Driver to drive?

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:10:44 -0700, OldGuy <OldGuy@nospam.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote on 9/22/2013 :
On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 19:32:39 -0700, OldGuy <OldGuy@spamfree.com
wrote:

Looking for the simplest way to this.

AC powered 9V wall-wart or 9V battery powering a circuit.
9V battery is alkaline so is not charged by 9V AC supply.
Load is < 50 ma.

When AC is on, power from the AC to 9v PS.
AC off, power from 9V battery.
9V battery only supplies power when 9V AC is off.

The catch: the 9V AC PS output may be lower than the 9V battery or
visa versa.

So a simple two diode scheme will not fly.
Minimum parts and no relays.
Suggestions please.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

From a previous SED thread, where an unregulated wall-wart was
involved...


http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/PowerSwitching_Battery-Wallwart.pdf

If I understand your situation correctly, it might be as simple as
using a barrel connector with a built-in switch (from R/S, as I
remember buying them)...

http://www.analog-innovations.com/SED/PowerSwitching_OldGuy.pdf

If you have a more complex situation, like wall-wart hard-wired in
place, I have other solutions to detect that it's live and switch
accordingly.

...Jim Thompson

Wall-wart and battery hardwired in.
Wall-wart "off" when AC power fails.
No mechanical switches to control electronics state: on or off.
Always on.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

OK. I think John Fields design fills your bill. Just be sure to have
an adequate filter cap to hold up the supply if the wart-wart is slow
coming up.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Robert Baer]

Peter McMullin wrote:

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:08:45 -0400, Boris Mohar
borism_void_@sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 21:39:39 -0800, Robert Baer<robertbaer@localnet.com
wrote:

I STILL get error message "A News (NNTP) error has occurred:
Authentication Failed" (no quotes).
They do not want to answer any queries.
What the F is happening?

Same here. Sent them two emails to level2@teranews.com and no response.

Just started working again for me today

They FINALLY responded their e-mail follows:
Dear TeraNews User,

Please read this email carefully. You have emailed an auto responder
mail box. You will NOT receive a response to any email send to
help@teranews.com. If the information in this email does not solve your
problem please contact us at the appropriate email address listed below.

The majority of user problem reports can be resolved with the help of
the information in this email. Please read this email carefully and
also check the system status page of our website.

--- Can't connect or log in --

Things to check if you get an access denied error message:

UPDATE: you must add @teranews.com to the end of your user name. For
example, bob will become bob@teranews.com. If your old user name
already contains the '@' character please email us at
level2@teranews.com and we will change your user name.

1. Make sure you are using the right server. This is the #1 problem for
most users. If you have a $3.95 Free account, you should be using the
news server free.teranews.com. If you have a pay account make sure you
are NOT using free.teranews.com. Pay users can use news.teranews.com or
alt.teranews.com.

2. Make sure you are using the right username and password. Log into
the account manager at our website to confirm your username and
password. You do not need to add the @teranews.com when logging into the
account manager at our website.

3. Make sure your account is active and you have download credits
available.

If your account status says 'FAILED' it mean your credit card was
rejected. Update your credit card information and then use the change
package function to force a re-bill by changing to your original package
(or choose another if wish).

If your account says 'UNVERIFIED' it means you didn't click on the link
that was emailed to you. You can resend the email by logging into the
account manager at our website and clicking 'resend verification email'.

4. We recently upgraded the servers and our retention went from 5-30
days to 90-180+. Your news client will have to download a large number
of new headers the first time you access the server. This will use up a
large number of download credits. Once you are caught up your usage
pattern should return to normal.

5. Users of old versions of Agent that get the message 'Host name not
found (Error 11004)' should upgrade Agent. It's a bug in very old
versions of Agent. For those who do not want to upgrade there is a
work-a-round. You can open a DOS window and type ping free.teranews.com
or news.teranews.com (depending on account type). You will see the
current IP address of the server. Use that number instead of the server
name, free.teranews.com. Note that you will have to do this each time
the IP changes (1-2 times a year normally).


If the above information does not resolve your problem send an email to
level2@teranews.com AND include the following information.

1. Your username or account ID. We can't do much without this.

2. The exact error message and any client logs that show the problem.
Please don't paraphrase the error message. We need the whole message
(including the number) as the small details matter to us.

-- Lost Username/Password --

1. If you know the username and your email address on record is correct
you can just attempt to log into the account manager at our website with
the wrong password. This will cause our system to email you with your
username and password.

2. If you don't know your username or your email address has changed,
send us the first 4 AND last 4 digits of the credit card used to create
the account. With this we can normally find your account information.
Do not send just the last four digits. We have tens of thousands of
users and there can be hundreads of accounts that match.

Regards,
TeraNews Support

 

[Robert Baer]

Robert Baer wrote:

Peter McMullin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 10:08:45 -0400, Boris Mohar
borism_void_@sympatico.ca> wrote:

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 21:39:39 -0800, Robert Baer<robertbaer@localnet.com
wrote:

I STILL get error message "A News (NNTP) error has occurred:
Authentication Failed" (no quotes).
They do not want to answer any queries.
What the F is happening?

Same here. Sent them two emails to level2@teranews.com and no response.

Just started working again for me today
Thanks, will re-try.

Works now; thanks.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:08:40 -0700, OldGuy <OldGuy@nospam.com> wrote:

Interesting.
Thanks.
But you must sell 2N390x's. lol

Could Q4 be eliminated? Q5 base to Q3 collector?

---
Yup, good catch!

Plus, the price of parts for onesies from DigiKey goes down to USD
1.18.

