Flu Vaccine and Edwards - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

D Rice · 10-26-2004, 05:14 PM

Almost half of the nation's flu vaccine will not be delivered this year, because Chiron, a major manufacturer of the vaccine, was halted from producing. Chiron was to make 46-48 million doses for the United States. However, as a British company, their health officials in Briton stopped Chiron from distributing and making the vaccine when inspectors found unsanitary conditions in their labs. Most of the vaccine was recalled and destroyed.

Why is our Vaccine made in the UK versus the USA:

The major pharmaceutical companies in the USA provided almost 90% of our nation's flu vaccine at one time. And, they did this despite a very low profit margin for the product. Basically, they were doing us a favor. In the late 1980's a man from North Carolina, who had received the vaccine, got the flu. The strain he caught was one of the strains in that year's vaccine that was produced by a US company. What did he do? He sued and won. He was awarded almost $5 million. After that case was both appealed and lost again, most US pharmaceutical companies immediately stopped making the vaccine. The liability out-weighed the profit margin. Since the UK and Canadian laws prohibit such frivolous law suits, both countries have companies that are selling and profiting from their sales in the US.

Again, Why The Shortage:

Because Chiron had to destroy product versus selling it to the USA........and US companies stopped producing due to the liability.

By The Way:

The lawyer that represented the man in the flu shot law suit was John Edwards. Since Hillary Clinton was complaining bitterly yesterday about how our current government could have such a shortage, perhaps she should talk to the Vice Presidential candidate.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 05:16 PM

So it's Edwards' fault?

Can't say I've heard that argument before.

Mr Mephisto

God of Thunder · 10-26-2004, 05:27 PM

Check the facts before posting.

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 05:28 PM

Gotta love snopes.com:

Quote:

Origins: Two major problems with this political screed, which attempts to attribute a shortage of flu vaccine to a lawsuit handled to Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate:

* Chiron, the corporation mentioned in this piece as an example of a "British company" that has taken over the manufacture of flu vaccine from American companies supposedly driven out of business by liability lawsuits, is not a British company. It is an American company headquartered in Emeryville, California, which last year purchased British vaccine maker Powderject and a flu vaccine plant in Liverpool, England.

* American manufacturers did not produce flu vaccine until liability lawsuits made it impossible for them to continue doing so. Most American pharmaceutical companies got out of the flu vaccine market because a variety of factors (not related to lawsuits) make it an unattractive line of business:

More details after the link.

docbungle · 10-26-2004, 05:42 PM

Dead in the water.

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 06:00 PM

The moral of the story is, don't believe everything that lands in your inbox. I can tell you that those damn "enlargement" pills don't work at all.....ummm, because a friend told me so.

daswig · 10-26-2004, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Gotta love snopes.com:

More details after the link.

Ummm...one point, folks: Snopes ain't God. Just because they say it doesn't make it holy writ. I know this because I was there for one of their "false" stories, and it actually happened. I know this because I saw it with my own eyes. I wish I had had my camera with me...

BTW, I'm not saying that they're right or wrong in THIS case, I just know firsthand that they have been wrong before.

Ustwo · 10-26-2004, 06:05 PM

Edwards is responsible for more needless C sections, but no idea about the flu thing.

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Edwards is responsible for more needless C sections, but no idea about the flu thing.

Umm, if you actually read the other posts you'll see that the "Edwards/flu vaccine" story is a worthless internet rumor.

daswig · 10-26-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Umm, if you actually read the other posts you'll see that the "Edwards/flu vaccine" story is a worthless internet rumor.

but he is responsible for the c-section thing...right?

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

but he is responsible for the c-section thing...right?

Do your own research.

daswig · 10-26-2004, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Do your own research.

LOL!!!

OK.

Actually, I was asking for opinions.

jonjon42 · 10-26-2004, 06:51 PM

daswig 2 things one the c-section thing is a bit exagerrated but true. I come from a family of doctors and (may) become one myself. I don't like his past as a malpractice lawyer at all. Yet, I don't think he will have a huge amount of policy control over Kerry. Second thing is that we are not discussing the C-section thing, we are discussing the blatently wrong flu-vaccine information. (the big reason really is, is that no money is really in the flu vaccine market.)

yes snopes is not god, but neither is anything else ALWAYS CHECK FACTS
snope is even tells people to check facts (look in "Lost Legends" section)

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 06:51 PM

Can someone eduated me on the c-section thing?

