Saturday, September 15, 2007

Umm...This is a sales pitch?

Ok, so I really don't want to talk politics on this blog, but is it me, or is the new "plan" solve the mess in Iraq, which the president has referred to as "Return on Success". . . is this for real? "Return on Success?" The rationale is that the more success we achieve in Iraq, the more soldiers we can send home. Right...doesn't the same thing happen when you win the war or achieve victory over your foe?

So how does success differ from winning the war, and how does winning the war differ from victory? "Victory in Iraq," which was the prevailing rhetoric and defined the mission there, has disappeared from the administration's lexicon. Now, it's about "return on success."

God! I feel so stupid. I think there's an "Interminable Idiocy Field" that radiates from Washington, DC and it must be growing, because it's almost reached us here in a Collegeville, PA. This will all end soon, right. Tell me it will, please? Mommy?

1 comment:

Angoraknitter said...

Sorry, this comment is not related to your post, but I feel obliged to respond to the comment you left for me in a venue you'd be sure to read, your own blog.

Here's my response, I'm sure you remember your own comments:

Fine, I stand corrected...and since this post is sooo old, I must confess that the varicella vaccine is the least of my concerns at the moment. The statement I made in my blog, so long ago was indeep partly inaccurate.

" babies created specifically and destroyed specifically for the creation of this vaccine. "

It was an unintended misrepresentation to say the babies were created for the vaccine, that is a silly statement indeed, I can't believe I didn't catch that. Chuck it up to poor editing. Actually, the babies were "reportedly" aborted because of their mother's exposure to the varicella virus (which is known to cause birth defects). Those babies were selected for vaccination stem cell lines because of their immunological experience if you will...and that's my best summary of my understanding of the story as referenced from "The Immunization Resource Guide, 4th Ed.," by Diane Rozario. I read this book over four years ago. My summary is only as accurate as my memory rentention, and the information available to the author and myself at that time.

What I should have said was, "these babies were sought after for their vaccination creating protential." Admittably, that would be more accurate a statement. Their misfortune was multiplied 1. being exposed to varicella while in utero
2. being denied the right to live because they might have been born deformed.

And suppose the moms didn't plan to keep these children with or without the varicella exposure, does it make it right?

That my friends, in my "opinion," is where the spiral begins to go downward, morality wise.

However, the original intent of this post was to point out the likilhood that the chickenpox shots might be denying our children the chance to build a natural immunity to shingles. Many over the age of 30 had chicken pox as children and we don't have to worry about coming down with a case of shingles now that we are adults, because the chicken pox exposure gave our bodies the opportunity to build antibodies to the varicella shots required.

I hypothesize, that they'll simply require boosters from here on out, as they are now, and they'll just keep requiring them until sufficient serum immunity is expressed, perhaps via titers.

Am I a journalist? no. But thanks for pointing out my mistatment so I could correct myself. Too bad more folks these days are so unwilling to admit when they're wrong or that indeed they made a gaff.