segnosaur

I myself never claimed that "police-reported" crime is totally useless. But, there are problems when those figures are used to compare crime rates in different countries. Different countries may have different ways of classifying and reporting crimes. (For example, one jurisdiction may have a different definition of "sexual assault" than another. Heck, the definition may even differ from state to state in the U.S.) Surveys themselves may not be perfect, but they do have advantages to police-reported statistics, the chief advantage is that it eliminates the trouble of having different definitions for what constitutes a crime in the different countries. Is there any reason why you'd consider such surveys "useless"? As for crime severity falling, I agree... it has. But its fallen both in Canada and the U.S. Whatever the reason, it probably isn't something that's something unique to what Canada is doing.

I found an interesting one on the skeptic website. Ummm... THE skeptic website? Can you be more specific? There are at least 3 that I access on a fairly regular basis, not to mention several others that I've viewed from time to time. Reference please. (I have noticed a trend... whenever you ask for references, you always seem to end up providing the most steaming pile of useless cr*p, like when you talked about how the death rate was unaffected by vaccination, but referred only to a time frame when vaccinations were already common. I rather suspect this particular request will likewise result in a lot of junk.) Wait a sec... are you really judging the safety of the flu by equating vaccine side effects that don't result in death with actual influenza morality? Do you really think such comparisons are fair? Should you not be comparing things which are equivalent in their seriousness (such as deaths due to vaccination vs. deaths due to the flu, or hospitalizations due to vaccination vs. hospitalization due to the flu)? Or....one could recognize them as opinions. Ummm... where did I say they weren't opinions? I only pointed out that they were uninformed opinions, based on ignorance, and should be treated as such. Well, if you are the one deciding what real evidence is then you are the one deciding when dissent is warranted. Nope, that's the beauty of science. I am not deciding anything. Believe it or not, "science" is not some monolithic entity, and while in some cases some ideals start with only a minority of adherents, eventually the correct ones win out. Believe it or not, its happened over and over in science. Ah, the annoying sound of ignorance. Actually, designing a study to control for those variables is actually quite easy... create a double-blind study with a proper control group (usually involving placebos). In any large sample size, variations due to unexpected factors get filtered out. I'd suggest you take a few basic statistics courses. I see... so you don't want funding from drug companies, and you complain about "the government" because they were the ones supposedly causing the panic over H1N1. So, just who do you think should be funding studies into things like drug and vaccine effectiveness? And once again, your complete and utter hypocracy is noted... you once again complain about the funding of scientific studies, yet earlier you accepted the word of a web site who directly sold sham products to consumers. And why should they be? They should be a little skeptical, as their name implies, I would think. Ummm... you do realize that the term 'skeptic' is not the same as 'cynic'. As I've explained before, being a skeptic does not necessarily mean you automatically view any and all data as untrustworthy. You examine the evidence, judge the reliability of the source, determine if there are potential errors, and apply basic logic. Who is implying that all people who are laughed at are geniuses? Nobody is suggesting that. But we ARE pointing out the foolishness of assuming some people are geniuses, when they can't provide the evidence to back up their foolish opinions. Nope, its the trait of the skeptic to evaluate evidence. The fact that you have provided absolutely none (other than bizarre rants bordering on conspiracy theories, and a failure to recognize flawed logic) doesn't mean that real evidence gets ignored. I think there are only a few flat-earthers left, if any and it probably could be mentioned for historical interest. Why should the number of believers in a flat-earth matter? If your claim is that "Oh big bad science is squashing truths" then how do you know that some lone flat-earth believer isn't right and his ideas aren't being surpressed by the big bad astronomers and geologists trying to protect their research grants based on the idea of a round earth? And if that's the case, we should be prepared to teach his theories. Ignorance (either will-full or unintentional) combined with indoctrination from a a young age and a lack of critical thinking skills. It isn't telling me that. I don't get that from their studies on influenza vaccines. I see... So, just wondering, what exactly do you think is happening when they take a large group of very similar people, give half a vaccine and half a placebo, and the half that gets a vaccine gets few cases of the flu? Do you think that the placebo they give is actually poison? Do you think that there are evil spirits that get transferred in the injection? Never claimed that we could get rid of the flu. It mutates too quickly when compared to other viruses. But we can cut down on the number of cases and he number of deaths. More than likely the objective would be to kill off those who get the shot. Except that study after study (some funded by drug companies, some funded by hospitals, and some by government and international agencies) have shown that people who receive the flu vaccine tend to catch the flu less often and die than those who don't get the vaccine. They haven't proven to me they are effective... So, the dozen or so studies I've posted where they inject the vaccine into people and they get less cases of illness than those who don't get vaccinated isn't evidence enough for you? What exactly would you find convincing? (I've already pointed to evidence that shows lower death rates now that we vaccinate against the flu than from decades ago when there was no such vaccination.) Straw man. I never claimed they were safe. Over and over again, I have always used phrases like "no significant side effects. The fact that you would lie and claim I said they were "entirely" safe is rather indicative of your understanding of the issue. Yes, there are risks of taking the vaccine. However the danger posed by any side effects is miniscule compared to the danger of not getting vaccinated and catching the flu. Please try not to lie and build up any straw men. Ummm, my irony meter just exploded. You claim you are "precise", yet you: - Falsely state that I claim vaccines are "entirely" safe. - Claim a challenge made by an anti-vaccination scam site is evidence that vaccinations don't work, while ignoring the fact that they set up the rules of the challenge with contradictory conditions which guarantee that it can never be won - Regularly mis-use the term 'skeptic' So, where exactly is your 'precision'? While it may be effective, hand washing alone is not as effective as hand-washing+vaccination. Of course, the problem is, it may not be effective in stopping the flu. You see, the influenza virus is best transmitted when the virus can enter tissue deeper in the body. Hand washing will stop germ transmission to the skin and tissue closer to the surface, but that's never been a common mechanism for the influenza virus. Yup... most of that 'doubt' comes from sites that are trying to sell natural products, or people that have been convicted of fraud. Remember one of the rules of a skeptic? Evaluate the source of data... Yes, especially if those non-science beliefs actually end up lowering the quality of life and/or cause death.

