<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_12_2123217</id>
	<title>Court Rules Against Vaccine-Autism Claims Again</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268390160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>barnyjr writes <i>"According to a story from Reuters, 'Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B41820100312">cannot cause autism on their own</a>, a special US court ruled on Friday, dealing one more blow to parents seeking to blame vaccines for their children's illness. The special US Court of Federal Claims ruled that vaccines could not have caused the autism of an Oregon boy, William Mead, ending his family's quest for reimbursement. ... While the state court determined the autism was vaccine-related, [Special Master George] Hastings said overwhelming medical evidence showed otherwise. The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf "was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported," Hasting wrote.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>barnyjr writes " According to a story from Reuters , 'Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal can not cause autism on their own , a special US court ruled on Friday , dealing one more blow to parents seeking to blame vaccines for their children 's illness .
The special US Court of Federal Claims ruled that vaccines could not have caused the autism of an Oregon boy , William Mead , ending his family 's quest for reimbursement .
... While the state court determined the autism was vaccine-related , [ Special Master George ] Hastings said overwhelming medical evidence showed otherwise .
The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf " was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported , " Hasting wrote .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>barnyjr writes "According to a story from Reuters, 'Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal cannot cause autism on their own, a special US court ruled on Friday, dealing one more blow to parents seeking to blame vaccines for their children's illness.
The special US Court of Federal Claims ruled that vaccines could not have caused the autism of an Oregon boy, William Mead, ending his family's quest for reimbursement.
... While the state court determined the autism was vaccine-related, [Special Master George] Hastings said overwhelming medical evidence showed otherwise.
The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf "was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported," Hasting wrote.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459978</id>
	<title>Re:Greed is nothing new</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1268403720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 Agreed.  End the war on drugs.  I hope I see this in my lifetime some day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Agreed .
End the war on drugs .
I hope I see this in my lifetime some day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Agreed.
End the war on drugs.
I hope I see this in my lifetime some day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460474</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268407020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if his data are correct then it's better than 500 to 1.  Because you can't die from something you didn't get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if his data are correct then it 's better than 500 to 1 .
Because you ca n't die from something you did n't get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if his data are correct then it's better than 500 to 1.
Because you can't die from something you didn't get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457996</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not only that, but why should the parents be entitled to "reimbursement" even if the immunization did cause the autism?  Yes, the product should be immediately pulled, but do they have a right to get rich because of some hitherto unknown side-effect of a well intentioned vaccine?  I don't think so.</p></div><p>I'm sorry, but you must be new here.</p><p>And no, I don't mean new <i>here</i>, but new to the last decade or three.  Dunno if you know this or not, but there have been radical developments in greed and corruption over the last couple of decades, which in turn have flooded our court systems and practically gave birth to a whole new breed of Government.  It's sickening, really.</p><p>It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words; <i>loser pays.</i>  That would likely flush out 80\% of the crap clogging the system today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but why should the parents be entitled to " reimbursement " even if the immunization did cause the autism ?
Yes , the product should be immediately pulled , but do they have a right to get rich because of some hitherto unknown side-effect of a well intentioned vaccine ?
I do n't think so.I 'm sorry , but you must be new here.And no , I do n't mean new here , but new to the last decade or three .
Dunno if you know this or not , but there have been radical developments in greed and corruption over the last couple of decades , which in turn have flooded our court systems and practically gave birth to a whole new breed of Government .
It 's sickening , really.It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words ; loser pays .
That would likely flush out 80 \ % of the crap clogging the system today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but why should the parents be entitled to "reimbursement" even if the immunization did cause the autism?
Yes, the product should be immediately pulled, but do they have a right to get rich because of some hitherto unknown side-effect of a well intentioned vaccine?
I don't think so.I'm sorry, but you must be new here.And no, I don't mean new here, but new to the last decade or three.
Dunno if you know this or not, but there have been radical developments in greed and corruption over the last couple of decades, which in turn have flooded our court systems and practically gave birth to a whole new breed of Government.
It's sickening, really.It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words; loser pays.
That would likely flush out 80\% of the crap clogging the system today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458546</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>guytoronto</author>
	<datestamp>1268397120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated (and they do; you can't go to school without it), there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects, no matter how well intentioned.</em>

Why? Look at seatbelts. Required by the government. What if it jams in an accident, and you can't get out of your car, and you are severely burned. Does the government owe you compensation because they required you to wear a seatbelt? Maybe you were burned badly, but if you weren't wearing a seatbelt, you would have been thrown through the windshield and killed in that accident.

It's all a big numbers game, and the numbers support forced vaccinations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated ( and they do ; you ca n't go to school without it ) , there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects , no matter how well intentioned .
Why ? Look at seatbelts .
Required by the government .
What if it jams in an accident , and you ca n't get out of your car , and you are severely burned .
Does the government owe you compensation because they required you to wear a seatbelt ?
Maybe you were burned badly , but if you were n't wearing a seatbelt , you would have been thrown through the windshield and killed in that accident .
It 's all a big numbers game , and the numbers support forced vaccinations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated (and they do; you can't go to school without it), there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects, no matter how well intentioned.
Why? Look at seatbelts.
Required by the government.
What if it jams in an accident, and you can't get out of your car, and you are severely burned.
Does the government owe you compensation because they required you to wear a seatbelt?
Maybe you were burned badly, but if you weren't wearing a seatbelt, you would have been thrown through the windshield and killed in that accident.
It's all a big numbers game, and the numbers support forced vaccinations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458836</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>Pronkzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1268398200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many vaccines are simply about money, not health.</p></div><p>If you think preventing cervical cancer is not about health, then you need some of this education you are referring to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many vaccines are simply about money , not health.If you think preventing cervical cancer is not about health , then you need some of this education you are referring to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many vaccines are simply about money, not health.If you think preventing cervical cancer is not about health, then you need some of this education you are referring to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459112</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>datababe72</author>
	<datestamp>1268399460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You aren't as educated about vaccines as you think.</p><p>Go read this to learn a little bit about the diseases that the childhood vaccine prevent:<br>http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=186</p><p>That site will give you the cold hard numbers about how many children used to die from these illnesses and the actual, documented side effects (and their frequencies) of vaccines.</p><p>Then go to this site to get a more human view of what happens to OTHER PEOPLE'S BABIES when you choose not to vaccinate:<br>http://www.danamccaffery.com/</p><p>No one should have to bury their 4 week old baby because someone else believes conspiracy theories.</p><p>Now, if you don't want to get your daughter the HPV vaccine, that is no skin off of my nose. But do not lump that vaccine in with the vaccines that prevent diptheria, pertussis, measles, and the like. The ethics of decided to refuse the HPV vaccine and deciding to refuse the DPT vaccine aren't evenly remotely similar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't as educated about vaccines as you think.Go read this to learn a little bit about the diseases that the childhood vaccine prevent : http : //www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ ? p = 186That site will give you the cold hard numbers about how many children used to die from these illnesses and the actual , documented side effects ( and their frequencies ) of vaccines.Then go to this site to get a more human view of what happens to OTHER PEOPLE 'S BABIES when you choose not to vaccinate : http : //www.danamccaffery.com/No one should have to bury their 4 week old baby because someone else believes conspiracy theories.Now , if you do n't want to get your daughter the HPV vaccine , that is no skin off of my nose .
But do not lump that vaccine in with the vaccines that prevent diptheria , pertussis , measles , and the like .
The ethics of decided to refuse the HPV vaccine and deciding to refuse the DPT vaccine are n't evenly remotely similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't as educated about vaccines as you think.Go read this to learn a little bit about the diseases that the childhood vaccine prevent:http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=186That site will give you the cold hard numbers about how many children used to die from these illnesses and the actual, documented side effects (and their frequencies) of vaccines.Then go to this site to get a more human view of what happens to OTHER PEOPLE'S BABIES when you choose not to vaccinate:http://www.danamccaffery.com/No one should have to bury their 4 week old baby because someone else believes conspiracy theories.Now, if you don't want to get your daughter the HPV vaccine, that is no skin off of my nose.
But do not lump that vaccine in with the vaccines that prevent diptheria, pertussis, measles, and the like.
The ethics of decided to refuse the HPV vaccine and deciding to refuse the DPT vaccine aren't evenly remotely similar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460380</id>
	<title>Re:Courts are now ruling on scientific fact?</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1268406300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Courts make legal decisions based on the testimony of experts who disagree. This sort of ruling is one of the things they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Courts make legal decisions based on the testimony of experts who disagree .
This sort of ruling is one of the things they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Courts make legal decisions based on the testimony of experts who disagree.
This sort of ruling is one of the things they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31513716</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1268857620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a very liberal college town, by the way (Ashland, Oregon).  It's not the crazy fundamentalist Christians doing it; it's the crazy crystal-sniffing hippies.</p></div><p>That's usually the way it goes. The folks who listen to Jenny McCarthy and her "I'm an indigo mom and my child is a crystal child" bullshit. They're usually the ones who think that the evil evil pharmaceutical companies hide all the real evidence of autism caused by vaccines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a very liberal college town , by the way ( Ashland , Oregon ) .
It 's not the crazy fundamentalist Christians doing it ; it 's the crazy crystal-sniffing hippies.That 's usually the way it goes .
The folks who listen to Jenny McCarthy and her " I 'm an indigo mom and my child is a crystal child " bullshit .
They 're usually the ones who think that the evil evil pharmaceutical companies hide all the real evidence of autism caused by vaccines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a very liberal college town, by the way (Ashland, Oregon).
It's not the crazy fundamentalist Christians doing it; it's the crazy crystal-sniffing hippies.That's usually the way it goes.
The folks who listen to Jenny McCarthy and her "I'm an indigo mom and my child is a crystal child" bullshit.
They're usually the ones who think that the evil evil pharmaceutical companies hide all the real evidence of autism caused by vaccines.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020</id>
	<title>look at the amish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the amish don't get vaccinated so autism is virtually unknown amongst them<br><a href="http://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted.html" title="whale.to" rel="nofollow">http://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted.html</a> [whale.to]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the amish do n't get vaccinated so autism is virtually unknown amongst themhttp : //www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted.html [ whale.to ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the amish don't get vaccinated so autism is virtually unknown amongst themhttp://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted.html [whale.to]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated (and they do; you can't go to school without it), there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects, no matter how well intentioned.</i> <br> <br>

In a town near me, 1 in 6 kids is skipping vaccination, due to the religious exemption.  That's crazy, and I expect a wave of something really nasty to hit the town soon, killing some kids.  I wonder if those parents could be sued for the public health risk they're creating?<br> <br>

It's a very liberal college town, by the way (Ashland, Oregon).  It's not the crazy fundamentalist Christians doing it; it's the crazy crystal-sniffing hippies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated ( and they do ; you ca n't go to school without it ) , there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects , no matter how well intentioned .
In a town near me , 1 in 6 kids is skipping vaccination , due to the religious exemption .
That 's crazy , and I expect a wave of something really nasty to hit the town soon , killing some kids .
I wonder if those parents could be sued for the public health risk they 're creating ?
It 's a very liberal college town , by the way ( Ashland , Oregon ) .
It 's not the crazy fundamentalist Christians doing it ; it 's the crazy crystal-sniffing hippies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated (and they do; you can't go to school without it), there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects, no matter how well intentioned.
In a town near me, 1 in 6 kids is skipping vaccination, due to the religious exemption.
That's crazy, and I expect a wave of something really nasty to hit the town soon, killing some kids.
I wonder if those parents could be sued for the public health risk they're creating?
It's a very liberal college town, by the way (Ashland, Oregon).
It's not the crazy fundamentalist Christians doing it; it's the crazy crystal-sniffing hippies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458826</id>
	<title>Re:This won't change anything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268398200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazingly, Jenny McCarthy recently admitted that vaccines didn't cause her sons austism after doctors confirmed that her son didn't actually have autism.  She still says we need to do more research into vaccines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazingly , Jenny McCarthy recently admitted that vaccines did n't cause her sons austism after doctors confirmed that her son did n't actually have autism .
She still says we need to do more research into vaccines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazingly, Jenny McCarthy recently admitted that vaccines didn't cause her sons austism after doctors confirmed that her son didn't actually have autism.
She still says we need to do more research into vaccines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457934</id>
	<title>This won't change anything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...because Jenny McCarthy can't read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because Jenny McCarthy ca n't read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because Jenny McCarthy can't read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124</id>
	<title>Let me be crystal about this</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1268395200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me be crystal clear about this, vaccines do not cause autism nor is there any decent study that is statistically and/or scientifically valid which shows such a provable correlation.</p><p>And we're running studies of autism here, led by one of my colleagues who has an autistic child herself.</p><p>You really need to move on.</p><p>The problem is that, for most people, they grasp at straws and try to find some observable "cause" they can link with autism.  It's quite possible that it has more to do with environmental and/or emotional stresses on the mother but people try to put the cart before the horse and "prove" that a vaccine - which may have been due to travel (hint - enviro/emo stress) or bad health conditions (same) - was the cause.</p><p>Please, move on, you're just embarrassing yourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me be crystal clear about this , vaccines do not cause autism nor is there any decent study that is statistically and/or scientifically valid which shows such a provable correlation.And we 're running studies of autism here , led by one of my colleagues who has an autistic child herself.You really need to move on.The problem is that , for most people , they grasp at straws and try to find some observable " cause " they can link with autism .
It 's quite possible that it has more to do with environmental and/or emotional stresses on the mother but people try to put the cart before the horse and " prove " that a vaccine - which may have been due to travel ( hint - enviro/emo stress ) or bad health conditions ( same ) - was the cause.Please , move on , you 're just embarrassing yourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me be crystal clear about this, vaccines do not cause autism nor is there any decent study that is statistically and/or scientifically valid which shows such a provable correlation.And we're running studies of autism here, led by one of my colleagues who has an autistic child herself.You really need to move on.The problem is that, for most people, they grasp at straws and try to find some observable "cause" they can link with autism.
It's quite possible that it has more to do with environmental and/or emotional stresses on the mother but people try to put the cart before the horse and "prove" that a vaccine - which may have been due to travel (hint - enviro/emo stress) or bad health conditions (same) - was the cause.Please, move on, you're just embarrassing yourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459006</id>
	<title>Re:"antivax" people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268398980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a scientist I recognise the power and safety of vaccines, and I also recognise the logic in your arguments. Most of what you say I do agree with. However, I also recognise the implicit argument in your post--that vaccination should be mandatory and or the antivax crowd should be silenced--and as a human being I'm going to tell you to shove that point of view up your ass.</p><p>If you don't like the antivax crowd, you're going to have to tackle them with argument and reason, not with the iron hand of majority rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a scientist I recognise the power and safety of vaccines , and I also recognise the logic in your arguments .
Most of what you say I do agree with .
However , I also recognise the implicit argument in your post--that vaccination should be mandatory and or the antivax crowd should be silenced--and as a human being I 'm going to tell you to shove that point of view up your ass.If you do n't like the antivax crowd , you 're going to have to tackle them with argument and reason , not with the iron hand of majority rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a scientist I recognise the power and safety of vaccines, and I also recognise the logic in your arguments.
Most of what you say I do agree with.
However, I also recognise the implicit argument in your post--that vaccination should be mandatory and or the antivax crowd should be silenced--and as a human being I'm going to tell you to shove that point of view up your ass.If you don't like the antivax crowd, you're going to have to tackle them with argument and reason, not with the iron hand of majority rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458138</id>
	<title>Vaccine Related?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268395260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Autism is vaccine related?</p><p>and Mercury? that cannot be healthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Autism is vaccine related ? and Mercury ?
that can not be healthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Autism is vaccine related?and Mercury?
that cannot be healthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31463366</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1268489340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In a town near me, 1 in 6 kids is skipping vaccination, due to the religious exemption.</p></div><p>With 5 in 6 kids vaccinated there's probably no risk since you're most likemly well in the percentage where the vaccine covers enough of the population that the tarteget disease cannot spread efficiently (this is typically between 40 and 60\%)/ So even if the given bug was to appear, it wouldn't spread since enough kids would be protected and there wouldn't be enough available hosts (it also depends on the efficiency of the vaccine of course, some are quite low).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a town near me , 1 in 6 kids is skipping vaccination , due to the religious exemption.With 5 in 6 kids vaccinated there 's probably no risk since you 're most likemly well in the percentage where the vaccine covers enough of the population that the tarteget disease can not spread efficiently ( this is typically between 40 and 60 \ % ) / So even if the given bug was to appear , it would n't spread since enough kids would be protected and there would n't be enough available hosts ( it also depends on the efficiency of the vaccine of course , some are quite low ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a town near me, 1 in 6 kids is skipping vaccination, due to the religious exemption.With 5 in 6 kids vaccinated there's probably no risk since you're most likemly well in the percentage where the vaccine covers enough of the population that the tarteget disease cannot spread efficiently (this is typically between 40 and 60\%)/ So even if the given bug was to appear, it wouldn't spread since enough kids would be protected and there wouldn't be enough available hosts (it also depends on the efficiency of the vaccine of course, some are quite low).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459500</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1268401020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What public health risk is there really? Even un-immunized the risks of most sicknesses are quite low to cause any real damage. Measles, Mumps and Rubella generally are low-mortality when generally speaking. About the only really severe sickness we immunize against is Tetanus (which you generally don't get from others), Polio (which is pretty much wiped out) and Smallpox which is totally wiped out. <br> <br>

Yeah, a few kids might be really sick, but if treatment is quick enough, it is easy to contain and cure. While I think not immunizing your kids is totally stupid, it isn't going to cause another plague.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What public health risk is there really ?
Even un-immunized the risks of most sicknesses are quite low to cause any real damage .
Measles , Mumps and Rubella generally are low-mortality when generally speaking .
About the only really severe sickness we immunize against is Tetanus ( which you generally do n't get from others ) , Polio ( which is pretty much wiped out ) and Smallpox which is totally wiped out .
Yeah , a few kids might be really sick , but if treatment is quick enough , it is easy to contain and cure .
While I think not immunizing your kids is totally stupid , it is n't going to cause another plague .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What public health risk is there really?
Even un-immunized the risks of most sicknesses are quite low to cause any real damage.
Measles, Mumps and Rubella generally are low-mortality when generally speaking.
About the only really severe sickness we immunize against is Tetanus (which you generally don't get from others), Polio (which is pretty much wiped out) and Smallpox which is totally wiped out.
Yeah, a few kids might be really sick, but if treatment is quick enough, it is easy to contain and cure.
While I think not immunizing your kids is totally stupid, it isn't going to cause another plague.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458114</id>
	<title>I find it funny</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1268395140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That people are so quick to blame pharmaceuticals for everything that may happen post vaccination. I understand that a lot of it comes from people not knowing whats in the vaccination - they don't know what they are putting into their children and they realize "Hey this could be cause" after something harmful happens. Don't get me wrong, I agree that its a problem, I don't ever go and get my flu shot because the local health regional offices won't tell me what's in the vaccine. [tinfoilhat] How do I know they aren't adding some kind of emotional suppressant that makes me less angry about taxes being raised [/tinfoilhat].</p><p>I think the ridiculous part of it though is that they only do this with the drugs. People don't think to blame the food, or the beverages, or anything else they are introducing into their system. They heard a smear campaign on the radio saying that a Vaccine might be linked to a disease or syndrome - time and time again these reports turn out to be faked. But for whatever reason, this kind of stuff continues.</p><p>I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: Stop trying to push the laws to treat a symptom of the problem. Transparency is the issue here - without having complete <b>ACCURATE</b> transparency, laymen (like myself) have an even tougher time determining what is true and what is false. If I had my way, everything we drink, every menu we read, every swimming pool you enter, anything that we interact with would have a label somewhere telling you -exactly- what goes into it. And don't get me started on current Nutritional labels - those things are a disgrace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That people are so quick to blame pharmaceuticals for everything that may happen post vaccination .
I understand that a lot of it comes from people not knowing whats in the vaccination - they do n't know what they are putting into their children and they realize " Hey this could be cause " after something harmful happens .
Do n't get me wrong , I agree that its a problem , I do n't ever go and get my flu shot because the local health regional offices wo n't tell me what 's in the vaccine .
[ tinfoilhat ] How do I know they are n't adding some kind of emotional suppressant that makes me less angry about taxes being raised [ /tinfoilhat ] .I think the ridiculous part of it though is that they only do this with the drugs .
People do n't think to blame the food , or the beverages , or anything else they are introducing into their system .
They heard a smear campaign on the radio saying that a Vaccine might be linked to a disease or syndrome - time and time again these reports turn out to be faked .
But for whatever reason , this kind of stuff continues.I guess the point I 'm trying to make is this : Stop trying to push the laws to treat a symptom of the problem .
Transparency is the issue here - without having complete ACCURATE transparency , laymen ( like myself ) have an even tougher time determining what is true and what is false .
If I had my way , everything we drink , every menu we read , every swimming pool you enter , anything that we interact with would have a label somewhere telling you -exactly- what goes into it .
And do n't get me started on current Nutritional labels - those things are a disgrace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That people are so quick to blame pharmaceuticals for everything that may happen post vaccination.
I understand that a lot of it comes from people not knowing whats in the vaccination - they don't know what they are putting into their children and they realize "Hey this could be cause" after something harmful happens.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that its a problem, I don't ever go and get my flu shot because the local health regional offices won't tell me what's in the vaccine.
[tinfoilhat] How do I know they aren't adding some kind of emotional suppressant that makes me less angry about taxes being raised [/tinfoilhat].I think the ridiculous part of it though is that they only do this with the drugs.
People don't think to blame the food, or the beverages, or anything else they are introducing into their system.
They heard a smear campaign on the radio saying that a Vaccine might be linked to a disease or syndrome - time and time again these reports turn out to be faked.
But for whatever reason, this kind of stuff continues.I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: Stop trying to push the laws to treat a symptom of the problem.
Transparency is the issue here - without having complete ACCURATE transparency, laymen (like myself) have an even tougher time determining what is true and what is false.
If I had my way, everything we drink, every menu we read, every swimming pool you enter, anything that we interact with would have a label somewhere telling you -exactly- what goes into it.
And don't get me started on current Nutritional labels - those things are a disgrace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459382</id>
	<title>Re:look at the amish</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1268400480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, there is nothing right about that statement; the Amish do get vaccinated, and they do get autism. It seriously takes less than five minutes of looking to find an Amish autism clinic that cares for autistic children and adults.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , there is nothing right about that statement ; the Amish do get vaccinated , and they do get autism .
It seriously takes less than five minutes of looking to find an Amish autism clinic that cares for autistic children and adults .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, there is nothing right about that statement; the Amish do get vaccinated, and they do get autism.
It seriously takes less than five minutes of looking to find an Amish autism clinic that cares for autistic children and adults.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458540</id>
	<title>So what causes Autism anyway?</title>
	<author>TheNarrator</author>
	<datestamp>1268397060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anybody actually done any research to figure out what causes autism other than vaccines?  Has the whole epidemiological process been derailed by the vaccine connection controversy?  This is a serious question that now seems to be have become one of these taboo science topics that nobody wants to investigate because its history has been so controversial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anybody actually done any research to figure out what causes autism other than vaccines ?
Has the whole epidemiological process been derailed by the vaccine connection controversy ?
This is a serious question that now seems to be have become one of these taboo science topics that nobody wants to investigate because its history has been so controversial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anybody actually done any research to figure out what causes autism other than vaccines?
Has the whole epidemiological process been derailed by the vaccine connection controversy?
This is a serious question that now seems to be have become one of these taboo science topics that nobody wants to investigate because its history has been so controversial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458016</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1268394600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has been a central principle of legal systems world-wide, for several thousand years, that if one is wronged or harmed, one can expect to receive recompense from the perpetrator. When you buy a faulty product, do you expect to get your money back? If a drunk crashes into your car, would you not sue for damages?</p><p>What you are advocating is not justice. You are advocating for a complete lack of responsibility for wrongdoers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been a central principle of legal systems world-wide , for several thousand years , that if one is wronged or harmed , one can expect to receive recompense from the perpetrator .
When you buy a faulty product , do you expect to get your money back ?
If a drunk crashes into your car , would you not sue for damages ? What you are advocating is not justice .
You are advocating for a complete lack of responsibility for wrongdoers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been a central principle of legal systems world-wide, for several thousand years, that if one is wronged or harmed, one can expect to receive recompense from the perpetrator.
When you buy a faulty product, do you expect to get your money back?
If a drunk crashes into your car, would you not sue for damages?What you are advocating is not justice.
You are advocating for a complete lack of responsibility for wrongdoers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458208</id>
	<title>It's not like someone just made this up</title>
	<author>frog\_strat</author>
	<datestamp>1268395680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There were some fascinating correlations about autism rates before and after the mixed injections.  And the same data was replicated in England.  There was even a piece on 60 minutes about this.