Thanks,

Mr Mephisto

Ustwo · 10-26-2004, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Can someone eduated me on the c-section thing?

Thanks,

Mr Mephisto

Quote:

Marc Morano of CNSNews.com had done an exposé last January of how Edwards used "junk science" in his cases. Stossel added to this, noting that "In a report released last year by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics, scientists now say the disease is seldom caused by anything a doctor does in the delivery room." But the result of Edwards-type lawsuits has been a radical increase in the number of caesarean deliveries, in order to avoid lawsuits. Since 1970 C-sections have gone from 6 percent of all births to 26 percent. Obstetrics professor Dr. Edgar Mandeville told Stossel, "And there has not been one small decrease in the cerebral palsy rate across the board."

google edwards + c section

daswig · 10-26-2004, 07:06 PM

The bit about c-sections becoming more common for liability reasons is absolutely true. I say this both as a J.D. and as a recent father. When we suggested that we might want to have a c-section to my wife's OB/GYN, her response was "OK, no problem, let's schedule it." Not "Why do you want to do that", or "it's more risky to have a c-section", just a flat-out "let's do it". We're both glad we did it that way (our daughter was 8 pounds 14 oz, facing the wrong way, and my wife's first child, so it would have been a brutal delivery) but my wife kind-of missed having a natural childbirth.

As for Edwards, well, who can say? Some doctors have reportedly stopped practicing in his stomping grounds because of some of the outrageous verdicts he brought in for his clients based upon faulty testimony, but who can say for sure?

Is ANYBODY here SERIOUSLY thinking of changing their votes because of Edwards and Cheney?

Ustwo · 10-26-2004, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Is ANYBODY here SERIOUSLY thinking of changing their votes because of Edwards and Cheney?

I know of some, yes, doctors family members to be specific who are now not voting for Kerry.

Likewise if say it was Bush Edwards I would not vote for Bush.

daswig · 10-26-2004, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I know of some, yes, doctors family members to be specific who are now not voting for Kerry.

Likewise if say it was Bush Edwards I would not vote for Bush.

Wow. Thass alligottsayboutthat!!!

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 07:15 PM

John Stossel did a bit on the Edwards/Caesar connection which was somewhat correct but stil bore the much-too-self-assured Stossel brand. I found what is, IMHO, a pretty balanced take on the issue:

from http://brian.carnell.com/archives/ye...07/000037.html

Quote:

Edwards' basic argument went like this -- the cerebral palsy suffered by his client was caused by oxygen deprivation which the attending obstetrician could have prevented if he had performed a cesarean section or other medical intervention earlier than he or she did. Edwards was apparently very good at both choosing the best cases to go forward with as well as making his case in court and made himself millions of dollars.

The problem is that this explanation for cerebral palsy and what might be done to prevent it appears more and more bogus. Oxygen deprivation does play a part in a very small number of cases, but the vast majority of the 8,000 or so annual cases of cerebral palsy appear to have other causes. Moreoever, research on the subject is pretty clear that performing cesarean sections doesn't reduce the likelihood of a baby being born with cerebral palsy. In fact as Stossel notes, the percentage of births done by c-section has climbed steadily since 1970, but the percentage of infants born with cerebral palsy hasn't changed.

But Stossle then goes on to make a claim about cesearean sections that is just as spurious. According to Stossel,

However, today many C-sections are still done in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit, even though C-sections are a more painful way to give birth, as well as more expensive, requiring a longer hospital stay, and carrying greater health risks.

There are probably more C-sections being performed today due to concerns of lawsuits, but everything else in the above sentence is false.

Contrary to Stossel, studies have found that C-sections are not more expensive than vaginal births. They do cost a bit more upfront, but the cost is lower on average because women having C-sectionse experience fewer long-term complications.