Ummm... you do realize that Rick Mercer Report is a comedy show, not a news program, right? (Not that political satire can't be accurate, but given a choice between laughs and accuracy, laughs will often win out.) As another poster indicated, the government is now going ahead with at least some of the work on the armored vehicle program... See: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?m=/index&nid=546469 As for other parts of the program, it appears that the main cause of the delay may be the lack of experienced procurement officers within the Department of Defense. (Since the military doesn't make large purchases very often, they didn't have people with the background in handling thins like requirements documents.) See: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/armoured+army+vehicles+make+Canadian/3415534/story.html Not exactly true... The plane contained some reporters, but it also contained troops and much needed supplies and equipment. The biggest problem doesn't appear to be the government's desire for a photo-op, but the general disorganization of the disaster relief team. Now, whether it was the fault of the Conservative government is debatable (and some might think that it should be the job of the government to set overall policy, not micromanage troop deployments.)

Probably not quite as rare as you might think. As I've pointed out before, real life situations are complex, and it is typically impossible to draw a direct cause/effect relationship between any one factor and the result. Yet the figures I pointed out in another post (based on a United Nations study) indicated the opposite... that the U.S. had a lower crime rate of "victim oriented" crime, for both non-violent and violent crime. So, 2 sets of data, giving opposite results. So, which is right? (As I pointed out before, the U.N. study has the advantage in that they dealt directly with individuals, bypassing any issues regarding classifications of various crimes.) Oh, and just wondering... even assuming you were correct, your sources still admitted that the rate of certain non-violent crimes is higher in Canada. Shouldn't that suggest that higher sentences for more minor crimes might be effective? As opposed to the other journals which say what? Some studies say things like needle exchange programs are beneficial, some say they have no effect, and others say they are harmful. So, you can't necessarily claim that you are correct in your analysis because the data is not clear. You would "imagine"? Sorry, that's not exactly very convincing. And I'm not in vancouver. Sorry, but its a big country. You can't expect someone in a totally different province to know the details of crime statistics on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. (And you can't even remember the details yourself.) And before you go assuming that the safe injection sites are somehow preventing crime merely by their existence, shouldn't you at least consider the fact that the police may have actually stepped up their presence in the area immediately surrounding the safe injection site as a way to prevent problems? From: http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/1/2/2.php (This is from the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. I had never heard of it before, but it appears to be funded at least in part through the U.S. government. I am acknowledging the site might be biased in its conclusions, but I am more interested in a particular quote which is most likely accurate) The following is a quote from the Vancouver Police when asked about police presence at and around INSITE: "Yes, four officers per day, 22 hours per day, 7 days per week, for one year from Sept 03- Sep 04 in the block at all times with cell phone access directly to them by SIS staff....At the same time 60 other officers were deployed in a 5-block area and still are to this day." It is misleading for any inference to be made that INSITE had any impact on crime or on public disorder. Police presence more than accounts for any changes in either. So, you suggested that shutting down "safe injection sites" is wrong and ideologically driven, yet: - There is no conclusive proof that it prevents the spread of disease - There is no proof that it reduces crime rates (since there are other factors which offer a reasonable explanation)