Of course, this is only correlation, not proof that the mixture causes autism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There were some fascinating correlations about autism rates before and after the mixed injections .
And the same data was replicated in England .
There was even a piece on 60 minutes about this .
Of course , this is only correlation , not proof that the mixture causes autism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were some fascinating correlations about autism rates before and after the mixed injections.
And the same data was replicated in England.
There was even a piece on 60 minutes about this.
Of course, this is only correlation, not proof that the mixture causes autism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458320</id>
	<title>giggly</title>
	<author>vajorie</author>
	<datestamp>1268396160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

When someone says something like this, I don't know whether to giggle or be scared.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported When someone says something like this , I do n't know whether to giggle or be scared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported


When someone says something like this, I don't know whether to giggle or be scared.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458590</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268397240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words;</p></div></blockquote><p>Regardless of what follows this phrase, there has never, <i>ever</i> existed a legal, social, or political context in which it holds true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words ; Regardless of what follows this phrase , there has never , ever existed a legal , social , or political context in which it holds true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words;Regardless of what follows this phrase, there has never, ever existed a legal, social, or political context in which it holds true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31487814</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>geschild</author>
	<datestamp>1268647860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pro-vacination. Lets<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/really/ look at the odds, then:</p><p>&gt;150mi women (CIA Factbook) in the US. Chance of contracting HPV during full lifetime: 90\%. (hpvhealth.net).</p><p>If we estimate 2mi girls aged 14 a year, the maximum age to vaccinate if you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/really/ want to get there before they become sexually active, we should have about 13 deaths each year due to the vaccine.</p><p>Chance of dying, annually, of HPV related cancer: "Between three thousand and four thousand women die of cervical cancer every year, with HPV being responsible for around 70\% or more of all cervical cancer cases." (hpvhealth.net) Which means some 2450 deaths attributable to HPV related cancer annually. Those deaths are probably (I haven't researched those statistics) &gt;35yo's.</p><p>Now calculate for yourself if you like the odds of 13 kids dying of the vaccine or rather almost 2500 deaths among adults. If you're gonna be nerdy about it, calculate the years saved/spoiled by either approach. Perhaps you can go deeper and calculate years in good health.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pro-vacination .
Lets /really/ look at the odds , then : &gt; 150mi women ( CIA Factbook ) in the US .
Chance of contracting HPV during full lifetime : 90 \ % .
( hpvhealth.net ) .If we estimate 2mi girls aged 14 a year , the maximum age to vaccinate if you /really/ want to get there before they become sexually active , we should have about 13 deaths each year due to the vaccine.Chance of dying , annually , of HPV related cancer : " Between three thousand and four thousand women die of cervical cancer every year , with HPV being responsible for around 70 \ % or more of all cervical cancer cases .
" ( hpvhealth.net ) Which means some 2450 deaths attributable to HPV related cancer annually .
Those deaths are probably ( I have n't researched those statistics ) &gt; 35yo 's.Now calculate for yourself if you like the odds of 13 kids dying of the vaccine or rather almost 2500 deaths among adults .
If you 're gon na be nerdy about it , calculate the years saved/spoiled by either approach .
Perhaps you can go deeper and calculate years in good health .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pro-vacination.
Lets /really/ look at the odds, then:&gt;150mi women (CIA Factbook) in the US.
Chance of contracting HPV during full lifetime: 90\%.
(hpvhealth.net).If we estimate 2mi girls aged 14 a year, the maximum age to vaccinate if you /really/ want to get there before they become sexually active, we should have about 13 deaths each year due to the vaccine.Chance of dying, annually, of HPV related cancer: "Between three thousand and four thousand women die of cervical cancer every year, with HPV being responsible for around 70\% or more of all cervical cancer cases.
" (hpvhealth.net) Which means some 2450 deaths attributable to HPV related cancer annually.
Those deaths are probably (I haven't researched those statistics) &gt;35yo's.Now calculate for yourself if you like the odds of 13 kids dying of the vaccine or rather almost 2500 deaths among adults.
If you're gonna be nerdy about it, calculate the years saved/spoiled by either approach.
Perhaps you can go deeper and calculate years in good health.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458042</id>
	<title>Re:"antivax" people</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1268394720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there is non-zero risk to individuals from any medical treatment,</p></div><p>Yep, something to always remember about any drug you might take or any treatment you might undergo.  But it's also worth remembering that there's a non-zero risk to eating food (could be tainted), driving a car, or sticking your face in a fan*.  Life is all about balancing the risks, not eliminating them entirely.  In some ways, we're victims of our own success at risk mitigation: we've come to view risks as optional rather than a matter of course.  (Applies to not just medicine, but also space travel, the way we raise our kids, and pretty much everything else.)</p><p>* With a tip of the hat to Frank Drebin, Police Squad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is non-zero risk to individuals from any medical treatment,Yep , something to always remember about any drug you might take or any treatment you might undergo .
But it 's also worth remembering that there 's a non-zero risk to eating food ( could be tainted ) , driving a car , or sticking your face in a fan * .
Life is all about balancing the risks , not eliminating them entirely .
In some ways , we 're victims of our own success at risk mitigation : we 've come to view risks as optional rather than a matter of course .
( Applies to not just medicine , but also space travel , the way we raise our kids , and pretty much everything else .
) * With a tip of the hat to Frank Drebin , Police Squad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is non-zero risk to individuals from any medical treatment,Yep, something to always remember about any drug you might take or any treatment you might undergo.
But it's also worth remembering that there's a non-zero risk to eating food (could be tainted), driving a car, or sticking your face in a fan*.
Life is all about balancing the risks, not eliminating them entirely.
In some ways, we're victims of our own success at risk mitigation: we've come to view risks as optional rather than a matter of course.
(Applies to not just medicine, but also space travel, the way we raise our kids, and pretty much everything else.
)* With a tip of the hat to Frank Drebin, Police Squad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459966</id>
	<title>link to actual decision</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1268403660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this <a href="http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Campbell-Smith\%20Mead\%20Autism\%20Decision.pdf" title="uscourts.gov">http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Campbell-Smith\%20Mead\%20Autism\%20Decision.pdf</a> [uscourts.gov]
is the right one, the court of claims website has several
<a href="http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/5026/" title="uscourts.gov">http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/5026/</a> [uscourts.gov]

The principal evidence against the parents are several large studies (&gt; 100,000 children) where they compared autism in groups with and witout mercury vaccines (thimerosol). There was no difference.
further, the scandinavians have looked at autism rates before and after useage of thimerosol; no difference.
This is probably the best data we can hope to get showing htat mercury in vaccines doesn't cause autims.

to get around this, the parents argued that thimerosol causes a special, rare kind of autism (regressive autism), and that studies on large numbers of children are meaningless because they don't have the statistical power to see a change in a small percent of the population (if you have 100,000 kids with thimerosol, and 100K without, and the general autism rate is 1\% and the regressive autism rate is 0.1\%, you won't have statistically sign numbers for the rare form of the disiease.

the master dismissed this argument concluding that there was no evidence for a distinct disease called regressive autism.
there was a lot of stuff about how mercury enters the brain and what it does; sort of inconclusive; the parents didn't really have any good data to support their theorys, eg although distinct, measurable changes occcur ain humans and animals at levels of mercury much higher then what childrne are exposed to, the parents argued that their children have a genetic makeup that makes them hypersensitive to mercury; the problem with this is that they dind't have any data to support this theory, which is perfectly plausible; the parents brought up wilson's disease, which is hypersensitivity to copper.

aused the childs autism; he said that there was no plausible theory or data
after reading the pdf</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this http : //www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Campbell-Smith \ % 20Mead \ % 20Autism \ % 20Decision.pdf [ uscourts.gov ] is the right one , the court of claims website has several http : //www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/5026/ [ uscourts.gov ] The principal evidence against the parents are several large studies ( &gt; 100,000 children ) where they compared autism in groups with and witout mercury vaccines ( thimerosol ) .
There was no difference .
further , the scandinavians have looked at autism rates before and after useage of thimerosol ; no difference .
This is probably the best data we can hope to get showing htat mercury in vaccines does n't cause autims .
to get around this , the parents argued that thimerosol causes a special , rare kind of autism ( regressive autism ) , and that studies on large numbers of children are meaningless because they do n't have the statistical power to see a change in a small percent of the population ( if you have 100,000 kids with thimerosol , and 100K without , and the general autism rate is 1 \ % and the regressive autism rate is 0.1 \ % , you wo n't have statistically sign numbers for the rare form of the disiease .
the master dismissed this argument concluding that there was no evidence for a distinct disease called regressive autism .
there was a lot of stuff about how mercury enters the brain and what it does ; sort of inconclusive ; the parents did n't really have any good data to support their theorys , eg although distinct , measurable changes occcur ain humans and animals at levels of mercury much higher then what childrne are exposed to , the parents argued that their children have a genetic makeup that makes them hypersensitive to mercury ; the problem with this is that they dind't have any data to support this theory , which is perfectly plausible ; the parents brought up wilson 's disease , which is hypersensitivity to copper .
aused the childs autism ; he said that there was no plausible theory or data after reading the pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Campbell-Smith\%20Mead\%20Autism\%20Decision.pdf [uscourts.gov]
is the right one, the court of claims website has several
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/5026/ [uscourts.gov]

