<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_02_2027250</id>
	<title>The Lancet Recants Study Linking Autism To Vaccine</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265109840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>JamJam writes <i>"<em>The Lancet</em>, a major British medical journal, has <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/medical-journal-recants-1998-study-linking-autism-to-vaccine/article1453309/">retracted a flawed study</a> linking the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to autism and bowel disease. British surgeon and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues originally released their study in 1998. Since then 10 of Wakefield's 13 co-authors have renounced the study's conclusions and <em>The Lancet</em> has said it should never have published the research. Wakefield now faces being stripped of his right to practice medicine in Britain. The vaccine-autism debate should now end."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>JamJam writes " The Lancet , a major British medical journal , has retracted a flawed study linking the measles , mumps , and rubella vaccine to autism and bowel disease .
British surgeon and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues originally released their study in 1998 .
Since then 10 of Wakefield 's 13 co-authors have renounced the study 's conclusions and The Lancet has said it should never have published the research .
Wakefield now faces being stripped of his right to practice medicine in Britain .
The vaccine-autism debate should now end .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JamJam writes "The Lancet, a major British medical journal, has retracted a flawed study linking the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to autism and bowel disease.
British surgeon and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues originally released their study in 1998.
Since then 10 of Wakefield's 13 co-authors have renounced the study's conclusions and The Lancet has said it should never have published the research.
Wakefield now faces being stripped of his right to practice medicine in Britain.
The vaccine-autism debate should now end.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003392</id>
	<title>People don't understand statistics</title>
	<author>pipedwho</author>
	<datestamp>1265117220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that most people don't understand statistics, numerical significance or even the scientific method. This leads the unwashed masses to jump to conclusions that are based on anecdotal evidence, un-normalised data comparisons and non-causal correlations which sound quite reasonable on the surface.</p><p>When a study is properly performed and analysed to remove various biases and incorrect assumptions, it usually involves counter-intuitive statistical analyses.</p><p>Unfortunately, due to a lack of understanding of the scientific method, and despite the fact that a denouncement has been widely reported, many people will still be given media time to promote their ignorant contrarian claims.</p><p>When discussing high profile scientific studies like this one, I keep hearing people argue with reasoning like 'well that is just another point of view'. I intentionally used the word 'claims' and not 'view point' in the above paragraph. A view point implies that a contradictory, but valid alternative explanation exists. In the case of scientific study, a falsifiable hypothesis can be shown to be true or false. If it is deemed false it may still be correct in some of it's underlying elements. In that case it would be revised and a more accurate hypothesis developed.</p><p>Some people seem to think that if they personally don't understand the complex reasoning process behind a peer reviewed scientific conclusion, then they should feel free to jump to their own. Because of this, many kids have not been immunised over the last ten years, and now we are seeing the fall out of what happens when too many people decide against the recommendations of the medical establishment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that most people do n't understand statistics , numerical significance or even the scientific method .
This leads the unwashed masses to jump to conclusions that are based on anecdotal evidence , un-normalised data comparisons and non-causal correlations which sound quite reasonable on the surface.When a study is properly performed and analysed to remove various biases and incorrect assumptions , it usually involves counter-intuitive statistical analyses.Unfortunately , due to a lack of understanding of the scientific method , and despite the fact that a denouncement has been widely reported , many people will still be given media time to promote their ignorant contrarian claims.When discussing high profile scientific studies like this one , I keep hearing people argue with reasoning like 'well that is just another point of view' .
I intentionally used the word 'claims ' and not 'view point ' in the above paragraph .
A view point implies that a contradictory , but valid alternative explanation exists .
In the case of scientific study , a falsifiable hypothesis can be shown to be true or false .
If it is deemed false it may still be correct in some of it 's underlying elements .
In that case it would be revised and a more accurate hypothesis developed.Some people seem to think that if they personally do n't understand the complex reasoning process behind a peer reviewed scientific conclusion , then they should feel free to jump to their own .
Because of this , many kids have not been immunised over the last ten years , and now we are seeing the fall out of what happens when too many people decide against the recommendations of the medical establishment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that most people don't understand statistics, numerical significance or even the scientific method.
This leads the unwashed masses to jump to conclusions that are based on anecdotal evidence, un-normalised data comparisons and non-causal correlations which sound quite reasonable on the surface.When a study is properly performed and analysed to remove various biases and incorrect assumptions, it usually involves counter-intuitive statistical analyses.Unfortunately, due to a lack of understanding of the scientific method, and despite the fact that a denouncement has been widely reported, many people will still be given media time to promote their ignorant contrarian claims.When discussing high profile scientific studies like this one, I keep hearing people argue with reasoning like 'well that is just another point of view'.
I intentionally used the word 'claims' and not 'view point' in the above paragraph.
A view point implies that a contradictory, but valid alternative explanation exists.
In the case of scientific study, a falsifiable hypothesis can be shown to be true or false.
If it is deemed false it may still be correct in some of it's underlying elements.
In that case it would be revised and a more accurate hypothesis developed.Some people seem to think that if they personally don't understand the complex reasoning process behind a peer reviewed scientific conclusion, then they should feel free to jump to their own.
Because of this, many kids have not been immunised over the last ten years, and now we are seeing the fall out of what happens when too many people decide against the recommendations of the medical establishment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004754</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am the father of a son with autism.  I can say that it is quite easy to dismiss concerns about connections between autism and vaccines when it doesn't touch your loved ones.  It is a different story when it does.  After having read a few more papers that most people posting here (who simply take conclusions of what their preferred scientists/news sources give for granted without actually reading on the real sources)on this subject, I can say that I don't believe autism is caused by the MMR vaccines.</p><p>However, I do believe that for some individuals (even if it is a very small percent) certain vaccines can be quite harmfull.  As a matter of fact, the are a couple of not so known cases of kids that had very strong reactions after their MMR vaccines (more than 104degF fever) and subsequently a lot of syntoms that are common in people with Autism.  Their case was settled before going to a court.  They where able to do this because they had MRI of their kids brain and were able to show the before and after MRI of their kids brain and demonstrate that damaged had occurred.  This combined with the other effects and neurological damage made the goverment agency settle out of court.  Some could say that this was coincidental (that their kids suddenly got very ill for some unidentified reason that wasn't the vaccine), others could say that it was the result of the vaccine.</p><p>Regardless, it is known that vaccines can indeed cause side effects that can be very serious, even if it is a 0.0001\% of the cases vaccinated or less.  My point is that if I am the father of the 1 in a million kid whom a particular vaccine did cause brain damage, should I care about the goverment saying that such vaccine is safe???  As for the H1N1 vaccine, it is way to new for anybody to be able to honestly say that it can't cause unwanted side effects.  This reminds me of the use of the goverment of the "agent orange" in the Vietnam war.  Soldiers (my father in law went to Vietnam) were told that it was harmless and had no side effects.  This was obviously not true...</p><p>I believe that it is not right to have 3-5 different vaccine shots administered to a kid in one session but this is done all the time simply due to cost concerns and because it is OK with most kids.  Once again, if you are the father for which this policy of multivaccination has consequences, life can change considerably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the father of a son with autism .
I can say that it is quite easy to dismiss concerns about connections between autism and vaccines when it does n't touch your loved ones .
It is a different story when it does .
After having read a few more papers that most people posting here ( who simply take conclusions of what their preferred scientists/news sources give for granted without actually reading on the real sources ) on this subject , I can say that I do n't believe autism is caused by the MMR vaccines.However , I do believe that for some individuals ( even if it is a very small percent ) certain vaccines can be quite harmfull .
As a matter of fact , the are a couple of not so known cases of kids that had very strong reactions after their MMR vaccines ( more than 104degF fever ) and subsequently a lot of syntoms that are common in people with Autism .
Their case was settled before going to a court .
They where able to do this because they had MRI of their kids brain and were able to show the before and after MRI of their kids brain and demonstrate that damaged had occurred .
This combined with the other effects and neurological damage made the goverment agency settle out of court .
Some could say that this was coincidental ( that their kids suddenly got very ill for some unidentified reason that was n't the vaccine ) , others could say that it was the result of the vaccine.Regardless , it is known that vaccines can indeed cause side effects that can be very serious , even if it is a 0.0001 \ % of the cases vaccinated or less .
My point is that if I am the father of the 1 in a million kid whom a particular vaccine did cause brain damage , should I care about the goverment saying that such vaccine is safe ? ? ?
As for the H1N1 vaccine , it is way to new for anybody to be able to honestly say that it ca n't cause unwanted side effects .
This reminds me of the use of the goverment of the " agent orange " in the Vietnam war .
Soldiers ( my father in law went to Vietnam ) were told that it was harmless and had no side effects .
This was obviously not true...I believe that it is not right to have 3-5 different vaccine shots administered to a kid in one session but this is done all the time simply due to cost concerns and because it is OK with most kids .
Once again , if you are the father for which this policy of multivaccination has consequences , life can change considerably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the father of a son with autism.
I can say that it is quite easy to dismiss concerns about connections between autism and vaccines when it doesn't touch your loved ones.
It is a different story when it does.
After having read a few more papers that most people posting here (who simply take conclusions of what their preferred scientists/news sources give for granted without actually reading on the real sources)on this subject, I can say that I don't believe autism is caused by the MMR vaccines.However, I do believe that for some individuals (even if it is a very small percent) certain vaccines can be quite harmfull.
As a matter of fact, the are a couple of not so known cases of kids that had very strong reactions after their MMR vaccines (more than 104degF fever) and subsequently a lot of syntoms that are common in people with Autism.
Their case was settled before going to a court.
They where able to do this because they had MRI of their kids brain and were able to show the before and after MRI of their kids brain and demonstrate that damaged had occurred.
This combined with the other effects and neurological damage made the goverment agency settle out of court.
Some could say that this was coincidental (that their kids suddenly got very ill for some unidentified reason that wasn't the vaccine), others could say that it was the result of the vaccine.Regardless, it is known that vaccines can indeed cause side effects that can be very serious, even if it is a 0.0001\% of the cases vaccinated or less.
My point is that if I am the father of the 1 in a million kid whom a particular vaccine did cause brain damage, should I care about the goverment saying that such vaccine is safe???
As for the H1N1 vaccine, it is way to new for anybody to be able to honestly say that it can't cause unwanted side effects.
This reminds me of the use of the goverment of the "agent orange" in the Vietnam war.
Soldiers (my father in law went to Vietnam) were told that it was harmless and had no side effects.
This was obviously not true...I believe that it is not right to have 3-5 different vaccine shots administered to a kid in one session but this is done all the time simply due to cost concerns and because it is OK with most kids.
Once again, if you are the father for which this policy of multivaccination has consequences, life can change considerably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008168</id>
	<title>Wait, what?  Don't believe unethical studies?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1264941240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(1) Wakefield performed at least some parts of his study in an unethical manner.</p></div><p>Wait, so let's say I have the following theory:</p><p>"If you punch people in the face, they get angry."</p><p>Then I go around, punching people in the street in the face, and have some trained observers look for signs of anger (wanting to retaliate, displaying particular facial expressions, waving their fists at me, etc.).</p><p>As it turns out, everybody gets angry at me when I punch them in the face.</p><p>Clearly, punching people in the face is a bad thing to do.  But that doesn't make the theory wrong.</p><p>Wakefield acting unethically in his medical experiments is a good reason for not letting him perform further medical experiments.  Possibly also for not letting him be a doctor.  But is it <em>really</em> a reason for not trusting his conclusion?</p><p>If you want to attack factual claims, attack the reasons for believing in them: poor experimental design, too few data points (back this up with statistical arguments!), lack of controls for confounding factors, selection biases, reporting biases, wild off-the-wall interpretation of observations (to name a few).  Don't attack the moral character of the experimenter to argue against the factual claims.  Attacking the moral character of the experimenter serves a different purpose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) Wakefield performed at least some parts of his study in an unethical manner.Wait , so let 's say I have the following theory : " If you punch people in the face , they get angry .
" Then I go around , punching people in the street in the face , and have some trained observers look for signs of anger ( wanting to retaliate , displaying particular facial expressions , waving their fists at me , etc .
) .As it turns out , everybody gets angry at me when I punch them in the face.Clearly , punching people in the face is a bad thing to do .
But that does n't make the theory wrong.Wakefield acting unethically in his medical experiments is a good reason for not letting him perform further medical experiments .
Possibly also for not letting him be a doctor .
But is it really a reason for not trusting his conclusion ? If you want to attack factual claims , attack the reasons for believing in them : poor experimental design , too few data points ( back this up with statistical arguments !
) , lack of controls for confounding factors , selection biases , reporting biases , wild off-the-wall interpretation of observations ( to name a few ) .
Do n't attack the moral character of the experimenter to argue against the factual claims .
Attacking the moral character of the experimenter serves a different purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1) Wakefield performed at least some parts of his study in an unethical manner.Wait, so let's say I have the following theory:"If you punch people in the face, they get angry.
"Then I go around, punching people in the street in the face, and have some trained observers look for signs of anger (wanting to retaliate, displaying particular facial expressions, waving their fists at me, etc.
).As it turns out, everybody gets angry at me when I punch them in the face.Clearly, punching people in the face is a bad thing to do.
But that doesn't make the theory wrong.Wakefield acting unethically in his medical experiments is a good reason for not letting him perform further medical experiments.
Possibly also for not letting him be a doctor.
But is it really a reason for not trusting his conclusion?If you want to attack factual claims, attack the reasons for believing in them: poor experimental design, too few data points (back this up with statistical arguments!
), lack of controls for confounding factors, selection biases, reporting biases, wild off-the-wall interpretation of observations (to name a few).
Don't attack the moral character of the experimenter to argue against the factual claims.
Attacking the moral character of the experimenter serves a different purpose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002698</id>
	<title>It wasn't much of a debate to begin with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265113680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you read about it in other places besides here, what you'd more likely see is just endless mockery that would blind people to anything that really *could* go wrong with vaccinations. It is like discussing fertile land turning to desert in rural Africa, then hearing someone chime in that global warming is a hoax because it is snowing outside his window right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read about it in other places besides here , what you 'd more likely see is just endless mockery that would blind people to anything that really * could * go wrong with vaccinations .
It is like discussing fertile land turning to desert in rural Africa , then hearing someone chime in that global warming is a hoax because it is snowing outside his window right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read about it in other places besides here, what you'd more likely see is just endless mockery that would blind people to anything that really *could* go wrong with vaccinations.
It is like discussing fertile land turning to desert in rural Africa, then hearing someone chime in that global warming is a hoax because it is snowing outside his window right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007866</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of Studies Linking Vaccines to Ill Effec</title>
	<author>Black Parrot</author>
	<datestamp>1264937580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those who argue against vaccination based on the risk of autism may well be on shaky ground, but there are PLENTY of studies linking vaccines to other ill effects, here are a (very) few:</p></div><p>Next time you get a prescription for <b>anything</b>, stop and take the time to read that sheet of paper that comes with it. Even the most commonly used drugs have long lists of <i>possible</i> side effects.</p><p>The question isn't "could something bad happen?", but rather "what are the risks of taking this vs. not taking it?".  Unfortunately we sometimes underestimate the risks and people die horribly.</p><p>Still, from where I'm sitting it looks like modern medicine does far better than causing random effects. Unless you're in an at-risk group, or are taking other medicines known to have a harmful interaction, or your physician is incompetent, you're probably better off taking the medicine despite the long list of possible side effects.  People suffer or die from *not* taking medicine sometimes too, you know.</p><p>It's all about weighing the risks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who argue against vaccination based on the risk of autism may well be on shaky ground , but there are PLENTY of studies linking vaccines to other ill effects , here are a ( very ) few : Next time you get a prescription for anything , stop and take the time to read that sheet of paper that comes with it .
Even the most commonly used drugs have long lists of possible side effects.The question is n't " could something bad happen ?
" , but rather " what are the risks of taking this vs. not taking it ? " .
Unfortunately we sometimes underestimate the risks and people die horribly.Still , from where I 'm sitting it looks like modern medicine does far better than causing random effects .
Unless you 're in an at-risk group , or are taking other medicines known to have a harmful interaction , or your physician is incompetent , you 're probably better off taking the medicine despite the long list of possible side effects .
People suffer or die from * not * taking medicine sometimes too , you know.It 's all about weighing the risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who argue against vaccination based on the risk of autism may well be on shaky ground, but there are PLENTY of studies linking vaccines to other ill effects, here are a (very) few:Next time you get a prescription for anything, stop and take the time to read that sheet of paper that comes with it.
Even the most commonly used drugs have long lists of possible side effects.The question isn't "could something bad happen?
", but rather "what are the risks of taking this vs. not taking it?".
Unfortunately we sometimes underestimate the risks and people die horribly.Still, from where I'm sitting it looks like modern medicine does far better than causing random effects.
Unless you're in an at-risk group, or are taking other medicines known to have a harmful interaction, or your physician is incompetent, you're probably better off taking the medicine despite the long list of possible side effects.
People suffer or die from *not* taking medicine sometimes too, you know.It's all about weighing the risks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002810</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>expatriot</author>
	<datestamp>1265114280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>second entry on Google:<br><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575041212437364420.html" title="wsj.com">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575041212437364420.html</a> [wsj.com]</p><p>Ten of the 13 authors of the original paper, all of whom were researchers at the Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine in London, partially retracted the paper in 2004. However, the first author, Andrew Wakefield, didn't. Dr. Wakefield, who is now at the Thoughtful House Center for Children in Austin, Texas, didn't immediately return phone calls seeking comment.</p><p>"Many consumer groups have spent 10 years waging a campaign against vaccines even in the face of scientific evidence," said Dr. Horton of the Lancet. "We didn't have the evidence back in 2004 to fully retract the paper but we did have enough concern to persuade the authors to partly retract the paper."</p><p>The Lancet decided to issue a complete retraction after an independent regulator for doctors in the U.K. concluded last week that the study was flawed. The General Medical Council's report on three of the researchers, including Dr. Wakefield, found evidence that some of their actions were conducted for experimental purposes, not clinical care, and without ethics approval. The report also found that Dr. Wakefield drew blood for research purposes from children at his son's birthday party, paying each child &pound;5 (about $8).</p><p>The Lancet's Dr. Horton said the journal was particularly concerned about the ethical treatment of the children in the study, and that the children had been "cherry-picked" by the study's authors rather than just showing up in the hospital, as described in the paper.</p><p>The authors "did suggest these children arrived one after another and this syndrome was apparent, which does lead you to think this is something serious," said Dr. Horton.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>second entry on Google : http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575041212437364420.html [ wsj.com ] Ten of the 13 authors of the original paper , all of whom were researchers at the Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine in London , partially retracted the paper in 2004 .
However , the first author , Andrew Wakefield , did n't .
Dr. Wakefield , who is now at the Thoughtful House Center for Children in Austin , Texas , did n't immediately return phone calls seeking comment .
" Many consumer groups have spent 10 years waging a campaign against vaccines even in the face of scientific evidence , " said Dr. Horton of the Lancet .
" We did n't have the evidence back in 2004 to fully retract the paper but we did have enough concern to persuade the authors to partly retract the paper .
" The Lancet decided to issue a complete retraction after an independent regulator for doctors in the U.K. concluded last week that the study was flawed .
The General Medical Council 's report on three of the researchers , including Dr. Wakefield , found evidence that some of their actions were conducted for experimental purposes , not clinical care , and without ethics approval .
The report also found that Dr. Wakefield drew blood for research purposes from children at his son 's birthday party , paying each child   5 ( about $ 8 ) .The Lancet 's Dr. Horton said the journal was particularly concerned about the ethical treatment of the children in the study , and that the children had been " cherry-picked " by the study 's authors rather than just showing up in the hospital , as described in the paper.The authors " did suggest these children arrived one after another and this syndrome was apparent , which does lead you to think this is something serious , " said Dr. Horton .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>second entry on Google:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575041212437364420.html [wsj.com]Ten of the 13 authors of the original paper, all of whom were researchers at the Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine in London, partially retracted the paper in 2004.
However, the first author, Andrew Wakefield, didn't.
Dr. Wakefield, who is now at the Thoughtful House Center for Children in Austin, Texas, didn't immediately return phone calls seeking comment.
"Many consumer groups have spent 10 years waging a campaign against vaccines even in the face of scientific evidence," said Dr. Horton of the Lancet.
"We didn't have the evidence back in 2004 to fully retract the paper but we did have enough concern to persuade the authors to partly retract the paper.
"The Lancet decided to issue a complete retraction after an independent regulator for doctors in the U.K. concluded last week that the study was flawed.
The General Medical Council's report on three of the researchers, including Dr. Wakefield, found evidence that some of their actions were conducted for experimental purposes, not clinical care, and without ethics approval.
The report also found that Dr. Wakefield drew blood for research purposes from children at his son's birthday party, paying each child £5 (about $8).The Lancet's Dr. Horton said the journal was particularly concerned about the ethical treatment of the children in the study, and that the children had been "cherry-picked" by the study's authors rather than just showing up in the hospital, as described in the paper.The authors "did suggest these children arrived one after another and this syndrome was apparent, which does lead you to think this is something serious," said Dr. Horton.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003704</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265118900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroom. The mother doesn't give a shit, because atleast she didn't get the side effect.</p></div><p>The really stupid thing about arguments like the one you just made is that if all the 25 other kids have parents who do trust in the vaccine, then they don't have to worry about it because <i>they've been vaccinated.</i></p><p>You might have a point if you were to say that the unvaccinated kid infected someone who could not get vaccinated - like a baby who is to young to safely take the vaccine or someone who has some other illness making their immune system too weak to safely take the vaccine.  But those risks are practically zero in comparison to the the emotionaly super-sized risk of getting all the other kids in their class infected...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid 's entire 25student classroom .
The mother does n't give a shit , because atleast she did n't get the side effect.The really stupid thing about arguments like the one you just made is that if all the 25 other kids have parents who do trust in the vaccine , then they do n't have to worry about it because they 've been vaccinated.You might have a point if you were to say that the unvaccinated kid infected someone who could not get vaccinated - like a baby who is to young to safely take the vaccine or someone who has some other illness making their immune system too weak to safely take the vaccine .
But those risks are practically zero in comparison to the the emotionaly super-sized risk of getting all the other kids in their class infected.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroom.
The mother doesn't give a shit, because atleast she didn't get the side effect.The really stupid thing about arguments like the one you just made is that if all the 25 other kids have parents who do trust in the vaccine, then they don't have to worry about it because they've been vaccinated.You might have a point if you were to say that the unvaccinated kid infected someone who could not get vaccinated - like a baby who is to young to safely take the vaccine or someone who has some other illness making their immune system too weak to safely take the vaccine.
But those risks are practically zero in comparison to the the emotionaly super-sized risk of getting all the other kids in their class infected...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31009264</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not rush to judgement...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264950900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really hate the source on this, but here goes.... the local morning news says that Jenny, and the doctor, say the studies are ongoing.</p><p>In other words, they said retraction or not, the debate is not over, and more work needs to be done.</p><p>Again, sorry for the source, they mentioned this on the local morning news between reading view Tweet's and some bargain hunter lady reading supermarket coupons, so take it for what it's worth.</p><p>When we look back on the history of medicine, we're usually shocked at the things that were done, but at the time we accepted them because "the doctor knows best."</p><p>We'll look back years from now at how primitive medicine is now. So I'm glad they're still doing research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really hate the source on this , but here goes.... the local morning news says that Jenny , and the doctor , say the studies are ongoing.In other words , they said retraction or not , the debate is not over , and more work needs to be done.Again , sorry for the source , they mentioned this on the local morning news between reading view Tweet 's and some bargain hunter lady reading supermarket coupons , so take it for what it 's worth.When we look back on the history of medicine , we 're usually shocked at the things that were done , but at the time we accepted them because " the doctor knows best .
" We 'll look back years from now at how primitive medicine is now .
So I 'm glad they 're still doing research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really hate the source on this, but here goes.... the local morning news says that Jenny, and the doctor, say the studies are ongoing.In other words, they said retraction or not, the debate is not over, and more work needs to be done.Again, sorry for the source, they mentioned this on the local morning news between reading view Tweet's and some bargain hunter lady reading supermarket coupons, so take it for what it's worth.When we look back on the history of medicine, we're usually shocked at the things that were done, but at the time we accepted them because "the doctor knows best.
"We'll look back years from now at how primitive medicine is now.
So I'm glad they're still doing research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004894</id>
	<title>Re:People don't understand statistics</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1265126940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, sure, but have you ever heard a Bayesian and Frequentist duke it out over what "significance" really <em>means</em> (as opposed to how to compute it)?</p><p>Five minutes and I guarantee you'll walk away doubting you understand <em>anything at all</em>.</p><p>Anyhow, I've known a lot of scientists in my day, and worked with quite a few. If you pressed them on an explanation of what significance means precisely, you'd probably get a rough and ready answer that would have statistics nazis of every stripe gritting their teeth in agony.   I'd be willing to bet that for practical purposes most of 'em treat significance tests as mathematical black boxes into which they dump numbers and "significance" as green light that blinks when they've hit the statistical jackpot.  It's not uncommon to see dubious kinds of reasoning about significance, e.g. conflating "very significant" with "highly correlated".</p><p>Moral of the story:in this world, there exists only varying degrees and topical distributions of "ignorance".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , sure , but have you ever heard a Bayesian and Frequentist duke it out over what " significance " really means ( as opposed to how to compute it ) ? Five minutes and I guarantee you 'll walk away doubting you understand anything at all.Anyhow , I 've known a lot of scientists in my day , and worked with quite a few .
If you pressed them on an explanation of what significance means precisely , you 'd probably get a rough and ready answer that would have statistics nazis of every stripe gritting their teeth in agony .
I 'd be willing to bet that for practical purposes most of 'em treat significance tests as mathematical black boxes into which they dump numbers and " significance " as green light that blinks when they 've hit the statistical jackpot .
It 's not uncommon to see dubious kinds of reasoning about significance , e.g .
conflating " very significant " with " highly correlated " .Moral of the story : in this world , there exists only varying degrees and topical distributions of " ignorance " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, sure, but have you ever heard a Bayesian and Frequentist duke it out over what "significance" really means (as opposed to how to compute it)?Five minutes and I guarantee you'll walk away doubting you understand anything at all.Anyhow, I've known a lot of scientists in my day, and worked with quite a few.
If you pressed them on an explanation of what significance means precisely, you'd probably get a rough and ready answer that would have statistics nazis of every stripe gritting their teeth in agony.
I'd be willing to bet that for practical purposes most of 'em treat significance tests as mathematical black boxes into which they dump numbers and "significance" as green light that blinks when they've hit the statistical jackpot.
It's not uncommon to see dubious kinds of reasoning about significance, e.g.
conflating "very significant" with "highly correlated".Moral of the story:in this world, there exists only varying degrees and topical distributions of "ignorance".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682</id>
	<title>But</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1265113620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't it peer reviewed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't it peer reviewed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't it peer reviewed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003280</id>
	<title>Re:But</title>
	<author>stumblingblock</author>
	<datestamp>1265116620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember from my course in Medical Literature Evaluation in college, The Lancet has rather more loose standards than, say British Medical Journal, and as a result, everybody loved to read it cuz it always had provocative and often amusing articles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember from my course in Medical Literature Evaluation in college , The Lancet has rather more loose standards than , say British Medical Journal , and as a result , everybody loved to read it cuz it always had provocative and often amusing articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember from my course in Medical Literature Evaluation in college, The Lancet has rather more loose standards than, say British Medical Journal, and as a result, everybody loved to read it cuz it always had provocative and often amusing articles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004454</id>
	<title>Are vaccines safe - video</title>
	<author>dindi</author>
	<datestamp>1265124180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not want to join a fight about all this. I am convinced, that the drug industry is doing a lot of evil things, and that most bodies like the FDA are actually ment to protect the interest of drug companies (e.g. drugs with same ingredients cannot be sold if they are from India, Canada, etc..) and not the end users'.</p><p>So I recommend making a search on your favourite torrent site or even youtube for "Are Vaccines safe" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhndCkEfJQg) and make up your mind.<br>This video offers an alternative view with some traceable medical facts, and educates you that you have a choice in most states and some countries to chose not to vaccinate.</p><p>Here is the CNN Larry King special on vaccines : http://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=larry+king+vaccines&amp;search\_type=&amp;aq=f  - this one is about the MMR cocktail as well.</p><p>By the way they want to make H1N1 shots obligatory in Costa Rica - where I live - and there will be a huge resistance to it as everyone is scared of the shots' side effects, and the fact that it had very little - if any - testing.</p><p>You can also make a search for flu shots and alcheimers, shots and tumors and find a scary amount of hype and facts....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not want to join a fight about all this .
I am convinced , that the drug industry is doing a lot of evil things , and that most bodies like the FDA are actually ment to protect the interest of drug companies ( e.g .
drugs with same ingredients can not be sold if they are from India , Canada , etc.. ) and not the end users'.So I recommend making a search on your favourite torrent site or even youtube for " Are Vaccines safe " ( http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = RhndCkEfJQg ) and make up your mind.This video offers an alternative view with some traceable medical facts , and educates you that you have a choice in most states and some countries to chose not to vaccinate.Here is the CNN Larry King special on vaccines : http : //www.youtube.com/results ? search \ _query = larry + king + vaccines&amp;search \ _type = &amp;aq = f - this one is about the MMR cocktail as well.By the way they want to make H1N1 shots obligatory in Costa Rica - where I live - and there will be a huge resistance to it as everyone is scared of the shots ' side effects , and the fact that it had very little - if any - testing.You can also make a search for flu shots and alcheimers , shots and tumors and find a scary amount of hype and facts... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not want to join a fight about all this.
I am convinced, that the drug industry is doing a lot of evil things, and that most bodies like the FDA are actually ment to protect the interest of drug companies (e.g.
drugs with same ingredients cannot be sold if they are from India, Canada, etc..) and not the end users'.So I recommend making a search on your favourite torrent site or even youtube for "Are Vaccines safe" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhndCkEfJQg) and make up your mind.This video offers an alternative view with some traceable medical facts, and educates you that you have a choice in most states and some countries to chose not to vaccinate.Here is the CNN Larry King special on vaccines : http://www.youtube.com/results?search\_query=larry+king+vaccines&amp;search\_type=&amp;aq=f  - this one is about the MMR cocktail as well.By the way they want to make H1N1 shots obligatory in Costa Rica - where I live - and there will be a huge resistance to it as everyone is scared of the shots' side effects, and the fact that it had very little - if any - testing.You can also make a search for flu shots and alcheimers, shots and tumors and find a scary amount of hype and facts....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946</id>
	<title>End the debate?</title>
	<author>Canberra Bob</author>
	<datestamp>1265114820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading TFA, as far as my medically ignorant mind makes out, the study was withdrawn due to ethical issues obtaining the samples for the study, not due to issues with the conclusions drawn.  I can see how this would lead Wakefield to be deregistered due to ethical considerations however how does this disprove his conclusions?  The logic seems to go "your study shows there may be a link between autism and vaccines, you obtained samples unethically, therefore this proves once and for all and hereby ends the discussion that there is conclusively no link between autism and vaccines".  I always pay extra close attention when a scientific discussion starts descending into claims of absolutes, a statement like "the possibility is laughably remote that there is a link between x and y" makes sense, "there is no link between x and y and nobody is to suggest there is" smacks of dark ages medicine rather than science.</p><p>I would love someone more medically inclined to provide more background as I sense a lot of info was missing from the story / article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading TFA , as far as my medically ignorant mind makes out , the study was withdrawn due to ethical issues obtaining the samples for the study , not due to issues with the conclusions drawn .
I can see how this would lead Wakefield to be deregistered due to ethical considerations however how does this disprove his conclusions ?
The logic seems to go " your study shows there may be a link between autism and vaccines , you obtained samples unethically , therefore this proves once and for all and hereby ends the discussion that there is conclusively no link between autism and vaccines " .
I always pay extra close attention when a scientific discussion starts descending into claims of absolutes , a statement like " the possibility is laughably remote that there is a link between x and y " makes sense , " there is no link between x and y and nobody is to suggest there is " smacks of dark ages medicine rather than science.I would love someone more medically inclined to provide more background as I sense a lot of info was missing from the story / article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading TFA, as far as my medically ignorant mind makes out, the study was withdrawn due to ethical issues obtaining the samples for the study, not due to issues with the conclusions drawn.
I can see how this would lead Wakefield to be deregistered due to ethical considerations however how does this disprove his conclusions?
The logic seems to go "your study shows there may be a link between autism and vaccines, you obtained samples unethically, therefore this proves once and for all and hereby ends the discussion that there is conclusively no link between autism and vaccines".
I always pay extra close attention when a scientific discussion starts descending into claims of absolutes, a statement like "the possibility is laughably remote that there is a link between x and y" makes sense, "there is no link between x and y and nobody is to suggest there is" smacks of dark ages medicine rather than science.I would love someone more medically inclined to provide more background as I sense a lot of info was missing from the story / article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003060</id>
	<title>Follow the money...</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1265115420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The debate over the autism link is being <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/radical-behaviorist/201001/dishonest-discredited-and-absent-wakefield-is-thoughtless-home" title="psychologytoday.com">stirred by personal injury lawyers</a> [psychologytoday.com], it has nothing to do with science:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Among the dozens of charges the GMC deemed proven against Wakefield are that he provided a research proposal to a lawyer seeking to sue vaccine manufacturers for causing autism. </p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The debate over the autism link is being stirred by personal injury lawyers [ psychologytoday.com ] , it has nothing to do with science : Among the dozens of charges the GMC deemed proven against Wakefield are that he provided a research proposal to a lawyer seeking to sue vaccine manufacturers for causing autism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The debate over the autism link is being stirred by personal injury lawyers [psychologytoday.com], it has nothing to do with science:Among the dozens of charges the GMC deemed proven against Wakefield are that he provided a research proposal to a lawyer seeking to sue vaccine manufacturers for causing autism. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003114</id>
	<title>Conflict of Interest?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265115720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the gov't, media, and pharma all so interconnected, it is incredibly obvious that there is never any pressure on any party in that group to do things (e.g. threats to revoke license to practice medicine, legally protecting pharma from lawsuits, etc.) that might benefit the other. I mean, when has corruption in any of those parties ever existed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the gov't , media , and pharma all so interconnected , it is incredibly obvious that there is never any pressure on any party in that group to do things ( e.g .
threats to revoke license to practice medicine , legally protecting pharma from lawsuits , etc .
) that might benefit the other .
I mean , when has corruption in any of those parties ever existed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the gov't, media, and pharma all so interconnected, it is incredibly obvious that there is never any pressure on any party in that group to do things (e.g.
threats to revoke license to practice medicine, legally protecting pharma from lawsuits, etc.
) that might benefit the other.
I mean, when has corruption in any of those parties ever existed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003950</id>
	<title>Re:But</title>
	<author>goose-incarnated</author>
	<datestamp>1265120820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, by a few peers. Publishing it lets a larger group of peers review it. It passed the first review (maybe 4, 5 peers?) and failed the 2nd (a few hundred, maybe a few thousand peers?)<br> <br>This is how peer review works - reputable journal doesn't <i>want</i> to publish rubbish, so a few peers get to review the research before journal publishes. Since journal is reputable other peers read it, and then they get to refute the findings, find errors, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , by a few peers .
Publishing it lets a larger group of peers review it .
It passed the first review ( maybe 4 , 5 peers ?
) and failed the 2nd ( a few hundred , maybe a few thousand peers ?
) This is how peer review works - reputable journal does n't want to publish rubbish , so a few peers get to review the research before journal publishes .
Since journal is reputable other peers read it , and then they get to refute the findings , find errors , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, by a few peers.
Publishing it lets a larger group of peers review it.
It passed the first review (maybe 4, 5 peers?
) and failed the 2nd (a few hundred, maybe a few thousand peers?
) This is how peer review works - reputable journal doesn't want to publish rubbish, so a few peers get to review the research before journal publishes.
Since journal is reputable other peers read it, and then they get to refute the findings, find errors, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004618</id>
	<title>I agree.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly!</p><p>To give an example that's been around for years is the GM (genetically modified) corn that has it's own pesticide being claimed it kills monarch butterflys.<br>The 'test' done to show that it would kill the caterpillars had a problem, the caterpillars wouldn't eat the corn pollen and thus never ingested the insecticide it harbored.<br>To prove their point that the GM corn pollen was a threat to the caterpillars that wouldn't eat it, they force fed it the pollen. It died.  Duh....<br>Of course, the caterpillars on the milkweed plants around the GM corn fields aren't threatened by that at all since they NEVER eat it.</p><p>You'd be amazed how many people still try to pull that piece of b.s. out to 'criticize' any GM crop.</p><p>Personally I have no issues with GM foods in general, although the ones with pesticides worry me some, but the ones I've looked into have had less residual pesticides after washing in them than the normal ones do. (No, I haven't been able to find stats on all of them, nor would I be anal enough to try.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly ! To give an example that 's been around for years is the GM ( genetically modified ) corn that has it 's own pesticide being claimed it kills monarch butterflys.The 'test ' done to show that it would kill the caterpillars had a problem , the caterpillars would n't eat the corn pollen and thus never ingested the insecticide it harbored.To prove their point that the GM corn pollen was a threat to the caterpillars that would n't eat it , they force fed it the pollen .
It died .
Duh....Of course , the caterpillars on the milkweed plants around the GM corn fields are n't threatened by that at all since they NEVER eat it.You 'd be amazed how many people still try to pull that piece of b.s .
out to 'criticize ' any GM crop.Personally I have no issues with GM foods in general , although the ones with pesticides worry me some , but the ones I 've looked into have had less residual pesticides after washing in them than the normal ones do .
( No , I have n't been able to find stats on all of them , nor would I be anal enough to try .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!To give an example that's been around for years is the GM (genetically modified) corn that has it's own pesticide being claimed it kills monarch butterflys.The 'test' done to show that it would kill the caterpillars had a problem, the caterpillars wouldn't eat the corn pollen and thus never ingested the insecticide it harbored.To prove their point that the GM corn pollen was a threat to the caterpillars that wouldn't eat it, they force fed it the pollen.
It died.
Duh....Of course, the caterpillars on the milkweed plants around the GM corn fields aren't threatened by that at all since they NEVER eat it.You'd be amazed how many people still try to pull that piece of b.s.
out to 'criticize' any GM crop.Personally I have no issues with GM foods in general, although the ones with pesticides worry me some, but the ones I've looked into have had less residual pesticides after washing in them than the normal ones do.
(No, I haven't been able to find stats on all of them, nor would I be anal enough to try.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003642</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1265118540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I will agree with you concerning many vaccines, but flu has way to many variants to be well protected against, and you have to keep getting vaccinated.  Combined with the fact that it is less dangerous than regular car trips to the park, and it is not crazy that many people would opt out.  The other one that is reasonable to opt out of is chicken pox.  It is a disease with very low mortality rates, and offers life long immunity once you have had it.  The big problem being that chicken pox becomes WAY more dangerous if you get it as an adult.  Combine this with the fact that the chicken pox vaccine is not permanent, and you have a recipe for disaster.  Now, I would never tell you not to get your kid vaccinated for the chicken pox, but I'm not sure you are doing them any favors if you are just delaying it until they are 30.  If the chicken pox vaccine were to be given at 12 or 13, when a human becomes adult, and the disease starts to get more dangerous, it would make more sense.<br> <br>