Wish we had a little more honesty in some of our studies. Which of course is another example of the lack of knowledge and understanding exhibited by Pliny. Many of the studies (I don't want to say all, but certainly most I've seen (in journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine, and New England Journal of Medicine have sections where they specifically list things like: Who funded the study, the affiliations of the authors of the study, and any potential conflicts of interest. Full disclosure of funding and conflict of interest is normal. Oh, and by the way, not every study regarding the H1N1 vaccine were solely funded by the vaccine manufactures. Many studies are funded by hospitals, government organizations, etc. Oh, and again, I find it ironic that you'd suggest the honesty of these sorts of studies is compromised by the funding source, yet earlier on you referred to a web site that actually sells various products right on the web site. Oh, and by the way, you still haven't acknowledged the fact that you were praising an offer from an anti-vax source demanding evidence of the usefulness of vaccines, yet that particular offer was not winnable because the author deliberately chose conflicting conditions for the evidence. You willing to acknowledge that you were duped into believing his offer?

So, do you actually have any real studies which show the vaccines don't work? Or is this just a case of you not being convinced by the dozens of studies which do show they work and have cause no significant side effects? Nope, not that they should be shot or strung up, but that their opinions should be given as little consideration as those who believe in a flat earth or that the universe is only 6000 years old. We allow for dissent when warranted (i.e. when actual real evidence is provided). Science is a method of finding facts about the world. If you're not finding "facts", then what exactly do you think you're finding, and why do you think its worth while? And why should they be? Skeptics base their opinions on facts. Science is the method for discovering facts. Notice how both of those kind of go together? (i.e. finding facts, and then using them) Ah yes, that old argument... I think Carl Sagan said it best: But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Just because a few radical ideas (that end up being true) get dismissed doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically believe that all such ideas are worth considering. After all, most science dismissed the idea of cold fusion... and what do we have over a decade later? Still no proof that cold fusion exists. The fact is, most scientific advancement does not come as some giant leap of faith; it comes about through a large series of smaller advancements. So, are you in favor of "flat earth" being taught in geography, and creationist theories being taught in biology class? After all, they're certainly not supported by a majority of scientists, but you seem to think all crackpot theories must be viewed as possibly correct. There are things that science does well. It tells us that the influenza vaccine is safe, it tells us the vaccine is effective and can save lives. It does not tell us whether we should force vaccinations, or whether it should even be government policy to offer vaccinations. Hey, it could be someone's opinions that we should let diseases run rampant to hopefully kill off the dumb ones who won't get the shot. Sooooo... you claim you're open to "new data", yet when we point to study after study that shows the vaccine is effective and safe, you start talking about how science doesn't "know all the answers" and whatnot. That's the wonderful thing about "science"... You don't just have to accept the consensus of authority. If you have ideas backed by evidence that go against what the majority think, you can get your own paper published. If your ideas are supported by evidence, they will eventually gain widespread support. Unfortunately, our school systems have not been successful at teaching an understanding of critical thinking, skepticism, or science to the majority of people. At last, something you've said that is correct. You're right, science does not "hold opinions". Its a method of discovering facts about the world. Well, if your opinions are not based on facts (something that science is designed to uncover), they are based on ignorance. Frankly, given a choice, I'd prefer to have opinions based on facts than ignorance. An opinion unsupported by fact... you're certainly allowed to have those, but you should recognize your views are unsupported. And I'm going to be quite mean and say that I wish you were a better human being, and since you're not going to be one, I hope that you end up deciding to move to the most isolated remote part of the country with all your flu germs so you can avoid infecting me or anyone else in the world.

My figures come from a 2003 United Nations Human Development report. (See http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr03_complete.pdf, Chart 21, 'Victims of Crime', page 308) A couple of notes about this: - The study was done by doing surveys to determine who had been victims of crime, rather than relying on government statistics on incarceration (this should have the advantage of eliminating differences in reporting methods, crime classifications, etc.) It also means that victimless crimes (such as drug users) don't get included in the statistics - The study had found that .9% of Canadians had been the victim of robbery, 10.4% property theft, 2.3% assault. Compare that to the United States values of 0.6%, 10% and 1.2% respectively - Yes, Canada's crime rate has been decreasing, but so has the crime rate in the U.S. This could be due to aging demographics as I mentioned before (elderly people commit fewer crimes), or it could be due to higher standards of living. Edited to add: Wikipedia has a few graphs of the U.S. crime rate, showing it has decreased steadily since the early 1990s, so Canada isn't alone in having a decreasing crie rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time Again, I don't necessarily think that that is conclusive proof that higher penalties lead to reduced crime rate (since there are social and economic differences between the 2 countries), but it is at least suggestive of that.

