OT: Round of applause for Paul Allen

HeHateMe

HeHateMe

He/Himz/Hiz
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
55,980
Liked Posts:
61,025
What else is he going to do with it? what does $100 mm do for you in hell?


or heaven?
 
Last edited:
iueyedoc

iueyedoc

Variant Also Negotiates
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
20,787
Liked Posts:
29,507
Location:
Mountains to Sea
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Indiana Hoosiers
botfly10 said:
more hysteria

Flu is much more of a threat. Should have donated to that. 36,000 deaths per year in the USA alone.
Click to expand...
This.

While the generosity is commendable, there are much better things this money could be used for which to fight. Like educating the tinfoil hats that immunizations don't cause autism and saves millions of lives.
 
BringBackDitka54

BringBackDitka54

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
7,302
Liked Posts:
7,409
HeHateMe said:
What else is he going to do with it? what does $100 mm do for you in hell?


or heaven?
Click to expand...

Nothing, but while you're on earth, it does get you chicks whose level of hotness you and I couldn't even begin to imagine.
 
BNB

BNB

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 9, 2011
Posts:
14,848
Liked Posts:
7,702
Location:
Chicago
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  2. Oakland Raiders
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
botfly10 said:
more hysteria

Flu is much more of a threat. Should have donated to that. 36,000 deaths per year in the USA alone. 250,000 - 500,000 deaths per year worldwide.
Click to expand...

The flu death toll is over exaggerated.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which spelled out the delusion and created tremors throughout the halls of the CDC.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report:

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

You see, the CDC had created one category that combined flu and pneumonia deaths. Why did they do this? Because they assumed that the pneumonia deaths were complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes. But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 were traced directly to a flu virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of the flu in 2001.

Talk about hysteria. The CDC throws out a death toll number to scare people into getting a flu shot. Really, though, they can't even prove that the flu caused all those deaths. It's much easier to make money on flu shots by saying, "36,000 people die from the flu! Go get your shot so you decrease your chance of dying!" than by saying, "Unless you are very old, very young, or have a chronic illness that compromises your immune system, your chances of dying from the flu is near 0. Go get your flu shot!"

Plus, I feel like putting a lot of time and effort into getting rid of the flu is pointless. You can make a vaccine that will prevent you from getting a specific strand of the flu, then it'll mutate and make said vaccine useless. Even when they do have a vaccine for the flu, it isn't even close to being 100% effective. In some years, 40-50% of people who have gotten the flu shot have gotten the flu, and it can't be assumed that the other 50-60% didn't get flu because of the shot. They just may not have been in contact with the virus.


But yeah.... That 36,000 number is not accurate and exaggerated.
 
BNB

BNB

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 9, 2011
Posts:
14,848
Liked Posts:
7,702
Location:
Chicago
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  2. Oakland Raiders
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
iueyedoc said:
This.

While the generosity is commendable, there are much better things this money could be used for which to fight. Like educating the tinfoil hats that immunizations don't cause autism and saves millions of lives.
Click to expand...

This money won't be used to benefit Americans or most people in the world. But if this donation leads to a cure or preventative vaccine, I'm sure the people in Africa will be happy and it will save thousands of lives today and a lot more in the future. And that will make it worth it.


Plus, I don't get why people always need to say that money is better spent elsewhere. Like the ALS challenge stuff. Not many people are diagnosed with ALS. Compared to other things, hardly anyone dies of ALS. And while all these people were donating to the cause, you had the few that just needed to say shit like, "It's nice that they're donating to this cause, but that money can be used for something more important like cancer." Oh okay, so the people that get ALS aren't good enough to get a cure just because there isn't enough of them dying?
 
Penny Traitor

Penny Traitor

バカでも才能は一つ
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
11,244
Liked Posts:
17,121
Location:
Chicago
I love Bill Burr.

That said, Ebola is being blown out of proportion in this country. In west Africa it is becoming a full blown epidemic...so they money can still go to very good use.

Think globally.
 
Penny Traitor

Penny Traitor

バカでも才能は一つ
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
11,244
Liked Posts:
17,121
Location:
Chicago
BNB said:
This money won't be used to benefit Americans or most people in the world. But if this donation leads to a cure or preventative vaccine, I'm sure the people in Africa will be happy and it will save thousands of lives today and a lot more in the future. And that will make it worth it.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.
 
Warrior Spirit

Warrior Spirit

The Truth
Donator
Joined:
Sep 12, 2010
Posts:
41,571
Liked Posts:
13,618
botfly10 said:
more hysteria

Flu is much more of a threat. Should have donated to that. 36,000 deaths per year in the USA alone. 250,000 - 500,000 deaths per year worldwide.
Click to expand...

As long as you stay away from those poisonous flu vaccines, the flu won't get ya.

I do know the cure to ebola. If anyone here gets it just PM me and I'll give it to you.
 
botfly10

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,872
Liked Posts:
26,846
BNB said:
The flu death toll is over exaggerated.