Polio on the other hand doesn't get more dangerous as you get older.  So, even if the polio vaccine didn't last for life, one would still be better off getting the vaccine so that they could spend more of their life healthy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will agree with you concerning many vaccines , but flu has way to many variants to be well protected against , and you have to keep getting vaccinated .
Combined with the fact that it is less dangerous than regular car trips to the park , and it is not crazy that many people would opt out .
The other one that is reasonable to opt out of is chicken pox .
It is a disease with very low mortality rates , and offers life long immunity once you have had it .
The big problem being that chicken pox becomes WAY more dangerous if you get it as an adult .
Combine this with the fact that the chicken pox vaccine is not permanent , and you have a recipe for disaster .
Now , I would never tell you not to get your kid vaccinated for the chicken pox , but I 'm not sure you are doing them any favors if you are just delaying it until they are 30 .
If the chicken pox vaccine were to be given at 12 or 13 , when a human becomes adult , and the disease starts to get more dangerous , it would make more sense .
Polio on the other hand does n't get more dangerous as you get older .
So , even if the polio vaccine did n't last for life , one would still be better off getting the vaccine so that they could spend more of their life healthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will agree with you concerning many vaccines, but flu has way to many variants to be well protected against, and you have to keep getting vaccinated.
Combined with the fact that it is less dangerous than regular car trips to the park, and it is not crazy that many people would opt out.
The other one that is reasonable to opt out of is chicken pox.
It is a disease with very low mortality rates, and offers life long immunity once you have had it.
The big problem being that chicken pox becomes WAY more dangerous if you get it as an adult.
Combine this with the fact that the chicken pox vaccine is not permanent, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Now, I would never tell you not to get your kid vaccinated for the chicken pox, but I'm not sure you are doing them any favors if you are just delaying it until they are 30.
If the chicken pox vaccine were to be given at 12 or 13, when a human becomes adult, and the disease starts to get more dangerous, it would make more sense.
Polio on the other hand doesn't get more dangerous as you get older.
So, even if the polio vaccine didn't last for life, one would still be better off getting the vaccine so that they could spend more of their life healthy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003468</id>
	<title>OP's Qualifications?</title>
	<author>craklyn</author>
	<datestamp>1265117580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if autism is correlated with vaccines.  I am not familiar with modern medicine.

But my instinct tells me that if someone on the internet tells me how I should feel about the science, I would like to see his qualifications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if autism is correlated with vaccines .
I am not familiar with modern medicine .
But my instinct tells me that if someone on the internet tells me how I should feel about the science , I would like to see his qualifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if autism is correlated with vaccines.
I am not familiar with modern medicine.
But my instinct tells me that if someone on the internet tells me how I should feel about the science, I would like to see his qualifications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002978</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>arikol</author>
	<datestamp>1265114940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and the REALLY stupid thing is that even with the most scary made up statistics we can find on vaccines their danger is only a fraction of the danger of the diseases which the vaccines should stop.</p><p>Flu kills (seasonal flu).<br>Children, adults and the elderly DIE from these diseases. I got H1N1 a little before the vaccine arrived in my neck of the woods, so did my wife and children.<br>I got pneumonia and got VERY sick. My one year old daughter got veryvery sick but my two year old got a much higher fever (40C/104F) but recovered quicker. My wife got minor flu-like symptoms.</p><p>I can tell you, we would rather have wanted the vaccination, even with the side effects. H1N1 didn'd kill nearly as many as was feared/scaremongered but it was really nasty anyway, probably the sickest I've ever gotten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and the REALLY stupid thing is that even with the most scary made up statistics we can find on vaccines their danger is only a fraction of the danger of the diseases which the vaccines should stop.Flu kills ( seasonal flu ) .Children , adults and the elderly DIE from these diseases .
I got H1N1 a little before the vaccine arrived in my neck of the woods , so did my wife and children.I got pneumonia and got VERY sick .
My one year old daughter got veryvery sick but my two year old got a much higher fever ( 40C/104F ) but recovered quicker .
My wife got minor flu-like symptoms.I can tell you , we would rather have wanted the vaccination , even with the side effects .
H1N1 didn 'd kill nearly as many as was feared/scaremongered but it was really nasty anyway , probably the sickest I 've ever gotten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and the REALLY stupid thing is that even with the most scary made up statistics we can find on vaccines their danger is only a fraction of the danger of the diseases which the vaccines should stop.Flu kills (seasonal flu).Children, adults and the elderly DIE from these diseases.
I got H1N1 a little before the vaccine arrived in my neck of the woods, so did my wife and children.I got pneumonia and got VERY sick.
My one year old daughter got veryvery sick but my two year old got a much higher fever (40C/104F) but recovered quicker.
My wife got minor flu-like symptoms.I can tell you, we would rather have wanted the vaccination, even with the side effects.
H1N1 didn'd kill nearly as many as was feared/scaremongered but it was really nasty anyway, probably the sickest I've ever gotten.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003508</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1265117820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My favorite is, "We have no idea what the side effect is of this vaccine in 10 or 20yrs."</p></div><p>What do they say when you point out the side effects of the diseases are well known, will happen a lot sooner than 10 years, and include <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943221,00.html" title="time.com">encephalitis, retardation, blindness, and death?</a> [time.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite is , " We have no idea what the side effect is of this vaccine in 10 or 20yrs .
" What do they say when you point out the side effects of the diseases are well known , will happen a lot sooner than 10 years , and include encephalitis , retardation , blindness , and death ?
[ time.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite is, "We have no idea what the side effect is of this vaccine in 10 or 20yrs.
"What do they say when you point out the side effects of the diseases are well known, will happen a lot sooner than 10 years, and include encephalitis, retardation, blindness, and death?
[time.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008558</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264945980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe those other kids should have gotten the super effective vaccine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe those other kids should have gotten the super effective vaccine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe those other kids should have gotten the super effective vaccine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006134</id>
	<title>It wasn't the vaccine, it was the mercury</title>
	<author>Asterra</author>
	<datestamp>1265135160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The famous vaccine / autism link was based on the fact that vaccine preservatives were mercury-based.  And there is much validity in this link.  Consider: Mercury is known to be bad, especially for the brain, and, it can be assumed, especially for developing brains.  Mercury is known to have been a component of vaccines.  To expect no side effects would be criminally negligent.  And to deny a possible link between mercury-laden vaccinations and brain deficiencies, similarly so.  It's like trying to deny a link between a known mass extinction 65mil years ago, and a known impact of extinction-assured magnitude, also 65mil years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The famous vaccine / autism link was based on the fact that vaccine preservatives were mercury-based .
And there is much validity in this link .
Consider : Mercury is known to be bad , especially for the brain , and , it can be assumed , especially for developing brains .
Mercury is known to have been a component of vaccines .
To expect no side effects would be criminally negligent .
And to deny a possible link between mercury-laden vaccinations and brain deficiencies , similarly so .
It 's like trying to deny a link between a known mass extinction 65mil years ago , and a known impact of extinction-assured magnitude , also 65mil years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The famous vaccine / autism link was based on the fact that vaccine preservatives were mercury-based.
And there is much validity in this link.
Consider: Mercury is known to be bad, especially for the brain, and, it can be assumed, especially for developing brains.
Mercury is known to have been a component of vaccines.
To expect no side effects would be criminally negligent.
And to deny a possible link between mercury-laden vaccinations and brain deficiencies, similarly so.
It's like trying to deny a link between a known mass extinction 65mil years ago, and a known impact of extinction-assured magnitude, also 65mil years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31012994</id>
	<title>Re:But</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this type of study is hard to peer review as you would have to repeat the study, with straightforward research you can try to repeat the results</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this type of study is hard to peer review as you would have to repeat the study , with straightforward research you can try to repeat the results</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this type of study is hard to peer review as you would have to repeat the study, with straightforward research you can try to repeat the results</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005844</id>
	<title>Re:End the debate?</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1265132880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think "more scientifically inclined" might help.</p><p>Ethical malfeasance when selecting your subjects casts serious doubt on your conclusions. For the most part, people can't actually verify your original data. They can replicate your study by gathering their own data, and then can verify your analytical methods (to the extent you provide original data), but it's basically impossible to verify that your original data were taken properly. Readers and reviewers rely on your honesty in data collection (knowing that when experiments are rerun in the future, you may well be shown to be wrong).</p><p>In a medical study, selecting subjects is part of taking your data. If that part is not done honestly, it casts doubt on the entirety of your results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think " more scientifically inclined " might help.Ethical malfeasance when selecting your subjects casts serious doubt on your conclusions .
For the most part , people ca n't actually verify your original data .
They can replicate your study by gathering their own data , and then can verify your analytical methods ( to the extent you provide original data ) , but it 's basically impossible to verify that your original data were taken properly .
Readers and reviewers rely on your honesty in data collection ( knowing that when experiments are rerun in the future , you may well be shown to be wrong ) .In a medical study , selecting subjects is part of taking your data .
If that part is not done honestly , it casts doubt on the entirety of your results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think "more scientifically inclined" might help.Ethical malfeasance when selecting your subjects casts serious doubt on your conclusions.
For the most part, people can't actually verify your original data.
They can replicate your study by gathering their own data, and then can verify your analytical methods (to the extent you provide original data), but it's basically impossible to verify that your original data were taken properly.
Readers and reviewers rely on your honesty in data collection (knowing that when experiments are rerun in the future, you may well be shown to be wrong).In a medical study, selecting subjects is part of taking your data.
If that part is not done honestly, it casts doubt on the entirety of your results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31017834</id>
	<title>Some pop theories have some plausibility, though</title>
	<author>Theovon</author>
	<datestamp>1264948680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are some theories that there are immune-related problems that occur in people with autism spectrum disorder, which make the symptoms worse.  This is supported by the fact that some people with ASD have symtoms reduced or even eliminated by removing things like wheat and dairy from their diets.  Both are common food allergens, and of course, gluten plays a major role in an auto-immune disease, celiac.  People with mild food alergies sometimes have what appear to be mild symptoms, but it keeps their immune system tied up, making it difficult to fight off other infections.</p><p>So the theory goes that vaccines are fine.  The problem is that if you give too many at once, the immune system and the liver (processing toxins) are overwhemled and it takes a long time to get over it.  If you were to spread out the vaccines, then they'd have less trouble.</p><p>This theory seems to be held by a lot of alternative medical practioners... DO's, nutritionists, etc.  I know one nutritionist who refuses to have her kids vaccinated.  I'm definitely going to have mine vaccinated, but I may see about having them spread out, even if costs more.  Why not be cautious?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some theories that there are immune-related problems that occur in people with autism spectrum disorder , which make the symptoms worse .
This is supported by the fact that some people with ASD have symtoms reduced or even eliminated by removing things like wheat and dairy from their diets .
Both are common food allergens , and of course , gluten plays a major role in an auto-immune disease , celiac .
People with mild food alergies sometimes have what appear to be mild symptoms , but it keeps their immune system tied up , making it difficult to fight off other infections.So the theory goes that vaccines are fine .
The problem is that if you give too many at once , the immune system and the liver ( processing toxins ) are overwhemled and it takes a long time to get over it .
If you were to spread out the vaccines , then they 'd have less trouble.This theory seems to be held by a lot of alternative medical practioners... DO 's , nutritionists , etc .
I know one nutritionist who refuses to have her kids vaccinated .
I 'm definitely going to have mine vaccinated , but I may see about having them spread out , even if costs more .
Why not be cautious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some theories that there are immune-related problems that occur in people with autism spectrum disorder, which make the symptoms worse.
This is supported by the fact that some people with ASD have symtoms reduced or even eliminated by removing things like wheat and dairy from their diets.
Both are common food allergens, and of course, gluten plays a major role in an auto-immune disease, celiac.
People with mild food alergies sometimes have what appear to be mild symptoms, but it keeps their immune system tied up, making it difficult to fight off other infections.So the theory goes that vaccines are fine.
The problem is that if you give too many at once, the immune system and the liver (processing toxins) are overwhemled and it takes a long time to get over it.
If you were to spread out the vaccines, then they'd have less trouble.This theory seems to be held by a lot of alternative medical practioners... DO's, nutritionists, etc.
I know one nutritionist who refuses to have her kids vaccinated.
I'm definitely going to have mine vaccinated, but I may see about having them spread out, even if costs more.
Why not be cautious?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007504</id>
	<title>Re:Not much of a debate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264932960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of those housewis are rich and coastal, as well as well educated, but don't let your bias get in the way of a good rant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of those housewis are rich and coastal , as well as well educated , but do n't let your bias get in the way of a good rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of those housewis are rich and coastal, as well as well educated, but don't let your bias get in the way of a good rant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006960</id>
	<title>Get your Autism/Aspergers Spectrum Scale Score</title>
	<author>marqulo</author>
	<datestamp>1264970580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I developed an Autism/Aspergers Spectrum Scale Score generating formula as a part of <a href="http://www.hiddencorrelations.com/" title="hiddencorrelations.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hiddencorrelations.com/</a> [hiddencorrelations.com]<br>Anyone who answers the associated/included questions gets a score online instantly. No valid email required.</p><p>The site is also geared towards answering this exact type of question, (Vaccine vs Autism) and I've even added some new vaccination questions to eventually look for correlations to answers from existing Autism/Aspergers questions and the Autism/Aspergers Spectrum Scale Score that is a composite value for each profile.</p><p>Always looking for more participants or any ideas!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I developed an Autism/Aspergers Spectrum Scale Score generating formula as a part of http : //www.hiddencorrelations.com/ [ hiddencorrelations.com ] Anyone who answers the associated/included questions gets a score online instantly .
No valid email required.The site is also geared towards answering this exact type of question , ( Vaccine vs Autism ) and I 've even added some new vaccination questions to eventually look for correlations to answers from existing Autism/Aspergers questions and the Autism/Aspergers Spectrum Scale Score that is a composite value for each profile.Always looking for more participants or any ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I developed an Autism/Aspergers Spectrum Scale Score generating formula as a part of http://www.hiddencorrelations.com/ [hiddencorrelations.com]Anyone who answers the associated/included questions gets a score online instantly.
No valid email required.The site is also geared towards answering this exact type of question, (Vaccine vs Autism) and I've even added some new vaccination questions to eventually look for correlations to answers from existing Autism/Aspergers questions and the Autism/Aspergers Spectrum Scale Score that is a composite value for each profile.Always looking for more participants or any ideas!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002792</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265114160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least the main author had financial interests in the results of the study. The study reached conclusions far stronger then their evidence supported, contradicting earlier studies with larger sample sizes. There was data-mining (if you check 100 variables and 5 of them support your conclusion at 95\% certainty levels... you have exactly what you'd expect by chance. But that won't stop you from saying that you're 95\% certain of your conclusions, if you're unscrupulous). And most of all there was evidence that the data was actually faked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least the main author had financial interests in the results of the study .
The study reached conclusions far stronger then their evidence supported , contradicting earlier studies with larger sample sizes .
There was data-mining ( if you check 100 variables and 5 of them support your conclusion at 95 \ % certainty levels... you have exactly what you 'd expect by chance .
But that wo n't stop you from saying that you 're 95 \ % certain of your conclusions , if you 're unscrupulous ) .
And most of all there was evidence that the data was actually faked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least the main author had financial interests in the results of the study.
The study reached conclusions far stronger then their evidence supported, contradicting earlier studies with larger sample sizes.
There was data-mining (if you check 100 variables and 5 of them support your conclusion at 95\% certainty levels... you have exactly what you'd expect by chance.
But that won't stop you from saying that you're 95\% certain of your conclusions, if you're unscrupulous).
And most of all there was evidence that the data was actually faked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005268</id>
	<title>This is way the flanders don't use them.</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265128920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is way the flanders don't use them.<br>also for the mind control in the flu shots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is way the flanders do n't use them.also for the mind control in the flu shots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is way the flanders don't use them.also for the mind control in the flu shots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003688</id>
	<title>Re:But</title>
	<author>Cl1mh4224rd</author>
	<datestamp>1265118840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wasn't it peer reviewed?</p></div><p>Peer review is not the same thing as independent verification.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't it peer reviewed ? Peer review is not the same thing as independent verification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't it peer reviewed?Peer review is not the same thing as independent verification.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003800</id>
	<title>Re:It wasn't much of a debate to begin with</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265119680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe in global warming and all that. But desertification is mostly NOT caused by global warming. It is caused by over grazing, deforestation, and removal of water from an area (think dams and irrigation). It is also a self perpetuating cycle (dunes spread). Just wanted to clear that up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe in global warming and all that .
But desertification is mostly NOT caused by global warming .
It is caused by over grazing , deforestation , and removal of water from an area ( think dams and irrigation ) .
It is also a self perpetuating cycle ( dunes spread ) .
Just wanted to clear that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe in global warming and all that.
But desertification is mostly NOT caused by global warming.
It is caused by over grazing, deforestation, and removal of water from an area (think dams and irrigation).
It is also a self perpetuating cycle (dunes spread).
Just wanted to clear that up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003586</id>
	<title>Yes it was!</title>
	<author>drainbramage</author>
	<datestamp>1265118240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More thoroughly than AGW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More thoroughly than AGW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More thoroughly than AGW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003112</id>
	<title>Respectful Insolence</title>
	<author>overshoot</author>
	<datestamp>1265115660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or ratbags.com, or sciencebasedmedicine.org, or badscience.net, or leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<p>