The principal evidence against the parents are several large studies (&gt; 100,000 children) where they compared autism in groups with and witout mercury vaccines (thimerosol).
There was no difference.
further, the scandinavians have looked at autism rates before and after useage of thimerosol; no difference.
This is probably the best data we can hope to get showing htat mercury in vaccines doesn't cause autims.
to get around this, the parents argued that thimerosol causes a special, rare kind of autism (regressive autism), and that studies on large numbers of children are meaningless because they don't have the statistical power to see a change in a small percent of the population (if you have 100,000 kids with thimerosol, and 100K without, and the general autism rate is 1\% and the regressive autism rate is 0.1\%, you won't have statistically sign numbers for the rare form of the disiease.
the master dismissed this argument concluding that there was no evidence for a distinct disease called regressive autism.
there was a lot of stuff about how mercury enters the brain and what it does; sort of inconclusive; the parents didn't really have any good data to support their theorys, eg although distinct, measurable changes occcur ain humans and animals at levels of mercury much higher then what childrne are exposed to, the parents argued that their children have a genetic makeup that makes them hypersensitive to mercury; the problem with this is that they dind't have any data to support this theory, which is perfectly plausible; the parents brought up wilson's disease, which is hypersensitivity to copper.
aused the childs autism; he said that there was no plausible theory or data
after reading the pdf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458392</id>
	<title>Less collectivism please.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's "proven" they're harmless and do more good than evil, why is it obligatory to take them? Why not treat people like people, and not animals "for their own good"?</p><p>Make it voluntary, and the conspiracies halt. Till then, I'll side with those in doubt.<br>That goes for things beyond vaccination too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's " proven " they 're harmless and do more good than evil , why is it obligatory to take them ?
Why not treat people like people , and not animals " for their own good " ? Make it voluntary , and the conspiracies halt .
Till then , I 'll side with those in doubt.That goes for things beyond vaccination too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's "proven" they're harmless and do more good than evil, why is it obligatory to take them?
Why not treat people like people, and not animals "for their own good"?Make it voluntary, and the conspiracies halt.
Till then, I'll side with those in doubt.That goes for things beyond vaccination too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31464280</id>
	<title>Don't use plastics, and a lot of other things</title>
	<author>spineboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268499300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I took care of some Amish people a few years ago.  They generally don't see doctors a lot.  THey also have some pretty severe untreated illnesses. Much of the purported increase in Autism is from over diagnosis.</p><p>The Amish also don't use plastic much (less exposure to oily plasticizers in their food after microwaving), don't use Teflon coated pans, don't drink bottled water, don't use caffeine, don't use Tide detergetnt, don't watch TV, etc</p><p>And since vaccines haven't contained Hg in them since 1999-2000 , why hasn't the rate dropped?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I took care of some Amish people a few years ago .
They generally do n't see doctors a lot .
THey also have some pretty severe untreated illnesses .
Much of the purported increase in Autism is from over diagnosis.The Amish also do n't use plastic much ( less exposure to oily plasticizers in their food after microwaving ) , do n't use Teflon coated pans , do n't drink bottled water , do n't use caffeine , do n't use Tide detergetnt , do n't watch TV , etcAnd since vaccines have n't contained Hg in them since 1999-2000 , why has n't the rate dropped ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took care of some Amish people a few years ago.
They generally don't see doctors a lot.
THey also have some pretty severe untreated illnesses.
Much of the purported increase in Autism is from over diagnosis.The Amish also don't use plastic much (less exposure to oily plasticizers in their food after microwaving), don't use Teflon coated pans, don't drink bottled water, don't use caffeine, don't use Tide detergetnt, don't watch TV, etcAnd since vaccines haven't contained Hg in them since 1999-2000 , why hasn't the rate dropped?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458300</id>
	<title>Re:look at the amish</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268396040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so this one person talks to a few other people in one area, and only finds a few cases of autism. Shocking. I'd like to wait for a proper field study that does at least some proper random sampling. Not to mention that the article fails to account for the possibility that the Amish, being a very segregated group, just might not have the genetic predisposition that leads to autism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so this one person talks to a few other people in one area , and only finds a few cases of autism .
Shocking. I 'd like to wait for a proper field study that does at least some proper random sampling .
Not to mention that the article fails to account for the possibility that the Amish , being a very segregated group , just might not have the genetic predisposition that leads to autism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so this one person talks to a few other people in one area, and only finds a few cases of autism.
Shocking. I'd like to wait for a proper field study that does at least some proper random sampling.
Not to mention that the article fails to account for the possibility that the Amish, being a very segregated group, just might not have the genetic predisposition that leads to autism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457960</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Word. The child and his parents need to suck it up and be bootstrappy. It's unChristian to expect to get rich quick on the disability of your child.</p><p>Bloodsuckers disgust me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Word .
The child and his parents need to suck it up and be bootstrappy .
It 's unChristian to expect to get rich quick on the disability of your child.Bloodsuckers disgust me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Word.
The child and his parents need to suck it up and be bootstrappy.
It's unChristian to expect to get rich quick on the disability of your child.Bloodsuckers disgust me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31464780</id>
	<title>Vaccines paired with acetaminophen may be to blame</title>
	<author>Brian Stretch</author>
	<datestamp>1268504460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See this nih.gov article:<br><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18445737" title="nih.gov">Acetaminophen (paracetamol) use, measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, and autistic disorder: the results of a parent survey</a> [nih.gov]</p><p>The theory is that after they started giving children Tylenol with their vaccinations instead of aspirin due to the Reye's Syndrome scare in the 1980's, that caused the autism rate to spike.  Tylenol impairs the liver's ability to purge the additives in vaccines (not just the minuscule amount of mercury but some aluminum-based ones designed to boost immune response so that they can use less vaccine), increasing the risk of side effects.  The child will probably run a mild fever if you don't use a med such as aspirin or Tylenol.  I'm not clear on whether the fever reducer is simply for the child's comfort or if it's medically necessary.</p><p>It's a THEORY.  It looks promising.  But if we simply shout down people who make logical observations and use "correlation is not causation" as an excuse for not thinking we won't get anywhere.  An observation can still be correct even if the reasoning is wrong.  Meanwhile, using ibuprofen or naproxen with vaccines, if any fever reducer at all (aspirin allergy is nontrivial), and spreading out vaccinations over time to the maximum recommended extent seems prudent.  It does appear likely that immune system dysfunction is key to understanding autism.  That's likely why changing diet sometimes helps: most of your immune system is in your gut.  Antibiotic overuse could be a factor.  Which particular set of problems is affecting a given autistic individual will vary but the immune system appears to be the common theme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See this nih.gov article : Acetaminophen ( paracetamol ) use , measles-mumps-rubella vaccination , and autistic disorder : the results of a parent survey [ nih.gov ] The theory is that after they started giving children Tylenol with their vaccinations instead of aspirin due to the Reye 's Syndrome scare in the 1980 's , that caused the autism rate to spike .
Tylenol impairs the liver 's ability to purge the additives in vaccines ( not just the minuscule amount of mercury but some aluminum-based ones designed to boost immune response so that they can use less vaccine ) , increasing the risk of side effects .
The child will probably run a mild fever if you do n't use a med such as aspirin or Tylenol .
I 'm not clear on whether the fever reducer is simply for the child 's comfort or if it 's medically necessary.It 's a THEORY .
It looks promising .
But if we simply shout down people who make logical observations and use " correlation is not causation " as an excuse for not thinking we wo n't get anywhere .
An observation can still be correct even if the reasoning is wrong .
Meanwhile , using ibuprofen or naproxen with vaccines , if any fever reducer at all ( aspirin allergy is nontrivial ) , and spreading out vaccinations over time to the maximum recommended extent seems prudent .
It does appear likely that immune system dysfunction is key to understanding autism .
That 's likely why changing diet sometimes helps : most of your immune system is in your gut .
Antibiotic overuse could be a factor .
Which particular set of problems is affecting a given autistic individual will vary but the immune system appears to be the common theme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See this nih.gov article:Acetaminophen (paracetamol) use, measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, and autistic disorder: the results of a parent survey [nih.gov]The theory is that after they started giving children Tylenol with their vaccinations instead of aspirin due to the Reye's Syndrome scare in the 1980's, that caused the autism rate to spike.
Tylenol impairs the liver's ability to purge the additives in vaccines (not just the minuscule amount of mercury but some aluminum-based ones designed to boost immune response so that they can use less vaccine), increasing the risk of side effects.
The child will probably run a mild fever if you don't use a med such as aspirin or Tylenol.
I'm not clear on whether the fever reducer is simply for the child's comfort or if it's medically necessary.It's a THEORY.
It looks promising.
But if we simply shout down people who make logical observations and use "correlation is not causation" as an excuse for not thinking we won't get anywhere.
An observation can still be correct even if the reasoning is wrong.
Meanwhile, using ibuprofen or naproxen with vaccines, if any fever reducer at all (aspirin allergy is nontrivial), and spreading out vaccinations over time to the maximum recommended extent seems prudent.
It does appear likely that immune system dysfunction is key to understanding autism.
That's likely why changing diet sometimes helps: most of your immune system is in your gut.
Antibiotic overuse could be a factor.
Which particular set of problems is affecting a given autistic individual will vary but the immune system appears to be the common theme.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458800</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be crystal about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268398080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why has there never, ever, been a study comparing fully vaccinated to completely unvaccinated children.</p><p>Why, when a bill to do this study was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, was it not passed and instead a billion dollar bill passed to work on treatment for autism.</p><p>How can you say that vaccines do not cause autism? All you can say is we see no evidence it causes autism. Why then, on such an important issue, is this simple study not done.</p><p>It might well be the vaccine schedule needs modification to be safe. We refuse to test the full vaccine schedule.</p><p>Are you aware the autism rate for boys is now 2\%, 1 out of 50.</p><p>To see a discussion on the issue of this study see here:</p><p>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/5/235958/855</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why has there never , ever , been a study comparing fully vaccinated to completely unvaccinated children.Why , when a bill to do this study was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives , was it not passed and instead a billion dollar bill passed to work on treatment for autism.How can you say that vaccines do not cause autism ?
All you can say is we see no evidence it causes autism .
Why then , on such an important issue , is this simple study not done.It might well be the vaccine schedule needs modification to be safe .
We refuse to test the full vaccine schedule.Are you aware the autism rate for boys is now 2 \ % , 1 out of 50.To see a discussion on the issue of this study see here : http : //www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/5/235958/855</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why has there never, ever, been a study comparing fully vaccinated to completely unvaccinated children.Why, when a bill to do this study was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, was it not passed and instead a billion dollar bill passed to work on treatment for autism.How can you say that vaccines do not cause autism?
All you can say is we see no evidence it causes autism.
Why then, on such an important issue, is this simple study not done.It might well be the vaccine schedule needs modification to be safe.
We refuse to test the full vaccine schedule.Are you aware the autism rate for boys is now 2\%, 1 out of 50.To see a discussion on the issue of this study see here:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/5/235958/855</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461626</id>
	<title>Re:vaccines</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1268417040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, a classic troll. It is a plainly stated sentiment, not overtly outrageous, yet so easy to pick apart as to attract maximum angry responses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , a classic troll .
It is a plainly stated sentiment , not overtly outrageous , yet so easy to pick apart as to attract maximum angry responses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, a classic troll.
It is a plainly stated sentiment, not overtly outrageous, yet so easy to pick apart as to attract maximum angry responses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458294</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Surt</author>
	<datestamp>1268396040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problematic given that lawyers of differential quality have differential cost.  So if I try to sue a big corporation, and they decide to run up the court costs into the millions, I'm screwed if I lose?  I may as well not sue, no matter how legitimate my claim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problematic given that lawyers of differential quality have differential cost .
So if I try to sue a big corporation , and they decide to run up the court costs into the millions , I 'm screwed if I lose ?
I may as well not sue , no matter how legitimate my claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problematic given that lawyers of differential quality have differential cost.
So if I try to sue a big corporation, and they decide to run up the court costs into the millions, I'm screwed if I lose?
I may as well not sue, no matter how legitimate my claim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458514</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccine Related?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No scientific study has come even close to proving that vaccines can cause autism.</p><p>On the mercury thing, a degraded vaccine can do way more damage than the abysmal dose of mercury you can get from a shot containing the preservant. Also, I remember something about it not being metabolized and being expelled without releasing the mercury. You might want to do some research on that, tough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No scientific study has come even close to proving that vaccines can cause autism.On the mercury thing , a degraded vaccine can do way more damage than the abysmal dose of mercury you can get from a shot containing the preservant .
Also , I remember something about it not being metabolized and being expelled without releasing the mercury .
You might want to do some research on that , tough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No scientific study has come even close to proving that vaccines can cause autism.On the mercury thing, a degraded vaccine can do way more damage than the abysmal dose of mercury you can get from a shot containing the preservant.
Also, I remember something about it not being metabolized and being expelled without releasing the mercury.
You might want to do some research on that, tough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268395680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look into the HPV vaccines, actual risks.</p></div><p>Yes, let's look at <a href="http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/how-safe-is-the-hpv-vaccine/" title="informatio...utiful.net" rel="nofollow">them.</a> [informatio...utiful.net]</p><p>Odds of dying of cervical cancer: 500 to 1.</p><p>Odds of dying from the HPV vaccine: 145,000 to 1.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look into the HPV vaccines , actual risks.Yes , let 's look at them .
[ informatio...utiful.net ] Odds of dying of cervical cancer : 500 to 1.Odds of dying from the HPV vaccine : 145,000 to 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look into the HPV vaccines, actual risks.Yes, let's look at them.
[informatio...utiful.net]Odds of dying of cervical cancer: 500 to 1.Odds of dying from the HPV vaccine: 145,000 to 1.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458284</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>Nemyst</author>
	<datestamp>1268395980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That the primary motivator for the vaccine is greed does not change the fact that the vaccine will (assuming no scamming) also provide a health benefit. This shouldn't be an argument against taking a vaccine, especially since you can't go in the head of everyone who worked on the vaccine in some form or another to determine whether it actually is greed. After all, who's to tell the scientist(s) who did the actual vaccine discovery was(were) greedy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That the primary motivator for the vaccine is greed does not change the fact that the vaccine will ( assuming no scamming ) also provide a health benefit .
This should n't be an argument against taking a vaccine , especially since you ca n't go in the head of everyone who worked on the vaccine in some form or another to determine whether it actually is greed .
After all , who 's to tell the scientist ( s ) who did the actual vaccine discovery was ( were ) greedy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That the primary motivator for the vaccine is greed does not change the fact that the vaccine will (assuming no scamming) also provide a health benefit.
This shouldn't be an argument against taking a vaccine, especially since you can't go in the head of everyone who worked on the vaccine in some form or another to determine whether it actually is greed.
After all, who's to tell the scientist(s) who did the actual vaccine discovery was(were) greedy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31462796</id>
	<title>Re:Greed is nothing new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268478300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The war on drugs keeps a couple hundred thousand correctional officers employed, not to mention police, court and court related employees, 'crime prevention' and security related workers,  and all the various industry workers that stem from these.  And BILLIONS of dollars flowing around thru all those people and our policitians.</p><p>The war on drugs is here to stay.   So what if it ruins a few lives and costs the people a bunch of money.</p><p>And we will always be adding some new 'wars' to fight.   Next up, copyright crimes.  Or as we will come to know it...  'The war on piracy'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The war on drugs keeps a couple hundred thousand correctional officers employed , not to mention police , court and court related employees , 'crime prevention ' and security related workers , and all the various industry workers that stem from these .
And BILLIONS of dollars flowing around thru all those people and our policitians.The war on drugs is here to stay .
So what if it ruins a few lives and costs the people a bunch of money.And we will always be adding some new 'wars ' to fight .
Next up , copyright crimes .
Or as we will come to know it... 'The war on piracy' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The war on drugs keeps a couple hundred thousand correctional officers employed, not to mention police, court and court related employees, 'crime prevention' and security related workers,  and all the various industry workers that stem from these.
And BILLIONS of dollars flowing around thru all those people and our policitians.The war on drugs is here to stay.
So what if it ruins a few lives and costs the people a bunch of money.And we will always be adding some new 'wars' to fight.
Next up, copyright crimes.
Or as we will come to know it...  'The war on piracy'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459550</id>
	<title>Hastings Contradicted himself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268401260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"overwhelming medical evidence showed otherwise...was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported," Hasting wrote.'"</p><p>Lack of evidence for != Overwhelming evidence against.</p><p>Just a small correction but it bugs me when people forget this distinction.<br>Right: There is absolutely no evidence apart from circumstantial isolated cases that suggests that vaccines cause autism.<br>Wrong: There is overwhelming evidence showing that vaccines don't cause autism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" overwhelming medical evidence showed otherwise...was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported , " Hasting wrote .
' " Lack of evidence for ! = Overwhelming evidence against.Just a small correction but it bugs me when people forget this distinction.Right : There is absolutely no evidence apart from circumstantial isolated cases that suggests that vaccines cause autism.Wrong : There is overwhelming evidence showing that vaccines do n't cause autism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"overwhelming medical evidence showed otherwise...was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported," Hasting wrote.
'"Lack of evidence for != Overwhelming evidence against.Just a small correction but it bugs me when people forget this distinction.Right: There is absolutely no evidence apart from circumstantial isolated cases that suggests that vaccines cause autism.Wrong: There is overwhelming evidence showing that vaccines don't cause autism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458356</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>rich3rd</author>
	<datestamp>1268396280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see many other ways that public safety is compromised over money and the bottom lines of many big industries besides just Big Medicine.  What if, just to idly speculate, the root cause(s) of Autistic Spectrum Disorders turned out to have something to do with one or more of the Persistent Organic Pollutants that pregnant women and developing babies in this and other "developed" nations are pretty much marinating in for most of their lives?  You think Big Petroleum or any of its marvelous industries (electronics, personal care and fragrance, cleaning products, plastics, processed food, etc.) are going to like being implicated in that?  The army of lawyers they unleash will make a horde of Uruk-hai look like Tribbles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see many other ways that public safety is compromised over money and the bottom lines of many big industries besides just Big Medicine .
What if , just to idly speculate , the root cause ( s ) of Autistic Spectrum Disorders turned out to have something to do with one or more of the Persistent Organic Pollutants that pregnant women and developing babies in this and other " developed " nations are pretty much marinating in for most of their lives ?
You think Big Petroleum or any of its marvelous industries ( electronics , personal care and fragrance , cleaning products , plastics , processed food , etc .
) are going to like being implicated in that ?
The army of lawyers they unleash will make a horde of Uruk-hai look like Tribbles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see many other ways that public safety is compromised over money and the bottom lines of many big industries besides just Big Medicine.
What if, just to idly speculate, the root cause(s) of Autistic Spectrum Disorders turned out to have something to do with one or more of the Persistent Organic Pollutants that pregnant women and developing babies in this and other "developed" nations are pretty much marinating in for most of their lives?
You think Big Petroleum or any of its marvelous industries (electronics, personal care and fragrance, cleaning products, plastics, processed food, etc.
) are going to like being implicated in that?
The army of lawyers they unleash will make a horde of Uruk-hai look like Tribbles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459342</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1268400360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd be surprised, but its typically the dirty hippies that are more on board with demonizing vaccines than the right wing fundamentalists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd be surprised , but its typically the dirty hippies that are more on board with demonizing vaccines than the right wing fundamentalists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd be surprised, but its typically the dirty hippies that are more on board with demonizing vaccines than the right wing fundamentalists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459124</id>
	<title>Re:look at the amish</title>
	<author>tehdaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1268399460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea that the Amish don't get vaccinated and that autism is unknown among them is due to a reporter (not researcher, doctor etc, just a reporter!!!) Dan Olmsted.<p>
Apparently both 'facts' are <a href="http://combatingautismfromwithin.blogspot.com/2008/01/guess-what-amish-vaccinate.html" title="blogspot.com">incorrect</a> [blogspot.com].</p><p>T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that the Amish do n't get vaccinated and that autism is unknown among them is due to a reporter ( not researcher , doctor etc , just a reporter ! ! !
) Dan Olmsted .
Apparently both 'facts ' are incorrect [ blogspot.com ] .T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that the Amish don't get vaccinated and that autism is unknown among them is due to a reporter (not researcher, doctor etc, just a reporter!!!
) Dan Olmsted.
Apparently both 'facts' are incorrect [blogspot.com].T</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458182</id>
	<title>repeat after me</title>
	<author>fireylord</author>
	<datestamp>1268395500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>correlation does not imply causation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>correlation does not imply causation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>correlation does not imply causation</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460064</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268404440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(and they do; you can't go to school without it)</p></div></blockquote><p>Not necessarily true, either. In many places, you can get an exemption on "religious" grounds. It requires you to go hunt down the appropriate office in the local government office, and may require you to listen to some old bag sit there and berate you for endangering your child, but you can grit your teeth and get the signature and go on with life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( and they do ; you ca n't go to school without it ) Not necessarily true , either .
In many places , you can get an exemption on " religious " grounds .
It requires you to go hunt down the appropriate office in the local government office , and may require you to listen to some old bag sit there and berate you for endangering your child , but you can grit your teeth and get the signature and go on with life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(and they do; you can't go to school without it)Not necessarily true, either.
In many places, you can get an exemption on "religious" grounds.
It requires you to go hunt down the appropriate office in the local government office, and may require you to listen to some old bag sit there and berate you for endangering your child, but you can grit your teeth and get the signature and go on with life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460204</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268405280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the probability of getting cervical cancer if you don't get the vaccine is close to 1 right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the probability of getting cervical cancer if you do n't get the vaccine is close to 1 right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the probability of getting cervical cancer if you don't get the vaccine is close to 1 right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458532</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268397060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference is simple, negligence.  Is a drug company that develops a vaccine --and spends decades testing it-- negligent because it had a hereto-unknown side effect?  I don't think so.  Is the drunk driver negligent?  Absolutely.  Is the manufacturer of a car negligent if one tire blows at highway speed and injures someone?  A lot harder of a question.  Was it caused by a defect in design or defect in manufacture?  If not, it wasn't negligence.  If so, did they know about it or --and this is the key point-- SHOULD they have known about it (basically were there standard (or at least commonly used) tests that could have found it?  If not, I don't think it's negligence.  It's a very dangerous idea to say that if a company wasn't negligent, they should still pay (I'm talking above and beyond a refund).  That's the exact reason that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control.  Not because THAT many doctors have been negligent, but because courts have found them guilty even though there was no negligence...  That's not justice, that's punishing the innocent...  It's a fine line, but it's a line that must be respected and defended...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is simple , negligence .
Is a drug company that develops a vaccine --and spends decades testing it-- negligent because it had a hereto-unknown side effect ?
I do n't think so .
Is the drunk driver negligent ?
Absolutely. Is the manufacturer of a car negligent if one tire blows at highway speed and injures someone ?
A lot harder of a question .
Was it caused by a defect in design or defect in manufacture ?
If not , it was n't negligence .
If so , did they know about it or --and this is the key point-- SHOULD they have known about it ( basically were there standard ( or at least commonly used ) tests that could have found it ?
If not , I do n't think it 's negligence .
It 's a very dangerous idea to say that if a company was n't negligent , they should still pay ( I 'm talking above and beyond a refund ) .
That 's the exact reason that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control .
Not because THAT many doctors have been negligent , but because courts have found them guilty even though there was no negligence... That 's not justice , that 's punishing the innocent... It 's a fine line , but it 's a line that must be respected and defended.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is simple, negligence.
Is a drug company that develops a vaccine --and spends decades testing it-- negligent because it had a hereto-unknown side effect?
I don't think so.
Is the drunk driver negligent?
Absolutely.  Is the manufacturer of a car negligent if one tire blows at highway speed and injures someone?
A lot harder of a question.
Was it caused by a defect in design or defect in manufacture?
If not, it wasn't negligence.
If so, did they know about it or --and this is the key point-- SHOULD they have known about it (basically were there standard (or at least commonly used) tests that could have found it?
If not, I don't think it's negligence.
It's a very dangerous idea to say that if a company wasn't negligent, they should still pay (I'm talking above and beyond a refund).
That's the exact reason that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control.
Not because THAT many doctors have been negligent, but because courts have found them guilty even though there was no negligence...  That's not justice, that's punishing the innocent...  It's a fine line, but it's a line that must be respected and defended...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459698</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>nospam007</author>
	<datestamp>1268402100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That's crazy, and I expect a wave of something really nasty to hit the town soon, killing some kids"</p><p>Think of it as evolution in action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That 's crazy , and I expect a wave of something really nasty to hit the town soon , killing some kids " Think of it as evolution in action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That's crazy, and I expect a wave of something really nasty to hit the town soon, killing some kids"Think of it as evolution in action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459940</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>uncqual</author>
	<datestamp>1268403480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ways to address some of the problems of "loser pays" include:
<ul> <li>
Limit the amount the loser pays in expenses to be the <i>lesser</i> of what the loser and the winner spent on the case. (This mitigates the "imbalance of resources" problem)
</li><li>
Allow any party to "opt out" of "loser pays" (and the expense reporting requirements below) but if they lose they still have to pay the <i>full</i> expenses of other parties that didn't opt out (even if those expenses are greater than what they would have paid if they had not opted out) and if they win, they get <i>no</i> reimbursement for their expenses. (This allows one party to mask their expenses and/or avoid the overhead of reporting - but at potential cost)
</li><li>
Require that each party file weekly "detailed expenses to date" reports electronically with the court and all parties can see the total (but not the detail) of other parties' reports.
</li><li>
If a lawyer charges their client <i>any</i> contingency fee, that party is ineligible for reimbursement of their legal fees if they win, but if they lose, the <i>lawyer</i>, not the client, pays for the winners' legal expenses. Each party must make an declaration in the initial filing if they will/will not be charging their client an contingency fee. (It should be possible to alter this decision later at the court's discretion, but some "pro rata" rules would need to be established to limit the \% contingency and reimbursement based on what was spent before and after the change in this decision.) (This would discourage frivolous lawsuits where the lawyer is willing to spend his/her time in hopes of lucky jackpot)
</li><li>
Lawyers in "loser pays" cases can not charge their client anything if they win <i>and</i> the loser actually pays all the expenses filed with the court. If a loser defaults on their obligation to pay, perhaps the prevailing party's lawyer can, by prior arrangement, take part of the judgment. (This encourages accurate reporting by all parties).
</li><li>
Subject expenses to audit by a court approved auditor and limit expenses reimbursable to the winner to "reasonable and necessary" However, "unreasonable" expenses by the loser are still counted for the "lesser of winner and loser expense calculations" - they shouldn't have recorded or incurred any unreasonable or unnecessary expenses. (This will discourage unnecessary expenses and motions)
</li><li>
If expenses are not recorded in a timely fashion, they would be disallowed for "loser pays" calculations IFF the party that records them late wins (i.e., such expenses won't be reimbursed). (This discourages "late reporting" to game the other party's expectations of their risk).
</li><li>
Expenses that are recorded and later reversed would be counted (even though subsequently reversed) for "loser pays' calculations IFF the party that records them and reverses them loses. (This discourages reporting of charges "early" to intimidate the other party).
</li><li>
Parties that intentionally misrepresent expenses or manipulate the timing of their reporting would be subject to sanctions (including being found in contempt of court, fines, removal from the bar, etc).
</li><li>
If a party sues for $X and ends up being awarded $Y where $Y&lt;$X, only $Y/$X of their expenses will be reimbursed by the loser. (This will discourage exaggerating claims)
</li><li>
The final "loser" is determined when the last appeal is resolved or the period for filing an appeal has elapsed - intermediate "wins" have no bearing on the final settlement of legal expenses.
</li><li>
If a defendant makes a financial offer to settle with no other restrictions (such as gag clauses) except that acceptance of the offer completely resolves all claims being litigated, the defendant's liability to pay legal expenses of the plaintiff (because the plaintiff prevails) will be limited. If any settlement amount offer made was greater than or equal to the amount of the final judgment, the defendant would only be liable for the prevailing parties' legal expenses <i>up to</i> the time the first such of</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ways to address some of the problems of " loser pays " include : Limit the amount the loser pays in expenses to be the lesser of what the loser and the winner spent on the case .
( This mitigates the " imbalance of resources " problem ) Allow any party to " opt out " of " loser pays " ( and the expense reporting requirements below ) but if they lose they still have to pay the full expenses of other parties that did n't opt out ( even if those expenses are greater than what they would have paid if they had not opted out ) and if they win , they get no reimbursement for their expenses .
( This allows one party to mask their expenses and/or avoid the overhead of reporting - but at potential cost ) Require that each party file weekly " detailed expenses to date " reports electronically with the court and all parties can see the total ( but not the detail ) of other parties ' reports .
If a lawyer charges their client any contingency fee , that party is ineligible for reimbursement of their legal fees if they win , but if they lose , the lawyer , not the client , pays for the winners ' legal expenses .
Each party must make an declaration in the initial filing if they will/will not be charging their client an contingency fee .
( It should be possible to alter this decision later at the court 's discretion , but some " pro rata " rules would need to be established to limit the \ % contingency and reimbursement based on what was spent before and after the change in this decision .
) ( This would discourage frivolous lawsuits where the lawyer is willing to spend his/her time in hopes of lucky jackpot ) Lawyers in " loser pays " cases can not charge their client anything if they win and the loser actually pays all the expenses filed with the court .
If a loser defaults on their obligation to pay , perhaps the prevailing party 's lawyer can , by prior arrangement , take part of the judgment .
( This encourages accurate reporting by all parties ) .
Subject expenses to audit by a court approved auditor and limit expenses reimbursable to the winner to " reasonable and necessary " However , " unreasonable " expenses by the loser are still counted for the " lesser of winner and loser expense calculations " - they should n't have recorded or incurred any unreasonable or unnecessary expenses .
( This will discourage unnecessary expenses and motions ) If expenses are not recorded in a timely fashion , they would be disallowed for " loser pays " calculations IFF the party that records them late wins ( i.e. , such expenses wo n't be reimbursed ) .
( This discourages " late reporting " to game the other party 's expectations of their risk ) .
Expenses that are recorded and later reversed would be counted ( even though subsequently reversed ) for " loser pays ' calculations IFF the party that records them and reverses them loses .
( This discourages reporting of charges " early " to intimidate the other party ) .
Parties that intentionally misrepresent expenses or manipulate the timing of their reporting would be subject to sanctions ( including being found in contempt of court , fines , removal from the bar , etc ) .
If a party sues for $ X and ends up being awarded $ Y where $ Y The final " loser " is determined when the last appeal is resolved or the period for filing an appeal has elapsed - intermediate " wins " have no bearing on the final settlement of legal expenses .
If a defendant makes a financial offer to settle with no other restrictions ( such as gag clauses ) except that acceptance of the offer completely resolves all claims being litigated , the defendant 's liability to pay legal expenses of the plaintiff ( because the plaintiff prevails ) will be limited .
If any settlement amount offer made was greater than or equal to the amount of the final judgment , the defendant would only be liable for the prevailing parties ' legal expenses up to the time the first such of</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ways to address some of the problems of "loser pays" include:
 
