x
Click to expand
Latest users (1): subtard, anonymous(1).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#4075 - kingalaric (02/09/2015) [-]
**kingalaric used "*roll picture*"**
**kingalaric rolled image**

Hello science community of funny junk. I have a proposition that may resolve the whole vaccine controversy.
Now, regardless of what studies have been said to show on the effect of the mercury in vaccines have on the human body, people seem to mistrust the vaccines because of the mercury. Although many people disagree with this, I can understand that the parents are probably very worried that their child might be harmed due to the vaccine. So they refuse to take the vaccine but also put their child at a potential risk for disease. So could we not feasibly compile a list of vaccines which do not contain the ingredients that people worry about, thus we can make a list of trusted alternatives that people can use. This will ensure their children's safety, and ensure their happiness. Both sides are happy.
User avatar #4092 to #4075 - lolpandas (02/11/2015) [-]
It's pretty damn ridiculous that there are still anti-vax people but that side of the argument should not be humored. So no, I don't think we should find a middle ground for them. I was recently in a class wide debate/discussion about this and although it was in a bio class, a good quarter of them still believed in some kind of anti-vax stuff, including:
You weaken your natural immune system.
The vaccine will "mutate" and get you sick.
Diseases, by nature, mutate so it's pointless since you'll get sick anyway.
The vaccine itself makes you sick.
muh freedom
thimerosal, etc.
It was weird to see when every argument got shot down, people still insisted on the dangers. They could not back up any argument except with "I read that" or "I knew a guy who knew a guy" stuff, most of them incoherently blabbed on about something or another but could not complete a valid (or even slightly comprehensible) argument. What I'm trying to say is that even if we did a pre-vaccination allergy test for thimerosal, it would be pointless. There are already alternatives w/o the preservative (I think some pediatric doses). I'm not going state every reason why people would still be against childhood-vaccination and argue the point, but it really comes down to people's ignorance.

On your second point about MMR and the related side effects:
Any foreign substance can illicit a reaction. By nature, you have to have some kind of response to a vaccine if you are to create memory B and T cells. There will always be a small % of uncertainty that cannot be avoided. Even if they aren't allergic to thimerosal, they could still experience a negative reaction that is dependent of their own health. If you were to strip any vaccine down to the very essential piece required to build an immunity and build a perfect method of vaccination that would not illicit any negative response, you would still get that very small % that would become sick because of their own body.
I'd love to see us get to the point were we could screen for every variable before taking any kind of medicine but we aren't at that point yet and everyone has to suck it up and take their vaccines so we can maintain our herd immunity.
User avatar #4094 to #4092 - kingalaric (02/11/2015) [-]
The hydrolized gelatin, to make things clear. Is a substance that can be taken by mouth to improve skin and join health. But some people experience the adverse effects similar to the ones described that were caused by the vaccines. So to gain the trust of the people, we ought to get rid of the metals. To gain the highest possible safety, we ought to get rid of hydrolyzed gelatin. Sure, people may still react negatively, but it will be a lot more trusted if we were to do that. I am no scientist, and if I was I would definitely conduct experiments right away. But from what I have read, I think that the best course of action would be an ultimate compromise.
User avatar #4093 to #4092 - kingalaric (02/11/2015) [-]
I actually did my research to see what people worried about and I have found an ingredient which is in even thimerosal and alluminum free vaccines. It is called hydrolyzed gelatin. This has been known to cause nerve damage in some people, often resulting in paralysis. My middle ground solutions is to find alternative vaccines that anti vaxxers can trust. So far the best one I can find is the MMR II vaccine which has no mercury or alluminum in it like the anti vaxxers fear. But it does have hydrolyzed gelatin which I think is probably more worrying than the mercury. If we can make an effort to change the ingredients in order to earn more public trust, then we solved the issue right there. Forcing a vaccine onto someone will only result in more conflict and conspiracy theorists. If the scientists are ultimately out for public well being then they shouldn't actually have a problem with that idea.
User avatar #4097 to #4093 - lolpandas (02/12/2015) [-]
I 100% agree with increasing research into safer alternatives, however it's easier said than done. The NIH and WHO have funneled a ridiculous amount of money already into vaccine research and the stuff out there being pushed is the stuff that works. Are there better things out there with lower risks? For some things yes. Will your insurance cover it? Probably not. The best way to go about it is to educate the public and so far that has gone well, but a growing trend of not vaccinating kids is permitting outbreaks like the one at Disney. We are going to witness many more like it, which is unfortunate because it's so easily avoidable.

