mattssheep4

Members
  • Content Count

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

About mattssheep4

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry about the belated reply (I don't get on the forums nearly often enough!), and mods, please let me know if I cross a line and I will rephrase as necessary. So, starting from the top: @Bill Phil states it quite well. A very quick note regarding autism and vaccines: the relationship between pathogens (including vaccines) and the body is very well understood. Autism, though not much is known about its causes, is highly hereditary[1]. There is no vaccine which can interfere with the human cell's genome, and if there were, it would have to specifically target brain cells. The brain has a complex protection layer called the blood-brain barrier which filters out most pathogens (and a lot of helpful drugs, by the way, this is one of the difficulties of treating mental disorders in general). So IF a vaccine could get pass the blood-brain barrier, AND IF it targeted brain cells, AND IF it could interfere with the genome, then it is POSSIBLE that it could have an influence on the rates of autism. But, there is no vaccine that does any of that. I won't say that you're entirely wrong here, and it is absolutely your right to hold such a belief, but I will say this: individuals are often fallible. The entire medical community? Unlikely. Peer reviews and other such methods of ensuring accuracy and correctness minimize the possibility of error. Personally I'd trust the medical field far more than any restaurant's food, and I love me a good burger. First of all, I freaking love you for this. Very clever, +1. I laughed so hard. Regarding mercury, it is elemental mercury that is toxic. Vaccines sometimes (and now very rarely!) use ethylmercury, MgC2H5, which "does not accumulate and is actively excreted via the gut" (WHO), and so has minimal health risk. WHO has set a tolerable intake of 1.6μg per kilogram of body weight per week (https://www.who.int/ipcs/features/mercury.pdf). A 7 pound baby is 3kg, so tolerable intake of 4.8μg of ethylmercury per week. I did some looking and couldn't find any vaccines that contain more than 0.3μg per dose. I don't know how much was used in the past, but mercury sure isn't a concern anymore. Heck, you could complain about trace amounts of radioactive molecules in your body, but they'll still be there (naturally, I might add) - Carbon-14, if you're wondering. My somewhat-smart-ass argument: There are a lot more people in the world, and the number of doctors/hospitals is not increasing proportionally. Additionally, people are living longer, exasperating that issue. If you take a vaccine, you can follow each of its components' journey through the body and see what it effects and what it doesn't. The cellular mechanisms are very well understood. In fact, making a vaccine is very hard without a thorough understanding of the virus' structure and function in the body. Pasteur was incredibly lucky with his smallpox vaccine that cowpox was related, and therefore similar, to smallpox. Most viruses don't have an easy analogue. Look at the Zika or Dengue viruses. I studied with the lead researcher of the group that discovered the structure of these viruses. Only by knowing how they function can you determine how to safely administer a vaccine for a virus. Science should be based on arguments, not authority? Do you think that there are too many of us? Ok, who do you want to kill first? Disconnect here on the idea of authority. Scientific authority is based on knowledge, whereas generally authority equates to power. If science was based on arguments, every smart-ass teenager would be a scientist. Science is based on the scientific method, and determining, as closely as possible given available data, facts. The scientific community has authority in the sense of the cumulative knowledge and understanding of all of science, and, from that authority, the responsibility to use and disseminate that information for the betterment of all. Ok, so this statement implies a misunderstanding of how viruses, specifically the ones we vaccinate against, spread. The viruses that we have vaccines for are generally the most infectious viruses out there. Remember swine flu in 2019? Remember how quickly it spread? Our "advanced" societies and lifestyles didn't stop that. That was a relatively mild strain of influenza. Imagine if that had been a more deadly strain. There's only so much we can do to limit the spread of viruses that are airborne. We breathe in, if infectious viral particles are in that breath, we're infected. Even waterborne viruses are difficult to filter out due to their incredibly small size. Many of these viruses spread far too easily for a change in lifestyle to stop. Regardless of all that, in science, when determining the efficacy of viruses anything, we have what we call a "control group". This is an intentional method of comparing a set of samples under particular conditions with another set with the same conditions, except one. That one variable is what we are trying to determine. Read about them in more detail here: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-control-group-606107 You can bet your last dollar that given a control group of people not vaccinated and a test group