Here's REV A:

Version 4
SHEET 1 1172 680
WIRE 144 -32 -96 -32
WIRE 352 -32 240 -32
WIRE 608 -32 352 -32
WIRE 832 -32 704 -32
WIRE 192 64 192 32
WIRE 352 64 352 -32
WIRE 656 64 656 32
WIRE 192 192 192 144
WIRE 544 192 192 192
WIRE 704 192 544 192
WIRE 832 192 832 -32
WIRE 832 192 784 192
WIRE 656 240 656 144
WIRE 192 256 192 192
WIRE 544 288 544 192
WIRE 592 288 544 288
WIRE -96 304 -96 -32
WIRE -16 304 -96 304
WIRE 128 304 64 304
WIRE 832 320 832 192
WIRE -96 352 -96 304
WIRE -96 480 -96 432
WIRE 192 480 192 352
WIRE 192 480 -96 480
WIRE 352 480 352 144
WIRE 352 480 192 480
WIRE 656 480 656 336
WIRE 656 480 352 480
WIRE 832 480 832 400
WIRE 832 480 656 480
WIRE -96 560 -96 480
FLAG -96 560 0
SYMBOL res 80 288 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName R1
SYMATTR Value 100k
SYMBOL pnp 240 32 M270
WINDOW 0 7 148 VLeft 2
WINDOW 3 31 174 VLeft 2
SYMATTR InstName Q2
SYMATTR Value 2N3906
SYMBOL npn 128 256 R0
SYMATTR InstName Q1
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL res 176 48 R0
SYMATTR InstName R2
SYMATTR Value 10k
SYMBOL voltage -96 336 R0
WINDOW 3 24 96 Invisible 2
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 2
SYMATTR Value PULSE(0 9 1 1u 1u 1 2)
SYMATTR InstName V1
SYMBOL res 336 48 R0
WINDOW 0 40 47 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName RL
SYMATTR Value 180
SYMBOL pnp 608 32 R270
WINDOW 0 7 148 VLeft 2
WINDOW 3 31 174 VLeft 2
SYMATTR InstName Q4
SYMATTR Value 2N3906
SYMBOL npn 592 240 R0
SYMATTR InstName Q3
SYMATTR Value 2N3904
SYMBOL res 640 48 R0
SYMATTR InstName R3
SYMATTR Value 10k
SYMBOL res 800 176 R90
WINDOW 0 0 56 VBottom 2
WINDOW 3 32 56 VTop 2
SYMATTR InstName R4
SYMATTR Value 100k
SYMBOL Misc\\battery 832 304 R0
WINDOW 0 -58 13 Left 2
WINDOW 3 -47 99 Left 2
WINDOW 123 0 0 Left 2
WINDOW 39 0 0 Left 2
SYMATTR InstName V2
SYMATTR Value 9V
TEXT -80 512 Left 2 !.tran 10
TEXT -56 424 Left 2 ;WALL-WART
TEXT 672 424 Left 2 ;BATTERY
TEXT 376 56 Left 2 ;LOAD
TEXT 32 512 Left 2 ;John Fields
TEXT 32 544 Left 2 ;24 September 2013
TEXT -64 544 Left 2 ;REV A,

--
JF

 

[gregz]

Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 9/21/2013 3:03 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Last month, the Washington Times reported
that the number of gun permit requests in Newtown,
Connecticut rose sharply in the months after
the tragic. December shooting at Sandy Hook
Elementary School. Through August, Newtown police
received 211 gun permit applications compared to
171 in all of 2012.

A CBS news article reported that gun sales in
Colorado jumped following the July 2012 movie
theatre shooting in Aurora. Colorado's state
government approved 2,887 background checks for
gun buyers the Friday following the shooting -
25% more than the average Friday-Sunday period in
2012 and 43% more than the same period the prior week.

Some people say we shouldn't be allowed to
carry guns because more people will get shot and
more crime will take place. Every time there's a
mass shooting, politicians come out in favor of more
stringent gun laws and regulations. One month
after the Sandy Hook shooting; President Obama
signed 23 executive orders related to firearms and
proposed 12 Congressional actions.

But the exact opposite has been true for decades.
There are over eight million concealed-carry
permit holders in the U.S. today. That's an all-time
high. And the homicide rate is the lowest it's been
in four decades, less than half what it was 20 years
ago, according to an Atlantic magazine article last
December.

Hi,

The real correlation not mentioned very often is the
link between mass shootings and medication with
psychiatric drugs, apparently a large majority of
mass shooting have been carried out by people under
the influence of psychiatric medication, it probably
should be put on the label as a potential side effect,
but obviously that is even more problematic for the big
corporations than labeling food as GMO!

So they want everyone to have no guns and ideally be
taking medication, so really that means they are making
people weaker - no self defense and mental integrity
compromised by drugs.

cheers,
Jami

More likely, off their Med's, things go bad.

Greg

..

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 10:05:36 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:56:20 +0000 (UTC), gregz <zekor@comcast.net
wrote:
Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:
On 9/21/2013 3:03 AM, Robert Baer wrote:

Last month, the Washington Times reported
that the number of gun permit requests in Newtown,
Connecticut rose sharply in the months after
the tragic. December shooting at Sandy Hook
Elementary School. Through August, Newtown police
received 211 gun permit applications compared to
171 in all of 2012.

A CBS news article reported that gun sales in
Colorado jumped following the July 2012 movie
theatre shooting in Aurora. Colorado's state
government approved 2,887 background checks for
gun buyers the Friday following the shooting -
25% more than the average Friday-Sunday period in
2012 and 43% more than the same period the prior week.

Some people say we shouldn't be allowed to
carry guns because more people will get shot and
more crime will take place. Every time there's a
mass shooting, politicians come out in favor of more
stringent gun laws and regulations. One month
after the Sandy Hook shooting; President Obama
signed 23 executive orders related to firearms and
proposed 12 Congressional actions.

But the exact opposite has been true for decades.
There are over eight million concealed-carry
permit holders in the U.S. today. That's an all-time
high. And the homicide rate is the lowest it's been
in four decades, less than half what it was 20 year
ago, according to an Atlantic magazine article last
December.

The real correlation not mentioned very often is the
link between mass shootings and medication with
psychiatric drugs, apparently a large majority of
mass shooting have been carried out by people under
the influence of psychiatric medication, it probably
should be put on the label as a potential side effect,
but obviously that is even more problematic for the big
corporations than labeling food as GMO!

It would be a remarkably rare side-effect - mass shootings aren't all that common even in the US - and you'd have to build up a lot of patient-years of medication before you could reliably quantify the risk.