In December of 2005, the British Medical Journal (online) published a shocking report by Peter Doshi, which spelled out the delusion and created tremors throughout the halls of the CDC.

Here is a quote from Doshi’s report:

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001—61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.”

You see, the CDC had created one category that combined flu and pneumonia deaths. Why did they do this? Because they assumed that the pneumonia deaths were complications stemming from the flu.

This is an absurd assumption. Pneumonia has a number of causes. But even worse, in all the flu and pneumonia deaths, only 18 were traced directly to a flu virus.

Therefore, the CDC could not say, with assurance, that more than 18 people died of the flu in 2001.

Talk about hysteria. The CDC throws out a death toll number to scare people into getting a flu shot. Really, though, they can't even prove that the flu caused all those deaths. It's much easier to make money on flu shots by saying, "36,000 people die from the flu! Go get your shot so you decrease your chance of dying!" than by saying, "Unless you are very old, very young, or have a chronic illness that compromises your immune system, your chances of dying from the flu is near 0. Go get your flu shot!"

Plus, I feel like putting a lot of time and effort into getting rid of the flu is pointless. You can make a vaccine that will prevent you from getting a specific strand of the flu, then it'll mutate and make said vaccine useless. Even when they do have a vaccine for the flu, it isn't even close to being 100% effective. In some years, 40-50% of people who have gotten the flu shot have gotten the flu, and it can't be assumed that the other 50-60% didn't get flu because of the shot. They just may not have been in contact with the virus.


But yeah.... That 36,000 number is not accurate and exaggerated.
Click to expand...

Think you are missing the point.
 
PrideisBears

PrideisBears

Bully Mod
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Jun 20, 2010
Posts:
38,266
Liked Posts:
32,919
Location:
In the mod forum planning your ban
Ahh the ebola hype lives on. Arent we supposed to be dumping water on our heads or being scared of Russians?
 
iueyedoc

iueyedoc

Variant Also Negotiates
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
20,787
Liked Posts:
29,507
Location:
Mountains to Sea
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Indiana Hoosiers
BNB said:
This money won't be used to benefit Americans or most people in the world. But if this donation leads to a cure or preventative vaccine, I'm sure the people in Africa will be happy and it will save thousands of lives today and a lot more in the future. And that will make it worth it.


Plus, I don't get why people always need to say that money is better spent elsewhere. Like the ALS challenge stuff. Not many people are diagnosed with ALS. Compared to other things, hardly anyone dies of ALS. And while all these people were donating to the cause, you had the few that just needed to say shit like, "It's nice that they're donating to this cause, but that money can be used for something more important like cancer." Oh okay, so the people that get ALS aren't good enough to get a cure just because there isn't enough of them dying?
Click to expand...
My point is what made Paul Allen so eager to give 100M to this disease cause. Malaria kills over half a million people a year even though a treatment exists. Same with TB. If someone has a family member with a disease, I get the emotional connection to spending money on the cause, but as a philanthropist with that much ability to affect lives, so many more could be saved using it elsewhere.

To take the argument to absurd extent, there is a disease that causes rapid aging and death by age 13 that affects 1 in 8M births. If you controlled $100M in charity spending, would you find it prudent to spend it on that singular ultra rare disease that is seen on average in one child in the US every other year, or to spend it on existing available treatments for a disease that kills 600,000+ people a year?

And as for ALS. The challenge was all fine and good, but there has been a decrease in donations to other causes with much higher population death rates as a result. So as a pure numbers thing, it was not good asset allocation, but hard to fault any giving.
 
Last edited:
BNB

BNB

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 9, 2011
Posts:
14,848
Liked Posts:
7,702
Location:
Chicago
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  2. Oakland Raiders
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
botfly10 said:
Think you are missing the point.
Click to expand...

You said the flu is more of a threat and he should have donated to that, after saying "more hysteria."

I was just pointing out that there is a TON more hysteria coming from the CDC about the flu and the death toll isn't nearly as high as they say it is. Plus, to donate to that cause [if the flu even has a cause] would be kind of pointless because the flu causes complications in high risk patients. If you are healthy, the flu is not a threat to you. If you have a compromised immune system, everything is a threat to you. A minor infection can turn into a huge infection that spreads throughout your body and kill you.

A lot of people are actually dying FROM ebola and will continue dying from it. The CDC or anyone else for that matter can't even prove how many people die from the flu.

I guess I was pretty much trying to say that the flu was a bad example maybe?