Limit the amount the loser pays in expenses to be the lesser of what the loser and the winner spent on the case.
(This mitigates the "imbalance of resources" problem)

Allow any party to "opt out" of "loser pays" (and the expense reporting requirements below) but if they lose they still have to pay the full expenses of other parties that didn't opt out (even if those expenses are greater than what they would have paid if they had not opted out) and if they win, they get no reimbursement for their expenses.
(This allows one party to mask their expenses and/or avoid the overhead of reporting - but at potential cost)

Require that each party file weekly "detailed expenses to date" reports electronically with the court and all parties can see the total (but not the detail) of other parties' reports.
If a lawyer charges their client any contingency fee, that party is ineligible for reimbursement of their legal fees if they win, but if they lose, the lawyer, not the client, pays for the winners' legal expenses.
Each party must make an declaration in the initial filing if they will/will not be charging their client an contingency fee.
(It should be possible to alter this decision later at the court's discretion, but some "pro rata" rules would need to be established to limit the \% contingency and reimbursement based on what was spent before and after the change in this decision.
) (This would discourage frivolous lawsuits where the lawyer is willing to spend his/her time in hopes of lucky jackpot)

Lawyers in "loser pays" cases can not charge their client anything if they win and the loser actually pays all the expenses filed with the court.
If a loser defaults on their obligation to pay, perhaps the prevailing party's lawyer can, by prior arrangement, take part of the judgment.
(This encourages accurate reporting by all parties).
Subject expenses to audit by a court approved auditor and limit expenses reimbursable to the winner to "reasonable and necessary" However, "unreasonable" expenses by the loser are still counted for the "lesser of winner and loser expense calculations" - they shouldn't have recorded or incurred any unreasonable or unnecessary expenses.
(This will discourage unnecessary expenses and motions)

If expenses are not recorded in a timely fashion, they would be disallowed for "loser pays" calculations IFF the party that records them late wins (i.e., such expenses won't be reimbursed).
(This discourages "late reporting" to game the other party's expectations of their risk).
Expenses that are recorded and later reversed would be counted (even though subsequently reversed) for "loser pays' calculations IFF the party that records them and reverses them loses.
(This discourages reporting of charges "early" to intimidate the other party).
Parties that intentionally misrepresent expenses or manipulate the timing of their reporting would be subject to sanctions (including being found in contempt of court, fines, removal from the bar, etc).
If a party sues for $X and ends up being awarded $Y where $Y
The final "loser" is determined when the last appeal is resolved or the period for filing an appeal has elapsed - intermediate "wins" have no bearing on the final settlement of legal expenses.
If a defendant makes a financial offer to settle with no other restrictions (such as gag clauses) except that acceptance of the offer completely resolves all claims being litigated, the defendant's liability to pay legal expenses of the plaintiff (because the plaintiff prevails) will be limited.
If any settlement amount offer made was greater than or equal to the amount of the final judgment, the defendant would only be liable for the prevailing parties' legal expenses up to the time the first such of</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459002</id>
	<title>Re:look at the amish</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1268398980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or perhaps it is less diagnosed in the Amish because mild autism isn't really much of an impediment to dragging a plow behind a mule all day, and demonstrative communication with other human beings isn't really a hallmark of Amish society? In other words, perhaps many of the people we would label as "autistic", the Amish would simply gently refer to as "a little stranger and quieter than most".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps it is less diagnosed in the Amish because mild autism is n't really much of an impediment to dragging a plow behind a mule all day , and demonstrative communication with other human beings is n't really a hallmark of Amish society ?
In other words , perhaps many of the people we would label as " autistic " , the Amish would simply gently refer to as " a little stranger and quieter than most " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps it is less diagnosed in the Amish because mild autism isn't really much of an impediment to dragging a plow behind a mule all day, and demonstrative communication with other human beings isn't really a hallmark of Amish society?
In other words, perhaps many of the people we would label as "autistic", the Amish would simply gently refer to as "a little stranger and quieter than most".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459856</id>
	<title>Assertions from positions of extreme ignorance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268402880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both sides in this are ignorant.  The "experts" are totally clueless as to what even causes Autisim.  Mankind currently knows jack schitt about biology despite the massive world wide investments being made in the area.</p><p>Parents see their kids getting sick or worse after getting their shots and refuse to see anything else.</p><p>The vaccination adverse reaction reports in the US at least are public knowledge anyone interested can download the raw datasets and do their own analysis.  At the end of the day even if some kids are getting sick or dead as a direct result of the vaccines statistically their still MUCH better off taking them.</p><p>We know for a fact mercury makes people retarded so injecting it in any amount into a few day old baby is also retarded. Sometimes captin obvious really needs to fly in and save us all from our own rank nonsense.</p><p>The correlation between autisim and vaccination is like the correlation between cancer and insert arbitrary substance here.  With 1/5th of the worlds population dieing of cancer there is just too much noise in the signal to make any definitive conclusions.  Especially when there is huge potential for disruptive negative consequences be it the cell phone industry or people not getting vaccinated.  The signal if it exists will simply be ignored.</p><p>This should **NOT** give industries and people a license to act stupidly and lack conservative approach WRT things mankind is currently just too clueless to fully understand.</p><p>Use of mercury is stupid.  The massive scope creep of vaccinations from must have life saving to the recent laundry lists of nonsense in the current schedules in many areas is also stupid.</p><p>Taking a few pictures of myself with an x-ray camera is a safe bet.. It is very unlikely to give me cancer and is great fun for halloween. but if I repeat the process say use an orbting high power satellite to take an x-ray picture of every living person then there is a good chance that some of those people will get cancer and die as a direct result.  Statistically you'll never see it so don't sue me, you can't prove it you'll loose in court.</p><p>That its even possible for lawsuits against people who are in good faith trying (and succeding by any measure) to help people is the real problem here.  People are both stupid and greedy and they get what they deserve for making no effort to rid themselves of such attributes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both sides in this are ignorant .
The " experts " are totally clueless as to what even causes Autisim .
Mankind currently knows jack schitt about biology despite the massive world wide investments being made in the area.Parents see their kids getting sick or worse after getting their shots and refuse to see anything else.The vaccination adverse reaction reports in the US at least are public knowledge anyone interested can download the raw datasets and do their own analysis .
At the end of the day even if some kids are getting sick or dead as a direct result of the vaccines statistically their still MUCH better off taking them.We know for a fact mercury makes people retarded so injecting it in any amount into a few day old baby is also retarded .
Sometimes captin obvious really needs to fly in and save us all from our own rank nonsense.The correlation between autisim and vaccination is like the correlation between cancer and insert arbitrary substance here .
With 1/5th of the worlds population dieing of cancer there is just too much noise in the signal to make any definitive conclusions .
Especially when there is huge potential for disruptive negative consequences be it the cell phone industry or people not getting vaccinated .
The signal if it exists will simply be ignored.This should * * NOT * * give industries and people a license to act stupidly and lack conservative approach WRT things mankind is currently just too clueless to fully understand.Use of mercury is stupid .
The massive scope creep of vaccinations from must have life saving to the recent laundry lists of nonsense in the current schedules in many areas is also stupid.Taking a few pictures of myself with an x-ray camera is a safe bet.. It is very unlikely to give me cancer and is great fun for halloween .
but if I repeat the process say use an orbting high power satellite to take an x-ray picture of every living person then there is a good chance that some of those people will get cancer and die as a direct result .
Statistically you 'll never see it so do n't sue me , you ca n't prove it you 'll loose in court.That its even possible for lawsuits against people who are in good faith trying ( and succeding by any measure ) to help people is the real problem here .
People are both stupid and greedy and they get what they deserve for making no effort to rid themselves of such attributes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both sides in this are ignorant.
The "experts" are totally clueless as to what even causes Autisim.
Mankind currently knows jack schitt about biology despite the massive world wide investments being made in the area.Parents see their kids getting sick or worse after getting their shots and refuse to see anything else.The vaccination adverse reaction reports in the US at least are public knowledge anyone interested can download the raw datasets and do their own analysis.
At the end of the day even if some kids are getting sick or dead as a direct result of the vaccines statistically their still MUCH better off taking them.We know for a fact mercury makes people retarded so injecting it in any amount into a few day old baby is also retarded.
Sometimes captin obvious really needs to fly in and save us all from our own rank nonsense.The correlation between autisim and vaccination is like the correlation between cancer and insert arbitrary substance here.
With 1/5th of the worlds population dieing of cancer there is just too much noise in the signal to make any definitive conclusions.
Especially when there is huge potential for disruptive negative consequences be it the cell phone industry or people not getting vaccinated.
The signal if it exists will simply be ignored.This should **NOT** give industries and people a license to act stupidly and lack conservative approach WRT things mankind is currently just too clueless to fully understand.Use of mercury is stupid.
The massive scope creep of vaccinations from must have life saving to the recent laundry lists of nonsense in the current schedules in many areas is also stupid.Taking a few pictures of myself with an x-ray camera is a safe bet.. It is very unlikely to give me cancer and is great fun for halloween.
but if I repeat the process say use an orbting high power satellite to take an x-ray picture of every living person then there is a good chance that some of those people will get cancer and die as a direct result.
Statistically you'll never see it so don't sue me, you can't prove it you'll loose in court.That its even possible for lawsuits against people who are in good faith trying (and succeding by any measure) to help people is the real problem here.
People are both stupid and greedy and they get what they deserve for making no effort to rid themselves of such attributes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458214</id>
	<title>Re:vaccines</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268395680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I personally find the abundant anecdotal evidence of such a link quite disturbing, requiring thorough investigation, though this is unlikely to happen due to the above reason.</p></div><p>The thorough investigation has happened. Several times. See for example <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info\%3Adoi\%2F10.1371\%2Fjournal.pone.0003140" title="plosone.org">here</a> [plosone.org] and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info\%3Adoi\%2F10.1371\%2Fjournal.pone.0003140" title="plosone.org">here</a> [plosone.org]. Or you could read the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/Index.html" title="cdc.gov">CDC article</a> [cdc.gov]. Oh, but wait, they're all government institutions! They would all be devastated by that link! That's why they lie! They all lie! The cake is a lie! Wait, wrong channel...</p><p>The point is that the anti-vaxxers - and yes, the derogative term is appropriate - are about as concerned about truth and as scientifically literate as all the Moon-hoaxers. There is nothing that scientists can do to change the minds of the anti-vaxxers, because the anti-vaxxers do not operate on a scientific basis. I just hope this blows over before too many people stop vaccinating.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally find the abundant anecdotal evidence of such a link quite disturbing , requiring thorough investigation , though this is unlikely to happen due to the above reason.The thorough investigation has happened .
Several times .
See for example here [ plosone.org ] and here [ plosone.org ] .
Or you could read the CDC article [ cdc.gov ] .
Oh , but wait , they 're all government institutions !
They would all be devastated by that link !
That 's why they lie !
They all lie !
The cake is a lie !
Wait , wrong channel...The point is that the anti-vaxxers - and yes , the derogative term is appropriate - are about as concerned about truth and as scientifically literate as all the Moon-hoaxers .
There is nothing that scientists can do to change the minds of the anti-vaxxers , because the anti-vaxxers do not operate on a scientific basis .
I just hope this blows over before too many people stop vaccinating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally find the abundant anecdotal evidence of such a link quite disturbing, requiring thorough investigation, though this is unlikely to happen due to the above reason.The thorough investigation has happened.
Several times.
See for example here [plosone.org] and here [plosone.org].
Or you could read the CDC article [cdc.gov].
Oh, but wait, they're all government institutions!
They would all be devastated by that link!
That's why they lie!
They all lie!
The cake is a lie!
Wait, wrong channel...The point is that the anti-vaxxers - and yes, the derogative term is appropriate - are about as concerned about truth and as scientifically literate as all the Moon-hoaxers.
There is nothing that scientists can do to change the minds of the anti-vaxxers, because the anti-vaxxers do not operate on a scientific basis.
I just hope this blows over before too many people stop vaccinating.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31470010</id>
	<title>Re:"antivax" people</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1268505000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a scientist it is likely you work around other scientists.  Scientists usually respond to reason.</p><p>The types of people who are really against vaccination do not respond to reason.  You can show them a scientific paper in a major peer reviewed scientific/medical journal and they will say either "This isn't really a reliable source", "Scientists don't know everything", "Scientists are IN ON IT TOO", or "This video that my friend Matt, who is like so smart, gave me said that this isn't true so it is obviously not true" or "This is just a THEORY.  See, it says hypothesis right here.  Hypothesis means they are making crap up."</p><p>My Sister in law is a really awesome person.  She is intelligent, awesome to converse with, and reasonable most of the time.  However, she falls for all the "You'll die soon without organic foods", "Vaccines kill thousands", "Don't drink tap water, the government is trying to poison us", "we didn't REALLY land on the moon" or whatever the latest anti-establishment type thing is out there.  She is a voice of reason in most discussions but when one of these topics comes up, all semblance of logic fails her. I know another guy with similar tendencies who won't speak to me for weeks if I bring any evidence against his theories.</p><p>This is what you are up against with your plan to use argument and reason.  Although, I do agree with you that MANDATORY vaccines are a bad thing and could end up being a slippery slope (wildly fictional example: Look!  We've found a vaccine to purge the homosexual gene!  Put it on the mandatory vaccine list so we can purge this hideous disease from humanity!) At the end of the day I believe individuals SHOULD maintain the right to determine what goes into their bodies, even if they are making what appears to be a poor and misinformed decision.</p><p>To tell the truth, I think the constant barrage of scientific studies reported by the mainstream media is to blame.  "Eggs are good for you, no wait...Eggs are bad for you, No wait...Eggs are good for you."  The content in each of those studies may be COMPLETELY different, but the headlines show scientific studies contradicting each other quite often.  This type of thing makes ALL science less credible in the eyes of many.  "Bad" Scientists like the idiot who really started this whole vaccine/autism thing make things even worse....especially in regards to what "Peer Reviewed" means.  Unfortunately I do not have a solution to this creeping distrust of science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a scientist it is likely you work around other scientists .
Scientists usually respond to reason.The types of people who are really against vaccination do not respond to reason .
You can show them a scientific paper in a major peer reviewed scientific/medical journal and they will say either " This is n't really a reliable source " , " Scientists do n't know everything " , " Scientists are IN ON IT TOO " , or " This video that my friend Matt , who is like so smart , gave me said that this is n't true so it is obviously not true " or " This is just a THEORY .
See , it says hypothesis right here .
Hypothesis means they are making crap up .
" My Sister in law is a really awesome person .
She is intelligent , awesome to converse with , and reasonable most of the time .
However , she falls for all the " You 'll die soon without organic foods " , " Vaccines kill thousands " , " Do n't drink tap water , the government is trying to poison us " , " we did n't REALLY land on the moon " or whatever the latest anti-establishment type thing is out there .
She is a voice of reason in most discussions but when one of these topics comes up , all semblance of logic fails her .
I know another guy with similar tendencies who wo n't speak to me for weeks if I bring any evidence against his theories.This is what you are up against with your plan to use argument and reason .
Although , I do agree with you that MANDATORY vaccines are a bad thing and could end up being a slippery slope ( wildly fictional example : Look !
We 've found a vaccine to purge the homosexual gene !
Put it on the mandatory vaccine list so we can purge this hideous disease from humanity !
) At the end of the day I believe individuals SHOULD maintain the right to determine what goes into their bodies , even if they are making what appears to be a poor and misinformed decision.To tell the truth , I think the constant barrage of scientific studies reported by the mainstream media is to blame .
" Eggs are good for you , no wait...Eggs are bad for you , No wait...Eggs are good for you .
" The content in each of those studies may be COMPLETELY different , but the headlines show scientific studies contradicting each other quite often .
This type of thing makes ALL science less credible in the eyes of many .
" Bad " Scientists like the idiot who really started this whole vaccine/autism thing make things even worse....especially in regards to what " Peer Reviewed " means .
Unfortunately I do not have a solution to this creeping distrust of science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a scientist it is likely you work around other scientists.
Scientists usually respond to reason.The types of people who are really against vaccination do not respond to reason.
You can show them a scientific paper in a major peer reviewed scientific/medical journal and they will say either "This isn't really a reliable source", "Scientists don't know everything", "Scientists are IN ON IT TOO", or "This video that my friend Matt, who is like so smart, gave me said that this isn't true so it is obviously not true" or "This is just a THEORY.
See, it says hypothesis right here.
Hypothesis means they are making crap up.
"My Sister in law is a really awesome person.
She is intelligent, awesome to converse with, and reasonable most of the time.
However, she falls for all the "You'll die soon without organic foods", "Vaccines kill thousands", "Don't drink tap water, the government is trying to poison us", "we didn't REALLY land on the moon" or whatever the latest anti-establishment type thing is out there.
She is a voice of reason in most discussions but when one of these topics comes up, all semblance of logic fails her.
I know another guy with similar tendencies who won't speak to me for weeks if I bring any evidence against his theories.This is what you are up against with your plan to use argument and reason.
Although, I do agree with you that MANDATORY vaccines are a bad thing and could end up being a slippery slope (wildly fictional example: Look!
We've found a vaccine to purge the homosexual gene!
Put it on the mandatory vaccine list so we can purge this hideous disease from humanity!
) At the end of the day I believe individuals SHOULD maintain the right to determine what goes into their bodies, even if they are making what appears to be a poor and misinformed decision.To tell the truth, I think the constant barrage of scientific studies reported by the mainstream media is to blame.
"Eggs are good for you, no wait...Eggs are bad for you, No wait...Eggs are good for you.
"  The content in each of those studies may be COMPLETELY different, but the headlines show scientific studies contradicting each other quite often.
This type of thing makes ALL science less credible in the eyes of many.
"Bad" Scientists like the idiot who really started this whole vaccine/autism thing make things even worse....especially in regards to what "Peer Reviewed" means.
Unfortunately I do not have a solution to this creeping distrust of science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458798</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>walden40</author>
	<datestamp>1268398080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, I just love these statements. You're entitled to your opinion, but I've never seen data that makes me think someone is getting rich off of vaccinations. As a matter of fact, we routinely eat the cost of vaccinations in our clinics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I just love these statements .
You 're entitled to your opinion , but I 've never seen data that makes me think someone is getting rich off of vaccinations .
As a matter of fact , we routinely eat the cost of vaccinations in our clinics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I just love these statements.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I've never seen data that makes me think someone is getting rich off of vaccinations.
As a matter of fact, we routinely eat the cost of vaccinations in our clinics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459132</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting statement since I just took my son to see a neurologist who said something very different.  He said that someone who has had one seizure is no more likely than anyone else to have another.  He also said that any of us will have a seizure if the body is placed under too much stress.  It turns out if someone has had more than one seizure and has certain patterns on an EEG, then that someone will be diagnosed as epileptic and is much more likely to have seizures in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting statement since I just took my son to see a neurologist who said something very different .
He said that someone who has had one seizure is no more likely than anyone else to have another .
He also said that any of us will have a seizure if the body is placed under too much stress .
It turns out if someone has had more than one seizure and has certain patterns on an EEG , then that someone will be diagnosed as epileptic and is much more likely to have seizures in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting statement since I just took my son to see a neurologist who said something very different.
He said that someone who has had one seizure is no more likely than anyone else to have another.
He also said that any of us will have a seizure if the body is placed under too much stress.
It turns out if someone has had more than one seizure and has certain patterns on an EEG, then that someone will be diagnosed as epileptic and is much more likely to have seizures in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31462180</id>
	<title>WHAT?!</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1268423940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who the hell said anything about mercury?  When I was like 1 or 2 or something, I got a vaccine shot, had an allergic reaction to it, and now I have mild aspergers (and mad programming skills! woohoo).  Every other article I've read about this said it was bad reactions to t he vaccines, not some stealthy ingredient that could affect anyway without you knowing it.  Plus, I just saw a documentary proving that mercury only makes Johnny Depp crazy.  Kudos to anyone who actually gets that joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell said anything about mercury ?
When I was like 1 or 2 or something , I got a vaccine shot , had an allergic reaction to it , and now I have mild aspergers ( and mad programming skills !
woohoo ) . Every other article I 've read about this said it was bad reactions to t he vaccines , not some stealthy ingredient that could affect anyway without you knowing it .
Plus , I just saw a documentary proving that mercury only makes Johnny Depp crazy .
Kudos to anyone who actually gets that joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell said anything about mercury?
When I was like 1 or 2 or something, I got a vaccine shot, had an allergic reaction to it, and now I have mild aspergers (and mad programming skills!
woohoo).  Every other article I've read about this said it was bad reactions to t he vaccines, not some stealthy ingredient that could affect anyway without you knowing it.
Plus, I just saw a documentary proving that mercury only makes Johnny Depp crazy.
Kudos to anyone who actually gets that joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458728</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be crystal about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268397840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having read a number of articles and ideas on this, it seems to me there is a biochemically possible connection between the mercury in vaccines and autism, and it's in the single carbon pool.  There would be a number of possible genetic factors (MTHFR mutations as an example) that would contribute, and the mercury *could* be a tipping point depending on the severity of genetic factors, the exact amount of mercury, etc.</p><p>Sufficient genetic testing simply does not exist to compensate for such variables, an no correlation (or lack thereof) can be proven without adequate compensation for those variables.  So I don't think it's reasonable to say "mercury-containing vaccines and autism have NO POSSIBLE connection" because they might.</p><p>Most of the studies that conclude against a connection were statistical analyses using medical billing codes as a source of diagnosis information.  Medical billing codes are not a reliable data source (and I've worked with them for years).</p><p>My kids are getting vaccinated, though probably on a slightly slower schedule than recommended.  Part of that, though, is a family history of vaccine reactions (Salk vaccine put my grandpa in a wheelchair for life).</p><p>It's not stupid for people to be cautious.  It isn't reasonable for people on either side of the debate to be single-minded zealots, regardless of how much information they have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read a number of articles and ideas on this , it seems to me there is a biochemically possible connection between the mercury in vaccines and autism , and it 's in the single carbon pool .
There would be a number of possible genetic factors ( MTHFR mutations as an example ) that would contribute , and the mercury * could * be a tipping point depending on the severity of genetic factors , the exact amount of mercury , etc.Sufficient genetic testing simply does not exist to compensate for such variables , an no correlation ( or lack thereof ) can be proven without adequate compensation for those variables .
So I do n't think it 's reasonable to say " mercury-containing vaccines and autism have NO POSSIBLE connection " because they might.Most of the studies that conclude against a connection were statistical analyses using medical billing codes as a source of diagnosis information .
Medical billing codes are not a reliable data source ( and I 've worked with them for years ) .My kids are getting vaccinated , though probably on a slightly slower schedule than recommended .
Part of that , though , is a family history of vaccine reactions ( Salk vaccine put my grandpa in a wheelchair for life ) .It 's not stupid for people to be cautious .
It is n't reasonable for people on either side of the debate to be single-minded zealots , regardless of how much information they have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read a number of articles and ideas on this, it seems to me there is a biochemically possible connection between the mercury in vaccines and autism, and it's in the single carbon pool.
There would be a number of possible genetic factors (MTHFR mutations as an example) that would contribute, and the mercury *could* be a tipping point depending on the severity of genetic factors, the exact amount of mercury, etc.Sufficient genetic testing simply does not exist to compensate for such variables, an no correlation (or lack thereof) can be proven without adequate compensation for those variables.
So I don't think it's reasonable to say "mercury-containing vaccines and autism have NO POSSIBLE connection" because they might.Most of the studies that conclude against a connection were statistical analyses using medical billing codes as a source of diagnosis information.
Medical billing codes are not a reliable data source (and I've worked with them for years).My kids are getting vaccinated, though probably on a slightly slower schedule than recommended.
Part of that, though, is a family history of vaccine reactions (Salk vaccine put my grandpa in a wheelchair for life).It's not stupid for people to be cautious.
It isn't reasonable for people on either side of the debate to be single-minded zealots, regardless of how much information they have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459716</id>
	<title>Some != Most (except for large values of some)</title>
	<author>Thorrablot</author>
	<datestamp>1268402160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that, for most people, they grasp at straws and try to find some observable "cause" they can link with autism.  It's quite possible that it has more to do with environmental and/or emotional stresses on the mother but people try to put the cart before the horse and "prove" that a vaccine - which may have been due to travel (hint - enviro/emo stress) or bad health conditions (same) - was the cause.</p></div><p>OK - as a parent of a six-year old with "primary" autism (e.g. low-functioning), I'd like to clear the air on a few points:
</p><ul> <li>"Most" of the parents of autistic kids don't buy into the vaccine-causes-autism bunk - only a very vocal minority, which unfortunately our media amplifies</li><li>The mechanism behind autism is, as you undoubtedly know, not well-understood.  In the absence of a good understanding, this kind of uninformed speculation thrives.</li><li>Lives have been lost as a result due to <a href="http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4055" title="skeptoid.com" rel="nofollow">botched "Chelation" therapies</a> [skeptoid.com], and money is being made by the self-styled DAN doctors who tell desperate parents what they want to hear</li></ul><p><div class="quote"><p>Please, move on, you're just embarrassing yourselves.</p></div><p>I have met a number of other parents of autistic kids.  Those that are desperate enough to by into these theories are (often) otherwise rational, intelligent people.  They are desperate for hope, and feel they owe it to their child to attempt some kind of cure.  Whether this is due to denial (of the permanent disability) or unrelenting hope and a moral code that says "anything is better than nothing", I don't know.  I do know I can relate to this, to a point, and was frustrated at the limited medical treatments available for my own son.  Please have some sympathy for these misguided parents, as the real culprits are the alt-medicine charlatans who claimed to have found the cure, and the DAN doctors who really ought to know better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that , for most people , they grasp at straws and try to find some observable " cause " they can link with autism .
It 's quite possible that it has more to do with environmental and/or emotional stresses on the mother but people try to put the cart before the horse and " prove " that a vaccine - which may have been due to travel ( hint - enviro/emo stress ) or bad health conditions ( same ) - was the cause.OK - as a parent of a six-year old with " primary " autism ( e.g .
low-functioning ) , I 'd like to clear the air on a few points : " Most " of the parents of autistic kids do n't buy into the vaccine-causes-autism bunk - only a very vocal minority , which unfortunately our media amplifiesThe mechanism behind autism is , as you undoubtedly know , not well-understood .
In the absence of a good understanding , this kind of uninformed speculation thrives.Lives have been lost as a result due to botched " Chelation " therapies [ skeptoid.com ] , and money is being made by the self-styled DAN doctors who tell desperate parents what they want to hearPlease , move on , you 're just embarrassing yourselves.I have met a number of other parents of autistic kids .
Those that are desperate enough to by into these theories are ( often ) otherwise rational , intelligent people .
They are desperate for hope , and feel they owe it to their child to attempt some kind of cure .
Whether this is due to denial ( of the permanent disability ) or unrelenting hope and a moral code that says " anything is better than nothing " , I do n't know .
I do know I can relate to this , to a point , and was frustrated at the limited medical treatments available for my own son .
Please have some sympathy for these misguided parents , as the real culprits are the alt-medicine charlatans who claimed to have found the cure , and the DAN doctors who really ought to know better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that, for most people, they grasp at straws and try to find some observable "cause" they can link with autism.
It's quite possible that it has more to do with environmental and/or emotional stresses on the mother but people try to put the cart before the horse and "prove" that a vaccine - which may have been due to travel (hint - enviro/emo stress) or bad health conditions (same) - was the cause.OK - as a parent of a six-year old with "primary" autism (e.g.
low-functioning), I'd like to clear the air on a few points:
 "Most" of the parents of autistic kids don't buy into the vaccine-causes-autism bunk - only a very vocal minority, which unfortunately our media amplifiesThe mechanism behind autism is, as you undoubtedly know, not well-understood.
In the absence of a good understanding, this kind of uninformed speculation thrives.Lives have been lost as a result due to botched "Chelation" therapies [skeptoid.com], and money is being made by the self-styled DAN doctors who tell desperate parents what they want to hearPlease, move on, you're just embarrassing yourselves.I have met a number of other parents of autistic kids.
Those that are desperate enough to by into these theories are (often) otherwise rational, intelligent people.
They are desperate for hope, and feel they owe it to their child to attempt some kind of cure.
Whether this is due to denial (of the permanent disability) or unrelenting hope and a moral code that says "anything is better than nothing", I don't know.
I do know I can relate to this, to a point, and was frustrated at the limited medical treatments available for my own son.
Please have some sympathy for these misguided parents, as the real culprits are the alt-medicine charlatans who claimed to have found the cure, and the DAN doctors who really ought to know better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458476</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>John Whitley</author>
	<datestamp>1268396820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but in the US this concept has spiraled out of control.  It's gone beyond mere protection for the wronged into a massive chilling effect on society.  But Philip K. Howard says it far better than I: <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/philip\_howard.html" title="ted.com">Four ways to fix a broken legal system.</a> [ted.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but in the US this concept has spiraled out of control .
It 's gone beyond mere protection for the wronged into a massive chilling effect on society .
But Philip K. Howard says it far better than I : Four ways to fix a broken legal system .
[ ted.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but in the US this concept has spiraled out of control.
It's gone beyond mere protection for the wronged into a massive chilling effect on society.
But Philip K. Howard says it far better than I: Four ways to fix a broken legal system.
[ted.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460512</id>
	<title>the article ....</title>
	<author>thephydes</author>
	<datestamp>1268407380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>does not say "the vaccine did not cause autism"  rather it said "there is no evidence that it caused autism"  (paraphrasing is mine).  So does it?  Well we still don't know.  This sounds like a victory for the scientific method to me.

