so for the general population. However, if it's not all that effective, it may be doing more harm than good. At least one study suggests that it can leave recipients more vulnerable to other strains of the flu.</p><p>Perhaps TFA is a bit strident because nobody seems to be listening even though it could be quite important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't prove it does nothing , but that SHOULD N'T be the point .
In the U.S. medical treatments are supposed to be proven effective .
Then they have to prove that they present more benefit than risk and that their effect is useful .
For all we know given that the studies showing effectiveness are debunked , the flu vaccine is NEARLY as good as the tiger repelling rock.Meanwhile , vaccine carries a non-zero risk of death , permanent disability , or other serious side effects .
If it is effective against the flu , the risk benefit favors those most vulnerable to the flu getting the vaccine .
It may also suggest those close to them getting it and less so for the general population .
However , if it 's not all that effective , it may be doing more harm than good .
At least one study suggests that it can leave recipients more vulnerable to other strains of the flu.Perhaps TFA is a bit strident because nobody seems to be listening even though it could be quite important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't prove it does nothing, but that SHOULDN'T be the point.
In the U.S. medical treatments are supposed to be proven effective.
Then they have to prove that they present more benefit than risk and that their effect is useful.
For all we know given that the studies showing effectiveness are debunked, the flu vaccine is NEARLY as good as the tiger repelling rock.Meanwhile, vaccine carries a non-zero risk of death, permanent disability, or other serious side effects.
If it is effective against the flu, the risk benefit favors those most  vulnerable to the flu getting the vaccine.
It may also suggest those close to them getting it and less so for the general population.
However, if it's not all that effective, it may be doing more harm than good.
At least one study suggests that it can leave recipients more vulnerable to other strains of the flu.Perhaps TFA is a bit strident because nobody seems to be listening even though it could be quite important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780839</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of antivaxxers</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1255783200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues If maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science.</p></div></blockquote><p> Basically, it was done with me taking it seriously after reading this. Excuse the generalization. But this is so much following the manufactroversy pattern so much...
Let it be a guy claiming that vaccines are not effective, or someone proving 'alternative' medicine, or someone proving creationism. It always begins by this heroic , legendary whistleblower "scientist" that gets the inspiration to think in a non-mainstream way and the response they get to their BS is obviously lack of respect from science's side, yet they use it to prove that science is being "doctrinal" about it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Lisa Jackson , a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center , in Seattle , began wondering aloud to colleagues If maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine , the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science .
Basically , it was done with me taking it seriously after reading this .
Excuse the generalization .
But this is so much following the manufactroversy pattern so much.. . Let it be a guy claiming that vaccines are not effective , or someone proving 'alternative ' medicine , or someone proving creationism .
It always begins by this heroic , legendary whistleblower " scientist " that gets the inspiration to think in a non-mainstream way and the response they get to their BS is obviously lack of respect from science 's side , yet they use it to prove that science is being " doctrinal " about it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Lisa Jackson, a physician and senior investigator with the Group Health Research Center, in Seattle, began wondering aloud to colleagues If maybe something was amiss with the estimate of 50 percent mortality reduction for people who get flu vaccine, the response she got sounded more like doctrine than science.
Basically, it was done with me taking it seriously after reading this.
Excuse the generalization.
But this is so much following the manufactroversy pattern so much...
Let it be a guy claiming that vaccines are not effective, or someone proving 'alternative' medicine, or someone proving creationism.
It always begins by this heroic , legendary whistleblower "scientist" that gets the inspiration to think in a non-mainstream way and the response they get to their BS is obviously lack of respect from science's side, yet they use it to prove that science is being "doctrinal" about it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780771</id>
	<title>Re:It's not you, it's who you'd infect</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1255782300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anyone that frail can die from a number of things anyway.  if the flu shot doesn't protect me, fuck it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone that frail can die from a number of things anyway .
if the flu shot does n't protect me , fuck it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone that frail can die from a number of things anyway.
if the flu shot doesn't protect me, fuck it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780351</id>
	<title>Re:MDs should be experts in stastics</title>
	<author>p-k4</author>
	<datestamp>1255777980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>He's not 100 percent certain, yet he tells the patent that anyway!?!  How f-ed up is that?</p>  </div><p>So you think doctors should withhold information that is critical to the patient's understanding that if the disease gets worse the patient should <b> come back and seek immediate treatment without delay</b>?  That would be fucked up.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing with the rest of us your sure fire 100\% accurate fool-proof method of diagnosing bacterial meningitis.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>MDs are insured and only have to spend a few days in court if some one calls them out on it then if they are proven wrong the Hospital insurance takes the fall and all our costs go up while the MDs pay stays the same.  What we really need to do is hold each physician criminally responsible for what they say and do in a clinical setting.</p></div><p>Medicine is not an exact science and if you propose to make doctor's criminally liable when they are "proven wrong" you will put an end to the entire medical industry.  That would be fucked up.</p><p>

Don't get me wrong, there are bad doctors out there who are incompetent and they should be removed from the system.  But faulting a doctor because they are unable to prove their diagnosis beyond ANY doubt which would expose them to reprisal if the test provided a false result would pretty much send medicine back a couple of hundred years.
</p><p>
The last thing the medical industry needs is more lawyers unless you want to continue to drive up the costs beyond the reach of everyone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's not 100 percent certain , yet he tells the patent that anyway ! ? !
How f-ed up is that ?
So you think doctors should withhold information that is critical to the patient 's understanding that if the disease gets worse the patient should come back and seek immediate treatment without delay ?
That would be fucked up .
Perhaps you would n't mind sharing with the rest of us your sure fire 100 \ % accurate fool-proof method of diagnosing bacterial meningitis.MDs are insured and only have to spend a few days in court if some one calls them out on it then if they are proven wrong the Hospital insurance takes the fall and all our costs go up while the MDs pay stays the same .
What we really need to do is hold each physician criminally responsible for what they say and do in a clinical setting.Medicine is not an exact science and if you propose to make doctor 's criminally liable when they are " proven wrong " you will put an end to the entire medical industry .
That would be fucked up .
Do n't get me wrong , there are bad doctors out there who are incompetent and they should be removed from the system .
But faulting a doctor because they are unable to prove their diagnosis beyond ANY doubt which would expose them to reprisal if the test provided a false result would pretty much send medicine back a couple of hundred years .
The last thing the medical industry needs is more lawyers unless you want to continue to drive up the costs beyond the reach of everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's not 100 percent certain, yet he tells the patent that anyway!?!
How f-ed up is that?
So you think doctors should withhold information that is critical to the patient's understanding that if the disease gets worse the patient should  come back and seek immediate treatment without delay?
That would be fucked up.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing with the rest of us your sure fire 100\% accurate fool-proof method of diagnosing bacterial meningitis.MDs are insured and only have to spend a few days in court if some one calls them out on it then if they are proven wrong the Hospital insurance takes the fall and all our costs go up while the MDs pay stays the same.
What we really need to do is hold each physician criminally responsible for what they say and do in a clinical setting.Medicine is not an exact science and if you propose to make doctor's criminally liable when they are "proven wrong" you will put an end to the entire medical industry.
That would be fucked up.
Don't get me wrong, there are bad doctors out there who are incompetent and they should be removed from the system.
But faulting a doctor because they are unable to prove their diagnosis beyond ANY doubt which would expose them to reprisal if the test provided a false result would pretty much send medicine back a couple of hundred years.
The last thing the medical industry needs is more lawyers unless you want to continue to drive up the costs beyond the reach of everyone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781947</id>
	<title>Unethical Medicine</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1255800840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The flu shot is not about preventing you from dying.</p></div><p>
If it is not then how do you justify giving it? Any medical procedure, including vaccination, carries the risk of serious complications and potentially death. If there is no benefit to the person taking the vaccine and a tiny (1-2 in a million), but non-zero, chance of serious complications and death then it would be unethical to give the vaccine to someone. Those with weaker immune systems can be protected by taking precautions to isolate them: this risks nobody's life.
<br> <br>
Of course this is only true if there is zero benefit from the flu vaccine. Given a brief search on the web the mortality rate looks to be around 1 in 10,000 per year so even a 1\% decrease in mortality would justify the vaccine on purely medical grounds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The flu shot is not about preventing you from dying .
If it is not then how do you justify giving it ?
Any medical procedure , including vaccination , carries the risk of serious complications and potentially death .
If there is no benefit to the person taking the vaccine and a tiny ( 1-2 in a million ) , but non-zero , chance of serious complications and death then it would be unethical to give the vaccine to someone .
Those with weaker immune systems can be protected by taking precautions to isolate them : this risks nobody 's life .
Of course this is only true if there is zero benefit from the flu vaccine .
Given a brief search on the web the mortality rate looks to be around 1 in 10,000 per year so even a 1 \ % decrease in mortality would justify the vaccine on purely medical grounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flu shot is not about preventing you from dying.
If it is not then how do you justify giving it?
Any medical procedure, including vaccination, carries the risk of serious complications and potentially death.
If there is no benefit to the person taking the vaccine and a tiny (1-2 in a million), but non-zero, chance of serious complications and death then it would be unethical to give the vaccine to someone.
Those with weaker immune systems can be protected by taking precautions to isolate them: this risks nobody's life.
Of course this is only true if there is zero benefit from the flu vaccine.
Given a brief search on the web the mortality rate looks to be around 1 in 10,000 per year so even a 1\% decrease in mortality would justify the vaccine on purely medical grounds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29803295</id>
	<title>Re:MDs should be experts in stastics</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1255965540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Malpractice suits don't even help.  MDs are insured and only have to spend a few days in court if some one calls them out on it then if they are proven wrong the Hospital insurance takes the fall and all our costs go up while the MDs pay stays the same.  What we really need to do is hold each physician criminally responsible for what they say and do in a clinical setting</p></div><p>Actually, the profit margins for many Doctors and specialists are getting smaller over time due to the increased insurance premiums. Google shows this as an example. <a href="http://www.nysun.com/new-york/rising-insurance-rates-put-city-doctors-out/57934/" title="nysun.com">http://www.nysun.com/new-york/rising-insurance-rates-put-city-doctors-out/57934/</a> [nysun.com].  Other articles claim the Insurance premiums have risen \%130 in the last 10 years, and Doctors salaries not kept pace with inflation as a result.</p><p>I won't t argue about the competence of Doctors in general, but I do feel they are under a lot of pressure to diagnose correctly while keeping costs down.  I recognize that it's a tough job, and it's statistically guaranteed that some small percentage of patients will get misdiagnosed or receive an incorrect treatment.  Surgical errors will still happen, particularly since the shear number of surgeries performed in the US is rising and the media is eager to publicize any errors.</p><p>Of course, half of the Doctors out there are below average performers. (yes that was a joke)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Malpractice suits do n't even help .
MDs are insured and only have to spend a few days in court if some one calls them out on it then if they are proven wrong the Hospital insurance takes the fall and all our costs go up while the MDs pay stays the same .
What we really need to do is hold each physician criminally responsible for what they say and do in a clinical settingActually , the profit margins for many Doctors and specialists are getting smaller over time due to the increased insurance premiums .
Google shows this as an example .
http : //www.nysun.com/new-york/rising-insurance-rates-put-city-doctors-out/57934/ [ nysun.com ] .
Other articles claim the Insurance premiums have risen \ % 130 in the last 10 years , and Doctors salaries not kept pace with inflation as a result.I wo n't t argue about the competence of Doctors in general , but I do feel they are under a lot of pressure to diagnose correctly while keeping costs down .
I recognize that it 's a tough job , and it 's statistically guaranteed that some small percentage of patients will get misdiagnosed or receive an incorrect treatment .
Surgical errors will still happen , particularly since the shear number of surgeries performed in the US is rising and the media is eager to publicize any errors.Of course , half of the Doctors out there are below average performers .
( yes that was a joke )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Malpractice suits don't even help.
MDs are insured and only have to spend a few days in court if some one calls them out on it then if they are proven wrong the Hospital insurance takes the fall and all our costs go up while the MDs pay stays the same.
What we really need to do is hold each physician criminally responsible for what they say and do in a clinical settingActually, the profit margins for many Doctors and specialists are getting smaller over time due to the increased insurance premiums.
Google shows this as an example.
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/rising-insurance-rates-put-city-doctors-out/57934/ [nysun.com].
Other articles claim the Insurance premiums have risen \%130 in the last 10 years, and Doctors salaries not kept pace with inflation as a result.I won't t argue about the competence of Doctors in general, but I do feel they are under a lot of pressure to diagnose correctly while keeping costs down.
I recognize that it's a tough job, and it's statistically guaranteed that some small percentage of patients will get misdiagnosed or receive an incorrect treatment.
Surgical errors will still happen, particularly since the shear number of surgeries performed in the US is rising and the media is eager to publicize any errors.Of course, half of the Doctors out there are below average performers.
(yes that was a joke)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779859</id>
	<title>Re:Good article</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1255773660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let's <b>pray</b> that science wins out over irrationality.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I don't whether to laugh or cry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's pray that science wins out over irrationality .
I do n't whether to laugh or cry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's pray that science wins out over irrationality.
I don't whether to laugh or cry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29790543</id>
	<title>Re:It's not you, it's who you'd infect</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1255891980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well then I'm not getting one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then I 'm not getting one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then I'm not getting one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782147</id>
	<title>Re:Editorializing</title>
	<author>jmizrahi</author>
	<datestamp>1255805280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of *course* healthy people don't get a significant personal benefit from being vaccinated.   Nobody ever said they did.</p></div><p>Are you crazy?  Maybe you and a few other people get vaccinated for altruistic reasons, but the vast vast vast majority of people get vaccinated because they honestly believe that it will protect them from getting infected.  Moreover, this is exactly what the doctors and researchers say it will do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of * course * healthy people do n't get a significant personal benefit from being vaccinated .
Nobody ever said they did.Are you crazy ?
Maybe you and a few other people get vaccinated for altruistic reasons , but the vast vast vast majority of people get vaccinated because they honestly believe that it will protect them from getting infected .
Moreover , this is exactly what the doctors and researchers say it will do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of *course* healthy people don't get a significant personal benefit from being vaccinated.
Nobody ever said they did.Are you crazy?
Maybe you and a few other people get vaccinated for altruistic reasons, but the vast vast vast majority of people get vaccinated because they honestly believe that it will protect them from getting infected.
Moreover, this is exactly what the doctors and researchers say it will do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780613</id>
	<title>Re:There are randomized controlled trials</title>
	<author>z-j-y</author>
	<datestamp>1255780560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the 1st research article has no fatality, the 2nd article doesn't seem to be 'randomized'.</p><p>if the claim is true of lack of scientific research on 'mortality difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated', I don't see everybody is so pissed off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the 1st research article has no fatality , the 2nd article does n't seem to be 'randomized'.if the claim is true of lack of scientific research on 'mortality difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated ' , I do n't see everybody is so pissed off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the 1st research article has no fatality, the 2nd article doesn't seem to be 'randomized'.if the claim is true of lack of scientific research on 'mortality difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated', I don't see everybody is so pissed off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782923</id>
	<title>Re:Or....( mod parent DOWN )</title>
	<author>StarsAreAlsoFire</author>
	<datestamp>1255862520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, actually what was pointed out was that *those who tout flu vaccines as a panacea*  are doing exactly what parent just claimed.<br><br>Dear god. I'm three beers in and even I realized at a glance that the parent post is denial / reactionary idiocy: "That people who got the shot...*gasp* likely got the shot the previous year and *shock* have some built up immunity due to the previous years shot." Immunity to WHAT? The reason you have to get shots every year is because the freak'n flu virus evolves so rapidly!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , actually what was pointed out was that * those who tout flu vaccines as a panacea * are doing exactly what parent just claimed.Dear god .
I 'm three beers in and even I realized at a glance that the parent post is denial / reactionary idiocy : " That people who got the shot... * gasp * likely got the shot the previous year and * shock * have some built up immunity due to the previous years shot .
" Immunity to WHAT ?
The reason you have to get shots every year is because the freak'n flu virus evolves so rapidly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, actually what was pointed out was that *those who tout flu vaccines as a panacea*  are doing exactly what parent just claimed.Dear god.
I'm three beers in and even I realized at a glance that the parent post is denial / reactionary idiocy: "That people who got the shot...*gasp* likely got the shot the previous year and *shock* have some built up immunity due to the previous years shot.
" Immunity to WHAT?
The reason you have to get shots every year is because the freak'n flu virus evolves so rapidly!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29786025</id>
	<title>Re:Then not taking the vaccine safer?</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1255896720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Each individual is safer if they don't get vaccinated, and everyone else does.  But if few people are vaccinated, nobody is very safe, though the vaccinated are safer than those who aren't.  (I feel that those who refuse to get vaccinated because it's safer for them are selfish bastards who I wouldn't choose to have as friends.)</p><p>The purpose of the vaccine isn't to protect the individual, though it does to an extent.  It's purpose is to prevent the spread of the disease by interposing people who won't get sick.  If there are enough people who won't get sick, then the epidemic will die out.  This doesn't require 100\% effectiveness.  How much it requires depends on the nature of the disease.  For the flu it's probably around 70-80\%, given the dense packing that people frequently engage in (buses, movie theaters, staff meeting, school rooms, cafeterias, etc.).</p><p>N.B.:  The purpose of a mask is to prevent you from spreading the flu, not to prevent you from catching it.  Gloves, OTOH, are to prevent you from catching it.  (Neither is 100\% effective, but they don't need to be to impede the spread of the epidemic.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each individual is safer if they do n't get vaccinated , and everyone else does .
But if few people are vaccinated , nobody is very safe , though the vaccinated are safer than those who are n't .
( I feel that those who refuse to get vaccinated because it 's safer for them are selfish bastards who I would n't choose to have as friends .
) The purpose of the vaccine is n't to protect the individual , though it does to an extent .
It 's purpose is to prevent the spread of the disease by interposing people who wo n't get sick .
If there are enough people who wo n't get sick , then the epidemic will die out .
This does n't require 100 \ % effectiveness .
How much it requires depends on the nature of the disease .
For the flu it 's probably around 70-80 \ % , given the dense packing that people frequently engage in ( buses , movie theaters , staff meeting , school rooms , cafeterias , etc. ) .N.B .
: The purpose of a mask is to prevent you from spreading the flu , not to prevent you from catching it .
Gloves , OTOH , are to prevent you from catching it .
( Neither is 100 \ % effective , but they do n't need to be to impede the spread of the epidemic .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each individual is safer if they don't get vaccinated, and everyone else does.
But if few people are vaccinated, nobody is very safe, though the vaccinated are safer than those who aren't.
(I feel that those who refuse to get vaccinated because it's safer for them are selfish bastards who I wouldn't choose to have as friends.
)The purpose of the vaccine isn't to protect the individual, though it does to an extent.
It's purpose is to prevent the spread of the disease by interposing people who won't get sick.
If there are enough people who won't get sick, then the epidemic will die out.
This doesn't require 100\% effectiveness.
How much it requires depends on the nature of the disease.
For the flu it's probably around 70-80\%, given the dense packing that people frequently engage in (buses, movie theaters, staff meeting, school rooms, cafeterias, etc.).N.B.
:  The purpose of a mask is to prevent you from spreading the flu, not to prevent you from catching it.
Gloves, OTOH, are to prevent you from catching it.
(Neither is 100\% effective, but they don't need to be to impede the spread of the epidemic.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779835</id>
	<title>As soon as you mentioned "Group Health"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I became biased against any conclusion. Up here in the Pacific Northwest, the common nickname of this HMO is "Group Death". They're not exactly known for high quality care or cutting edge research - they're mainly known for denying treatments as "experimental" for years after those treatments have become the norm in most medical circles.</p><p>I remember an acquaintance (husband of a co-worker) who kept getting denied treatment for (IIRC) a persistent and very painful hydrocele. The Group Health doc told him nothing could be done - surgical correction of this was "experimental and dangerous". Finally out of desperation they consulted with an outside doc, who told them this was a very simple routine procedure! They paid out-of-pocket for the surgery, and the problem was quickly rectified.</p><p>I know nothing about the particular doctor who did this flu vaccine study - but, given her employer, I have very little confidence that she is particularly knowledgeable. I'm sure Group Health would love to save the 15 or 20 bucks per patient they're currently having to spend on this vaccine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I became biased against any conclusion .
Up here in the Pacific Northwest , the common nickname of this HMO is " Group Death " .
They 're not exactly known for high quality care or cutting edge research - they 're mainly known for denying treatments as " experimental " for years after those treatments have become the norm in most medical circles.I remember an acquaintance ( husband of a co-worker ) who kept getting denied treatment for ( IIRC ) a persistent and very painful hydrocele .
The Group Health doc told him nothing could be done - surgical correction of this was " experimental and dangerous " .
Finally out of desperation they consulted with an outside doc , who told them this was a very simple routine procedure !
They paid out-of-pocket for the surgery , and the problem was quickly rectified.I know nothing about the particular doctor who did this flu vaccine study - but , given her employer , I have very little confidence that she is particularly knowledgeable .
I 'm sure Group Health would love to save the 15 or 20 bucks per patient they 're currently having to spend on this vaccine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I became biased against any conclusion.
Up here in the Pacific Northwest, the common nickname of this HMO is "Group Death".
They're not exactly known for high quality care or cutting edge research - they're mainly known for denying treatments as "experimental" for years after those treatments have become the norm in most medical circles.I remember an acquaintance (husband of a co-worker) who kept getting denied treatment for (IIRC) a persistent and very painful hydrocele.
The Group Health doc told him nothing could be done - surgical correction of this was "experimental and dangerous".
Finally out of desperation they consulted with an outside doc, who told them this was a very simple routine procedure!
They paid out-of-pocket for the surgery, and the problem was quickly rectified.I know nothing about the particular doctor who did this flu vaccine study - but, given her employer, I have very little confidence that she is particularly knowledgeable.
I'm sure Group Health would love to save the 15 or 20 bucks per patient they're currently having to spend on this vaccine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780463</id>
	<title>Re:As soon as you mentioned "Group Health"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255779120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was a group health member for many years.  I would speak well of it,.  But mainly I wanted to speak to the perjogative "group death".  It happens group health started up about 1948.  The local AMA hated it.  They did things like kick the group health docs out of the chapter.  And so on.  This phrase "group death" was their invention.  So consider the source.</p><p>Oh group health is a coop,  One thing you might approve of is that they do not pay inflated salaries to their executives.</p><p>HMOs are a recent invention.  Nixon I think.  A government cost cutting technique.  Like living wills and the current health reform plans.  Now the typical HMO use the general prac docs as a gateway barrier to seeing a specialist.  Group Health does not use that technique.</p><p>But they are what is called an evidence based medicine approach.  You will not get experimental procedures there.  For instance, stomach stapling has been around for quite a while.  Only in the past few years has it become an approved procedure at group health.  Evidence based medicine virtues and defects could generate quite a little debate.  For instance, Obahma likes it and presumedly the way he would implement it would discredit the concept for a generation.  But I kind of think Group Health is honest about analyzing the evidence.  But I do not really know.  But I do know I do not want my doc trying out the latest fad on me or deciding on my drugs based on drug company marketing campaigns.  Drug company marketing techniques to docs could be a subject in itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a group health member for many years .
I would speak well of it, .
But mainly I wanted to speak to the perjogative " group death " .
It happens group health started up about 1948 .
The local AMA hated it .
They did things like kick the group health docs out of the chapter .
And so on .
This phrase " group death " was their invention .
So consider the source.Oh group health is a coop , One thing you might approve of is that they do not pay inflated salaries to their executives.HMOs are a recent invention .
Nixon I think .
A government cost cutting technique .
Like living wills and the current health reform plans .
Now the typical HMO use the general prac docs as a gateway barrier to seeing a specialist .
Group Health does not use that technique.But they are what is called an evidence based medicine approach .
You will not get experimental procedures there .
For instance , stomach stapling has been around for quite a while .
Only in the past few years has it become an approved procedure at group health .
Evidence based medicine virtues and defects could generate quite a little debate .
For instance , Obahma likes it and presumedly the way he would implement it would discredit the concept for a generation .
But I kind of think Group Health is honest about analyzing the evidence .
But I do not really know .
But I do know I do not want my doc trying out the latest fad on me or deciding on my drugs based on drug company marketing campaigns .
Drug company marketing techniques to docs could be a subject in itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a group health member for many years.
I would speak well of it,.
But mainly I wanted to speak to the perjogative "group death".
It happens group health started up about 1948.
The local AMA hated it.
They did things like kick the group health docs out of the chapter.
And so on.
This phrase "group death" was their invention.
So consider the source.Oh group health is a coop,  One thing you might approve of is that they do not pay inflated salaries to their executives.HMOs are a recent invention.
Nixon I think.
A government cost cutting technique.
Like living wills and the current health reform plans.
Now the typical HMO use the general prac docs as a gateway barrier to seeing a specialist.
Group Health does not use that technique.But they are what is called an evidence based medicine approach.
You will not get experimental procedures there.
For instance, stomach stapling has been around for quite a while.
Only in the past few years has it become an approved procedure at group health.
Evidence based medicine virtues and defects could generate quite a little debate.
For instance, Obahma likes it and presumedly the way he would implement it would discredit the concept for a generation.
But I kind of think Group Health is honest about analyzing the evidence.
But I do not really know.
But I do know I do not want my doc trying out the latest fad on me or deciding on my drugs based on drug company marketing campaigns.
Drug company marketing techniques to docs could be a subject in itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782585</id>
	<title>Re:Or....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255898700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are so many conclusions which can drawn from those statistics its silly. Here is another example. Healthy people dont die as often period. If you are sickly you are more likely to still get a disease even if you were given the immunization short. Followed by the fact that sickly people die more often when they do get sick.</p></div> </blockquote><p>And you believe that contradicts Lisa Jackson's theory? She's saying that healthy people are less likely to die from the disease and that healthy people are more likely to seek out the shot. The common cause (healthiness) is responsible for both the survivability and the shot, rather than the shot being responsible for the survivability. That is in no way contradicted by what you wrote.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are so many conclusions which can drawn from those statistics its silly .
Here is another example .
Healthy people dont die as often period .
If you are sickly you are more likely to still get a disease even if you were given the immunization short .
Followed by the fact that sickly people die more often when they do get sick .
And you believe that contradicts Lisa Jackson 's theory ?
She 's saying that healthy people are less likely to die from the disease and that healthy people are more likely to seek out the shot .
The common cause ( healthiness ) is responsible for both the survivability and the shot , rather than the shot being responsible for the survivability .
That is in no way contradicted by what you wrote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are so many conclusions which can drawn from those statistics its silly.
Here is another example.
Healthy people dont die as often period.
If you are sickly you are more likely to still get a disease even if you were given the immunization short.
Followed by the fact that sickly people die more often when they do get sick.
And you believe that contradicts Lisa Jackson's theory?
She's saying that healthy people are less likely to die from the disease and that healthy people are more likely to seek out the shot.
The common cause (healthiness) is responsible for both the survivability and the shot, rather than the shot being responsible for the survivability.
That is in no way contradicted by what you wrote.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29785239</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of antivaxxers</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1255890300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And I would need convincing that this isn't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots. Gotta love profit-focused private "health" care, and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.</p></div><p> - except that most this type of rhetoric that I normally hear comes out of the mouth of Bill Maher, and you'll be hard-pressed calling him 'the Right'.</p><p>His latest episodes, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61OZgo3UjUQ" title="youtube.com">the one with Bill Frist</a> [youtube.com] (scroll to the 8th minute and watch to the end) and the latest with Grayson, Alex Baldwin, where Maher has proven once again that one thing he should really shut the hell up about is his version of medicine and science, because his version lacks any kind of rationality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I would need convincing that this is n't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots .
Got ta love profit-focused private " health " care , and its useful idiot defenders on the Right .
- except that most this type of rhetoric that I normally hear comes out of the mouth of Bill Maher , and you 'll be hard-pressed calling him 'the Right'.His latest episodes , the one with Bill Frist [ youtube.com ] ( scroll to the 8th minute and watch to the end ) and the latest with Grayson , Alex Baldwin , where Maher has proven once again that one thing he should really shut the hell up about is his version of medicine and science , because his version lacks any kind of rationality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I would need convincing that this isn't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots.
Gotta love profit-focused private "health" care, and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.
- except that most this type of rhetoric that I normally hear comes out of the mouth of Bill Maher, and you'll be hard-pressed calling him 'the Right'.His latest episodes, the one with Bill Frist [youtube.com] (scroll to the 8th minute and watch to the end) and the latest with Grayson, Alex Baldwin, where Maher has proven once again that one thing he should really shut the hell up about is his version of medicine and science, because his version lacks any kind of rationality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780617</id>
	<title>Re:MDs should be experts in stastics</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1255780620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, MDs shouldn't be experts in statistics.  They should be experts in observing and diagnosing symptoms, and not waste their time learning the minutiae of fields they will never use.  A front line MD need a basic understanding of what it the conclusions of statistical studies mean.  The researchers, who may or may not have MDs, should be the experts in statistics, and/or collaborate with actual statisticians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , MDs should n't be experts in statistics .
They should be experts in observing and diagnosing symptoms , and not waste their time learning the minutiae of fields they will never use .
A front line MD need a basic understanding of what it the conclusions of statistical studies mean .
The researchers , who may or may not have MDs , should be the experts in statistics , and/or collaborate with actual statisticians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, MDs shouldn't be experts in statistics.
They should be experts in observing and diagnosing symptoms, and not waste their time learning the minutiae of fields they will never use.
A front line MD need a basic understanding of what it the conclusions of statistical studies mean.
The researchers, who may or may not have MDs, should be the experts in statistics, and/or collaborate with actual statisticians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782137</id>
	<title>Seasonal flu is almost always of the H1N1 class.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255805100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>H1N1 is not a strain, its a class and its the most common to human infections.  H1N1 does not refer to 'the swine flu', even if 'the swine flu' is part of the H1N1 class.</p><p>Another neat fact, the CDC seems to think just about every case of 'the flu' this summer was 'the swine flu', all million plus cases.</p><p>Please get a clue and stop spreading the FUD, I'm sick of hearing people talking about how scary this is.</p><p>You are 8 times more likely to die in a car accident than from the swine flu, and TWICE as likely to die from the vaccine than the flu itself.  Stop listening to CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX as if they provide facts.  News outlets provide sensationalism, not facts.  They want ratings for ad dollars, not the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>H1N1 is not a strain , its a class and its the most common to human infections .
H1N1 does not refer to 'the swine flu ' , even if 'the swine flu ' is part of the H1N1 class.Another neat fact , the CDC seems to think just about every case of 'the flu ' this summer was 'the swine flu ' , all million plus cases.Please get a clue and stop spreading the FUD , I 'm sick of hearing people talking about how scary this is.You are 8 times more likely to die in a car accident than from the swine flu , and TWICE as likely to die from the vaccine than the flu itself .
Stop listening to CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX as if they provide facts .
News outlets provide sensationalism , not facts .
They want ratings for ad dollars , not the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H1N1 is not a strain, its a class and its the most common to human infections.
H1N1 does not refer to 'the swine flu', even if 'the swine flu' is part of the H1N1 class.Another neat fact, the CDC seems to think just about every case of 'the flu' this summer was 'the swine flu', all million plus cases.Please get a clue and stop spreading the FUD, I'm sick of hearing people talking about how scary this is.You are 8 times more likely to die in a car accident than from the swine flu, and TWICE as likely to die from the vaccine than the flu itself.
Stop listening to CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/FOX as if they provide facts.
News outlets provide sensationalism, not facts.
They want ratings for ad dollars, not the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780119</id>
	<title>Re:There are randomized controlled trials</title>
	<author>dmoore</author>
	<datestamp>1255776000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article acknowledges this:<blockquote><div><p>Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine, he says, and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients</p></div></blockquote><p>