You're asking for a detailed fisking in a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comment?  Those details are out there, have been for years.  Just read -- my favorite is scienceblogs.com/insolence -- partly because Orac is a damned sharp cookie, and partly because he dials up the snark to 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or ratbags.com , or sciencebasedmedicine.org , or badscience.net , or leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk or .. . You 're asking for a detailed fisking in a / .
comment ? Those details are out there , have been for years .
Just read -- my favorite is scienceblogs.com/insolence -- partly because Orac is a damned sharp cookie , and partly because he dials up the snark to 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or ratbags.com, or sciencebasedmedicine.org, or badscience.net, or leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk or ...

You're asking for a detailed fisking in a /.
comment?  Those details are out there, have been for years.
Just read -- my favorite is scienceblogs.com/insolence -- partly because Orac is a damned sharp cookie, and partly because he dials up the snark to 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004290</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Herd Immunity is the idea that if enough people get vaccinated, a population won't get wiped next time the guy next to you contracts Measles. Instead, only the idiots who shy away from preventative health care will get their asses kicked by this disease... and that's fine by me! It doesn't require everyone to be vaccinated, but if 10\% of the population has no immunity the disease is going to affect a much larger segment than if only 2\% aren't protected, and put more strain on health care systems in the process, and expose more people outside the "herd" (world travel, anyone?) to the disease as well.

<br> <br>Herd immunity is a pretty damn good idea, if you ask me. For stuff like polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough (Rubella), and other various infectious diseases, the immunity given to us by a vaccine is useful in keeping the disease under control and treatable in small populations. Segments of the population, mostly un-vaccinated, will still get it... but it won't become an epidemic. Those strains of disease rarely mutate and are easily kept under control by vaccination. Look at Measles, which you targeted. The Directors of Health Promotion and Education page states: "About 95 percent of vaccinated persons are protected with one dose, and practically everyone is protected with two doses".  (http://www.dhpe.org/infect/Measles.html) That means MAYBE 5\% of the population is still vulnerable after the vaccination, as opposed to probably 99\% being vulnerable without it. And they acknowledge that some young adults may catch it because the vaccine has 'worn off', but it's pretty improbable to become sick if you have a functioning immune system and have been vaccinated.

<br> <br>Unfortunately in the case of the FLU, herd immunity doesn't work. The influenza virus exists in several different strains, only a few of which can be vaccinated against and some of which can infect you even if you are vaccinated against the others.That's why we had to have a separate vaccine for the Swine Flu, and why we'll have to keep developing new flu vaccines as the virus mutates. It's an incredibly successful organism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Herd Immunity is the idea that if enough people get vaccinated , a population wo n't get wiped next time the guy next to you contracts Measles .
Instead , only the idiots who shy away from preventative health care will get their asses kicked by this disease... and that 's fine by me !
It does n't require everyone to be vaccinated , but if 10 \ % of the population has no immunity the disease is going to affect a much larger segment than if only 2 \ % are n't protected , and put more strain on health care systems in the process , and expose more people outside the " herd " ( world travel , anyone ?
) to the disease as well .
Herd immunity is a pretty damn good idea , if you ask me .
For stuff like polio , measles , mumps , whooping cough ( Rubella ) , and other various infectious diseases , the immunity given to us by a vaccine is useful in keeping the disease under control and treatable in small populations .
Segments of the population , mostly un-vaccinated , will still get it... but it wo n't become an epidemic .
Those strains of disease rarely mutate and are easily kept under control by vaccination .
Look at Measles , which you targeted .
The Directors of Health Promotion and Education page states : " About 95 percent of vaccinated persons are protected with one dose , and practically everyone is protected with two doses " .
( http : //www.dhpe.org/infect/Measles.html ) That means MAYBE 5 \ % of the population is still vulnerable after the vaccination , as opposed to probably 99 \ % being vulnerable without it .
And they acknowledge that some young adults may catch it because the vaccine has 'worn off ' , but it 's pretty improbable to become sick if you have a functioning immune system and have been vaccinated .
Unfortunately in the case of the FLU , herd immunity does n't work .
The influenza virus exists in several different strains , only a few of which can be vaccinated against and some of which can infect you even if you are vaccinated against the others.That 's why we had to have a separate vaccine for the Swine Flu , and why we 'll have to keep developing new flu vaccines as the virus mutates .
It 's an incredibly successful organism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Herd Immunity is the idea that if enough people get vaccinated, a population won't get wiped next time the guy next to you contracts Measles.
Instead, only the idiots who shy away from preventative health care will get their asses kicked by this disease... and that's fine by me!
It doesn't require everyone to be vaccinated, but if 10\% of the population has no immunity the disease is going to affect a much larger segment than if only 2\% aren't protected, and put more strain on health care systems in the process, and expose more people outside the "herd" (world travel, anyone?
) to the disease as well.
Herd immunity is a pretty damn good idea, if you ask me.
For stuff like polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough (Rubella), and other various infectious diseases, the immunity given to us by a vaccine is useful in keeping the disease under control and treatable in small populations.
Segments of the population, mostly un-vaccinated, will still get it... but it won't become an epidemic.
Those strains of disease rarely mutate and are easily kept under control by vaccination.
Look at Measles, which you targeted.
The Directors of Health Promotion and Education page states: "About 95 percent of vaccinated persons are protected with one dose, and practically everyone is protected with two doses".
(http://www.dhpe.org/infect/Measles.html) That means MAYBE 5\% of the population is still vulnerable after the vaccination, as opposed to probably 99\% being vulnerable without it.
And they acknowledge that some young adults may catch it because the vaccine has 'worn off', but it's pretty improbable to become sick if you have a functioning immune system and have been vaccinated.
Unfortunately in the case of the FLU, herd immunity doesn't work.
The influenza virus exists in several different strains, only a few of which can be vaccinated against and some of which can infect you even if you are vaccinated against the others.That's why we had to have a separate vaccine for the Swine Flu, and why we'll have to keep developing new flu vaccines as the virus mutates.
It's an incredibly successful organism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005098</id>
	<title>Methods Not the Findings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They let the findings stand only his methods were thrown out. Why is this such a big story? MMR still links to autism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They let the findings stand only his methods were thrown out .
Why is this such a big story ?
MMR still links to autism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They let the findings stand only his methods were thrown out.
Why is this such a big story?
MMR still links to autism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004738</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of Studies Linking Vaccines to Ill Effec</title>
	<author>ChromeAeonium</author>
	<datestamp>1265125980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vaccines can cause harm, so one denies that.  Vaccines aren't about magically making the chance you get hurt go away, they are about reducing the risk.  People got hurt, and some probably died, during the smallpox vaccination period, but guess what, the end result saved way more than it hurt.  Also, there are studies out there 'proving' homeopathy or 'disproving' evolution.  A study in and of itself means nothing.  On that's been put through the ringer or peer review, and duplicated, those are what you want.  How many of your studies have been thoroughly reviewed and came up saying that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits?  I'm betting none.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vaccines can cause harm , so one denies that .
Vaccines are n't about magically making the chance you get hurt go away , they are about reducing the risk .
People got hurt , and some probably died , during the smallpox vaccination period , but guess what , the end result saved way more than it hurt .
Also , there are studies out there 'proving ' homeopathy or 'disproving ' evolution .
A study in and of itself means nothing .
On that 's been put through the ringer or peer review , and duplicated , those are what you want .
How many of your studies have been thoroughly reviewed and came up saying that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits ?
I 'm betting none .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vaccines can cause harm, so one denies that.
Vaccines aren't about magically making the chance you get hurt go away, they are about reducing the risk.
People got hurt, and some probably died, during the smallpox vaccination period, but guess what, the end result saved way more than it hurt.
Also, there are studies out there 'proving' homeopathy or 'disproving' evolution.
A study in and of itself means nothing.
On that's been put through the ringer or peer review, and duplicated, those are what you want.
How many of your studies have been thoroughly reviewed and came up saying that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits?
I'm betting none.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31016150</id>
	<title>Re:Are vaccines safe - video</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1264938300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about you go to pubmed and read the studies?<br>Larry King went completely off the deep end about 10 years ago, so I wouldn't watch him if he had a whole episode that simple explains how awesome I am. Of course my awesomosity* is already without doubt.</p><p>Bad reporting and bad data are worthless, even when the agree with some preconceived notion.</p><p>H1N1 should be mandatory, as should flu shots, as should all childhood vaccines. At least mandatory to attend public schools. the ONLY exception should be a sign medical note, from a licensed Medical Doctor stating your child is allergic.</p><p>*You read that right!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about you go to pubmed and read the studies ? Larry King went completely off the deep end about 10 years ago , so I would n't watch him if he had a whole episode that simple explains how awesome I am .
Of course my awesomosity * is already without doubt.Bad reporting and bad data are worthless , even when the agree with some preconceived notion.H1N1 should be mandatory , as should flu shots , as should all childhood vaccines .
At least mandatory to attend public schools .
the ONLY exception should be a sign medical note , from a licensed Medical Doctor stating your child is allergic .
* You read that right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about you go to pubmed and read the studies?Larry King went completely off the deep end about 10 years ago, so I wouldn't watch him if he had a whole episode that simple explains how awesome I am.
Of course my awesomosity* is already without doubt.Bad reporting and bad data are worthless, even when the agree with some preconceived notion.H1N1 should be mandatory, as should flu shots, as should all childhood vaccines.
At least mandatory to attend public schools.
the ONLY exception should be a sign medical note, from a licensed Medical Doctor stating your child is allergic.
*You read that right!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003748</id>
	<title>Re:It wasn't much of a debate to begin with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your analogy isn't clear.<br>Are you saying this is like climate change because they cherry picked data and thus both man made global warming and vaccines causing autism are crap?<br>Or are you saying this is like climate change because the science is in and 92.5\% of all climatologists agree man made global warming is real and vaccines are safe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analogy is n't clear.Are you saying this is like climate change because they cherry picked data and thus both man made global warming and vaccines causing autism are crap ? Or are you saying this is like climate change because the science is in and 92.5 \ % of all climatologists agree man made global warming is real and vaccines are safe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analogy isn't clear.Are you saying this is like climate change because they cherry picked data and thus both man made global warming and vaccines causing autism are crap?Or are you saying this is like climate change because the science is in and 92.5\% of all climatologists agree man made global warming is real and vaccines are safe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005420</id>
	<title>receiving money for research is unheard of</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(3) Wakefield is not a disinterested party; he has received a great deal of money from those who stand to profit from his conclusions.</p><p>Yes, this has never happened before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 3 ) Wakefield is not a disinterested party ; he has received a great deal of money from those who stand to profit from his conclusions.Yes , this has never happened before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(3) Wakefield is not a disinterested party; he has received a great deal of money from those who stand to profit from his conclusions.Yes, this has never happened before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31043094</id>
	<title>Re:Not much of a debate...</title>
	<author>tabrnaker</author>
	<datestamp>1265389200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't the really stupid ones be the ones opting for the immunizations and thereby weakening the gene pool? <p>Emotions aside, it seems logical to me to let the weak die off for the betterment of humanity,...even if i would  probably be currently dead if people thought like that earlier, or in an iron lung, instead i just had to deal with partial paralysis from the polio vaccine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't the really stupid ones be the ones opting for the immunizations and thereby weakening the gene pool ?
Emotions aside , it seems logical to me to let the weak die off for the betterment of humanity,...even if i would probably be currently dead if people thought like that earlier , or in an iron lung , instead i just had to deal with partial paralysis from the polio vaccine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't the really stupid ones be the ones opting for the immunizations and thereby weakening the gene pool?
Emotions aside, it seems logical to me to let the weak die off for the betterment of humanity,...even if i would  probably be currently dead if people thought like that earlier, or in an iron lung, instead i just had to deal with partial paralysis from the polio vaccine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002694</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265113620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if he loses his medical license, at least he'll be a budding star in any modern media corporation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if he loses his medical license , at least he 'll be a budding star in any modern media corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if he loses his medical license, at least he'll be a budding star in any modern media corporation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006192</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of Studies Linking Vaccines to Ill Effec</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...but there are PLENTY of studies linking vaccines to other ill effects, here are a (very) few:"</p><p>As others have noted, there can be side effects of vaccines.  But titles of articles do not provide EVIDENCE.  You actually have to read the articles to see if they link vaccines to any ill effects.  Many of those articles you provide likely do the opposite.  And even if they do, many of those papers contain anecdotal data (case reports) which is fairly weak evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...but there are PLENTY of studies linking vaccines to other ill effects , here are a ( very ) few : " As others have noted , there can be side effects of vaccines .
But titles of articles do not provide EVIDENCE .
You actually have to read the articles to see if they link vaccines to any ill effects .
Many of those articles you provide likely do the opposite .
And even if they do , many of those papers contain anecdotal data ( case reports ) which is fairly weak evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...but there are PLENTY of studies linking vaccines to other ill effects, here are a (very) few:"As others have noted, there can be side effects of vaccines.
But titles of articles do not provide EVIDENCE.
You actually have to read the articles to see if they link vaccines to any ill effects.
Many of those articles you provide likely do the opposite.
And even if they do, many of those papers contain anecdotal data (case reports) which is fairly weak evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008580</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of Studies Linking Vaccines to Ill Effec</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264946160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Got any online links to any of this ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Got any online links to any of this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got any online links to any of this ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004056</id>
	<title>Standed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265121480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How could a post that used the word "standed" get a +5 Interesting.
<p>Do you mods have any idea what reading that could do to a grammer nazi?  It could kill a man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How could a post that used the word " standed " get a + 5 Interesting .
Do you mods have any idea what reading that could do to a grammer nazi ?
It could kill a man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How could a post that used the word "standed" get a +5 Interesting.
Do you mods have any idea what reading that could do to a grammer nazi?
It could kill a man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003738</id>
	<title>Re:But</title>
	<author>NothingHuman</author>
	<datestamp>1265119200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Peer review is flawed.  Many good articles are rejected because of politics, many poor articles are accepted from laziness.  Researchers/professors are terribly busy.  Aside from the normal workload that most people might expect---teaching and managing a lab---they spend an awful amount of time writing and reviewing grants, sitting on committees and boards, attending and organizing conferences, and yes reviewing papers.  Something has to suffer, and it's usually the thing they are least rewarded for: peer review.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peer review is flawed .
Many good articles are rejected because of politics , many poor articles are accepted from laziness .
Researchers/professors are terribly busy .
Aside from the normal workload that most people might expect---teaching and managing a lab---they spend an awful amount of time writing and reviewing grants , sitting on committees and boards , attending and organizing conferences , and yes reviewing papers .
Something has to suffer , and it 's usually the thing they are least rewarded for : peer review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peer review is flawed.
Many good articles are rejected because of politics, many poor articles are accepted from laziness.
Researchers/professors are terribly busy.
Aside from the normal workload that most people might expect---teaching and managing a lab---they spend an awful amount of time writing and reviewing grants, sitting on committees and boards, attending and organizing conferences, and yes reviewing papers.
Something has to suffer, and it's usually the thing they are least rewarded for: peer review.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005136</id>
	<title>Re:People don't understand statistics</title>
	<author>j33px0r</author>
	<datestamp>1265128140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Other people believe that if you bull$h17 a complex reasoning process behind a peer reviewed scientific conclusion, you are intentionally trying to talk over their heads. Keep SAS/SPSS mumbojumbo where it belongs...your Ph.D. studies and professional correspondence.  If you can't translate it into common understading then maybe the results should be withheld for a week or two til you can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other people believe that if you bull $ h17 a complex reasoning process behind a peer reviewed scientific conclusion , you are intentionally trying to talk over their heads .
Keep SAS/SPSS mumbojumbo where it belongs...your Ph.D. studies and professional correspondence .
If you ca n't translate it into common understading then maybe the results should be withheld for a week or two til you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other people believe that if you bull$h17 a complex reasoning process behind a peer reviewed scientific conclusion, you are intentionally trying to talk over their heads.
Keep SAS/SPSS mumbojumbo where it belongs...your Ph.D. studies and professional correspondence.
If you can't translate it into common understading then maybe the results should be withheld for a week or two til you can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004004</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not rush to judgement...</title>
	<author>Faerunner</author>
	<datestamp>1265121180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't matter; she "cured" HER kid!

<br> <br>The day that woman dies, I will dance. She has turned autism research into a farce, and has damaged so many families...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't matter ; she " cured " HER kid !
The day that woman dies , I will dance .
She has turned autism research into a farce , and has damaged so many families.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't matter; she "cured" HER kid!
The day that woman dies, I will dance.
She has turned autism research into a farce, and has damaged so many families...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003980</id>
	<title>Tell me something new...</title>
	<author>Faerunner</author>
	<datestamp>1265121000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This should be old news.

Wakefield's hypothesis has long since been jumped on, ground into the dirt, ignored, badmouthed and laughed at by a lot of autism caregivers (unfortunately, not all... and the new big thing in autism care is "alternative" treatments, which is a whole other can of worms). The argument's not going to end, though. As another poster said: people need something to blame, and this is one thing that everyone's "heard" from someone, reputable or not.

<br> <br>As someone who works with autism on a daily basis (I am a behavioral therapist in early intervention wraparound services), it frustrates me endlessly that we're focusing on something so trivial as finding a single cause for autism when it's beginning to look more and more like there are a constellation of causes, each one probably dependent on the presence of several others and a genetic predisposition toward autistic behaviors. I'd rather see funding go toward long-term care; more and more of these kids are growing up without the right care and intervention, and those kids when they reach adulthood will be the ones you'll see on the news: vagrants because the state won't provide care any more, filling our jails because of misunderstandings caused by a lack of socially appropriate behavior, or worse - violent and hospitalized because their caregivers can't or won't take care of them any more. What happens when that cute kid with autism grows up to be that 6' tall, 250lb adult with autism? I know one of those kids. He's in and out of the hospital because he can't take care of himself and abuses his spineless mother. When she dies, he'll be a constant drain on the system. And here we are debating the vaccine link.