Oh, hang on was there any chicken guts in the research?  No? Then throw out all the research and find someone to blame.

Did I have my children vaccinated? Yes, because the risks of not dong so far outweigh the risks from the vaccines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>does not say " the vaccine did not cause autism " rather it said " there is no evidence that it caused autism " ( paraphrasing is mine ) .
So does it ?
Well we still do n't know .
This sounds like a victory for the scientific method to me .
Oh , hang on was there any chicken guts in the research ?
No ? Then throw out all the research and find someone to blame .
Did I have my children vaccinated ?
Yes , because the risks of not dong so far outweigh the risks from the vaccines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does not say "the vaccine did not cause autism"  rather it said "there is no evidence that it caused autism"  (paraphrasing is mine).
So does it?
Well we still don't know.
This sounds like a victory for the scientific method to me.
Oh, hang on was there any chicken guts in the research?
No? Then throw out all the research and find someone to blame.
Did I have my children vaccinated?
Yes, because the risks of not dong so far outweigh the risks from the vaccines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458554</id>
	<title>Re:look at the amish</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1268397120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US stopped using thimerosal in vaccines in 1999. If it was causing autism, we should have seen a drop in the autism rates to Amish levels by now, 10 years later. Instead, <a href="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1927824,00.html" title="time.com">the rates are still going up!</a> [time.com] Perhaps the increase in autism cases diagnosed since the beginning of the use of thimerosal have more to do with newer diagnostic procedures than with vaccinations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US stopped using thimerosal in vaccines in 1999 .
If it was causing autism , we should have seen a drop in the autism rates to Amish levels by now , 10 years later .
Instead , the rates are still going up !
[ time.com ] Perhaps the increase in autism cases diagnosed since the beginning of the use of thimerosal have more to do with newer diagnostic procedures than with vaccinations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US stopped using thimerosal in vaccines in 1999.
If it was causing autism, we should have seen a drop in the autism rates to Amish levels by now, 10 years later.
Instead, the rates are still going up!
[time.com] Perhaps the increase in autism cases diagnosed since the beginning of the use of thimerosal have more to do with newer diagnostic procedures than with vaccinations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459962</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>TerranFury</author>
	<datestamp>1268403600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still don't understand why that vaccine doesn't work for (or at least isn't recommended for) men; we die of prostate and testicular cancer caused by HPV too...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still do n't understand why that vaccine does n't work for ( or at least is n't recommended for ) men ; we die of prostate and testicular cancer caused by HPV too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still don't understand why that vaccine doesn't work for (or at least isn't recommended for) men; we die of prostate and testicular cancer caused by HPV too...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458924</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1268398620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but if you refuse to vaccinate and your child gets ill and infects someone, should you be liable to pay damages?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but if you refuse to vaccinate and your child gets ill and infects someone , should you be liable to pay damages ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but if you refuse to vaccinate and your child gets ill and infects someone, should you be liable to pay damages?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated (and they do; you can't go to school without it), there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects, no matter how well intentioned.</p><p>In the US there is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to handle precisely this sort of thing.  Some people genuinely are harmed by those well-intended vaccines.  They do help out everybody (herd immunity), and everybody pays into the compensation fund, to the tune of 75 cents per shot.</p><p>Clearly, that's a tempting pile of money, and desperate parents of autistic children are willing to ignore the data that says quite clearly that there's no connection in order to get to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated ( and they do ; you ca n't go to school without it ) , there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects , no matter how well intentioned.In the US there is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to handle precisely this sort of thing .
Some people genuinely are harmed by those well-intended vaccines .
They do help out everybody ( herd immunity ) , and everybody pays into the compensation fund , to the tune of 75 cents per shot.Clearly , that 's a tempting pile of money , and desperate parents of autistic children are willing to ignore the data that says quite clearly that there 's no connection in order to get to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated (and they do; you can't go to school without it), there is at least some burden on them to pay for the negative effects, no matter how well intentioned.In the US there is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to handle precisely this sort of thing.
Some people genuinely are harmed by those well-intended vaccines.
They do help out everybody (herd immunity), and everybody pays into the compensation fund, to the tune of 75 cents per shot.Clearly, that's a tempting pile of money, and desperate parents of autistic children are willing to ignore the data that says quite clearly that there's no connection in order to get to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459038</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be crystal about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't it be interesting if someone discovered that autism risk is increased by adding mercury from vaccines to a system already saturated with food additives and growth hormones?  And that you need all three at the correct level while inducing stress in order to cause the symptoms?</p><p>This is the problem I have with "such and such is causing such and such" -- withthe amount of garbage we subject our bodies to, it's surpprising so many people turn out "normal".  Of course, it could be that we're all suffering from some disorder that would go away if we adjusted our lifestyles and reduced exposure to some mystery substance....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it be interesting if someone discovered that autism risk is increased by adding mercury from vaccines to a system already saturated with food additives and growth hormones ?
And that you need all three at the correct level while inducing stress in order to cause the symptoms ? This is the problem I have with " such and such is causing such and such " -- withthe amount of garbage we subject our bodies to , it 's surpprising so many people turn out " normal " .
Of course , it could be that we 're all suffering from some disorder that would go away if we adjusted our lifestyles and reduced exposure to some mystery substance... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it be interesting if someone discovered that autism risk is increased by adding mercury from vaccines to a system already saturated with food additives and growth hormones?
And that you need all three at the correct level while inducing stress in order to cause the symptoms?This is the problem I have with "such and such is causing such and such" -- withthe amount of garbage we subject our bodies to, it's surpprising so many people turn out "normal".
Of course, it could be that we're all suffering from some disorder that would go away if we adjusted our lifestyles and reduced exposure to some mystery substance....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31462176</id>
	<title>Re:So what causes Autism anyway?</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1268423760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/07/autism-birth-order-parents-age" title="guardian.co.uk">Mystery solved.</a> [guardian.co.uk] </p><p>Well, it doesn't explain autism exactly but it explains why rates are going up.  People having kids at an older age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mystery solved .
[ guardian.co.uk ] Well , it does n't explain autism exactly but it explains why rates are going up .
People having kids at an older age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Mystery solved.
[guardian.co.uk] Well, it doesn't explain autism exactly but it explains why rates are going up.
People having kids at an older age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31463616</id>
	<title>Monoliths and Dichotomy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268492460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite the haze of spittle and rhetoric (or vice-versa?), one can still depend on logic, similarity, correlation and extrapolation. And etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I am forced - even as a mere as a boorish, uncultured, undiploma'd sodbound peasant of an individual - to concede the validity of the court's lofty and lengthily pondered argument.</p><p>And infer that, in identical manner, neither do bullets kill or harm anyone or anything all on their own. They need shells, primers, propellants, and guns with firing mechanisms (pin / flintlock /<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ), an aiming and triggering system or individual.</p><p>Indeed, as the death squad members used to say around here ( in the "bad old days" ) : "I don't kill. God does. I just make the teensy little hole."</p><p>It isn't anyone's fault if environmental conditions later concur to a slight level of acceptable collateral bugsplat. Right ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the haze of spittle and rhetoric ( or vice-versa ?
) , one can still depend on logic , similarity , correlation and extrapolation .
And etc .
: ) I am forced - even as a mere as a boorish , uncultured , undiploma 'd sodbound peasant of an individual - to concede the validity of the court 's lofty and lengthily pondered argument.And infer that , in identical manner , neither do bullets kill or harm anyone or anything all on their own .
They need shells , primers , propellants , and guns with firing mechanisms ( pin / flintlock / ... ) , an aiming and triggering system or individual.Indeed , as the death squad members used to say around here ( in the " bad old days " ) : " I do n't kill .
God does .
I just make the teensy little hole .
" It is n't anyone 's fault if environmental conditions later concur to a slight level of acceptable collateral bugsplat .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the haze of spittle and rhetoric (or vice-versa?
), one can still depend on logic, similarity, correlation and extrapolation.
And etc.
:)I am forced - even as a mere as a boorish, uncultured, undiploma'd sodbound peasant of an individual - to concede the validity of the court's lofty and lengthily pondered argument.And infer that, in identical manner, neither do bullets kill or harm anyone or anything all on their own.
They need shells, primers, propellants, and guns with firing mechanisms (pin / flintlock / ... ), an aiming and triggering system or individual.Indeed, as the death squad members used to say around here ( in the "bad old days" ) : "I don't kill.
God does.
I just make the teensy little hole.
"It isn't anyone's fault if environmental conditions later concur to a slight level of acceptable collateral bugsplat.
Right ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459232</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268399940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fortunately, doctors and researchers already know all that.  Nothing in life is as simple as people think, and I think I learned that when I was 10 years old.  Vaccines are studied to ridiculous levels and the HPV vaccine is no exception.  I agree that manufacturers all suck, but that doesn't argue to HPV's safety &gt; risk of infection/complications.  As to the conspiracy theory, HIV vaccines are studied, but none work so far, so there is a lot of money to make, but the researches just aren't that dumb.  Sorry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately , doctors and researchers already know all that .
Nothing in life is as simple as people think , and I think I learned that when I was 10 years old .
Vaccines are studied to ridiculous levels and the HPV vaccine is no exception .
I agree that manufacturers all suck , but that does n't argue to HPV 's safety &gt; risk of infection/complications .
As to the conspiracy theory , HIV vaccines are studied , but none work so far , so there is a lot of money to make , but the researches just are n't that dumb .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately, doctors and researchers already know all that.
Nothing in life is as simple as people think, and I think I learned that when I was 10 years old.
Vaccines are studied to ridiculous levels and the HPV vaccine is no exception.
I agree that manufacturers all suck, but that doesn't argue to HPV's safety &gt; risk of infection/complications.
As to the conspiracy theory, HIV vaccines are studied, but none work so far, so there is a lot of money to make, but the researches just aren't that dumb.
Sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458132</id>
	<title>"Expert" witnesses for the plaintiffs?  WTF?</title>
	<author>Weedhopper</author>
	<datestamp>1268395260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the summary and article:</p><p>[blockquote]The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf...[/blockquote]</p><p>Who are these "experts"?  Are their identities in the public record?  I want to know how these fools can possibly considered qualified, expert witnesses when they clearly lack the medical and scientific judgment to critically and objectively evaluate and analyze the facts in front of them.  Really.  How is it that these people still have jobs?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary and article : [ blockquote ] The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf... [ /blockquote ] Who are these " experts " ?
Are their identities in the public record ?
I want to know how these fools can possibly considered qualified , expert witnesses when they clearly lack the medical and scientific judgment to critically and objectively evaluate and analyze the facts in front of them .
Really. How is it that these people still have jobs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary and article:[blockquote]The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf...[/blockquote]Who are these "experts"?
Are their identities in the public record?
I want to know how these fools can possibly considered qualified, expert witnesses when they clearly lack the medical and scientific judgment to critically and objectively evaluate and analyze the facts in front of them.
Really.  How is it that these people still have jobs?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458290</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be crystal about this</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1268396040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the opportunity cost.  The more time knowledgeable people have to spend debunking obvious garbage, the less time they have to develop better autism treatments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the opportunity cost .
The more time knowledgeable people have to spend debunking obvious garbage , the less time they have to develop better autism treatments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the opportunity cost.
The more time knowledgeable people have to spend debunking obvious garbage, the less time they have to develop better autism treatments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458072</id>
	<title>How to cope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is way for them to cope.</p><p>If i had an autistic kid, when he hit, say, three, I'd put a deck of cards in his hand and grandually build up to ten decks or so and teach him how to remember and calculate the odds for BlackJack. I would also buy him underwear from K-Mart. Then, in about 15 years when he's old enough to be in a casino, profit! </p><p> <i>In a Jim Gaffigan whisper: "He's so insensitive!" He hates handicapped people! Hooooot pockets!"</i> </p><p>Those parents are just too short sighted. I mean, just exactly <i>what</i> is a healthy kid? Normal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is way for them to cope.If i had an autistic kid , when he hit , say , three , I 'd put a deck of cards in his hand and grandually build up to ten decks or so and teach him how to remember and calculate the odds for BlackJack .
I would also buy him underwear from K-Mart .
Then , in about 15 years when he 's old enough to be in a casino , profit !
In a Jim Gaffigan whisper : " He 's so insensitive !
" He hates handicapped people !
Hooooot pockets !
" Those parents are just too short sighted .
I mean , just exactly what is a healthy kid ?
Normal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is way for them to cope.If i had an autistic kid, when he hit, say, three, I'd put a deck of cards in his hand and grandually build up to ten decks or so and teach him how to remember and calculate the odds for BlackJack.
I would also buy him underwear from K-Mart.
Then, in about 15 years when he's old enough to be in a casino, profit!
In a Jim Gaffigan whisper: "He's so insensitive!
" He hates handicapped people!
Hooooot pockets!
" Those parents are just too short sighted.
I mean, just exactly what is a healthy kid?
Normal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457918</id>
	<title>"antivax" people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The use of vaccines is a public health necessity; vaccines are by far the most cost effective tool we have for preventing the spread of communicable diseases.</p><p>There have always been controversies about vaccines: there is non-zero risk to individuals from any medical treatment, and significant benefit to the population as a whole.  As a single individual, you remove the (very small) risk by not having the vaccine, and you gain most all of the benefits if most everyone else around you has been vaccinated.</p><p>Spreading fear and misinformation about the safety of vaccines can cause direct, measurable and irreversible harm.  Measuring the connection between a medical treatment and possible harmful effects is something drug companies can do very well, and the FDA approvals process (when it works) keeps the companies honest.  We have solid, irrefutable and repeatable scientific evidence that shows vaccines do not cause these diseases, like autism.</p><p>The best article covering this was in the <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/04/antivax-kills/" title="discovermagazine.com">Bad Astronomy blog from Discover, aptly titled Antivax Kills.</a> [discovermagazine.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The use of vaccines is a public health necessity ; vaccines are by far the most cost effective tool we have for preventing the spread of communicable diseases.There have always been controversies about vaccines : there is non-zero risk to individuals from any medical treatment , and significant benefit to the population as a whole .
As a single individual , you remove the ( very small ) risk by not having the vaccine , and you gain most all of the benefits if most everyone else around you has been vaccinated.Spreading fear and misinformation about the safety of vaccines can cause direct , measurable and irreversible harm .
Measuring the connection between a medical treatment and possible harmful effects is something drug companies can do very well , and the FDA approvals process ( when it works ) keeps the companies honest .
We have solid , irrefutable and repeatable scientific evidence that shows vaccines do not cause these diseases , like autism.The best article covering this was in the Bad Astronomy blog from Discover , aptly titled Antivax Kills .
[ discovermagazine.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The use of vaccines is a public health necessity; vaccines are by far the most cost effective tool we have for preventing the spread of communicable diseases.There have always been controversies about vaccines: there is non-zero risk to individuals from any medical treatment, and significant benefit to the population as a whole.
As a single individual, you remove the (very small) risk by not having the vaccine, and you gain most all of the benefits if most everyone else around you has been vaccinated.Spreading fear and misinformation about the safety of vaccines can cause direct, measurable and irreversible harm.
Measuring the connection between a medical treatment and possible harmful effects is something drug companies can do very well, and the FDA approvals process (when it works) keeps the companies honest.
We have solid, irrefutable and repeatable scientific evidence that shows vaccines do not cause these diseases, like autism.The best article covering this was in the Bad Astronomy blog from Discover, aptly titled Antivax Kills.
[discovermagazine.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459758</id>
	<title>Re:This won't change anything...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268402340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then what is Bill Maher's excuse?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then what is Bill Maher 's excuse ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then what is Bill Maher's excuse?
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458446</id>
	<title>Blame the Lancet</title>
	<author>Pedrito</author>
	<datestamp>1268396640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Lancet didn't retract that ridiculous paper from 1998 <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lancet.retraction.autism/index.html" title="cnn.com">until last month</a> [cnn.com] and it pretty much started all this ridiculous BS. It's absolutely unconscionable that they didn't retract it sooner. Ten of the original 13 authors retracted back in 2004. That should have been a hint.<br> <br>
The problem with vaccines is that being vaccinated as an individual isn't what makes you safe. It's the vaccination of the herd that protects. That is, for a particular disease that you might be vaccinated against, let's say measles, it's safer to be the only person in a crowd who isn't vaccinated than to be the one person in the crowd who is vaccinated. Vaccines aren't 100\% effective and what makes them truly effective, is having everyone take them.<br> <br>
Back in 2006, <a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/Vaccines/3856" title="medpagetoday.com">some girl in Indiana</a> [medpagetoday.com] got measles on a trip to Romania. She came back and shared that gift with the people in her church, simply by showing up. Roughly 10\% of the 500 people present weren't vaccinated and 32\% of those people developed the measles. One person who got the vaccine also got the measles, but 94\% of the cases were unvaccinated people.<br> <br>
The problem these days is that people don't bother to learn history. Anyone who's been to an old cemetery (I live in Arkansas, and we have tons of them) pretty much can't miss the fact that there are tons of kids aged 10 and under buried. Why? In the early 1800s, infant mortality was about 20\%. Think about that. One in five infants (1 year old and younger) died. A lot more died before the age of 5. Not all of that is vaccines, but a lot of it is! Before the vaccine, smallpox alone was killing 400,000 Europeans a year.<br> <br>
Personally, I think vaccines ought to be required by law because they're a public safety issue and people who won't do it should go to jail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Lancet did n't retract that ridiculous paper from 1998 until last month [ cnn.com ] and it pretty much started all this ridiculous BS .
It 's absolutely unconscionable that they did n't retract it sooner .
Ten of the original 13 authors retracted back in 2004 .
That should have been a hint .
The problem with vaccines is that being vaccinated as an individual is n't what makes you safe .
It 's the vaccination of the herd that protects .
That is , for a particular disease that you might be vaccinated against , let 's say measles , it 's safer to be the only person in a crowd who is n't vaccinated than to be the one person in the crowd who is vaccinated .
Vaccines are n't 100 \ % effective and what makes them truly effective , is having everyone take them .
Back in 2006 , some girl in Indiana [ medpagetoday.com ] got measles on a trip to Romania .
She came back and shared that gift with the people in her church , simply by showing up .
Roughly 10 \ % of the 500 people present were n't vaccinated and 32 \ % of those people developed the measles .
One person who got the vaccine also got the measles , but 94 \ % of the cases were unvaccinated people .
The problem these days is that people do n't bother to learn history .
Anyone who 's been to an old cemetery ( I live in Arkansas , and we have tons of them ) pretty much ca n't miss the fact that there are tons of kids aged 10 and under buried .
Why ? In the early 1800s , infant mortality was about 20 \ % .
Think about that .
One in five infants ( 1 year old and younger ) died .
A lot more died before the age of 5 .
Not all of that is vaccines , but a lot of it is !
Before the vaccine , smallpox alone was killing 400,000 Europeans a year .
Personally , I think vaccines ought to be required by law because they 're a public safety issue and people who wo n't do it should go to jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Lancet didn't retract that ridiculous paper from 1998 until last month [cnn.com] and it pretty much started all this ridiculous BS.
It's absolutely unconscionable that they didn't retract it sooner.
Ten of the original 13 authors retracted back in 2004.
That should have been a hint.
The problem with vaccines is that being vaccinated as an individual isn't what makes you safe.
It's the vaccination of the herd that protects.
That is, for a particular disease that you might be vaccinated against, let's say measles, it's safer to be the only person in a crowd who isn't vaccinated than to be the one person in the crowd who is vaccinated.
