It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PSA: Whooping Cough aka Pertussis

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
one last note to add....

Pertussis is easily treatable by antibiotics..... most people, like myself, received antibiotics in the initial phase of the disease from my primary care provider who thought it was just bronchitis... although this will kill the bacteria that cause Pertussis, the effects of the infection can persist for months and months in severe cases. Severe cases in adults is not that common in the US.

A formal diagnosis of Pertussis may not be possible once you have taken antibiotics. I was diagnosed after the trip to the emergency room for the stitches in my noggin by a doctor from another country where Pertussis is common... he immediately recognized the symptoms even though my blood work came back negative for Pertussis. He is the one who explained to me that it is improbable that a test for Pertussis will come back positive once a patient has received a round of antibiotics.


edit on R042015-08-13T01:04:56-05:00k048Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Pardon?

Actually, I played cards with some people who were state police and one told me that the evidence showed years ago that people who have a beer or two actually have less accidents. This was taught to them in their training. But they were forced to adopt the lie that any alcohol at all impairs judgement when driving. Whether the one or two drinks actually made them more concerned not to get stopped so they would not have to worry about getting a ticket or whether it relaxed them a tad bit is the question. I usually never sped or raced my cars when I was drinking when I was younger.

That was based on real evidence they collected years ago, not a practice that was adopted by new public concensus started by groups like mothers against drunk driving. Now, driving while drunk is a different issue. But that usually happens over a .10 level and a .06 level is not really necessary.

Cell phones and other technology cause more accidents than drunk drivers. People are so distracted now while driving that we need to ban some of this technology in cars.



I remember when you used to post almost sensible posts on here.
What happened to you?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Pardon?

Actually, I played cards with some people who were state police and one told me that the evidence showed years ago that people who have a beer or two actually have less accidents. This was taught to them in their training. But they were forced to adopt the lie that any alcohol at all impairs judgement when driving. Whether the one or two drinks actually made them more concerned not to get stopped so they would not have to worry about getting a ticket or whether it relaxed them a tad bit is the question. I usually never sped or raced my cars when I was drinking when I was younger.

That was based on real evidence they collected years ago, not a practice that was adopted by new public concensus started by groups like mothers against drunk driving. Now, driving while drunk is a different issue. But that usually happens over a .10 level and a .06 level is not really necessary.

Cell phones and other technology cause more accidents than drunk drivers. People are so distracted now while driving that we need to ban some of this technology in cars.



I remember when you used to post almost sensible posts on here.
What happened to you?


I was forced to respond to you.

Look at the facts and figures instead of blindly saying things. There are multiple sites everywhere created by people that monitor accidents and cell phone use and texting that state that distracted driving causes more accidents than drunk drivers.
edit on 15-8-2015 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Pardon?

Actually, I played cards with some people who were state police and one told me that the evidence showed years ago that people who have a beer or two actually have less accidents. This was taught to them in their training. But they were forced to adopt the lie that any alcohol at all impairs judgement when driving. Whether the one or two drinks actually made them more concerned not to get stopped so they would not have to worry about getting a ticket or whether it relaxed them a tad bit is the question. I usually never sped or raced my cars when I was drinking when I was younger.

That was based on real evidence they collected years ago, not a practice that was adopted by new public concensus started by groups like mothers against drunk driving. Now, driving while drunk is a different issue. But that usually happens over a .10 level and a .06 level is not really necessary.

Cell phones and other technology cause more accidents than drunk drivers. People are so distracted now while driving that we need to ban some of this technology in cars.



I remember when you used to post almost sensible posts on here.
What happened to you?


I was forced to respond to you.

Look at the facts and figures instead of blindly saying things. There are multiple sites everywhere created by people that monitor accidents and cell phone use and texting that state that distracted driving causes more accidents than drunk drivers.


It's well known that using a mobile whilst driving can cause accidents.
Anything that distracts you whilst driving will do the same.
And there are probably more accidents whilst using them than accidents caused by drink drivers simply because there are less drunk drivers than mobile phone users.

However it was this bit that prompted my post;
"Actually, I played cards with some people who were state police and one told me that the evidence showed years ago that people who have a beer or two actually have less accidents."

Less accidents than who?
Those who have drunk 3 beers?
Whisky drinkers?
Pot smokers?
Mobile phone users?

Where's the evidence to show this as the evidence actually shows quite clearly that even after one drink the chance of causing an accident rises significantly?
Or are you trying to justify to yourself that you were fine when you drove after drinking?
I think it's the latter personally.

injuryprevention.bmj.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Pardon?

Actually, I played cards with some people who were state police and one told me that the evidence showed years ago that people who have a beer or two actually have less accidents. This was taught to them in their training. But they were forced to adopt the lie that any alcohol at all impairs judgement when driving. Whether the one or two drinks actually made them more concerned not to get stopped so they would not have to worry about getting a ticket or whether it relaxed them a tad bit is the question. I usually never sped or raced my cars when I was drinking when I was younger.

That was based on real evidence they collected years ago, not a practice that was adopted by new public concensus started by groups like mothers against drunk driving. Now, driving while drunk is a different issue. But that usually happens over a .10 level and a .06 level is not really necessary.

Cell phones and other technology cause more accidents than drunk drivers. People are so distracted now while driving that we need to ban some of this technology in cars.



I remember when you used to post almost sensible posts on here.
What happened to you?


I was forced to respond to you.