The article seems to be primarily advocating double-blind, controlled clinical trials among the <i>elderly</i>, since that is the group where death is the primary concern rather than just getting sick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article acknowledges this : Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine , he says , and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients The article seems to be primarily advocating double-blind , controlled clinical trials among the elderly , since that is the group where death is the primary concern rather than just getting sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article acknowledges this:Only four studies were properly designed to pin down the effectiveness of flu vaccine, he says, and two of those showed that it might be effective in certain groups of patients

The article seems to be primarily advocating double-blind, controlled clinical trials among the elderly, since that is the group where death is the primary concern rather than just getting sick.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861</id>
	<title>Or....</title>
	<author>plague911</author>
	<datestamp>1255773660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are so many conclusions which can drawn from those statistics its silly. Here is another example. Healthy people dont die as often period. If you are sickly you are more likely to still get a disease even if you were given the immunization short. Followed by the fact that sickly people die more often when they do get sick.
<p>
Also a second situation which would lead to the similar results. That people who got the shot...*gasp* likely got the shot the previous year and *shock* have some built up immunity due to the previous years shot.
</p><p>
This physician... not a biologist. Sounds like shes not very good at what shes supposed to be doing. The information she presented  proves nothing. She randmly concludes just 1 or many possible scenarios based on her predisposition. Poor poor science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are so many conclusions which can drawn from those statistics its silly .
Here is another example .
Healthy people dont die as often period .
If you are sickly you are more likely to still get a disease even if you were given the immunization short .
Followed by the fact that sickly people die more often when they do get sick .
Also a second situation which would lead to the similar results .
That people who got the shot... * gasp * likely got the shot the previous year and * shock * have some built up immunity due to the previous years shot .
This physician... not a biologist .
Sounds like shes not very good at what shes supposed to be doing .
The information she presented proves nothing .
She randmly concludes just 1 or many possible scenarios based on her predisposition .
Poor poor science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are so many conclusions which can drawn from those statistics its silly.
Here is another example.
Healthy people dont die as often period.
If you are sickly you are more likely to still get a disease even if you were given the immunization short.
Followed by the fact that sickly people die more often when they do get sick.
Also a second situation which would lead to the similar results.
That people who got the shot...*gasp* likely got the shot the previous year and *shock* have some built up immunity due to the previous years shot.
This physician... not a biologist.
Sounds like shes not very good at what shes supposed to be doing.
The information she presented  proves nothing.
She randmly concludes just 1 or many possible scenarios based on her predisposition.
Poor poor science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29876749</id>
	<title>The healthy are reported as at risk with H1N1</title>
	<author>WindShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1256549100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reports seem to indicate that the reason H1N1 is dangerous is that people who are young adults are most likely to get really sick, because their immune systems react too strongly to the flu. Not unlike histamine reactions, it's a case of too much of a good thing.</p><p>The premise of using death rate as a metric is where I find the flaw, a vaccine is intended to prevent the disease, and that should be measurable by checking the <i>verified</i> infection rates in vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations with similar health, income, and exposure factors. The cost of having a worker or caregiver home sick would justify the cost of prevention in most cases. Add the cost saving of reduced spread rates for the infection and you don't need to argue mortality rates to justify a vaccination policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reports seem to indicate that the reason H1N1 is dangerous is that people who are young adults are most likely to get really sick , because their immune systems react too strongly to the flu .
Not unlike histamine reactions , it 's a case of too much of a good thing.The premise of using death rate as a metric is where I find the flaw , a vaccine is intended to prevent the disease , and that should be measurable by checking the verified infection rates in vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations with similar health , income , and exposure factors .
The cost of having a worker or caregiver home sick would justify the cost of prevention in most cases .
Add the cost saving of reduced spread rates for the infection and you do n't need to argue mortality rates to justify a vaccination policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reports seem to indicate that the reason H1N1 is dangerous is that people who are young adults are most likely to get really sick, because their immune systems react too strongly to the flu.
Not unlike histamine reactions, it's a case of too much of a good thing.The premise of using death rate as a metric is where I find the flaw, a vaccine is intended to prevent the disease, and that should be measurable by checking the verified infection rates in vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations with similar health, income, and exposure factors.
The cost of having a worker or caregiver home sick would justify the cost of prevention in most cases.
Add the cost saving of reduced spread rates for the infection and you don't need to argue mortality rates to justify a vaccination policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781385</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1255790640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We killed smallpox outright, but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another. That's the reason I have to be against this sort of article - even the chance that it might be correct isn't worth the near-certainty that it will be another blow for vaccination in general.</p></div><p>Eradication isn't even close to the 'final goal' of flu vaccinations.  They are only about protecting against a specific handful of strains out of thousands. maybe hundreds of thousands.  This research, regardless of conclusion is not going to prevent the eradication of the flu because no one is seriously trying to do that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We killed smallpox outright , but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another .
That 's the reason I have to be against this sort of article - even the chance that it might be correct is n't worth the near-certainty that it will be another blow for vaccination in general.Eradication is n't even close to the 'final goal ' of flu vaccinations .
They are only about protecting against a specific handful of strains out of thousands .
maybe hundreds of thousands .
This research , regardless of conclusion is not going to prevent the eradication of the flu because no one is seriously trying to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We killed smallpox outright, but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another.
That's the reason I have to be against this sort of article - even the chance that it might be correct isn't worth the near-certainty that it will be another blow for vaccination in general.Eradication isn't even close to the 'final goal' of flu vaccinations.
They are only about protecting against a specific handful of strains out of thousands.
maybe hundreds of thousands.
This research, regardless of conclusion is not going to prevent the eradication of the flu because no one is seriously trying to do that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784787</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255886280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We stopped smallpox because it's only vector is human. Saying the anti-vaccine nuts are responsible for the failure of the flu vaccine to end flu betrays as thorough an ignorance of medicine as those you seek to discredit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We stopped smallpox because it 's only vector is human .
Saying the anti-vaccine nuts are responsible for the failure of the flu vaccine to end flu betrays as thorough an ignorance of medicine as those you seek to discredit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We stopped smallpox because it's only vector is human.
Saying the anti-vaccine nuts are responsible for the failure of the flu vaccine to end flu betrays as thorough an ignorance of medicine as those you seek to discredit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782481</id>
	<title>Re:Editorializing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255897080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just get H1N1, then visit your elderly uncle to cheer him up.</i></p><p>With H1N1, it's the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just get H1N1 , then visit your elderly uncle to cheer him up.With H1N1 , it 's the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just get H1N1, then visit your elderly uncle to cheer him up.With H1N1, it's the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781643</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of antivaxxers</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1255795620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the fringe extremist nutters"</p><p>Dont think I fall in the category but maybe I'm the last to know... but....</p><p>I do subscribe to the idea it actually probably a good idea to build a strong immune system the natural way by exposure to and overcoming infections.  There are probably diseases where a vaccine is a best course where the lethality of the disease is high, but then too I could easily see governments and health care providers overcompensating by trying to vaccinate for EVERYTHING and pushing out vaccines that either don't work or are potentially harmful.  As in most thing there is probably a middle ground which is the best ground.  You do want to promote proven effective vaccines.  You want to discourage poorly tested or ineffective vaccines so the more studies the better.</p><p>I often wonder if their is a correlation between the increasingly sterile existence western's live with sterilized water, antibacterial soaps, vaccines and the large numbers of kids with allergies and basically wimpish dispositions.</p><p>There is an old saying if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the fringe extremist nutters " Dont think I fall in the category but maybe I 'm the last to know... but....I do subscribe to the idea it actually probably a good idea to build a strong immune system the natural way by exposure to and overcoming infections .
There are probably diseases where a vaccine is a best course where the lethality of the disease is high , but then too I could easily see governments and health care providers overcompensating by trying to vaccinate for EVERYTHING and pushing out vaccines that either do n't work or are potentially harmful .
As in most thing there is probably a middle ground which is the best ground .
You do want to promote proven effective vaccines .
You want to discourage poorly tested or ineffective vaccines so the more studies the better.I often wonder if their is a correlation between the increasingly sterile existence western 's live with sterilized water , antibacterial soaps , vaccines and the large numbers of kids with allergies and basically wimpish dispositions.There is an old saying if it does n't kill you it makes you stronger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the fringe extremist nutters"Dont think I fall in the category but maybe I'm the last to know... but....I do subscribe to the idea it actually probably a good idea to build a strong immune system the natural way by exposure to and overcoming infections.
There are probably diseases where a vaccine is a best course where the lethality of the disease is high, but then too I could easily see governments and health care providers overcompensating by trying to vaccinate for EVERYTHING and pushing out vaccines that either don't work or are potentially harmful.
As in most thing there is probably a middle ground which is the best ground.
You do want to promote proven effective vaccines.
You want to discourage poorly tested or ineffective vaccines so the more studies the better.I often wonder if their is a correlation between the increasingly sterile existence western's live with sterilized water, antibacterial soaps, vaccines and the large numbers of kids with allergies and basically wimpish dispositions.There is an old saying if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779775</id>
	<title>Good article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255772940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By being afraid to do the proper studies now, we may be condemning ourselves to using treatments based on illusion and faith rather than sound science.</p></div><p>Let's pray that science wins out over irrationality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By being afraid to do the proper studies now , we may be condemning ourselves to using treatments based on illusion and faith rather than sound science.Let 's pray that science wins out over irrationality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By being afraid to do the proper studies now, we may be condemning ourselves to using treatments based on illusion and faith rather than sound science.Let's pray that science wins out over irrationality.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779833</id>
	<title>San Diego testbed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>H1N1 in San Diego is a KILLER... three atypical deaths recently...</p><p>The vaccine isn't even available due to a Federal faux paux that failed to ship to hospitals.</p><p>San Diego is your test bed for determining whether it works unless the Feds ship soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>H1N1 in San Diego is a KILLER... three atypical deaths recently...The vaccine is n't even available due to a Federal faux paux that failed to ship to hospitals.San Diego is your test bed for determining whether it works unless the Feds ship soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>H1N1 in San Diego is a KILLER... three atypical deaths recently...The vaccine isn't even available due to a Federal faux paux that failed to ship to hospitals.San Diego is your test bed for determining whether it works unless the Feds ship soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781521</id>
	<title>If you're sick, stay TF home!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the fact that it is somehow culturally acceptable to be out and about when you're sick probably causes an order of magnitude more infections of the flu than any vaccine could hope to prevent.  Someone showing up to class or work with sniffles and a cough (that aren't caused by seasonal allergies) is equivalent to them saying "I'm probably going to make half of you miserable for the better part of the next week, but I really don't give a crap!"<br>
<br>
My favorite is when someone declares, "It's OK, I'm not contagious."  Because the person who's showing up to remedial math class with boogers the size of golf balls is surely an expert on such things.<br>
<br>
In addition to quarantining myself from the general population as much as possible surrounding an illness, I also have taken on good practices to prevent catching things, and to prevent spreading anything I may be carrying... washing my hands thoroughly with soap, especially before eating; coughing and sneezing into my sleeve rather than into my hands; touching food with my right hand and touching anything a lot of other people touch (paper towel dispensers, door handles, faucets, railings, etc.) with my left (it's difficult to be 100\% on that one, but at the very least it can provide a non-contaminated path from the restroom to the lunch room).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the fact that it is somehow culturally acceptable to be out and about when you 're sick probably causes an order of magnitude more infections of the flu than any vaccine could hope to prevent .
Someone showing up to class or work with sniffles and a cough ( that are n't caused by seasonal allergies ) is equivalent to them saying " I 'm probably going to make half of you miserable for the better part of the next week , but I really do n't give a crap !
" My favorite is when someone declares , " It 's OK , I 'm not contagious .
" Because the person who 's showing up to remedial math class with boogers the size of golf balls is surely an expert on such things .
In addition to quarantining myself from the general population as much as possible surrounding an illness , I also have taken on good practices to prevent catching things , and to prevent spreading anything I may be carrying... washing my hands thoroughly with soap , especially before eating ; coughing and sneezing into my sleeve rather than into my hands ; touching food with my right hand and touching anything a lot of other people touch ( paper towel dispensers , door handles , faucets , railings , etc .
) with my left ( it 's difficult to be 100 \ % on that one , but at the very least it can provide a non-contaminated path from the restroom to the lunch room ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the fact that it is somehow culturally acceptable to be out and about when you're sick probably causes an order of magnitude more infections of the flu than any vaccine could hope to prevent.
Someone showing up to class or work with sniffles and a cough (that aren't caused by seasonal allergies) is equivalent to them saying "I'm probably going to make half of you miserable for the better part of the next week, but I really don't give a crap!
"