> >> So they want everyone to have no guns

The advanced industrial countries of Western Europe get by with many fewer guns in private hands, and have much less gun homicide and many fewer mass shootings - it does look like a defensible position.

and ideally be
taking medication,

Only if they need it. 5% of the population seems to need psychiatric care at some time in their lives, and some of them do seem to benefit from medication.

so really that means they are making
people weaker - no self defense and mental integrity
compromised by drugs.

Whereas loonies use lethal force to "defend" themselves against imaginary risks.
The "mental integrity" of a conspiracy theorist, who keeps on believing despite a total absence of any supporting evidence, may be admirable, but that state of mind represents a danger to the rest of us. That kind of "mental integrity" needs to be compromised by drugs or cognitive therapy - anything that gets the victims back into the real world.

More likely, off their Med's, things go bad.

Things go bad "on their meds". Things go bad *because* of their meds.

No psychiatric medication works for every patient, but some work well for a significant proportion of the patient population. There may even be cases where the wrong choice of medication makes a patient worse, but this is unusual.

> And, the side effects of their meds cause them to go off of them.

Crazy people can't be relied on to keep on taking their medications without supervision. The supervision is expensive, but blaming the medications for the defects of an excessively economical mental health care system is a trifle irrational, even if tax-minimisation is your primary aim.

> The meds are clearly not the panacea that they've been advertised to be.

Panacea was a Greek Goddess

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

which is to say, a mythological figure. Advertisements do make references to mythological images, but one isn't expected to take them seriously.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 03:14:41 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

KRW > The idea of a vaccine isn't to create a
KRW > superman, rather to prevent pandemics
KRW > and keep thousands alive.

True.

However:
Your statement implies that nature's imperative is
to create supermen, as far as immunities.

I imply nothing of the kind. JamieM implied that that was the purpose
of a vaccine, though. Because that might (or not) happen with an
individual's immunity, once one has been exposed to and survived a
disease, has nothing to do with the purpose of a vaccine.

Passing up that "superman" immunity, as a race,
might be even MORE unethical in the long run.

Exactly how is this being passed up? By having thousands or millions
die needlessly? I'd say that was rather unethical. Perhaps we should
have government select the fittest?

Vaccines could ultimately make us like
"hot house flowers" instead of the "supermen"
you mentioned, and unable to survive a coming challenge.

We are hot house flowers. Deal with it.

Vaccines do tamper with natures harsh calculus
for some short term "gain", but does the same
field of epidemiology which gives you the strong
statistical "big picture" arguments for vaccination
ever consider the "big picture" advantages of that
"superman" immunity you mentioned?

That boat left when we started walking upright. Perhaps we should go
back to the water?

Should ethical considerations ONLY be about
short term immediacy of "keeping thousands alive"
but ignore the value of disease "culls" for
the "big picture" survival of mankind itself?

Yes, when we have no other information. Absolutely.

If you want to claim "big picture" reasons
for vaccination aren't you also stuck with
even longer range "big picture" considerations?

No big picture at all. It's about individuals CURRENTLY living.

If we intend to stop natural selection, to
stop nature's disease "culls" which improve
the immune system of our species, to throw
away the possibility of that "superman"
immunity that evolution offers us, that
seems less "ethical" in the long run.

Oh, please. Now define "natural selection". Is it natural when man
interferes? With man?

If we stop every "cull" with vaccines we tamper
with evolution to be weaker as a species.

It can backfire worse than the abuse
of antibiotics have (MERSA, etc.)

MERSA, et al, are not caused by the existence of antibiotics.

I'm gonna get my flu shot this fall though.
(Self interest reasons!)

Done.

 

[Greegor]

Women who undergo ceasarians
can usually deliver normally for
subsequent children.

Is it truly unethical to consider the
long game instead of just the short game?

 

[Greegor]

KRW > The idea of a vaccine isn't to create a
KRW > superman, rather to prevent pandemics
KRW > and keep thousands alive.

G > True.
G >
G > However:
G > Your statement implies that nature's imperative is
G > to create supermen, as far as immunities.
G >
G > Passing up that "superman" immunity, as a race,
G > might be even MORE unethical in the long run.
G >
G > Vaccines could ultimately make us like
G > "hot house flowers" instead of the "supermen"
G > you mentioned, and unable to survive a coming challenge.
G >
G > Vaccines do tamper with natures harsh calculus
G > for some short term "gain", but does the same
G > field of epidemiology which gives you the strong
G > statistical "big picture" arguments for vaccination
G > ever consider the "big picture" advantages of that
G > "superman" immunity you mentioned?
G >
G > Should ethical considerations ONLY be about
G > short term immediacy of "keeping thousands alive"
G > but ignore the value of disease "culls" for
G > the "big picture" survival of mankind itself?
G >
G > If you want to claim "big picture" reasons
G > for vaccination aren't you also stuck with
G > even longer range "big picture" considerations?
G >
G > If we intend to stop natural selection, to
G > stop nature's disease "culls" which improve
G > the immune system of our species, to throw
G > away the possibility of that "superman"
G > immunity that evolution offers us, that
G > seems less "ethical" in the long run.
G >
G > If we stop every "cull" with vaccines we tamper
G > with evolution to be weaker as a species.

John Devereux wrote:
JD > You could say the same for every other
JD > medical intervention. E.g should we
JD > leave women to die in childbirth
JD > rather than give Caesarians, to avoid
JD > evolving a dangerously narrow birth canal?

G > Women who undergo ceasarians
G > can usually deliver normally for
G > subsequent children.

hamilton > Huh? You're going to have
hamilton > to explain how that's relevant.

hamilton > What do you expect from a religious zealot.
hamilton > No, wait you are a religious zealot !!

I am agnostic but respectful of religion.
I would have been an atheist except the
founder of Atheism in the USA, MM Ohair
and most internet atheists are way too
busy antagonistically HATING religion
for my tastes.

I don't think religion is all bad but
one of the worst aspects of most
religions is how willing they are to
cultivate a passive hate of some
other denominations.