Look at the facts and figures instead of blindly saying things. There are multiple sites everywhere created by people that monitor accidents and cell phone use and texting that state that distracted driving causes more accidents than drunk drivers.


It's well known that using a mobile whilst driving can cause accidents.
Anything that distracts you whilst driving will do the same.
And there are probably more accidents whilst using them than accidents caused by drink drivers simply because there are less drunk drivers than mobile phone users.

However it was this bit that prompted my post;
"Actually, I played cards with some people who were state police and one told me that the evidence showed years ago that people who have a beer or two actually have less accidents."

Less accidents than who?
Those who have drunk 3 beers?
Whisky drinkers?
Pot smokers?
Mobile phone users?

Where's the evidence to show this as the evidence actually shows quite clearly that even after one drink the chance of causing an accident rises significantly?
Or are you trying to justify to yourself that you were fine when you drove after drinking?
I think it's the latter personally.

injuryprevention.bmj.com...





How it was told to me is when a person was all stressed out at work and stopped to have a drink on the way home, there was less less accidents happening. This was compared to other workers who did not stop for a cool one after work.

The guy is still my pinnacle partner. Most of the cops that were taught not to worry about watching the bars where the guys who stopped for a drink during a certain time frame and concentrate on the traffic during rush hour. Now, if you sat in that bar for a couple hours, you had more than two drinks, that is a different thing all together. That is all I know, what a retired state police told me as to what they were taught back in the sixties.

The first drink actually calms most people and can actually make them a better driver even with the small reduction alcohol causes to that point. Now if you are lacking adequate alcohol dehydrogenase or acetylaldehyde dehydrogenase or oxidase, then it is a different story. The last part is not from the retired cop I know, he just knows what they used to teach.

As for justifying my drinking, I admit I have faults when I have them. I don't even drink anymore, I haven't drank much in twenty five years or longer. When I was young I drank and drove, when I wasn't drinking I was usually hot rodding. I liked fast agile cars, all accidents I had were when I was completely sober. I usually was at the speed limit when I was drinking, but when I was sober, there was nothing more fun than doing from a hundred to a hundred fourty miles an hour in my sportscars.
edit on 16-8-2015 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Pardon?

Actually, I played cards with some people who were state police and one told me that the evidence showed years ago that people who have a beer or two actually have less accidents. This was taught to them in their training. But they were forced to adopt the lie that any alcohol at all impairs judgement when driving. Whether the one or two drinks actually made them more concerned not to get stopped so they would not have to worry about getting a ticket or whether it relaxed them a tad bit is the question. I usually never sped or raced my cars when I was drinking when I was younger.

That was based on real evidence they collected years ago, not a practice that was adopted by new public concensus started by groups like mothers against drunk driving. Now, driving while drunk is a different issue. But that usually happens over a .10 level and a .06 level is not really necessary.

Cell phones and other technology cause more accidents than drunk drivers. People are so distracted now while driving that we need to ban some of this technology in cars.



I remember when you used to post almost sensible posts on here.
What happened to you?


I was forced to respond to you.

Look at the facts and figures instead of blindly saying things. There are multiple sites everywhere created by people that monitor accidents and cell phone use and texting that state that distracted driving causes more accidents than drunk drivers.


It's well known that using a mobile whilst driving can cause accidents.
Anything that distracts you whilst driving will do the same.
And there are probably more accidents whilst using them than accidents caused by drink drivers simply because there are less drunk drivers than mobile phone users.

However it was this bit that prompted my post;
"Actually, I played cards with some people who were state police and one told me that the evidence showed years ago that people who have a beer or two actually have less accidents."

Less accidents than who?
Those who have drunk 3 beers?
Whisky drinkers?
Pot smokers?
Mobile phone users?

Where's the evidence to show this as the evidence actually shows quite clearly that even after one drink the chance of causing an accident rises significantly?
Or are you trying to justify to yourself that you were fine when you drove after drinking?
I think it's the latter personally.

injuryprevention.bmj.com...





How it was told to me is when a person was all stressed out at work and stopped to have a drink on the way home, there was less less accidents happening. This was compared to other workers who did not stop for a cool one after work.

The guy is still my pinnacle partner. Most of the cops that were taught not to worry about watching the bars where the guys who stopped for a drink during a certain time frame and concentrate on the traffic during rush hour. Now, if you sat in that bar for a couple hours, you had more than two drinks, that is a different thing all together. That is all I know, what a retired state police told me as to what they were taught back in the sixties.

The first drink actually calms most people and can actually make them a better driver even with the small reduction alcohol causes to that point. Now if you are lacking adequate alcohol dehydrogenase or acetylaldehyde dehydrogenase or oxidase, then it is a different story. The last part is not from the retired cop I know, he just knows what they used to teach.

As for justifying my drinking, I admit I have faults when I have them. I don't even drink anymore, I haven't drank much in twenty five years or longer. When I was young I drank and drove, when I wasn't drinking I was usually hot rodding. I liked fast agile cars, all accidents I had were when I was completely sober. I usually was at the speed limit when I was drinking, but when I was sober, there was nothing more fun than doing from a hundred to a hundred fourty miles an hour in my sportscars.


So no evidence to counter the proven fact that even one drink can impair your driving.
Just another anecdote.
Figures.

The truth is, there should be a zero tolerance on alcohol when driving.
Same with other drugs, prescription or otherwise which can impair judgement.

Lax attitudes like yours only promote drinking and driving and as such, are dangerous.



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join