On a diffident note, how safe do you think you would have to make this alternative? I have trouble believing we could ever get everyone to take any kind of medication if given the choice.
User avatar #4098 to #4097 - kingalaric (02/12/2015) [-]
I think if the vaccine was safe enough to not cause potential harm such as paralysis and nerve damage (which has been proven to happen to some patients) or potential autism like the claims that people are making, at least 95% would take it like is what required. I know that it can't be 100% safe, and I know it would be expensive. Nonetheless, if the health care industry cares as much as it claims to, then money should not be an issue. Would it not?
User avatar #4100 to #4098 - lolpandas (02/12/2015) [-]
Money is absolutely an issue. It shouldn't be when concerning our health and it's absolutely disgusting to see the current state of the pharmaceutical industry but it's difficult to get around. The whole business runs around a lot of money. You've got companies trying to make money to keep afloat, expand, advance, then make more money; you've got people spending absurd amounts of money on a degree that will hopefully give them a comfortable life; people gambling all this money on research sinkholes and companies that don't want to invest because research could turn out one way or the other. The list goes on; and then there's the average person, making an average income that needs their medicine like everyone else, but a lot of money was involved in making that medicine. I'm happy it's not entirely that way and we've made great strides in research regardless but the health care industry follows the money like everyone else. It's improving along the way, at least I'd like to think so.
User avatar #4085 to #4075 - skoldpaddacommala ONLINE (02/10/2015) [-]
www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t1
From what I see, there is an alternative for just about everything.
User avatar #4086 to #4085 - kingalaric (02/10/2015) [-]
This can help so much to the solution.
User avatar #4087 to #4086 - skoldpaddacommala ONLINE (02/10/2015) [-]
Now if we can just teach people to read...
User avatar #4088 to #4087 - kingalaric (02/10/2015) [-]
MMR 2 has no thimerosal, so this can be promising. The side effects due to allergies is what is worrying people though. In some cases, albeit rare ones according to rxlist, people suffer from things such as paralysis. So what I think the scientists and doctors should do, is look into is find people who are allergic to the vaccine, and administer some sort of alternative that they won't have such a reaction to.
www.rxlist.com/m-m-r-ii-side-effects-drug-center.htm

So in reality, parents do have some reason to be concerned, so we should look into finding a way to get around this.
#4076 to #4075 - anonymous (02/09/2015) [-]
These people do not care about what's in the vaccines, because they don't understand chemistry. They care that somebody else is telling them what's best for them, and they won't have that.
If you were to do this, you might only convince the dumbest of the current generation, before a new generation of tin-foilers jumps up that finds new excuses and conspiracies to blame on 'the governmen't and 'the big pharma'
#4073 - randomnameone (02/09/2015) [-]
teacher gave us this and asked us for the corresponding truth table, the output expression and also what single gate gives the same final input thanks in advance
User avatar #4074 to #4073 - kebabs (02/09/2015) [-]
0,0-->0
0,1-->1
1,0-->1
1,1-->0
XOR gate gives the same shit
#4072 - anonymous (02/09/2015) [-]
I get really pissed off when people say quantum physics is unpredictable therefore random
How the hell can something be random, but the collection of that something not be?
#4077 to #4072 - anonymous (02/09/2015) [-]
it's called 'the average'...
User avatar #4068 - luigipimp (02/07/2015) [-]
if the universe is infinitely big, can another big bang happen somewhere else?
User avatar #4123 to #4068 - gmarrox ONLINE (02/16/2015) [-]
The universe both is and isn't infinite. The observable universe is finite and we have rough estimates as to its size. The unobservable universe (the space outside of or disconnected from our universe) is possibly infinite, but another big bang in a separate point in this space would more likely represent an entirely new universe altogether.
User avatar #4125 to #4123 - luigipimp (02/16/2015) [-]
another big bang away of all the galaxies spiralling from the point of where our big bang happened
User avatar #4126 to #4125 - gmarrox ONLINE (02/16/2015) [-]
Well the idea is that our universe will expand until it collapses back in on itself into what scientists call the "Big Crunch" (dumb name imho) and then that will become the next Big Bang.
User avatar #4127 to #4126 - luigipimp (02/16/2015) [-]
maybe thats how we can get parallel universe by having more than one big bang happen in the empty spaces of the same universe. i hope you guys understand my wording lol
#4069 to #4068 - zanntaggerung (02/08/2015) [-]
It might not be infinitely large, just so big compared to us (and growing larger still) that we can consider it that way. And it's hard to imagine another "big bang" can happen when the original big bang came from all the matter in the universe condensed to a singularity. If the universe stops expanding and collapses back to a singularity, maybe we'll get another.
User avatar #4071 to #4069 - compared (02/08/2015) [-]
Thanks for using a comparison, hope you are well.
User avatar #4070 to #4069 - luigipimp (02/08/2015) [-]
infinite big i mean it keeps going past all the galaxies and just isnt anything there into infinity
#4064 - anonymous (02/05/2015) [-]
Meaning is contrived by humans as an explanation for why we do what we do. What our subjective meaning boils down to is desire.