Keep in mind though that due to the complexity of real world situations, it is not often possible to determine a cause-effect relationship in many cases. (For example, in social science, you can't really develop a 'control group'.) And assuming "I'm right because the numbers back me up" is making the false assumption that the other side doesn't have equally valid numbers to support its position. Umm... we don't "know" any such thing. Crime is a complex subject... it depends on a lot of factors, the amount of punishment being only one of them. (You also have population demographics, economic pressures, etc.) Did you know that the U.S. has a lower overall crime rate than Canada, when considering 'victim-oriented' crimes? (They have a higher murder rate than Canada, but lower rates of things like robbery, assault, etc.) They also have harsher penalties (e.g. no "faint hope" clause). Am I claiming that that is undeniable proof that harsher penalties lower crime rates? No, but its at least some evidence that points in that direction. Really? Work for what? Did you know that there's at least one study which shows a higher incidence of HIV among users of things like needle exchange programs? http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/12/994 I see... "crime in areas of Vancouver"? What does that mean? One or 2 neighbourhoods with reduced crime rates? And what time frame? (Dropped in a month? Year?) What about other areas of Vancouver? (Heck, that could even be due to one or 2 active criminals disappearing). And why are you assuming that safe injection sites are the only reason for a drop in crime? Much of the overall crime rate has decreased, and much of that is due to the aging of the population (older people commit fewer crimes). On the other hand, its possible that people like you are claiming your statistics, and only your statistics, are valid "purely for ideological reasons".

Yeah, I already admitted the Conservatives probably also had other problems other than Stockwell "Earth is 6000 Years Old" Day. Heck, even the Conservatives had a believer in Acupuncture (another sham medical treatment) appointed as Minister of Heatlh. Like I said, the reason why I pointed out Ruby Dhalla was to show that all parties had believers in non-sense, and that condemning one party only for those problems is biased and unfair. Lets judge the performance of a party by the legislation they enact, or the policies they put forward, rather than by the beliefs of individual members (which in many cases are irrelevant to the execution of their job.)

Sadly I don't think that's true. They may teach facts, how to interpret things and make new discoveries. But they spend very little time teaching people how to filter out nonsense. The fact that, as SmallC pointed out, Chiropractors often have university degrees, is evidence that a university degree doesn't stop people from championing nonsense. And as I've stated before, all political parties have people that are, shall we say, logically-challenged. At the risk of derailing this thread (of course, given the fact that it was just an attempt to do some biased mudslinging, so I won't feel that bad about it), his reputation as a "constitutionalist/human rights champion is overblown. In my opinion our constitution was a failure; things like the notwithstanding clause actually goes against the concept of "human rights", and the fact that he was unable to get unanimous consent has caused problems for the country over the past decade. Although there were global economic problems at the time, government economic policy made things worse here than elsewhere. (Heck, with our resources, our country should have been better off than the U.S. rather than worse.)

I have a problem with anyone who does not apply critical thinking. Chiropractors are just one case of that (although the whole "alternative medicine" racket is filled with such nonsense.) As for academics/intellectuals, I will base my opinions of their value on a case-by-case basis. I believe that "academics" are often useful/right; however, their effectiveness can rapidly decrease the further that they get from their particular area of expertise. I myself have multiple university degrees, and they are invaluable in my job, but I will gladly defer to my non-university educated brother-in-law over issues of business due to his real-life experience. I'm reminded of an old 'Dilbert' cartoon where he meets someone who's a Mensa member, who's working at some low level job. When Dilbert asks why, he states that "Intelligence isn't as valuable as you might think". Trudeau was an "intellectual". Yet for whatever brain power he may have had, in my opinion many of his economic and social policies were a disaster, giving us the era of stagflation, and alienating large sections of society.

You do realize that to become a chiropractor, you have to first take a bachelor of science (in most cases), right? Yes, I am aware of the training required to become a chiropractor. Sadly, this training is all wasted. Here are the problems with Chiropractic medicine: - The whole basis of the "treatment" comes from a belief that diseases are caused by "sublaxions", something that has never been proven to exist. So right off the bat you're dealing with pseudoscience - While some chiropractors are fairly responsible enough to work with doctors and/or stick to skeletal problems, a large number of chiropractors actively discourage patients from using real medicine. Many are anti-vaccination for example. And you yourself admitted they can make false claims (such as curing colds) - Chiropractors can kill. there have been many cases of paralysis and death caused during routine manipulations (often of the neck) Whatever "benefit" chiropractic medicine provides is likely caused by improved blood flow to the area caused by the manipulations, something that could just as easily be provided by a good massage. Furthermore, there's never been any scientific proof that it provides more benefit than more medically-responsible treatments. Anyone suffering is better to go to an Orthopedic surgeon or a physiotherapist, and avoid any possible nonsense that their chiropractor may try to sell. See: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-10-21/ http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html http://www.chirobase.org/01General/skeptic.html