Which brings us to Stossel's claim that C-sections carry greater health risks. In fact, a recent Health Grades Inc. found that post-natal complications occurred in 8.4 percent of cesarean sections but in 12 percent of vaginal births. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found a lower maternal mortality rate for women undergoing c-sections compared to those undergoing a vaginal birth (though maternal mortality rates are extremely low in the United States for vaginal births).

It appears Stossel didn't bother to interview anyone about the alleged dangers of cesarean sections but simply assumed that since it is a surgical procedure it must be more dangerous than "natural" child birth. Sounds like he's got the makings of a good trial lawyer there.

Now, this doesn't mean that John Edwards was directly and singly responsible for the rise in C-Sections, although a lot of the more inflammatory articles out there seem to imply that. Also, when the author says that Edwards was good at choosing the best cases to go forward, that may mean that he chose pretty legitimate cases. Maybe not, but we can't assume otherwise without actually knowing the case history.

Ustwo · 10-26-2004, 07:17 PM

Fact is Edwards made his money suing innocent doctors and the results of said lawsuits have done nothing to help infants and have only raised the chance of harm to the mother.

Scumbag shyster, no matter how you look at it.

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Fact is Edwards made his money suing innocent doctors and the results of said lawsuits have done nothing to help infants and have only raised the chance of harm to the mother.

Scumbag shyster, no matter how you look at it.

Thanks for the perspective. It was completely unexpected.

What this politics forum needs is a lowering of the hyperbole....everyone included.

daswig · 10-26-2004, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Now, this doesn't mean that John Edwards was directly and singly responsible for the rise in C-Sections, although a lot of the more inflammatory articles out there seem to imply that. Also, when the author says that Edwards was good at choosing the best cases to go forward, that may mean that he chose pretty legitimate cases. Maybe not, but we can't assume otherwise without actually knowing the case history.

Heh. When an attorney chooses what cases he takes before a jury trial, legal merit isn't generally the top thing on his agenda. A sympathetic defendant is. If it was strictly a legal merit case, you go for a bench trial, so that you're arguing your case to a professional, not a layperson.

I don't know Edward's record. I DO know trial advocacy.

Ustwo · 10-26-2004, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Heh. When an attorney chooses what cases he takes before a jury trial, legal merit isn't generally the top thing on his agenda. A sympathetic defendant is. If it was strictly a legal merit case, you go for a bench trial, so that you're arguing your case to a professional, not a layperson.

I don't know Edward's record. I DO know trial advocacy.

He also speaks for the dead, and I'm not talking about the TV show deuche. You should look up some of his cases.

smooth · 10-26-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Can someone eduated me on the c-section thing?

Thanks,

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto, since you asked, I'll respond even if it is slightly off topic (I guess Edwards bashing is the topic de jour, so whatever)

Anyway, a more non-partisan and scientific examination of the rise in C-sections has been attributed to doctors' busy schedules in peer reviewed journals.

The beginning of this weird phenomenon is traced to studies wondering why births in the US were disporportionately on Tuesdays. Upon further research, it was found that most births were occurring because that was a lull in the week for most doctors and C-sections were a quick procedure to conduct.

I'm giving you a very brief synopsis from memory. But that should give you enough info to dig through some Medical and/or Sociological peer reviewed journals.

Oh yeah, and roachboy is a practicing sociology professor (I'm just a lowly grad student

) so maybe he'll have more info if you PM him or maybe just say my memory is shit.

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Heh. When an attorney chooses what cases he takes before a jury trial, legal merit isn't generally the top thing on his agenda. A sympathetic defendant is. If it was strictly a legal merit case, you go for a bench trial, so that you're arguing your case to a professional, not a layperson.

I don't know Edward's record. I DO know trial advocacy.

Honestly, if you don't know his record than we are only talking assumptions.

daswig · 10-26-2004, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Honestly, if you don't know his record than we are only talking assumptions.

please feel free to provide me with pinpoint cites for the cases he argued...I know his record in the senate, and I know generally his record as a trial attorney.

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

please feel free to provide me with pinpoint cites for the cases he argued...I know his record in the senate, and I know generally his record as a trial attorney.