Most atheists (starting with M.M. Ohair)
take that one step further by ACTIVELY
and antagonistically hating ALL religions,
with their own form of "religious fervor".

If there was such a thing as atheists
who respect other people's religions
I would be one.

Amusingly, I've had atheists angry
that I'm not one of them, saying that
I'm one of them but just too gutless,
presumeable because I won't actively
be antagonistic and hateful of religion.

hamilton wrongly presumed that because
I am a political conservative that I
am religious and a zealot.

VERY VERY wrong!

I realize that what I said about
vaccinations weakening our immunity
in the long run and as a species is
not a happy friendly truth, but it
is scientifically sound.

When I see people using the stats and
the "big picture" in support of vaccinations,
I find it amusing that if you REALLY
look at the "big picture" from an
evolutionary perspective the arguments
for vaccines fail miserably.

The "hot house flowers" analogy got
me lots of vitriol, but not many
logical arguments.

 

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 17:03:47 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
wrote:

Women who undergo ceasarians
can usually deliver normally for
subsequent children.

Huh? You're going to have to explain how that's relevant.

Is it truly unethical to consider the
long game instead of just the short game?

The need of the existing takes priority over the needs of the may be.
It's part of the DNA (how much more "natural" do you want than that?).

 

[hamilton]

On 10/2/2013 11:07 AM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 17:03:47 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

Women who undergo ceasarians
can usually deliver normally for
subsequent children.

Huh? You're going to have to explain how that's relevant.

What do you expect from a religious zealot.

No, wait you are a religious zealot !!

Is it truly unethical to consider the
long game instead of just the short game?

The need of the existing takes priority over the needs of the may be.
It's part of the DNA (how much more "natural" do you want than that?).

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 3 October 2013 10:23:00 UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:

On 10/2/2013 1:35 PM, Greegor wrote:
KRW> The idea of a vaccine isn't to create a
KRW> superman, rather to prevent pandemics
KRW> and keep thousands alive.

G> True.
G
G> However:
G> Your statement implies that nature's imperative is
G> to create supermen, as far as immunities.
G
G> Passing up that "superman" immunity, as a race,
G> might be even MORE unethical in the long run.
G
G> Vaccines could ultimately make us like
G> "hot house flowers" instead of the "supermen"
G> you mentioned, and unable to survive a coming challenge.
G
G> Vaccines do tamper with natures harsh calculus
G> for some short term "gain", but does the same
G> field of epidemiology which gives you the strong
G> statistical "big picture" arguments for vaccination
G> ever consider the "big picture" advantages of that
G> "superman" immunity you mentioned?
G
G> Should ethical considerations ONLY be about
G> short term immediacy of "keeping thousands alive"
G> but ignore the value of disease "culls" for
G> the "big picture" survival of mankind itself?
G
G> If you want to claim "big picture" reasons
G> for vaccination aren't you also stuck with
G> even longer range "big picture" considerations?
G
G> If we intend to stop natural selection, to
G> stop nature's disease "culls" which improve
G> the immune system of our species, to throw
G> away the possibility of that "superman
G> immunity that evolution offers us,

It doesn't.

G> that seems less "ethical" in the long run
G
G> If we stop every "cull" with vaccines we tamper
G> with evolution to be weaker as a species.

We've extirpated the small-pox virus. Does that make us weaker as a species?

JD> You could say the same for every other
JD> medical intervention. E.g should we
JD> leave women to die in childbirth
JD> rather than give Caesarians, to avoi
JD> evolving a dangerously narrow birth canal?

G> Women who undergo ceasarians
G> can usually deliver normally for
G> subsequent children.


hamilton> Huh? You're going to have
hamilton> to explain how that's relevant.
hamilton> What do you expect from a religious zealot.
hamilton> No, wait you are a religious zealot !!

I am agnostic but respectful of religion.
I would have been an atheist except the
founder of Atheism in the USA, MM Ohair
and most internet atheists are way too
busy antagonistically HATING religion
for my tastes.

I don't think religion is all bad but
one of the worst aspects of most
religions is how willing they are to
cultivate a passive hate of some
other denominations.

Most atheists (starting with M.M. Ohair)
take that one step further by ACTIVELY
and antagonistically hating ALL religions,
with their own form of "religious fervor".

If there was such a thing as atheists
who respect other people's religions
I would be one.

Amusingly, I've had atheists angry
that I'm not one of them, saying that
I'm one of them but just too gutless,
presumably because I won't actively
be antagonistic and hateful of religion.

hamilton wrongly presumed that because
I am a political conservative that I
am religious and a zealot

VERY VERY wrong

I realize that what I said about
vaccinations weakening our immunit
in the long run and as a species is
not a happy friendly truth, but it
is scientifically sound.

For some versions of the adjective "scientific".

When I see people using the stats and
the "big picture" in support of vaccinations,
I find it amusing that if you REALLY
look at the "big picture" from an
evolutionary perspective the arguments
for vaccines fail miserably.

Viruses and infective agents generally are just parasites. Your arguments wuld have use all infested by tape-worms, liver fluh]kes and the like to make us stronger as a species, if weaker as individuals.

The "hot house flowers" analogy got
me lots of vitriol, but not many
logical arguments.

If vaccines offered good protection (like 99.9%+ chance of not
getting the disease after being vaccinated) then you could be
safe being a "hot house flower" with that technology. Bu
take for instance the seasonal flu vaccine, it is quite often
the wrong one or ineffective, so if you rely on vaccines yo
are in trouble if your body isn't strong enough to fight off
the disease on its own currently. So the best thing to do is
build immunity naturally, and that is done with a good diet,
moderate stress and fighting diseases on your own (when you
are strong enough).

Fighting disease on your own doesn't make you stronger as much as it kills off that or weakens proportion of the population which isn't strong enough to win outright.

If you become weak then you can put your
faith in vaccines as a last resort if you see no hope to get
strong naturally! I would really not like to have received
vaccinations my whole life and never fought off a disease and
then when I am old and weak get a virus that demolishes my
hot house flower immunity.

