From: Mark Probert on
Max C. wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> Max C. wrote:
>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>> You are discussing opinions. When you have been provided facts, you call
>>>> them opinions and weasel out of the discussion.
>>> And those facts would be... ?
>> In several prior threads you pulled the opinion dodge.
>
> In other words, impossible for you to point out. Thanks for playing.

It is you SOP, as you have demonstrated.

When I see it, I will highlight it.


From: Mark Probert on
marcia wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>> I must tell you that Jan has made some comments that could be inferred
>> to be slurs about people who are disabled with emotional problems.
>
> I gathered that was her intent in "exposing" my bipolar disorder,
> taking my earlier nightmare and medication comments out of context, and
> trying to misrepresent me as someone in need of drug rehab.

Based on reading her posts for years, I must agree. From what I see, she
does not understand that psychiatric problems are not the fault of the
person.

> This kind of prejudice and stigma runs rampant in our society. I find
> it ignorant and annoying, but it doesn't hurt me, personally, because I
> understand and accept both my positive and negative attributes.
>
> Having a mental illness doesn't necessarily equate to having emotional
> problems. Bipolar disorder has strong genetic and physiological
> components that are separate from emotional "issues" and character.

Agreed.

> Most of us have emotional problems to one degree or another. The people
> most prejudiced against the mentally ill tend to be those with the
> deepest problems at all. They can't face their own demons, so they
> target other people for shame and ridicule. They tend to lack personal
> insight and believe other people are responsible for all the grief they
> encounter.
>
> Now that I've had time to cool down and reflect, I believe my
> assessment of her being evil is wrong. I note from her profile that
> she's posted 1777 messages in the last 3 1/2 months, *from one account
> alone.*

She generally posts from one account. Recently she had a connectivity
problem due to storms in her area and some may be on other accounts.
However, switching accounts is not a game she plays.

I've seen her post from other accounts, so who knows how many
> total messages she has floating out there. That kind of activity would
> take considerable time and energy, and not leave much time for anything
> else.

See above. I do not think she is a game player in that sense.

> What kind of life could she possibly have?

Who knows? She mentions she works with widows, etc. and that does some
good. I wish she could bring some of her good to her posts.

How happy could she possibly
> be, hunched over her computer, living her entire life in "Altworld."
> What does it reveal about her inner being that a substantial portion of
> her posts involve attacking and devaluing other people?

That is what troubles me the most about her. She seems to follow people
to attack them. She does to me.

What does her
> behavior here suggest about how she gets along with people in the real
> world? Do you suppose she's on usenet 24/7 because people in the real
> world avoid her? Do you think she has any clue why she doesn't get
> along with people?

I think she is a different person off-line. As for her understanding why
she does not get along with people on line, it is non-existent.

> I think Jan is truly a sad and pathetic human being, and I feel sorry
> for her. I'm not going to stoop to her level any more, respond to her
> posts, or try to antagonize her further because that would simply be
> cruel. It's clear to me that she has serious emotional problems and,
> speaking as someone who is mentally ill, I can't, in all good
> conscience, contribute to them further.

Good. Adopting Live and Let Live is a wonderful way of life.



From: Max C. on
Rich wrote:
> One of the best? It was published in 1906, and the century that has passed
> since then, wild smallpox has been completely eradicated worldwide by the
> application of (drumroll, please) VACCINATION. In other words. Mr. Lupton
> has been proven wrong.

You know, you pro-vac guys keep saying that, but the historical data
shows the exact opposite. For example, according to this graph:

http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=50&event=graphs_print_list_item

The rate of smallpox in the US was at near-0 to 0 levels starting in
1934. In other countries, mass vaccination campaigns were not working
and were halted in many of them.

http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/vaccinationsandsmallpox11nov02.shtml
says the following:
"Point to ponder: Mass vaccination was halted in Third World countries
because it didn't work. In India, villages with an 88% vaccination rate
still had outbreaks. After the World Health Organization began a
surveillance and containment campaign, actively seeking cases of
smallpox, isolating them in their homes, and vaccinating family members
and close contacts, outbreaks were virtually eliminated within 2 years.

The CDC and the WHO organization attribute the eradication of smallpox
to the ring vaccination of close contacts. However, since the infection
runs its course in 3-6 weeks, perhaps ISOLATION ALONE would have
effectively accomplished the same thing."

In fact, upon further digging, I found a CDC page that seems to agree
with the above assumption, at least in theory:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no5/03-0419.htm
"A special strategy included in this formula is an intervention where
only case isolation is performed without vaccination of contacts. The
vaccination coverage c(i) is set to zero. Equivalently, it describes
the situation that no window period exists.

If vaccination is ineffective, but contacts are monitored, the
monitoring will have the same effect on R0 as an effective vaccination,
because the contacts will not be able to disseminate the virus any
further (assuming a fully effective monitoring). Therefore, Rv can be
computed with the formula including vaccination, where the window
period is now set to w = 15, of the full duration of the infectious
period. This assumption means that regardless of when the index
patient's condition is diagnosed, contacts can effectively be excluded
from further transmission. If monitoring of contacts is not 100%
effective, the parameter c(i) for the coverage can be used to express
the extent of successful monitoring."

There are also claims that smallpox was eradicated in several countries
where vaccines were not used, but I have not been able to find data to
support those claims. Suffice it to say, it's not as open and shut as
you make it sound.

Max.