My favorite is when someone declares, "It's OK, I'm not contagious.
"  Because the person who's showing up to remedial math class with boogers the size of golf balls is surely an expert on such things.
In addition to quarantining myself from the general population as much as possible surrounding an illness, I also have taken on good practices to prevent catching things, and to prevent spreading anything I may be carrying... washing my hands thoroughly with soap, especially before eating; coughing and sneezing into my sleeve rather than into my hands; touching food with my right hand and touching anything a lot of other people touch (paper towel dispensers, door handles, faucets, railings, etc.
) with my left (it's difficult to be 100\% on that one, but at the very least it can provide a non-contaminated path from the restroom to the lunch room).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780103</id>
	<title>Re:A confession: I smell my own farts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255775820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>glad to have known you</htmltext>
<tokenext>glad to have known you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>glad to have known you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779847</id>
	<title>You don't only get vaccinated for yourself.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't only get vaccinated for yourself. You also get vaccinated so that you don't transmit the virus to those with compromised immune systems.</p><p>I am really so tired of all of the anti-vaccination propaganda being put out, and those same people will probably warp studies like this one to fit their absurd ideas about how vaccines are almost as bad as chemtrails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't only get vaccinated for yourself .
You also get vaccinated so that you do n't transmit the virus to those with compromised immune systems.I am really so tired of all of the anti-vaccination propaganda being put out , and those same people will probably warp studies like this one to fit their absurd ideas about how vaccines are almost as bad as chemtrails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't only get vaccinated for yourself.
You also get vaccinated so that you don't transmit the virus to those with compromised immune systems.I am really so tired of all of the anti-vaccination propaganda being put out, and those same people will probably warp studies like this one to fit their absurd ideas about how vaccines are almost as bad as chemtrails.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780297</id>
	<title>Re:As soon as you mentioned "Group Health"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255777560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the record, the whole "Group Death" nickname was started in the 50s by outside physician's groups who were calling cooperative healthcare "communist" and were worried that group health would hurt their own bottoms lines. While you an find horror stories at any healthcare group, grouphealth is well respected not just here in the pacific northwest but nationwide as model for quality, price-conscious healthcare that is responsive to its customers. The research arm is connected with UW and the Hutchinson research institutes in the area- the days of research happening in a bubble are long gone. If anything, Group Health appears to be growing its research arm rapidly as it adds to quality of care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record , the whole " Group Death " nickname was started in the 50s by outside physician 's groups who were calling cooperative healthcare " communist " and were worried that group health would hurt their own bottoms lines .
While you an find horror stories at any healthcare group , grouphealth is well respected not just here in the pacific northwest but nationwide as model for quality , price-conscious healthcare that is responsive to its customers .
The research arm is connected with UW and the Hutchinson research institutes in the area- the days of research happening in a bubble are long gone .
If anything , Group Health appears to be growing its research arm rapidly as it adds to quality of care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record, the whole "Group Death" nickname was started in the 50s by outside physician's groups who were calling cooperative healthcare "communist" and were worried that group health would hurt their own bottoms lines.
While you an find horror stories at any healthcare group, grouphealth is well respected not just here in the pacific northwest but nationwide as model for quality, price-conscious healthcare that is responsive to its customers.
The research arm is connected with UW and the Hutchinson research institutes in the area- the days of research happening in a bubble are long gone.
If anything, Group Health appears to be growing its research arm rapidly as it adds to quality of care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29785413</id>
	<title>Back to Dr Jackson's study</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255891980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back to the actual study that Dr Jackson et al did.</p><p>"Jackson&rsquo;s papers &ldquo;are beautiful,&rdquo; says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology. &ldquo;They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done.&rdquo;</p><p>Sounds like the lady knows her stuff! "Classic studies in epidemiology" sounds good. Too bad she found out the WRONG answer and had trouble getting her paper published.</p><p>It wouldn't be so bad if there was no risk to getting the flu shot because then it just becomes a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere in the health system. The reality is much scarier. All vaccines cause ischemia according to Dr. Moulden (www.brainguardmd.com). It is the alumina stabilizers along with other adjuvants that are</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back to the actual study that Dr Jackson et al did .
" Jackson    s papers    are beautiful ,    says Lone Simonsen , who is a professor of global health at George Washington University , in Washington , D.C. , and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology .
   They are classic studies in epidemiology , they are so carefully done.    Sounds like the lady knows her stuff !
" Classic studies in epidemiology " sounds good .
Too bad she found out the WRONG answer and had trouble getting her paper published.It would n't be so bad if there was no risk to getting the flu shot because then it just becomes a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere in the health system .
The reality is much scarier .
All vaccines cause ischemia according to Dr. Moulden ( www.brainguardmd.com ) .
It is the alumina stabilizers along with other adjuvants that are</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back to the actual study that Dr Jackson et al did.
"Jackson’s papers “are beautiful,” says Lone Simonsen, who is a professor of global health at George Washington University, in Washington, D.C., and an internationally recognized expert in influenza and vaccine epidemiology.
“They are classic studies in epidemiology, they are so carefully done.”Sounds like the lady knows her stuff!
"Classic studies in epidemiology" sounds good.
Too bad she found out the WRONG answer and had trouble getting her paper published.It wouldn't be so bad if there was no risk to getting the flu shot because then it just becomes a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere in the health system.
The reality is much scarier.
All vaccines cause ischemia according to Dr. Moulden (www.brainguardmd.com).
It is the alumina stabilizers along with other adjuvants that are</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780943</id>
	<title>Placebo study has already been done, in a way</title>
	<author>Posting=!Working</author>
	<datestamp>1255784640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 1968 and 1997, the vaccine produced was the wrong one, it didn't match the prevalent strains for the following winter.  People who got vaccinated were effectively receiving a placebo for the strain that they were most likely to come in contact with.  There was not a corresponding spike in the number of deaths.  It could be argued that those strains were less deadly than usual, but it would be an amazing coincidence if it just happened to correspond to the two years no one got an effective vaccine.</p><p>If the flu vaccine reduces the number of deaths by 50\% as is claimed, there should have been a 33\% rise in deaths when no one was immunized.  There wasn't.</p><p>More of the people most at risk are getting vaccinated, 15\% of people over 65 vaccinated in 1989, 65\% today.  That should have caused a significant reduction in mortality.  But the number of deaths is rising.  Again, an amazing correspondence is claimed, that the strains are more deadly every year.</p><p>These are the two reasons that further study is needed, regardless of how strong your faith in vaccination is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1968 and 1997 , the vaccine produced was the wrong one , it did n't match the prevalent strains for the following winter .
People who got vaccinated were effectively receiving a placebo for the strain that they were most likely to come in contact with .
There was not a corresponding spike in the number of deaths .
It could be argued that those strains were less deadly than usual , but it would be an amazing coincidence if it just happened to correspond to the two years no one got an effective vaccine.If the flu vaccine reduces the number of deaths by 50 \ % as is claimed , there should have been a 33 \ % rise in deaths when no one was immunized .
There was n't.More of the people most at risk are getting vaccinated , 15 \ % of people over 65 vaccinated in 1989 , 65 \ % today .
That should have caused a significant reduction in mortality .
But the number of deaths is rising .
Again , an amazing correspondence is claimed , that the strains are more deadly every year.These are the two reasons that further study is needed , regardless of how strong your faith in vaccination is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1968 and 1997, the vaccine produced was the wrong one, it didn't match the prevalent strains for the following winter.
People who got vaccinated were effectively receiving a placebo for the strain that they were most likely to come in contact with.
There was not a corresponding spike in the number of deaths.
It could be argued that those strains were less deadly than usual, but it would be an amazing coincidence if it just happened to correspond to the two years no one got an effective vaccine.If the flu vaccine reduces the number of deaths by 50\% as is claimed, there should have been a 33\% rise in deaths when no one was immunized.
There wasn't.More of the people most at risk are getting vaccinated, 15\% of people over 65 vaccinated in 1989, 65\% today.
That should have caused a significant reduction in mortality.
But the number of deaths is rising.
Again, an amazing correspondence is claimed, that the strains are more deadly every year.These are the two reasons that further study is needed, regardless of how strong your faith in vaccination is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29783077</id>
	<title>Re:Editorializing</title>
	<author>StarsAreAlsoFire</author>
	<datestamp>1255865460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you bother to read the article? How about with your personal biases shelved for two seconds?<br><br>"Of *course* healthy people don't get a significant personal benefit from being vaccinated."<br><br>Have you ever had the flu? I have. The actual flu. About once a decade so far. And I damned well would have given my car for a cure that worked, each time.<br><br>"Nobody ever said they did."<br><br>Every single 'get vaccinated' ad focuses on this.<br><br>"If all you care about is yourself, and you are healthy as an ox, then by all means don't get vaccinated. Not getting vaccinated is a great way to get your inheritance early. Just get H1N1, then visit your elderly uncle to cheer him up. You'll transmit the virus to him, he'll die, and you'll be rich. But if you want your elderly uncle to live, or, worse luck, he's already written you out of the will, then you might as well get vaccinated."<br><br>Ha, that's actually sorta funny. But if you have the flu, good luck getting your ass out of bed by the time you realize that you have a great opportunity to off your uncle.<br><br>"IOW, the point of the vaccine is to prevent the pandemic, not to protect you. So the *right* question to ask is, does the H1N1 vaccine confer any immunity to the recipient? This is a question that can readily be answered by an epidemiology study, and that can also be ethically studied in a double-blind study - just vaccinate half of a healthy population, don't vaccinate the other half, and see how many get H1N1 and how many don't. The problem is that if the vaccine works, you don't know until it's too late. So it's good for checking your work, but no good for making the decision as to whether to do mass vaccinations - mass vaccinations are pointless after the pandemic has run its course."<br><br>Congratulations! You accidentally stumbled upon the point of the article: Nobody with the power to implement them supports these studies, due to "common knowledge". Ranting Score: 100. Reading Comprehension: 0.<br><br>"I suspect that epidemiology studies are just as good for evaluating the efficacy of the vaccine *after* the pandemic has passed anyway, so that's probably why they don't do double blind studies. But I'm not a virologist, so that's just a WAG."<br><br>@See "Reading Comprehension: 0". And then maybe consider reading, oh, the first 1/8th of the article.<br><br>"What I really wish people would do would be to stop coming up with conspiracy theories about vaccines - these are really harmful. Information is what we need, not panicked hyperbole."<br><br>Gods. That you can compare the annual, untested flu-vaccine to the world-changing vaccines simply hurts my brain. Information is what those mentioned in the article are *trying to get*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you bother to read the article ?
How about with your personal biases shelved for two seconds ?
" Of * course * healthy people do n't get a significant personal benefit from being vaccinated .
" Have you ever had the flu ?
I have .
The actual flu .
About once a decade so far .
And I damned well would have given my car for a cure that worked , each time .
" Nobody ever said they did .
" Every single 'get vaccinated ' ad focuses on this .
" If all you care about is yourself , and you are healthy as an ox , then by all means do n't get vaccinated .
Not getting vaccinated is a great way to get your inheritance early .
Just get H1N1 , then visit your elderly uncle to cheer him up .
You 'll transmit the virus to him , he 'll die , and you 'll be rich .
But if you want your elderly uncle to live , or , worse luck , he 's already written you out of the will , then you might as well get vaccinated .
" Ha , that 's actually sorta funny .
But if you have the flu , good luck getting your ass out of bed by the time you realize that you have a great opportunity to off your uncle .
" IOW , the point of the vaccine is to prevent the pandemic , not to protect you .
So the * right * question to ask is , does the H1N1 vaccine confer any immunity to the recipient ?
This is a question that can readily be answered by an epidemiology study , and that can also be ethically studied in a double-blind study - just vaccinate half of a healthy population , do n't vaccinate the other half , and see how many get H1N1 and how many do n't .
The problem is that if the vaccine works , you do n't know until it 's too late .
So it 's good for checking your work , but no good for making the decision as to whether to do mass vaccinations - mass vaccinations are pointless after the pandemic has run its course. " Congratulations !
You accidentally stumbled upon the point of the article : Nobody with the power to implement them supports these studies , due to " common knowledge " .
Ranting Score : 100 .
Reading Comprehension : 0 .
" I suspect that epidemiology studies are just as good for evaluating the efficacy of the vaccine * after * the pandemic has passed anyway , so that 's probably why they do n't do double blind studies .
But I 'm not a virologist , so that 's just a WAG .
" @ See " Reading Comprehension : 0 " .
And then maybe consider reading , oh , the first 1/8th of the article .
" What I really wish people would do would be to stop coming up with conspiracy theories about vaccines - these are really harmful .
Information is what we need , not panicked hyperbole. " Gods .
That you can compare the annual , untested flu-vaccine to the world-changing vaccines simply hurts my brain .
Information is what those mentioned in the article are * trying to get * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you bother to read the article?
How about with your personal biases shelved for two seconds?
"Of *course* healthy people don't get a significant personal benefit from being vaccinated.
"Have you ever had the flu?
I have.
The actual flu.
About once a decade so far.
And I damned well would have given my car for a cure that worked, each time.
"Nobody ever said they did.
"Every single 'get vaccinated' ad focuses on this.
"If all you care about is yourself, and you are healthy as an ox, then by all means don't get vaccinated.
Not getting vaccinated is a great way to get your inheritance early.
Just get H1N1, then visit your elderly uncle to cheer him up.
You'll transmit the virus to him, he'll die, and you'll be rich.
But if you want your elderly uncle to live, or, worse luck, he's already written you out of the will, then you might as well get vaccinated.
"Ha, that's actually sorta funny.
But if you have the flu, good luck getting your ass out of bed by the time you realize that you have a great opportunity to off your uncle.
"IOW, the point of the vaccine is to prevent the pandemic, not to protect you.
So the *right* question to ask is, does the H1N1 vaccine confer any immunity to the recipient?
This is a question that can readily be answered by an epidemiology study, and that can also be ethically studied in a double-blind study - just vaccinate half of a healthy population, don't vaccinate the other half, and see how many get H1N1 and how many don't.
The problem is that if the vaccine works, you don't know until it's too late.
So it's good for checking your work, but no good for making the decision as to whether to do mass vaccinations - mass vaccinations are pointless after the pandemic has run its course."Congratulations!
You accidentally stumbled upon the point of the article: Nobody with the power to implement them supports these studies, due to "common knowledge".
Ranting Score: 100.
Reading Comprehension: 0.
"I suspect that epidemiology studies are just as good for evaluating the efficacy of the vaccine *after* the pandemic has passed anyway, so that's probably why they don't do double blind studies.
But I'm not a virologist, so that's just a WAG.
"@See "Reading Comprehension: 0".
And then maybe consider reading, oh, the first 1/8th of the article.
"What I really wish people would do would be to stop coming up with conspiracy theories about vaccines - these are really harmful.
Information is what we need, not panicked hyperbole."Gods.
That you can compare the annual, untested flu-vaccine to the world-changing vaccines simply hurts my brain.
Information is what those mentioned in the article are *trying to get*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</id>
	<title>The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1255774980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all for testing the conventional wisdom, and when combined with my tendency to avoid medicine where it isn't necessary it appears that I should support this kind of article. But when it comes to vaccines there's a problem - antivaxxers. Regardless of the chance that one particular vaccine might not really be worth taking, it's frankly irresponsible to put out this kind of article without firm proof. Show me where the clinical trials for the vaccines went wrong and how everyone else who looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccine missed it. Otherwise... and I really hate to say this... shut up. There are people out there who will use this as ammunition in their irrational campaign against vaccines in general, and those people will get other people killed. Not just people who choose not to get themselves vaccinated for the flu, but their children, and the children of other people who for are unable to get the vaccine due to an allergy, or for whom the vaccine had no effect. Those people would normally be protected by group immunization that kept them from ever being in contact with the virus in question, but when there's a real movement in our country to avoid vaccines... well we start to slip below the threshold in some places.<br>
<br>
We killed smallpox outright, but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another. That's the reason I have to be against this sort of article - even the chance that it might be correct isn't worth the near-certainty that it will be another blow for vaccination in general. If they had any sort of actual firm proof, it would be different, but this sort of conjecture *is* dangerous - and not to the person doing the conjecturing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for testing the conventional wisdom , and when combined with my tendency to avoid medicine where it is n't necessary it appears that I should support this kind of article .
But when it comes to vaccines there 's a problem - antivaxxers .
Regardless of the chance that one particular vaccine might not really be worth taking , it 's frankly irresponsible to put out this kind of article without firm proof .
Show me where the clinical trials for the vaccines went wrong and how everyone else who looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccine missed it .
Otherwise... and I really hate to say this... shut up .
There are people out there who will use this as ammunition in their irrational campaign against vaccines in general , and those people will get other people killed .
Not just people who choose not to get themselves vaccinated for the flu , but their children , and the children of other people who for are unable to get the vaccine due to an allergy , or for whom the vaccine had no effect .
Those people would normally be protected by group immunization that kept them from ever being in contact with the virus in question , but when there 's a real movement in our country to avoid vaccines... well we start to slip below the threshold in some places .
We killed smallpox outright , but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another .
That 's the reason I have to be against this sort of article - even the chance that it might be correct is n't worth the near-certainty that it will be another blow for vaccination in general .
If they had any sort of actual firm proof , it would be different , but this sort of conjecture * is * dangerous - and not to the person doing the conjecturing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for testing the conventional wisdom, and when combined with my tendency to avoid medicine where it isn't necessary it appears that I should support this kind of article.
But when it comes to vaccines there's a problem - antivaxxers.
Regardless of the chance that one particular vaccine might not really be worth taking, it's frankly irresponsible to put out this kind of article without firm proof.
Show me where the clinical trials for the vaccines went wrong and how everyone else who looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccine missed it.
Otherwise... and I really hate to say this... shut up.
There are people out there who will use this as ammunition in their irrational campaign against vaccines in general, and those people will get other people killed.
Not just people who choose not to get themselves vaccinated for the flu, but their children, and the children of other people who for are unable to get the vaccine due to an allergy, or for whom the vaccine had no effect.
Those people would normally be protected by group immunization that kept them from ever being in contact with the virus in question, but when there's a real movement in our country to avoid vaccines... well we start to slip below the threshold in some places.
We killed smallpox outright, but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another.
That's the reason I have to be against this sort of article - even the chance that it might be correct isn't worth the near-certainty that it will be another blow for vaccination in general.
If they had any sort of actual firm proof, it would be different, but this sort of conjecture *is* dangerous - and not to the person doing the conjecturing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782477</id>
	<title>meanwhile</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255897020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the meantime, glutamine and theanine</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the meantime , glutamine and theanine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the meantime, glutamine and theanine</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780591</id>
	<title>Re:Illness vs mortality</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255780320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's why govt agencies tend to be on board, because they are worried about the health of the overall society.</p></div><p>Go on, pull the other one. I can provide you a long, long list of items which taken individually put the lie to that in the USA, let alone together. Let's start with the disenfranchisement of felons and imprisonment of 1\% of our population, and we can go on from there. If there's not a buck to be made, nothing is done, and often what is done is less or worse than nothing. Guess who's making massive profits right now on flu hysteria?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why govt agencies tend to be on board , because they are worried about the health of the overall society.Go on , pull the other one .
I can provide you a long , long list of items which taken individually put the lie to that in the USA , let alone together .
Let 's start with the disenfranchisement of felons and imprisonment of 1 \ % of our population , and we can go on from there .
If there 's not a buck to be made , nothing is done , and often what is done is less or worse than nothing .
Guess who 's making massive profits right now on flu hysteria ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why govt agencies tend to be on board, because they are worried about the health of the overall society.Go on, pull the other one.
I can provide you a long, long list of items which taken individually put the lie to that in the USA, let alone together.
Let's start with the disenfranchisement of felons and imprisonment of 1\% of our population, and we can go on from there.
If there's not a buck to be made, nothing is done, and often what is done is less or worse than nothing.
Guess who's making massive profits right now on flu hysteria?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782013</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1255802640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We killed smallpox outright, but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another.</p></div><p>
The reason that we killed small pox is because it only infect humans and cannot live outside the human body for long. It is far harder, if not impossible, to eliminate viruses which can cross from other species or which can live in the environment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We killed smallpox outright , but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another .
The reason that we killed small pox is because it only infect humans and can not live outside the human body for long .
It is far harder , if not impossible , to eliminate viruses which can cross from other species or which can live in the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We killed smallpox outright, but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another.
The reason that we killed small pox is because it only infect humans and cannot live outside the human body for long.
It is far harder, if not impossible, to eliminate viruses which can cross from other species or which can live in the environment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409</id>
	<title>Re:Editorializing</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1255778520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this article is that Ms. Jackson isn't even asking the right *question*.   Of *course* healthy people don't get a significant personal benefit from being vaccinated.   Nobody ever said they did.   If all you care about is yourself, and you are healthy as an ox, then by all means don't get vaccinated.   Not getting vaccinated is a great way to get your inheritance early.   Just get H1N1, then visit your elderly uncle to cheer him up.   You'll transmit the virus to him, he'll die, and you'll be rich.   But if you want your elderly uncle to live, or, worse luck, he's already written you out of the will, then you might as well get vaccinated.</p><p>IOW, the point of the vaccine is to prevent the pandemic, not to protect you.   So the *right* question to ask is, does the H1N1 vaccine confer any immunity to the recipient?   This is a question that can readily be answered by an epidemiology study, and that can also be ethically studied in a double-blind study - just vaccinate half of a healthy population, don't vaccinate the other half, and see how many get H1N1 and how many don't.   The problem is that if the vaccine works, you don't know until it's too late.   So it's good for checking your work, but no good for making the decision as to whether to do mass vaccinations - mass vaccinations are pointless after the pandemic has run its course.</p><p>I suspect that epidemiology studies are just as good for evaluating the efficacy of the vaccine *after* the pandemic has passed anyway, so that's probably why they don't do double blind studies.   But I'm not a virologist, so that's just a WAG.</p><p>What I really wish people would do would be to stop coming up with conspiracy theories about vaccines - these are really harmful.   Information is what we need, not panicked hyperbole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this article is that Ms. Jackson is n't even asking the right * question * .
Of * course * healthy people do n't get a significant personal benefit from being vaccinated .
Nobody ever said they did .
If all you care about is yourself , and you are healthy as an ox , then by all means do n't get vaccinated .
Not getting vaccinated is a great way to get your inheritance early .
Just get H1N1 , then visit your elderly uncle to cheer him up .
You 'll transmit the virus to him , he 'll die , and you 'll be rich .
But if you want your elderly uncle to live , or , worse luck , he 's already written you out of the will , then you might as well get vaccinated.IOW , the point of the vaccine is to prevent the pandemic , not to protect you .
So the * right * question to ask is , does the H1N1 vaccine confer any immunity to the recipient ?
This is a question that can readily be answered by an epidemiology study , and that can also be ethically studied in a double-blind study - just vaccinate half of a healthy population , do n't vaccinate the other half , and see how many get H1N1 and how many do n't .
The problem is that if the vaccine works , you do n't know until it 's too late .
So it 's good for checking your work , but no good for making the decision as to whether to do mass vaccinations - mass vaccinations are pointless after the pandemic has run its course.I suspect that epidemiology studies are just as good for evaluating the efficacy of the vaccine * after * the pandemic has passed anyway , so that 's probably why they do n't do double blind studies .
But I 'm not a virologist , so that 's just a WAG.What I really wish people would do would be to stop coming up with conspiracy theories about vaccines - these are really harmful .
Information is what we need , not panicked hyperbole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this article is that Ms. Jackson isn't even asking the right *question*.
Of *course* healthy people don't get a significant personal benefit from being vaccinated.
Nobody ever said they did.
If all you care about is yourself, and you are healthy as an ox, then by all means don't get vaccinated.
Not getting vaccinated is a great way to get your inheritance early.
Just get H1N1, then visit your elderly uncle to cheer him up.
You'll transmit the virus to him, he'll die, and you'll be rich.
But if you want your elderly uncle to live, or, worse luck, he's already written you out of the will, then you might as well get vaccinated.IOW, the point of the vaccine is to prevent the pandemic, not to protect you.
So the *right* question to ask is, does the H1N1 vaccine confer any immunity to the recipient?
This is a question that can readily be answered by an epidemiology study, and that can also be ethically studied in a double-blind study - just vaccinate half of a healthy population, don't vaccinate the other half, and see how many get H1N1 and how many don't.
The problem is that if the vaccine works, you don't know until it's too late.
So it's good for checking your work, but no good for making the decision as to whether to do mass vaccinations - mass vaccinations are pointless after the pandemic has run its course.I suspect that epidemiology studies are just as good for evaluating the efficacy of the vaccine *after* the pandemic has passed anyway, so that's probably why they don't do double blind studies.
But I'm not a virologist, so that's just a WAG.What I really wish people would do would be to stop coming up with conspiracy theories about vaccines - these are really harmful.
Information is what we need, not panicked hyperbole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780791</id>
	<title>Re:Or....</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1255782480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty poor data on your part.</p><p>Did you know that flue shots give you immunity for about a year?  On the other hand, getting the flu gives you immunity to that strain and some immunity to closely related strains for a lifetime.</p><p>As to the general argument, if it is submitted to a peer reviewed journal and it was that poor of a study, she will get slapped up on the side of the head.  That is how science works.  On the other hand, it is not guaranteed to work correctly.  Even in math, errors slip through peer-review.  And of course we have systematic failures like global warming studies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty poor data on your part.Did you know that flue shots give you immunity for about a year ?
On the other hand , getting the flu gives you immunity to that strain and some immunity to closely related strains for a lifetime.As to the general argument , if it is submitted to a peer reviewed journal and it was that poor of a study , she will get slapped up on the side of the head .
That is how science works .
On the other hand , it is not guaranteed to work correctly .
Even in math , errors slip through peer-review .
And of course we have systematic failures like global warming studies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty poor data on your part.Did you know that flue shots give you immunity for about a year?
On the other hand, getting the flu gives you immunity to that strain and some immunity to closely related strains for a lifetime.As to the general argument, if it is submitted to a peer reviewed journal and it was that poor of a study, she will get slapped up on the side of the head.
That is how science works.
On the other hand, it is not guaranteed to work correctly.
Even in math, errors slip through peer-review.
And of course we have systematic failures like global warming studies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779783</id>
	<title>Then not taking the vaccine safer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least we know that not taking the vaccine does not have side effects (contamination (Baxter), coadjuvants (some vaccines), etc.) or does it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we know that not taking the vaccine does not have side effects ( contamination ( Baxter ) , coadjuvants ( some vaccines ) , etc .
) or does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we know that not taking the vaccine does not have side effects (contamination (Baxter), coadjuvants (some vaccines), etc.
) or does it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782185</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>RichardsSites</author>
	<datestamp>1255805820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Frankly, it is just such efforts to shush shush any doubt at all that throws gasoline on the fires of doubters such as myself. Your desire to achieve the percentage of vaccination required for "herd immunity" at all costs, including freedom of discourse is not helpful to your own cause. It isn't just you - the real fear I have are the doctors who implement all of this.  They, along with the CDC and state health agencies want us all to "shut up" also.