Old age weakens your immune system, whether you've built it up by exposing ti to every possible disease, or let it coast on herd immunity and the occasional vaccination.

If the immune system is good enough
you really reduce your chances of getting infected and needing
to develop a specific immune response.

The immune system works by developing a specific immune response to a specific infectious agent. It does remember whether it has been assaulted by the same infectious agent earlier, but that's as far as it goes.

Vaccines make the assumption
that your immune front line defenses are weak and that specific
antibodies are going to be required, a really healthy immune system
can keep a disease outside of that.

The immune system - whether healthy or weak, has to generate antibodies to a specific infection. Vaccination gives the immune system - weak or strong - a flying start. It doesn't assume that the body's immune front line defences are week or strong - it just makes them stronger than the would have been without intervention.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/2/2013 1:35 PM, Greegor wrote:

KRW> The idea of a vaccine isn't to create a
KRW> superman, rather to prevent pandemics
KRW> and keep thousands alive.

G> True.
G
G> However:
G> Your statement implies that nature's imperative is
G> to create supermen, as far as immunities.
G
G> Passing up that "superman" immunity, as a race,
G> might be even MORE unethical in the long run.
G
G> Vaccines could ultimately make us like
G> "hot house flowers" instead of the "supermen"
G> you mentioned, and unable to survive a coming challenge.
G
G> Vaccines do tamper with natures harsh calculus
G> for some short term "gain", but does the same
G> field of epidemiology which gives you the strong
G> statistical "big picture" arguments for vaccination
G> ever consider the "big picture" advantages of that
G> "superman" immunity you mentioned?
G
G> Should ethical considerations ONLY be about
G> short term immediacy of "keeping thousands alive"
G> but ignore the value of disease "culls" for
G> the "big picture" survival of mankind itself?
G
G> If you want to claim "big picture" reasons
G> for vaccination aren't you also stuck with
G> even longer range "big picture" considerations?
G
G> If we intend to stop natural selection, to
G> stop nature's disease "culls" which improve
G> the immune system of our species, to throw
G> away the possibility of that "superman"
G> immunity that evolution offers us, that
G> seems less "ethical" in the long run.
G
G> If we stop every "cull" with vaccines we tamper
G> with evolution to be weaker as a species.

John Devereux wrote:
JD> You could say the same for every other
JD> medical intervention. E.g should we
JD> leave women to die in childbirth
JD> rather than give Caesarians, to avoid
JD> evolving a dangerously narrow birth canal?

G> Women who undergo ceasarians
G> can usually deliver normally for
G> subsequent children.

hamilton> Huh? You're going to have
hamilton> to explain how that's relevant.

hamilton> What do you expect from a religious zealot.
hamilton> No, wait you are a religious zealot !!

I am agnostic but respectful of religion.
I would have been an atheist except the
founder of Atheism in the USA, MM Ohair
and most internet atheists are way too
busy antagonistically HATING religion
for my tastes.

I don't think religion is all bad but
one of the worst aspects of most
religions is how willing they are to
cultivate a passive hate of some
other denominations.

Most atheists (starting with M.M. Ohair)
take that one step further by ACTIVELY
and antagonistically hating ALL religions,
with their own form of "religious fervor".

If there was such a thing as atheists
who respect other people's religions
I would be one.

Amusingly, I've had atheists angry
that I'm not one of them, saying that
I'm one of them but just too gutless,
presumeable because I won't actively
be antagonistic and hateful of religion.

hamilton wrongly presumed that because
I am a political conservative that I
am religious and a zealot.

VERY VERY wrong!

I realize that what I said about
vaccinations weakening our immunity
in the long run and as a species is
not a happy friendly truth, but it
is scientifically sound.

When I see people using the stats and
the "big picture" in support of vaccinations,
I find it amusing that if you REALLY
look at the "big picture" from an
evolutionary perspective the arguments
for vaccines fail miserably.

The "hot house flowers" analogy got
me lots of vitriol, but not many
logical arguments.

Hi,

If vaccines offered good protection (like 99.9%+ chance of not
getting the disease after being vaccinated) then you could be
safe being a "hot house flower" with that technology. But
take for instance the seasonal flu vaccine, it is quite often
the wrong one or ineffective, so if you rely on vaccines you
are in trouble if your body isn't strong enough to fight off
the disease on its own currently. So the best thing to do is
build immunity naturally, and that is done with a good diet,
moderate stress and fighting diseases on your own (when you
are strong enough) If you become weak then you can put your
faith in vaccines as a last resort if you see no hope to get
strong naturally! I would really not like to have received
vaccinations my whole life and never fought off a disease and
then when I am old and weak get a virus that demolishes my
hot house flower immunity. If the immune system is good enough
you really reduce your chances of getting infected and needing
to develop a specific immune response. Vaccines make the assumption
that your immune front line defenses are weak and that specific
antibodies are going to be required, a really healthy immune system
can keep a disease outside of that.

cheers,
Jamie

 

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:35:22 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/10/2013 03:50, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:01:14 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 9/30/2013 4:14 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:14:08 -0700, Jamie M<jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 9/26/2013 5:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nurses are just a vulnerable to scare stories as any other form of stoop labour.

Nurses see first hand health situations, if they don't want vaccines
that makes people question vaccines as the nurses are supposed to know
about health, so not having nurses get vaccinated makes the
corporations selling vaccines look bad.

Perhaps their employers don't want them missing work because they
caught the flu from their patients. They are at particular risk.

That is the main reason to do it. So that a pandemic flu outbreak
doesn't compromise the staffing of the hospital in winter. Flu is too
infectious otherwise and capable of airborne transmission.

Can't be. There is no conspiracy in that theory.

Also vaccines don't boost the natural immune system, people that were

That is basically exactly what they do in laymans terms at least. It
primes the immune system to recognise the flu virus shell proteins more
quickly if or rather when you get exposed to it. You only become ill
when you are exposed to more pathogen than your immune system can handle
and a vaccine increases that threshold.