I'm not the one claiming insight into his case history.

tecoyah · 10-26-2004, 10:10 PM

let us at least "attempt" to show civility and respect for each other....guys this is going nowhere.

I will search out the records if required...but lets make this debate work

daswig · 10-26-2004, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

I'm not the one claiming insight into his case history.

Once again, we're back to the "please don't distort what I said" part of the thread. Some things are constant. I have no idea what you do for a living, but let's hypothetically say you're a tire specialist. You know a LOT about tires. Let's say you know that BF Goodrich Model XYZ should be inflated to a range of Q to T PSI pressure. Then let's say that you saw reported in the news that in a certain case, the BF Goodrich model XYZ tires were inflated to within R to S PSI. Would you know, without knowing all of the specifics of a case, that a pressure level of R to S was within normal guidelines for that tire? Of course you would.

Some things are universal. If you're representing a client in a case, the nature of the case and plaintiff makes a HUGE difference in what kind of factfinder you choose. If it's a case where your client that has been injured through no fault of his own but has a really bad criminal record, has lots of previous convictions for crimes of moral turpitude, and looks like the love-child of John Gotti and Lucretia Borgia when he wears a suit, you simply don't request a jury trial, because your client is not sympathetic. If, on the other hand, your client is a nice little girl who looks adorable in her nice little dress and who was born with cerebral palsey that you're trying to blame on the doctor and his insurance company even though it's not really the doctor's fault, you ask for a trial by jury. This is BASIC stuff.

smooth · 10-26-2004, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Once again, we're back to the "please don't distort what I said" part of the thread. Some things are constant. I have no idea what you do for a living, but let's hypothetically say you're a tire specialist. You know a LOT about tires. Let's say you know that BF Goodrich Model XYZ should be inflated to a range of Q to T PSI pressure. Then let's say that you saw reported in the news that in a certain case, the BF Goodrich model XYZ tires were inflated to within R to S PSI. Would you know, without knowing all of the specifics of a case, that a pressure level of R to S was within normal guidelines for that tire? Of course you would.

Some things are universal. If you're representing a client in a case, the nature of the case and plaintiff makes a HUGE difference in what kind of factfinder you choose. If it's a case where your client that has been injured through no fault of his own but has a really bad criminal record, has lots of previous convictions for crimes of moral turpitude, and looks like the love-child of John Gotti and Lucretia Borgia when he wears a suit, you simply don't request a jury trial, because your client is not sympathetic. If, on the other hand, your client is a nice little girl who looks adorable in her nice little dress and who was born with cerebral palsey that you're trying to blame on the doctor and his insurance company even though it's not really the doctor's fault, you ask for a trial by jury. This is BASIC stuff.

What I'm curious about is, given the fact that you claim to be a trial attorney, you are leaving out a huge whole in the arguement that doesn't support your stance.

Please inform us how many cases are adjudicated versus settled?

As an attorney, you know full well those cases aren't going to show up in case law. (and I'm going to suspect you also know the figure is well over 90%)

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Once again, we're back to the "please don't distort what I said" part of the thread. Some things are constant. I have no idea what you do for a living, but let's hypothetically say you're a tire specialist. You know a LOT about tires. Let's say you know that BF Goodrich Model XYZ should be inflated to a range of Q to T PSI pressure. Then let's say that you saw reported in the news that in a certain case, the BF Goodrich model XYZ tires were inflated to within R to S PSI. Would you know, without knowing all of the specifics of a case, that a pressure level of R to S was within normal guidelines for that tire? Of course you would.

Some things are universal. If you're representing a client in a case, the nature of the case and plaintiff makes a HUGE difference in what kind of factfinder you choose. If it's a case where your client that has been injured through no fault of his own but has a really bad criminal record, has lots of previous convictions for crimes of moral turpitude, and looks like the love-child of John Gotti and Lucretia Borgia when he wears a suit, you simply don't request a jury trial, because your client is not sympathetic. If, on the other hand, your client is a nice little girl who looks adorable in her nice little dress and who was born with cerebral palsey that you're trying to blame on the doctor and his insurance company even though it's not really the doctor's fault, you ask for a trial by jury. This is BASIC stuff.