Vaccines aren't 100\% effective and what makes them truly effective, is having everyone take them.
Back in 2006, some girl in Indiana [medpagetoday.com] got measles on a trip to Romania.
She came back and shared that gift with the people in her church, simply by showing up.
Roughly 10\% of the 500 people present weren't vaccinated and 32\% of those people developed the measles.
One person who got the vaccine also got the measles, but 94\% of the cases were unvaccinated people.
The problem these days is that people don't bother to learn history.
Anyone who's been to an old cemetery (I live in Arkansas, and we have tons of them) pretty much can't miss the fact that there are tons of kids aged 10 and under buried.
Why? In the early 1800s, infant mortality was about 20\%.
Think about that.
One in five infants (1 year old and younger) died.
A lot more died before the age of 5.
Not all of that is vaccines, but a lot of it is!
Before the vaccine, smallpox alone was killing 400,000 Europeans a year.
Personally, I think vaccines ought to be required by law because they're a public safety issue and people who won't do it should go to jail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31508720</id>
	<title>Just a response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268841720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Anyone who thinks that the constitution grants rights, does not know what the constitution was written for. The people maintain all rights, it is government who has limited powers which the constitution was written to list. The constitution does not need to grant the privilege of homeschooling, but for govt to claim you must use public school, the constitution must grant government that power and authority. The Bill Of Rights is not something that grants rights, but is a sort of alarm system that is plain enough for even children to know and look out for violations of.</p><p>2) If you use a product (the vaccine) and you sign an agreement to waive all medical costs and damages associated with a potential negative outcome, then whats done is done. However, if you do not sign such an agreement, you are free to seek damages. Government has no power to FORCE anyone to take vaccinations in the constitution, and as far as I know, no state constitution grants local governments that power either. If a constitution did grant government such power (federal or local), then the individuals harmed could seek damages no matter what agreement the state made with the company providing the vaccine - since the individual did not sign the agreement, and government cant sign in their name.</p><p>3) The supreme court and law means very little. It changes with the wind. Law is not always lawful, or constitutional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Anyone who thinks that the constitution grants rights , does not know what the constitution was written for .
The people maintain all rights , it is government who has limited powers which the constitution was written to list .
The constitution does not need to grant the privilege of homeschooling , but for govt to claim you must use public school , the constitution must grant government that power and authority .
The Bill Of Rights is not something that grants rights , but is a sort of alarm system that is plain enough for even children to know and look out for violations of.2 ) If you use a product ( the vaccine ) and you sign an agreement to waive all medical costs and damages associated with a potential negative outcome , then whats done is done .
However , if you do not sign such an agreement , you are free to seek damages .
Government has no power to FORCE anyone to take vaccinations in the constitution , and as far as I know , no state constitution grants local governments that power either .
If a constitution did grant government such power ( federal or local ) , then the individuals harmed could seek damages no matter what agreement the state made with the company providing the vaccine - since the individual did not sign the agreement , and government cant sign in their name.3 ) The supreme court and law means very little .
It changes with the wind .
Law is not always lawful , or constitutional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Anyone who thinks that the constitution grants rights, does not know what the constitution was written for.
The people maintain all rights, it is government who has limited powers which the constitution was written to list.
The constitution does not need to grant the privilege of homeschooling, but for govt to claim you must use public school, the constitution must grant government that power and authority.
The Bill Of Rights is not something that grants rights, but is a sort of alarm system that is plain enough for even children to know and look out for violations of.2) If you use a product (the vaccine) and you sign an agreement to waive all medical costs and damages associated with a potential negative outcome, then whats done is done.
However, if you do not sign such an agreement, you are free to seek damages.
Government has no power to FORCE anyone to take vaccinations in the constitution, and as far as I know, no state constitution grants local governments that power either.
If a constitution did grant government such power (federal or local), then the individuals harmed could seek damages no matter what agreement the state made with the company providing the vaccine - since the individual did not sign the agreement, and government cant sign in their name.3) The supreme court and law means very little.
It changes with the wind.
Law is not always lawful, or constitutional.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459312</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Schadrach</author>
	<datestamp>1268400240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought hippies crystal-gazed.  If they're sniffing crystal, you've probably got meth-heads and not hippies infesting your locality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought hippies crystal-gazed .
If they 're sniffing crystal , you 've probably got meth-heads and not hippies infesting your locality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought hippies crystal-gazed.
If they're sniffing crystal, you've probably got meth-heads and not hippies infesting your locality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459168</id>
	<title>Re:It's not like someone just made this up</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1268399640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There were some fascinating correlations about autism rates before and after the mixed injections.</p></div> </blockquote><p>That is because the age at which children are given MMR is about the age autism is typically diagnosed, in vaccinated and un-vaccinated children alike.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There were some fascinating correlations about autism rates before and after the mixed injections .
That is because the age at which children are given MMR is about the age autism is typically diagnosed , in vaccinated and un-vaccinated children alike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were some fascinating correlations about autism rates before and after the mixed injections.
That is because the age at which children are given MMR is about the age autism is typically diagnosed, in vaccinated and un-vaccinated children alike.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062</id>
	<title>Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vaccines aren't as simple as people think.</p><p>Many, many vaccines can cause seizures, and not all seizures result in physically obvious symptoms. Once a person experiences a seizure, regardless of the cause, they are significantly more likely to have seizures in the future.</p><p>Various vaccines are being promoted by their manufacturers, not because they have actual benefits, but because it's a money making position to have a vaccine that will be forced onto the general population. Look into the HPV vaccines, actual risks. The HPV vaccines may have future benefits, but the promotion by the manufacturer has been mostly to school boards and politicians; not the public. The current commercials are based on fear mongering, not education.</p><p>Many vaccines are simply about money, not health.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vaccines are n't as simple as people think.Many , many vaccines can cause seizures , and not all seizures result in physically obvious symptoms .
Once a person experiences a seizure , regardless of the cause , they are significantly more likely to have seizures in the future.Various vaccines are being promoted by their manufacturers , not because they have actual benefits , but because it 's a money making position to have a vaccine that will be forced onto the general population .
Look into the HPV vaccines , actual risks .
The HPV vaccines may have future benefits , but the promotion by the manufacturer has been mostly to school boards and politicians ; not the public .
The current commercials are based on fear mongering , not education.Many vaccines are simply about money , not health .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vaccines aren't as simple as people think.Many, many vaccines can cause seizures, and not all seizures result in physically obvious symptoms.
Once a person experiences a seizure, regardless of the cause, they are significantly more likely to have seizures in the future.Various vaccines are being promoted by their manufacturers, not because they have actual benefits, but because it's a money making position to have a vaccine that will be forced onto the general population.
Look into the HPV vaccines, actual risks.
The HPV vaccines may have future benefits, but the promotion by the manufacturer has been mostly to school boards and politicians; not the public.
The current commercials are based on fear mongering, not education.Many vaccines are simply about money, not health.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31510084</id>
	<title>Re:look at the amish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268847060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone must have lied to you in 99". Thimerosal is still used in a majority of the seasonal flu vaccines, along with H1N1.<br>http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/ABOUT/QA/thimerosal.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone must have lied to you in 99 " .
Thimerosal is still used in a majority of the seasonal flu vaccines , along with H1N1.http : //www.cdc.gov/FLU/ABOUT/QA/thimerosal.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone must have lied to you in 99".
Thimerosal is still used in a majority of the seasonal flu vaccines, along with H1N1.http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/ABOUT/QA/thimerosal.htm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458202</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268395620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated (and they do; you can't go to school without it), </i></p><p>I thought the government required you to send your kids to school?  So if you don't want to send your kids to school you just need to skip the vaccinations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated ( and they do ; you ca n't go to school without it ) , I thought the government required you to send your kids to school ?
So if you do n't want to send your kids to school you just need to skip the vaccinations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government is going to force people to get vaccinated (and they do; you can't go to school without it), I thought the government required you to send your kids to school?
So if you don't want to send your kids to school you just need to skip the vaccinations?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458352</id>
	<title>Either way</title>
	<author>Phizzle</author>
	<datestamp>1268396280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>its a retarded argument!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>its a retarded argument !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its a retarded argument!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31462262</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>chooks</author>
	<datestamp>1268511420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
No.  Even if a woman gets HPV, she is not doomed to cervical cancer. HPV is common. Really common.  The vast majority of women who show cytological evidence of early HPV infection (CIN 1, with CIN 3 being the worst, but still not cancer) on pap smear clear the infection without incident. Followup depends on age, but <i>in general</i> people don't get too worked up until you find CIN 2. The natural history of the infection and progression to cancer is fairly well understood and takes time -- on the order of years as opposed to months.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Even if a woman gets HPV , she is not doomed to cervical cancer .
HPV is common .
Really common .
The vast majority of women who show cytological evidence of early HPV infection ( CIN 1 , with CIN 3 being the worst , but still not cancer ) on pap smear clear the infection without incident .
Followup depends on age , but in general people do n't get too worked up until you find CIN 2 .
The natural history of the infection and progression to cancer is fairly well understood and takes time -- on the order of years as opposed to months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No.
Even if a woman gets HPV, she is not doomed to cervical cancer.
HPV is common.
Really common.
The vast majority of women who show cytological evidence of early HPV infection (CIN 1, with CIN 3 being the worst, but still not cancer) on pap smear clear the infection without incident.
Followup depends on age, but in general people don't get too worked up until you find CIN 2.
The natural history of the infection and progression to cancer is fairly well understood and takes time -- on the order of years as opposed to months.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458488</id>
	<title>Inconceivable!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2010:</p><p>"It's absolutely impossible that a few children may have an allergic reaction to MERCURY or multiple-series of IMMUNE SYSTEM MANIPULATION proteins being injected into them."</p><p>2005:</p><p>"It's absolutely impossible that a soldier inhaled the smoke from the BURN PITS in Area 51 or Iraq or Afghanistan may develop health problems!"</p><p>2001:</p><p>"It's absolutely impossible that anyone exposed to the carcinogens in the air at GROUND ZERO may develop lung cancer!"</p><p>1998:</p><p>"It's absolutely impossible for a teenager on PSYCHOTROPIC drugs to develop depression or go on a psychotic killing spree!"</p><p>1995:</p><p>"It's absolutely impossible that soldiers or civilians who inhaled the DUST of URANIUM shells used in Iraq may develop cancer or reproductive problems!"</p><p>1970:</p><p>"It's absolutely impossible that soldiers exposed to AGENT ORANGE may develop cancer."</p><p>1960:</p><p>"It's absolutely impossible to develop lung cancer from SMOKING cigarettes."</p><p>1959:</p><p>"It's absolutely impossible that anyone would have an allergic reaction to FOOD DYE and die!"</p><p>1950:</p><p>"It's absolutely impossible that a soldier may develop cancer as a reaction to RADIATION in nuclear testing."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2010 : " It 's absolutely impossible that a few children may have an allergic reaction to MERCURY or multiple-series of IMMUNE SYSTEM MANIPULATION proteins being injected into them .
" 2005 : " It 's absolutely impossible that a soldier inhaled the smoke from the BURN PITS in Area 51 or Iraq or Afghanistan may develop health problems !
" 2001 : " It 's absolutely impossible that anyone exposed to the carcinogens in the air at GROUND ZERO may develop lung cancer !
" 1998 : " It 's absolutely impossible for a teenager on PSYCHOTROPIC drugs to develop depression or go on a psychotic killing spree !
" 1995 : " It 's absolutely impossible that soldiers or civilians who inhaled the DUST of URANIUM shells used in Iraq may develop cancer or reproductive problems !
" 1970 : " It 's absolutely impossible that soldiers exposed to AGENT ORANGE may develop cancer .
" 1960 : " It 's absolutely impossible to develop lung cancer from SMOKING cigarettes .
" 1959 : " It 's absolutely impossible that anyone would have an allergic reaction to FOOD DYE and die !
" 1950 : " It 's absolutely impossible that a soldier may develop cancer as a reaction to RADIATION in nuclear testing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2010:"It's absolutely impossible that a few children may have an allergic reaction to MERCURY or multiple-series of IMMUNE SYSTEM MANIPULATION proteins being injected into them.
"2005:"It's absolutely impossible that a soldier inhaled the smoke from the BURN PITS in Area 51 or Iraq or Afghanistan may develop health problems!
"2001:"It's absolutely impossible that anyone exposed to the carcinogens in the air at GROUND ZERO may develop lung cancer!
"1998:"It's absolutely impossible for a teenager on PSYCHOTROPIC drugs to develop depression or go on a psychotic killing spree!
"1995:"It's absolutely impossible that soldiers or civilians who inhaled the DUST of URANIUM shells used in Iraq may develop cancer or reproductive problems!
"1970:"It's absolutely impossible that soldiers exposed to AGENT ORANGE may develop cancer.
"1960:"It's absolutely impossible to develop lung cancer from SMOKING cigarettes.
"1959:"It's absolutely impossible that anyone would have an allergic reaction to FOOD DYE and die!
"1950:"It's absolutely impossible that a soldier may develop cancer as a reaction to RADIATION in nuclear testing.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460214</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>honestmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1268405340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And what was obvious from that data, was that we need a vaccine against driving.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what was obvious from that data , was that we need a vaccine against driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what was obvious from that data, was that we need a vaccine against driving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457928</id>
	<title>The urge to lay blame</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1268394060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can understand these parent's hurt and anger, and why they would seek to find a cause, a reason, someone to blame for their troubles. It's a natural human reaction in such a case, where so little is known of the real causes.  And big Pharma has certainly proven, over and over, that it feels no responsibility towards it's customers and will choose 'making a buck' over 'doing the right thing,' pretty much all the time. But this is still ridiculous. At this point, you either have to buy into a full-blown whackadoodle conspiracy theory, or admit that vaccines do not, and never have caused autism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can understand these parent 's hurt and anger , and why they would seek to find a cause , a reason , someone to blame for their troubles .
It 's a natural human reaction in such a case , where so little is known of the real causes .
And big Pharma has certainly proven , over and over , that it feels no responsibility towards it 's customers and will choose 'making a buck ' over 'doing the right thing, ' pretty much all the time .
But this is still ridiculous .
At this point , you either have to buy into a full-blown whackadoodle conspiracy theory , or admit that vaccines do not , and never have caused autism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can understand these parent's hurt and anger, and why they would seek to find a cause, a reason, someone to blame for their troubles.
It's a natural human reaction in such a case, where so little is known of the real causes.
And big Pharma has certainly proven, over and over, that it feels no responsibility towards it's customers and will choose 'making a buck' over 'doing the right thing,' pretty much all the time.
But this is still ridiculous.
At this point, you either have to buy into a full-blown whackadoodle conspiracy theory, or admit that vaccines do not, and never have caused autism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459694</id>
	<title>Re:Blame the Lancet</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1268402040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your point about herd immunity is valid, but herd immunity isn't the only reason people get vaccinated, and your very next point proves it. The people in Indiana who didn't get measles didn't resist the disease because other people had been vaccinated. They didn't come down with measles because they themselves had been vaccinated. Herd immunity had nothing to do with it.</p><p>Not getting vaccinated against measles is pretty stupid. My emerging infectious diseases teacher explained it this way: If I, a man, were to have unprotected vaginal sex with a woman who had AIDS, the chance of me becoming infected with HIV might be 1 or 2 percent. If, on the other hand, we were all sitting in a classroom and the professor came to class with measles, stood at the podium, and coughed a few times, by the end of the hour everyone in the room would have been exposed to measles, and most of those who had not been vaccinated would likely come down with the disease. Measles is just that infectious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point about herd immunity is valid , but herd immunity is n't the only reason people get vaccinated , and your very next point proves it .
The people in Indiana who did n't get measles did n't resist the disease because other people had been vaccinated .
They did n't come down with measles because they themselves had been vaccinated .
Herd immunity had nothing to do with it.Not getting vaccinated against measles is pretty stupid .
My emerging infectious diseases teacher explained it this way : If I , a man , were to have unprotected vaginal sex with a woman who had AIDS , the chance of me becoming infected with HIV might be 1 or 2 percent .
If , on the other hand , we were all sitting in a classroom and the professor came to class with measles , stood at the podium , and coughed a few times , by the end of the hour everyone in the room would have been exposed to measles , and most of those who had not been vaccinated would likely come down with the disease .
Measles is just that infectious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point about herd immunity is valid, but herd immunity isn't the only reason people get vaccinated, and your very next point proves it.
The people in Indiana who didn't get measles didn't resist the disease because other people had been vaccinated.
They didn't come down with measles because they themselves had been vaccinated.
Herd immunity had nothing to do with it.Not getting vaccinated against measles is pretty stupid.
My emerging infectious diseases teacher explained it this way: If I, a man, were to have unprotected vaginal sex with a woman who had AIDS, the chance of me becoming infected with HIV might be 1 or 2 percent.
If, on the other hand, we were all sitting in a classroom and the professor came to class with measles, stood at the podium, and coughed a few times, by the end of the hour everyone in the room would have been exposed to measles, and most of those who had not been vaccinated would likely come down with the disease.
Measles is just that infectious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458154</id>
	<title>Re:look at the amish</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1268395320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>ok i'll bite.<p>
1. there are many other factors that are different in the amish lifestyle that could be the reason</p><p>
2. they are too much of a small sample size compared to the rest of the nation to be useful.</p><p>
3. the only reason they aren't being wiped out by preventable illness is because WE are protecting them through herd immunity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ok i 'll bite .
1. there are many other factors that are different in the amish lifestyle that could be the reason 2. they are too much of a small sample size compared to the rest of the nation to be useful .
3. the only reason they are n't being wiped out by preventable illness is because WE are protecting them through herd immunity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok i'll bite.
1. there are many other factors that are different in the amish lifestyle that could be the reason
2. they are too much of a small sample size compared to the rest of the nation to be useful.
3. the only reason they aren't being wiped out by preventable illness is because WE are protecting them through herd immunity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458864</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268398320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many, many vaccines can cause seizures, and not all seizures result in physically obvious symptoms. Once a person experiences a seizure, regardless of the cause, they are significantly more likely to have seizures in the future.</p></div><p>Correlation is not causation.  (Incidentally, I have had a seizure and am possibly epileptic.  Does the fact that I had a seizure make it more likely that I will have more?  Yes.  But am I going to have more <strong>because</strong> I had that one? No.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many , many vaccines can cause seizures , and not all seizures result in physically obvious symptoms .
Once a person experiences a seizure , regardless of the cause , they are significantly more likely to have seizures in the future.Correlation is not causation .
( Incidentally , I have had a seizure and am possibly epileptic .
Does the fact that I had a seizure make it more likely that I will have more ?
Yes. But am I going to have more because I had that one ?
No. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many, many vaccines can cause seizures, and not all seizures result in physically obvious symptoms.
Once a person experiences a seizure, regardless of the cause, they are significantly more likely to have seizures in the future.Correlation is not causation.
(Incidentally, I have had a seizure and am possibly epileptic.
Does the fact that I had a seizure make it more likely that I will have more?
Yes.  But am I going to have more because I had that one?
No.)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904</id>