And to quote what you had originally posted

botfly10 said:
You realize you are reinforcing your point.
Click to expand...

the ebola virus probably could mutate as well which could make a potential vaccine useless. In which case, that money can be used to improve medical care in high risk areas. Not everyone that gets ebola dies. In fact, if it's caught early enough, a good percentage of people can live. In same instances, as low as 25% people died in a breakout. In Africa and other poor areas, their medical care is shit and that's the biggest reason why people are dying. With the flu, a lot of people that get complications from it have chronic illnesses such as some autoimmune diseases, cancer, etc. So they shouldn't be using money for a flu vaccine or cure, they should use the money for autoimmune disease treatments, etc. If those people become healthier, then the flu becomes less of a risk to them. As does everything else. A vaccine for Ebola may not be entirely effective because it IS a virus and can mutate. So the money can be used to improve treatments and medical care so getting over ebola could be easier and perhaps like a nuisance instead of a deadly disease.
 
BNB

BNB

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 9, 2011
Posts:
14,848
Liked Posts:
7,702
Location:
Chicago
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  2. Oakland Raiders
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
iueyedoc said:
My point is what made Paul Allen so eager to give 100M to this disease cause. Malaria kills over half a million people a year even though a treatment exists. Same with TB. If someone has a family member with a disease, I get the emotional connection to spending money on the cause, but as a philanthropist with that much ability to affect lives, so many more could be saved using it else where.
Click to expand...

Idk why he chose to spend so much for this cause. But Idc either. I just thought it was pretty cool that he cared enough to make a potentially big difference in thousands [potentially a lot more] of lives.

do I think other diseases deserve more attention? Of course. But it's not my money and I'm not gonna complain about a guy trying to do good with his own money.


To take the argument to absurd extent, there is a disease that causes rapid aging and death by age 13 that affects 1 in 8M births. If you controlled $100M in charity spending, would you find it prudent to spend it on that singular ultra rare disease that is seen on average in one child in the US every other year, or to spend it on existing available treatments for a disease that kills 600,000+ people a year?
Click to expand...

That is an extreme example. Of course I would think it's stupid to spend most of the money to find a treatment or cure for a disease that will kill 1 person in two years.

And even in this case....like I said, Idk why Allen donated so much. Me personally, I would have donated most of that money to other causes. However, it's his money and he felt, for whatever reason, that ebola was something important to fight against. And I applaud him for actually taking a stand and making a very generous donation that can definitely help improve the lives of many. I can't be mad at the guy for that and I won't shit on it at all. It's not my money.

I kind of repeated myself... but you get it, I'm sure.
 
SmellyFoot

SmellyFoot

New member
Joined:
Aug 28, 2013
Posts:
512
Liked Posts:
153
BNB said:
You said the flu is more of a threat and he should have donated to that, after saying "more hysteria."

I was just pointing out that there is a TON more hysteria coming from the CDC about the flu and the death toll isn't nearly as high as they say it is. Plus, to donate to that cause [if the flu even has a cause] would be kind of pointless because the flu causes complications in high risk patients. If you are healthy, the flu is not a threat to you. If you have a compromised immune system, everything is a threat to you. A minor infection can turn into a huge infection that spreads throughout your body and kill you.

A lot of people are actually dying FROM ebola and will continue dying from it. The CDC or anyone else for that matter can't even prove how many people die from the flu.

I guess I was pretty much trying to say that the flu was a bad example maybe?


And to quote what you had originally posted



the ebola virus probably could mutate as well which could make a potential vaccine useless. In which case, that money can be used to improve medical care in high risk areas. Not everyone that gets ebola dies. In fact, if it's caught early enough, a good percentage of people can live. In same instances, as low as 25% people died in a breakout. In Africa and other poor areas, their medical care is shit and that's the biggest reason why people are dying. With the flu, a lot of people that get complications from it have chronic illnesses such as some autoimmune diseases, cancer, etc. So they shouldn't be using money for a flu vaccine or cure, they should use the money for autoimmune disease treatments, etc. If those people become healthier, then the flu becomes less of a risk to them. As does everything else. A vaccine for Ebola may not be entirely effective because it IS a virus and can mutate. So the money can be used to improve treatments and medical care so getting over ebola could be easier and perhaps like a nuisance instead of a deadly disease.
Click to expand...

Is the death count of the flu higher than Ebola? If so, bot is right and you missed the point. He implied LIKE the flu and wasn't sold to that as THE that cause he was placing his banner.
 
BNB

BNB

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Jun 9, 2011
Posts:
14,848
Liked Posts:
7,702
Location:
Chicago
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  2. Oakland Raiders
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
SmellyFoot said:
Is the death count of the flu higher than Ebola? If so, bot is right and you missed the point. He implied LIKE the flu and wasn't sold to that as THE that cause he was placing his banner.
Click to expand...

Where did bot imply "LIKE the flu"?

And idk how many people die from the flu. There are a bunch of studies though that show that the CDC compiles their numbers terribly. They mark down some people that die from pneumonia as a "flu death" but they don't even know if that person ever had the flu. There are like 30 different causes of pneumonia. It should not be assumed that the person had the flu at the time of their death. That's really lazy by the CDC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

10,879members
92,988threads
4,371,794posts
495online users

Members online NOW

  • Member
  • Admin
  • Mod
  • Donor
  • HOF
Total: 495 (members: 2, guests: 493)
Top