Of course, but until you have any backing evidence assumptions are just that. Isn't that obvious?

daswig · 10-26-2004, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Of course, but until you have any backing evidence assumptions are just that. Isn't that obvious?

Was Edwards a competent trial attorney? If he pulled in 100 million dollars in his relatively short career, he was a hell of an attorney. That indicates that he's not a total fool. And only a total fool would argue that kind of PI case in a bench trial. Additionally, there is zip, zero, NADA chance that he would have gotten the kinds of judgements required to amass 100 MILLION dollars in contingency fees from judges. It's a simple impossibility, unless his clients were something on the order of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki going after the US government in a class action lawsuit, and I'd have heard about something like that. From what has been reported in the media (100 million in fees, PI trial attorney, working med-mal cases) he WAS trying cases in front of juries, he WAS getting large verdicts, they WERE outside of normal guidelines for that kind of injury, and it COULD NOT HELP but affect insurance premiums (we're talking a minimum of 1/5 of a BILLION dollars here). These are not assumptions, any more than it's an assumption that when I drop my shoe, it's going to fall to the ground.

cthulu23 · 10-26-2004, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Was Edwards a competent trial attorney? If he pulled in 100 million dollars in his relatively short career, he was a hell of an attorney. That indicates that he's not a total fool. And only a total fool would argue that kind of PI case in a bench trial. Additionally, there is zip, zero, NADA chance that he would have gotten the kinds of judgements required to amass 100 MILLION dollars in contingency fees from judges. It's a simple impossibility, unless his clients were something on the order of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki going after the US government in a class action lawsuit, and I'd have heard about something like that. From what has been reported in the media (100 million in fees, PI trial attorney, working med-mal cases) he WAS trying cases in front of juries, he WAS getting large verdicts, they WERE outside of normal guidelines for that kind of injury, and it COULD NOT HELP but affect insurance premiums (we're talking a minimum of 1/5 of a BILLION dollars here). These are not assumptions, any more than it's an assumption that when I drop my shoe, it's going to fall to the ground.

So we assume that his cases were poor and that he somehow cheated the system?

bling · 10-26-2004, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulu23

So we assume that his cases were poor and that he somehow cheated the system?

That's what it seems like daswig is claiming, isn't it?

A guy got rich off his work, so he must be a despicable cheat.

Mephisto2 · 10-26-2004, 10:52 PM

What does that mean for Bush?

No wait, he didn't get rich off his work, he was rewarded by Papa's cronies.

Mr Mephisto

PS - Yeah yeah, and Kerry "married up"

daswig · 10-26-2004, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

That's what it seems like daswig is claiming, isn't it?

A guy got rich off his work, so he must be a despicable cheat.

Have you ever heard of the term "unjust enrichment"?

cthulu23 · 10-27-2004, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Have you ever heard of the term "unjust enrichment"?

Sure. And how does that apply to Edwards?

Look, all I'm trying to say is that bashing him without actually knowing any details of his cases is unfair...unless the goal is simply to smear him regardless of the details of his cases. Let's not forget Tucker Carlson's horribly inaccurate "jacuzzi cases" remark.

rukkyg · 10-27-2004, 06:16 AM

I'd like to know how much profit insurance companies are making, how much their payouts have changed in the past few years, and how much premiums have changed.

Willravel · 10-27-2004, 08:07 AM

I really wouldn't worry about the whole flu shot thing. In actuality, the particular shot you're looking for doesn't even match the strain his year (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36677). Aslo, it contains mercury (http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/28112003/n1.shtml). BTW, it is said that that amound of mercury is not fatal, but it can make people very sick. It also contains aluminum and formaldehyde (http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/flushots.html).

Why don't people actually do research before injecting themselves with something?