You're right... anyone who believes in Creationist nonsense deserves to be ridiculed. But, as others have pointed out, at least Day, in his current position, does not have any significant authority to impact education or science policy. However, here's a little news flash... all parties have individuals in them that are, in some way, anti-science (or in some way deserving of ridicule). For example, consider the Liberals... They have (as one of their MPs) Ruby Dhalla, who (according to Wikipedia) is a former Chiropractor (a medical "profession" that is basically a sham, anti-science, and possibly dangerous). Yet the Liberals at one point had her serving as the Liberal Health critic. Had the Liberals been in power, she might have actually been Health Minister (and frankly, I think the idea of a quack "medical professional" setting health policy is a bit more serious than Day setting trade or financial policy. Or how about the NDP? They (as a party) opposed bill C-51, thus giving more freedom for scam companies to sell medically useless "natural" substances. Again, my point is not to necessarily bash the NDP or Liberals. (Heck, I'm sure there are even more conservative MPs that hold similar faulty ideas.) I'm just pointing out that all parties have members and/or policies that are not supported by science or logic.

I doubt anybody in Canada day considers the queen someone to be "Subservient" to. The Queen is a figurehead, with very limited powers, and the existence of this figurehead does not really diminish our freedoms in any way. So, to abolish the monarchy, we'd have to do some major constitutional changes (which, as we saw with things like Meech lake, is not easy, and can potentially destroy the country), and the only real 'benefit' would be a symbolic one. There are much more productive ways to spend our time if someone really wants to improve "Freedom and equality". Plus, the existence of the monarchy is a link to our past. Canada is a relatively young country, and frankly I think its rather interesting that we would keep institutions that predate confederation.

Here are some staisitics from 2000 - 2006 Flu deaths/annum Now I imagine that every year more and more people are following faithfully in lockstep with "science" and getting their flu shots. But year to year the deaths don't seem to be diminisihing. Ummmm... first of all, your link doesn't work. Secondly, you REALLY want to use 2000-2006 as your time period? The fact is, influenza vaccination programs were already wide spread by 2000 especially among the elderly (one of the most high risk groups), and in many cases had plateaued. (See: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2802%2901421-3/abstract ) If you want proof, you have to go back more than 1 couple of decades, long before vaccination was common. Frankly, I think even if the number of dead was stable, it would still be a victory. After all, the total population is increasing. You'd expect the number of dead people to rise as well. Since you seem to be unable to actually understand things like facts, data, etc. here's something to consider: In Italy in the 1970s (before vaccination was widespread), more than 5 flu seasons had a death rate of more than 5 out of 100,000 people. Between 1990 and 2002, after vaccination became common? Not one year had a death rate over 5 out of 100,000. (See: http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/13/5/694.htm figure 1). Granted, I don't think the vaccine was the only factor, but its a lot more relevant than your comparison (when most people at risk were already vaccinated). My 'argument' was a proactive attempt to deal with false arguments you might introduce. Since your 'claims' seem to be based on false evidence, it wasn't really necessary. Ummm... of course I'm a skeptic. But do you even know what a 'skeptic' is? A skeptic is not someone who automatically dismisses everything. A skeptic is someone who basically follows the evidence. We examine the quality of data (including the source, looking for possible problems) and develop our opinions. If you actually had real proof, then I'd be open to have my opinions changed. Heck, its happened before. But the weak arguments that you are providing are not convincing at all. Skeptics like myself hold peer reviewed double blind studies in high regard because, while they are not perfect, they are better than the alternative, and a darn sight better than anecdotes and the opinion of quacks trying to sell cheesy books. Ummm, so? I never claimed that "science" knew everything. But its the most effective way of learning about the world Well, keep in mind that your reasoning skills made you claim that there was a $10,000 offer for proof of flu vaccine effectiveness. Yet even a cursory glance at that 'offer' showed that it was not winnable, not because the evidence wasn't there, but because the offer had contradictory conditions that would prevent it from being won. Should we really trust the opinions of someone who cannot identify such problems? After all, it was pretty basic logic and took me about 30 seconds to find out. Edited to add: Keep in mind that I'm not just accepting what the "authorities" are putting in front of me... I'm accepting the work of hundreds of people, both inside and outside the government, including academic researchers and peer reviewers who are not affiliated with the government in any way.