If they could be trusted to defer from vaccinating those with potential immunity issues, that would be great. But in the rush to crush the "nutty fringe" they would rather err on the side of vaccinating everyone they can. When something does go wrong, they do not admit error - how can they in today's rush to sue? Nor will their pride allow them to admit error anyway. Arrogance in this field may not be a conspiracy, but the resulting pain and anguish is the same.

I have seen a family destroyed by social services, when their children were taken from them, falsely accused of trying to harm their children. Why, because a 3 month old child had seizures within 24 hours of a vaccination. There was plenty of family history to suggest caution, but the pediatrician  brushed it aside. In addition the child was experiencing a cold at the time; again the doctor brushed aside the concerns of the mother and assured her that it was the right thing to do. When the child began the seizures (my wife was in the home of our friend at the time) they rushed the child to the hospital, and immediately they were sent on to the major Boston hospital. The seizures continued for several days before they were brought under control; the result was permanent brain damage. However, a neurologist at this Boston hospital could not explain the cause of the seizures, since in her mind vaccinations are safe and as I see it, her arrogance reigned supreme. She filed a complaint with Social Services and the child and siblings were removed from the parents. She couldn't see the link. She couldn't even have the humility to say "I don't know why this child had seizures." It was better to close ranks with the pediatrician. She "assumed" the parents were either willful or negligent. In my view, the pediatrician was negligent.

Once Social Services are involved, the family is assumed guilty until proven innocent. This is how the process works. Even if you could gather medical expert testimony, it is cost prohibitive for most families and the system works against the accused. The children were separated from the parents for several years. They were forced to give up the brain injured daughter to adoption in exchange for the return of the other older sibling.... and they had to agree to say nothing about the "deal" to the press. It was a nightmare.  Of course the reality is that the CDC definition of at risk people is very narrow, that very few doctors would be brave enough to contradict their eminent leaders about the risk of vaccination to certain groups.

You may not want to use the word conspiracy and I also think it is unwarranted if it should mean that it is somehow orchestrated. Rather it is the result of pressure to reach the herd immunity goal that creates the various state guidelines that generally conform to CDC guidelines. The pediatric associations and other professional groups respond like you -- they want to disregard even the warnings on the vaccine labels in their effort to avoid looking like a wuss. They want to discredit and silence those who express concern, just as you have expressed.

The issue of protecting those with immunity problems is far more complex than limiting the concern to those with HIV and one or two other conditions. If the guidelines took that into consideration and if doctors were encouraged to exercise care and good judgement, there would be a greater sense of trust, instead of distrust and suspicion.

I am not against all vaccinations. But I don't think we need a vaccination for every disease out there. And most certainly we need to encourage doctors to use judgement in exempting</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , it is just such efforts to shush shush any doubt at all that throws gasoline on the fires of doubters such as myself .
Your desire to achieve the percentage of vaccination required for " herd immunity " at all costs , including freedom of discourse is not helpful to your own cause .
It is n't just you - the real fear I have are the doctors who implement all of this .
They , along with the CDC and state health agencies want us all to " shut up " also .
If they could be trusted to defer from vaccinating those with potential immunity issues , that would be great .
But in the rush to crush the " nutty fringe " they would rather err on the side of vaccinating everyone they can .
When something does go wrong , they do not admit error - how can they in today 's rush to sue ?
Nor will their pride allow them to admit error anyway .
Arrogance in this field may not be a conspiracy , but the resulting pain and anguish is the same .
I have seen a family destroyed by social services , when their children were taken from them , falsely accused of trying to harm their children .
Why , because a 3 month old child had seizures within 24 hours of a vaccination .
There was plenty of family history to suggest caution , but the pediatrician brushed it aside .
In addition the child was experiencing a cold at the time ; again the doctor brushed aside the concerns of the mother and assured her that it was the right thing to do .
When the child began the seizures ( my wife was in the home of our friend at the time ) they rushed the child to the hospital , and immediately they were sent on to the major Boston hospital .
The seizures continued for several days before they were brought under control ; the result was permanent brain damage .
However , a neurologist at this Boston hospital could not explain the cause of the seizures , since in her mind vaccinations are safe and as I see it , her arrogance reigned supreme .
She filed a complaint with Social Services and the child and siblings were removed from the parents .
She could n't see the link .
She could n't even have the humility to say " I do n't know why this child had seizures .
" It was better to close ranks with the pediatrician .
She " assumed " the parents were either willful or negligent .
In my view , the pediatrician was negligent .
Once Social Services are involved , the family is assumed guilty until proven innocent .
This is how the process works .
Even if you could gather medical expert testimony , it is cost prohibitive for most families and the system works against the accused .
The children were separated from the parents for several years .
They were forced to give up the brain injured daughter to adoption in exchange for the return of the other older sibling.... and they had to agree to say nothing about the " deal " to the press .
It was a nightmare .
Of course the reality is that the CDC definition of at risk people is very narrow , that very few doctors would be brave enough to contradict their eminent leaders about the risk of vaccination to certain groups .
You may not want to use the word conspiracy and I also think it is unwarranted if it should mean that it is somehow orchestrated .
Rather it is the result of pressure to reach the herd immunity goal that creates the various state guidelines that generally conform to CDC guidelines .
The pediatric associations and other professional groups respond like you -- they want to disregard even the warnings on the vaccine labels in their effort to avoid looking like a wuss .
They want to discredit and silence those who express concern , just as you have expressed .
The issue of protecting those with immunity problems is far more complex than limiting the concern to those with HIV and one or two other conditions .
If the guidelines took that into consideration and if doctors were encouraged to exercise care and good judgement , there would be a greater sense of trust , instead of distrust and suspicion .
I am not against all vaccinations .
But I do n't think we need a vaccination for every disease out there .
And most certainly we need to encourage doctors to use judgement in exempting</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, it is just such efforts to shush shush any doubt at all that throws gasoline on the fires of doubters such as myself.
Your desire to achieve the percentage of vaccination required for "herd immunity" at all costs, including freedom of discourse is not helpful to your own cause.
It isn't just you - the real fear I have are the doctors who implement all of this.
They, along with the CDC and state health agencies want us all to "shut up" also.
If they could be trusted to defer from vaccinating those with potential immunity issues, that would be great.
But in the rush to crush the "nutty fringe" they would rather err on the side of vaccinating everyone they can.
When something does go wrong, they do not admit error - how can they in today's rush to sue?
Nor will their pride allow them to admit error anyway.
Arrogance in this field may not be a conspiracy, but the resulting pain and anguish is the same.
I have seen a family destroyed by social services, when their children were taken from them, falsely accused of trying to harm their children.
Why, because a 3 month old child had seizures within 24 hours of a vaccination.
There was plenty of family history to suggest caution, but the pediatrician  brushed it aside.
In addition the child was experiencing a cold at the time; again the doctor brushed aside the concerns of the mother and assured her that it was the right thing to do.
When the child began the seizures (my wife was in the home of our friend at the time) they rushed the child to the hospital, and immediately they were sent on to the major Boston hospital.
The seizures continued for several days before they were brought under control; the result was permanent brain damage.
However, a neurologist at this Boston hospital could not explain the cause of the seizures, since in her mind vaccinations are safe and as I see it, her arrogance reigned supreme.
She filed a complaint with Social Services and the child and siblings were removed from the parents.
She couldn't see the link.
She couldn't even have the humility to say "I don't know why this child had seizures.
" It was better to close ranks with the pediatrician.
She "assumed" the parents were either willful or negligent.
In my view, the pediatrician was negligent.
Once Social Services are involved, the family is assumed guilty until proven innocent.
This is how the process works.
Even if you could gather medical expert testimony, it is cost prohibitive for most families and the system works against the accused.
The children were separated from the parents for several years.
They were forced to give up the brain injured daughter to adoption in exchange for the return of the other older sibling.... and they had to agree to say nothing about the "deal" to the press.
It was a nightmare.
Of course the reality is that the CDC definition of at risk people is very narrow, that very few doctors would be brave enough to contradict their eminent leaders about the risk of vaccination to certain groups.
You may not want to use the word conspiracy and I also think it is unwarranted if it should mean that it is somehow orchestrated.
Rather it is the result of pressure to reach the herd immunity goal that creates the various state guidelines that generally conform to CDC guidelines.
The pediatric associations and other professional groups respond like you -- they want to disregard even the warnings on the vaccine labels in their effort to avoid looking like a wuss.
They want to discredit and silence those who express concern, just as you have expressed.
The issue of protecting those with immunity problems is far more complex than limiting the concern to those with HIV and one or two other conditions.
If the guidelines took that into consideration and if doctors were encouraged to exercise care and good judgement, there would be a greater sense of trust, instead of distrust and suspicion.
I am not against all vaccinations.
But I don't think we need a vaccination for every disease out there.
And most certainly we need to encourage doctors to use judgement in exempting</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779797</id>
	<title>Lies!</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1255773300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, maybe just statistics, that sometimes are worse if not interpreted correctly. That 'healthy people', the one that takes seriously enough prevention to, between other measures, get the vaccine,  are less exposed to disease risks in general, and even when they get the flu (seasonal or not) they usually take measures to make it less deadly. The point is, between equaly exposed people vaccine lower the risks? In a widely spread pandemy we all could get a chance of exposion, and there is where vaccines will make a difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , maybe just statistics , that sometimes are worse if not interpreted correctly .
That 'healthy people ' , the one that takes seriously enough prevention to , between other measures , get the vaccine , are less exposed to disease risks in general , and even when they get the flu ( seasonal or not ) they usually take measures to make it less deadly .
The point is , between equaly exposed people vaccine lower the risks ?
In a widely spread pandemy we all could get a chance of exposion , and there is where vaccines will make a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, maybe just statistics, that sometimes are worse if not interpreted correctly.
That 'healthy people', the one that takes seriously enough prevention to, between other measures, get the vaccine,  are less exposed to disease risks in general, and even when they get the flu (seasonal or not) they usually take measures to make it less deadly.
The point is, between equaly exposed people vaccine lower the risks?
In a widely spread pandemy we all could get a chance of exposion, and there is where vaccines will make a difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782107</id>
	<title>Totally irresponsible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255804560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's totally irresponsible to post this odd-ball article on a website frequented by medical know-nothings who would like nothing better than to believe the flu vaccine is virtually 100\% ineffective when that's not at all the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's totally irresponsible to post this odd-ball article on a website frequented by medical know-nothings who would like nothing better than to believe the flu vaccine is virtually 100 \ % ineffective when that 's not at all the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's totally irresponsible to post this odd-ball article on a website frequented by medical know-nothings who would like nothing better than to believe the flu vaccine is virtually 100\% ineffective when that's not at all the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780811</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of antivaxxers</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1255782720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Group Healthy is a coop.  I find it hard to consider them profit-focused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Group Healthy is a coop .
I find it hard to consider them profit-focused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Group Healthy is a coop.
I find it hard to consider them profit-focused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29794597</id>
	<title>Ontario provides flu vaccines to everyone....</title>
	<author>WiartonWilly</author>
	<datestamp>1255969020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...not just the healthy and wealthy.  The flu vaccine works in the Province of Ontario, Canada.  The cost to the provincial health care system is clearly offset by a large, positive economic benefit, as measured by fewer sick-days and higher productivity.  It was a no-brainer to continue the public flu inoculation program.</p><p>A good result like this is not observable by American epidemiologists, through the fog of the private health-care patchwork.  Go public health-care!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...not just the healthy and wealthy .
The flu vaccine works in the Province of Ontario , Canada .
The cost to the provincial health care system is clearly offset by a large , positive economic benefit , as measured by fewer sick-days and higher productivity .
It was a no-brainer to continue the public flu inoculation program.A good result like this is not observable by American epidemiologists , through the fog of the private health-care patchwork .
Go public health-care !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...not just the healthy and wealthy.
The flu vaccine works in the Province of Ontario, Canada.
The cost to the provincial health care system is clearly offset by a large, positive economic benefit, as measured by fewer sick-days and higher productivity.
It was a no-brainer to continue the public flu inoculation program.A good result like this is not observable by American epidemiologists, through the fog of the private health-care patchwork.
Go public health-care!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831</id>
	<title>Editorializing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>While this does raise some questions about the efficacy of the vaccine. It doesn't prove conlusively it does nothing.

Not that you would know that from the editorializing the author does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While this does raise some questions about the efficacy of the vaccine .
It does n't prove conlusively it does nothing .
Not that you would know that from the editorializing the author does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While this does raise some questions about the efficacy of the vaccine.
It doesn't prove conlusively it does nothing.
Not that you would know that from the editorializing the author does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780259</id>
	<title>Re:article is BS</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1255777200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, there is a famous study that did exactly that.  In the thirties syphilis treatments were dangerous and questions were raised about their efficacy.  So a large study was conducted in Tuskegee.  Google it if you haven't heard about the results.<br> <br>
For that reason, modern medical ethics require that your placebo group be given the current standard of care.  That's getting the vaccine.  If we practiced pure science, this wouldn't be accepted (science is amoral and if everyone in your control group dies that's irrelevant).  But, since the point of medical research is to improve upon existing treatments we do this because any treatment that's better than nothing but worse than the current standard is clinically useless.  Of course, this raises the question of how the flu vaccine became standard of care without sufficient research evidence backing it up, but that's a different issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there is a famous study that did exactly that .
In the thirties syphilis treatments were dangerous and questions were raised about their efficacy .
So a large study was conducted in Tuskegee .
Google it if you have n't heard about the results .
For that reason , modern medical ethics require that your placebo group be given the current standard of care .
That 's getting the vaccine .
If we practiced pure science , this would n't be accepted ( science is amoral and if everyone in your control group dies that 's irrelevant ) .
But , since the point of medical research is to improve upon existing treatments we do this because any treatment that 's better than nothing but worse than the current standard is clinically useless .
Of course , this raises the question of how the flu vaccine became standard of care without sufficient research evidence backing it up , but that 's a different issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there is a famous study that did exactly that.
In the thirties syphilis treatments were dangerous and questions were raised about their efficacy.
So a large study was conducted in Tuskegee.
Google it if you haven't heard about the results.
For that reason, modern medical ethics require that your placebo group be given the current standard of care.
That's getting the vaccine.
If we practiced pure science, this wouldn't be accepted (science is amoral and if everyone in your control group dies that's irrelevant).
But, since the point of medical research is to improve upon existing treatments we do this because any treatment that's better than nothing but worse than the current standard is clinically useless.
Of course, this raises the question of how the flu vaccine became standard of care without sufficient research evidence backing it up, but that's a different issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780115</id>
	<title>Re:There are randomized controlled trials</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255775940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This "I have news for you" fellow seems like a legit guy, I think I can trust him. Wait, no, it's some dime-a-dozen anonymous fucktard on the Internet who thinks the big evil vaccines are out to get him. The source in the summary is a fear-mongering piece of shit from a popular magazine. The *multiple* sources provided by the OP are peer-reviewed scientific journals. I think that's a pretty damn good basis to prefer them.</p><p>Yes, they do have to "guess", but it's not just "throw darts at the influenza strain dartboard" guessing like you try to pass it off as. They are well-researched "guesses" that take into account much information. No, it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. Yes, they're constantly mutating, so what? Yes, there is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flu\_vaccine#Clinical\_trials\_of\_vaccines" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">plenty of evidence</a> [wikipedia.org], of which the OP provided some. Just because you ignored it doesn't mean it's not there; it just means you are freely engaging in selection bias. Lastly, thiomersal has been removed from plenty of vaccines and still <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal\_controversy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">has no evidence for it being harmful</a> [wikipedia.org] anyway.</p><p>Your sig is amusingly fitting here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This " I have news for you " fellow seems like a legit guy , I think I can trust him .
Wait , no , it 's some dime-a-dozen anonymous fucktard on the Internet who thinks the big evil vaccines are out to get him .
The source in the summary is a fear-mongering piece of shit from a popular magazine .
The * multiple * sources provided by the OP are peer-reviewed scientific journals .
I think that 's a pretty damn good basis to prefer them.Yes , they do have to " guess " , but it 's not just " throw darts at the influenza strain dartboard " guessing like you try to pass it off as .
They are well-researched " guesses " that take into account much information .
No , it 's not perfect , but it 's better than nothing .
Yes , they 're constantly mutating , so what ?
Yes , there is plenty of evidence [ wikipedia.org ] , of which the OP provided some .
Just because you ignored it does n't mean it 's not there ; it just means you are freely engaging in selection bias .
Lastly , thiomersal has been removed from plenty of vaccines and still has no evidence for it being harmful [ wikipedia.org ] anyway.Your sig is amusingly fitting here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This "I have news for you" fellow seems like a legit guy, I think I can trust him.
Wait, no, it's some dime-a-dozen anonymous fucktard on the Internet who thinks the big evil vaccines are out to get him.
The source in the summary is a fear-mongering piece of shit from a popular magazine.
The *multiple* sources provided by the OP are peer-reviewed scientific journals.
I think that's a pretty damn good basis to prefer them.Yes, they do have to "guess", but it's not just "throw darts at the influenza strain dartboard" guessing like you try to pass it off as.
They are well-researched "guesses" that take into account much information.
No, it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.
Yes, they're constantly mutating, so what?
Yes, there is plenty of evidence [wikipedia.org], of which the OP provided some.
Just because you ignored it doesn't mean it's not there; it just means you are freely engaging in selection bias.
Lastly, thiomersal has been removed from plenty of vaccines and still has no evidence for it being harmful [wikipedia.org] anyway.Your sig is amusingly fitting here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779821</id>
	<title>Just like when a programmer is sure his code works</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1255773420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is like when a programmer is sure his code works, doesn't need any unit tests, but when such tests are written, they find all sorts of problems. Apparently medicine is full of beliefs that aren't backed by tests; fortunately there's a movement against this, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based\_medicine" title="wikipedia.org">evidence-based medicine</a> [wikipedia.org].

<p>In this case it seems lots of people believe that vaccines are good, that <i>anything</i> that reduces use of them is bad, and since testing them could cause reduction in use, testing is bad. Never mind that they might not be as good as imagined; this is beyond question, and it's simply a matter of getting others to accept the same belief, no matter what means is used. It really makes me sick to read question-and-answer documents that constantly avoid direct answers to questions of whether a given person gets a benefit from an injection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like when a programmer is sure his code works , does n't need any unit tests , but when such tests are written , they find all sorts of problems .
Apparently medicine is full of beliefs that are n't backed by tests ; fortunately there 's a movement against this , evidence-based medicine [ wikipedia.org ] .
In this case it seems lots of people believe that vaccines are good , that anything that reduces use of them is bad , and since testing them could cause reduction in use , testing is bad .
Never mind that they might not be as good as imagined ; this is beyond question , and it 's simply a matter of getting others to accept the same belief , no matter what means is used .
It really makes me sick to read question-and-answer documents that constantly avoid direct answers to questions of whether a given person gets a benefit from an injection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like when a programmer is sure his code works, doesn't need any unit tests, but when such tests are written, they find all sorts of problems.
Apparently medicine is full of beliefs that aren't backed by tests; fortunately there's a movement against this, evidence-based medicine [wikipedia.org].
In this case it seems lots of people believe that vaccines are good, that anything that reduces use of them is bad, and since testing them could cause reduction in use, testing is bad.
Never mind that they might not be as good as imagined; this is beyond question, and it's simply a matter of getting others to accept the same belief, no matter what means is used.
It really makes me sick to read question-and-answer documents that constantly avoid direct answers to questions of whether a given person gets a benefit from an injection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29786961</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of antivaxxers</title>
	<author>ChristTrekker</author>
	<datestamp>1255860540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think my family falls into that camp either.  But we <em>do</em> listen to all sides of the debate, and make <em>our own</em> decisions involving our family's health, trying to be as well-informed as we can.

</p><p>As a result, we don't have our kids vaccinated as infants.  There's a <em>lot</em> of concern about thimerosol in vaccines.  Is the mercury harmful?  Is it not?  Does anybody know for sure?  Has anybody done studies on those massive quantities of foreign substances (that much mercury would be above acceptable exposure for an adult) being pumped into a <em>10 pound</em> body?  And why do my children even <em>need</em> vaccination against diseases primarily transmitted by sexual activity?  In my opinion, <strong>that</strong>'s what's nutty.  Some of this stuff is not going to kill anybody with a healthy immune system.  Why vaccinate?  (I mean, really - chicken pox?  A couple inconvenient days of itchy bumps?)  Vaccination has become, in some people's eyes, a panacea for every ill.  And while I agree that vaccines have saved a lot of people and that I wouldn't want to live in a pre-vaccination world, I think we can apply some common sense in making decisions for ourselves as individuals and not just blindly following the herd.