<br> <br>Waiting for the news that more states are approving funding for Autism care and proven wraparound services under mental health/disability guidelines...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This should be old news .
Wakefield 's hypothesis has long since been jumped on , ground into the dirt , ignored , badmouthed and laughed at by a lot of autism caregivers ( unfortunately , not all... and the new big thing in autism care is " alternative " treatments , which is a whole other can of worms ) .
The argument 's not going to end , though .
As another poster said : people need something to blame , and this is one thing that everyone 's " heard " from someone , reputable or not .
As someone who works with autism on a daily basis ( I am a behavioral therapist in early intervention wraparound services ) , it frustrates me endlessly that we 're focusing on something so trivial as finding a single cause for autism when it 's beginning to look more and more like there are a constellation of causes , each one probably dependent on the presence of several others and a genetic predisposition toward autistic behaviors .
I 'd rather see funding go toward long-term care ; more and more of these kids are growing up without the right care and intervention , and those kids when they reach adulthood will be the ones you 'll see on the news : vagrants because the state wo n't provide care any more , filling our jails because of misunderstandings caused by a lack of socially appropriate behavior , or worse - violent and hospitalized because their caregivers ca n't or wo n't take care of them any more .
What happens when that cute kid with autism grows up to be that 6 ' tall , 250lb adult with autism ?
I know one of those kids .
He 's in and out of the hospital because he ca n't take care of himself and abuses his spineless mother .
When she dies , he 'll be a constant drain on the system .
And here we are debating the vaccine link .
Waiting for the news that more states are approving funding for Autism care and proven wraparound services under mental health/disability guidelines.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should be old news.
Wakefield's hypothesis has long since been jumped on, ground into the dirt, ignored, badmouthed and laughed at by a lot of autism caregivers (unfortunately, not all... and the new big thing in autism care is "alternative" treatments, which is a whole other can of worms).
The argument's not going to end, though.
As another poster said: people need something to blame, and this is one thing that everyone's "heard" from someone, reputable or not.
As someone who works with autism on a daily basis (I am a behavioral therapist in early intervention wraparound services), it frustrates me endlessly that we're focusing on something so trivial as finding a single cause for autism when it's beginning to look more and more like there are a constellation of causes, each one probably dependent on the presence of several others and a genetic predisposition toward autistic behaviors.
I'd rather see funding go toward long-term care; more and more of these kids are growing up without the right care and intervention, and those kids when they reach adulthood will be the ones you'll see on the news: vagrants because the state won't provide care any more, filling our jails because of misunderstandings caused by a lack of socially appropriate behavior, or worse - violent and hospitalized because their caregivers can't or won't take care of them any more.
What happens when that cute kid with autism grows up to be that 6' tall, 250lb adult with autism?
I know one of those kids.
He's in and out of the hospital because he can't take care of himself and abuses his spineless mother.
When she dies, he'll be a constant drain on the system.
And here we are debating the vaccine link.
Waiting for the news that more states are approving funding for Autism care and proven wraparound services under mental health/disability guidelines...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003818</id>
	<title>Just watched a medicine ad on tv</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and the disclaimer was longer than the ad itself. A long list of possible side-effects, including the fatal one; death.</p><p>Ok, autism was not included.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and the disclaimer was longer than the ad itself .
A long list of possible side-effects , including the fatal one ; death.Ok , autism was not included .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and the disclaimer was longer than the ad itself.
A long list of possible side-effects, including the fatal one; death.Ok, autism was not included.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004418</id>
	<title>Re:Autism? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rain Man is Hollywood fantasy.  The family in the apartment next to mine has an autistic 10-year old son.  He has no special abilities.  He's not a math whiz, musical prodigy, nor is he at all artistic.  He does however have profound disabilities.  He can't talk.  He probably won't, ever.  His interactions with the environment is limited to hitting things, vaguely staring at them, and if he likes it, clapping.  If he doesn't like what's going on, he'll scream.  Loudly.  For the next half hour.  His usual state is to wobble along and make farting noises, occasionally banging on something, favorites being the windows or my wall.  I don't think he recognizes people as being people.  Basically, his parents are grateful they managed to potty-train him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rain Man is Hollywood fantasy .
The family in the apartment next to mine has an autistic 10-year old son .
He has no special abilities .
He 's not a math whiz , musical prodigy , nor is he at all artistic .
He does however have profound disabilities .
He ca n't talk .
He probably wo n't , ever .
His interactions with the environment is limited to hitting things , vaguely staring at them , and if he likes it , clapping .
If he does n't like what 's going on , he 'll scream .
Loudly. For the next half hour .
His usual state is to wobble along and make farting noises , occasionally banging on something , favorites being the windows or my wall .
I do n't think he recognizes people as being people .
Basically , his parents are grateful they managed to potty-train him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rain Man is Hollywood fantasy.
The family in the apartment next to mine has an autistic 10-year old son.
He has no special abilities.
He's not a math whiz, musical prodigy, nor is he at all artistic.
He does however have profound disabilities.
He can't talk.
He probably won't, ever.
His interactions with the environment is limited to hitting things, vaguely staring at them, and if he likes it, clapping.
If he doesn't like what's going on, he'll scream.
Loudly.  For the next half hour.
His usual state is to wobble along and make farting noises, occasionally banging on something, favorites being the windows or my wall.
I don't think he recognizes people as being people.
Basically, his parents are grateful they managed to potty-train him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003994</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, the naivete.</title>
	<author>IronChef</author>
	<datestamp>1265121060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like, autism is caused by controlled demolition?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like , autism is caused by controlled demolition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like, autism is caused by controlled demolition?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006674</id>
	<title>Not a vaccine at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265140620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember hearing a bit of research a few weeks (months?) ago.  It showed that Autism is related to the time it takes the brain to analyse signals.  Someone with Autism hears differently than other people.  They found that someone without autism can hear the entire word "Acceptance".  Someone with autism only hears "Ac".  The brain truncates the rest.  Its one of the first clinical tests to determine another symptom of autism, apart from the classical.  If signals are being lost, it could be related to a structural difference in the brain, leading to a genetic difference, possibly caused by disease or virus.  I'm reminded about research into artificial hearing done by berger-liaw: see http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/36013.htm where they found that computers that have clock cycles (like yours and mine) make crappy neural networks even if there are 10,000 nodes, when it comes to speech recognition, but when you can maintain an analogue time base, you only need a neural net of 6-10 nodes to achieve superhuman speech recognition, even in extremely noisy environments, and even pick out 3-4 different speakers simultaneously.  The noisy environment was so noisy that human listeners could not understand (jack hammer in the background, aircraft overhead, busy freeway nearby, etc.) yet the speech recognition software could understand perfectly, and unlike crappy software where you have to say each word separately, with theirs, you would ramble your words together (normal speech), and it would understand no problem.  If timing is such a vital factor, the autistic problem is a real big problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember hearing a bit of research a few weeks ( months ?
) ago .
It showed that Autism is related to the time it takes the brain to analyse signals .
Someone with Autism hears differently than other people .
They found that someone without autism can hear the entire word " Acceptance " .
Someone with autism only hears " Ac " .
The brain truncates the rest .
Its one of the first clinical tests to determine another symptom of autism , apart from the classical .
If signals are being lost , it could be related to a structural difference in the brain , leading to a genetic difference , possibly caused by disease or virus .
I 'm reminded about research into artificial hearing done by berger-liaw : see http : //www.fas.org/irp/program/process/36013.htm where they found that computers that have clock cycles ( like yours and mine ) make crappy neural networks even if there are 10,000 nodes , when it comes to speech recognition , but when you can maintain an analogue time base , you only need a neural net of 6-10 nodes to achieve superhuman speech recognition , even in extremely noisy environments , and even pick out 3-4 different speakers simultaneously .
The noisy environment was so noisy that human listeners could not understand ( jack hammer in the background , aircraft overhead , busy freeway nearby , etc .
) yet the speech recognition software could understand perfectly , and unlike crappy software where you have to say each word separately , with theirs , you would ramble your words together ( normal speech ) , and it would understand no problem .
If timing is such a vital factor , the autistic problem is a real big problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember hearing a bit of research a few weeks (months?
) ago.
It showed that Autism is related to the time it takes the brain to analyse signals.
Someone with Autism hears differently than other people.
They found that someone without autism can hear the entire word "Acceptance".
Someone with autism only hears "Ac".
The brain truncates the rest.
Its one of the first clinical tests to determine another symptom of autism, apart from the classical.
If signals are being lost, it could be related to a structural difference in the brain, leading to a genetic difference, possibly caused by disease or virus.
I'm reminded about research into artificial hearing done by berger-liaw: see http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/36013.htm where they found that computers that have clock cycles (like yours and mine) make crappy neural networks even if there are 10,000 nodes, when it comes to speech recognition, but when you can maintain an analogue time base, you only need a neural net of 6-10 nodes to achieve superhuman speech recognition, even in extremely noisy environments, and even pick out 3-4 different speakers simultaneously.
The noisy environment was so noisy that human listeners could not understand (jack hammer in the background, aircraft overhead, busy freeway nearby, etc.
) yet the speech recognition software could understand perfectly, and unlike crappy software where you have to say each word separately, with theirs, you would ramble your words together (normal speech), and it would understand no problem.
If timing is such a vital factor, the autistic problem is a real big problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003572</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>fusellovirus</author>
	<datestamp>1265118180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is the Lancets published reasons for the retraction
<a href="http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673610601754.pdf" title="thelancet.com" rel="nofollow">http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673610601754.pdf</a> [thelancet.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the Lancets published reasons for the retraction http : //download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673610601754.pdf [ thelancet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the Lancets published reasons for the retraction
http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/pdfs/S0140673610601754.pdf [thelancet.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002826</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>Nov Voc</author>
	<datestamp>1265114340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can someone outline the flaws in the study? I know we here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. are experts at things like that. But I also don't want to RTFA.</p><p>So why exactly should I <b>not</b> believe the original study? From where I stand (which is little to zero knowledge on the subject) I could conclude that each of the co authors one by one were persuaded by the various pharmaceutical companies which standed to be harmed by this research.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>For the study, Dr. Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them 5 pounds each ($8) for their contributions and later joking about the incident.</p></div><p>From TFA. I don't think it's really necessary to explain why his sampling methods were ridiculous, but it easily casts a fair amount of doubt on most aspects of the study. I would guess at more if I could find the original study in question, but IANAD, either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone outline the flaws in the study ?
I know we here at / .
are experts at things like that .
But I also do n't want to RTFA.So why exactly should I not believe the original study ?
From where I stand ( which is little to zero knowledge on the subject ) I could conclude that each of the co authors one by one were persuaded by the various pharmaceutical companies which standed to be harmed by this research.For the study , Dr. Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son 's birthday party , paying them 5 pounds each ( $ 8 ) for their contributions and later joking about the incident.From TFA .
I do n't think it 's really necessary to explain why his sampling methods were ridiculous , but it easily casts a fair amount of doubt on most aspects of the study .
I would guess at more if I could find the original study in question , but IANAD , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone outline the flaws in the study?
I know we here at /.
are experts at things like that.
But I also don't want to RTFA.So why exactly should I not believe the original study?
From where I stand (which is little to zero knowledge on the subject) I could conclude that each of the co authors one by one were persuaded by the various pharmaceutical companies which standed to be harmed by this research.For the study, Dr. Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them 5 pounds each ($8) for their contributions and later joking about the incident.From TFA.
I don't think it's really necessary to explain why his sampling methods were ridiculous, but it easily casts a fair amount of doubt on most aspects of the study.
I would guess at more if I could find the original study in question, but IANAD, either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008472</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1264945260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Case in point flu vaccines are *marginal* at best, and you even get arguments among professionals about if its worth it (yes i work with these people). There are a lot of vaccines that are worth it, and are for intents very very safe (1 in million kinda odds). However there are a lot of "fringe" vaccines that are pretty well untested, or have limited effectiveness (ie non within statistical limits). Just because its called a vaccine does not mean it works, or is safe (tho they generally are).
<br> <br>
H1N1 was a total joke and always was. What little credibility the WHO had after bird flu and SARS was blown away after that. The prevalence was based on the fact that this kind of logic. Doctor says, "its all H1N1, so there is no need to test. You have the flu, its swine flu". Yes i was told this by a doctor. They are still trying to get my to go to the dam H1N1 summit thing whatever, since there are a lot professionals who just are not interested in attending.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Case in point flu vaccines are * marginal * at best , and you even get arguments among professionals about if its worth it ( yes i work with these people ) .
There are a lot of vaccines that are worth it , and are for intents very very safe ( 1 in million kinda odds ) .
However there are a lot of " fringe " vaccines that are pretty well untested , or have limited effectiveness ( ie non within statistical limits ) .
Just because its called a vaccine does not mean it works , or is safe ( tho they generally are ) .
H1N1 was a total joke and always was .
What little credibility the WHO had after bird flu and SARS was blown away after that .
The prevalence was based on the fact that this kind of logic .
Doctor says , " its all H1N1 , so there is no need to test .
You have the flu , its swine flu " .
Yes i was told this by a doctor .
They are still trying to get my to go to the dam H1N1 summit thing whatever , since there are a lot professionals who just are not interested in attending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Case in point flu vaccines are *marginal* at best, and you even get arguments among professionals about if its worth it (yes i work with these people).
There are a lot of vaccines that are worth it, and are for intents very very safe (1 in million kinda odds).
However there are a lot of "fringe" vaccines that are pretty well untested, or have limited effectiveness (ie non within statistical limits).
Just because its called a vaccine does not mean it works, or is safe (tho they generally are).
H1N1 was a total joke and always was.
What little credibility the WHO had after bird flu and SARS was blown away after that.
The prevalence was based on the fact that this kind of logic.
Doctor says, "its all H1N1, so there is no need to test.
You have the flu, its swine flu".
Yes i was told this by a doctor.
They are still trying to get my to go to the dam H1N1 summit thing whatever, since there are a lot professionals who just are not interested in attending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002680</id>
	<title>The vaccine-autism debate should now end...</title>
	<author>ak\_hepcat</author>
	<datestamp>1265113560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but it won't.    Because the birthers *know* that the face on mars means that aliens ate my buick.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...In other news, Jack Sprat seen eating lean cuisines...  details at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but it wo n't .
Because the birthers * know * that the face on mars means that aliens ate my buick .
...In other news , Jack Sprat seen eating lean cuisines... details at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but it won't.
Because the birthers *know* that the face on mars means that aliens ate my buick.
...In other news, Jack Sprat seen eating lean cuisines...  details at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006486</id>
	<title>A very interesting video</title>
	<author>nisse-j</author>
	<datestamp>1265138760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646&amp;ei=XRZpS7qHBIbL-Aazy6DzCw" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646&amp;ei=XRZpS7qHBIbL-Aazy6DzCw</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = 6890106663412840646&amp;ei = XRZpS7qHBIbL-Aazy6DzCw [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646&amp;ei=XRZpS7qHBIbL-Aazy6DzCw [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003662</id>
	<title>Full GMC report on unethical conduct on Scribd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265118720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Related, Wakefield was recently found to have acted unethically by the General Medical Council. The full report is <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-Complete-Corrected" title="scribd.com" rel="nofollow">up on Scribd</a> [scribd.com]. Some analysis and summarizing, as well as some of the crazy response from the anti-vaccine community can be found at <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/02/the\_martyrdom\_of\_st\_andy.php" title="scienceblogs.com" rel="nofollow">Orac's blog</a> [scienceblogs.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Related , Wakefield was recently found to have acted unethically by the General Medical Council .
The full report is up on Scribd [ scribd.com ] .
Some analysis and summarizing , as well as some of the crazy response from the anti-vaccine community can be found at Orac 's blog [ scienceblogs.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Related, Wakefield was recently found to have acted unethically by the General Medical Council.
The full report is up on Scribd [scribd.com].
Some analysis and summarizing, as well as some of the crazy response from the anti-vaccine community can be found at Orac's blog [scienceblogs.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003296</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Of course drugs dont have side effects. How could that shit ever happen. Drugs only do 1 thing they dont do other things that they werent designed for. And you are a retarded conspiracy theorist if you think its possible for drugs to have more than one effect. Whats next black helocopters flying out my ass to drop stormtroopers on antarctica for the underground alien base so the aliens can rule the world? Idiuts!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course drugs dont have side effects .
How could that shit ever happen .
Drugs only do 1 thing they dont do other things that they werent designed for .
And you are a retarded conspiracy theorist if you think its possible for drugs to have more than one effect .
Whats next black helocopters flying out my ass to drop stormtroopers on antarctica for the underground alien base so the aliens can rule the world ?
Idiuts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Of course drugs dont have side effects.
How could that shit ever happen.
Drugs only do 1 thing they dont do other things that they werent designed for.
And you are a retarded conspiracy theorist if you think its possible for drugs to have more than one effect.
Whats next black helocopters flying out my ass to drop stormtroopers on antarctica for the underground alien base so the aliens can rule the world?
Idiuts!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005290</id>
	<title>I wont hold my breath...</title>
	<author>zerospeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1265128980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For an apology from Jenny Mcarthy. After all, it has been the primary study she has been touting for years as her "evidence".</htmltext>
<tokenext>For an apology from Jenny Mcarthy .
After all , it has been the primary study she has been touting for years as her " evidence " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For an apology from Jenny Mcarthy.
After all, it has been the primary study she has been touting for years as her "evidence".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004582</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, the naivete.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, whenever the courts ruled that the autism-vaccine link wasn't even plausible last year, you know what the anti-vaxxers said?  Not 'Maybe we're wrong,' they said that it was more proof that Big Pharma paid off the judges.  Maybe this will shake some of them (people do change sometimes, as an ex-young earther I can attest to this), but many view any evidence that they're wrong as another part of the conspiracy.  There is this weird community build upon the supposed danger of vaccines, and the people who make it up will, for one reason or another, spout off all manners of nonsense to keep the community afloat.</p><p>The anti-vaxxers are here to stay, and they're bringing diseases like measles and whooping cough along for the ride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , whenever the courts ruled that the autism-vaccine link was n't even plausible last year , you know what the anti-vaxxers said ?
Not 'Maybe we 're wrong, ' they said that it was more proof that Big Pharma paid off the judges .
Maybe this will shake some of them ( people do change sometimes , as an ex-young earther I can attest to this ) , but many view any evidence that they 're wrong as another part of the conspiracy .
There is this weird community build upon the supposed danger of vaccines , and the people who make it up will , for one reason or another , spout off all manners of nonsense to keep the community afloat.The anti-vaxxers are here to stay , and they 're bringing diseases like measles and whooping cough along for the ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, whenever the courts ruled that the autism-vaccine link wasn't even plausible last year, you know what the anti-vaxxers said?
Not 'Maybe we're wrong,' they said that it was more proof that Big Pharma paid off the judges.
Maybe this will shake some of them (people do change sometimes, as an ex-young earther I can attest to this), but many view any evidence that they're wrong as another part of the conspiracy.
There is this weird community build upon the supposed danger of vaccines, and the people who make it up will, for one reason or another, spout off all manners of nonsense to keep the community afloat.The anti-vaxxers are here to stay, and they're bringing diseases like measles and whooping cough along for the ride.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003610</id>
	<title>Re:But</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265118360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen.html</p><p>There is no such thing as 'vaccination'. 'Vaccination' is a fraud, always was a fraud, and always will be a fraud. Jenner was the biggest con artist who ever lived.</p><p>Nobody has ever refuted any of Dr.Hadwen's talks. I wonder why.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.whale.to/v/hadwen.htmlThere is no such thing as 'vaccination' .
'Vaccination ' is a fraud , always was a fraud , and always will be a fraud .
Jenner was the biggest con artist who ever lived.Nobody has ever refuted any of Dr.Hadwen 's talks .
I wonder why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen.htmlThere is no such thing as 'vaccination'.
'Vaccination' is a fraud, always was a fraud, and always will be a fraud.
Jenner was the biggest con artist who ever lived.Nobody has ever refuted any of Dr.Hadwen's talks.
I wonder why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002852</id>
	<title>Hell, that's a bonus</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1265114460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can just advertise that he lost his licence because the powers that be want to supress information and they are doing it by silencing this guy. So spend $29.95 a month to sign up for our web site and learn what the man doesn't want you to know. (You know it'll work out just like that.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can just advertise that he lost his licence because the powers that be want to supress information and they are doing it by silencing this guy .
So spend $ 29.95 a month to sign up for our web site and learn what the man does n't want you to know .
( You know it 'll work out just like that .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can just advertise that he lost his licence because the powers that be want to supress information and they are doing it by silencing this guy.
So spend $29.95 a month to sign up for our web site and learn what the man doesn't want you to know.
(You know it'll work out just like that.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003386</id>
	<title>Re:End the debate?</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1265117220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The unethical conduct is just the last nail in the coffin.</p><p>1. The original supposition, based on 12 patients, was that MMR vaccine may have been the possible cause of bowel problems which led to a decreased absorption of essential vitamins and nutrients which resulted in developmental disorders like autism.  No analysis was provided to substantiate this, it was pure unfounded supposition.</p><p>2. Subsequent laboratory assays on the patients in question found no evidence of measles virus DNA, indicating that the vaccine was not responsible for the cases of inflammatory bowel disease.</p><p>3. Clinical evidence doesn't support a link between IBD and autism.</p><p>4. Twelve subsequent studies have failed to find any evidence of a link between MMR and autism.</p><p>Calling the possibility of a link "laughably remote" is an understatement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The unethical conduct is just the last nail in the coffin.1 .
The original supposition , based on 12 patients , was that MMR vaccine may have been the possible cause of bowel problems which led to a decreased absorption of essential vitamins and nutrients which resulted in developmental disorders like autism .
No analysis was provided to substantiate this , it was pure unfounded supposition.2 .
Subsequent laboratory assays on the patients in question found no evidence of measles virus DNA , indicating that the vaccine was not responsible for the cases of inflammatory bowel disease.3 .
Clinical evidence does n't support a link between IBD and autism.4 .
Twelve subsequent studies have failed to find any evidence of a link between MMR and autism.Calling the possibility of a link " laughably remote " is an understatement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The unethical conduct is just the last nail in the coffin.1.
The original supposition, based on 12 patients, was that MMR vaccine may have been the possible cause of bowel problems which led to a decreased absorption of essential vitamins and nutrients which resulted in developmental disorders like autism.
No analysis was provided to substantiate this, it was pure unfounded supposition.2.
Subsequent laboratory assays on the patients in question found no evidence of measles virus DNA, indicating that the vaccine was not responsible for the cases of inflammatory bowel disease.3.
Clinical evidence doesn't support a link between IBD and autism.4.
Twelve subsequent studies have failed to find any evidence of a link between MMR and autism.Calling the possibility of a link "laughably remote" is an understatement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003528</id>
	<title>Should != Will</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1265117880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, while this should end debate, it's unlikely to do so.</p><p>A lot of times the media, or hysterical people trying to find a "cause" for something, extrapolate from a few anecdotal things they've heard.</p><p>For example, today I saw a scientific article misinterpreted by the news as saying Vitamin E will get rid of ADHD. The sample size was too small (81 total subject, of which I think 44 were not controls) to really "say" anything like that.</p><p>Does it justify further study? YES.  Can we say that Vitamin E (fish oil) will cure ADHD in young kids? NO.</p><p>There just isn't enough data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , while this should end debate , it 's unlikely to do so.A lot of times the media , or hysterical people trying to find a " cause " for something , extrapolate from a few anecdotal things they 've heard.For example , today I saw a scientific article misinterpreted by the news as saying Vitamin E will get rid of ADHD .
The sample size was too small ( 81 total subject , of which I think 44 were not controls ) to really " say " anything like that.Does it justify further study ?
YES. Can we say that Vitamin E ( fish oil ) will cure ADHD in young kids ?
NO.There just is n't enough data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, while this should end debate, it's unlikely to do so.A lot of times the media, or hysterical people trying to find a "cause" for something, extrapolate from a few anecdotal things they've heard.For example, today I saw a scientific article misinterpreted by the news as saying Vitamin E will get rid of ADHD.
The sample size was too small (81 total subject, of which I think 44 were not controls) to really "say" anything like that.Does it justify further study?
YES.  Can we say that Vitamin E (fish oil) will cure ADHD in young kids?
NO.There just isn't enough data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688</id>
	<title>Not much of a debate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265113620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...when it's scientists debating fat midwestern housewives whose "evidence" is nothing more than sad anecdotal stories.