Animals have desires, too. They desire to control their territory and kill competitors, to mate, to reproduce, etc. Yet animals don’t have meaning in their lives because they aren’t complex enough to create it as an explanation for what they do. We are, therefore we have it. Or so we think.
User avatar #4066 to #4064 - sugoi (02/06/2015) [-]
That isn't science that's philosophy.
Go take that shit to Paranormal.
User avatar #4062 - fukinitech (02/05/2015) [-]
do you guys know what i i could major in in college that deals with animals, like those guys you see o documentaries talking about the animals, i love animals and would like to have a job dealing with them but idk if it would be a dumb thing to pursue because it isnt important (ex. puppetry) and if it would make enough money to live off of
User avatar #4063 to #4062 - choobe (02/05/2015) [-]
What do you need to become a vetrenarian veteranian animal doctor? There's almost certainly some fields under biology if you want to study them instead?
User avatar #4065 to #4063 - fukinitech (02/06/2015) [-]
i wouldn't want to deal with surgery of animals and all that but i would love to work with animals
#4078 to #4065 - anonymous (02/09/2015) [-]
if you want to work with animals, you'll have to learn to deal with them being aggressive, filthy, getting sick and dying in violent and horrible, painfull ways.
welcome to the animal kingdom, it's going to be a bumpy ride
(also, from experience, every single biology course in university involves disections, usually on live animals)
#4061 - anonymous (02/05/2015) [-]
becoming the nihilist
#4060 - theism (02/03/2015) [-]
How much pain would a high velocity super ball cause to a person and how would one minimize said pain?
#4058 - anonymous (02/03/2015) [-]
Who lives in QUEENS and is interested in a girl who loves science, but doesn't really know that much? I'm 5'4, short hair, um ... I love chocolate and Lou Reed, Can I get hooked up? "IM A GAL" I also wear fedoras.
User avatar #4057 - phoenixforger (02/03/2015) [-]
Anyone know any good books about mathematics, mathematicians, or similar topics?
I've been reading "Love and Math" by Edward Frankel, and it's great.
#4079 to #4057 - anonymous (02/09/2015) [-]
not about maths per se, but Asimov is a really good scientific novellist
#4051 - dudeheit (02/02/2015) [-]
Studying for my exams and I came across osmosis in the kidney. Nothing special but damn am I confused. Specific I am confused about the osmotical pressure.
The hypertonic solution against a hypotonic solution. The molecules or whatever flow from hypo to hyper but why exactly? I thought that because of the higher concentration in the hypertonic solution the flow would have been towards the hypotonic solution which has a lower concentration?
I should get this because this is basic stuff but right now I feel like a retard, can anyone help me?
#4080 to #4051 - anonymous (02/09/2015) [-]
I always fucked up on that one as well. Your description is rather vague but are you sure it's not the water that's moving instead of the solutes?
#4059 to #4051 - anonymous (02/03/2015) [-]
Try Meth.
User avatar #4049 - darealsnooki ONLINE (02/02/2015) [-]
What temperature is mint?
User avatar #4056 to #4049 - tarfyki (02/03/2015) [-]
It's the exact same reason spicy foods taste hot. Mint is pretty much the opposite of spice. (not exactly, but close enough)
User avatar #4050 to #4049 - darealsnooki ONLINE (02/02/2015) [-]
sciencexplain, if you're online
User avatar #4052 to #4050 - sciencexplain (02/02/2015) [-]
I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you're serious here. In that case, be more specific. Why do you want to know? Is it the effect it has on the senses? Should you be enquiring about menthol instead?
User avatar #4053 to #4052 - darealsnooki ONLINE (02/02/2015) [-]
I want to know, because it seems interesting to find out why mint is hot and cold at the same time. Why every time mint is orally present, that water feels a lot cooler. This very well could have something to do with the senses, and there is more information supporting that, of course.