of people who are vaccinated, if both groups are exposed to the virus, the non-vaccinated people will get sick. Standard of living isn't a variable in this case, it is a constant. I believe I discussed this in my last post, please go back and read it again. This comment also makes some assumptions about the immune system which are inaccurate. The entire purpose of the immune system is to take bits of the world that get into the body and learn from it. It continues learning your entire life, unless you have some sort of immunodeficiency. The only known thing which can change the immune system's function (aside from some inherent genetic defect) is the HIV virus, which targets immune cells. No vaccine has that ability, and HIV is, of course, itself unique among human viruses. I mentioned earlier, the mechanisms by which vaccines work is incredibly well understood. Regarding development of the immune system, here's a great article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707740/, though I will note it is quite heavy on the scientific terms. Someday when I have more time maybe I'll try to simplify it, but for now, honestly, watch the khan academy videos: https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/human-biology/immunology/v/role-of-phagocytes-in-innate-or-nonspecific-immunity It is very easy to test if the vaccine is of quality or not. But it certainly is possible that a vaccine for a new strain of virus, especially a very quickly evolving virus like the flu, hasn't been tested enough. One of the tricky things with flu vaccines, sometimes we can't know exactly what the strain will be like, so we make guesses. We look at the most variable portions of the genome, make a few likely changes, and base the new vaccines on those. Depending on how quickly the seasonal flu manifests itself, it may not be possible to be 100% sure if the vaccine will be the right one. BUT! We do know that the vaccine itself will not be harmful. The danger here is that the actual flu virus is different enough that it could still harm people. The vaccine itself is safe. The "guessing" version of vaccine development is much less common than isolating a new strain asap and developing a vaccine from there. Aside from influenza, most viruses don't mutate quickly enough for this to be a problem. This is a moot point, since from a moral standpoint we have to try to save as many lives as possible. Also vaccines are generally injections, which take about 10 seconds and don't require an M.D. And generally people who are already sick aren't getting vaccines. I'm afraid it is you who misunderstands herd immunity. And also immunity in general. Herd resistance is thus: If most people are immune to a disease, if they become exposed to someone who has the disease, they won't become a carrier. They can go back to other people who are not immune without fear of infecting the other non-immune person. But if enough non-immune people are milling around, the chances of spreading the infection among non-immune individuals increases. People who can't be vaccinated (immunodeficient, usually) are very much dependent on herd immunity to keep them from getting sick. (Note this is primarily for diseases transmitted via air or direct contact). As for immunity in general, again, please re-read my first post, where i explain how vaccines work. To quote the primary relevant bit: To say that "immunity comes from vaccines and not from the effectiveness of their immune system" is a misunderstanding of the relationship between the immune system and potential antigens. The effectiveness of the immune system depends on exposure to antigens. Any antigen. Vaccines trick the body into thinking they are dealing with the actual virus! The body learns about the virus from the vaccine, learns how to deal with the virus, and so when they encounter the actual virus, they can fight it off much more quickly. Everyone makes the decision for themselves and their children. Schools can be divided into those to which only vaccinated children can go, both are allowed or only for unvaccinated children. Let everyone decide about their family, stop distributing this oppressive propaganda that only scares people that every unvaccinated child will die or is sick. The fact that you did not get vaccinated does not mean that you are ill and infectious. The opponents of vaccination are not responsible for how viruses spread, so they should not bear the cost of your fear of illness. If you are scared to get sick, then you have to figure out how to protect yourself without interfering with other people's lives. I'll make the analogy of a stoplight. If you want to go ahead and run a red light, by all means do so, but be prepared to be responsible when someone dies when you crash into them. I personally cannot justify unnecessarily risking the lives of others (in this case people who are immunodeficient or for some reason cannot afford the vaccine (or won't take them)) when we have no credible evidence showing that vaccines are in any way harmful. You have the right to think otherwise, but by definition, people in a society interfere in other people's lives. Edit: Oh crap, that was only the first page.... maybe I'll get to the rest later.... 3 hours is enough for one sitting methinks.... Edit2: Made a few changes for clarity.