</p><p>So we decided by the time #2 came along that we were going to hold all further vaccination until age 5.  And I know it's not scientific, but #2 and #3 have had a lot fewer colds and run-of-the-mill illnesses than #1 - who received a good portion of the vaccinations young - did.  Our pediatrician looks at us askance at every visit, but we believe, as informed and responsible parents, that we are following the best course for our kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think my family falls into that camp either .
But we do listen to all sides of the debate , and make our own decisions involving our family 's health , trying to be as well-informed as we can .
As a result , we do n't have our kids vaccinated as infants .
There 's a lot of concern about thimerosol in vaccines .
Is the mercury harmful ?
Is it not ?
Does anybody know for sure ?
Has anybody done studies on those massive quantities of foreign substances ( that much mercury would be above acceptable exposure for an adult ) being pumped into a 10 pound body ?
And why do my children even need vaccination against diseases primarily transmitted by sexual activity ?
In my opinion , that 's what 's nutty .
Some of this stuff is not going to kill anybody with a healthy immune system .
Why vaccinate ?
( I mean , really - chicken pox ?
A couple inconvenient days of itchy bumps ?
) Vaccination has become , in some people 's eyes , a panacea for every ill. And while I agree that vaccines have saved a lot of people and that I would n't want to live in a pre-vaccination world , I think we can apply some common sense in making decisions for ourselves as individuals and not just blindly following the herd .
So we decided by the time # 2 came along that we were going to hold all further vaccination until age 5 .
And I know it 's not scientific , but # 2 and # 3 have had a lot fewer colds and run-of-the-mill illnesses than # 1 - who received a good portion of the vaccinations young - did .
Our pediatrician looks at us askance at every visit , but we believe , as informed and responsible parents , that we are following the best course for our kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think my family falls into that camp either.
But we do listen to all sides of the debate, and make our own decisions involving our family's health, trying to be as well-informed as we can.
As a result, we don't have our kids vaccinated as infants.
There's a lot of concern about thimerosol in vaccines.
Is the mercury harmful?
Is it not?
Does anybody know for sure?
Has anybody done studies on those massive quantities of foreign substances (that much mercury would be above acceptable exposure for an adult) being pumped into a 10 pound body?
And why do my children even need vaccination against diseases primarily transmitted by sexual activity?
In my opinion, that's what's nutty.
Some of this stuff is not going to kill anybody with a healthy immune system.
Why vaccinate?
(I mean, really - chicken pox?
A couple inconvenient days of itchy bumps?
)  Vaccination has become, in some people's eyes, a panacea for every ill.  And while I agree that vaccines have saved a lot of people and that I wouldn't want to live in a pre-vaccination world, I think we can apply some common sense in making decisions for ourselves as individuals and not just blindly following the herd.
So we decided by the time #2 came along that we were going to hold all further vaccination until age 5.
And I know it's not scientific, but #2 and #3 have had a lot fewer colds and run-of-the-mill illnesses than #1 - who received a good portion of the vaccinations young - did.
Our pediatrician looks at us askance at every visit, but we believe, as informed and responsible parents, that we are following the best course for our kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780271</id>
	<title>Illness vs mortality</title>
	<author>ChrisWong</author>
	<datestamp>1255777260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read that article before. The fatal weakness of its reasoning is that it only focuses on fatalities. The reality is that even if you got ill with the flu, you almost never died (under 0.1\% fatality rate). Even the super-fatal pandemic flu of 1918 was about 5\% fatal among those sickened. I doubt if it is feasible to get a statistically significant count of fatalities in a controlled study sample.</p><p>But even if you do not die, flu is pretty costly. It is costly in the time you spend miserable, sick and out of action. It is costly to the colleagues, friends and family that you in turn sicken. It is costly to society as a whole. Vaccines either prevent that sickening altogether or reduce its severity. That makes vaccination campaigns valuable to society as a whole -- even to the unvaccinated -- because any flu case prevented or shortened will eliminate yet another infection source. Since flu spreads, well, virally, stopping even one source is significant. That's why govt agencies tend to be on board, because they are worried about the health of the overall society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that article before .
The fatal weakness of its reasoning is that it only focuses on fatalities .
The reality is that even if you got ill with the flu , you almost never died ( under 0.1 \ % fatality rate ) .
Even the super-fatal pandemic flu of 1918 was about 5 \ % fatal among those sickened .
I doubt if it is feasible to get a statistically significant count of fatalities in a controlled study sample.But even if you do not die , flu is pretty costly .
It is costly in the time you spend miserable , sick and out of action .
It is costly to the colleagues , friends and family that you in turn sicken .
It is costly to society as a whole .
Vaccines either prevent that sickening altogether or reduce its severity .
That makes vaccination campaigns valuable to society as a whole -- even to the unvaccinated -- because any flu case prevented or shortened will eliminate yet another infection source .
Since flu spreads , well , virally , stopping even one source is significant .
That 's why govt agencies tend to be on board , because they are worried about the health of the overall society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that article before.
The fatal weakness of its reasoning is that it only focuses on fatalities.
The reality is that even if you got ill with the flu, you almost never died (under 0.1\% fatality rate).
Even the super-fatal pandemic flu of 1918 was about 5\% fatal among those sickened.
I doubt if it is feasible to get a statistically significant count of fatalities in a controlled study sample.But even if you do not die, flu is pretty costly.
It is costly in the time you spend miserable, sick and out of action.
It is costly to the colleagues, friends and family that you in turn sicken.
It is costly to society as a whole.
Vaccines either prevent that sickening altogether or reduce its severity.
That makes vaccination campaigns valuable to society as a whole -- even to the unvaccinated -- because any flu case prevented or shortened will eliminate yet another infection source.
Since flu spreads, well, virally, stopping even one source is significant.
That's why govt agencies tend to be on board, because they are worried about the health of the overall society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781739</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1255796940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...and those people will get other people killed..."</p><p>On the other hand we live on a planet with 6+ billion people which is heading to 9 and some where along the way we will run out of resource like food, water and energy and we will have a major crash that will make a flu pandemic look benign by comparison.</p><p>I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that its really such a great idea to work so hard to short circuit all the natural biological mechanisms for population control.  Those mechanisms were developed over billions of years of evolution because they were extremely necessary to prevent biological organisms from overpopulating and exhausting their environment.  Keeping everyone alive at all costs no doubt gives everyone the warm fuzzies but something that seems like a near term win-win could in the long run be cataclysmic.</p><p>I'm all for wiping out disease, preventing aging and have everyone live past 120 which seems to be where we are heading. at least in the places that can afford it. but.... if you are going to do that you also need to either:</p><p>A. Institute draconian birth control and allow no more births than their are deaths to achieve a stable or probably even better, gently declining population</p><p>B. You need some major technological breakthroughs to stretch a biosphere that is already showing signs of cracking, or you need to terraform a nearby planet and create more biosphere (which is a long shot solution at best).</p><p>I'm starting to have a serious problem with a society that is hell bent on wiping out all disease and keeping people alive at all costs using expensive medical technology to the point it bankrupts economies and robs young people of their future because they have to support politically powerful seniors who paid in next to nothing when they were young and are now milking their grandchildren of their future.  We also seem hell bent on wiping out famine and every other natural mechanism for population control but we are also completely unwilling to institute equally effective, mandatory if necessary, birth control regimes.</p><p>I seriously don't want to live on a planet that looks like Soylent Green and that is where we are heading.  Either you vote for living to 120 and you forgo having children, or if you wanna breed like rabbits then you should be willing to die like one at a relatively early age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...and those people will get other people killed... " On the other hand we live on a planet with 6 + billion people which is heading to 9 and some where along the way we will run out of resource like food , water and energy and we will have a major crash that will make a flu pandemic look benign by comparison.I 'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that its really such a great idea to work so hard to short circuit all the natural biological mechanisms for population control .
Those mechanisms were developed over billions of years of evolution because they were extremely necessary to prevent biological organisms from overpopulating and exhausting their environment .
Keeping everyone alive at all costs no doubt gives everyone the warm fuzzies but something that seems like a near term win-win could in the long run be cataclysmic.I 'm all for wiping out disease , preventing aging and have everyone live past 120 which seems to be where we are heading .
at least in the places that can afford it .
but.... if you are going to do that you also need to either : A. Institute draconian birth control and allow no more births than their are deaths to achieve a stable or probably even better , gently declining populationB .
You need some major technological breakthroughs to stretch a biosphere that is already showing signs of cracking , or you need to terraform a nearby planet and create more biosphere ( which is a long shot solution at best ) .I 'm starting to have a serious problem with a society that is hell bent on wiping out all disease and keeping people alive at all costs using expensive medical technology to the point it bankrupts economies and robs young people of their future because they have to support politically powerful seniors who paid in next to nothing when they were young and are now milking their grandchildren of their future .
We also seem hell bent on wiping out famine and every other natural mechanism for population control but we are also completely unwilling to institute equally effective , mandatory if necessary , birth control regimes.I seriously do n't want to live on a planet that looks like Soylent Green and that is where we are heading .
Either you vote for living to 120 and you forgo having children , or if you wan na breed like rabbits then you should be willing to die like one at a relatively early age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...and those people will get other people killed..."On the other hand we live on a planet with 6+ billion people which is heading to 9 and some where along the way we will run out of resource like food, water and energy and we will have a major crash that will make a flu pandemic look benign by comparison.I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that its really such a great idea to work so hard to short circuit all the natural biological mechanisms for population control.
Those mechanisms were developed over billions of years of evolution because they were extremely necessary to prevent biological organisms from overpopulating and exhausting their environment.
Keeping everyone alive at all costs no doubt gives everyone the warm fuzzies but something that seems like a near term win-win could in the long run be cataclysmic.I'm all for wiping out disease, preventing aging and have everyone live past 120 which seems to be where we are heading.
at least in the places that can afford it.
but.... if you are going to do that you also need to either:A. Institute draconian birth control and allow no more births than their are deaths to achieve a stable or probably even better, gently declining populationB.
You need some major technological breakthroughs to stretch a biosphere that is already showing signs of cracking, or you need to terraform a nearby planet and create more biosphere (which is a long shot solution at best).I'm starting to have a serious problem with a society that is hell bent on wiping out all disease and keeping people alive at all costs using expensive medical technology to the point it bankrupts economies and robs young people of their future because they have to support politically powerful seniors who paid in next to nothing when they were young and are now milking their grandchildren of their future.
We also seem hell bent on wiping out famine and every other natural mechanism for population control but we are also completely unwilling to institute equally effective, mandatory if necessary, birth control regimes.I seriously don't want to live on a planet that looks like Soylent Green and that is where we are heading.
Either you vote for living to 120 and you forgo having children, or if you wanna breed like rabbits then you should be willing to die like one at a relatively early age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780763</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of antivaxxers</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1255782180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And I would need convincing that this isn't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots. Gotta love profit-focused private "health" care, and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.</i></p><p><i>Hmm. Guess I better toss that notice from Group Health encouraging me to come in and get a shot then. I forgot they were part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Gotta love government-controlled and "cost containment" "health" care, and its useful idiot defenders on the Left.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I would need convincing that this is n't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots .
Got ta love profit-focused private " health " care , and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.Hmm .
Guess I better toss that notice from Group Health encouraging me to come in and get a shot then .
I forgot they were part of the vast right wing conspiracy .
Got ta love government-controlled and " cost containment " " health " care , and its useful idiot defenders on the Left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I would need convincing that this isn't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots.
Gotta love profit-focused private "health" care, and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.Hmm.
Guess I better toss that notice from Group Health encouraging me to come in and get a shot then.
I forgot they were part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Gotta love government-controlled and "cost containment" "health" care, and its useful idiot defenders on the Left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781381</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>celtic\_hackr</author>
	<datestamp>1255790580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While, I applaud your desire to discredit the freaks who abuse science, you must be aware that flu "vaccines" aren't as thoroughly tested as ANY other drug that is stamped with approval. Due to the fact these "vaccines" are only good for six months, otherwise you wouldn't have to get vaccines every year, and you'd have rates higher than 40-60\% efficacy (CDCs numbers, not mine, but you have to read between the lines to get this number). H1N1 is likely to have an 80\% efficacy (CDC again) for this year, but you'll need another one next year.
<br> <br>
This is not like the polio vaccine where you get one and you're good for life. Or even like tetanus where you get one and 2 boosters and you're good for 10 years or so. No, what the flu vaccine does is give you a live or dead virus, and since it's a foreign body in your system it triggers an immune response, which hopefully your body will recognize later if someone infects you with it. Now of course if you get the live version, you're actually going to come down with the flu, but a milder case than you'd get in the wild. I'm sorry,but when I got the polio vaccine I didn't come down with a mild case of polio. When I got a Tetanus shot I didn't come down with a mild case of Lockjaw. When I got the Rubella vaccine, I didn't come down with a mild case of the German Measles, although, I understand that some do. However, I don't get a Rubella vaccine every year.<br>
<br>
I'm all for getting vaccines that save lives, but call me skeptical on the "Flu vaccines", I've seen no proof of them working, the only person who I know, for certain, who has ever gotten a flu vaccine got the flu that same year. Sure this is not scientific, but CDCs own writings don't help me to conclude they work any better than a placebo. I welcome a double blind study done by a University with no ties to the AMA, Doctors, or Pharmacies. Let me know when you find one of them. If we could find anyone with no axe to grind or sponsor to please, I'd welcome that test. Barring that fantasy, I'd accept any double blind study done by a reputable school.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While , I applaud your desire to discredit the freaks who abuse science , you must be aware that flu " vaccines " are n't as thoroughly tested as ANY other drug that is stamped with approval .
Due to the fact these " vaccines " are only good for six months , otherwise you would n't have to get vaccines every year , and you 'd have rates higher than 40-60 \ % efficacy ( CDCs numbers , not mine , but you have to read between the lines to get this number ) .
H1N1 is likely to have an 80 \ % efficacy ( CDC again ) for this year , but you 'll need another one next year .
This is not like the polio vaccine where you get one and you 're good for life .
Or even like tetanus where you get one and 2 boosters and you 're good for 10 years or so .
No , what the flu vaccine does is give you a live or dead virus , and since it 's a foreign body in your system it triggers an immune response , which hopefully your body will recognize later if someone infects you with it .
Now of course if you get the live version , you 're actually going to come down with the flu , but a milder case than you 'd get in the wild .
I 'm sorry,but when I got the polio vaccine I did n't come down with a mild case of polio .
When I got a Tetanus shot I did n't come down with a mild case of Lockjaw .
When I got the Rubella vaccine , I did n't come down with a mild case of the German Measles , although , I understand that some do .
However , I do n't get a Rubella vaccine every year .
I 'm all for getting vaccines that save lives , but call me skeptical on the " Flu vaccines " , I 've seen no proof of them working , the only person who I know , for certain , who has ever gotten a flu vaccine got the flu that same year .
Sure this is not scientific , but CDCs own writings do n't help me to conclude they work any better than a placebo .
I welcome a double blind study done by a University with no ties to the AMA , Doctors , or Pharmacies .
Let me know when you find one of them .
If we could find anyone with no axe to grind or sponsor to please , I 'd welcome that test .
Barring that fantasy , I 'd accept any double blind study done by a reputable school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While, I applaud your desire to discredit the freaks who abuse science, you must be aware that flu "vaccines" aren't as thoroughly tested as ANY other drug that is stamped with approval.
Due to the fact these "vaccines" are only good for six months, otherwise you wouldn't have to get vaccines every year, and you'd have rates higher than 40-60\% efficacy (CDCs numbers, not mine, but you have to read between the lines to get this number).
H1N1 is likely to have an 80\% efficacy (CDC again) for this year, but you'll need another one next year.
This is not like the polio vaccine where you get one and you're good for life.
Or even like tetanus where you get one and 2 boosters and you're good for 10 years or so.
No, what the flu vaccine does is give you a live or dead virus, and since it's a foreign body in your system it triggers an immune response, which hopefully your body will recognize later if someone infects you with it.
Now of course if you get the live version, you're actually going to come down with the flu, but a milder case than you'd get in the wild.
I'm sorry,but when I got the polio vaccine I didn't come down with a mild case of polio.
When I got a Tetanus shot I didn't come down with a mild case of Lockjaw.
When I got the Rubella vaccine, I didn't come down with a mild case of the German Measles, although, I understand that some do.
However, I don't get a Rubella vaccine every year.
I'm all for getting vaccines that save lives, but call me skeptical on the "Flu vaccines", I've seen no proof of them working, the only person who I know, for certain, who has ever gotten a flu vaccine got the flu that same year.
Sure this is not scientific, but CDCs own writings don't help me to conclude they work any better than a placebo.
I welcome a double blind study done by a University with no ties to the AMA, Doctors, or Pharmacies.
Let me know when you find one of them.
If we could find anyone with no axe to grind or sponsor to please, I'd welcome that test.
Barring that fantasy, I'd accept any double blind study done by a reputable school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782649</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>Eukariote</author>
	<datestamp>1255856880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Show me where the clinical trials for the vaccines went wrong and how everyone else who looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccine missed it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Check out the following articles and there references contained therein:
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m10d14-Medical-research-of-the-flu-vaccine-zero-statistical-difference-in-death-rate" title="examiner.com">http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m10d14-Medical-research-of-the-flu-vaccine-zero-statistical-difference-in-death-rate</a> [examiner.com],
<a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/023902.html" title="naturalnews.com">http://www.naturalnews.com/023902.html</a> [naturalnews.com],
<a href="http://www.whale.to/vaccine/ott.html" title="whale.to">http://www.whale.to/vaccine/ott.html</a> [whale.to], and
<a href="http://www.whale.to/vaccines/gbs.htm" title="whale.to">http://www.whale.to/vaccines/gbs.htm</a> [whale.to] </p><p>To understand what lies behind this, watch the following talk: <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646&amp;hl=en#" title="google.com">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646&amp;hl=en#</a> [google.com] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me where the clinical trials for the vaccines went wrong and how everyone else who looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccine missed it.Check out the following articles and there references contained therein : http : //www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner ~ y2009m10d14-Medical-research-of-the-flu-vaccine-zero-statistical-difference-in-death-rate [ examiner.com ] , http : //www.naturalnews.com/023902.html [ naturalnews.com ] , http : //www.whale.to/vaccine/ott.html [ whale.to ] , and http : //www.whale.to/vaccines/gbs.htm [ whale.to ] To understand what lies behind this , watch the following talk : http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = 6890106663412840646&amp;hl = en # [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me where the clinical trials for the vaccines went wrong and how everyone else who looked at the efficacy of the flu vaccine missed it.Check out the following articles and there references contained therein:
http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m10d14-Medical-research-of-the-flu-vaccine-zero-statistical-difference-in-death-rate [examiner.com],
http://www.naturalnews.com/023902.html [naturalnews.com],
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/ott.html [whale.to], and
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/gbs.htm [whale.to] To understand what lies behind this, watch the following talk: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646&amp;hl=en# [google.com] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780875</id>
	<title>Re:Or....</title>
	<author>afxgrin</author>
	<datestamp>1255783740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would assume the people who conduct the research on the effectiveness of vaccines would take into account exceptions such as "more healthy people received the vaccine than non-healthy" when making their models.</p><p>Maybe I'm just being terribly naive about this, but there are plenty of smart people in the world who work in industry, and would probably be particularly picky about making sure their models are statistically sound as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would assume the people who conduct the research on the effectiveness of vaccines would take into account exceptions such as " more healthy people received the vaccine than non-healthy " when making their models.Maybe I 'm just being terribly naive about this , but there are plenty of smart people in the world who work in industry , and would probably be particularly picky about making sure their models are statistically sound as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would assume the people who conduct the research on the effectiveness of vaccines would take into account exceptions such as "more healthy people received the vaccine than non-healthy" when making their models.Maybe I'm just being terribly naive about this, but there are plenty of smart people in the world who work in industry, and would probably be particularly picky about making sure their models are statistically sound as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781611</id>
	<title>Freaks are against science, yourself included</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1255795020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All you have to do is look up Vaccine on Wikipedia to see some people don't like vaccines for whatever reason</i></p><p>It's stupid to inject yourself with something that does nothing.  Especially when the thing that may not do anything for you, also has a non-zero chance of side effects that are much less pleasant than the original thing you were trying to prevent.  That's a pretty good reason.</p><p>This article points out that we don't really know if the flu vaccine (any flu vaccine) does anything.</p><p>Since there is no good evidence either way, "better to be safe than sorry" can apply either way too.  Which makes your heavy-handed dismissal of those questioning the flu vaccine every bit as faith based as the "freaks" you look down on with such contempt.</p><p>Meet the enemy, for he is you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you have to do is look up Vaccine on Wikipedia to see some people do n't like vaccines for whatever reasonIt 's stupid to inject yourself with something that does nothing .
Especially when the thing that may not do anything for you , also has a non-zero chance of side effects that are much less pleasant than the original thing you were trying to prevent .
That 's a pretty good reason.This article points out that we do n't really know if the flu vaccine ( any flu vaccine ) does anything.Since there is no good evidence either way , " better to be safe than sorry " can apply either way too .
Which makes your heavy-handed dismissal of those questioning the flu vaccine every bit as faith based as the " freaks " you look down on with such contempt.Meet the enemy , for he is you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you have to do is look up Vaccine on Wikipedia to see some people don't like vaccines for whatever reasonIt's stupid to inject yourself with something that does nothing.
Especially when the thing that may not do anything for you, also has a non-zero chance of side effects that are much less pleasant than the original thing you were trying to prevent.
That's a pretty good reason.This article points out that we don't really know if the flu vaccine (any flu vaccine) does anything.Since there is no good evidence either way, "better to be safe than sorry" can apply either way too.
Which makes your heavy-handed dismissal of those questioning the flu vaccine every bit as faith based as the "freaks" you look down on with such contempt.Meet the enemy, for he is you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782043</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>Michael Woodhams</author>
	<datestamp>1255803300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We killed smallpox outright,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p>In my opinion, the single greatest achievement of humanity<br>
&nbsp; <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>... but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p>Many diseases are not eradicable by current vaccine technology. We can't (currently) hope to eliminate diseases that mutate very quickly (influenza and HIV) or which have wild animal reservoirs (influenza, black death.) I'm not a pathologist, so I'm not sure which diseases are eradicable. Certainly polio (which nearly killed my mother), perhaps malaria, measles, chickenpox, whooping cough.</p><p><i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another.</i></p><p>We'd probably have polio by now if not for anti-vaxers (muslim conspiracy theorists in this case.) We'll probably never get the coverage to eradicate measles, chickenpox, whooping cough because of them - these diseases don't have the scare factor of smallpox or polio. We might get malaria, especially because we have many other avenues of attack beyond vaccination. There will however be the threat that a related bug will do a species jump to give us back a 'new' malaria.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We killed smallpox outright , ...In my opinion , the single greatest achievement of humanity   ... but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal ...Many diseases are not eradicable by current vaccine technology .
We ca n't ( currently ) hope to eliminate diseases that mutate very quickly ( influenza and HIV ) or which have wild animal reservoirs ( influenza , black death .
) I 'm not a pathologist , so I 'm not sure which diseases are eradicable .
Certainly polio ( which nearly killed my mother ) , perhaps malaria , measles , chickenpox , whooping cough .
... through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another.We 'd probably have polio by now if not for anti-vaxers ( muslim conspiracy theorists in this case .
) We 'll probably never get the coverage to eradicate measles , chickenpox , whooping cough because of them - these diseases do n't have the scare factor of smallpox or polio .
We might get malaria , especially because we have many other avenues of attack beyond vaccination .
There will however be the threat that a related bug will do a species jump to give us back a 'new ' malaria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We killed smallpox outright, ...In my opinion, the single greatest achievement of humanity
   ... but every vaccine since then has been prevented from achieving its final goal ...Many diseases are not eradicable by current vaccine technology.
We can't (currently) hope to eliminate diseases that mutate very quickly (influenza and HIV) or which have wild animal reservoirs (influenza, black death.
) I'm not a pathologist, so I'm not sure which diseases are eradicable.
Certainly polio (which nearly killed my mother), perhaps malaria, measles, chickenpox, whooping cough.
... through the effort of anti-vax forces of one kind or another.We'd probably have polio by now if not for anti-vaxers (muslim conspiracy theorists in this case.
) We'll probably never get the coverage to eradicate measles, chickenpox, whooping cough because of them - these diseases don't have the scare factor of smallpox or polio.
We might get malaria, especially because we have many other avenues of attack beyond vaccination.
There will however be the threat that a related bug will do a species jump to give us back a 'new' malaria.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780889</id>
	<title>I dont buy their conclussions....</title>
	<author>someguysomewhere</author>
	<datestamp>1255783920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They probably using a "Mortality" number that is based on the people that are already sick.

"Mortality of those With Influenza" =&gt; Number of people that are ALREADY sick, that DIE from the disease
"Incidence" =&gt; Number of people that ACQUIRE the disease.