The main purpose of vaccination is to drive the propagation factor for
infection as far below 1 as it reasonably possible - so called herd
immunity. Rapid exponential growth occurs when the propagation rate per
infected person is 2 or higher as has happened here in the UK with
measles due to the MMR scare a decade or more since.

vaccinated for swine flu a couple years ago were more susceptible to
catching the seasonal flu, and those who actually got the swine flu and
fought it off, now have increased immunity to catching the flu.

Utterly absurd.

Hi,

From this page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12152500

You can find someone, somewhere, on the Internet to say anything.

What they say is probably true. A variant on what doesn't kill you makes
you stronger, but it quietly ignores those victims of the novel swine
flu variant who died as a result of catching it.

Please! It's not just some "novel swine flu variant" that kills.
Something like 65,000 people are killed by the flu in the US, alone.

Incidentally the researchers are closing in on components of the flu
virus that may pave the way for a universal flu vaccine that doesn't
depend so much on the highly variable protein coat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24175030

"People who recover from swine flu may be left with an extraordinary
natural ability to fight off flu viruses, findings suggests."

Irrelevant. You stated that vaccines do not boost the body's natural
immunity, which only a total moron, like Slowman, could believe.

Unfortunately a lot more people these days are inclined to believe crank
conspiracy theories. The UK has a serious problem with the present
cohort of teenagers who were not immunised against mumps, measles and
rubella because of the MMR vaccine scare. It is invariably the children
of the worried well middle classes that are at most risk as their
parents read all the frantic (and wrong) scare stories.

The same is true in the US. These are all making a big comeback.

So if you got the swine flu vaccine, then you wouldn't have this super
immunity, so the vaccines damage the immune system of people who would
normally have been infected and fought it off.

Completely irrelevant. Your "super immunity" doesn't do the ones who
don't survive a damned bit of good. The idea of a vaccine isn't to
create a superman, rather to prevent pandemics and keep thousands
alive.

Exactly. They work in several ways which depending on how much
infectious agent you are exposed to prevents infection taking hold or
shortens the period you are poorly and severity. Vaccination against
smallpox wiped it out completely. Polio is slowly getting there too.

Polio is making a comeback, too. For the same reasons.

TB vaccination post WWII worked in the first world but not elsewhere. It
is making a resurgence again in vulnerable populations.

And coming back in strains that aren't so easily cured.

 

[John Devereux]

krw@attt.bizz writes:

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:35:22 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/10/2013 03:50, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:01:14 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 9/30/2013 4:14 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:14:08 -0700, Jamie M<jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 9/26/2013 5:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nurses are just a vulnerable to scare stories as any other form of stoop labour.

Nurses see first hand health situations, if they don't want vaccines
that makes people question vaccines as the nurses are supposed to know
about health, so not having nurses get vaccinated makes the
corporations selling vaccines look bad.

Perhaps their employers don't want them missing work because they
caught the flu from their patients. They are at particular risk.

[...]

vaccinated for swine flu a couple years ago were more susceptible to
catching the seasonal flu, and those who actually got the swine flu and
fought it off, now have increased immunity to catching the flu.

Utterly absurd.

Hi,

From this page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12152500

You can find someone, somewhere, on the Internet to say anything.

What they say is probably true. A variant on what doesn't kill you makes
you stronger, but it quietly ignores those victims of the novel swine
flu variant who died as a result of catching it.

Please! It's not just some "novel swine flu variant" that kills.
Something like 65,000 people are killed by the flu in the US, alone.

Incidentally the researchers are closing in on components of the flu
virus that may pave the way for a universal flu vaccine that doesn't
depend so much on the highly variable protein coat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24175030

"People who recover from swine flu may be left with an extraordinary
natural ability to fight off flu viruses, findings suggests."

Irrelevant. You stated that vaccines do not boost the body's natural
immunity, which only a total moron, like Slowman, could believe.

Unfortunately a lot more people these days are inclined to believe crank
conspiracy theories. The UK has a serious problem with the present
cohort of teenagers who were not immunised against mumps, measles and
rubella because of the MMR vaccine scare. It is invariably the children
of the worried well middle classes that are at most risk as their
parents read all the frantic (and wrong) scare stories.

The same is true in the US. These are all making a big comeback.

So if you got the swine flu vaccine, then you wouldn't have this super
immunity, so the vaccines damage the immune system of people who would
normally have been infected and fought it off.

Completely irrelevant. Your "super immunity" doesn't do the ones who
don't survive a damned bit of good. The idea of a vaccine isn't to
create a superman, rather to prevent pandemics and keep thousands
alive.

Exactly. They work in several ways which depending on how much
infectious agent you are exposed to prevents infection taking hold or
shortens the period you are poorly and severity. Vaccination against
smallpox wiped it out completely. Polio is slowly getting there too.

Polio is making a comeback, too. For the same reasons.

And it is worth pointing out that after a sustained global campaign over
decades, it was on the verge of total eradication, with the UN closing
in on the last few strongholds of that terrible disease.

Until some stupid anti-vaccination conspiracy theory crackpots started
spreading false rumours and shooting the health workers.

TB vaccination post WWII worked in the first world but not elsewhere. It
is making a resurgence again in vulnerable populations.

And coming back in strains that aren't so easily cured.

--

John Devereux

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/2/2013 9:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Vaccines make the assumption
that your immune front line defenses are weak and that specific
antibodies are going to be required, a really healthy immune system
can keep a disease outside of that.

The immune system - whether healthy or weak, has to generate antibodies to a specific infection. Vaccination gives the immune system - weak or strong -'

a flying start. It doesn't assume that the body's immune front line defences are week or strong - it just makes them stronger than the would have been
without intervention.

Hi,

The immune system doesn't have to generate a specific response
necessarily, there is a large part of the immune system that in
fact works without any specific response, and vaccines will
indirectly weaken this system.

cheers,
Jamie

 

[Jamie M]

On 10/3/2013 7:37 AM, John Devereux wrote:

krw@attt.bizz writes:

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:35:22 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/10/2013 03:50, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:01:14 -0700, Jamie M<jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 9/30/2013 4:14 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:14:08 -0700, Jamie M<jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 9/26/2013 5:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nurses are just a vulnerable to scare stories as any other form of stoop labour.