  2. So, first of all: I am a biologist! In fact one of my primary focuses in school was viruses and immunology. It's fascinating stuff. There have been some good, well-reasoned comments already, but just to ensure people have a good enough understanding of vaccines, here's a brief (and pretty basic, but still accurate) rundown of how they work, why, and the effect they have on the body (regardless of age). First, let's think about what happens when you get infected by a virus for which you have not been vaccinated. There are certain types of cells called "antigen-presenting cells" (primarily B cells) running around in your body which are specifically trying to find anything that they recognize as "foreign", or "non-self". The term "antigen" refers to anything that the immune system will react to. If one of them finds a viral particle (our antigen in this case), it will process it and present the antigen to a T cell. When a T cell binds to the antigen, it does a whole slew of things, the important one for this discussion is activating the B cell. When a B cell is activated, it is basically taking that antigen and calling dibs on any instances of the antigen it finds. It will primarily produce antibodies for that particular antigen, and it will split into a bunch of daughter cells which will be on the lookout specifically for any more of that antigen. I think I might be getting too detailed here, so I'll tone it down a bit. After the first B cell is activated, whenever antigens are found, cytokines are released. These chemicals do a lot of things, but some of their main functions include initiating inflammatory responses, attracting white blood cells (the ones that try to eat bad stuff). There is also an increase of B cell production (specific to that antigen), which helps find more antigens. The goal is to remove all traces of non-self. Basically what's happening here is: you're getting sick! Throwing up when you have the flu is not a direct result of the flu virus, it's a result of your immune system trying to get rid of it. But, I can hear you ask, why do some viruses cause a stronger reaction, or even kill people? Well, the reaction depends on what types of cells they infect. The flu, for example, primarily infects skin cells. This includes the respiratory and intestinal tracts! HIV/AIDS, you probably know, infects immune cells themselves. When viruses replicate, it usually involves killing the host cell, so if it takes awhile for the B cells to find them, potentially you could lose many cells in a particular area, which of course will be detrimental to your health (Incidentally, without your immune system, you'd die of losing too many cells from your body). In addition to cell types, rapidity of replication is another factor (if more antigens are being created, there's more for B cells to react with, leading to enhanced immunological response). If too high of an immunological response occurs, you could die. Now, let's move on to vaccines. Vaccines are generally either a weakened version of a harmful virus or a dead virus (dead == physiologically inactive). But they cause a reaction in the body just like a fully active virus would do! But, since they are dead or weakened, it takes much less time to isolate and destroy them than live ones, and there will be fewer viral particles overall, so the obvious immunological effects are minimal. Now, is there any danger in giving vaccines to someone? Well, if someone has an autoimmune or immunodeficiency disease, administering a weakened virus could still be very harmful. But, assuming they have a nominally functional immune system, the quantity of viral particles injected into the body is minuscule, well within the capability of the even a baby's body to handle. But what about multiple vaccines at once? If more viral particles means a stronger immune response, couldn't that cause problems? We have to keep things in perspective. Virus replication, unchecked, is exponential. The body can catch and stop a major infection! A vaccine is nothing compared to that. Edit: If you really want citations, I can provide them.
  3. I've come up with this error somehow: I've double and triple checked that KSP_64_Dbg_Data is linked to KSP_x64_Data, and that the dll is actually there, but it doesn't accept that for some reason. Any ideas? I was looking for the wrong dll *facepalm* Edit: Now it says: "Failed to load mono". I've tried everything I could think of, copying all the files into the install folder which gave me another error: "Failed to initialize player. Details: Failed to load PlayerSettings (internal index #0). Most likely data file is corrupted, or built with mismatching editor and platform support versions." Edit 2: So I had two versions of Unity installed and was using the wrong one. Never mind, thanks anyways! (Feeling like an idiot now lol)
  4. Some of the USI parts (for whatever reason) can't be found in the basic categories, but they're in the advanced ones.
  5. @Brotoro I'm still hoping you continue Developing Duna and Long-term Laythe!
  6. Popping fuel lines on there could help while designing your craft.
  7. Any chance Kerbalism is compatible with Interstellar Extended?
  8. I'm gonna pull a @Brotoro and say: GIVE US HOSES!!! (Though I've long-since resigned myself to the unlikelihood of such a feature being added.)
  9. I can't believe I haven't found this mod before, it's probably one of the most interesting and complex mods out there; I look forward to trying it when I get home from work! A couple of ideas for more fun stuff: carbon monoxide is even more dangerous than CO2, and is produced in small quantities in fires - an option for a fire could be added as a failure for some components. Fires would of course use O2 and release CO2 and CO. They should be rare I suppose but still, having to deal with a fire would be a really interesting mission, if you can find the time/effort to implement it
  10. The "spinning, um, rotor head" is called a reel. The movable dump arm is called the auger. And yes, the general term for the machine as a whole is "combine", although harvester is technically accurate. The term "combine" came into existence when the harvesting and threshing components were "combined" into one machine. Having grown up on a farm (as indicated by my profile pic), I really appreciate this
  11. I don't think that's possible without a mod, unfortunately, and I can't think of a mod off the top of my head that allows that. The only stock way to EVA is if the Kerbal is in a pod with an exposed/unblocked door.
  12. No, you're not a necklace. You may, however, be a pedant. Of course, the word pedant comes from the Latin paedagogus, which means something along the lines of tutor. Feel free to call me a pedant. Edit: sorry for taking over the thread.
  13. No such thing as an excessive use of Latin. (I have a minor in Classics )
  14. If you don't ever accept contracts for docking, the game will stop offering them.