Aluminum's effect on the body: Aluminum was injected (i.p.) as aluminum sulphate (4, 40 and 100 mg/kg body weight, n = 5 per group) daily into day-old White Leghorn male chicks for 7, 15 and 30 days. Aluminum (Al) treatment (100 mg dose) to chicks over 7 and 30 days resulted in a decrease in activities of cytosolic total and CN(-)-sensitive superoxide dismutase (SOD) in the cerebral hemisphere (CH). In the 15-day treated group, activities of cytosolic total, CN(-)-sensitive and CN(-)-insensitive SOD of CH were decreased in response to all doses of Al. In the liver, activities of cytosolic total and CN(-)-sensitive SOD were decreased in response to all doses of Al treatment for 7 and 15 days. But 40 and 100 mg doses were effective in decreasing activities of the enzymes in the 30-day treated group. The catalase (CAT) activity of CH of chicks was inhibited by all doses of Al under treatment for 7 days, but was inhibited only in the case of the 100 mg dose when the duration of treatment was increased to 15 days. The inhibition was again observed in chicks treated for 30 days in response to 40 and 100 mg doses. CAT activity of liver of chicks was decreased in response to all doses of Al in the 7-day treated group and in response to 40 and 100 mg doses in the 15- and 30-day treated groups. Al treatment did not affect lipid peroxide levels of CH and liver of chicks. These results suggest that decrease in activities in SOD and CAT in CH and liver of the chicks after Al treatment constitutes one of the factors for the mechanism of tissue injury by Al.

Formaldehyde's effect on the body: we all know from those cigarette commercials, don't we.

Mercury: Mercury has been linked to mood swings, nervous system damage, severe kidney damage, brain damage, liver failure, and nausea.

Enjoy waiting in line.

10-26-2004, 05:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
D Rice Tilted	Flu Vaccine and Edwards Almost half of the nation's flu vaccine will not be delivered this year, because Chiron, a major manufacturer of the vaccine, was halted from producing. Chiron was to make 46-48 million doses for the United States. However, as a British company, their health officials in Briton stopped Chiron from distributing and making the vaccine when inspectors found unsanitary conditions in their labs. Most of the vaccine was recalled and destroyed. Why is our Vaccine made in the UK versus the USA: The major pharmaceutical companies in the USA provided almost 90% of our nation's flu vaccine at one time. And, they did this despite a very low profit margin for the product. Basically, they were doing us a favor. In the late 1980's a man from North Carolina, who had received the vaccine, got the flu. The strain he caught was one of the strains in that year's vaccine that was produced by a US company. What did he do? He sued and won. He was awarded almost $5 million. After that case was both appealed and lost again, most US pharmaceutical companies immediately stopped making the vaccine. The liability out-weighed the profit margin. Since the UK and Canadian laws prohibit such frivolous law suits, both countries have companies that are selling and profiting from their sales in the US. Again, Why The Shortage: Because Chiron had to destroy product versus selling it to the USA........and US companies stopped producing due to the liability. By The Way: The lawyer that represented the man in the flu shot law suit was John Edwards. Since Hillary Clinton was complaining bitterly yesterday about how our current government could have such a shortage, perhaps she should talk to the Vice Presidential candidate.

10-26-2004, 05:27 PM	#3 (permalink)
God of Thunder Talk nerdy to me Location: Flint, MI	Check the facts before posting. __________________ I reject your reality, and substitute my own -- Adam Savage

10-26-2004, 05:42 PM	#5 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	Dead in the water. __________________ Bad Luck City

10-26-2004, 06:05 PM	#8 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Edwards is responsible for more needless C sections, but no idea about the flu thing. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-26-2004, 06:51 PM	#13 (permalink)
jonjon42 Psycho Location: inside my own mind	daswig 2 things one the c-section thing is a bit exagerrated but true. I come from a family of doctors and (may) become one myself. I don't like his past as a malpractice lawyer at all. Yet, I don't think he will have a huge amount of policy control over Kerry. Second thing is that we are not discussing the C-section thing, we are discussing the blatently wrong flu-vaccine information. (the big reason really is, is that no money is really in the flu vaccine market.) yes snopes is not god, but neither is anything else ALWAYS CHECK FACTS snope is even tells people to check facts (look in "Lost Legends" section) __________________ A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

10-26-2004, 05:16 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	So it's Edwards' fault? Can't say I've heard that argument before. Mr Mephisto

10-26-2004, 06:00 PM	#6 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	The moral of the story is, don't believe everything that lands in your inbox. I can tell you that those damn "enlargement" pills don't work at all.....ummm, because a friend told me so.