You know, out of curiosity I thought I'd try to find more information out about that particular offer. It appears to be offered by a website called NaturalNews. Well, the offer is a total scam. You only posted 2 of their conditions... They actually had other conditions you didn't mention, including proof that the vaccine causes no side effects for a year after injection. The only problem is, the deadline was earlier this year (a lot sooner than 1 year after the vaccine was introduced). So, the author deliberately set things up so that he would never have to pay out, regardless of what the evidence was. And you fell for it. Not only that, this 'NaturalNews' web site was, just as so many other anti-vax resources, running its own on-line store to sell its cheesy products. Why exactly would you trust a resource like that?

You were the one that made the claim. It is your duty to provide the evidence. Otherwise, I will automatically assume that your claims are indeed baseless. (And if its been posted in previous threads, it should be no problem to track down where and when.) Hate to respond to my own post, but thought I'd follow up with something... It is possible for influenza vaccines to be effective, yet still not decrease mortality rates. How does that work? Because, although vaccines are effective, there is always the chance that an individual will catch a strain of the flu not covered by the vaccine. Take, for example, a senior citizen (one of the most affected groups). Its possible that this theoretical person would have died of influenza at 65. If they get vaccinated, they may not die from the flu at 65, but may instead catch the flu at (lets say) age 70, after several years of successful vaccinations. Result is that mortality stays the same, but the average age of flu victims increases. The fact is, we have multiple double-blind studies where vaccinated populations get compared with un-vaccinated populations, and the number of cases of influenza goes down. If you somehow think that the vaccine is ineffective, then just why do fewer people get sick after getting the vaccine? Or do you think its some sort of massive conspiracy involving thousands of medical researchers, government officials, and the medical community?

Not sure why anyone would thing that is so "interesting". Try looking at this with a skeptical perspective: First of all, where exactly is the reference to the actual offer? Secondly, where is their evidence that the $10,000 actually exists? (There is an offer by the James Randi Educational foundation of $1 million for proof of paranormal activity. That money is in a special account at Goldman Sachs, and documentation about its existence is freely provided to people who ask. Is there such proof offered here?) Thirdly, I rather doubt the intentions of the people that are making this offer. A lot of this offer just does not make sense. For example they want a minimum of 1000 study participants "for statistical significance", but if you're familiar with statistics smaller samples are still significant (it just changes the confidence intervals). Heck, this "offer" doesn't even include confidence intervals. And given the cost of running the cost of running such studies, $10,000 sounds like peanuts. Without actual proof that the offer is valid/made in good faith, I'd have to say the most likely scenario is that some anti-vax group tried to make up something that sounds good, but with the idea that real researchers will never bother to collect it (based on the small amounts/shady premise that it was offered.) However, more gullible people will end up pointing to it and saying "Look! Nobody can provide proof" without viewing the offer with the skepticism that it deserves. You were the one that made the claim. It is your duty to provide the evidence. Otherwise, I will automatically assume that your claims are indeed baseless. (And if its been posted in previous threads, it should be no problem to track down where and when.) Hey, did you know that George Bush was actually an alien reptile clone? There's undeniable proof! Well, I can't be bothered to provide it, but it exists! You should trust me and go look for it!

They're the ones stirring the false panics. Not reputable. I see... First of all, even if the CDC misjudged the impact of H1N1, I was looking for historical data. Do you have any proof that the CDC, Health Canada or Statscan has actually provided inaccurate information regarding numbers of deaths/infections, in this or any other year? Even Pliny (the person I had been responding to) seems to have thought the statistics provided were valid. Heck, if you think the government can't be trusted, then why didn't they "make up" numbers to make their H1N1 predictions seem more accurate? Secondly, I find it quite ironic that someone would accuse the CDC/Heatlh Canada of "stirring false panics" when much of the anti-vaccine information comes from places like the "thinktwice" site another poster tried to refer to, a site that actually sells books and probably has just as much interest in creating false panics (in their case that vaccines are dangerous) in order to sell their products.

Yup, the bloc does win a lot of seats in Quebec. But they are not going to win seats outside of Quebec. On the other hand, its possible that other parties recognize that the Bloc has a lock on the majority of seats in Quebec, so why bother allowing them to have any extra influence? Personally, I think the problem for the Conservatives was not their inability to win seats in Quebec, but their inability to make a breakthrough in Ontario. If they were to do that they could win a majority with their high level of support in the West (plus the seats they earn in the maritimes.) Remember, for years the Liberals (under Trudeau) managed to gain majorities even when they were virtually shut out of the west. So it is possible to win elections if you don't have universal support from coast to coast.