Fucking retards holding back progress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...when it 's scientists debating fat midwestern housewives whose " evidence " is nothing more than sad anecdotal stories .
Fucking retards holding back progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when it's scientists debating fat midwestern housewives whose "evidence" is nothing more than sad anecdotal stories.
Fucking retards holding back progress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003908</id>
	<title>It will not stop the anti-vaxers</title>
	<author>JavaBear</author>
	<datestamp>1265120580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are like any other group of rabid fanatics, they will always refuse to acknowledge any information that does not already conform to their preconceived delusions.</p><p>It is sad sight indeed, when rational though is in short supply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are like any other group of rabid fanatics , they will always refuse to acknowledge any information that does not already conform to their preconceived delusions.It is sad sight indeed , when rational though is in short supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are like any other group of rabid fanatics, they will always refuse to acknowledge any information that does not already conform to their preconceived delusions.It is sad sight indeed, when rational though is in short supply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007790</id>
	<title>Re:Autism? Really?</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1264936560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, your little paranoid rant would be a lot more convincing if there actually were any meds to "cure" or "treat" autism. And no, I don't know of anyone diagnosed with autism that has been prescribed Zanax or Paxil unless they had really serious anxiety problems, and those exist regardless of whatever the diagnosis may be.</p><p>Like it or not, for a lot of people a proper diagnosis can help a lot, not as a crutch to explain one's failings, but as a way to glean insight into what the fuck is wrong in your head and how to go about dealing with it. Especially the milder forms of autism can be compensated for to some extent(the negative effects anyway, being a human calculator is fun).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , your little paranoid rant would be a lot more convincing if there actually were any meds to " cure " or " treat " autism .
And no , I do n't know of anyone diagnosed with autism that has been prescribed Zanax or Paxil unless they had really serious anxiety problems , and those exist regardless of whatever the diagnosis may be.Like it or not , for a lot of people a proper diagnosis can help a lot , not as a crutch to explain one 's failings , but as a way to glean insight into what the fuck is wrong in your head and how to go about dealing with it .
Especially the milder forms of autism can be compensated for to some extent ( the negative effects anyway , being a human calculator is fun ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, your little paranoid rant would be a lot more convincing if there actually were any meds to "cure" or "treat" autism.
And no, I don't know of anyone diagnosed with autism that has been prescribed Zanax or Paxil unless they had really serious anxiety problems, and those exist regardless of whatever the diagnosis may be.Like it or not, for a lot of people a proper diagnosis can help a lot, not as a crutch to explain one's failings, but as a way to glean insight into what the fuck is wrong in your head and how to go about dealing with it.
Especially the milder forms of autism can be compensated for to some extent(the negative effects anyway, being a human calculator is fun).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002918</id>
	<title>Re:Not much of a debate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265114700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same thing happened with silicone breast implants. A bunch of women claimed that their implants caused a whole mess of problems when there wasn't any evidence to back them. The won a lawsuit got some money, lawyers got rich, Dow-Corning went bankrupt, and a bunch of folks lost a lot of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing happened with silicone breast implants .
A bunch of women claimed that their implants caused a whole mess of problems when there was n't any evidence to back them .
The won a lawsuit got some money , lawyers got rich , Dow-Corning went bankrupt , and a bunch of folks lost a lot of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing happened with silicone breast implants.
A bunch of women claimed that their implants caused a whole mess of problems when there wasn't any evidence to back them.
The won a lawsuit got some money, lawyers got rich, Dow-Corning went bankrupt, and a bunch of folks lost a lot of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31020828</id>
	<title>Re:Not much of a debate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265289060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Fucking retards holding back progress.</p></div></blockquote><p>Herd immunity issues aside, I'm all for the stupid reducing their evolutionary fitness.  Natural selection and all that.</p></div><p>Has anyone looked at the autism statistics for people whose parents were stupid enough not get them vaccinated and those people who were vaccinated? We should have enough non-vaccinated people right now to make a comparison significant? Who knows - we might even find MORE autism cases diagnosed with non-vaccinated kids. It would not surprise me that much (basing this on the assumption that parents paranoid enough to not get their kids vaccinated are generally also the type of parents who rush to have their kids examined by a shrink whenever they seem slightly unusual and are the quickest to yell "autism/ADHD/").</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking retards holding back progress.Herd immunity issues aside , I 'm all for the stupid reducing their evolutionary fitness .
Natural selection and all that.Has anyone looked at the autism statistics for people whose parents were stupid enough not get them vaccinated and those people who were vaccinated ?
We should have enough non-vaccinated people right now to make a comparison significant ?
Who knows - we might even find MORE autism cases diagnosed with non-vaccinated kids .
It would not surprise me that much ( basing this on the assumption that parents paranoid enough to not get their kids vaccinated are generally also the type of parents who rush to have their kids examined by a shrink whenever they seem slightly unusual and are the quickest to yell " autism/ADHD/ " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking retards holding back progress.Herd immunity issues aside, I'm all for the stupid reducing their evolutionary fitness.
Natural selection and all that.Has anyone looked at the autism statistics for people whose parents were stupid enough not get them vaccinated and those people who were vaccinated?
We should have enough non-vaccinated people right now to make a comparison significant?
Who knows - we might even find MORE autism cases diagnosed with non-vaccinated kids.
It would not surprise me that much (basing this on the assumption that parents paranoid enough to not get their kids vaccinated are generally also the type of parents who rush to have their kids examined by a shrink whenever they seem slightly unusual and are the quickest to yell "autism/ADHD/").
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003578</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1265118180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correlation does not equal causation.</p><p>If I observe that all people wearing tin foil hats are not under the control of Martians, then saying that tin foil hats prevent Martian brain control is a useless factoid.</p><p>It could be that people who can afford to buy tin foil hats are actually Venutians, for example.</p><p>Or that the Martians just never got around to targeting crazy people, cause they are busy at the South Pole.</p><p>Or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that there are no Martians.</p><p>Or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that I'm a Martian, and by reading this, you are now next on our list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correlation does not equal causation.If I observe that all people wearing tin foil hats are not under the control of Martians , then saying that tin foil hats prevent Martian brain control is a useless factoid.It could be that people who can afford to buy tin foil hats are actually Venutians , for example.Or that the Martians just never got around to targeting crazy people , cause they are busy at the South Pole.Or ... that there are no Martians.Or ... that I 'm a Martian , and by reading this , you are now next on our list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correlation does not equal causation.If I observe that all people wearing tin foil hats are not under the control of Martians, then saying that tin foil hats prevent Martian brain control is a useless factoid.It could be that people who can afford to buy tin foil hats are actually Venutians, for example.Or that the Martians just never got around to targeting crazy people, cause they are busy at the South Pole.Or ... that there are no Martians.Or ... that I'm a Martian, and by reading this, you are now next on our list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006634</id>
	<title>It's BEEN PROVEN!</title>
	<author>X'16435934</author>
	<datestamp>1265140320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. causes Autism.  <br>
 <br>
Just lurk around, folks. <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
  .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <br>
I rest my case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
causes Autism .
Just lurk around , folks .
.. . .
.. . I rest my case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> /.
causes Autism.
Just lurk around, folks.
...
  .
... 
I rest my case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003042</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>raygundan</author>
	<datestamp>1265115360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He fudged the data, failed to get approval for the study, got blood samples from kids at his son's birthday party, had a conflict of interest (was working on a vaccine alternative), didn't get permission to do invasive tests on kids (lumbar punctures and colonoscopies, among others), only used 12 subjects, didn't get the hospital's permission for the study, was censured for ethical violations, lost his medical credentials, had his study retracted, and lost the support of even his co-authors.</p><p>But that's all beside the point-- the critical thing is that substantially larger and longer-running studies have consistently contradicted his findings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He fudged the data , failed to get approval for the study , got blood samples from kids at his son 's birthday party , had a conflict of interest ( was working on a vaccine alternative ) , did n't get permission to do invasive tests on kids ( lumbar punctures and colonoscopies , among others ) , only used 12 subjects , did n't get the hospital 's permission for the study , was censured for ethical violations , lost his medical credentials , had his study retracted , and lost the support of even his co-authors.But that 's all beside the point-- the critical thing is that substantially larger and longer-running studies have consistently contradicted his findings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He fudged the data, failed to get approval for the study, got blood samples from kids at his son's birthday party, had a conflict of interest (was working on a vaccine alternative), didn't get permission to do invasive tests on kids (lumbar punctures and colonoscopies, among others), only used 12 subjects, didn't get the hospital's permission for the study, was censured for ethical violations, lost his medical credentials, had his study retracted, and lost the support of even his co-authors.But that's all beside the point-- the critical thing is that substantially larger and longer-running studies have consistently contradicted his findings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005384</id>
	<title>It might be true.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But correlation  causality.</p><p>The classical example being number of refrigerators ^v number of sons (they both correlate to income, in fact).</p><p>Maybe autism and vaccination correlate both to a 3rd variable, say, level of education -- or e.g. parents absence from home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But correlation causality.The classical example being number of refrigerators ^ v number of sons ( they both correlate to income , in fact ) .Maybe autism and vaccination correlate both to a 3rd variable , say , level of education -- or e.g .
parents absence from home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But correlation  causality.The classical example being number of refrigerators ^v number of sons (they both correlate to income, in fact).Maybe autism and vaccination correlate both to a 3rd variable, say, level of education -- or e.g.
parents absence from home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007828</id>
	<title>Government credibility</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1264937040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 'fall in vaccination uptake' issue was never about medicine, it was about government credibility - New Labour insisted that MMR was safe in just the same way that they insisted beef was safe, or that CIA torture flights weren't using British airports, or that Saddam could attack Britain with biological weapons at 45 minutes' notice. 'False in one thing, false in all,' thought British parents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'fall in vaccination uptake ' issue was never about medicine , it was about government credibility - New Labour insisted that MMR was safe in just the same way that they insisted beef was safe , or that CIA torture flights were n't using British airports , or that Saddam could attack Britain with biological weapons at 45 minutes ' notice .
'False in one thing , false in all, ' thought British parents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'fall in vaccination uptake' issue was never about medicine, it was about government credibility - New Labour insisted that MMR was safe in just the same way that they insisted beef was safe, or that CIA torture flights weren't using British airports, or that Saddam could attack Britain with biological weapons at 45 minutes' notice.
'False in one thing, false in all,' thought British parents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003712</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>JSG</author>
	<datestamp>1265118960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAD but I believe the main potential nasty side effect of having the 'flu vaccine is some sort of syndrome (can't remember the name) but it basically buggers up your brain and may kill you.  The incidence is tiny.</p><p>Now if you don't have the vaccine the incidence of the same syndrome is higher if you get the 'flu.</p><p>That's before you look at the effects of having the 'flu that is vaccinated against.</p><p>I suspect that those countless mothers are not skilled statisticians and nor are the media that report on these things and hence colour their (the mothers) perceptions of the potential risks.</p><p>Unless you can understand and interpret the numbers yourself, assuming you can get hold of the data, you have to rely on someone else to inform you.  Hooray - the media offer to inform you and save you from the bother of having to think things through yourself.  I will grant that not everyone has the mental apparatus to do this themselves.  Hooroo - the media in general would not know a Bayes Theorem from a bath.</p><p>Then you get the personal experience effect which automatically renders probabilities as either 0, 0.5 or 1.  For example in my own personal experience so far I do not personally know a single smoker who has contracted lung cancer.  Some of them have wheezed their last at a ripe old age.  Most of them are in rude good health (albeit rather breathless).  So I would conclude that as a tabber, my chances of contracting some nasty form of smoking related thingie is zero.  Obviously I've given the Capstan Full Strength a miss for some Gold Low Flavour (It's practically fresh air) fag instead - that'll make all the difference!</p><p>Contrast the two sets of reasoning detailed above - who is stupid? (answer in not less than 1,000 words and watch your karma slide ever downwards)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAD but I believe the main potential nasty side effect of having the 'flu vaccine is some sort of syndrome ( ca n't remember the name ) but it basically buggers up your brain and may kill you .
The incidence is tiny.Now if you do n't have the vaccine the incidence of the same syndrome is higher if you get the 'flu.That 's before you look at the effects of having the 'flu that is vaccinated against.I suspect that those countless mothers are not skilled statisticians and nor are the media that report on these things and hence colour their ( the mothers ) perceptions of the potential risks.Unless you can understand and interpret the numbers yourself , assuming you can get hold of the data , you have to rely on someone else to inform you .
Hooray - the media offer to inform you and save you from the bother of having to think things through yourself .
I will grant that not everyone has the mental apparatus to do this themselves .
Hooroo - the media in general would not know a Bayes Theorem from a bath.Then you get the personal experience effect which automatically renders probabilities as either 0 , 0.5 or 1 .
For example in my own personal experience so far I do not personally know a single smoker who has contracted lung cancer .
Some of them have wheezed their last at a ripe old age .
Most of them are in rude good health ( albeit rather breathless ) .
So I would conclude that as a tabber , my chances of contracting some nasty form of smoking related thingie is zero .
Obviously I 've given the Capstan Full Strength a miss for some Gold Low Flavour ( It 's practically fresh air ) fag instead - that 'll make all the difference ! Contrast the two sets of reasoning detailed above - who is stupid ?
( answer in not less than 1,000 words and watch your karma slide ever downwards )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAD but I believe the main potential nasty side effect of having the 'flu vaccine is some sort of syndrome (can't remember the name) but it basically buggers up your brain and may kill you.
The incidence is tiny.Now if you don't have the vaccine the incidence of the same syndrome is higher if you get the 'flu.That's before you look at the effects of having the 'flu that is vaccinated against.I suspect that those countless mothers are not skilled statisticians and nor are the media that report on these things and hence colour their (the mothers) perceptions of the potential risks.Unless you can understand and interpret the numbers yourself, assuming you can get hold of the data, you have to rely on someone else to inform you.
Hooray - the media offer to inform you and save you from the bother of having to think things through yourself.
I will grant that not everyone has the mental apparatus to do this themselves.
Hooroo - the media in general would not know a Bayes Theorem from a bath.Then you get the personal experience effect which automatically renders probabilities as either 0, 0.5 or 1.
For example in my own personal experience so far I do not personally know a single smoker who has contracted lung cancer.
Some of them have wheezed their last at a ripe old age.
Most of them are in rude good health (albeit rather breathless).
So I would conclude that as a tabber, my chances of contracting some nasty form of smoking related thingie is zero.
Obviously I've given the Capstan Full Strength a miss for some Gold Low Flavour (It's practically fresh air) fag instead - that'll make all the difference!Contrast the two sets of reasoning detailed above - who is stupid?
(answer in not less than 1,000 words and watch your karma slide ever downwards)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003934</id>
	<title>Autism?  Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265120760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At some point, Psychology has dug itself into a hole.  Or, perhaps the conspiracy theorist would love to jump on my belief below when it comes to their ideas of world domination.  But, the facts are present to some degree the following:</p><p>1)  It seems that with every pill from the pharmaceutical companies comes a new <i>mental</i> <b>disorder</b></p><p>Now, granted if we all were to believe that most people are stupid, then by nature being smart would not be the norm and thus disorderly.  But, when combined with the word 'mental', is such connotation really necessary without an assumed agenda?</p><p>Now, I prefer to cling onto the classics in regards to mental health, and yes I'm willing to disregard whatever numerical claim psychologists would like tag on to their <i>years of clinical studies</i>.  First off, the only clinic like structures in mental health I might easily recognize is the traditional asylum, which brings me to my second point.  Unless you are incapacitated, drooling and banging your head against the wall, you aren't "crazy".  Just because some people might resist social etiquette doesn't mean they have a disorder beyond that of not being sheep.</p><p>Autism is no different, and it too has such classical definitions.  So here it is.  If you aren't a human calculator, you don't have autism.  If you need a visual, Rain Main, rent it, watch it, observe it, cherish it as very few children are ever that gifted in such narrow subjects.</p><p>Psychology is still an art, not a science, and psychiatrist are nothing but licensed professional front-men to pawn off drugs to half-wits while charging the insurance companies that cover mental health.  With all these categorical labels mental health, has more tools for lawyers to get the murderer off the hook from a capital punishment trial, but more disturbing can be used as a case to take away the rights of someone, who isn't banging their head against the wall, drooling and incapable of much anything else; never mind even aware of rights or able to competently voice an opinion regarding their own rights.</p><p>The most disturbing to me, is all the new autisms that are propounded about the psych industry and media.  What ticks me off, than all the shades of insanity that might exist.  Is now, people who are rather gifted and not Rain Man gifted, are claimed to have some sort of autism, a mental disorder.  Perhaps if they weren't so smart they'd cease to be autistic?  Maybe the autism wouldn't be detected?  Seriously, I've seen the pretty dumb blond so stupid that her inability to do anything is shadowed by some of those I've seen who were officially committed.  But productivity or capability may not be indicative to insanity or mental disorders some would suggest.  So even if I accept this obvious contradiction, it can only be that damn near everyone has a mental disorder, and everyone who is dumb and docile must be the only sane and desirable people!  And who decides this qualification of "disorder"?  They never give examples of people who have no disorders.  So what system are they using as a comparison?</p><p>It sure does seem to be an agenda.  Make people want to be dumb, docile and conformant out of fear they'll be considered to have mental issues.  Ultimately, make them feel they are in constant bombardment of this threat so they purchase more Zanax or Paxil, Prozac or any number of quality name brand seritonin re-uptake inhibitors on the market to boost their mood and keep a smile on their face even in the most dire circumstances.</p><p>I'm sorry, but astrology is more scientific than psychology.  Makes me wanna go burn their books they put so much faith into.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At some point , Psychology has dug itself into a hole .
Or , perhaps the conspiracy theorist would love to jump on my belief below when it comes to their ideas of world domination .
But , the facts are present to some degree the following : 1 ) It seems that with every pill from the pharmaceutical companies comes a new mental disorderNow , granted if we all were to believe that most people are stupid , then by nature being smart would not be the norm and thus disorderly .
But , when combined with the word 'mental ' , is such connotation really necessary without an assumed agenda ? Now , I prefer to cling onto the classics in regards to mental health , and yes I 'm willing to disregard whatever numerical claim psychologists would like tag on to their years of clinical studies .
First off , the only clinic like structures in mental health I might easily recognize is the traditional asylum , which brings me to my second point .
Unless you are incapacitated , drooling and banging your head against the wall , you are n't " crazy " .
Just because some people might resist social etiquette does n't mean they have a disorder beyond that of not being sheep.Autism is no different , and it too has such classical definitions .
So here it is .
If you are n't a human calculator , you do n't have autism .
If you need a visual , Rain Main , rent it , watch it , observe it , cherish it as very few children are ever that gifted in such narrow subjects.Psychology is still an art , not a science , and psychiatrist are nothing but licensed professional front-men to pawn off drugs to half-wits while charging the insurance companies that cover mental health .
With all these categorical labels mental health , has more tools for lawyers to get the murderer off the hook from a capital punishment trial , but more disturbing can be used as a case to take away the rights of someone , who is n't banging their head against the wall , drooling and incapable of much anything else ; never mind even aware of rights or able to competently voice an opinion regarding their own rights.The most disturbing to me , is all the new autisms that are propounded about the psych industry and media .
What ticks me off , than all the shades of insanity that might exist .
Is now , people who are rather gifted and not Rain Man gifted , are claimed to have some sort of autism , a mental disorder .
Perhaps if they were n't so smart they 'd cease to be autistic ?
Maybe the autism would n't be detected ?
Seriously , I 've seen the pretty dumb blond so stupid that her inability to do anything is shadowed by some of those I 've seen who were officially committed .
But productivity or capability may not be indicative to insanity or mental disorders some would suggest .
So even if I accept this obvious contradiction , it can only be that damn near everyone has a mental disorder , and everyone who is dumb and docile must be the only sane and desirable people !
And who decides this qualification of " disorder " ?
They never give examples of people who have no disorders .
So what system are they using as a comparison ? It sure does seem to be an agenda .
Make people want to be dumb , docile and conformant out of fear they 'll be considered to have mental issues .
Ultimately , make them feel they are in constant bombardment of this threat so they purchase more Zanax or Paxil , Prozac or any number of quality name brand seritonin re-uptake inhibitors on the market to boost their mood and keep a smile on their face even in the most dire circumstances.I 'm sorry , but astrology is more scientific than psychology .
Makes me wan na go burn their books they put so much faith into .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At some point, Psychology has dug itself into a hole.
Or, perhaps the conspiracy theorist would love to jump on my belief below when it comes to their ideas of world domination.
But, the facts are present to some degree the following:1)  It seems that with every pill from the pharmaceutical companies comes a new mental disorderNow, granted if we all were to believe that most people are stupid, then by nature being smart would not be the norm and thus disorderly.
But, when combined with the word 'mental', is such connotation really necessary without an assumed agenda?Now, I prefer to cling onto the classics in regards to mental health, and yes I'm willing to disregard whatever numerical claim psychologists would like tag on to their years of clinical studies.
First off, the only clinic like structures in mental health I might easily recognize is the traditional asylum, which brings me to my second point.
Unless you are incapacitated, drooling and banging your head against the wall, you aren't "crazy".
Just because some people might resist social etiquette doesn't mean they have a disorder beyond that of not being sheep.Autism is no different, and it too has such classical definitions.
So here it is.
If you aren't a human calculator, you don't have autism.
If you need a visual, Rain Main, rent it, watch it, observe it, cherish it as very few children are ever that gifted in such narrow subjects.Psychology is still an art, not a science, and psychiatrist are nothing but licensed professional front-men to pawn off drugs to half-wits while charging the insurance companies that cover mental health.
With all these categorical labels mental health, has more tools for lawyers to get the murderer off the hook from a capital punishment trial, but more disturbing can be used as a case to take away the rights of someone, who isn't banging their head against the wall, drooling and incapable of much anything else; never mind even aware of rights or able to competently voice an opinion regarding their own rights.The most disturbing to me, is all the new autisms that are propounded about the psych industry and media.
What ticks me off, than all the shades of insanity that might exist.
Is now, people who are rather gifted and not Rain Man gifted, are claimed to have some sort of autism, a mental disorder.
Perhaps if they weren't so smart they'd cease to be autistic?
Maybe the autism wouldn't be detected?
Seriously, I've seen the pretty dumb blond so stupid that her inability to do anything is shadowed by some of those I've seen who were officially committed.
But productivity or capability may not be indicative to insanity or mental disorders some would suggest.
So even if I accept this obvious contradiction, it can only be that damn near everyone has a mental disorder, and everyone who is dumb and docile must be the only sane and desirable people!
And who decides this qualification of "disorder"?
They never give examples of people who have no disorders.
So what system are they using as a comparison?It sure does seem to be an agenda.
Make people want to be dumb, docile and conformant out of fear they'll be considered to have mental issues.
Ultimately, make them feel they are in constant bombardment of this threat so they purchase more Zanax or Paxil, Prozac or any number of quality name brand seritonin re-uptake inhibitors on the market to boost their mood and keep a smile on their face even in the most dire circumstances.I'm sorry, but astrology is more scientific than psychology.
Makes me wanna go burn their books they put so much faith into.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004284</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, the naivete.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265123220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google the "Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information." This conference, held on June 7-8, 2000 at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Ga., assembled 51 scientists and<br>physicians of which five represented vaccine manufacturers (Smith Kline Beecham, Merck, Wyeth, North American Vaccine and Aventis Pasteur).</p><p>They met to determine how to deal with findings of the convincingly strong correlation between the mercury in their vaccines and a whole host of disorders. They decided to publicly pretend there is no link.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google the " Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information .
" This conference , held on June 7-8 , 2000 at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center , Norcross , Ga. , assembled 51 scientists andphysicians of which five represented vaccine manufacturers ( Smith Kline Beecham , Merck , Wyeth , North American Vaccine and Aventis Pasteur ) .They met to determine how to deal with findings of the convincingly strong correlation between the mercury in their vaccines and a whole host of disorders .
They decided to publicly pretend there is no link .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google the "Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information.
" This conference, held on June 7-8, 2000 at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Ga., assembled 51 scientists andphysicians of which five represented vaccine manufacturers (Smith Kline Beecham, Merck, Wyeth, North American Vaccine and Aventis Pasteur).They met to determine how to deal with findings of the convincingly strong correlation between the mercury in their vaccines and a whole host of disorders.
They decided to publicly pretend there is no link.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004138</id>
	<title>Re:It wasn't much of a debate to begin with</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1265122080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you read about it in other places besides here, what you'd more likely see is just endless mockery that would blind people to anything that really *could* go wrong with vaccinations.</p></div><p>Actually, that's pretty much what I'm seeing here too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read about it in other places besides here , what you 'd more likely see is just endless mockery that would blind people to anything that really * could * go wrong with vaccinations.Actually , that 's pretty much what I 'm seeing here too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read about it in other places besides here, what you'd more likely see is just endless mockery that would blind people to anything that really *could* go wrong with vaccinations.Actually, that's pretty much what I'm seeing here too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003910</id>
	<title>Re:But</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265120580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, and in the original 1998 article they had a lot of concerns with the study which they highlighted.<br> <br>
Scientific verification has levels. First you write a paper. Next other scientists read your paper and say whether or not the methods used or the conclusion reached is bullshit. From there raw data is released for more in depth reviews. After that other scientists/doctors in the field REPLICATE your results. Some cases can be scaled up (n of 1000, 10000) and other ideas/holes are tested.<br> <br>
Peer review is just the second step really. And it isn't like it is some magical stamp. If I wrote a paper and had 1 other person read it that is accredited then i can claim peer review but that doesn't mean fuck all. That is why there are journals (like lancet) that provide a sort of trusted source. Find a journal you trust and follow them, just like news (sucky). So it works pretty well, if you don't like peer review look for the 'independently verified' sticker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and in the original 1998 article they had a lot of concerns with the study which they highlighted .
Scientific verification has levels .
First you write a paper .
Next other scientists read your paper and say whether or not the methods used or the conclusion reached is bullshit .
From there raw data is released for more in depth reviews .
After that other scientists/doctors in the field REPLICATE your results .
Some cases can be scaled up ( n of 1000 , 10000 ) and other ideas/holes are tested .
Peer review is just the second step really .
And it is n't like it is some magical stamp .
If I wrote a paper and had 1 other person read it that is accredited then i can claim peer review but that does n't mean fuck all .
That is why there are journals ( like lancet ) that provide a sort of trusted source .
Find a journal you trust and follow them , just like news ( sucky ) .
So it works pretty well , if you do n't like peer review look for the 'independently verified ' sticker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and in the original 1998 article they had a lot of concerns with the study which they highlighted.
Scientific verification has levels.
First you write a paper.
Next other scientists read your paper and say whether or not the methods used or the conclusion reached is bullshit.
From there raw data is released for more in depth reviews.
After that other scientists/doctors in the field REPLICATE your results.
Some cases can be scaled up (n of 1000, 10000) and other ideas/holes are tested.
Peer review is just the second step really.
And it isn't like it is some magical stamp.
If I wrote a paper and had 1 other person read it that is accredited then i can claim peer review but that doesn't mean fuck all.
That is why there are journals (like lancet) that provide a sort of trusted source.
Find a journal you trust and follow them, just like news (sucky).
So it works pretty well, if you don't like peer review look for the 'independently verified' sticker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002940</id>
	<title>Re:Not much of a debate...</title>
	<author>PotatoFarmer</author>
	<datestamp>1265114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Fucking retards holding back progress.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Herd immunity issues aside, I'm all for the stupid reducing their evolutionary fitness.  Natural selection and all that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking retards holding back progress .
Herd immunity issues aside , I 'm all for the stupid reducing their evolutionary fitness .
Natural selection and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking retards holding back progress.
Herd immunity issues aside, I'm all for the stupid reducing their evolutionary fitness.
Natural selection and all that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003530</id>
	<title>Re:End the debate?</title>
	<author>robotkid</author>
	<datestamp>1265117940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After reading TFA, as far as my medically ignorant mind makes out, the study was withdrawn due to ethical issues obtaining the samples for the study, not due to issues with the conclusions drawn.  </p></div><p>
One of the central issues with these sorts of studies, scientifically, is that there is no actual mechanism proposed by which having a vaccine can lead to autism, hence no specific hypothesis to prove or disprove other than the vaguely described "correlation" between the two. It turns out that Autism is typically diagnosed at the same stage in child development that one is supposed to be immunized, thus leading to an inevitable number of cases where one proceeds the other by a short time span and might appear to have been "causative" at an anectodal level, especially to devastated parents desperate for some sort of autism cure.  This is precisely the sort of link that, in absence of a proposed disease mechanism to explain the connection, one can only deduce from rigorous, systematic studies that carefully test the hypothesis that there is some sort of non-random correlation in a large, statistically significant sample of patients. </p><p>
12 children does not constitute a statistical sample, especially if you already secretly knew most of them already had autism, doubly so in fact you were being paid to represent the kids parents in anti-vaccine litigation (since we have to take the author's word that he didn't cherry pick to produce the observed correlation).
</p><p>
It doesn't help at all that autism is one of the least understood mental disorders, we know comparatively much more about the underlying causes of Huntingtons and Alzheimers, to the point at which I would not be surprised if there are effective treatments within 10 or 15 years.  With autism your guess is as good as mine, the community is grasping at straws for a good explanation of what is going on.   And we do know that the incidence seems to rising dramatically in recent times, which is an alarming trend to say to least.
</p><p>
It's not that I trust big pharma companies so much, or even that the scientific method is so perfect. It's just Occam's razor, a conspiracy of the scale that is proposed by anti-vaccination types reflects a complete disconnect from the realities of biomedical research.  It's a dog-eat-dog world with thousands of competing sources of influences and hundreds of thousands of "players" who more like free agents all trying to make a name for themselves. It's not some monolithic organization like the military that was designed from bottom up to keep secrets from the public.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading TFA , as far as my medically ignorant mind makes out , the study was withdrawn due to ethical issues obtaining the samples for the study , not due to issues with the conclusions drawn .
One of the central issues with these sorts of studies , scientifically , is that there is no actual mechanism proposed by which having a vaccine can lead to autism , hence no specific hypothesis to prove or disprove other than the vaguely described " correlation " between the two .
It turns out that Autism is typically diagnosed at the same stage in child development that one is supposed to be immunized , thus leading to an inevitable number of cases where one proceeds the other by a short time span and might appear to have been " causative " at an anectodal level , especially to devastated parents desperate for some sort of autism cure .
This is precisely the sort of link that , in absence of a proposed disease mechanism to explain the connection , one can only deduce from rigorous , systematic studies that carefully test the hypothesis that there is some sort of non-random correlation in a large , statistically significant sample of patients .
12 children does not constitute a statistical sample , especially if you already secretly knew most of them already had autism , doubly so in fact you were being paid to represent the kids parents in anti-vaccine litigation ( since we have to take the author 's word that he did n't cherry pick to produce the observed correlation ) .
It does n't help at all that autism is one of the least understood mental disorders , we know comparatively much more about the underlying causes of Huntingtons and Alzheimers , to the point at which I would not be surprised if there are effective treatments within 10 or 15 years .
With autism your guess is as good as mine , the community is grasping at straws for a good explanation of what is going on .
And we do know that the incidence seems to rising dramatically in recent times , which is an alarming trend to say to least .
It 's not that I trust big pharma companies so much , or even that the scientific method is so perfect .
It 's just Occam 's razor , a conspiracy of the scale that is proposed by anti-vaccination types reflects a complete disconnect from the realities of biomedical research .
It 's a dog-eat-dog world with thousands of competing sources of influences and hundreds of thousands of " players " who more like free agents all trying to make a name for themselves .
It 's not some monolithic organization like the military that was designed from bottom up to keep secrets from the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading TFA, as far as my medically ignorant mind makes out, the study was withdrawn due to ethical issues obtaining the samples for the study, not due to issues with the conclusions drawn.
One of the central issues with these sorts of studies, scientifically, is that there is no actual mechanism proposed by which having a vaccine can lead to autism, hence no specific hypothesis to prove or disprove other than the vaguely described "correlation" between the two.
It turns out that Autism is typically diagnosed at the same stage in child development that one is supposed to be immunized, thus leading to an inevitable number of cases where one proceeds the other by a short time span and might appear to have been "causative" at an anectodal level, especially to devastated parents desperate for some sort of autism cure.
This is precisely the sort of link that, in absence of a proposed disease mechanism to explain the connection, one can only deduce from rigorous, systematic studies that carefully test the hypothesis that there is some sort of non-random correlation in a large, statistically significant sample of patients.
12 children does not constitute a statistical sample, especially if you already secretly knew most of them already had autism, doubly so in fact you were being paid to represent the kids parents in anti-vaccine litigation (since we have to take the author's word that he didn't cherry pick to produce the observed correlation).
It doesn't help at all that autism is one of the least understood mental disorders, we know comparatively much more about the underlying causes of Huntingtons and Alzheimers, to the point at which I would not be surprised if there are effective treatments within 10 or 15 years.
With autism your guess is as good as mine, the community is grasping at straws for a good explanation of what is going on.
And we do know that the incidence seems to rising dramatically in recent times, which is an alarming trend to say to least.
It's not that I trust big pharma companies so much, or even that the scientific method is so perfect.
It's just Occam's razor, a conspiracy of the scale that is proposed by anti-vaccination types reflects a complete disconnect from the realities of biomedical research.
It's a dog-eat-dog world with thousands of competing sources of influences and hundreds of thousands of "players" who more like free agents all trying to make a name for themselves.
It's not some monolithic organization like the military that was designed from bottom up to keep secrets from the public.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31017020</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>Bourbonium</author>
	<datestamp>1264942980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, the lead author of the study, Andrew Wakefield, was not a pediatrician who specialized in the treatment of children, nor was he an immunologist, who specializes in studying and treating the immune system.  He was a gastroenterologist, who was consulted over some digestive disorders.</p><p>Second, he based his research on a study of only 12 children whom he treated.  Yes, you read that correctly.  Twelve kids.  Not 200, or 6,000, or 15,000.  Twelve.  And that was his sole study group.  There was no control group with which to compare results.</p><p>Third, he collected blood specimens from random children whom he invited to his son's birthday party, and paid them 5 pounds each for their blood.  He did not obtain informed consent from the kids or their parents, a major violation of medical ethics and research protocols.</p><p>Fourth, he accepted over 400,000 pounds in payment from a group of attorneys retained by parents groups to sue the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines.</p><p>Fifth, he now blames thimerosol and the minute levels of ethyl mercury it contained as causes of autism, but in his original paper, he never mentioned thimerosol or mercury, mainly because the MMR vaccine he was blaming for autism did not even contain thimerosol.</p><p>Is this enough?  Or do you need more data?  If so, check out <a href="http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/1/19" title="ama-assn.org">http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/1/19</a> [ama-assn.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , the lead author of the study , Andrew Wakefield , was not a pediatrician who specialized in the treatment of children , nor was he an immunologist , who specializes in studying and treating the immune system .
He was a gastroenterologist , who was consulted over some digestive disorders.Second , he based his research on a study of only 12 children whom he treated .
Yes , you read that correctly .
Twelve kids .
Not 200 , or 6,000 , or 15,000 .
Twelve. And that was his sole study group .
There was no control group with which to compare results.Third , he collected blood specimens from random children whom he invited to his son 's birthday party , and paid them 5 pounds each for their blood .
He did not obtain informed consent from the kids or their parents , a major violation of medical ethics and research protocols.Fourth , he accepted over 400,000 pounds in payment from a group of attorneys retained by parents groups to sue the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines.Fifth , he now blames thimerosol and the minute levels of ethyl mercury it contained as causes of autism , but in his original paper , he never mentioned thimerosol or mercury , mainly because the MMR vaccine he was blaming for autism did not even contain thimerosol.Is this enough ?
Or do you need more data ?
If so , check out http : //archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/1/19 [ ama-assn.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, the lead author of the study, Andrew Wakefield, was not a pediatrician who specialized in the treatment of children, nor was he an immunologist, who specializes in studying and treating the immune system.
He was a gastroenterologist, who was consulted over some digestive disorders.Second, he based his research on a study of only 12 children whom he treated.
Yes, you read that correctly.
Twelve kids.
Not 200, or 6,000, or 15,000.
Twelve.  And that was his sole study group.
There was no control group with which to compare results.Third, he collected blood specimens from random children whom he invited to his son's birthday party, and paid them 5 pounds each for their blood.
He did not obtain informed consent from the kids or their parents, a major violation of medical ethics and research protocols.Fourth, he accepted over 400,000 pounds in payment from a group of attorneys retained by parents groups to sue the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines.Fifth, he now blames thimerosol and the minute levels of ethyl mercury it contained as causes of autism, but in his original paper, he never mentioned thimerosol or mercury, mainly because the MMR vaccine he was blaming for autism did not even contain thimerosol.Is this enough?
Or do you need more data?
If so, check out http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/1/19 [ama-assn.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003242</id>
	<title>A good move, but ineffective</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1265116500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This study has already been thoroughly discredited.  If evidence didn't sway the anti-vaccine movement, having a paper pulled from a "big-pharma shill" journal probably won't help either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This study has already been thoroughly discredited .
If evidence did n't sway the anti-vaccine movement , having a paper pulled from a " big-pharma shill " journal probably wo n't help either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This study has already been thoroughly discredited.
If evidence didn't sway the anti-vaccine movement, having a paper pulled from a "big-pharma shill" journal probably won't help either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002848</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265114460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure.</p><p>His methodology was deeply flawed:<br>his selection of research subjects very biased as he chose subjects he already had experience with and knew their problems so he could skew the control group like he wanted,<br>Some research subjects were selected/tested at a children's birthday party,some without parents consent (serious violation of research ethics).<br>No proper double blinding was done,<br>and even then the results were mismanaged in such a way that they showed a strong correlation (which in fact, even his skewed results did not really show).</p><p>Apart from him (Dr.Wakefield) having ties to anti vaccination groups and heading some of them and making a ton of money on his scare tactics (the results of which are little things like an increase in children dying from measles and other such lovely things).</p><p>basically, anything which could be done wrong WAS done wrong. I've seen better done research in homeopathy journals, and they're not really known for using science at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure.His methodology was deeply flawed : his selection of research subjects very biased as he chose subjects he already had experience with and knew their problems so he could skew the control group like he wanted,Some research subjects were selected/tested at a children 's birthday party,some without parents consent ( serious violation of research ethics ) .No proper double blinding was done,and even then the results were mismanaged in such a way that they showed a strong correlation ( which in fact , even his skewed results did not really show ) .Apart from him ( Dr.Wakefield ) having ties to anti vaccination groups and heading some of them and making a ton of money on his scare tactics ( the results of which are little things like an increase in children dying from measles and other such lovely things ) .basically , anything which could be done wrong WAS done wrong .
I 've seen better done research in homeopathy journals , and they 're not really known for using science at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.His methodology was deeply flawed:his selection of research subjects very biased as he chose subjects he already had experience with and knew their problems so he could skew the control group like he wanted,Some research subjects were selected/tested at a children's birthday party,some without parents consent (serious violation of research ethics).No proper double blinding was done,and even then the results were mismanaged in such a way that they showed a strong correlation (which in fact, even his skewed results did not really show).Apart from him (Dr.Wakefield) having ties to anti vaccination groups and heading some of them and making a ton of money on his scare tactics (the results of which are little things like an increase in children dying from measles and other such lovely things).basically, anything which could be done wrong WAS done wrong.
I've seen better done research in homeopathy journals, and they're not really known for using science at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007384</id>
	<title>Re:End the debate?</title>
	<author>puroresu</author>
	<datestamp>1264931580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The issue isn't just that the research data was dubiously obtained, it's that the manner in which it was obtained renders it useless for any meaningful research. Wakefield selected his own small group of test subjects, which in itself allows for conscious or unwitting partiality.
<br> <br>
In addition, there's the fact that no subsequent study conducted under properly controlled conditions has ever shown a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
<br> <br>
There has been a rise in autism diagnoses, but that's due to a number of factors including people such as teachers becoming more aware of the condition, and the growing understanding of autism as a nuanced condition which exhibits a spectrum of symptoms. This means that people are being diagnosed who might not have been previously. The anti-vaccine loonies see this and confuse correlation with causation.
<br> <br>
The entire vaccine conspiracy lobby make some ridiculous claims, either misrepresenting information or blatantly making shit up as they go along. Unfortunately there are people out there who would rather make decisions about their children's medical care on the basis on Jenny McCarthy's opinion than that of someone who has the first fucking clue what they're talking about, and we're seeing preventable deaths of children as a result.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is n't just that the research data was dubiously obtained , it 's that the manner in which it was obtained renders it useless for any meaningful research .
Wakefield selected his own small group of test subjects , which in itself allows for conscious or unwitting partiality .
In addition , there 's the fact that no subsequent study conducted under properly controlled conditions has ever shown a link between the MMR vaccine and autism .
There has been a rise in autism diagnoses , but that 's due to a number of factors including people such as teachers becoming more aware of the condition , and the growing understanding of autism as a nuanced condition which exhibits a spectrum of symptoms .
This means that people are being diagnosed who might not have been previously .
The anti-vaccine loonies see this and confuse correlation with causation .
The entire vaccine conspiracy lobby make some ridiculous claims , either misrepresenting information or blatantly making shit up as they go along .
Unfortunately there are people out there who would rather make decisions about their children 's medical care on the basis on Jenny McCarthy 's opinion than that of someone who has the first fucking clue what they 're talking about , and we 're seeing preventable deaths of children as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue isn't just that the research data was dubiously obtained, it's that the manner in which it was obtained renders it useless for any meaningful research.
Wakefield selected his own small group of test subjects, which in itself allows for conscious or unwitting partiality.
In addition, there's the fact that no subsequent study conducted under properly controlled conditions has ever shown a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
There has been a rise in autism diagnoses, but that's due to a number of factors including people such as teachers becoming more aware of the condition, and the growing understanding of autism as a nuanced condition which exhibits a spectrum of symptoms.
This means that people are being diagnosed who might not have been previously.
The anti-vaccine loonies see this and confuse correlation with causation.
The entire vaccine conspiracy lobby make some ridiculous claims, either misrepresenting information or blatantly making shit up as they go along.
Unfortunately there are people out there who would rather make decisions about their children's medical care on the basis on Jenny McCarthy's opinion than that of someone who has the first fucking clue what they're talking about, and we're seeing preventable deaths of children as a result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31009332</id>
	<title>Re:Not much of a debate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264951320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, the children will find something else they may have once ingested and sue whatever company produced that to pay for fertility treatments.  Natural selection in humans has been on the decline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , the children will find something else they may have once ingested and sue whatever company produced that to pay for fertility treatments .
Natural selection in humans has been on the decline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, the children will find something else they may have once ingested and sue whatever company produced that to pay for fertility treatments.
Natural selection in humans has been on the decline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005056</id>
	<title>Re:But</title>
	<author>j33px0r</author>
	<datestamp>1265127720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Peer reviewed does not mean that they had access to the original data nor the actual method of obtaining that data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peer reviewed does not mean that they had access to the original data nor the actual method of obtaining that data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peer reviewed does not mean that they had access to the original data nor the actual method of obtaining that data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003216</id>
	<title>"The vaccine-autism debate should now end"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't imagine being <b>that</b> naive.</p><p>There are legal fortunes to be made.  Government regulators to ensconce.  The issue is far too lucrative to be allowed to vanish because some trumped up nonsense published last century has been discredited.</p><p>Politically protected 'science' doesn't submit to mere evidence.  See climate-gate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't imagine being that naive.There are legal fortunes to be made .
Government regulators to ensconce .
The issue is far too lucrative to be allowed to vanish because some trumped up nonsense published last century has been discredited.Politically protected 'science ' does n't submit to mere evidence .
See climate-gate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't imagine being that naive.There are legal fortunes to be made.
Government regulators to ensconce.
The issue is far too lucrative to be allowed to vanish because some trumped up nonsense published last century has been discredited.Politically protected 'science' doesn't submit to mere evidence.
See climate-gate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002972</id>
	<title>Nice of Lancet to come around</title>
	<author>rbrander</author>
	<datestamp>1265114880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought Kennedy had rather too-strong opinions on the subject when he appeared on Jon Stewart a few years back.  Then I found this article on Slate, 2005:

<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2123647/" title="slate.com">http://www.slate.com/id/2123647/</a> [slate.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...by Arthur Allen, the guy who first did an in-depth story on the subject for the New York Times magazine in 2002.

Early paragraph:<blockquote><div><p>"Since then, four perfectly good studies comparing large populations of kids have showed that thimerosal did not cause the increased reporting of autism. The best evidence comes from Denmark, which stopped putting thimerosal in vaccines in 1992; the rate of autism in kids born afterward continued to increase. "</p></div>
</blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...suffice to say, by the end of that article, I'd lost interest in the subject.  About the only question of interest here, is "what took the Lancet so long?"

Physician and SF writer F.Paul Wilson runs a blog at TrueSlant.com: <a href="http://trueslant.com/fpaulwilson/" title="trueslant.com">http://trueslant.com/fpaulwilson/</a> [trueslant.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...where his most recent post riffs off the BBC story about the Lancet article author actually being cited for "acting unethically".  Wilson puts it:</p><blockquote><div><p>The MMR is the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.  The UK's General Medical Council also ruled that Dr. Andrew Wakefield<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in doing his research...

Get this: the guy is a gastroenterologist and he was doing spinal taps on kids.  He paid kids and his son's birthday party &pound;5 each for blood.  His so-called research was published in 1998 in the respected journal The Lancet, but he neglected to mention that he was being paid to advise the lawyers for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR.

The board said he had acted with "callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer".</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Click on Dr. Wilson's link to see his copy of a graph showing the slight drop in MMR vaccinations resulting in a sharp increase in measles cases.  Fortunately, a mere thousand or so more per year will only mean a couple of deaths, blindings, sterilizations, and so forth.


Words fail me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Kennedy had rather too-strong opinions on the subject when he appeared on Jon Stewart a few years back .
Then I found this article on Slate , 2005 : http : //www.slate.com/id/2123647/ [ slate.com ] ...by Arthur Allen , the guy who first did an in-depth story on the subject for the New York Times magazine in 2002 .
Early paragraph : " Since then , four perfectly good studies comparing large populations of kids have showed that thimerosal did not cause the increased reporting of autism .
The best evidence comes from Denmark , which stopped putting thimerosal in vaccines in 1992 ; the rate of autism in kids born afterward continued to increase .
" ...suffice to say , by the end of that article , I 'd lost interest in the subject .
About the only question of interest here , is " what took the Lancet so long ?
" Physician and SF writer F.Paul Wilson runs a blog at TrueSlant.com : http : //trueslant.com/fpaulwilson/ [ trueslant.com ] ...where his most recent post riffs off the BBC story about the Lancet article author actually being cited for " acting unethically " .
Wilson puts it : The MMR is the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine .
The UK 's General Medical Council also ruled that Dr. Andrew Wakefield ...acted " dishonestly and irresponsibly " in doing his research.. . Get this : the guy is a gastroenterologist and he was doing spinal taps on kids .
He paid kids and his son 's birthday party   5 each for blood .
His so-called research was published in 1998 in the respected journal The Lancet , but he neglected to mention that he was being paid to advise the lawyers for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR .
The board said he had acted with " callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer " .
Click on Dr. Wilson 's link to see his copy of a graph showing the slight drop in MMR vaccinations resulting in a sharp increase in measles cases .
Fortunately , a mere thousand or so more per year will only mean a couple of deaths , blindings , sterilizations , and so forth .
Words fail me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Kennedy had rather too-strong opinions on the subject when he appeared on Jon Stewart a few years back.
Then I found this article on Slate, 2005:

http://www.slate.com/id/2123647/ [slate.com] ...by Arthur Allen, the guy who first did an in-depth story on the subject for the New York Times magazine in 2002.
Early paragraph:"Since then, four perfectly good studies comparing large populations of kids have showed that thimerosal did not cause the increased reporting of autism.
The best evidence comes from Denmark, which stopped putting thimerosal in vaccines in 1992; the rate of autism in kids born afterward continued to increase.
"
 ...suffice to say, by the end of that article, I'd lost interest in the subject.
About the only question of interest here, is "what took the Lancet so long?
"

Physician and SF writer F.Paul Wilson runs a blog at TrueSlant.com: http://trueslant.com/fpaulwilson/ [trueslant.com] ...where his most recent post riffs off the BBC story about the Lancet article author actually being cited for "acting unethically".
Wilson puts it:The MMR is the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.
The UK's General Medical Council also ruled that Dr. Andrew Wakefield ...acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in doing his research...

Get this: the guy is a gastroenterologist and he was doing spinal taps on kids.
He paid kids and his son's birthday party £5 each for blood.
His so-called research was published in 1998 in the respected journal The Lancet, but he neglected to mention that he was being paid to advise the lawyers for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR.
The board said he had acted with "callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer".
Click on Dr. Wilson's link to see his copy of a graph showing the slight drop in MMR vaccinations resulting in a sharp increase in measles cases.
Fortunately, a mere thousand or so more per year will only mean a couple of deaths, blindings, sterilizations, and so forth.
Words fail me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003988</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of Studies Linking Vaccines to Ill Effec</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265121060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have any links instead of a copied list? I did some search on a few of them and the only hits where lawyers and anti-vaxxers.</p><p>Just to be clear, no one is saying there is NO risk, only comparing the very low risk of insident( about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0001\% ) vs, the very high likely hood of getting some serious diseases.</p><p>There is always risk, it's about mediating it. I mean, just sticking a needle into carries a risk. One the is reduced by using sterile needle, swabbing the injection point, and using gloves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have any links instead of a copied list ?
I did some search on a few of them and the only hits where lawyers and anti-vaxxers.Just to be clear , no one is saying there is NO risk , only comparing the very low risk of insident ( about .0001 \ % ) vs , the very high likely hood of getting some serious diseases.There is always risk , it 's about mediating it .
I mean , just sticking a needle into carries a risk .
One the is reduced by using sterile needle , swabbing the injection point , and using gloves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have any links instead of a copied list?
I did some search on a few of them and the only hits where lawyers and anti-vaxxers.Just to be clear, no one is saying there is NO risk, only comparing the very low risk of insident( about .0001\% ) vs, the very high likely hood of getting some serious diseases.There is always risk, it's about mediating it.
I mean, just sticking a needle into carries a risk.
One the is reduced by using sterile needle, swabbing the injection point, and using gloves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002716</id>
	<title>big pharma had nothing to do with this decision!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265113740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm sure big pharma had nothing to do with the Lancet changing its view!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm sure big pharma had nothing to do with the Lancet changing its view !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm sure big pharma had nothing to do with the Lancet changing its view!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003460</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, the naivete.</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1265117580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The vaccine-autism debate should now end.</p></div><p>Yeah, right. Since when have facts ever got in the way of a 'good' conspiracy theory?</p></div><p>That was probably sarcasm on the part of JamJam.  Also, should is not the same as will, although I would argue the debate -should- have ended when it became clear this was bogus science.  He may also have meant "debate" as in "scientific debate" (again though, that was over before now) wheras the "debate" in the non-science sector will continue.  Like how the question as to whether or not "macro-evolution" happened was over a hundred years ago in terms of scientific debate, but some idiots want to keep arguing until we all give up, admit we were wrong, affirm that their God rules, and give huge tithes to their church.  Or something like that, I don't really know what they're after.  Publicity maybe, which is what I think the anti-vaccination crowd is after, since their ringleader's career of taking off her clothes is over and her acting career never really went anywhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vaccine-autism debate should now end.Yeah , right .
Since when have facts ever got in the way of a 'good ' conspiracy theory ? That was probably sarcasm on the part of JamJam .
Also , should is not the same as will , although I would argue the debate -should- have ended when it became clear this was bogus science .
He may also have meant " debate " as in " scientific debate " ( again though , that was over before now ) wheras the " debate " in the non-science sector will continue .
Like how the question as to whether or not " macro-evolution " happened was over a hundred years ago in terms of scientific debate , but some idiots want to keep arguing until we all give up , admit we were wrong , affirm that their God rules , and give huge tithes to their church .
Or something like that , I do n't really know what they 're after .
Publicity maybe , which is what I think the anti-vaccination crowd is after , since their ringleader 's career of taking off her clothes is over and her acting career never really went anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vaccine-autism debate should now end.Yeah, right.
Since when have facts ever got in the way of a 'good' conspiracy theory?That was probably sarcasm on the part of JamJam.
Also, should is not the same as will, although I would argue the debate -should- have ended when it became clear this was bogus science.
He may also have meant "debate" as in "scientific debate" (again though, that was over before now) wheras the "debate" in the non-science sector will continue.
Like how the question as to whether or not "macro-evolution" happened was over a hundred years ago in terms of scientific debate, but some idiots want to keep arguing until we all give up, admit we were wrong, affirm that their God rules, and give huge tithes to their church.
Or something like that, I don't really know what they're after.
Publicity maybe, which is what I think the anti-vaccination crowd is after, since their ringleader's career of taking off her clothes is over and her acting career never really went anywhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002986</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>postbigbang</author>
	<datestamp>1265115060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you want to just understand why, and when you find a common denominator possibility, you jump on it, wanting to be a simple answer.</p><p>Like Mencken said, complex problems have easy and understandable answers, and they're wrong.</p><p>I wanted to find why a relative of mine has autism. Sure would be nice if we could blame it on the vaccine he got in 1963. But it wasn't. Like the retractions, many many things have been bandied about and none of them appear to be the cause. Was it his mother's smoking? Bad diet? He was a normal toddler, then it all went away. Years later, he can't live on his own. Do I want to know why?? Sure. But the Lancet published bad research that lots of people latched onto as a probable reason without knowing how low the sample size was, and so on. We still don't know. I wish we did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you want to just understand why , and when you find a common denominator possibility , you jump on it , wanting to be a simple answer.Like Mencken said , complex problems have easy and understandable answers , and they 're wrong.I wanted to find why a relative of mine has autism .
Sure would be nice if we could blame it on the vaccine he got in 1963 .
But it was n't .
Like the retractions , many many things have been bandied about and none of them appear to be the cause .
Was it his mother 's smoking ?
Bad diet ?
He was a normal toddler , then it all went away .
Years later , he ca n't live on his own .
Do I want to know why ? ?
Sure. But the Lancet published bad research that lots of people latched onto as a probable reason without knowing how low the sample size was , and so on .
We still do n't know .
I wish we did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you want to just understand why, and when you find a common denominator possibility, you jump on it, wanting to be a simple answer.Like Mencken said, complex problems have easy and understandable answers, and they're wrong.I wanted to find why a relative of mine has autism.
Sure would be nice if we could blame it on the vaccine he got in 1963.
But it wasn't.
Like the retractions, many many things have been bandied about and none of them appear to be the cause.
Was it his mother's smoking?
Bad diet?
He was a normal toddler, then it all went away.
Years later, he can't live on his own.
Do I want to know why??
Sure. But the Lancet published bad research that lots of people latched onto as a probable reason without knowing how low the sample size was, and so on.
We still don't know.
I wish we did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004536</id>
	<title>What do you expect from the Lancet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265124720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the Sun of medical journals. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the Sun of medical journals .
http : //www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the Sun of medical journals.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008894</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>zsau</author>
	<datestamp>1264948740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(1) Wakefield performed at least some parts of his study in an unethical manner. </i></p><p>As best as I can tell, psychological research in Germany is performed in an unethical manner. Should it be disregarded on that basis? (I would try to change it --- and I've mentioned my displeasure to my supervisors --- but there's no way one person on their own can. At best I could get statements of informed consent from my participants. But that's not the same as ethics.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) Wakefield performed at least some parts of his study in an unethical manner .
As best as I can tell , psychological research in Germany is performed in an unethical manner .
Should it be disregarded on that basis ?
( I would try to change it --- and I 've mentioned my displeasure to my supervisors --- but there 's no way one person on their own can .
At best I could get statements of informed consent from my participants .
But that 's not the same as ethics .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1) Wakefield performed at least some parts of his study in an unethical manner.
As best as I can tell, psychological research in Germany is performed in an unethical manner.
Should it be disregarded on that basis?
(I would try to change it --- and I've mentioned my displeasure to my supervisors --- but there's no way one person on their own can.
At best I could get statements of informed consent from my participants.
But that's not the same as ethics.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002706</id>
	<title>No problem</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1265113680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, it's okay, these things happen.  At least they caught it before it could cause any major damage or start some anti-vaccine movement or anything.  Good job, guys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , it 's okay , these things happen .
At least they caught it before it could cause any major damage or start some anti-vaccine movement or anything .
Good job , guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, it's okay, these things happen.
At least they caught it before it could cause any major damage or start some anti-vaccine movement or anything.
Good job, guys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002906</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>wolrahnaes</author>
	<datestamp>1265114640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guys over at Science-Based Medicine have you covered: <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3660" title="sciencebasedmedicine.org">http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3660</a> [sciencebasedmedicine.org]</p><p>If you look back through their post archives, you can find dozens more touching on the subject of Wakefield's paper in particular and vaccines in general, among other things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guys over at Science-Based Medicine have you covered : http : //www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ ? p = 3660 [ sciencebasedmedicine.org ] If you look back through their post archives , you can find dozens more touching on the subject of Wakefield 's paper in particular and vaccines in general , among other things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guys over at Science-Based Medicine have you covered: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3660 [sciencebasedmedicine.org]If you look back through their post archives, you can find dozens more touching on the subject of Wakefield's paper in particular and vaccines in general, among other things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002750</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, the naivete.</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1265113920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since when have facts ever got in the way of a 'good' conspiracy theory?</p></div><p>There was one once, but they covered it up, I swear it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when have facts ever got in the way of a 'good ' conspiracy theory ? There was one once , but they covered it up , I swear it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when have facts ever got in the way of a 'good' conspiracy theory?There was one once, but they covered it up, I swear it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006412</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>celtic\_hackr</author>
	<datestamp>1265137860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, flu vaccines do have a rather alarming history of actually killing the patients. No one in my family, that I know of gets these vaccines. I certainly don't get them for my daughter. She has an immune system. I see no reason to get a vaccine for something that she'll never get twice and isn't likely to really hurt her, except for a mild fever and aches for a few days. <br> <br>