Nurses see first hand health situations, if they don't want vaccines
that makes people question vaccines as the nurses are supposed to know
about health, so not having nurses get vaccinated makes the
corporations selling vaccines look bad.

Perhaps their employers don't want them missing work because they
caught the flu from their patients. They are at particular risk.

[...]

vaccinated for swine flu a couple years ago were more susceptible to
catching the seasonal flu, and those who actually got the swine flu and
fought it off, now have increased immunity to catching the flu.

Utterly absurd.

Hi,

From this page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12152500

You can find someone, somewhere, on the Internet to say anything.

What they say is probably true. A variant on what doesn't kill you makes
you stronger, but it quietly ignores those victims of the novel swine
flu variant who died as a result of catching it.

Please! It's not just some "novel swine flu variant" that kills.
Something like 65,000 people are killed by the flu in the US, alone.

Incidentally the researchers are closing in on components of the flu
virus that may pave the way for a universal flu vaccine that doesn't
depend so much on the highly variable protein coat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24175030

"People who recover from swine flu may be left with an extraordinary
natural ability to fight off flu viruses, findings suggests."

Irrelevant. You stated that vaccines do not boost the body's natural
immunity, which only a total moron, like Slowman, could believe.

Unfortunately a lot more people these days are inclined to believe crank
conspiracy theories. The UK has a serious problem with the present
cohort of teenagers who were not immunised against mumps, measles and
rubella because of the MMR vaccine scare. It is invariably the children
of the worried well middle classes that are at most risk as their
parents read all the frantic (and wrong) scare stories.

The same is true in the US. These are all making a big comeback.

So if you got the swine flu vaccine, then you wouldn't have this super
immunity, so the vaccines damage the immune system of people who would
normally have been infected and fought it off.

Completely irrelevant. Your "super immunity" doesn't do the ones who
don't survive a damned bit of good. The idea of a vaccine isn't to
create a superman, rather to prevent pandemics and keep thousands
alive.

Exactly. They work in several ways which depending on how much
infectious agent you are exposed to prevents infection taking hold or
shortens the period you are poorly and severity. Vaccination against
smallpox wiped it out completely. Polio is slowly getting there too.

Polio is making a comeback, too. For the same reasons.

And it is worth pointing out that after a sustained global campaign over
decades, it was on the verge of total eradication, with the UN closing
in on the last few strongholds of that terrible disease.

Until some stupid anti-vaccination conspiracy theory crackpots started
spreading false rumours and shooting the health workers.

TB vaccination post WWII worked in the first world but not elsewhere. It
is making a resurgence again in vulnerable populations.

And coming back in strains that aren't so easily cured.

Hi,

Vaccines are a bandaid solution, the real problem is if people don't
have proper nutrition and a good life, then they are susceptible to
disease, if someone is healthy and strong they rarely will get ill.
That is what should be focused on, making everyone healthy.
Corporations sell junk food and vaccines, those two products feed off
each other just like all the other crap they sell. Historically
societies had very low disease when their people are healthy with
enough food - its when the society runs out of good food that the
people start getting diseases as the immune system runs on good
nutrition. Don't forget the guy who got a Nobel Prize for discovering
the AIDS virus said it can be prevented with proper nutrition.

cheers,
Jamie

 

On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 3 October 2013 22:57:24 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 01:44:56 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloma
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 14:11:18 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote
On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 3 October 2013 05:35:34 UTC+10, k...@attt.bizz wrote:
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:39:05 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com
wrote:
On 10/2/2013 11:07 AM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 17:03:47 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com
wrote:

snip

No, the proof is here for anyone who wishes to (and can) read. This,
of course leaves you and all other lefties out in the cold, Slowman.

This comes from the twit who told us that the United States murder rate - of 4.7 per 100,000 - wasn't significantly different from anybody else's, when pretty much every advance industrial country has a homicide rate around one per 100,000.

Idiot.

Revealing reaction when exposed with inarguable facts.

The delusions keep coming from this unemployable leftist loser.

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

Us lefties have got nothing to comfort us apart from the fact that we know what's going on, and you don't.

More proof of your delusion.

For a particularly bizarre definition of "delusion" - not believing the nonsense that krw posts.

Your mirror must have shattered on that one.

 

[John Devereux]

Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> writes:

On 10/3/2013 7:37 AM, John Devereux wrote:
krw@attt.bizz writes:

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:35:22 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/10/2013 03:50, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:01:14 -0700, Jamie M<jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 9/30/2013 4:14 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:14:08 -0700, Jamie M<jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 9/26/2013 5:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nurses are just a vulnerable to scare stories as any other form of stoop labour.

Nurses see first hand health situations, if they don't want vaccines
that makes people question vaccines as the nurses are supposed to know
about health, so not having nurses get vaccinated makes the
corporations selling vaccines look bad.

Perhaps their employers don't want them missing work because they
caught the flu from their patients. They are at particular risk.

[...]

vaccinated for swine flu a couple years ago were more susceptible to
catching the seasonal flu, and those who actually got the swine flu and
fought it off, now have increased immunity to catching the flu.

Utterly absurd.

Hi,

From this page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12152500

You can find someone, somewhere, on the Internet to say anything.

What they say is probably true. A variant on what doesn't kill you makes
you stronger, but it quietly ignores those victims of the novel swine
flu variant who died as a result of catching it.

Please! It's not just some "novel swine flu variant" that kills.
Something like 65,000 people are killed by the flu in the US, alone.

Incidentally the researchers are closing in on components of the flu
virus that may pave the way for a universal flu vaccine that doesn't
depend so much on the highly variable protein coat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24175030

"People who recover from swine flu may be left with an extraordinary
natural ability to fight off flu viruses, findings suggests."

Irrelevant. You stated that vaccines do not boost the body's natural
immunity, which only a total moron, like Slowman, could believe.

Unfortunately a lot more people these days are inclined to believe crank
conspiracy theories. The UK has a serious problem with the present
cohort of teenagers who were not immunised against mumps, measles and
rubella because of the MMR vaccine scare. It is invariably the children
of the worried well middle classes that are at most risk as their
parents read all the frantic (and wrong) scare stories.