Nope, not at all. I remember reading a statistic about the number of infections that the body should be able to recognize. It was estimated to be in the billions. (Sorry, don't have any particular references for that right now.) The human body is regularly exposed to many bacteria and viruses in a year. The body has no problem fighting off those infections; its doubtful that one or 2 additional antigens will make any difference. First of all, simply being around people that have influenza does not necessarily mean you were exposed. Influenza virus is best transmitted when an individual gets virus particles deep within the respiratory system. Despite being near people who were sick doesn't mean that you weren't fortunate enough not to inhale at the moment they were coughing. Secondly, ever think that perhaps you might have been sick and not known it? Sometimes the flu can present with very mild symptoms or appear as the cold. You might have been infected (and even passed the disease on to others) without knowing it. Nah was just one of the few sites that came up. I am not sure what a reputable site would look like in terms of objectionable vaccination information. Well given the fact that the medical community is in pretty much unanimous agreement about the benefits of vaccines you probably won't find a reputable site that is against them. Here's a suggestion... instead of actively searching out sites that support your view (and finding them all to be just as disreputable, relying on false experts and liars, while trying to sell you stuff), why don't you instead start with the reputable sources and see what they say?

Ummm... really, you're using thinktwice as a source of information? You do know that the "Global Vaccine Institute" (who runs that particular site) isn't exactly known to be a reputable source of information. (Its like going to a fundamentalist christian church for information about atheism.) If you look on their site, you'll see that one of the papers they reference was written by Wakefield. Yet Wakefield was recently found to have falsified data. (See: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960175-4/fulltext ) So, why exactly are you using a source that uses information coming from a source that uses falsified data? But, let me address some of the bunk that they are pushing: That the majority of people who catch the flu survive with no extra medical treatment is no big surprise. But a disease doesn't have to kill everyone to make it worth preventing. More than enough people were getting hospitalized and dying from influenza to justify vaccination, even if others were surviving. Never mind the fact that caching the flu is still not a good thing (people miss work, feel miserable, etc.) even if they don't wind up in the hospital. First of all, there seem to be a lot of weasly words... "most"? "More than"? Even if a lot of people did have preexisting conditions, a lot did not. In fact, I already gave a reference to such a study. Secondly, once again you seem to be ignoring the concept of herd immunity. You don't just vaccinate to protect yourself, you vaccinate to protect others. Yup, and guess what? Those books are on sale. Here's something I find amazing... people will suggest vaccinations are some big "money scam". (Heck, its been suggested that I'm eager to see people vaccinated because I own stock in vaccine companies.) Yet here is this source of information, hawking their books. And the same goes with many other anti-vaccine "experts" who likewise sell books. Why are they not viewed the same way as vaccine companies? Ummm... because the type of mercury in vaccines is a compound of mercury that is easily metabolized and removed from the body? Because the concentrations of mercury compounds used is very very tiny? Because the overwhelming majority of evidence from scientific studies that have been done has shown that there have been no health problems associated with the use of mercury in vaccines? (See, for example: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078187 By the way, that's the New England Journal of Medicine, that has a little more credibility than the Global Vaccine Institute.) Edited to add: The 'mercury' used in vaccines is used as a preservative known as thimerosal. Not all vaccines contain this compound though. Yup, I remember those particular studies. What you don't seem to understand is: - Those studies were distributed for peer review. That doesn't necessarily man they were accepted. (Not sure of the final status of the studies, but things can be rejected if there is evidence of mistakes. That's the point of peer review... It attempts to reduce the chance of bad studies getting published.) - You seem to have overlooked this particular part of the article: Researchers in the U.S., Britain and Australia have not reported the same phenomenon. Marie-Paule Kieny, the World Health Organization's director of vaccine research, said last week the Canadian findings were an international anomaly and could constitute a “study bias.” So, you have an article that A: Hadn't actually been published yet, and B: doesn't seem to be replicated elsewhere in the world. Furthermore the flu deals only with people who have been vaccinated against seasonal flu (and catch swine flu "naturally"). It says nothing at all about any sort of problems if you receive both vaccines, which people should be doing.