She does get  the "real" vaccines for things like meningitis and MMR and that stuff, although I demand they not use the versions with heavy metals in them (ie mercury). Not for fear of Autism, but mercury is bad stuff, sure it's a minute amount, but until the feds set a safe level for mercury, I staying away from it.
<br> <br>
I find it telling that there is NO known safe level of exposure to mercury, in any form. So, I can understand people's fears. I just opt for version that avoids that question. Why take a version that has mercury in it, when there's another version of the same thing without it? Heavy metals are known to be bad for ya. Why would you ever take some in on purpose?<br> <br>

So why don't I consider the "flu vaccines" real vaccines. because you have to get one once or twice a year.  I consider a  vaccine a one time and forget it for a decade or life. Flu mutates too rapidly, and they aren't tested to the same level as other vaccines are, either btw. Well, except for the rare pandemic versions (once a generation?).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , flu vaccines do have a rather alarming history of actually killing the patients .
No one in my family , that I know of gets these vaccines .
I certainly do n't get them for my daughter .
She has an immune system .
I see no reason to get a vaccine for something that she 'll never get twice and is n't likely to really hurt her , except for a mild fever and aches for a few days .
She does get the " real " vaccines for things like meningitis and MMR and that stuff , although I demand they not use the versions with heavy metals in them ( ie mercury ) .
Not for fear of Autism , but mercury is bad stuff , sure it 's a minute amount , but until the feds set a safe level for mercury , I staying away from it .
I find it telling that there is NO known safe level of exposure to mercury , in any form .
So , I can understand people 's fears .
I just opt for version that avoids that question .
Why take a version that has mercury in it , when there 's another version of the same thing without it ?
Heavy metals are known to be bad for ya .
Why would you ever take some in on purpose ?
So why do n't I consider the " flu vaccines " real vaccines .
because you have to get one once or twice a year .
I consider a vaccine a one time and forget it for a decade or life .
Flu mutates too rapidly , and they are n't tested to the same level as other vaccines are , either btw .
Well , except for the rare pandemic versions ( once a generation ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, flu vaccines do have a rather alarming history of actually killing the patients.
No one in my family, that I know of gets these vaccines.
I certainly don't get them for my daughter.
She has an immune system.
I see no reason to get a vaccine for something that she'll never get twice and isn't likely to really hurt her, except for a mild fever and aches for a few days.
She does get  the "real" vaccines for things like meningitis and MMR and that stuff, although I demand they not use the versions with heavy metals in them (ie mercury).
Not for fear of Autism, but mercury is bad stuff, sure it's a minute amount, but until the feds set a safe level for mercury, I staying away from it.
I find it telling that there is NO known safe level of exposure to mercury, in any form.
So, I can understand people's fears.
I just opt for version that avoids that question.
Why take a version that has mercury in it, when there's another version of the same thing without it?
Heavy metals are known to be bad for ya.
Why would you ever take some in on purpose?
So why don't I consider the "flu vaccines" real vaccines.
because you have to get one once or twice a year.
I consider a  vaccine a one time and forget it for a decade or life.
Flu mutates too rapidly, and they aren't tested to the same level as other vaccines are, either btw.
Well, except for the rare pandemic versions (once a generation?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690</id>
	<title>Plenty of Studies Linking Vaccines to Ill Effects</title>
	<author>cybertoaster</author>
	<datestamp>1265118840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those who argue against vaccination based on the risk of autism may well be on shaky ground, but there are PLENTY of studies linking vaccines to other ill effects, here are a (very) few:</p><p>MMR VACCINE</p><p>Pancreatis Caused by Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine Pancreas vol. 6 no 4 1991 [2]<br>Mumps Meningitis Following Measles, Mumps and Rubella Immunization Lancet July 1989 [1 pg]<br>Optic Neuritis Complicating Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination American Journal of Opthalmology 1978<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:86 [4 pgs.]<br>A Prefecture-wide Survey of Mumps Meningitis Associated with Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine (Infec Dis J 1991 Vol 10 pg 204-209)<br>Risk of Aseptic Meningitis after Measles Mumps and Rubella Vaccine In UK Children (Lancet April 93 Pgs. 979)<br>A Prefecture -Wide Survey of Mumps Meningitis Associated With Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine Pediatri Infect Dis J 1991; 10 [6pgs]<br>Guillain-Barre syndrome after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine Lancet jan 1 1994 Vol 343 [1 pg]<br>RUBELLA VACCINE<br>Two Syndromes Following Rubella Immunization (Suggests a polyneuropathy in both syndromes) (JAMA 1970 Vol 214 no 13) [5pgs.]<br>Chronic Arthritis After Rubella Vaccination Clinical Infec Dis. 1992 15;307-12 [6pgs]<br>Acute Arthritis Complicating Rubella Vaccination (ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM 1971 41) [4pgs]<br>Joint Symptoms Following an Area Wide Rubella Immunization Campaign Report of a Survey Am J of Public Health Vol 62 no 5 [4pgs]<br>Polyneuropathy Following Rubella Immunization Am J Dis Child 1974 Vol 127 [5pgs]<br>Postpartum Rubella Immunization: Association with Development of Prolonged Arthritis, Neurological Sequelae, and Chronic Rubella Viremia (THE JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES 1985 vol 152 no 3) [7pgs]</p><p>MEASLES VACCINE<br>Thrombocytopenic Purpura Following Vaccination With Attenuated Measles Virus Amer J Dis Child Jan 1968 Vol 115 [3pgs]<br>Investigation of a measles outbreak in a fully vaccinated school population including serum studies before and after revaccination (Pediatr Infec Dis J 1993 12) [8pgs.]<br>Risk of Aseptic Meningitis after Measles, Mumps , and Rubella Vaccine in UK Children Lancet 1993 Vol 341 [4pgs]<br>An Explosive point-source measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated population (American Journal of Epidemiology 1989 Vol 129 no 1) [10]<br>A Persistent Outbreak of Measles Despite Appropriate Prevention And Control Measures ( American Journal of Epidemiology Vol 126 No3) [13pgs.]<br>Measles Vaccine and Crohn&rsquo;s Disease Gastroenterology vol. 108 no 3 1995 [3pgs]<br>Aseptic Meningitis after Vaccination Against Measles and Mumps (Pediatr Infec Dis J 1989 8 pg 302-308) [7pgs]<br>Measles Vaccine Associated Encephalitis in Canada Lancet Sept. 1983 [2pgs]<br>Guillain -Barre Syndrome Following Administration of Live Measles Vaccine Amer J of Med 1976 Vol 60 [3pgs]</p><p>Pancreatitis Caused by Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine Pancreas vol 6 no 4 [2pgs]<br>Measles Vaccine and Neurological Events Lancet May 1997 [2pgs]</p><p>MUMPS VACCINE<br>Mumps Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated School Population<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/evidence for large scale vaccination failure Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995 Vol 149 [5pgs] Summary: 54 students developed mumps --of those 54, 53 had been fully immunized.<br>Aseptic Meningitis as a Complication of Mumps Vaccination (Ped Infec Dis J 1991 Vol 10 No 3) [5pgs]<br>Guillain -Barre Syndrome occurrence following combined mumps- rubella vaccine Am J Dis Child Vol 125 1973 [2pgs]<br>Mumps Vaccines and Meningitis/ Heterogeneous Mumps Vaccine (more on Urabe strain vaccine) Lancet Vol 340 1992 [2pgs.]</p><p>Flu Vaccine<br>Neuropathy After Influenza Vaccination (this deals with Swine flu vaccine) Lancet Jan 29, 1977 [ 2 pgs.]<br>Isolated Hypoglossal Nerve Paralysis Following Influenza Vaccination Am J Dis Child 1976 vol 130 [2pgs]<br>Guillain -Barre Syndrome Lancet Sept. 1978 [1pg]<br>Relapsing Encephalomyelitis Following the use of Influenza Vaccine Arch Neurol Vol 27 1972 [2pgs]</p><p>Optic Atrophy Following Swine Flu Vaccination Annals of Opthalmol</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those who argue against vaccination based on the risk of autism may well be on shaky ground , but there are PLENTY of studies linking vaccines to other ill effects , here are a ( very ) few : MMR VACCINEPancreatis Caused by Measles , Mumps , and Rubella Vaccine Pancreas vol .
6 no 4 1991 [ 2 ] Mumps Meningitis Following Measles , Mumps and Rubella Immunization Lancet July 1989 [ 1 pg ] Optic Neuritis Complicating Measles , Mumps , and Rubella Vaccination American Journal of Opthalmology 1978 : 86 [ 4 pgs .
] A Prefecture-wide Survey of Mumps Meningitis Associated with Measles , Mumps and Rubella Vaccine ( Infec Dis J 1991 Vol 10 pg 204-209 ) Risk of Aseptic Meningitis after Measles Mumps and Rubella Vaccine In UK Children ( Lancet April 93 Pgs .
979 ) A Prefecture -Wide Survey of Mumps Meningitis Associated With Measles , Mumps and Rubella Vaccine Pediatri Infect Dis J 1991 ; 10 [ 6pgs ] Guillain-Barre syndrome after measles , mumps , and rubella vaccine Lancet jan 1 1994 Vol 343 [ 1 pg ] RUBELLA VACCINETwo Syndromes Following Rubella Immunization ( Suggests a polyneuropathy in both syndromes ) ( JAMA 1970 Vol 214 no 13 ) [ 5pgs .
] Chronic Arthritis After Rubella Vaccination Clinical Infec Dis .
1992 15 ; 307-12 [ 6pgs ] Acute Arthritis Complicating Rubella Vaccination ( ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM 1971 41 ) [ 4pgs ] Joint Symptoms Following an Area Wide Rubella Immunization Campaign Report of a Survey Am J of Public Health Vol 62 no 5 [ 4pgs ] Polyneuropathy Following Rubella Immunization Am J Dis Child 1974 Vol 127 [ 5pgs ] Postpartum Rubella Immunization : Association with Development of Prolonged Arthritis , Neurological Sequelae , and Chronic Rubella Viremia ( THE JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES 1985 vol 152 no 3 ) [ 7pgs ] MEASLES VACCINEThrombocytopenic Purpura Following Vaccination With Attenuated Measles Virus Amer J Dis Child Jan 1968 Vol 115 [ 3pgs ] Investigation of a measles outbreak in a fully vaccinated school population including serum studies before and after revaccination ( Pediatr Infec Dis J 1993 12 ) [ 8pgs .
] Risk of Aseptic Meningitis after Measles , Mumps , and Rubella Vaccine in UK Children Lancet 1993 Vol 341 [ 4pgs ] An Explosive point-source measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated population ( American Journal of Epidemiology 1989 Vol 129 no 1 ) [ 10 ] A Persistent Outbreak of Measles Despite Appropriate Prevention And Control Measures ( American Journal of Epidemiology Vol 126 No3 ) [ 13pgs .
] Measles Vaccine and Crohn    s Disease Gastroenterology vol .
108 no 3 1995 [ 3pgs ] Aseptic Meningitis after Vaccination Against Measles and Mumps ( Pediatr Infec Dis J 1989 8 pg 302-308 ) [ 7pgs ] Measles Vaccine Associated Encephalitis in Canada Lancet Sept. 1983 [ 2pgs ] Guillain -Barre Syndrome Following Administration of Live Measles Vaccine Amer J of Med 1976 Vol 60 [ 3pgs ] Pancreatitis Caused by Measles , Mumps , and Rubella Vaccine Pancreas vol 6 no 4 [ 2pgs ] Measles Vaccine and Neurological Events Lancet May 1997 [ 2pgs ] MUMPS VACCINEMumps Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated School Population /evidence for large scale vaccination failure Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995 Vol 149 [ 5pgs ] Summary : 54 students developed mumps --of those 54 , 53 had been fully immunized.Aseptic Meningitis as a Complication of Mumps Vaccination ( Ped Infec Dis J 1991 Vol 10 No 3 ) [ 5pgs ] Guillain -Barre Syndrome occurrence following combined mumps- rubella vaccine Am J Dis Child Vol 125 1973 [ 2pgs ] Mumps Vaccines and Meningitis/ Heterogeneous Mumps Vaccine ( more on Urabe strain vaccine ) Lancet Vol 340 1992 [ 2pgs .
] Flu VaccineNeuropathy After Influenza Vaccination ( this deals with Swine flu vaccine ) Lancet Jan 29 , 1977 [ 2 pgs .
] Isolated Hypoglossal Nerve Paralysis Following Influenza Vaccination Am J Dis Child 1976 vol 130 [ 2pgs ] Guillain -Barre Syndrome Lancet Sept. 1978 [ 1pg ] Relapsing Encephalomyelitis Following the use of Influenza Vaccine Arch Neurol Vol 27 1972 [ 2pgs ] Optic Atrophy Following Swine Flu Vaccination Annals of Opthalmol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those who argue against vaccination based on the risk of autism may well be on shaky ground, but there are PLENTY of studies linking vaccines to other ill effects, here are a (very) few:MMR VACCINEPancreatis Caused by Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine Pancreas vol.
6 no 4 1991 [2]Mumps Meningitis Following Measles, Mumps and Rubella Immunization Lancet July 1989 [1 pg]Optic Neuritis Complicating Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination American Journal of Opthalmology 1978 :86 [4 pgs.
]A Prefecture-wide Survey of Mumps Meningitis Associated with Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine (Infec Dis J 1991 Vol 10 pg 204-209)Risk of Aseptic Meningitis after Measles Mumps and Rubella Vaccine In UK Children (Lancet April 93 Pgs.
979)A Prefecture -Wide Survey of Mumps Meningitis Associated With Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine Pediatri Infect Dis J 1991; 10 [6pgs]Guillain-Barre syndrome after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine Lancet jan 1 1994 Vol 343 [1 pg]RUBELLA VACCINETwo Syndromes Following Rubella Immunization (Suggests a polyneuropathy in both syndromes) (JAMA 1970 Vol 214 no 13) [5pgs.
]Chronic Arthritis After Rubella Vaccination Clinical Infec Dis.
1992 15;307-12 [6pgs]Acute Arthritis Complicating Rubella Vaccination (ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM 1971 41) [4pgs]Joint Symptoms Following an Area Wide Rubella Immunization Campaign Report of a Survey Am J of Public Health Vol 62 no 5 [4pgs]Polyneuropathy Following Rubella Immunization Am J Dis Child 1974 Vol 127 [5pgs]Postpartum Rubella Immunization: Association with Development of Prolonged Arthritis, Neurological Sequelae, and Chronic Rubella Viremia (THE JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES 1985 vol 152 no 3) [7pgs]MEASLES VACCINEThrombocytopenic Purpura Following Vaccination With Attenuated Measles Virus Amer J Dis Child Jan 1968 Vol 115 [3pgs]Investigation of a measles outbreak in a fully vaccinated school population including serum studies before and after revaccination (Pediatr Infec Dis J 1993 12) [8pgs.
]Risk of Aseptic Meningitis after Measles, Mumps , and Rubella Vaccine in UK Children Lancet 1993 Vol 341 [4pgs]An Explosive point-source measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated population (American Journal of Epidemiology 1989 Vol 129 no 1) [10]A Persistent Outbreak of Measles Despite Appropriate Prevention And Control Measures ( American Journal of Epidemiology Vol 126 No3) [13pgs.
]Measles Vaccine and Crohn’s Disease Gastroenterology vol.
108 no 3 1995 [3pgs]Aseptic Meningitis after Vaccination Against Measles and Mumps (Pediatr Infec Dis J 1989 8 pg 302-308) [7pgs]Measles Vaccine Associated Encephalitis in Canada Lancet Sept. 1983 [2pgs]Guillain -Barre Syndrome Following Administration of Live Measles Vaccine Amer J of Med 1976 Vol 60 [3pgs]Pancreatitis Caused by Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine Pancreas vol 6 no 4 [2pgs]Measles Vaccine and Neurological Events Lancet May 1997 [2pgs]MUMPS VACCINEMumps Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated School Population /evidence for large scale vaccination failure Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995 Vol 149 [5pgs] Summary: 54 students developed mumps --of those 54, 53 had been fully immunized.Aseptic Meningitis as a Complication of Mumps Vaccination (Ped Infec Dis J 1991 Vol 10 No 3) [5pgs]Guillain -Barre Syndrome occurrence following combined mumps- rubella vaccine Am J Dis Child Vol 125 1973 [2pgs]Mumps Vaccines and Meningitis/ Heterogeneous Mumps Vaccine (more on Urabe strain vaccine) Lancet Vol 340 1992 [2pgs.
]Flu VaccineNeuropathy After Influenza Vaccination (this deals with Swine flu vaccine) Lancet Jan 29, 1977 [ 2 pgs.
]Isolated Hypoglossal Nerve Paralysis Following Influenza Vaccination Am J Dis Child 1976 vol 130 [2pgs]Guillain -Barre Syndrome Lancet Sept. 1978 [1pg]Relapsing Encephalomyelitis Following the use of Influenza Vaccine Arch Neurol Vol 27 1972 [2pgs]Optic Atrophy Following Swine Flu Vaccination Annals of Opthalmol</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003412</id>
	<title>Re:Not much of a debate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265117340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jenny McCarthy is NOT fat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jenny McCarthy is NOT fat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jenny McCarthy is NOT fat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003180</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The favorite might hold some truth in there:</p><p>http://www.physorg.com/news127915025.html<br>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331183755.htm<br>http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/9/3121</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The favorite might hold some truth in there : http : //www.physorg.com/news127915025.htmlhttp : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331183755.htmhttp : //www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/9/3121</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The favorite might hold some truth in there:http://www.physorg.com/news127915025.htmlhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331183755.htmhttp://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/9/3121</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003590</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>Tsu Dho Nimh</author>
	<datestamp>1265118240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Can someone outline the flaws in the study? I know we here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. are experts at things like that. But I also don't want to RTFA.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>The worst flaw was that the supposed detection of measles virus was due to contamination. The technician who ran the tests told Wakefield that the positives were false positives and Wakefield published anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone outline the flaws in the study ?
I know we here at / .
are experts at things like that .
But I also do n't want to RTFA .
The worst flaw was that the supposed detection of measles virus was due to contamination .
The technician who ran the tests told Wakefield that the positives were false positives and Wakefield published anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Can someone outline the flaws in the study?
I know we here at /.
are experts at things like that.
But I also don't want to RTFA.
The worst flaw was that the supposed detection of measles virus was due to contamination.
The technician who ran the tests told Wakefield that the positives were false positives and Wakefield published anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006482</id>
	<title>Re:Not much of a debate...</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1265138700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you better have your children (if/when you have them) vaccinated early. Because if they ever get infected from a "friend" who's not vaccinated, then your kid might end up the one culled from the population.</p><p>Natural selection sounds great, until you realize that most of it is up to chance anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you better have your children ( if/when you have them ) vaccinated early .
Because if they ever get infected from a " friend " who 's not vaccinated , then your kid might end up the one culled from the population.Natural selection sounds great , until you realize that most of it is up to chance anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you better have your children (if/when you have them) vaccinated early.
Because if they ever get infected from a "friend" who's not vaccinated, then your kid might end up the one culled from the population.Natural selection sounds great, until you realize that most of it is up to chance anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003170</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265116140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he's shameless enough he could become the Jack Thompson of vaccination! Maybe Scientology could sponsor him.<br>I think you have to be bat-shit crazy to qualify for either one, though. Maybe if he huffed some mercury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he 's shameless enough he could become the Jack Thompson of vaccination !
Maybe Scientology could sponsor him.I think you have to be bat-shit crazy to qualify for either one , though .
Maybe if he huffed some mercury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he's shameless enough he could become the Jack Thompson of vaccination!
Maybe Scientology could sponsor him.I think you have to be bat-shit crazy to qualify for either one, though.
Maybe if he huffed some mercury.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003794</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroom."</p><p>But if they were all 'vaccinated' then they wouldn't get it, would they...</p><p>But that's the fraud of 'vaccination' - apparently EVERYBODY has to be 'vaccinated' otherwise it doesn't work.<br>The old laughable notion of 'herd immunity' - WHAT - THE - FUCK?</p><p>What is 'herd immunity'?</p><p>It's a big LIE designed to scare as many people as possible into paying for filth to be injected into their children.</p><p>Notice when there are outbreaks of measles, etc. they never tell you what percentage of those infected were 'vaccinated', do they... I wonder why...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid 's entire 25student classroom .
" But if they were all 'vaccinated ' then they would n't get it , would they...But that 's the fraud of 'vaccination ' - apparently EVERYBODY has to be 'vaccinated ' otherwise it does n't work.The old laughable notion of 'herd immunity ' - WHAT - THE - FUCK ? What is 'herd immunity ' ? It 's a big LIE designed to scare as many people as possible into paying for filth to be injected into their children.Notice when there are outbreaks of measles , etc .
they never tell you what percentage of those infected were 'vaccinated ' , do they... I wonder why.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroom.
"But if they were all 'vaccinated' then they wouldn't get it, would they...But that's the fraud of 'vaccination' - apparently EVERYBODY has to be 'vaccinated' otherwise it doesn't work.The old laughable notion of 'herd immunity' - WHAT - THE - FUCK?What is 'herd immunity'?It's a big LIE designed to scare as many people as possible into paying for filth to be injected into their children.Notice when there are outbreaks of measles, etc.
they never tell you what percentage of those infected were 'vaccinated', do they... I wonder why...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005834</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1265132760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speciation by natural selection, the moon landing, the spherical earth and the holocaust have today been conclusively proved authentic. The debate should now end. Film at eleven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speciation by natural selection , the moon landing , the spherical earth and the holocaust have today been conclusively proved authentic .
The debate should now end .
Film at eleven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speciation by natural selection, the moon landing, the spherical earth and the holocaust have today been conclusively proved authentic.
The debate should now end.
Film at eleven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684</id>
	<title>Oh, the naivete.</title>
	<author>Bieeanda</author>
	<datestamp>1265113620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The vaccine-autism debate should now end.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, right. Since when have facts ever got in the way of a 'good' conspiracy theory?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The vaccine-autism debate should now end.Yeah , right .
Since when have facts ever got in the way of a 'good ' conspiracy theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vaccine-autism debate should now end.Yeah, right.
Since when have facts ever got in the way of a 'good' conspiracy theory?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003904</id>
	<title>Re:End the debate?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1265120580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the concluision drawn were absed on fraud, not data.<br>He dodm'<br>t only obtain the sample unethically, he 'shopped around' to different testing facilities until he ended up with one of the worst testing facilities that don't do proper testing.</p><p>So his data was bad, his testing unethical and his conclusions shoddy.</p><p>On top of that, all subsequent testing has turned up no evidence to support this study, and current data shows very starkly that autism rates don't change even as fewer kids are getting vaccinated. SO even if it was a good study, the rest of the data show it to be wrong. Which can happen when new data is added.<br>This is why testing is to be done with the highest degree of rigor.</p><p>If it was just unethically a quires test samples, but the rest of the data was good, and it was backed by other studies, your point would apply.</p><p>I have a person interest in this, and I ahve been following the autism/vaccination for some time. I am not a medical professional.<br>I suggest:<br><a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/" title="sciencebasedmedicine.org">http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/</a> [sciencebasedmedicine.org]</p><p>It's a great site that doesn't spare sacred cows and looks at the data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the concluision drawn were absed on fraud , not data.He dodm't only obtain the sample unethically , he 'shopped around ' to different testing facilities until he ended up with one of the worst testing facilities that do n't do proper testing.So his data was bad , his testing unethical and his conclusions shoddy.On top of that , all subsequent testing has turned up no evidence to support this study , and current data shows very starkly that autism rates do n't change even as fewer kids are getting vaccinated .
SO even if it was a good study , the rest of the data show it to be wrong .
Which can happen when new data is added.This is why testing is to be done with the highest degree of rigor.If it was just unethically a quires test samples , but the rest of the data was good , and it was backed by other studies , your point would apply.I have a person interest in this , and I ahve been following the autism/vaccination for some time .
I am not a medical professional.I suggest : http : //www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ [ sciencebasedmedicine.org ] It 's a great site that does n't spare sacred cows and looks at the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the concluision drawn were absed on fraud, not data.He dodm't only obtain the sample unethically, he 'shopped around' to different testing facilities until he ended up with one of the worst testing facilities that don't do proper testing.So his data was bad, his testing unethical and his conclusions shoddy.On top of that, all subsequent testing has turned up no evidence to support this study, and current data shows very starkly that autism rates don't change even as fewer kids are getting vaccinated.
SO even if it was a good study, the rest of the data show it to be wrong.
Which can happen when new data is added.This is why testing is to be done with the highest degree of rigor.If it was just unethically a quires test samples, but the rest of the data was good, and it was backed by other studies, your point would apply.I have a person interest in this, and I ahve been following the autism/vaccination for some time.
I am not a medical professional.I suggest:http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ [sciencebasedmedicine.org]It's a great site that doesn't spare sacred cows and looks at the data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004928</id>
	<title>Blame the dead man</title>
	<author>The Abused Developer</author>
	<datestamp>1265127120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course - did anybody expected something else? In a society where the standard child is desired, pushed trough the system to develop an ultra-selfish, short-minded personality so
that for his whole existence will be enslaved for the benefit of the holy *Corporate* trough his insatiable, primitive void - this is the desired future citizen not the type which has
the courage to think and stand up. Holy crap brainwashed nation what future I foresee for you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course - did anybody expected something else ?
In a society where the standard child is desired , pushed trough the system to develop an ultra-selfish , short-minded personality so that for his whole existence will be enslaved for the benefit of the holy * Corporate * trough his insatiable , primitive void - this is the desired future citizen not the type which has the courage to think and stand up .
Holy crap brainwashed nation what future I foresee for you .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course - did anybody expected something else?
In a society where the standard child is desired, pushed trough the system to develop an ultra-selfish, short-minded personality so
that for his whole existence will be enslaved for the benefit of the holy *Corporate* trough his insatiable, primitive void - this is the desired future citizen not the type which has
the courage to think and stand up.
Holy crap brainwashed nation what future I foresee for you ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003014</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>dmr001</author>