	<title>Litigious society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268393940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only that, but why should the parents be entitled to "reimbursement" even if the immunization did cause the autism?  Yes, the product should be immediately pulled, but do they have a right to get rich because of some hitherto unknown side-effect of a well intentioned vaccine?  I don't think so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but why should the parents be entitled to " reimbursement " even if the immunization did cause the autism ?
Yes , the product should be immediately pulled , but do they have a right to get rich because of some hitherto unknown side-effect of a well intentioned vaccine ?
I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but why should the parents be entitled to "reimbursement" even if the immunization did cause the autism?
Yes, the product should be immediately pulled, but do they have a right to get rich because of some hitherto unknown side-effect of a well intentioned vaccine?
I don't think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461372</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccine Related?</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1268414100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"A night in the arms of Venus leads to a lifetime on Mercury".[43]  It was administered multiple ways including by mouth,[citation needed] by rubbing it on the skin[citation needed] and by injection.[44]  One of the more curious methods was fumigation, in which the patient was placed in a closed box with his head sticking out. Mercury was placed in the box and a fire was started under the box that caused the mercury to vaporize. It was a grueling process for the patient and the least effective for delivering mercury to the body. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis#History\_of\_treatments" title="wikipedia.org">Syphilis</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div> </blockquote><p>Healthy can be relative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" A night in the arms of Venus leads to a lifetime on Mercury " .
[ 43 ] It was administered multiple ways including by mouth , [ citation needed ] by rubbing it on the skin [ citation needed ] and by injection .
[ 44 ] One of the more curious methods was fumigation , in which the patient was placed in a closed box with his head sticking out .
Mercury was placed in the box and a fire was started under the box that caused the mercury to vaporize .
It was a grueling process for the patient and the least effective for delivering mercury to the body .
Syphilis [ wikipedia.org ] Healthy can be relative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A night in the arms of Venus leads to a lifetime on Mercury".
[43]  It was administered multiple ways including by mouth,[citation needed] by rubbing it on the skin[citation needed] and by injection.
[44]  One of the more curious methods was fumigation, in which the patient was placed in a closed box with his head sticking out.
Mercury was placed in the box and a fire was started under the box that caused the mercury to vaporize.
It was a grueling process for the patient and the least effective for delivering mercury to the body.
Syphilis [wikipedia.org] Healthy can be relative.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461894</id>
	<title>Re:Blame the Lancet</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1268420100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The controversy over vaccination programs exist only because vaccines are very effective at preventing disease. Anyone who remembered life without vaccines would smack anyone who thought vaccines were useless. Polio used to kill and cripple thousands of Americans a year. The public was afraid to go to pools for fear of getting polio. Think about it--a summertime swim may land you in an iron lung for the rest of your life. There were also all the childhood diseases we now have safe and effective vaccines against--whooping cough, measles, mumps, hepatitis B, etc.--these bugs used to kill thousands and terrorize our nation.</p><p>Drop the antivax crowd into a third-world country where there hasn't been sustained vaccination programs, let them see all the kids dying from polio whooping cough, then ask them if vaccination is a bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The controversy over vaccination programs exist only because vaccines are very effective at preventing disease .
Anyone who remembered life without vaccines would smack anyone who thought vaccines were useless .
Polio used to kill and cripple thousands of Americans a year .
The public was afraid to go to pools for fear of getting polio .
Think about it--a summertime swim may land you in an iron lung for the rest of your life .
There were also all the childhood diseases we now have safe and effective vaccines against--whooping cough , measles , mumps , hepatitis B , etc.--these bugs used to kill thousands and terrorize our nation.Drop the antivax crowd into a third-world country where there has n't been sustained vaccination programs , let them see all the kids dying from polio whooping cough , then ask them if vaccination is a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The controversy over vaccination programs exist only because vaccines are very effective at preventing disease.
Anyone who remembered life without vaccines would smack anyone who thought vaccines were useless.
Polio used to kill and cripple thousands of Americans a year.
The public was afraid to go to pools for fear of getting polio.
Think about it--a summertime swim may land you in an iron lung for the rest of your life.
There were also all the childhood diseases we now have safe and effective vaccines against--whooping cough, measles, mumps, hepatitis B, etc.--these bugs used to kill thousands and terrorize our nation.Drop the antivax crowd into a third-world country where there hasn't been sustained vaccination programs, let them see all the kids dying from polio whooping cough, then ask them if vaccination is a bad idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459370</id>
	<title>Courts are now ruling on scientific fact?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1268400480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>'Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal cannot cause autism on their own, a special US court ruled on Friday'</em> </p><p>While I tend to agree with the statement, the idea that a court can somehow "rule" on whether or not something is true seems a bit strange. What happens next Friday? Will they rule that the value of Pi is precisely 3.14 and not a penny more? Physical reality doesn't care about court rulings. Courts rule on matters of human law, not physical law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal can not cause autism on their own , a special US court ruled on Friday ' While I tend to agree with the statement , the idea that a court can somehow " rule " on whether or not something is true seems a bit strange .
What happens next Friday ?
Will they rule that the value of Pi is precisely 3.14 and not a penny more ?
Physical reality does n't care about court rulings .
Courts rule on matters of human law , not physical law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'Vaccines that contain a mercury-based preservative called thimerosal cannot cause autism on their own, a special US court ruled on Friday' While I tend to agree with the statement, the idea that a court can somehow "rule" on whether or not something is true seems a bit strange.
What happens next Friday?
Will they rule that the value of Pi is precisely 3.14 and not a penny more?
Physical reality doesn't care about court rulings.
Courts rule on matters of human law, not physical law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457998</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1268394480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Medical treatments have risks.  As a culture, we want everyone to be vaccinated to prevent communicable diseases.</p><p>More explanation from the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The families sought payment under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a no-fault system that has a $2.5 billion fund built up from a 75-cent-per-dose tax on vaccines.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>More than 5,300 cases were filed by parents who believed vaccines may have caused autism in their children. The no-fault payout system is meant to protect vaccine makers from costly lawsuits that drove many out of the vaccine-making business.</p></div><p>more: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine\_court" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine\_court</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>In my opinion, for any family that loses a loved one or experiences significant morbidity from a vaccine, money is a reasonable social method of reimbursement for them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Medical treatments have risks .
As a culture , we want everyone to be vaccinated to prevent communicable diseases.More explanation from the article : The families sought payment under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program , a no-fault system that has a $ 2.5 billion fund built up from a 75-cent-per-dose tax on vaccines .
...More than 5,300 cases were filed by parents who believed vaccines may have caused autism in their children .
The no-fault payout system is meant to protect vaccine makers from costly lawsuits that drove many out of the vaccine-making business.more : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine \ _court [ wikipedia.org ] In my opinion , for any family that loses a loved one or experiences significant morbidity from a vaccine , money is a reasonable social method of reimbursement for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Medical treatments have risks.
As a culture, we want everyone to be vaccinated to prevent communicable diseases.More explanation from the article:The families sought payment under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a no-fault system that has a $2.5 billion fund built up from a 75-cent-per-dose tax on vaccines.
...More than 5,300 cases were filed by parents who believed vaccines may have caused autism in their children.
The no-fault payout system is meant to protect vaccine makers from costly lawsuits that drove many out of the vaccine-making business.more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine\_court [wikipedia.org]In my opinion, for any family that loses a loved one or experiences significant morbidity from a vaccine, money is a reasonable social method of reimbursement for them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457974</id>
	<title>vaccines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268394360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The link between autism and vaccines will never be officially acknowledged even if it truly exists, as the ramifications will be devastating to the established government institutions.<br>I personally find the abundant anecdotal evidence of such a link quite disturbing, requiring thorough investigation, though this is unlikely to happen due to the above reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The link between autism and vaccines will never be officially acknowledged even if it truly exists , as the ramifications will be devastating to the established government institutions.I personally find the abundant anecdotal evidence of such a link quite disturbing , requiring thorough investigation , though this is unlikely to happen due to the above reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The link between autism and vaccines will never be officially acknowledged even if it truly exists, as the ramifications will be devastating to the established government institutions.I personally find the abundant anecdotal evidence of such a link quite disturbing, requiring thorough investigation, though this is unlikely to happen due to the above reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458328</id>
	<title>Re:look at the amish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, the number of Carribean pirates has dropped since the 1800's.  Obviously, it's the lack of pirates that is causing global temperatures to increase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , the number of Carribean pirates has dropped since the 1800 's .
Obviously , it 's the lack of pirates that is causing global temperatures to increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, the number of Carribean pirates has dropped since the 1800's.
Obviously, it's the lack of pirates that is causing global temperatures to increase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31470116</id>
	<title>Re:look at the amish</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1268505960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to resort to text speak but all I can say is "LOL", because unlike most uses of LOL I actually laughed out loud after reading your post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to resort to text speak but all I can say is " LOL " , because unlike most uses of LOL I actually laughed out loud after reading your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to resort to text speak but all I can say is "LOL", because unlike most uses of LOL I actually laughed out loud after reading your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461762</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1268418360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What public health risk is there really?"</p><p>You are kidding, right?  Right?</p><p>Okay.  I am going to assume that you are merely extremely ignorant.  The reason for the low public health risk is vaccines and their heavy use.</p><p>"Even un-immunized the risks of most sicknesses are quite low to cause any real damage. Measles, Mumps and Rubella generally are low-mortality when generally speaking."</p><p>Ever hear of the flu?  You know, that seasonal illness that is estimated to kill about about 36K a year.  I think you would consider the flu to be a rather low mortality and low risk disease.  I wonder what the dead think.  That doesn't count the lucky ones who just got to be hospitalized.</p><p>For measles:  One in 1000 cases of measles results in encephalitis, with a high rate of permanent neurological complications in those who survive.  Approximately five percent develop pneumonia.  The fatality rate is between one and three per 1000 cases.  Without vaccination most people would catch it.  What's a couple million cases a year times a few per thousand....</p><p>"Yeah, a few kids might be really sick, but if treatment is quick enough, it is easy to contain and cure."</p><p>See above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What public health risk is there really ?
" You are kidding , right ?
Right ? Okay. I am going to assume that you are merely extremely ignorant .
The reason for the low public health risk is vaccines and their heavy use .
" Even un-immunized the risks of most sicknesses are quite low to cause any real damage .
Measles , Mumps and Rubella generally are low-mortality when generally speaking .
" Ever hear of the flu ?
You know , that seasonal illness that is estimated to kill about about 36K a year .
I think you would consider the flu to be a rather low mortality and low risk disease .
I wonder what the dead think .
That does n't count the lucky ones who just got to be hospitalized.For measles : One in 1000 cases of measles results in encephalitis , with a high rate of permanent neurological complications in those who survive .
Approximately five percent develop pneumonia .
The fatality rate is between one and three per 1000 cases .
Without vaccination most people would catch it .
What 's a couple million cases a year times a few per thousand.... " Yeah , a few kids might be really sick , but if treatment is quick enough , it is easy to contain and cure .
" See above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What public health risk is there really?
"You are kidding, right?
Right?Okay.  I am going to assume that you are merely extremely ignorant.
The reason for the low public health risk is vaccines and their heavy use.
"Even un-immunized the risks of most sicknesses are quite low to cause any real damage.
Measles, Mumps and Rubella generally are low-mortality when generally speaking.
"Ever hear of the flu?
You know, that seasonal illness that is estimated to kill about about 36K a year.
I think you would consider the flu to be a rather low mortality and low risk disease.
I wonder what the dead think.
That doesn't count the lucky ones who just got to be hospitalized.For measles:  One in 1000 cases of measles results in encephalitis, with a high rate of permanent neurological complications in those who survive.
Approximately five percent develop pneumonia.
The fatality rate is between one and three per 1000 cases.
Without vaccination most people would catch it.
What's a couple million cases a year times a few per thousand...."Yeah, a few kids might be really sick, but if treatment is quick enough, it is easy to contain and cure.
"See above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458682</id>
	<title>Here's an alternative theory</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1268397660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps widespread vaccination increases autism rates because the diseases vaccination prevents cause fever in children, and <a href="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1889436,00.html" title="time.com">fever in children fights autism symptoms</a> [time.com]. Or perhaps the children more prone to autism were also more prone to dying from childhood infections, and now, due to vaccination programs, more of them are surviving long enough to be diagnosed with autism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps widespread vaccination increases autism rates because the diseases vaccination prevents cause fever in children , and fever in children fights autism symptoms [ time.com ] .
Or perhaps the children more prone to autism were also more prone to dying from childhood infections , and now , due to vaccination programs , more of them are surviving long enough to be diagnosed with autism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps widespread vaccination increases autism rates because the diseases vaccination prevents cause fever in children, and fever in children fights autism symptoms [time.com].
Or perhaps the children more prone to autism were also more prone to dying from childhood infections, and now, due to vaccination programs, more of them are surviving long enough to be diagnosed with autism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461368</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be crystal about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268414100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NO!<br>Next thing you're gonna say is "Man went to the moon!"  And it really was those Saudeyayrabs who caused the WTC and pentagon destructions!<br>Well, Fox and me are on to you, sir!<br>You work for the Mossad, or at least Hollywood, do you not, sir?<br>Come clean! And keep your grubby vaccines away from me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NO ! Next thing you 're gon na say is " Man went to the moon !
" And it really was those Saudeyayrabs who caused the WTC and pentagon destructions ! Well , Fox and me are on to you , sir ! You work for the Mossad , or at least Hollywood , do you not , sir ? Come clean !
And keep your grubby vaccines away from me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NO!Next thing you're gonna say is "Man went to the moon!
"  And it really was those Saudeyayrabs who caused the WTC and pentagon destructions!Well, Fox and me are on to you, sir!You work for the Mossad, or at least Hollywood, do you not, sir?Come clean!
And keep your grubby vaccines away from me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31462426</id>
	<title>It's all about genetics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268471040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absoloute bollocks. Anyone who understands about thimerosal and autism knows that it only happens in genetically sensitive people, in particular, thimerosal inhibits PI3-Kinase, which stimulates methionine synthase production. Thus, in those whose methionine synthase production is already low due to genetic mutation(s), thimerosal pushes it over the edge, and the child does not synthesize dopamine, serotonin, taurine, nitric oxide, cysteine and glutathione properly due to reduced methylation. If you pool everybody together, like these autism studies have done, you dilute the effect, and it looks like there is no effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absoloute bollocks .
Anyone who understands about thimerosal and autism knows that it only happens in genetically sensitive people , in particular , thimerosal inhibits PI3-Kinase , which stimulates methionine synthase production .
Thus , in those whose methionine synthase production is already low due to genetic mutation ( s ) , thimerosal pushes it over the edge , and the child does not synthesize dopamine , serotonin , taurine , nitric oxide , cysteine and glutathione properly due to reduced methylation .
If you pool everybody together , like these autism studies have done , you dilute the effect , and it looks like there is no effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absoloute bollocks.
Anyone who understands about thimerosal and autism knows that it only happens in genetically sensitive people, in particular, thimerosal inhibits PI3-Kinase, which stimulates methionine synthase production.
Thus, in those whose methionine synthase production is already low due to genetic mutation(s), thimerosal pushes it over the edge, and the child does not synthesize dopamine, serotonin, taurine, nitric oxide, cysteine and glutathione properly due to reduced methylation.
If you pool everybody together, like these autism studies have done, you dilute the effect, and it looks like there is no effect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461246</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be crystal about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268412900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe you're studying the wrong thing, maybe instead searching or proof that there is no link how about searching for that link. How do you explain all those cases where healthy kids go autistic within weeks after getting vaccines?? huh? thought so... dushbag</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe you 're studying the wrong thing , maybe instead searching or proof that there is no link how about searching for that link .
How do you explain all those cases where healthy kids go autistic within weeks after getting vaccines ? ?
huh ? thought so... dushbag</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe you're studying the wrong thing, maybe instead searching or proof that there is no link how about searching for that link.
How do you explain all those cases where healthy kids go autistic within weeks after getting vaccines??
huh? thought so... dushbag</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31470588</id>
	<title>thimerosal</title>
	<author>tobiah</author>
	<datestamp>1268600220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I'm too concerned with thimerosal, but actually it's just that the US stopped adding it to the MMR vaccine given to children in 1999. It's still used in other vaccines in the US, and continued to be administered to children for many years after 1999, because it was in the stockpiled batches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 'm too concerned with thimerosal , but actually it 's just that the US stopped adding it to the MMR vaccine given to children in 1999 .
It 's still used in other vaccines in the US , and continued to be administered to children for many years after 1999 , because it was in the stockpiled batches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I'm too concerned with thimerosal, but actually it's just that the US stopped adding it to the MMR vaccine given to children in 1999.
It's still used in other vaccines in the US, and continued to be administered to children for many years after 1999, because it was in the stockpiled batches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460554</id>
	<title>Mercury is fine, CO2 is bad</title>
	<author>Bhrian</author>
	<datestamp>1268407800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazing.  Mercury, a known neurotoxin, can't be what caused neurological damage.  Next, they'll probably say carbon dioxide is bad even though it's used in photosynthesis to generate the oxygen we breathe.
<br> <br>
Oh, wait, they've done that.  Well, at least the pharma industry will be happy with all this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing .
Mercury , a known neurotoxin , ca n't be what caused neurological damage .
Next , they 'll probably say carbon dioxide is bad even though it 's used in photosynthesis to generate the oxygen we breathe .
Oh , wait , they 've done that .
Well , at least the pharma industry will be happy with all this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing.
Mercury, a known neurotoxin, can't be what caused neurological damage.
Next, they'll probably say carbon dioxide is bad even though it's used in photosynthesis to generate the oxygen we breathe.
Oh, wait, they've done that.
Well, at least the pharma industry will be happy with all this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459670</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be crystal about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268401920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Casual Observation.  The time when the vaccines are administered are about the same time time a the symptoms first appear. So it must be the vaccine.<br>And it has Mercury in it.  That is bad for the brain. So it is the cause, unless you are a scientist. Then it is an unproven hypothesis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Casual Observation .
The time when the vaccines are administered are about the same time time a the symptoms first appear .
So it must be the vaccine.And it has Mercury in it .
That is bad for the brain .
So it is the cause , unless you are a scientist .
Then it is an unproven hypothesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Casual Observation.
The time when the vaccines are administered are about the same time time a the symptoms first appear.
So it must be the vaccine.And it has Mercury in it.
That is bad for the brain.
So it is the cause, unless you are a scientist.
Then it is an unproven hypothesis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31465274</id>
	<title>hypothesis or idea</title>
	<author>RDeichsel</author>
	<datestamp>1268508060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf "was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported," Hasting wrote.'"</i>