If you vaccinate people you reduce the number that are infected, but those that get infected anyway still have the same risk of dying.  This DOES NOT mean the vaccine is ineffective, you are still reducing the number of infections in the general population and hence removing them from the risk of dying from that disease.  So the "Mortality rate" is not affected but the "Incidence Rate" IS affected by around 50-60\% (IIRC) which is significant.
There's also something called "herd immunity" which basically means that if a lot of people around you are immune and you are not immune your chances of acquiring the disease are lower since your peers cannot transmit it to you.  So if you make enough people immune to a certain disease the rate of infection drops a lot more than you would expect, the reverse is also true... if people stop using vaccines ( say for Measels ) the risk of large outbreaks increases significantly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably using a " Mortality " number that is based on the people that are already sick .
" Mortality of those With Influenza " = &gt; Number of people that are ALREADY sick , that DIE from the disease " Incidence " = &gt; Number of people that ACQUIRE the disease .
If you vaccinate people you reduce the number that are infected , but those that get infected anyway still have the same risk of dying .
This DOES NOT mean the vaccine is ineffective , you are still reducing the number of infections in the general population and hence removing them from the risk of dying from that disease .
So the " Mortality rate " is not affected but the " Incidence Rate " IS affected by around 50-60 \ % ( IIRC ) which is significant .
There 's also something called " herd immunity " which basically means that if a lot of people around you are immune and you are not immune your chances of acquiring the disease are lower since your peers can not transmit it to you .
So if you make enough people immune to a certain disease the rate of infection drops a lot more than you would expect , the reverse is also true... if people stop using vaccines ( say for Measels ) the risk of large outbreaks increases significantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably using a "Mortality" number that is based on the people that are already sick.
"Mortality of those With Influenza" =&gt; Number of people that are ALREADY sick, that DIE from the disease
"Incidence" =&gt; Number of people that ACQUIRE the disease.
If you vaccinate people you reduce the number that are infected, but those that get infected anyway still have the same risk of dying.
This DOES NOT mean the vaccine is ineffective, you are still reducing the number of infections in the general population and hence removing them from the risk of dying from that disease.
So the "Mortality rate" is not affected but the "Incidence Rate" IS affected by around 50-60\% (IIRC) which is significant.
There's also something called "herd immunity" which basically means that if a lot of people around you are immune and you are not immune your chances of acquiring the disease are lower since your peers cannot transmit it to you.
So if you make enough people immune to a certain disease the rate of infection drops a lot more than you would expect, the reverse is also true... if people stop using vaccines ( say for Measels ) the risk of large outbreaks increases significantly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29801301</id>
	<title>Re:As soon as you mentioned "Group Health"...</title>
	<author>Gverig</author>
	<datestamp>1255952640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really. Only 2\% of sick will go in for treatment and 95\% of those will be sent home withing minutes with recommendation to take some over the counter drug (not covered by insurance).</p><p>I'm not defending original post, which is a) large ad-homonym attack  (maybe well-deserved but still...) and b) does not contradict research findings. Would they happily fund a study that could save them some $$? Likely. Does this mean findings are incorrect? Not really, unless you suggest fraud, which is a big step up from just being a cheapskate.</p><p>As for article... HUGE red flag goes off when an article about a research that goes against "status quo" and could be a groundbreaking finding appears in "The Atlantic Online" and not in Nature or a respected medical journal. In science one of the biggest safeguards against bull**it is peer review and publishing a research in a  blog IMO speaks volumes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Only 2 \ % of sick will go in for treatment and 95 \ % of those will be sent home withing minutes with recommendation to take some over the counter drug ( not covered by insurance ) .I 'm not defending original post , which is a ) large ad-homonym attack ( maybe well-deserved but still... ) and b ) does not contradict research findings .
Would they happily fund a study that could save them some $ $ ?
Likely. Does this mean findings are incorrect ?
Not really , unless you suggest fraud , which is a big step up from just being a cheapskate.As for article... HUGE red flag goes off when an article about a research that goes against " status quo " and could be a groundbreaking finding appears in " The Atlantic Online " and not in Nature or a respected medical journal .
In science one of the biggest safeguards against bull * * it is peer review and publishing a research in a blog IMO speaks volumes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Only 2\% of sick will go in for treatment and 95\% of those will be sent home withing minutes with recommendation to take some over the counter drug (not covered by insurance).I'm not defending original post, which is a) large ad-homonym attack  (maybe well-deserved but still...) and b) does not contradict research findings.
Would they happily fund a study that could save them some $$?
Likely. Does this mean findings are incorrect?
Not really, unless you suggest fraud, which is a big step up from just being a cheapskate.As for article... HUGE red flag goes off when an article about a research that goes against "status quo" and could be a groundbreaking finding appears in "The Atlantic Online" and not in Nature or a respected medical journal.
In science one of the biggest safeguards against bull**it is peer review and publishing a research in a  blog IMO speaks volumes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29794395</id>
	<title>Re:Editorializing</title>
	<author>crush</author>
	<datestamp>1255968180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>In the absence of such evidence, we are left with two possibilities. One is that flu vaccine is in fact highly beneficial, or at least helpful. Solid evidence to that effect would encourage more citizens--and particularly more health professionals--to get their shots and prevent the flu's spread. As it stands, more than 50 percent of health-care workers say they do not intend to get vaccinated for swine flu and don't routinely get their shots for seasonal flu, in part because many of them doubt the vaccines' efficacy. The other possibility, of course, is that we're relying heavily on vaccines and antivirals that simply don't work, or don't work as well as we believe. And as a result, we may be neglecting other, proven measures that could minimize the death rate during pandemics.</em></p></div> </blockquote><p>

Bah, in your rush to dismiss the author as an "anti-vaccine nut" (and I admit they exist) you obviously didn't bother to read the article very carefully.  See the above quote which covers your point and then read the one below which explains that the CDC and others who are heavily invested in the dogma that this particular vaccine is useful won't actually do the trials:</p><blockquote><div><p> <em>
These questions have led to the most controversial aspect of Jefferson's work: his call for placebo-controlled trials, studies that would randomly give half the test subjects vaccine and the other half a dummy shot, or placebo. Only such large, well-constructed, randomized trials can show with any precision how effective vaccine really is, and for whom.

In the flu-vaccine world, Jefferson's call for placebo-controlled studies is considered so radical that even some of his fellow skeptics oppose it. Majumdar, the Ottawa researcher, says he believes that evidence of a benefit among children is established and that public-health officials should try to protect seniors by immunizing children, health-care workers, and other people around them, and thus reduce the spread of the flu. Lone Simonsen explains the prevailing view: "It is considered unethical to do trials in populations that are recommended to have vaccine," a stance that is shared by everybody from the CDC's Nancy Cox to Anthony Fauci at the NIH. They feel strongly that vaccine has been shown to be effective and that a sham vaccine would put test subjects at unnecessary risk of getting a serious case of the flu. In a phone interview, Fauci at first voiced the opinion that a placebo trial in the elderly might be acceptable, but he called back later to retract his comment, saying that such a trial "would be unethical." Jefferson finds this view almost exactly backward: "What do you do when you have uncertainty? You test," he says. "We have built huge, population-based policies on the flimsiest of scientific evidence. The most unethical thing to do is to carry on business as usual."
</em></p></div> </blockquote><p>

In short, yes, there are anti-science, anti-immunization nutters but this article definitely doesn't fall into that camp.  It's a considered examination of the lack of evidence and actually calls for gathering more data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the absence of such evidence , we are left with two possibilities .
One is that flu vaccine is in fact highly beneficial , or at least helpful .
Solid evidence to that effect would encourage more citizens--and particularly more health professionals--to get their shots and prevent the flu 's spread .
As it stands , more than 50 percent of health-care workers say they do not intend to get vaccinated for swine flu and do n't routinely get their shots for seasonal flu , in part because many of them doubt the vaccines ' efficacy .
The other possibility , of course , is that we 're relying heavily on vaccines and antivirals that simply do n't work , or do n't work as well as we believe .
And as a result , we may be neglecting other , proven measures that could minimize the death rate during pandemics .
Bah , in your rush to dismiss the author as an " anti-vaccine nut " ( and I admit they exist ) you obviously did n't bother to read the article very carefully .
See the above quote which covers your point and then read the one below which explains that the CDC and others who are heavily invested in the dogma that this particular vaccine is useful wo n't actually do the trials : These questions have led to the most controversial aspect of Jefferson 's work : his call for placebo-controlled trials , studies that would randomly give half the test subjects vaccine and the other half a dummy shot , or placebo .
Only such large , well-constructed , randomized trials can show with any precision how effective vaccine really is , and for whom .
In the flu-vaccine world , Jefferson 's call for placebo-controlled studies is considered so radical that even some of his fellow skeptics oppose it .
Majumdar , the Ottawa researcher , says he believes that evidence of a benefit among children is established and that public-health officials should try to protect seniors by immunizing children , health-care workers , and other people around them , and thus reduce the spread of the flu .
Lone Simonsen explains the prevailing view : " It is considered unethical to do trials in populations that are recommended to have vaccine , " a stance that is shared by everybody from the CDC 's Nancy Cox to Anthony Fauci at the NIH .
They feel strongly that vaccine has been shown to be effective and that a sham vaccine would put test subjects at unnecessary risk of getting a serious case of the flu .
In a phone interview , Fauci at first voiced the opinion that a placebo trial in the elderly might be acceptable , but he called back later to retract his comment , saying that such a trial " would be unethical .
" Jefferson finds this view almost exactly backward : " What do you do when you have uncertainty ?
You test , " he says .
" We have built huge , population-based policies on the flimsiest of scientific evidence .
The most unethical thing to do is to carry on business as usual .
" In short , yes , there are anti-science , anti-immunization nutters but this article definitely does n't fall into that camp .
It 's a considered examination of the lack of evidence and actually calls for gathering more data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In the absence of such evidence, we are left with two possibilities.
One is that flu vaccine is in fact highly beneficial, or at least helpful.
Solid evidence to that effect would encourage more citizens--and particularly more health professionals--to get their shots and prevent the flu's spread.
As it stands, more than 50 percent of health-care workers say they do not intend to get vaccinated for swine flu and don't routinely get their shots for seasonal flu, in part because many of them doubt the vaccines' efficacy.
The other possibility, of course, is that we're relying heavily on vaccines and antivirals that simply don't work, or don't work as well as we believe.
And as a result, we may be neglecting other, proven measures that could minimize the death rate during pandemics.
Bah, in your rush to dismiss the author as an "anti-vaccine nut" (and I admit they exist) you obviously didn't bother to read the article very carefully.
See the above quote which covers your point and then read the one below which explains that the CDC and others who are heavily invested in the dogma that this particular vaccine is useful won't actually do the trials: 
These questions have led to the most controversial aspect of Jefferson's work: his call for placebo-controlled trials, studies that would randomly give half the test subjects vaccine and the other half a dummy shot, or placebo.
Only such large, well-constructed, randomized trials can show with any precision how effective vaccine really is, and for whom.
In the flu-vaccine world, Jefferson's call for placebo-controlled studies is considered so radical that even some of his fellow skeptics oppose it.
Majumdar, the Ottawa researcher, says he believes that evidence of a benefit among children is established and that public-health officials should try to protect seniors by immunizing children, health-care workers, and other people around them, and thus reduce the spread of the flu.
Lone Simonsen explains the prevailing view: "It is considered unethical to do trials in populations that are recommended to have vaccine," a stance that is shared by everybody from the CDC's Nancy Cox to Anthony Fauci at the NIH.
They feel strongly that vaccine has been shown to be effective and that a sham vaccine would put test subjects at unnecessary risk of getting a serious case of the flu.
In a phone interview, Fauci at first voiced the opinion that a placebo trial in the elderly might be acceptable, but he called back later to retract his comment, saying that such a trial "would be unethical.
" Jefferson finds this view almost exactly backward: "What do you do when you have uncertainty?
You test," he says.
"We have built huge, population-based policies on the flimsiest of scientific evidence.
The most unethical thing to do is to carry on business as usual.
"
 

