Me too. That’s why I oppose the US Government (and every other government) in totality, from soup to nuts, in every way possible. It, as an institution of domination and force is wholly irredeemable.

But that’s why we have it, because people don’t value freedom and voluntarism as much as they value socialism and force-backed means of producing values they can access at no cost or less than they would pay if their only alternative was to pay themselves or organize cooperatives to pay.

And the parasites in government are only too happy to oblige, given the tens and hundreds of millions of baa baa sheeple subjects they still have singing their praises.

I do not defend the collective state. I am pointing out that pre-agricultural humans historically lived in communal groups, which directly contradicts John Campbell’s assertion “That successful hunter would leave his mooching tribe so fast – he does not need them – they need him and his hunting success.”.

As an evolutionary implication of the social groups we lived in for the 2.5 million years before agriculture, we’re adapted to cooperate in social groups, we have altruistic impulses, we would usually care for other people’s children instead of seeing them as a threat, and arguments towards social responsibility ring true for most people. The “every man is an island” experiment of the modern western world is as new as canola oil and should be treated with the same degree of skepticism.

Does this mean I support communist goals for the state? No, I do not. I think that the only sustainable communal systems are voluntary and communist states are inevitably also reach towards totalitarianism and central control. I do try to build interdependent communities around me. I’m one of those weirdos who knows my neighbors and most of them only know each other because I organize block parties and set up a kid-watching co-op. I’m also on the board of the HOA and spend plenty of time making sure that the HOA mostly leaves people alone and lets people do what they want to their property as long as they aren’t taking away from someone else (I encourage people break moronic HOA rules all the time).

I do defend Obama’s children getting the vaccine at the same time as their peers, I also argue for the utility of vaccines in general and for the value of the H1N1 vaccine specifically to protect my pregnant wife. But that’s about as far as I go in defending Obama or any of his policies.

You may find this report interesting. I haven’t followed up on the original research: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/09/23/flu-shots-h1n1-seasonal.html

Obviously, immunity is a whole lot more complex than whether you’ve been vaccinated for something.

Second study was built off of the first. In a lab they took rabbits and tested their blood for antibodies to different strains of hib, the rabbit’s immune systems responded to all strains equally well (or nearly so). Then they vaccinated half of them with a single strain hib vaccine and re-tested. In the non-vaccinated group the results were the same (as expected) but the vaccinated group would only respond with antibodies to the strain of hib they had been vaccinated against. When exposed to other strains of hib their immune system would not respond as before.
This makes me wonder (not just about the hib vaccine) if it is something similar with the flu. Perhaps exposure to the real flu in a non vaccinated person is generally protective of all cases of the flu, since the person is getting exposed to all components of the flu virus and anything that the virus ‘makes’ while inside the host and uses ALL of these things to mount a very general immune response. This is admittedly all conjecture at this point, obviously. Perhaps getting vaccinated each year generally makes you less able to fight off other strains?

I know this all sort of up-in-the-air but I’m wondering if anybody else has any input on this?

I am reminded of Fawlty Towers with the German tourists – please do not be offended – I am one quarter German myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfl6Lu3xQW0

Just trying to lighten up the discussion here…

Also, the ocular antibiotic gel is not necessary or helpful unless your wife failed the STD tests.

I ran across this article. Here’s the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091029/ap_on_he_me/us_med_flu_s_tricks;_ylt=AojsKyXvFHVhQprPbfye5gfgtY54

And here’s the really pertinent part: the bold type is mine.

“We’re giving the virus more wiggle room, more evolutionary space, by having some naive individuals,” explained lead researcher Dr. Jonathan Yewdell of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. To scientists, “naive” means the previously unexposed. (that is, not vaccinated – Dave)

Yewdell’s team took an old strain of seasonal H1N1 flu that circulated decades ago and infected groups of mice. After each infection, they culled virus from mouse lungs and used that to infect more sets of mice. After nine such cycles, they checked the hemagglutinin gene for mutations. Unvaccinated mice had none. In vaccinated mice, the virus had mutated to become stickier — it changed the way it binds to cells to clamp on more tightly, which helps it evade an attack from immune cells called antibodies.

But that’s a big trade off: A stickier virus doesn’t spread as easily, Yewdell said.

Then the team took the new sticky mutant and infected more unvaccinated mice with it — and here’s the surprise: The virus mutated back into a less sticky, easier-to-spread version. (and easier to naturally fight off – Dave)

That’s why there are implications for people, because children who haven’t yet caught or been vaccinated against many flu strains would offer a similar opportunity for mutation to easier-to-spread versions. (But easier to naturally fight off – Dave)

OK, so If I’m reading this right, and I think I am, those who get vaccinated may not spread the flu as easily, but in those individuals the virus gets “stickier” and is thus more able to evade attacks from our own antibodies. Now, call me crazy, but I don’t want to get an immunization that allows the virus to evade my own natural defenses. And if I do spread it, it’s of a type that is more “sticky” and harder for the infected person to fight off. So it seems that by vaccinating everyone, we are creating viruses that, while harder to spread, if they do spread, are more difficult for the body to defend itself against! To me there is something wrong with that picture.

Are you interpreting this article that same way I am?

Yea, so what in the hell are you doing defending a collective state that counts millions and billions as its subjects? How come you understand the health ramifications of ignoring a proper diet, but not of ignoring proper social interaction.

At least I’m consistent. I have written many times that we evolved to account for the values and actions of about 30 people or so. And, everyone had a real feeling of being integral to the group, valuable, and even persuasive if need be.

Contrast that to getting your 1 in 200 millionth say in your own affairs at the ballot box (something I haven’t participated in in over a decade, and never, ever will).

When groups got large (above about 100 people), it becomes impossible for everyone to know everyone else and social enforcement of the communal contract was guaranteed to break down. Long before that point, hunter-gatherer groups would split up into more than one group.

The situation where the tribal elders would take away your kill at the point of a spear simply never came up. If you were a part of the tribe, you shared with the tribe. The alternative is that you weren’t a part of the tribe. Your scenario is as inconceivable as a father taking away his child’s gathered blackberries at the point of a gun (family is the modern remaining communal social group).

It took fixed-location resources (agriculture) before larger communities and the social issues they create became practical. It’s at this point the possibility of a hunter trading his kill for milk or other resources and all of the risks that occur when such a person enters into commerce with groups that may have dedicated security/military.