So they didn't present a theory at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf " was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported , " Hasting wrote .
' " So they did n't present a theory at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory presented by the Meads and experts who testified on their behalf "was biologically implausible and scientifically unsupported," Hasting wrote.
'"

So they didn't present a theory at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460522</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268407440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what are your chances of getting cervical cancer?  Multiply, and then compare the risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what are your chances of getting cervical cancer ?
Multiply , and then compare the risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what are your chances of getting cervical cancer?
Multiply, and then compare the risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459774</id>
	<title>Re:"antivax" people</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1268402400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>vaccines are by far the most cost effective tool we have for preventing the spread of communicable diseases.</i></p><p>Well actually that honor belongs to the chlorination of drinking water, which has been credited by the CDC for doing more to increase the average lifespan than all the other technical advances in medicine combined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>vaccines are by far the most cost effective tool we have for preventing the spread of communicable diseases.Well actually that honor belongs to the chlorination of drinking water , which has been credited by the CDC for doing more to increase the average lifespan than all the other technical advances in medicine combined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vaccines are by far the most cost effective tool we have for preventing the spread of communicable diseases.Well actually that honor belongs to the chlorination of drinking water, which has been credited by the CDC for doing more to increase the average lifespan than all the other technical advances in medicine combined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458462</id>
	<title>Re:Litigious society</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268396760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are correct in pointing this out.</p><p>There should really be 2 rulings here.</p><p>1, Scientific: determining whether it was/is physically possible for the vaccine to cause Autism. As we do not fully understand biological diversity amongst the human population, and the resulting drug interaction for every person on the planet, this should be a fairly simple ruling of possibly, or plausible. The answer is most certainly not NO. (Yes, this is a case where law hasn't caught up to Science. Or, is ignoring it altogether. Sorry)</p><p>2, Harm: Whether or not the intended recipient of a government mandated vaccine, that ends up doing harming to said recipient, should be compensated for said harm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct in pointing this out.There should really be 2 rulings here.1 , Scientific : determining whether it was/is physically possible for the vaccine to cause Autism .
As we do not fully understand biological diversity amongst the human population , and the resulting drug interaction for every person on the planet , this should be a fairly simple ruling of possibly , or plausible .
The answer is most certainly not NO .
( Yes , this is a case where law has n't caught up to Science .
Or , is ignoring it altogether .
Sorry ) 2 , Harm : Whether or not the intended recipient of a government mandated vaccine , that ends up doing harming to said recipient , should be compensated for said harm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct in pointing this out.There should really be 2 rulings here.1, Scientific: determining whether it was/is physically possible for the vaccine to cause Autism.
As we do not fully understand biological diversity amongst the human population, and the resulting drug interaction for every person on the planet, this should be a fairly simple ruling of possibly, or plausible.
The answer is most certainly not NO.
(Yes, this is a case where law hasn't caught up to Science.
Or, is ignoring it altogether.
Sorry)2, Harm: Whether or not the intended recipient of a government mandated vaccine, that ends up doing harming to said recipient, should be compensated for said harm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458274</id>
	<title>Re:look at the amish</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1268395980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they're also isolated from a great many other things that commonfolk are exposed to daily.  If you create 100,000 changes and then see an effect, you can't point to any one of those changes and call it the cause of the effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're also isolated from a great many other things that commonfolk are exposed to daily .
If you create 100,000 changes and then see an effect , you ca n't point to any one of those changes and call it the cause of the effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're also isolated from a great many other things that commonfolk are exposed to daily.
If you create 100,000 changes and then see an effect, you can't point to any one of those changes and call it the cause of the effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458288</id>
	<title>Greed is nothing new</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1268395980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dunno if you know this or not, but there have been radical developments in greed and corruption over the last couple of decades,</p> </div><p>People are just as corrupt as they ever have been.  If you think people are more corrupt now than in years past you are either very naive or very stupid.  Go pick up a history book.  The methods (sort of) change but people don't.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words; loser pays.  That would likely flush out 80\% of the crap clogging the system today.</p></div><p>And your evidence for this is what exactly?  Because it sounds vaguely logical?  Yes loser pays would solve some problems but it would create others.  It would reduce some of the more frivolous lawsuits but it would also make some needed lawsuits too risky to attempt.  Loser pays strongly tilts the playing field towards those with the most money - even more so than it already is.  I don't necessarily have a problem with the general concept of loser pays but please recognize that it isn't something that is going to cure every ill in our legal system.</p><p>Frankly if you want to reduce the load on our legal system, stop the ridiculous "war on drugs" - at least the portion related to user and possession charges.  The US incarcerates a percentage of the population on minor drug charges that is way out of proportion with other industrialized nations.  The war on drugs has FAR more to do with our clogged legal system than frivolous torts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dunno if you know this or not , but there have been radical developments in greed and corruption over the last couple of decades , People are just as corrupt as they ever have been .
If you think people are more corrupt now than in years past you are either very naive or very stupid .
Go pick up a history book .
The methods ( sort of ) change but people do n't.It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words ; loser pays .
That would likely flush out 80 \ % of the crap clogging the system today.And your evidence for this is what exactly ?
Because it sounds vaguely logical ?
Yes loser pays would solve some problems but it would create others .
It would reduce some of the more frivolous lawsuits but it would also make some needed lawsuits too risky to attempt .
Loser pays strongly tilts the playing field towards those with the most money - even more so than it already is .
I do n't necessarily have a problem with the general concept of loser pays but please recognize that it is n't something that is going to cure every ill in our legal system.Frankly if you want to reduce the load on our legal system , stop the ridiculous " war on drugs " - at least the portion related to user and possession charges .
The US incarcerates a percentage of the population on minor drug charges that is way out of proportion with other industrialized nations .
The war on drugs has FAR more to do with our clogged legal system than frivolous torts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dunno if you know this or not, but there have been radical developments in greed and corruption over the last couple of decades, People are just as corrupt as they ever have been.
If you think people are more corrupt now than in years past you are either very naive or very stupid.
Go pick up a history book.
The methods (sort of) change but people don't.It can all be solved and summarized in two simple words; loser pays.
That would likely flush out 80\% of the crap clogging the system today.And your evidence for this is what exactly?
Because it sounds vaguely logical?
Yes loser pays would solve some problems but it would create others.
It would reduce some of the more frivolous lawsuits but it would also make some needed lawsuits too risky to attempt.
Loser pays strongly tilts the playing field towards those with the most money - even more so than it already is.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the general concept of loser pays but please recognize that it isn't something that is going to cure every ill in our legal system.Frankly if you want to reduce the load on our legal system, stop the ridiculous "war on drugs" - at least the portion related to user and possession charges.
The US incarcerates a percentage of the population on minor drug charges that is way out of proportion with other industrialized nations.
The war on drugs has FAR more to do with our clogged legal system than frivolous torts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460798</id>
	<title>Re:Blame the Lancet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268409540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I think vaccines ought to be required by law because they're a public safety issue and people who won't do it should go to jail.</p></div><p>Oh that's a fantastic idea - then you can sell the jail and all it's inmates to a Pharma Company/Arms Dealer as a viral breeding ground.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think vaccines ought to be required by law because they 're a public safety issue and people who wo n't do it should go to jail.Oh that 's a fantastic idea - then you can sell the jail and all it 's inmates to a Pharma Company/Arms Dealer as a viral breeding ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think vaccines ought to be required by law because they're a public safety issue and people who won't do it should go to jail.Oh that's a fantastic idea - then you can sell the jail and all it's inmates to a Pharma Company/Arms Dealer as a viral breeding ground.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460516</id>
	<title>Re:Blame the Lancet</title>
	<author>avilliers</author>
	<datestamp>1268407380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Lancet didn't retract that ridiculous paper from 1998 <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/02/lancet.retraction.autism/index.html" title="cnn.com">until last month</a> [cnn.com] and it pretty much started all this ridiculous BS. It's absolutely unconscionable that they didn't retract it sooner. Ten of the original 13 authors retracted back in 2004. That should have been a hint.</p></div><p>I heard a nice interview with the Lancet editor on this matter.  I can't remember where--some podcast, probably AAAS or <i>On the Media</i>.</p><p>Anyway, it wasn't unconscionable at all.  It's actually a change in the role of scientific journals, and kind of a sad one.</p><p> The idea that a scientific journal has a duty to retract a paper just because it's wrong is new ground.  As all scientists know, a lot of papers are wrong.  The most interesting ones are the most likely to be wrong.  Being published by "The Lancet" (or "Science" or "Nature" or "Cell" or whatever) doesn't mean anyone thinks you're right--not the editors and not even the peer reviewers.  It means (in addition to "noteworthiness") that you meet certain editorial standards about what data you've presented and how you've communicated it, and what conclusions you've drawn.</p><p>As I understand it, the original paper wasn't convincing, but it was interesting.  Small group of patients, a surprising correlation, no real mechanism--exactly the sort of thing that warrants further study but means nothing on its own.  And scientists in the field would have known exactly how to interpret it.  The simple lack of further confirmatory papers--you don't even need debunking papers--would have been a signal to experts that there wasn't any "there" there.</p><p>Unfortunately, in between aggressive lobbying by advocacy groups, poor understanding of the scientific process by laymen, a worship of the phrase "peer reviewed paper" and IMHO horrible scientific reporting standards in most non-scientific outlets, a single peer reviewed paper gets weight in policy debates.  Examples of using papers to misinform comes up in global warming, creationism, GM foods, and anything else that gets people riled up.</p><p>In this particular case, the primary author apparently committed phenomenally bad work, if not outright fraud, his co-authors were embarrassed, and the Lancet withdrew it a few months after the misconduct/fraud was established.  Fair enough.</p><p>What's sad is what the editor said about future papers--they've learned their lesson, and can no longer assume they are publishing for a scientific audience.  The "interesting but probably wrong" hypothesis can no longer be printed, at least not in certain topics.  As that happens, the end result of all this is going to be less visibility into the process and more isolation--scientists will communicate interesting ideas verbally at conferences, over e-mail, and through their social networks.  People with groundbreaking hypotheses will find it harder to get published, and the non-expert, the scientist on the margins of the field (maybe in industry, maybe in a different field) will find it even harder to learn about the latest thinking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Lancet did n't retract that ridiculous paper from 1998 until last month [ cnn.com ] and it pretty much started all this ridiculous BS .
It 's absolutely unconscionable that they did n't retract it sooner .
Ten of the original 13 authors retracted back in 2004 .
That should have been a hint.I heard a nice interview with the Lancet editor on this matter .
I ca n't remember where--some podcast , probably AAAS or On the Media.Anyway , it was n't unconscionable at all .
It 's actually a change in the role of scientific journals , and kind of a sad one .
The idea that a scientific journal has a duty to retract a paper just because it 's wrong is new ground .
As all scientists know , a lot of papers are wrong .
The most interesting ones are the most likely to be wrong .
Being published by " The Lancet " ( or " Science " or " Nature " or " Cell " or whatever ) does n't mean anyone thinks you 're right--not the editors and not even the peer reviewers .
It means ( in addition to " noteworthiness " ) that you meet certain editorial standards about what data you 've presented and how you 've communicated it , and what conclusions you 've drawn.As I understand it , the original paper was n't convincing , but it was interesting .
Small group of patients , a surprising correlation , no real mechanism--exactly the sort of thing that warrants further study but means nothing on its own .
And scientists in the field would have known exactly how to interpret it .
The simple lack of further confirmatory papers--you do n't even need debunking papers--would have been a signal to experts that there was n't any " there " there.Unfortunately , in between aggressive lobbying by advocacy groups , poor understanding of the scientific process by laymen , a worship of the phrase " peer reviewed paper " and IMHO horrible scientific reporting standards in most non-scientific outlets , a single peer reviewed paper gets weight in policy debates .
Examples of using papers to misinform comes up in global warming , creationism , GM foods , and anything else that gets people riled up.In this particular case , the primary author apparently committed phenomenally bad work , if not outright fraud , his co-authors were embarrassed , and the Lancet withdrew it a few months after the misconduct/fraud was established .
Fair enough.What 's sad is what the editor said about future papers--they 've learned their lesson , and can no longer assume they are publishing for a scientific audience .
The " interesting but probably wrong " hypothesis can no longer be printed , at least not in certain topics .
As that happens , the end result of all this is going to be less visibility into the process and more isolation--scientists will communicate interesting ideas verbally at conferences , over e-mail , and through their social networks .
People with groundbreaking hypotheses will find it harder to get published , and the non-expert , the scientist on the margins of the field ( maybe in industry , maybe in a different field ) will find it even harder to learn about the latest thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Lancet didn't retract that ridiculous paper from 1998 until last month [cnn.com] and it pretty much started all this ridiculous BS.
It's absolutely unconscionable that they didn't retract it sooner.
Ten of the original 13 authors retracted back in 2004.
That should have been a hint.I heard a nice interview with the Lancet editor on this matter.
I can't remember where--some podcast, probably AAAS or On the Media.Anyway, it wasn't unconscionable at all.
It's actually a change in the role of scientific journals, and kind of a sad one.
The idea that a scientific journal has a duty to retract a paper just because it's wrong is new ground.
As all scientists know, a lot of papers are wrong.
The most interesting ones are the most likely to be wrong.
Being published by "The Lancet" (or "Science" or "Nature" or "Cell" or whatever) doesn't mean anyone thinks you're right--not the editors and not even the peer reviewers.
It means (in addition to "noteworthiness") that you meet certain editorial standards about what data you've presented and how you've communicated it, and what conclusions you've drawn.As I understand it, the original paper wasn't convincing, but it was interesting.
Small group of patients, a surprising correlation, no real mechanism--exactly the sort of thing that warrants further study but means nothing on its own.
And scientists in the field would have known exactly how to interpret it.
The simple lack of further confirmatory papers--you don't even need debunking papers--would have been a signal to experts that there wasn't any "there" there.Unfortunately, in between aggressive lobbying by advocacy groups, poor understanding of the scientific process by laymen, a worship of the phrase "peer reviewed paper" and IMHO horrible scientific reporting standards in most non-scientific outlets, a single peer reviewed paper gets weight in policy debates.
Examples of using papers to misinform comes up in global warming, creationism, GM foods, and anything else that gets people riled up.In this particular case, the primary author apparently committed phenomenally bad work, if not outright fraud, his co-authors were embarrassed, and the Lancet withdrew it a few months after the misconduct/fraud was established.
Fair enough.What's sad is what the editor said about future papers--they've learned their lesson, and can no longer assume they are publishing for a scientific audience.
The "interesting but probably wrong" hypothesis can no longer be printed, at least not in certain topics.
As that happens, the end result of all this is going to be less visibility into the process and more isolation--scientists will communicate interesting ideas verbally at conferences, over e-mail, and through their social networks.
People with groundbreaking hypotheses will find it harder to get published, and the non-expert, the scientist on the margins of the field (maybe in industry, maybe in a different field) will find it even harder to learn about the latest thinking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460324</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268405940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Once a person experiences a seizure, regardless of the cause, they are significantly more likely to have seizures in the future.</p></div><p>Your statement regarding a seizure increasing risk of future seizures is untrue or misleading at best.<br>Even in the best possible circumstances, your premise is very difficult to prove in any study.</p><p>The people who are most likely to have seizures post-vaccination, are also possibly the ones with the lowest seizure thresholds to begin with--and are therefore also more likely to have seizures in the future.</p><p>
&nbsp; Best evidence shows that in people seizures do not seem to beget seizures in general, though in special cases, especially very long seizures, this may occur.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once a person experiences a seizure , regardless of the cause , they are significantly more likely to have seizures in the future.Your statement regarding a seizure increasing risk of future seizures is untrue or misleading at best.Even in the best possible circumstances , your premise is very difficult to prove in any study.The people who are most likely to have seizures post-vaccination , are also possibly the ones with the lowest seizure thresholds to begin with--and are therefore also more likely to have seizures in the future .
  Best evidence shows that in people seizures do not seem to beget seizures in general , though in special cases , especially very long seizures , this may occur .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext> Once a person experiences a seizure, regardless of the cause, they are significantly more likely to have seizures in the future.Your statement regarding a seizure increasing risk of future seizures is untrue or misleading at best.Even in the best possible circumstances, your premise is very difficult to prove in any study.The people who are most likely to have seizures post-vaccination, are also possibly the ones with the lowest seizure thresholds to begin with--and are therefore also more likely to have seizures in the future.
  Best evidence shows that in people seizures do not seem to beget seizures in general, though in special cases, especially very long seizures, this may occur.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461682</id>
	<title>Re:At first</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1268417580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which judges are practicing medicine? Certainly not the ones in this article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which judges are practicing medicine ?
Certainly not the ones in this article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which judges are practicing medicine?
Certainly not the ones in this article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460460</id>
	<title>Re:Vaccines aren't as simple as people think</title>
	<author>chooks</author>
	<datestamp>1268406900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Hate to break it to you, but testicular cancer and prostate cancer are not caused by HPV.  HPV causes squamous cell carcinomas due to effects of the HPV virus on squamous epithelial cells. These types of cells are not located in the prostate or testicles. However, these cells are in the esophagus and there is a link between HPV infections and esophageal carcinomas.  I'll leave it to your imagination how HPV can spread to the esophagus...
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate to break it to you , but testicular cancer and prostate cancer are not caused by HPV .
HPV causes squamous cell carcinomas due to effects of the HPV virus on squamous epithelial cells .
These types of cells are not located in the prostate or testicles .
However , these cells are in the esophagus and there is a link between HPV infections and esophageal carcinomas .
I 'll leave it to your imagination how HPV can spread to the esophagus.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Hate to break it to you, but testicular cancer and prostate cancer are not caused by HPV.
HPV causes squamous cell carcinomas due to effects of the HPV virus on squamous epithelial cells.
These types of cells are not located in the prostate or testicles.
However, these cells are in the esophagus and there is a link between HPV infections and esophageal carcinomas.
I'll leave it to your imagination how HPV can spread to the esophagus...
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458406</id>
	<title>At first</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1268396520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we had evidence based medicine. Now we have court based medicine?</p><p>Remind me exactly when were politicians, judges and lawyers given a license to practice medicine again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we had evidence based medicine .
Now we have court based medicine ? Remind me exactly when were politicians , judges and lawyers given a license to practice medicine again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we had evidence based medicine.
Now we have court based medicine?Remind me exactly when were politicians, judges and lawyers given a license to practice medicine again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461338</id>
	<title>Courts ruling on science</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1268413860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm so glad the courts came to the conclusion that mercury-based preservatives in vaccines do not cause autism.  I guess they should teach scientists a few things about the scientific method?  Just make a declaration and the facts will follow!</p><p>(FWIW, I don't think it does since the mercury levels are so minute. How many of our parents played with mercury as young children and are just fine (well, as healthy as the American diet of the time allowed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;))?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm so glad the courts came to the conclusion that mercury-based preservatives in vaccines do not cause autism .
I guess they should teach scientists a few things about the scientific method ?
Just make a declaration and the facts will follow !
( FWIW , I do n't think it does since the mercury levels are so minute .
How many of our parents played with mercury as young children and are just fine ( well , as healthy as the American diet of the time allowed ; ) ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm so glad the courts came to the conclusion that mercury-based preservatives in vaccines do not cause autism.
I guess they should teach scientists a few things about the scientific method?
Just make a declaration and the facts will follow!
(FWIW, I don't think it does since the mercury levels are so minute.
How many of our parents played with mercury as young children and are just fine (well, as healthy as the American diet of the time allowed ;))?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31470010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31464280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31513716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31462262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31470588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31510084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31462176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31462796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31487814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31463366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31470116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_2123217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31470010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458370
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459500
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461762
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459342
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31513716
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31463366
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459698
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458288
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459978
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31462796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458294
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459940
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31487814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460204
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31462262
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459962
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31460214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31462176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31457928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31461368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_2123217.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31510084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31470588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31470116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31459002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31464280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_2123217.31458274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