In short, yes, there are anti-science, anti-immunization nutters but this article definitely doesn't fall into that camp.
It's a considered examination of the lack of evidence and actually calls for gathering more data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780669</id>
	<title>Re:MDs should be experts in stastics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255781040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian\_inference#False\_positives\_in\_a\_medical\_test</p><p>The doctors are. Evidently, you're not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian \ _inference # False \ _positives \ _in \ _a \ _medical \ _testThe doctors are .
Evidently , you 're not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian\_inference#False\_positives\_in\_a\_medical\_testThe doctors are.
Evidently, you're not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781505</id>
	<title>Re:A confession: I smell my own farts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>oh lord, totally off topic but i LOL'd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>oh lord , totally off topic but i LOL 'd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh lord, totally off topic but i LOL'd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29792487</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255958880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep crying wolf, and more people will stop believing you when you do. Here we have scientists saying "now, why don't we check if there actually is a wolf first", and you're saying that checking will give the people who already stopped believing the wolf is coming MORE ammo to not believe the wolf is coming.</p><p>I'm saying that by crying wolf again and again, you're giving them all the ammo I need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep crying wolf , and more people will stop believing you when you do .
Here we have scientists saying " now , why do n't we check if there actually is a wolf first " , and you 're saying that checking will give the people who already stopped believing the wolf is coming MORE ammo to not believe the wolf is coming.I 'm saying that by crying wolf again and again , you 're giving them all the ammo I need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep crying wolf, and more people will stop believing you when you do.
Here we have scientists saying "now, why don't we check if there actually is a wolf first", and you're saying that checking will give the people who already stopped believing the wolf is coming MORE ammo to not believe the wolf is coming.I'm saying that by crying wolf again and again, you're giving them all the ammo I need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29783907</id>
	<title>Re:There are randomized controlled trials</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1255877940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article reminds me a lot of the early FUD against canine vaccines, because OMG they might not be what they're cracked up to be, or might even be harmful. So a lot of educated idiots stopped vaccinating dogs, and lo and behold we now have new epidemics of old diseases that used to be pretty much under control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article reminds me a lot of the early FUD against canine vaccines , because OMG they might not be what they 're cracked up to be , or might even be harmful .
So a lot of educated idiots stopped vaccinating dogs , and lo and behold we now have new epidemics of old diseases that used to be pretty much under control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article reminds me a lot of the early FUD against canine vaccines, because OMG they might not be what they're cracked up to be, or might even be harmful.
So a lot of educated idiots stopped vaccinating dogs, and lo and behold we now have new epidemics of old diseases that used to be pretty much under control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779979</id>
	<title>Re:Editorializing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255774920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you have to do is look up Vaccine on Wikipedia to see some people don't like vaccines for whatever reason ("it's god's will that we die" or whatever).  Not worth giving those freaks any more attention, really, unless these claims are different in some way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you have to do is look up Vaccine on Wikipedia to see some people do n't like vaccines for whatever reason ( " it 's god 's will that we die " or whatever ) .
Not worth giving those freaks any more attention , really , unless these claims are different in some way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you have to do is look up Vaccine on Wikipedia to see some people don't like vaccines for whatever reason ("it's god's will that we die" or whatever).
Not worth giving those freaks any more attention, really, unless these claims are different in some way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780293</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of antivaxxers</title>
	<author>farnsworth</author>
	<datestamp>1255777500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots.</p></div><p>
Presumably if vaccines were either effective or ineffective the insurance companies would want to know which is which, right?  Or is there some sort of calculus that says that vaccines could be effective for a given individual, but not cost effective for a larger group?  I, a lay, would assume that "effective" and "cost effective" are the same, but I may be missing something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots .
Presumably if vaccines were either effective or ineffective the insurance companies would want to know which is which , right ?
Or is there some sort of calculus that says that vaccines could be effective for a given individual , but not cost effective for a larger group ?
I , a lay , would assume that " effective " and " cost effective " are the same , but I may be missing something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots.
Presumably if vaccines were either effective or ineffective the insurance companies would want to know which is which, right?
Or is there some sort of calculus that says that vaccines could be effective for a given individual, but not cost effective for a larger group?
I, a lay, would assume that "effective" and "cost effective" are the same, but I may be missing something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781133</id>
	<title>Re:San Diego testbed</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1255787280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"H1N1 in San Diego is a KILLER... three atypical deaths recently..."</p><p>How many atypical deaths did San Diego got last year by these dates?  You might be surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" H1N1 in San Diego is a KILLER... three atypical deaths recently... " How many atypical deaths did San Diego got last year by these dates ?
You might be surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"H1N1 in San Diego is a KILLER... three atypical deaths recently..."How many atypical deaths did San Diego got last year by these dates?
You might be surprised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781367</id>
	<title>Re:Editorializing</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1255790400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; some people don't like vaccines for whatever reason<br><br>Okay, a few wackos don't like vaccines in general, but the flu vaccine is different, for several reasons:<br><br>First, you have to keep getting it every year.  Most vaccines you only need once.  Tetanus requires a booster every ten years, and we think that's annoying.  Every year?  Come on, it's not even worth it.<br><br>Second, there are serious questions about whether flu is a sufficiently  serious illness to warrant a vaccine (even if we had a really *effective* one, which we don't).  On the one hand, yes, if you don't get the vaccine, there's something like a 20\% chance you'll get the flu in any given year.  On the other hand, it's just the flu.  Take a couple of para-acetylaminophenol tablets and quit whining.<br><br>Third, *lots* of vaccinated people get the flu anyway, to the point     where a double-digit percentage of the population has come to believe that the vaccine is completely worthless -- not because they don't want to prevent sickness, but because they don't believe the flu vaccine prevents sickness to any significant extent.  This is not how vaccines are supposed to work.<br><br>A vaccine is supposed to *prevent* the recipient from getting the disease.  You get the shot as a young child, and you never get the disease, that's how it's supposed to work.  No one claims that the flu vaccines work in this manner.  Proponents of the vaccine claim that if everyone receives it every year, the illness will be less common.<br><br>If it were a serious illness, like cancer, getting a vaccine every year to make the illness somewhat less common might make sense.  But we're only talking about the flu.  Far from being a life-threatening disease (unless you're already on death's door, in which case *anything* is life-threatening), the flu in the overwhelming majority of cases doesn't even cause severe inconvenience (like, say, a month of lost work).  It causes... minor discomfort, for a couple of days.  *Yawn*.  I'll take my chances.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; some people do n't like vaccines for whatever reasonOkay , a few wackos do n't like vaccines in general , but the flu vaccine is different , for several reasons : First , you have to keep getting it every year .
Most vaccines you only need once .
Tetanus requires a booster every ten years , and we think that 's annoying .
Every year ?
Come on , it 's not even worth it.Second , there are serious questions about whether flu is a sufficiently serious illness to warrant a vaccine ( even if we had a really * effective * one , which we do n't ) .
On the one hand , yes , if you do n't get the vaccine , there 's something like a 20 \ % chance you 'll get the flu in any given year .
On the other hand , it 's just the flu .
Take a couple of para-acetylaminophenol tablets and quit whining.Third , * lots * of vaccinated people get the flu anyway , to the point where a double-digit percentage of the population has come to believe that the vaccine is completely worthless -- not because they do n't want to prevent sickness , but because they do n't believe the flu vaccine prevents sickness to any significant extent .
This is not how vaccines are supposed to work.A vaccine is supposed to * prevent * the recipient from getting the disease .
You get the shot as a young child , and you never get the disease , that 's how it 's supposed to work .
No one claims that the flu vaccines work in this manner .
Proponents of the vaccine claim that if everyone receives it every year , the illness will be less common.If it were a serious illness , like cancer , getting a vaccine every year to make the illness somewhat less common might make sense .
But we 're only talking about the flu .
Far from being a life-threatening disease ( unless you 're already on death 's door , in which case * anything * is life-threatening ) , the flu in the overwhelming majority of cases does n't even cause severe inconvenience ( like , say , a month of lost work ) .
It causes... minor discomfort , for a couple of days .
* Yawn * . I 'll take my chances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; some people don't like vaccines for whatever reasonOkay, a few wackos don't like vaccines in general, but the flu vaccine is different, for several reasons:First, you have to keep getting it every year.
Most vaccines you only need once.
Tetanus requires a booster every ten years, and we think that's annoying.
Every year?
Come on, it's not even worth it.Second, there are serious questions about whether flu is a sufficiently  serious illness to warrant a vaccine (even if we had a really *effective* one, which we don't).
On the one hand, yes, if you don't get the vaccine, there's something like a 20\% chance you'll get the flu in any given year.
On the other hand, it's just the flu.
Take a couple of para-acetylaminophenol tablets and quit whining.Third, *lots* of vaccinated people get the flu anyway, to the point     where a double-digit percentage of the population has come to believe that the vaccine is completely worthless -- not because they don't want to prevent sickness, but because they don't believe the flu vaccine prevents sickness to any significant extent.
This is not how vaccines are supposed to work.A vaccine is supposed to *prevent* the recipient from getting the disease.
You get the shot as a young child, and you never get the disease, that's how it's supposed to work.
No one claims that the flu vaccines work in this manner.
Proponents of the vaccine claim that if everyone receives it every year, the illness will be less common.If it were a serious illness, like cancer, getting a vaccine every year to make the illness somewhat less common might make sense.
But we're only talking about the flu.
Far from being a life-threatening disease (unless you're already on death's door, in which case *anything* is life-threatening), the flu in the overwhelming majority of cases doesn't even cause severe inconvenience (like, say, a month of lost work).
It causes... minor discomfort, for a couple of days.
*Yawn*.  I'll take my chances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780329</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of antivaxxers</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255777800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not it being profit-focused that's the problem. I too mixed this up at first.<br>But then I heard about how it's handled in China: There doctors only get money for healty clients in the group they are assinged to.<br>Let's say they are assigned to 5000 people. And for every sick one, they get X Yu&#225;n less, so that if badness of the percentage of sick people is parallel to the badness of the money they will get. Then they will be very motivated to keep people healthy, and to earn money, because it will be the same thing.</p><p>Of course, as someone pointed out, doctors could still declare people as healthy who are not, to get the money. But that again could be solved by allowing people to back-check with unrelated doctors, and if those would find the person to not be healthy, cause a government control guy to investigate the first doctor in a very strict way. Which then could be countered by bribing the government guy. And so on... until the patient smashes the doctor's head in. Or the doctor injects some deadly drug into the person.</p><p>I guess unless someone proves mathematically, that the system can't be tricked, crooks will always be crooks, and always try to do their thing. And the others will always fight it.</p><p>It may only be solved with psychology, going straight to the reason those people act like crooks in the first place, and solving that. Read my sig. Why do you think I have chosen those words? ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not it being profit-focused that 's the problem .
I too mixed this up at first.But then I heard about how it 's handled in China : There doctors only get money for healty clients in the group they are assinged to.Let 's say they are assigned to 5000 people .
And for every sick one , they get X Yu   n less , so that if badness of the percentage of sick people is parallel to the badness of the money they will get .
Then they will be very motivated to keep people healthy , and to earn money , because it will be the same thing.Of course , as someone pointed out , doctors could still declare people as healthy who are not , to get the money .
But that again could be solved by allowing people to back-check with unrelated doctors , and if those would find the person to not be healthy , cause a government control guy to investigate the first doctor in a very strict way .
Which then could be countered by bribing the government guy .
And so on... until the patient smashes the doctor 's head in .
Or the doctor injects some deadly drug into the person.I guess unless someone proves mathematically , that the system ca n't be tricked , crooks will always be crooks , and always try to do their thing .
And the others will always fight it.It may only be solved with psychology , going straight to the reason those people act like crooks in the first place , and solving that .
Read my sig .
Why do you think I have chosen those words ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not it being profit-focused that's the problem.
I too mixed this up at first.But then I heard about how it's handled in China: There doctors only get money for healty clients in the group they are assinged to.Let's say they are assigned to 5000 people.
And for every sick one, they get X Yuán less, so that if badness of the percentage of sick people is parallel to the badness of the money they will get.
Then they will be very motivated to keep people healthy, and to earn money, because it will be the same thing.Of course, as someone pointed out, doctors could still declare people as healthy who are not, to get the money.
But that again could be solved by allowing people to back-check with unrelated doctors, and if those would find the person to not be healthy, cause a government control guy to investigate the first doctor in a very strict way.
Which then could be countered by bribing the government guy.
And so on... until the patient smashes the doctor's head in.
Or the doctor injects some deadly drug into the person.I guess unless someone proves mathematically, that the system can't be tricked, crooks will always be crooks, and always try to do their thing.
And the others will always fight it.It may only be solved with psychology, going straight to the reason those people act like crooks in the first place, and solving that.
Read my sig.
Why do you think I have chosen those words?
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779955</id>
	<title>Define "flu"</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1255774560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the research I've read recently claims we have no solid definition of the mortality rate of the "flu".  The problem is unless you take a culture and analyze it in a lab, you can't tell if the disease is really influenza or one of a hundred or so others that cause similar symptoms.  But people who report to their doctor about symptoms aren't always lab tested to see exactly what they have.  It'll get noted as "the flu", when it may not be influenza at all, skewing all the statistics.</p><p>The <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1" title="theatlantic.com">article I was reading</a> [theatlantic.com] in Atlantic Monthly makes the claim that people who die from flu-like symptoms aren't always lab tested, either.  Thus, the mortality rates for "the flu" may have little to do with influenza.</p><p>While we as a society have had great success with vaccination campaigns against diseases like the measles, mumps, rubella, polio and small pox, the same can't convincingly be said about influenza.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the research I 've read recently claims we have no solid definition of the mortality rate of the " flu " .
The problem is unless you take a culture and analyze it in a lab , you ca n't tell if the disease is really influenza or one of a hundred or so others that cause similar symptoms .
But people who report to their doctor about symptoms are n't always lab tested to see exactly what they have .
It 'll get noted as " the flu " , when it may not be influenza at all , skewing all the statistics.The article I was reading [ theatlantic.com ] in Atlantic Monthly makes the claim that people who die from flu-like symptoms are n't always lab tested , either .
Thus , the mortality rates for " the flu " may have little to do with influenza.While we as a society have had great success with vaccination campaigns against diseases like the measles , mumps , rubella , polio and small pox , the same ca n't convincingly be said about influenza .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the research I've read recently claims we have no solid definition of the mortality rate of the "flu".
The problem is unless you take a culture and analyze it in a lab, you can't tell if the disease is really influenza or one of a hundred or so others that cause similar symptoms.
But people who report to their doctor about symptoms aren't always lab tested to see exactly what they have.
It'll get noted as "the flu", when it may not be influenza at all, skewing all the statistics.The article I was reading [theatlantic.com] in Atlantic Monthly makes the claim that people who die from flu-like symptoms aren't always lab tested, either.
Thus, the mortality rates for "the flu" may have little to do with influenza.While we as a society have had great success with vaccination campaigns against diseases like the measles, mumps, rubella, polio and small pox, the same can't convincingly be said about influenza.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780135</id>
	<title>Re:Good article</title>
	<author>rs79</author>
	<datestamp>1255776120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Let's pray that science wins out over irrationality."</p><p>That's what the article's point is! It's not saying "vaccines don't work" it's saying "they say vaccines reduce the death rate by 50\% and the numbers don't bear that out. What's the real number?"</p><p>And that's a fair question. We know the virus isn't 100\% effective, it damn near killed this girl: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?pg=q&amp;fmt=.&amp;q=dystonia+flu+vaccine" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?pg=q&amp;fmt=.&amp;q=dystonia+flu+vaccine</a> [google.com]</p><p>Neither though is anybody saying the vaccine is zero percent effective or universally toxic, what happened above is a rare edge case (but as an aside it would be nice to be able to predict when this was going to happen, this is a fairly *catastrophic* edge case).</p><p>But the examples brought up in the article do suggest there is sustantive argument that the claimes reductin of 50\% reduction in martaliry rate is indeed in question, that's all.</p><p>Nobody's actually measuring people who have anti-bodies of a specific type, the data gathered is fairly meaningless by lumping a lot of things (rhinovirus, coronovirus etc) as "flu", also the cohort factor and related effects do have a demonsterable non-zero effect on the mortality rate.</p><p>So, it's not a question of is the vaccine useful or nor, more like a plea for more accurate analysis and gathering of the data in question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Let 's pray that science wins out over irrationality .
" That 's what the article 's point is !
It 's not saying " vaccines do n't work " it 's saying " they say vaccines reduce the death rate by 50 \ % and the numbers do n't bear that out .
What 's the real number ?
" And that 's a fair question .
We know the virus is n't 100 \ % effective , it damn near killed this girl : http : //www.google.com/search ? pg = q&amp;fmt = .&amp;q = dystonia + flu + vaccine [ google.com ] Neither though is anybody saying the vaccine is zero percent effective or universally toxic , what happened above is a rare edge case ( but as an aside it would be nice to be able to predict when this was going to happen , this is a fairly * catastrophic * edge case ) .But the examples brought up in the article do suggest there is sustantive argument that the claimes reductin of 50 \ % reduction in martaliry rate is indeed in question , that 's all.Nobody 's actually measuring people who have anti-bodies of a specific type , the data gathered is fairly meaningless by lumping a lot of things ( rhinovirus , coronovirus etc ) as " flu " , also the cohort factor and related effects do have a demonsterable non-zero effect on the mortality rate.So , it 's not a question of is the vaccine useful or nor , more like a plea for more accurate analysis and gathering of the data in question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Let's pray that science wins out over irrationality.
"That's what the article's point is!
It's not saying "vaccines don't work" it's saying "they say vaccines reduce the death rate by 50\% and the numbers don't bear that out.
What's the real number?
"And that's a fair question.
We know the virus isn't 100\% effective, it damn near killed this girl: http://www.google.com/search?pg=q&amp;fmt=.&amp;q=dystonia+flu+vaccine [google.com]Neither though is anybody saying the vaccine is zero percent effective or universally toxic, what happened above is a rare edge case (but as an aside it would be nice to be able to predict when this was going to happen, this is a fairly *catastrophic* edge case).But the examples brought up in the article do suggest there is sustantive argument that the claimes reductin of 50\% reduction in martaliry rate is indeed in question, that's all.Nobody's actually measuring people who have anti-bodies of a specific type, the data gathered is fairly meaningless by lumping a lot of things (rhinovirus, coronovirus etc) as "flu", also the cohort factor and related effects do have a demonsterable non-zero effect on the mortality rate.So, it's not a question of is the vaccine useful or nor, more like a plea for more accurate analysis and gathering of the data in question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780305</id>
	<title>It's not that simple</title>
	<author>Rix</author>
	<datestamp>1255777620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flu vaccines do save lives, just not necessarily the lives of the people who get them. By not getting the vaccine you expose other, more vulnerable people to higher risk.</p><p>Not getting vaccinated is highly irresponsible, and anyone who doesn't should be quarantined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flu vaccines do save lives , just not necessarily the lives of the people who get them .
By not getting the vaccine you expose other , more vulnerable people to higher risk.Not getting vaccinated is highly irresponsible , and anyone who does n't should be quarantined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flu vaccines do save lives, just not necessarily the lives of the people who get them.
By not getting the vaccine you expose other, more vulnerable people to higher risk.Not getting vaccinated is highly irresponsible, and anyone who doesn't should be quarantined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782487</id>
	<title>Wear your shoes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255897140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think vaccines work get one.<br>They work or they don't.<br>You believe what you want to believe.<br>It does not make your vaccine shot less effective if I don't get one - does it??<br>It easier to cover YOUR feet with leather than to cover the whole world.<br>Wear your shoes - leave others in peace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think vaccines work get one.They work or they do n't.You believe what you want to believe.It does not make your vaccine shot less effective if I do n't get one - does it ?
? It easier to cover YOUR feet with leather than to cover the whole world.Wear your shoes - leave others in peace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think vaccines work get one.They work or they don't.You believe what you want to believe.It does not make your vaccine shot less effective if I don't get one - does it?
?It easier to cover YOUR feet with leather than to cover the whole world.Wear your shoes - leave others in peace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784383</id>
	<title>Re:As soon as you mentioned "Group Health"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255882080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Up here in the Pacific Northwest, the common nickname of this HMO is "Group Death". </i></p><p>Um yeah in the 50's by doctors that wanted to keep the status quo.  And they aren't an HMO but a co-op.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Up here in the Pacific Northwest , the common nickname of this HMO is " Group Death " .
Um yeah in the 50 's by doctors that wanted to keep the status quo .
And they are n't an HMO but a co-op .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Up here in the Pacific Northwest, the common nickname of this HMO is "Group Death".
Um yeah in the 50's by doctors that wanted to keep the status quo.
And they aren't an HMO but a co-op.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780013</id>
	<title>Vaccine still good, even if study is accurate.</title>
	<author>GryMor</author>
	<datestamp>1255775100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if the flu vaccine does nothing to reduce mortality directly, it would still be a societal benefit if it, on average, delays infection by a few days as it would spread out the infections over time giving the medical infrastructure a better chance of not being overwhelmed during a pandemic.</p><p>Additionally, retrospective studies (as opposed to randomized trials), really suck at identifying the magnitude of conflating factors (but can be good in indicating that there ARE conflating factors).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the flu vaccine does nothing to reduce mortality directly , it would still be a societal benefit if it , on average , delays infection by a few days as it would spread out the infections over time giving the medical infrastructure a better chance of not being overwhelmed during a pandemic.Additionally , retrospective studies ( as opposed to randomized trials ) , really suck at identifying the magnitude of conflating factors ( but can be good in indicating that there ARE conflating factors ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the flu vaccine does nothing to reduce mortality directly, it would still be a societal benefit if it, on average, delays infection by a few days as it would spread out the infections over time giving the medical infrastructure a better chance of not being overwhelmed during a pandemic.Additionally, retrospective studies (as opposed to randomized trials), really suck at identifying the magnitude of conflating factors (but can be good in indicating that there ARE conflating factors).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779875</id>
	<title>There are many obstacles to overcome</title>
	<author>irtza</author>
	<datestamp>1255773720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Due to a long history of unethical behavior in the medical field, there are stringent requirements that require one to show a need for research and to demonstrate safety concerns before one can begin an investigation.</p><p>This often means that simple experiments that could show benefit and harm of an intervention will not be done because of a large body of circumstantial evidence.</p><p>There has to be a fairly even view of outcomes on both sides of a trial before it will be approved - or other studies showing possible efficacy of the side that is under question will need to be done first.</p><p>When these situations arise, one can often perform the experiment in a subset of the population in which vaccine efficacy is questioned and benefits are unknown.</p><p>The population of HIV infected individuals is one such population and there are double-blind placebo controlled trials done in this group.<br>The annals of internal medicine (an American College of Phyicians publication) <a href="http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/131/6/430" title="annals.org">http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/131/6/430</a> [annals.org] published an investigation showing the efficacy of the influenza vaccine in a population that was least likely to benefit from it.  While mortality data is not available here, its results stand on their own as a testament to the clinical efficacy of the vaccine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to a long history of unethical behavior in the medical field , there are stringent requirements that require one to show a need for research and to demonstrate safety concerns before one can begin an investigation.This often means that simple experiments that could show benefit and harm of an intervention will not be done because of a large body of circumstantial evidence.There has to be a fairly even view of outcomes on both sides of a trial before it will be approved - or other studies showing possible efficacy of the side that is under question will need to be done first.When these situations arise , one can often perform the experiment in a subset of the population in which vaccine efficacy is questioned and benefits are unknown.The population of HIV infected individuals is one such population and there are double-blind placebo controlled trials done in this group.The annals of internal medicine ( an American College of Phyicians publication ) http : //www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/131/6/430 [ annals.org ] published an investigation showing the efficacy of the influenza vaccine in a population that was least likely to benefit from it .
While mortality data is not available here , its results stand on their own as a testament to the clinical efficacy of the vaccine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Due to a long history of unethical behavior in the medical field, there are stringent requirements that require one to show a need for research and to demonstrate safety concerns before one can begin an investigation.This often means that simple experiments that could show benefit and harm of an intervention will not be done because of a large body of circumstantial evidence.There has to be a fairly even view of outcomes on both sides of a trial before it will be approved - or other studies showing possible efficacy of the side that is under question will need to be done first.When these situations arise, one can often perform the experiment in a subset of the population in which vaccine efficacy is questioned and benefits are unknown.The population of HIV infected individuals is one such population and there are double-blind placebo controlled trials done in this group.The annals of internal medicine (an American College of Phyicians publication) http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/131/6/430 [annals.org] published an investigation showing the efficacy of the influenza vaccine in a population that was least likely to benefit from it.
While mortality data is not available here, its results stand on their own as a testament to the clinical efficacy of the vaccine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779757</id>
	<title>All I have is an anecdote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255772760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It really seems the data can be massaged to draw any conclusion that is desired.  In my case, up until three years ago I had never had a flu shot.  During a typical winter I would be sick at least twice on average, usually missing about four or five days of work in total.  Since I've started having seasonal flu shots I have not had any winter illness and missed no time from work.  While hardly scientific, it seems to me that the downside/upside in my personal case weighs heavily towards receiving the vaccine.  There are clearly other viruses in human history where vaccination has had a profound and measurable effect which is beyond debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really seems the data can be massaged to draw any conclusion that is desired .
In my case , up until three years ago I had never had a flu shot .
During a typical winter I would be sick at least twice on average , usually missing about four or five days of work in total .
Since I 've started having seasonal flu shots I have not had any winter illness and missed no time from work .
While hardly scientific , it seems to me that the downside/upside in my personal case weighs heavily towards receiving the vaccine .
There are clearly other viruses in human history where vaccination has had a profound and measurable effect which is beyond debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really seems the data can be massaged to draw any conclusion that is desired.
In my case, up until three years ago I had never had a flu shot.
During a typical winter I would be sick at least twice on average, usually missing about four or five days of work in total.
Since I've started having seasonal flu shots I have not had any winter illness and missed no time from work.
While hardly scientific, it seems to me that the downside/upside in my personal case weighs heavily towards receiving the vaccine.
There are clearly other viruses in human history where vaccination has had a profound and measurable effect which is beyond debate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29846073</id>
	<title>placebo controlled studies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256312880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/13/1260<br>Methods: We carried out a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of licensed inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccines in healthy adults during the 2007&ndash;2008 influenza season and estimated the absolute and relative efficacies of the two vaccines.<br>Results: Absolute efficacy against both types of influenza, as measured by isolating the virus in culture, identifying it on real-time polymerase-chain-reaction assay, or both, was 68\% (95\% confidence interval [CI], 46 to 81)</p><p>68\% is about standard for seasonal flu vaccine efficacy -- because researches have to guess at the likely circulating forms of flu virus in the coming year when developing vaccine the year before the viruses appear and do not usually guess all of the forms correctly. However, it is reasonable to assume that the H1N1 vaccine will be more effective because we knew the form of flu that was likely to circulate this winter when it appeared last spring and developed a vaccine against it.</p><p>The flu vaccine promotes the growth of antibodies against the types of flu in the vaccine and decreases the chance of getting those flu strains in the vaccines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/13/1260Methods : We carried out a randomized , double-blind , placebo-controlled trial of licensed inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccines in healthy adults during the 2007    2008 influenza season and estimated the absolute and relative efficacies of the two vaccines.Results : Absolute efficacy against both types of influenza , as measured by isolating the virus in culture , identifying it on real-time polymerase-chain-reaction assay , or both , was 68 \ % ( 95 \ % confidence interval [ CI ] , 46 to 81 ) 68 \ % is about standard for seasonal flu vaccine efficacy -- because researches have to guess at the likely circulating forms of flu virus in the coming year when developing vaccine the year before the viruses appear and do not usually guess all of the forms correctly .
However , it is reasonable to assume that the H1N1 vaccine will be more effective because we knew the form of flu that was likely to circulate this winter when it appeared last spring and developed a vaccine against it.The flu vaccine promotes the growth of antibodies against the types of flu in the vaccine and decreases the chance of getting those flu strains in the vaccines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/13/1260Methods: We carried out a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of licensed inactivated and live attenuated influenza vaccines in healthy adults during the 2007–2008 influenza season and estimated the absolute and relative efficacies of the two vaccines.Results: Absolute efficacy against both types of influenza, as measured by isolating the virus in culture, identifying it on real-time polymerase-chain-reaction assay, or both, was 68\% (95\% confidence interval [CI], 46 to 81)68\% is about standard for seasonal flu vaccine efficacy -- because researches have to guess at the likely circulating forms of flu virus in the coming year when developing vaccine the year before the viruses appear and do not usually guess all of the forms correctly.
However, it is reasonable to assume that the H1N1 vaccine will be more effective because we knew the form of flu that was likely to circulate this winter when it appeared last spring and developed a vaccine against it.The flu vaccine promotes the growth of antibodies against the types of flu in the vaccine and decreases the chance of getting those flu strains in the vaccines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779793</id>
	<title>It's not you, it's who you'd infect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The flu shot is not about preventing you from dying.  It's to avoid you from getting sick and infecting other people who may have weaker immune systems and have higher risk of dying if they get sick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The flu shot is not about preventing you from dying .
It 's to avoid you from getting sick and infecting other people who may have weaker immune systems and have higher risk of dying if they get sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flu shot is not about preventing you from dying.
It's to avoid you from getting sick and infecting other people who may have weaker immune systems and have higher risk of dying if they get sick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780027</id>
	<title>MDs should be experts in stastics</title>
	<author>virtualXTC</author>
	<datestamp>1255775220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is yet another reason the health care system is broken.  To get an MDs you only need to memorize and regurgitate little application of science or statistics.  Beyond the mess of the efficacy of the vaccine, patients are given false information all the time.  FTA (a doctor diagnosing meningitis):
<p><div class="quote"><p> There is a tiny chance, says Newman, that the illness is caused by a bacterium, which can be deadly, but he is almost positive that&rsquo;s not what the tourist has. He says to his patient, &ldquo;I can&rsquo;t tell you with 100 percent certainty that you don&rsquo;t have it...</p> </div><p>
He's not 100 percent certain, yet he tells the patent that anyway!?!  How f-ed up is that?  Is it any wonder heath insurance cost so much with all the malpractice going on?  Malpractice suits don't even help.  MDs are insured and only have to spend a few days in court if some one calls them out on it then if they are proven wrong the Hospital insurance takes the fall and all our costs go up while the MDs pay stays the same.  What we really need to do is hold each physician criminally responsible for what they say and do in a clinical setting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is yet another reason the health care system is broken .
To get an MDs you only need to memorize and regurgitate little application of science or statistics .
Beyond the mess of the efficacy of the vaccine , patients are given false information all the time .
FTA ( a doctor diagnosing meningitis ) : There is a tiny chance , says Newman , that the illness is caused by a bacterium , which can be deadly , but he is almost positive that    s not what the tourist has .
He says to his patient ,    I can    t tell you with 100 percent certainty that you don    t have it.. . He 's not 100 percent certain , yet he tells the patent that anyway ! ? !
How f-ed up is that ?
Is it any wonder heath insurance cost so much with all the malpractice going on ?
Malpractice suits do n't even help .
MDs are insured and only have to spend a few days in court if some one calls them out on it then if they are proven wrong the Hospital insurance takes the fall and all our costs go up while the MDs pay stays the same .
What we really need to do is hold each physician criminally responsible for what they say and do in a clinical setting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is yet another reason the health care system is broken.
To get an MDs you only need to memorize and regurgitate little application of science or statistics.
Beyond the mess of the efficacy of the vaccine, patients are given false information all the time.
FTA (a doctor diagnosing meningitis):
 There is a tiny chance, says Newman, that the illness is caused by a bacterium, which can be deadly, but he is almost positive that’s not what the tourist has.
He says to his patient, “I can’t tell you with 100 percent certainty that you don’t have it... 
He's not 100 percent certain, yet he tells the patent that anyway!?!
How f-ed up is that?
Is it any wonder heath insurance cost so much with all the malpractice going on?
Malpractice suits don't even help.
MDs are insured and only have to spend a few days in court if some one calls them out on it then if they are proven wrong the Hospital insurance takes the fall and all our costs go up while the MDs pay stays the same.
What we really need to do is hold each physician criminally responsible for what they say and do in a clinical setting.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897</id>
	<title>Beware of antivaxxers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's commendable that folks still challenge received wisdom, and are actually attempting to answer difficult questions, as opposed to merely sweeping them under the carpet.</p><p>However at the same time, we need to be super, super careful that we don't encourage the fringe extremist nutters in the antivax movement, who are sure to seize upon doubts of the efficacy of the swine flu vaccine as PROOF that all vaccination is bad, and that we should protect our kids by going to flu and chickenpox parties because it's "natural".</p><p>And I would need convincing that this isn't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots.  Gotta love profit-focused private "health" care, and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's commendable that folks still challenge received wisdom , and are actually attempting to answer difficult questions , as opposed to merely sweeping them under the carpet.However at the same time , we need to be super , super careful that we do n't encourage the fringe extremist nutters in the antivax movement , who are sure to seize upon doubts of the efficacy of the swine flu vaccine as PROOF that all vaccination is bad , and that we should protect our kids by going to flu and chickenpox parties because it 's " natural " .And I would need convincing that this is n't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots .
Got ta love profit-focused private " health " care , and its useful idiot defenders on the Right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's commendable that folks still challenge received wisdom, and are actually attempting to answer difficult questions, as opposed to merely sweeping them under the carpet.However at the same time, we need to be super, super careful that we don't encourage the fringe extremist nutters in the antivax movement, who are sure to seize upon doubts of the efficacy of the swine flu vaccine as PROOF that all vaccination is bad, and that we should protect our kids by going to flu and chickenpox parties because it's "natural".And I would need convincing that this isn't some kind of stunt by Group Health or other elements of the private health industry to wriggle out of paying for flu shots.
Gotta love profit-focused private "health" care, and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780443</id>
	<title>Uhhh.... use science much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255778940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, as others have stated this research is questionable based on many published, properly blinded studies.</p><p>Second, the point of the flu vaccine is not only to decrease mortality due to the flu.  It also, surprise, keeps you from getting the flu.  So, you don't spend a week or two in bed missing work, vacation, your kid's birthday or whatever.  And, it keeps you from spreading the flu.  It's a public health issue more than anything else.  If you're vaccinated and come in contact with the flu, it dies and you don't spread it.  This spares other people from coming in contact with it including people who aren't vaccinated and might die from it.</p><p>Thanks, kdawson, for popularizing this woo-woo riddled crap.  This place is start to look the nerd version of the Huffington Post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , as others have stated this research is questionable based on many published , properly blinded studies.Second , the point of the flu vaccine is not only to decrease mortality due to the flu .
It also , surprise , keeps you from getting the flu .
So , you do n't spend a week or two in bed missing work , vacation , your kid 's birthday or whatever .
And , it keeps you from spreading the flu .
It 's a public health issue more than anything else .
If you 're vaccinated and come in contact with the flu , it dies and you do n't spread it .
This spares other people from coming in contact with it including people who are n't vaccinated and might die from it.Thanks , kdawson , for popularizing this woo-woo riddled crap .
This place is start to look the nerd version of the Huffington Post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, as others have stated this research is questionable based on many published, properly blinded studies.Second, the point of the flu vaccine is not only to decrease mortality due to the flu.
It also, surprise, keeps you from getting the flu.
So, you don't spend a week or two in bed missing work, vacation, your kid's birthday or whatever.
And, it keeps you from spreading the flu.
It's a public health issue more than anything else.
If you're vaccinated and come in contact with the flu, it dies and you don't spread it.
This spares other people from coming in contact with it including people who aren't vaccinated and might die from it.Thanks, kdawson, for popularizing this woo-woo riddled crap.
This place is start to look the nerd version of the Huffington Post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780003</id>
	<title>Of course mortality is unaffected: it's still 100\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255775040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although with the taxes we're going to have to pay to get out from under the drunken sailor spending sprees of Bush and Obama, we're all going to feel like we've died twice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although with the taxes we 're going to have to pay to get out from under the drunken sailor spending sprees of Bush and Obama , we 're all going to feel like we 've died twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although with the taxes we're going to have to pay to get out from under the drunken sailor spending sprees of Bush and Obama, we're all going to feel like we've died twice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781147</id>
	<title>Re:Beware of antivaxxers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255787640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.</p></div><p>I really liked your post until you gave away your ignorance. To think that the Left isn't motivated by the exact same things (lobbyists/bribes/brainwashing) as the Right is blatantly, and dangerously, ignorant. A good citizen is a skeptic citizen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.I really liked your post until you gave away your ignorance .
To think that the Left is n't motivated by the exact same things ( lobbyists/bribes/brainwashing ) as the Right is blatantly , and dangerously , ignorant .
A good citizen is a skeptic citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and its useful idiot defenders on the Right.I really liked your post until you gave away your ignorance.
To think that the Left isn't motivated by the exact same things (lobbyists/bribes/brainwashing) as the Right is blatantly, and dangerously, ignorant.
A good citizen is a skeptic citizen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781991</id>
	<title>Unethical</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1255801920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IOW, the point of the vaccine is to prevent the pandemic, not to protect you. So the *right* question to ask is, does the H1N1 vaccine confer any immunity to the recipient?</p></div><p>
If the vaccine does not protect the recipient then it would be unethical to give it because of the tiny, but non-zero, risk of serious complications and even death from the vaccination itself. Assuming a one in a million rate of problems then in country the size of Canada you would effectively be harming or killing 30 people a year to <em>reduce</em> (not stop) the spread of the flu. To put it another way would you advocate harming (e.g. remove one kidney) or killing 30 people every year if using their organs, tissues etc. could save the lives of 3,000?
<br> <br>
When I go to the doctor I want to make sure that he or she is thinking about what is best for me, not what might be best for everyone else. If they are not doing so then how can you trust their medical advice?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IOW , the point of the vaccine is to prevent the pandemic , not to protect you .
So the * right * question to ask is , does the H1N1 vaccine confer any immunity to the recipient ?
If the vaccine does not protect the recipient then it would be unethical to give it because of the tiny , but non-zero , risk of serious complications and even death from the vaccination itself .
Assuming a one in a million rate of problems then in country the size of Canada you would effectively be harming or killing 30 people a year to reduce ( not stop ) the spread of the flu .
To put it another way would you advocate harming ( e.g .
remove one kidney ) or killing 30 people every year if using their organs , tissues etc .
could save the lives of 3,000 ?
When I go to the doctor I want to make sure that he or she is thinking about what is best for me , not what might be best for everyone else .
If they are not doing so then how can you trust their medical advice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IOW, the point of the vaccine is to prevent the pandemic, not to protect you.
So the *right* question to ask is, does the H1N1 vaccine confer any immunity to the recipient?
If the vaccine does not protect the recipient then it would be unethical to give it because of the tiny, but non-zero, risk of serious complications and even death from the vaccination itself.
Assuming a one in a million rate of problems then in country the size of Canada you would effectively be harming or killing 30 people a year to reduce (not stop) the spread of the flu.
To put it another way would you advocate harming (e.g.
remove one kidney) or killing 30 people every year if using their organs, tissues etc.
could save the lives of 3,000?
When I go to the doctor I want to make sure that he or she is thinking about what is best for me, not what might be best for everyone else.
If they are not doing so then how can you trust their medical advice?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780747</id>
	<title>1976 Swine Flu Innoculation deaths, and propoganda</title>
	<author>NRAdude</author>
	<datestamp>1255781820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is a video from back in the 1976 time frame of the US Government and Pharmaceutical companies <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASibLqwVbsk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">trying to scare people into buying a vaccine.</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>As it turned out, the vaccine killed more people and the US Government payed-out $100's of millions to claimants.</p><p>Just go herbal, and consider O-Zone therapy, Colloidal Silver, and building <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1otPs4slq0" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Dr. Robert Beck's device for electrification of the blood.</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a video from back in the 1976 time frame of the US Government and Pharmaceutical companies trying to scare people into buying a vaccine .
[ youtube.com ] As it turned out , the vaccine killed more people and the US Government payed-out $ 100 's of millions to claimants.Just go herbal , and consider O-Zone therapy , Colloidal Silver , and building Dr. Robert Beck 's device for electrification of the blood .
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a video from back in the 1976 time frame of the US Government and Pharmaceutical companies trying to scare people into buying a vaccine.
[youtube.com]As it turned out, the vaccine killed more people and the US Government payed-out $100's of millions to claimants.Just go herbal, and consider O-Zone therapy, Colloidal Silver, and building Dr. Robert Beck's device for electrification of the blood.
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784461</id>
	<title>Re:Editorializing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255882980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, they are suggesting something different. RTFA. There's no scientific evidence that the flu vaccine A: helps, or B: doesn't hurt. TFA points out that when the vaccine was for the wrong strain or was underproduced, there was no increase in the number of deaths from influenza. If a bunch of people are running around thinking "i'm immune" and they aren't, wouldn't they be more likely to spread disease? "I can go to work even though I have a fever, I got the flu vaccine!"</p><p>Junk science is not what we need here. A double blind study is needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , they are suggesting something different .
RTFA. There 's no scientific evidence that the flu vaccine A : helps , or B : does n't hurt .
TFA points out that when the vaccine was for the wrong strain or was underproduced , there was no increase in the number of deaths from influenza .
If a bunch of people are running around thinking " i 'm immune " and they are n't , would n't they be more likely to spread disease ?
" I can go to work even though I have a fever , I got the flu vaccine !
" Junk science is not what we need here .
A double blind study is needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, they are suggesting something different.
RTFA. There's no scientific evidence that the flu vaccine A: helps, or B: doesn't hurt.
TFA points out that when the vaccine was for the wrong strain or was underproduced, there was no increase in the number of deaths from influenza.
If a bunch of people are running around thinking "i'm immune" and they aren't, wouldn't they be more likely to spread disease?
"I can go to work even though I have a fever, I got the flu vaccine!
"Junk science is not what we need here.
A double blind study is needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781945</id>
	<title>Re:Good article</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1255800840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You, sir, have once again accidentally the english language.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You , sir , have once again accidentally the english language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, sir, have once again accidentally the english language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780527</id>
	<title>Re:article is BS</title>
	<author>Anynomous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1255779720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>36,000 die of complications from the flu annually in the US</i>
<br> <br>
Only if you count all the weak that would have died a day later from old age were it not for $SCARE, yes. If you'd add up all the numbers of people reportedly dying from the gaggle of scares, the streets should be overflowing with bodies as we speak. Quid non.</htmltext>
<tokenext>36,000 die of complications from the flu annually in the US Only if you count all the weak that would have died a day later from old age were it not for $ SCARE , yes .
If you 'd add up all the numbers of people reportedly dying from the gaggle of scares , the streets should be overflowing with bodies as we speak .
Quid non .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>36,000 die of complications from the flu annually in the US
 