I also feel like that this is an out-of-the-box type of question, and for other people who ask it, I can answer. Like "teach a man to fish"
User avatar #4054 to #4053 - sciencexplain (02/02/2015) [-]
My guess is that the cold/hot temperature sensation is a result of the anaesthetic properties of menthol. It is local, so it makes things go numb, altering the senses.
User avatar #4055 to #4054 - darealsnooki ONLINE (02/02/2015) [-]
Thanks, mang
#4046 - anonymous (01/31/2015) [-]
Life does not exist. You don't have a soul or spirit. You're nothing more than a bunch of atoms, no different than a quantum computer, and you'll stop existing when you die.

You are just a machine that will brake down one day -- is that so hard to understand? You have no value, worth, meaning, or anything. When you permanently die, it'll be as if you never existed on earth. So why does right or wrong against you matter in that sense? Emotions and feelings are an illusion created by your brain. You are a bunch of atoms, nothing more than that. Living/life do not exist in a physical sense, the atoms in your brain are arranged in such a way so you think that you are life or something else other than a bunch of atoms.
#4045 - anonymous (01/31/2015) [-]
Just because humans have arbitrary categories and give those things that fall under those categories names, that doesn't make doing something that fall under those categories wrong or right. What is life and what isn't life is nothing more than your imagination. So if I "kill" "someone", it's only because you think that something is living. Also what you believe is right or wrong is all your imagination as well. There is no universal right or wrong to things, right or wrong doesn't physically exist like atoms do.
#4044 - anonymous (01/31/2015) [-]
I am not "alive", I am just a bunch of atoms. Life doesn't exist, it is a term that is a secondary quality.
#4041 - istrollid (01/30/2015) [-]
join the stoner board www.funnyjunk.com/hobby/
0
#4040 - istrollid has deleted their comment [-]
0
#4036 - pitchdark has deleted their comment [-]
#4038 to #4036 - dijonmustardgas (01/30/2015) [-]
no, there isn't a way to manipulate outcome of chance, you can calculate likelyhood, but that is still a chance
User avatar #4032 - choobe (01/30/2015) [-]
We know that there is no "absolute reference frame" when measuring speed, it's relative to the observer. Right? So, to me in the car the human on the road approaches me at 80 km/t, and to him, I approach him. While we both see usself as standing still.

So my question is; if two spaceships were traveling at 0.6c c = speed of light towards each other, wouldn't they, from their reference frame see the other ship approaching faster than light? Why isn't this breaking the speed limit? I see how it logically works, but I've always been told that the speed of light can never, ever be broken in any reference frame.

sciencexplain
#4033 to #4032 - quatre (01/30/2015) [-]
You're forgetting the Lorentz transformation of velocity for relativistic speeds:

V(corrected)=(V1-V2)/(1-V1*V2/C^2)
where, in this case, V1 is .6c and V2 is -.6c

because of space compression we get that each ship would see the other at ~%88.24 the speed of light

hope this helps
User avatar #4048 to #4033 - sciencexplain (02/01/2015) [-]
Thank you for stepping in. You did a kickass job.
User avatar #4039 to #4033 - lorentz (01/30/2015) [-]
One doesn't simply forgets about Lorentz transformation
User avatar #4030 - dcmp (01/30/2015) [-]
Is there anyone here that doesn't support string theory? Or maybe not that at least doesn't support the idea of higher dimensions 5 and upwards?
 Friends (0)