Originally Posted by yellowpansy
I always think there is a correlation between someone's spelling, especially when they readily acknowledge in public threads that they do not have much education, and their understanding of scientific information. Not always as some highly intelligent, well-educated persons are bad spellers simply because they type hurriedly. But, others are poor spellers because they simply do not know better. Those types need to educate themselves on all fronts. Then, perhaps both their understanding of the science as well as their spelling will improve.
Ahhhh. If you're a poor speller, it's possible that you lack knowledge of everything. If you're a good speller, you're highly intelligent and well-educated. Got it.
I'm concerned that some pro-vax folks are so stuck on this "science" thing, and yet have not addressed simple concerns like:
why does my 6'3", 280lb husband get the same dose of any vaccine that an 8lb baby would?
why can't we put the funding into more effectively treating childhood disease?
why can't infants (and adults) be titered for immunity? (Wouldn't that be an easy way to effectively test a large population for an idea of exactly how effective vaccines are? AND eventually eliminate the need for boostering?)
why does my child need to be put at risk for permanent, life-long health problems or death when modern medicine can now easily and quickly treat childhood disease to prevent complications?
Dr. Jean Dodds, the foremost vaccine expert (IMO) in veterinary medicine is working to do a huge rabies study that involves exposing both unvaccinated and vaccinated animals to rabies to test the efficacy. Now, it seems that such a trial in humans would indeed be unethical, however, is it necessary? Why can't they do a study of vaccinated children and titer them over a long period of time? Wouldn't this give us much-needed information regarding the number of boosters require, the true efficacy, etc?