Only if you count all the weak that would have died a day later from old age were it not for $SCARE, yes.
If you'd add up all the numbers of people reportedly dying from the gaggle of scares, the streets should be overflowing with bodies as we speak.
Quid non.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780363</id>
	<title>Flu Me Once</title>
	<author>JackSpratts</author>
	<datestamp>1255778100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What i learned: doctors shouldn't over prescribe Tamiflu because resistance might develop - even though it doesn't work.</p><p>Flu spreads could be reduced if the government wasn't always scaring "flu-sufferers" into going to the emergency room (and giving the bug to others) even though only almost none of them (93\%) actually have the flu.</p><p>I learned other things too. That basically the writer is looser with factual logic than those he accuses of same.</p><p>Mostly anti-vaccine agit-prop, and not not very good either.</p><p> - js</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What i learned : doctors should n't over prescribe Tamiflu because resistance might develop - even though it does n't work.Flu spreads could be reduced if the government was n't always scaring " flu-sufferers " into going to the emergency room ( and giving the bug to others ) even though only almost none of them ( 93 \ % ) actually have the flu.I learned other things too .
That basically the writer is looser with factual logic than those he accuses of same.Mostly anti-vaccine agit-prop , and not not very good either .
- js</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What i learned: doctors shouldn't over prescribe Tamiflu because resistance might develop - even though it doesn't work.Flu spreads could be reduced if the government wasn't always scaring "flu-sufferers" into going to the emergency room (and giving the bug to others) even though only almost none of them (93\%) actually have the flu.I learned other things too.
That basically the writer is looser with factual logic than those he accuses of same.Mostly anti-vaccine agit-prop, and not not very good either.
- js</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780133</id>
	<title>Re:article is BS</title>
	<author>blaster</author>
	<datestamp>1255776120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Influenza causes only a small minority of all deaths in the U.S., even among senior citizens,</p></div></blockquote><p> 36,000 die of complications from the flu annually in the US.  That's very nearly as many as die from car accidents.</p></div><p>It is entirely accurate to say flu deaths are a minority of all deaths. According to the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm" title="cdc.gov" rel="nofollow">CDC</a> [cdc.gov] in 2006 there were 56,326 deaths from Influenza and Pneumonia, out of a total of 2,426,264 deaths. If we assume all of those 56,326 deaths were from the flu, that is a grand total of 2.3\% of all deaths from the flu. If the number is actually 36,000 (which sounds reasonable once you factor out Pneumonia) then it is only ~1.5\%.</p><p>Of course that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the story, but lets not jump on the parts where we actually have reasonable data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Influenza causes only a small minority of all deaths in the U.S. , even among senior citizens , 36,000 die of complications from the flu annually in the US .
That 's very nearly as many as die from car accidents.It is entirely accurate to say flu deaths are a minority of all deaths .
According to the CDC [ cdc.gov ] in 2006 there were 56,326 deaths from Influenza and Pneumonia , out of a total of 2,426,264 deaths .
If we assume all of those 56,326 deaths were from the flu , that is a grand total of 2.3 \ % of all deaths from the flu .
If the number is actually 36,000 ( which sounds reasonable once you factor out Pneumonia ) then it is only ~ 1.5 \ % .Of course that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the story , but lets not jump on the parts where we actually have reasonable data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Influenza causes only a small minority of all deaths in the U.S., even among senior citizens, 36,000 die of complications from the flu annually in the US.
That's very nearly as many as die from car accidents.It is entirely accurate to say flu deaths are a minority of all deaths.
According to the CDC [cdc.gov] in 2006 there were 56,326 deaths from Influenza and Pneumonia, out of a total of 2,426,264 deaths.
If we assume all of those 56,326 deaths were from the flu, that is a grand total of 2.3\% of all deaths from the flu.
If the number is actually 36,000 (which sounds reasonable once you factor out Pneumonia) then it is only ~1.5\%.Of course that has nothing to do with the accuracy of the story, but lets not jump on the parts where we actually have reasonable data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781071</id>
	<title>Re:Or....built up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255786440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? They don't even work that way. The shot is different every year and could even vary by location. The shot would have to be the same from year to year for any kind of build up if it's even possible.<br>One of the other reasons that it may be a total waste to get the seasonal flu shot is that they are only guessing at what "the flu" will be like each year.<br>Here is a CDC update on this flu season's (09-10) shot.<br>http://www.cdc.gov/flu/flu\_vaccine\_updates.htm It covers only three of dozens of strains/variations. The swine flu is a mix of two different strains making a whole new one problem but, version of the flu may be around for years and years before it even effects enough patients to become noticed.<br>Here is a article on how the flu strains are named or defined.<br>http://flu.emedtv.com/flu/types-of-flu.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
They do n't even work that way .
The shot is different every year and could even vary by location .
The shot would have to be the same from year to year for any kind of build up if it 's even possible.One of the other reasons that it may be a total waste to get the seasonal flu shot is that they are only guessing at what " the flu " will be like each year.Here is a CDC update on this flu season 's ( 09-10 ) shot.http : //www.cdc.gov/flu/flu \ _vaccine \ _updates.htm It covers only three of dozens of strains/variations .
The swine flu is a mix of two different strains making a whole new one problem but , version of the flu may be around for years and years before it even effects enough patients to become noticed.Here is a article on how the flu strains are named or defined.http : //flu.emedtv.com/flu/types-of-flu.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
They don't even work that way.
The shot is different every year and could even vary by location.
The shot would have to be the same from year to year for any kind of build up if it's even possible.One of the other reasons that it may be a total waste to get the seasonal flu shot is that they are only guessing at what "the flu" will be like each year.Here is a CDC update on this flu season's (09-10) shot.http://www.cdc.gov/flu/flu\_vaccine\_updates.htm It covers only three of dozens of strains/variations.
The swine flu is a mix of two different strains making a whole new one problem but, version of the flu may be around for years and years before it even effects enough patients to become noticed.Here is a article on how the flu strains are named or defined.http://flu.emedtv.com/flu/types-of-flu.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782063</id>
	<title>Vitamin D may help prevent influenza</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1255803660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most US people are Vitamin D deficient. See the Vitamin D Council web site for how to test and supplement:<br><a href="http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/" title="vitamindcouncil.org">http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/</a> [vitamindcouncil.org]<br><a href="http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/vitamin-d-and-h1n1-swine-flu.shtml" title="vitamindcouncil.org">http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/vitamin-d-and-h1n1-swine-flu.shtml</a> [vitamindcouncil.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most US people are Vitamin D deficient .
See the Vitamin D Council web site for how to test and supplement : http : //www.vitamindcouncil.org/ [ vitamindcouncil.org ] http : //www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/vitamin-d-and-h1n1-swine-flu.shtml [ vitamindcouncil.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most US people are Vitamin D deficient.
See the Vitamin D Council web site for how to test and supplement:http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/ [vitamindcouncil.org]http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/vitamin-d-and-h1n1-swine-flu.shtml [vitamindcouncil.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781121</id>
	<title>Re:You don't only get vaccinated for yourself.</title>
	<author>TimSSG</author>
	<datestamp>1255787100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't only get vaccinated for yourself.</p></div><p>
I very strongly agree. <br>
I just got vaccinated against whooping cough; because, I have a cough from asthma.<br>
And, my niece is having a new born next month and I wanted to be less likely that I would infect the new born at Thanksgiving and Christmas.<br>
<br>
Tim S.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't only get vaccinated for yourself .
I very strongly agree .
I just got vaccinated against whooping cough ; because , I have a cough from asthma .
And , my niece is having a new born next month and I wanted to be less likely that I would infect the new born at Thanksgiving and Christmas .
Tim S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't only get vaccinated for yourself.
I very strongly agree.
I just got vaccinated against whooping cough; because, I have a cough from asthma.
And, my niece is having a new born next month and I wanted to be less likely that I would infect the new born at Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Tim S.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779847</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784065</id>
	<title>Re:Good article</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255879560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you a verb there.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you a verb there .
        -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you a verb there.
        -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779905</id>
	<title>Clinical trials</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255774020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The flu shot is tested annually through peer-reviewed clinical trials. The shot is compared to its protective factor year over year. I believe the data shows it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The flu shot is tested annually through peer-reviewed clinical trials .
The shot is compared to its protective factor year over year .
I believe the data shows it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flu shot is tested annually through peer-reviewed clinical trials.
The shot is compared to its protective factor year over year.
I believe the data shows it works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780885</id>
	<title>Re:As soon as you mentioned "Group Health"...</title>
	<author>ljaszcza</author>
	<datestamp>1255783860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Group health is a business. I would guess that if their analysts show that spending $X on vaccines leads to savings of $Y when people are not admitted to the hospital or visit the ER with influenza and $Y&gt;$X then they are likely to pay for the vaccine. If $X&gt;$Y than it is not worth it to them. I can't see any businessman/underwriter doing anything different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Group health is a business .
I would guess that if their analysts show that spending $ X on vaccines leads to savings of $ Y when people are not admitted to the hospital or visit the ER with influenza and $ Y &gt; $ X then they are likely to pay for the vaccine .
If $ X &gt; $ Y than it is not worth it to them .
I ca n't see any businessman/underwriter doing anything different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Group health is a business.
I would guess that if their analysts show that spending $X on vaccines leads to savings of $Y when people are not admitted to the hospital or visit the ER with influenza and $Y&gt;$X then they are likely to pay for the vaccine.
If $X&gt;$Y than it is not worth it to them.
I can't see any businessman/underwriter doing anything different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29786103</id>
	<title>Re:Placebo study has already been done, in a way</title>
	<author>Guppy</author>
	<datestamp>1255897200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In 1968 and 1997, the vaccine produced was the wrong one, it didn't match the prevalent strains for the following winter. People who got vaccinated were effectively receiving a placebo for the strain that they were most likely to come in contact with.</p></div><p>It's not so simple as "mismatch = no protection".  Often there is some cross-protection against mis-matching strains, that varies with the degree of mismatch.  This partial protection is especially notable for Live Attenuated vaccine (FluMist).  A following question is, how does a mismatch (which reduces effectiveness in protecting against infection) affect mortality?  It may not necessarily be a simple proportion between the two measures.</p><p>Which brings me to the next issue -- the shifting virulence of Flu from year to year, and the pattern of natural immunity left behind each previous wave, which interacts with the incoming wave.  As you've mentioned, <i>"...It could be argued that those strains were less deadly than usual, but it would be an amazing coincidence if it just happened to correspond to the two years no one got an effective vaccine..."</i>.  Amazing coincidences can be pretty common when you've only got two data points, with quite a bit of variance in the range of possible values.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1968 and 1997 , the vaccine produced was the wrong one , it did n't match the prevalent strains for the following winter .
People who got vaccinated were effectively receiving a placebo for the strain that they were most likely to come in contact with.It 's not so simple as " mismatch = no protection " .
Often there is some cross-protection against mis-matching strains , that varies with the degree of mismatch .
This partial protection is especially notable for Live Attenuated vaccine ( FluMist ) .
A following question is , how does a mismatch ( which reduces effectiveness in protecting against infection ) affect mortality ?
It may not necessarily be a simple proportion between the two measures.Which brings me to the next issue -- the shifting virulence of Flu from year to year , and the pattern of natural immunity left behind each previous wave , which interacts with the incoming wave .
As you 've mentioned , " ...It could be argued that those strains were less deadly than usual , but it would be an amazing coincidence if it just happened to correspond to the two years no one got an effective vaccine... " .
Amazing coincidences can be pretty common when you 've only got two data points , with quite a bit of variance in the range of possible values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1968 and 1997, the vaccine produced was the wrong one, it didn't match the prevalent strains for the following winter.
People who got vaccinated were effectively receiving a placebo for the strain that they were most likely to come in contact with.It's not so simple as "mismatch = no protection".
Often there is some cross-protection against mis-matching strains, that varies with the degree of mismatch.
This partial protection is especially notable for Live Attenuated vaccine (FluMist).
A following question is, how does a mismatch (which reduces effectiveness in protecting against infection) affect mortality?
It may not necessarily be a simple proportion between the two measures.Which brings me to the next issue -- the shifting virulence of Flu from year to year, and the pattern of natural immunity left behind each previous wave, which interacts with the incoming wave.
As you've mentioned, "...It could be argued that those strains were less deadly than usual, but it would be an amazing coincidence if it just happened to correspond to the two years no one got an effective vaccine...".
Amazing coincidences can be pretty common when you've only got two data points, with quite a bit of variance in the range of possible values.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873</id>
	<title>There are randomized controlled trials</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Randomized, controlled trials have shown the effectiveness of flu vaccines, contrary to the claims of the article. (Example: <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/10/908" title="ama-assn.org" rel="nofollow">Wilde et al., "Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Health Care Professionals."</a> [ama-assn.org])</p><p>In addition, research into mortality reduction already takes into account comorbid conditions and age. (Example: <a href="http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323085" title="uchicago.edu" rel="nofollow">Nordin et al., "Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing Hospitalizations and Deaths in Persons 65 Years or Older in Minnesota, New York, and Oregon: Data from 3 Health Plans."</a> [uchicago.edu])</p><p>The article is at best poorly researched and at worst intentional FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Randomized , controlled trials have shown the effectiveness of flu vaccines , contrary to the claims of the article .
( Example : Wilde et al. , " Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Health Care Professionals .
" [ ama-assn.org ] ) In addition , research into mortality reduction already takes into account comorbid conditions and age .
( Example : Nordin et al. , " Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing Hospitalizations and Deaths in Persons 65 Years or Older in Minnesota , New York , and Oregon : Data from 3 Health Plans .
" [ uchicago.edu ] ) The article is at best poorly researched and at worst intentional FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Randomized, controlled trials have shown the effectiveness of flu vaccines, contrary to the claims of the article.
(Example: Wilde et al., "Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Health Care Professionals.
" [ama-assn.org])In addition, research into mortality reduction already takes into account comorbid conditions and age.
(Example: Nordin et al., "Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing Hospitalizations and Deaths in Persons 65 Years or Older in Minnesota, New York, and Oregon: Data from 3 Health Plans.
" [uchicago.edu])The article is at best poorly researched and at worst intentional FUD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781593</id>
	<title>Re:There are randomized controlled trials</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1255794660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The effectiveness of flu vaccines fluctuate wildly depending on how well the people who designed the vaccine guessed which strains would be present during the flu season, among other things.  Not sure about these studies but if you ran a study during a year where they nailed it the effectiveness might be great.  You do a study in a year they missed it, chances are the vaccine would be completely ineffective.</p><p>Blanket statements that flu vaccines are always good are just as flawed as the ones that say they are completely ineffective.  the truth lies in the middle.  In the case of H1N1 it kind of looks to me like the vaccine is arriving late, its poorly tested and its not really the horrific strain of flu all the press and government would have you think it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The effectiveness of flu vaccines fluctuate wildly depending on how well the people who designed the vaccine guessed which strains would be present during the flu season , among other things .
Not sure about these studies but if you ran a study during a year where they nailed it the effectiveness might be great .
You do a study in a year they missed it , chances are the vaccine would be completely ineffective.Blanket statements that flu vaccines are always good are just as flawed as the ones that say they are completely ineffective .
the truth lies in the middle .
In the case of H1N1 it kind of looks to me like the vaccine is arriving late , its poorly tested and its not really the horrific strain of flu all the press and government would have you think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The effectiveness of flu vaccines fluctuate wildly depending on how well the people who designed the vaccine guessed which strains would be present during the flu season, among other things.
Not sure about these studies but if you ran a study during a year where they nailed it the effectiveness might be great.
You do a study in a year they missed it, chances are the vaccine would be completely ineffective.Blanket statements that flu vaccines are always good are just as flawed as the ones that say they are completely ineffective.
the truth lies in the middle.
In the case of H1N1 it kind of looks to me like the vaccine is arriving late, its poorly tested and its not really the horrific strain of flu all the press and government would have you think it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779895</id>
	<title>article is BS</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1255773900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Influenza causes only a small minority of all deaths in the U.S., even among senior citizens,</p></div></blockquote><p> 36,000 die of complications from the flu annually in the US.  That's very nearly as many as die from car accidents.</p><p>There is a very simple way to test the effectiveness of a vaccine and that is to carry out a double blind study utilising placebos alongside the active vaccine.  Any effect that is solely due to the "healthy user effect" would be virtually eliminated.<br>further problems: the article has no references, no real hard data from relevant studies and several studies contradict the article's assertions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Influenza causes only a small minority of all deaths in the U.S. , even among senior citizens , 36,000 die of complications from the flu annually in the US .
That 's very nearly as many as die from car accidents.There is a very simple way to test the effectiveness of a vaccine and that is to carry out a double blind study utilising placebos alongside the active vaccine .
Any effect that is solely due to the " healthy user effect " would be virtually eliminated.further problems : the article has no references , no real hard data from relevant studies and several studies contradict the article 's assertions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Influenza causes only a small minority of all deaths in the U.S., even among senior citizens, 36,000 die of complications from the flu annually in the US.
That's very nearly as many as die from car accidents.There is a very simple way to test the effectiveness of a vaccine and that is to carry out a double blind study utilising placebos alongside the active vaccine.
Any effect that is solely due to the "healthy user effect" would be virtually eliminated.further problems: the article has no references, no real hard data from relevant studies and several studies contradict the article's assertions.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781583</id>
	<title>Re:The Scientific Method</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1255794420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we'd do better at not strengthening anti-vaccination shrillness if we didn't introduce things like varicella vaccinations and then push them as hard as we can on infants...</p><p>There's not lack of unreasonable behavior around vaccines in general, not just from the anti-vaccination crowd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we 'd do better at not strengthening anti-vaccination shrillness if we did n't introduce things like varicella vaccinations and then push them as hard as we can on infants...There 's not lack of unreasonable behavior around vaccines in general , not just from the anti-vaccination crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we'd do better at not strengthening anti-vaccination shrillness if we didn't introduce things like varicella vaccinations and then push them as hard as we can on infants...There's not lack of unreasonable behavior around vaccines in general, not just from the anti-vaccination crowd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779885</id>
	<title>Re:Then not taking the vaccine safer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255773840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only at first. Once it kills off the weak, everyone else will be strong enough to tolerate its effects, making the world a healthier place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only at first .
Once it kills off the weak , everyone else will be strong enough to tolerate its effects , making the world a healthier place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only at first.
Once it kills off the weak, everyone else will be strong enough to tolerate its effects, making the world a healthier place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781387</id>
	<title>Re:There are randomized controlled trials</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1255790640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The elderly are immune to H1N1. Making it even stupider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The elderly are immune to H1N1 .
Making it even stupider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The elderly are immune to H1N1.
Making it even stupider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780119</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29803295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29794395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29801301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29786025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29785239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29786961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29876749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29792487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29790543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29783077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29786103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_1651206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29783907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29792487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781521
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781945
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780463
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29801301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29786103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780119
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781387
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29876749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29783907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29786961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29785239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29786025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29790543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29803295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_1651206.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29779979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29784461
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29780409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29783077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29782481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29794395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_1651206.29781991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