Evidence please? Real evidence. Like from a reputable source (like the CDC, or Health Canada/Statscan). (I assume you're referring to the influenza virus... I can of course dig up all sorts of statistics that show the drop off of things like measles or polio following the introduction of vaccines.) You're right, the answer isn't zero. A small minority of people receive the flu shot but for some reason their bodies don't build up the antibodies. Plus, the vaccine does take a few days to become effective. (Plus there are multiple strains in circulation, and not all of them are covered by a particular vaccine.) Its also possible for people to catch diseases which resemble the flu but are misdiagnosed. It really is quite possible to get immunized and still get the flu. But that does not mean the vaccine is ineffective. In the vast majority of cases it is effective. For everyone else, we rely on something called herd immunity. That's why I'm so annoyed by people who don't get vaccinated... not only are you risking your own lives, you risk passing the virus on to others. How do we know it works? Because there have been multiple studies where they gave 2 similar groups of people either an influenza vaccine or a placebo. In those studies, people receiving the placebo had twice as many cases of influenza or other diseases that resembled the flu than those that took the vaccine. Here's a meta-study regarding the issue: http://www.annals.org/content/123/7/518.full. It shows that when vaccinated, the number of people getting hospitalized or dying from respratory diseases is roughly cut in half. You'd be wrong. As I pointed out before, they DO consider cases where people get vaccinated but still get sick. "Science" did no such thing. It was individuals, using bizarre misinterpretations of science. By the way, did you realize that vaccination helped rid the world of Smallpox, a disease that regularly killed millions of people every year, and had been for thousands of years? Now the disease is gone. Actually, my argument is totally correct. Even if someone is "parroting peer reviewed studies", they are at least dealing with information which is likely to be correct. One of the key points of "critical thinking" is having valid data to work with. Peer reviewed articles are a part of that. Then you'd be wrong on that point. The only think an anecdote can do is relate one person's personal experience. Did someone get vaccinated and avoid influenza? Maybe they had a horseshoe up their butt and just got lucky. Its only by looking at hundreds of cases and comparing them against a control group that we can really determine effectiveness. You seem to not quite understand the concept of 'critical thinking'. Ignorant opinions should be given little or consideration. Should we listen to people who believe that the earth is flat? Should we start introducing Flat Earth theories in geography class? What about creationism? Should biology classes start teaching "God did it" along side evolutionary theory, even though there's no scientific proof of creationism? The fact that science gets misused occasionally does not mean that the science is necessarily wrong, only that some individuals misinterpret things for their own benefit. And hey, science does make mistakes. But when that happens, the problem is typically figured out by, guess what, science. Its a self-correcting mechanism. Yup, quite right. Nope, no critical information is missing. - We have multiple studies where the vaccine (H1N1 this past year, plus other influenza strains other years) was tried on different people, which showed that it caused no significant health problems - We have multiple studies that show that in most cases body develops antibodies when exposed to the influenza vaccine - We have multiple studies that show when a group of people receive influenza vaccines in other years, the rate of illness and death is typically cut in half Not sure what other information you think is needed. Hearing about some idiot who claims "I never get sick" doesn't tell you the vaccine wasn't needed because they may have been lucky enough to never have been exposed to the virus.

Not sure if a 'treason' charge would stick. After all, the definition of treason is that it involves situation where an individual takes action against his own country. Khadr wasn't (to the best of my knowledge) fighting Canadian soldiers, he was fighting Americans. (At best you could say he was battling against the ideals of Canada, but I don't think that in itself.)

I can admit my mistakes. Correction... you can admit some of your mistakes. Your "analysis" of the vaccine program is riddled with errors. You've only admitted to 2 of many. Claiming that you "avoided the panic" does not mean you were a critical thinker. I avoided the panic too... I just got the shot when people in my particular category had it available. Of course I find it amazing that you're assuming that those >50% of "undiagnosed" influenza victims all had doctors who made mistakes. Just boggles the mind. You really think that there are that many incompetent doctors around? You know, you claimed you were doing "critical thinking", but here you've just illustrated that you're not. The first rule of critical thinking: Anecdotes mean nothing. Zero, Zip. Ziltch. The experiences of you and your friends mean absolutely nothing. The only way to determine effectiveness is by proper double blind studies, preferably appearing in a proper peer-reviewed journal. If schools taught the process of critical thinking that's the first thing they'd drill into people's heads. Well how about the fact that you are taking a course of action (i.e. not getting the vaccine when its available to you) that could actually lead to the death of other individuals in the same situation. How about when I point out the number of people who died or were hospitalized after the vaccine was widely available, you ignore those people and instead point to irrelevant issues that have nothing to do with their deaths (such as early vaccine shortages, which had been taken care of by the time those people died.) How about when I point out those deaths that could have been prevented by vaccination, you keep shouting "over hype". Its like your saying the 3000 preventable hospitalizations are unimportant because some people incorrectly predicted 30,000. Correction.... I agreed with you on items that were irrelevant to the conversation. The existence of vaccine shortages earlier on does not mean that the vaccine is not beneficial. The deaths of individuals prior to the availability does not mean that the vaccine is not beneficial. Which again, is irrelevant. These 2 issues do nothing to debunk the fact that the influenza vaccine is both safe and effective at saving lives. You could have also said "the sky is blue, and water is wet". And as true as those facts are, they also do not change the fact that the influenza vaccine is both safe and effective.