10-26-2004, 06:51 PM	#14 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Can someone eduated me on the c-section thing? Thanks, Mr Mephisto

10-26-2004, 07:06 PM	#16 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	The bit about c-sections becoming more common for liability reasons is absolutely true. I say this both as a J.D. and as a recent father. When we suggested that we might want to have a c-section to my wife's OB/GYN, her response was "OK, no problem, let's schedule it." Not "Why do you want to do that", or "it's more risky to have a c-section", just a flat-out "let's do it". We're both glad we did it that way (our daughter was 8 pounds 14 oz, facing the wrong way, and my wife's first child, so it would have been a brutal delivery) but my wife kind-of missed having a natural childbirth. As for Edwards, well, who can say? Some doctors have reportedly stopped practicing in his stomping grounds because of some of the outrageous verdicts he brought in for his clients based upon faulty testimony, but who can say for sure? Is ANYBODY here SERIOUSLY thinking of changing their votes because of Edwards and Cheney?

10-26-2004, 07:17 PM	#20 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Fact is Edwards made his money suing innocent doctors and the results of said lawsuits have done nothing to help infants and have only raised the chance of harm to the mother. Scumbag shyster, no matter how you look at it. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-26-2004, 10:10 PM	#28 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	let us at least "attempt" to show civility and respect for each other....guys this is going nowhere. I will search out the records if required...but lets make this debate work __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-26-2004, 10:52 PM	#35 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	What does that mean for Bush? No wait, he didn't get rich off his work, he was rewarded by Papa's cronies. Mr Mephisto PS - Yeah yeah, and Kerry "married up"

10-27-2004, 06:16 AM	#38 (permalink)
rukkyg Loser Location: RPI, Troy, NY	I'd like to know how much profit insurance companies are making, how much their payouts have changed in the past few years, and how much premiums have changed.

10-27-2004, 08:07 AM	#39 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I really wouldn't worry about the whole flu shot thing. In actuality, the particular shot you're looking for doesn't even match the strain his year (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=36677). Aslo, it contains mercury (http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/28112003/n1.shtml). BTW, it is said that that amound of mercury is not fatal, but it can make people very sick. It also contains aluminum and formaldehyde (http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/flushots.html). Why don't people actually do research before injecting themselves with something? Aluminum's effect on the body: Aluminum was injected (i.p.) as aluminum sulphate (4, 40 and 100 mg/kg body weight, n = 5 per group) daily into day-old White Leghorn male chicks for 7, 15 and 30 days. Aluminum (Al) treatment (100 mg dose) to chicks over 7 and 30 days resulted in a decrease in activities of cytosolic total and CN(-)-sensitive superoxide dismutase (SOD) in the cerebral hemisphere (CH). In the 15-day treated group, activities of cytosolic total, CN(-)-sensitive and CN(-)-insensitive SOD of CH were decreased in response to all doses of Al. In the liver, activities of cytosolic total and CN(-)-sensitive SOD were decreased in response to all doses of Al treatment for 7 and 15 days. But 40 and 100 mg doses were effective in decreasing activities of the enzymes in the 30-day treated group. The catalase (CAT) activity of CH of chicks was inhibited by all doses of Al under treatment for 7 days, but was inhibited only in the case of the 100 mg dose when the duration of treatment was increased to 15 days. The inhibition was again observed in chicks treated for 30 days in response to 40 and 100 mg doses. CAT activity of liver of chicks was decreased in response to all doses of Al in the 7-day treated group and in response to 40 and 100 mg doses in the 15- and 30-day treated groups. Al treatment did not affect lipid peroxide levels of CH and liver of chicks. These results suggest that decrease in activities in SOD and CAT in CH and liver of the chicks after Al treatment constitutes one of the factors for the mechanism of tissue injury by Al. Formaldehyde's effect on the body: we all know from those cigarette commercials, don't we. Mercury: Mercury has been linked to mood swings, nervous system damage, severe kidney damage, brain damage, liver failure, and nausea. Enjoy waiting in line.