The same is true in the US. These are all making a big comeback.

So if you got the swine flu vaccine, then you wouldn't have this super
immunity, so the vaccines damage the immune system of people who would
normally have been infected and fought it off.

Completely irrelevant. Your "super immunity" doesn't do the ones who
don't survive a damned bit of good. The idea of a vaccine isn't to
create a superman, rather to prevent pandemics and keep thousands
alive.

Exactly. They work in several ways which depending on how much
infectious agent you are exposed to prevents infection taking hold or
shortens the period you are poorly and severity. Vaccination against
smallpox wiped it out completely. Polio is slowly getting there too.

Polio is making a comeback, too. For the same reasons.

And it is worth pointing out that after a sustained global campaign over
decades, it was on the verge of total eradication, with the UN closing
in on the last few strongholds of that terrible disease.

Until some stupid anti-vaccination conspiracy theory crackpots started
spreading false rumours and shooting the health workers.

TB vaccination post WWII worked in the first world but not elsewhere. It
is making a resurgence again in vulnerable populations.

And coming back in strains that aren't so easily cured.


Hi,

Vaccines are a bandaid solution, the real problem is if people don't
have proper nutrition and a good life, then they are susceptible to
disease, if someone is healthy and strong they rarely will get ill.
That is what should be focused on, making everyone healthy.
Corporations sell junk food and vaccines, those two products feed off
each other just like all the other crap they sell. Historically
societies had very low disease when their people are healthy with
enough food - its when the society runs out of good food that the
people start getting diseases as the immune system runs on good
nutrition. Don't forget the guy who got a Nobel Prize for discovering
the AIDS virus said it can be prevented with proper nutrition.

I imagine what he really said was that good nutrition improves the
immune system in general.

This is the sort of distortion / nonsense that has killed hundreds of
thousands in South Africa and elsewhere.

--

John Devereux

 

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 08:05:54 -0700, Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 10/3/2013 7:37 AM, John Devereux wrote:
krw@attt.bizz writes:

On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:35:22 +0100, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 01/10/2013 03:50, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:01:14 -0700, Jamie M<jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 9/30/2013 4:14 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:14:08 -0700, Jamie M<jmorken@shaw.ca> wrote:

On 9/26/2013 5:11 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nurses are just a vulnerable to scare stories as any other form of stoop labour.

Nurses see first hand health situations, if they don't want vaccines
that makes people question vaccines as the nurses are supposed to know
about health, so not having nurses get vaccinated makes the
corporations selling vaccines look bad.

Perhaps their employers don't want them missing work because they
caught the flu from their patients. They are at particular risk.

[...]

vaccinated for swine flu a couple years ago were more susceptible to
catching the seasonal flu, and those who actually got the swine flu and
fought it off, now have increased immunity to catching the flu.

Utterly absurd.

Hi,

From this page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12152500

You can find someone, somewhere, on the Internet to say anything.

What they say is probably true. A variant on what doesn't kill you makes
you stronger, but it quietly ignores those victims of the novel swine
flu variant who died as a result of catching it.

Please! It's not just some "novel swine flu variant" that kills.
Something like 65,000 people are killed by the flu in the US, alone.

Incidentally the researchers are closing in on components of the flu
virus that may pave the way for a universal flu vaccine that doesn't
depend so much on the highly variable protein coat.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24175030

"People who recover from swine flu may be left with an extraordinary
natural ability to fight off flu viruses, findings suggests."

Irrelevant. You stated that vaccines do not boost the body's natural
immunity, which only a total moron, like Slowman, could believe.

Unfortunately a lot more people these days are inclined to believe crank
conspiracy theories. The UK has a serious problem with the present
cohort of teenagers who were not immunised against mumps, measles and
rubella because of the MMR vaccine scare. It is invariably the children
of the worried well middle classes that are at most risk as their
parents read all the frantic (and wrong) scare stories.

The same is true in the US. These are all making a big comeback.

So if you got the swine flu vaccine, then you wouldn't have this super
immunity, so the vaccines damage the immune system of people who would
normally have been infected and fought it off.

Completely irrelevant. Your "super immunity" doesn't do the ones who
don't survive a damned bit of good. The idea of a vaccine isn't to
create a superman, rather to prevent pandemics and keep thousands
alive.

Exactly. They work in several ways which depending on how much
infectious agent you are exposed to prevents infection taking hold or
shortens the period you are poorly and severity. Vaccination against
smallpox wiped it out completely. Polio is slowly getting there too.

Polio is making a comeback, too. For the same reasons.

And it is worth pointing out that after a sustained global campaign over
decades, it was on the verge of total eradication, with the UN closing
in on the last few strongholds of that terrible disease.

Until some stupid anti-vaccination conspiracy theory crackpots started
spreading false rumours and shooting the health workers.

TB vaccination post WWII worked in the first world but not elsewhere. It
is making a resurgence again in vulnerable populations.

And coming back in strains that aren't so easily cured.


Hi,

Vaccines are a bandaid solution,

Well, I suppose everyone will still die, so yes, in that respect it is
a Band-Aid. OTOH, if you consider the complete eradication of a
disease like Polio a Band-Aid, well, there isn't much that will
impress anything on your closed, little, conspiracy addled mind.

the real problem is if people don't
have proper nutrition and a good life, then they are susceptible to
disease, if someone is healthy and strong they rarely will get ill.

Ah, so people got Polio from eating at McDonalds? Well, I suppose
it's a theory...

That is what should be focused on, making everyone healthy.
Corporations sell junk food and vaccines, those two products feed off
each other just like all the other crap they sell. Historically
societies had very low disease when their people are healthy with
enough food - its when the society runs out of good food that the
people start getting diseases as the immune system runs on good
nutrition. Don't forget the guy who got a Nobel Prize for discovering
the AIDS virus said it can be prevented with proper nutrition.

AIDS can also be prevented by keeping it in your pocket, but we don't
want any of that!

Idiot.