	<datestamp>1265115180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>Wakefield had a financial conflict of interest with <a href="http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm" title="briandeer.com" rel="nofollow">lawyers</a> [briandeer.com] suing HM Government
</p><p>His sample size was 12
</p><p>His study population were not randomly recruited
</p><p>Some of the study siubjects showed signs of autism prior to their MMR vaccination</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wakefield had a financial conflict of interest with lawyers [ briandeer.com ] suing HM Government His sample size was 12 His study population were not randomly recruited Some of the study siubjects showed signs of autism prior to their MMR vaccination</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Wakefield had a financial conflict of interest with lawyers [briandeer.com] suing HM Government
His sample size was 12
His study population were not randomly recruited
Some of the study siubjects showed signs of autism prior to their MMR vaccination</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003062</id>
	<title>A message to Mrs. McCarthy</title>
	<author>elenaran</author>
	<datestamp>1265115420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>suck it, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2217798" title="slate.com" rel="nofollow">Jenny McCarthy &amp; Oprah</a> [slate.com]!</htmltext>
<tokenext>suck it , Jenny McCarthy &amp; Oprah [ slate.com ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suck it, Jenny McCarthy &amp; Oprah [slate.com]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008174</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>s7uar7</author>
	<datestamp>1264941300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2,3 &amp; 4 are all good reasons to dismiss his findings, but I'm not so sure about 1.  Just because parts of a study are conducted unethically doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion can be dismissed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2,3 &amp; 4 are all good reasons to dismiss his findings , but I 'm not so sure about 1 .
Just because parts of a study are conducted unethically does n't necessarily mean the conclusion can be dismissed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2,3 &amp; 4 are all good reasons to dismiss his findings, but I'm not so sure about 1.
Just because parts of a study are conducted unethically doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion can be dismissed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004158</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265122200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroom</p></div><p>Uhm, aren't those 25 students VACCINATED????!!!</p><p>So why should they care if some "non-vaccinated dummy" gets sick?</p><p>I suggest diversity is the ultimate safeguard. Completely homogeneous groups are susceptible to extinction. Diversity virtually guarantees some will survive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid 's entire 25student classroomUhm , are n't those 25 students VACCINATED ? ? ? ? ! !
! So why should they care if some " non-vaccinated dummy " gets sick ? I suggest diversity is the ultimate safeguard .
Completely homogeneous groups are susceptible to extinction .
Diversity virtually guarantees some will survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroomUhm, aren't those 25 students VACCINATED????!!
!So why should they care if some "non-vaccinated dummy" gets sick?I suggest diversity is the ultimate safeguard.
Completely homogeneous groups are susceptible to extinction.
Diversity virtually guarantees some will survive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</id>
	<title>Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265114040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here my neck of the woods, I've heard countless mothers talk about how they would never get their kids vaccinated for seasonal or H1N1 flu, because of "what if..."  syndrome.  As in "What if.. the vaccine wasn't sufficiently tested, or what if my kid has a reaction, or I'd rather he get the flu than have a side effect.</p><p>Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroom.  The mother doesn't give a shit, because atleast she didn't get the side effect.</p><p>My favorite is, "We have no idea what the side effect is of this vaccine in 10 or 20yrs."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here my neck of the woods , I 've heard countless mothers talk about how they would never get their kids vaccinated for seasonal or H1N1 flu , because of " what if... " syndrome .
As in " What if.. the vaccine was n't sufficiently tested , or what if my kid has a reaction , or I 'd rather he get the flu than have a side effect.Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid 's entire 25student classroom .
The mother does n't give a shit , because atleast she did n't get the side effect.My favorite is , " We have no idea what the side effect is of this vaccine in 10 or 20yrs .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here my neck of the woods, I've heard countless mothers talk about how they would never get their kids vaccinated for seasonal or H1N1 flu, because of "what if..."  syndrome.
As in "What if.. the vaccine wasn't sufficiently tested, or what if my kid has a reaction, or I'd rather he get the flu than have a side effect.Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroom.
The mother doesn't give a shit, because atleast she didn't get the side effect.My favorite is, "We have no idea what the side effect is of this vaccine in 10 or 20yrs.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003262</id>
	<title>Let's not rush to judgement...</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1265116560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I for one am waiting to see what Jenny McCarthy has to say about this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I for one am waiting to see what Jenny McCarthy has to say about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I for one am waiting to see what Jenny McCarthy has to say about this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</id>
	<title>For our sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265113680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone outline the flaws in the study? I know we here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. are experts at things like that. But I also don't want to RTFA.</p><p>So why exactly should I <b>not</b> believe the original study? From where I stand (which is little to zero knowledge on the subject) I could conclude that each of the co authors one by one were persuaded by the various pharmaceutical companies which standed to be harmed by this research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone outline the flaws in the study ?
I know we here at / .
are experts at things like that .
But I also do n't want to RTFA.So why exactly should I not believe the original study ?
From where I stand ( which is little to zero knowledge on the subject ) I could conclude that each of the co authors one by one were persuaded by the various pharmaceutical companies which standed to be harmed by this research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone outline the flaws in the study?
I know we here at /.
are experts at things like that.
But I also don't want to RTFA.So why exactly should I not believe the original study?
From where I stand (which is little to zero knowledge on the subject) I could conclude that each of the co authors one by one were persuaded by the various pharmaceutical companies which standed to be harmed by this research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007096</id>
	<title>Clinical immunology vs epidemiology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264928640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> The 20-30 year horizon might give various subtle changes that are hard to register as result of vaccination. Effects like toxoplasmosis has may well be there and change significantly life quality later in life. Subtle gene expression changes rise autoimmune decease probability, chronic inflammation from adjuvant boosted autoimmune reaction throws balance bit more off and there you have slow cascade to diabetes. Mechanisms involved are complicated and variables are numerous enough not to give conclusive statistics using current data gathering methods. Even acute reactions to vaccine are not always connected to vaccine and dont make it to VAERS and similar databases so data gathering for longer time horizons is serious problem. Main point - actual risk evaluation for individual is different from risk evaluation for population, especially considering genetic deviations.</p><p>Few interesting links:</p><p>http://www.physorg.com/news127915025.html<br>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331183755.htm<br>http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/9/3121</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 20-30 year horizon might give various subtle changes that are hard to register as result of vaccination .
Effects like toxoplasmosis has may well be there and change significantly life quality later in life .
Subtle gene expression changes rise autoimmune decease probability , chronic inflammation from adjuvant boosted autoimmune reaction throws balance bit more off and there you have slow cascade to diabetes .
Mechanisms involved are complicated and variables are numerous enough not to give conclusive statistics using current data gathering methods .
Even acute reactions to vaccine are not always connected to vaccine and dont make it to VAERS and similar databases so data gathering for longer time horizons is serious problem .
Main point - actual risk evaluation for individual is different from risk evaluation for population , especially considering genetic deviations.Few interesting links : http : //www.physorg.com/news127915025.htmlhttp : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331183755.htmhttp : //www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/9/3121</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The 20-30 year horizon might give various subtle changes that are hard to register as result of vaccination.
Effects like toxoplasmosis has may well be there and change significantly life quality later in life.
Subtle gene expression changes rise autoimmune decease probability, chronic inflammation from adjuvant boosted autoimmune reaction throws balance bit more off and there you have slow cascade to diabetes.
Mechanisms involved are complicated and variables are numerous enough not to give conclusive statistics using current data gathering methods.
Even acute reactions to vaccine are not always connected to vaccine and dont make it to VAERS and similar databases so data gathering for longer time horizons is serious problem.
Main point - actual risk evaluation for individual is different from risk evaluation for population, especially considering genetic deviations.Few interesting links:http://www.physorg.com/news127915025.htmlhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331183755.htmhttp://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/9/3121</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005020</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe people will stop letting their kids go vaccinated because of !science. Nah, that won't happen....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe people will stop letting their kids go vaccinated because of ! science .
Nah , that wo n't happen... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe people will stop letting their kids go vaccinated because of !science.
Nah, that won't happen....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002808</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265114280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So why exactly should I <b>not</b> believe the original study? From where I stand (which is little to zero knowledge on the subject) I could conclude that each of the co authors one by one were persuaded by the various pharmaceutical companies which standed to be harmed by this research.</p></div><p>From <a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&amp;query=wakefield" title="quackwatch.org" rel="nofollow">Quackwatch.org</a> [quackwatch.org]:</p><p>The only "evidence" linking MMR vaccine and autism was published in the British journal Lancet in 1998. An editorial published in the same issue, however, discussed concerns about the validity of the study. Based on data from 12 patients, Dr. Andrew Wakefield (a British gastroenterologist) and colleagues <b>speculated</b> that MMR vaccine may have been the possible cause of bowel problems which led to a decreased absorption of essential vitamins and nutrients which resulted in developmental disorders like autism. <b>No scientific analyses were reported, however, to substantiate the theory</b>. Whether this series of 12 cases represent an unusual or unique clinical syndrome is difficult to judge without knowing the size of the patient population and time period over which the cases were identified.</p><p>If there happened to be selective referral of patients with autism to the researchers' practice, for example, the reported case series may simply reflect such referral bias. Moreover, the theory that autism may be caused by poor absorption of nutrients due to bowel inflammation is senseless and is not supported by the clinical data. <b>In at least 4 of the 12 cases, behavioral problems appeared before the onset of symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease</b>. Furthermore, since publication of their original report in February of 1998, Wakefield and colleagues have published another study in which highly specific laboratory assays in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, the posited mechanism for autism after MMR vaccination, were negative for measles virus.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why exactly should I not believe the original study ?
From where I stand ( which is little to zero knowledge on the subject ) I could conclude that each of the co authors one by one were persuaded by the various pharmaceutical companies which standed to be harmed by this research.From Quackwatch.org [ quackwatch.org ] : The only " evidence " linking MMR vaccine and autism was published in the British journal Lancet in 1998 .
An editorial published in the same issue , however , discussed concerns about the validity of the study .
Based on data from 12 patients , Dr. Andrew Wakefield ( a British gastroenterologist ) and colleagues speculated that MMR vaccine may have been the possible cause of bowel problems which led to a decreased absorption of essential vitamins and nutrients which resulted in developmental disorders like autism .
No scientific analyses were reported , however , to substantiate the theory .
Whether this series of 12 cases represent an unusual or unique clinical syndrome is difficult to judge without knowing the size of the patient population and time period over which the cases were identified.If there happened to be selective referral of patients with autism to the researchers ' practice , for example , the reported case series may simply reflect such referral bias .
Moreover , the theory that autism may be caused by poor absorption of nutrients due to bowel inflammation is senseless and is not supported by the clinical data .
In at least 4 of the 12 cases , behavioral problems appeared before the onset of symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease .
Furthermore , since publication of their original report in February of 1998 , Wakefield and colleagues have published another study in which highly specific laboratory assays in patients with inflammatory bowel disease , the posited mechanism for autism after MMR vaccination , were negative for measles virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why exactly should I not believe the original study?
From where I stand (which is little to zero knowledge on the subject) I could conclude that each of the co authors one by one were persuaded by the various pharmaceutical companies which standed to be harmed by this research.From Quackwatch.org [quackwatch.org]:The only "evidence" linking MMR vaccine and autism was published in the British journal Lancet in 1998.
An editorial published in the same issue, however, discussed concerns about the validity of the study.
Based on data from 12 patients, Dr. Andrew Wakefield (a British gastroenterologist) and colleagues speculated that MMR vaccine may have been the possible cause of bowel problems which led to a decreased absorption of essential vitamins and nutrients which resulted in developmental disorders like autism.
No scientific analyses were reported, however, to substantiate the theory.
Whether this series of 12 cases represent an unusual or unique clinical syndrome is difficult to judge without knowing the size of the patient population and time period over which the cases were identified.If there happened to be selective referral of patients with autism to the researchers' practice, for example, the reported case series may simply reflect such referral bias.
Moreover, the theory that autism may be caused by poor absorption of nutrients due to bowel inflammation is senseless and is not supported by the clinical data.
In at least 4 of the 12 cases, behavioral problems appeared before the onset of symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease.
Furthermore, since publication of their original report in February of 1998, Wakefield and colleagues have published another study in which highly specific laboratory assays in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, the posited mechanism for autism after MMR vaccination, were negative for measles virus.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006348</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, the naivete.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What aspect of this recant shows that Autism isn't linked to vaccines?  It shows the Lancet researcher was a douchebag, which sadly is not unusual for the once lauded Lancet.</p><p>It doesn't show that the actual fact in dispute is now known.  That question is not resolved.  That debate isn't over.</p><p>Why ask for the debate to end?  Why imply those who want more research are unreasonable?</p><p>Personally, I think folks should get their kids vaccinated and whatever risks there are are apparently fairly remote and acceptable.</p><p>but there are a few good avenues for further research and debate on this, and the idea that it should end because one or more researchers was a jackass doesn't follow.  It's irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What aspect of this recant shows that Autism is n't linked to vaccines ?
It shows the Lancet researcher was a douchebag , which sadly is not unusual for the once lauded Lancet.It does n't show that the actual fact in dispute is now known .
That question is not resolved .
That debate is n't over.Why ask for the debate to end ?
Why imply those who want more research are unreasonable ? Personally , I think folks should get their kids vaccinated and whatever risks there are are apparently fairly remote and acceptable.but there are a few good avenues for further research and debate on this , and the idea that it should end because one or more researchers was a jackass does n't follow .
It 's irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What aspect of this recant shows that Autism isn't linked to vaccines?
It shows the Lancet researcher was a douchebag, which sadly is not unusual for the once lauded Lancet.It doesn't show that the actual fact in dispute is now known.
That question is not resolved.
That debate isn't over.Why ask for the debate to end?
Why imply those who want more research are unreasonable?Personally, I think folks should get their kids vaccinated and whatever risks there are are apparently fairly remote and acceptable.but there are a few good avenues for further research and debate on this, and the idea that it should end because one or more researchers was a jackass doesn't follow.
It's irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004180</id>
	<title>Too Late</title>
	<author>aquatone282</author>
	<datestamp>1265122320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once the celebrities start spouting the nonsense, it's too late.</p><p>The female 18-50 market segment won't let go of it for another five years.</p><p>Thanks Lancet!  Thanks Hollywood!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once the celebrities start spouting the nonsense , it 's too late.The female 18-50 market segment wo n't let go of it for another five years.Thanks Lancet !
Thanks Hollywood !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once the celebrities start spouting the nonsense, it's too late.The female 18-50 market segment won't let go of it for another five years.Thanks Lancet!
Thanks Hollywood!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003766</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265119380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here my neck of the woods, I've heard countless mothers talk about how they would never get their kids vaccinated for seasonal or H1N1 flu, because of "what if..."  syndrome.  As in "What if.. the vaccine wasn't sufficiently tested, or what if my kid has a reaction, or I'd rather he get the flu than have a side effect.</p><p>Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroom.  The mother doesn't give a shit, because atleast she didn't get the side effect.</p><p>My favorite is, "We have no idea what the side effect is of this vaccine in 10 or 20yrs."</p></div><p>Meh.  I'm fine with it.  They dont want to vaccinate their kid, fine, but they should be liable for damages that they cause to others.  Right now, vaccination is a free-rider problem.  Why should you get vaccinated (at your own risk) when everyone else has done so (so you cant get sick anyways).  The only answer is: because if you make others sick, you should have to pay for it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here my neck of the woods , I 've heard countless mothers talk about how they would never get their kids vaccinated for seasonal or H1N1 flu , because of " what if... " syndrome .
As in " What if.. the vaccine was n't sufficiently tested , or what if my kid has a reaction , or I 'd rather he get the flu than have a side effect.Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid 's entire 25student classroom .
The mother does n't give a shit , because atleast she did n't get the side effect.My favorite is , " We have no idea what the side effect is of this vaccine in 10 or 20yrs. " Meh .
I 'm fine with it .
They dont want to vaccinate their kid , fine , but they should be liable for damages that they cause to others .
Right now , vaccination is a free-rider problem .
Why should you get vaccinated ( at your own risk ) when everyone else has done so ( so you cant get sick anyways ) .
The only answer is : because if you make others sick , you should have to pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here my neck of the woods, I've heard countless mothers talk about how they would never get their kids vaccinated for seasonal or H1N1 flu, because of "what if..."  syndrome.
As in "What if.. the vaccine wasn't sufficiently tested, or what if my kid has a reaction, or I'd rather he get the flu than have a side effect.Of course if their kid gets sick and gives it to the kid's entire 25student classroom.
The mother doesn't give a shit, because atleast she didn't get the side effect.My favorite is, "We have no idea what the side effect is of this vaccine in 10 or 20yrs."Meh.
I'm fine with it.
They dont want to vaccinate their kid, fine, but they should be liable for damages that they cause to others.
Right now, vaccination is a free-rider problem.
Why should you get vaccinated (at your own risk) when everyone else has done so (so you cant get sick anyways).
The only answer is: because if you make others sick, you should have to pay for it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002820</id>
	<title>Re:For our sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265114340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should you not believe Wakefield?
<br> <br>
(1) Wakefield performed at least some parts of his study in an unethical manner.
<br> <br>
(2) Subsequent to the publication of this study, other researchers have tried to duplicate Wakefield's results but <b>nobody</b> has succeeded in doing so.
<br> <br>
(3) Wakefield is not a disinterested party; he has received a great deal of money from those who stand to profit from his conclusions.
<br> <br>
(4) Various circumstances [including (2) and (3) above] have caused others in the medical community to suspect Wakefield of fraud related to this "study".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should you not believe Wakefield ?
( 1 ) Wakefield performed at least some parts of his study in an unethical manner .
( 2 ) Subsequent to the publication of this study , other researchers have tried to duplicate Wakefield 's results but nobody has succeeded in doing so .
( 3 ) Wakefield is not a disinterested party ; he has received a great deal of money from those who stand to profit from his conclusions .
( 4 ) Various circumstances [ including ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) above ] have caused others in the medical community to suspect Wakefield of fraud related to this " study " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should you not believe Wakefield?
(1) Wakefield performed at least some parts of his study in an unethical manner.
(2) Subsequent to the publication of this study, other researchers have tried to duplicate Wakefield's results but nobody has succeeded in doing so.
(3) Wakefield is not a disinterested party; he has received a great deal of money from those who stand to profit from his conclusions.
(4) Various circumstances [including (2) and (3) above] have caused others in the medical community to suspect Wakefield of fraud related to this "study".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007240</id>
	<title>"The vaccine-autism debate should now end".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264930020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b><br>"The vaccine-autism debate should now end".</b></p><p><b>Wasn't SCIENCE supposed to make any debate possible (as opposed to RELIGIONS where the facts can't be discussed)?</b></p><p><b>Why more and more in our lives (Politics, Finance, Economy, Science, Markets, etc.) is now locked as debating about those issues becomes illegal?</b></p><p><b>When regulators are mere employees of the industry, even the most elementary principles of logic are betrayed.<br></b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The vaccine-autism debate should now end " .Was n't SCIENCE supposed to make any debate possible ( as opposed to RELIGIONS where the facts ca n't be discussed ) ? Why more and more in our lives ( Politics , Finance , Economy , Science , Markets , etc .
) is now locked as debating about those issues becomes illegal ? When regulators are mere employees of the industry , even the most elementary principles of logic are betrayed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The vaccine-autism debate should now end".Wasn't SCIENCE supposed to make any debate possible (as opposed to RELIGIONS where the facts can't be discussed)?Why more and more in our lives (Politics, Finance, Economy, Science, Markets, etc.
) is now locked as debating about those issues becomes illegal?When regulators are mere employees of the industry, even the most elementary principles of logic are betrayed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004324</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't dispell the basic fud</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1265123460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe because vaccination is not 100\% effective. Both me and my little brother were vaccinated for TB, as was normal in the country we were born in. I show positive on any TB test as I carry the antibodies for TB, he does not.</p><p>But science and data are hard, so I can understand why you try to avoid them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because vaccination is not 100 \ % effective .
Both me and my little brother were vaccinated for TB , as was normal in the country we were born in .
I show positive on any TB test as I carry the antibodies for TB , he does not.But science and data are hard , so I can understand why you try to avoid them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because vaccination is not 100\% effective.
Both me and my little brother were vaccinated for TB, as was normal in the country we were born in.
I show positive on any TB test as I carry the antibodies for TB, he does not.But science and data are hard, so I can understand why you try to avoid them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003794</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31012994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31016150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31009264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31043094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31020828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31009332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_2027250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31017020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31009264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31016150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31007504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31020828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31009332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31043094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31012994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31017020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31008558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31006412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31002706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_2027250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31003392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31004894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_2027250.31005136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
