FrankenUK?

[AuroRaman]

Gifter: Best of luck to you and your family mate. 24 weeks, that's really really early. Must be a very difficult situation and I hope it all works out for you guys.



The way stress influences the immune system is fairly well understood I think. There's definitely a strong correlation, although I'm not entirely sure what kinds of acids you're talking about the underlying point is certainly important.

To be a bit pedantic it's not necessarily the extreme stress that is hurtful. Long term mid or even low levels of chronic stress can be much worse than shorter periods of very high stress from what I understand.



Does anyone have a reliable source for this claim about doctors not having their own children vaccinated as often as most people?

You have a mistrust of the pharma industry? But you trust the anti-vaxxers? Have you read the story about Wakefield's study? You're aware of course that many of those that reject vaccines also peddle their own alternatives, their own books etc?

I urge you to read up on this subject from a truly skeptical/scientific viewpoint when or before this question becomes relevant to you. There's real harm being done by the anti-vaccine movement.

I'm coming at this from a personal viewpoint. Since I stopped using pharma as a means to assist ailments I have noticed a very positive effect on my physical and emotional well-being.

I also use foods, exercise and spiritual well-being to keep myself healthy and my immune system strong. It's my personal experience and why I am personally not so trustful of this industry.

I am a big fan of science and its connection with spirituality. I adore the fact that scientists spend their lives continually trying to prove themselves wrong in their quest for knowledge!

I agree with your views on the anti-vaccine phalanx when it comes to those trying to peddle 'alternative medicines' for profit or fame. I like to read up on the positive effects on foods for keeping illness and disease away from oneself. I don't consider this alternative thinking, just common sense. Add to that a little dose of positivity and a kick-ass attitude

Now if you'll excuse me, these trees won't hug themselves....

 

[AuroRaman]

Sorry BE, just noticed I didn't answer your question about Wakefield's study. I don't believe I have so will check it out as soon as I can.

 

[braineclipse]

An informal study of 18,000 children showed unvaccinated suffered 200-500% less illness growing up compared to vaccinated peers, no wonder the CDC avoids this like the plague, but web stat analysis of data will out things (as Stephanie Seneff from MIT is doing brilliantly).

Unvaccinated mothers give birth to children with 25% higher anti-gen capabilities I've read. So pass on less disease than vaccinated peers, making them disease dampeners to society, not the bearers who endanger the herd as is portrayed.

Autism rates have actually increased with the cessation of mercury and it's replacement aluminium to statistically significant rates;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159

They are only making the concoctions more damaging, who would have thought it possible!

[...]

I haven't even addressed the questionable validity of any vaccine, Polio is heralded as the bastion of 'look what vaccine programs can achieve', yet when it started in 1958 Polio rates were 500K n change, the next year it plummeted to 50K (figures guestimates as I can't be arsed to look it up again). Now the casual observation is that vaccination massively dropped incidence, when in fact it did virtually nothing! That same year, Polio which had been a catch all, got split, the newly categorised physical meningitis smashed onto the scene with... you guested it... 500K! Today we have Acute Flaccid Paralysis and masses of others, yet Polio covers 2 strains of little threat (I'm not planning on letting anyone's feces come into contact with my daughter, if they do I believe her mother and I will have created a child with strong immune function, able to fight off environmental dangers, I'm unwilling to place her in direct potential for harm - the vaccine, for a theoretical threat, it's the same as Jolie on another tangent).

It's a tough choice to make though of course, either way.

Do you have the sources for your first two statements?

As for your claim about what has happened after the removal of mercury: What if the rates had dropped? Wouldn't you then have said "see, we told you so, autism was caused by vaccines". What if the rates had stayed the same? Would it then have been "removal of mercury has had an effect, but the change has made it just as bad so the rates are the same"? It seems that whatever the evidence there is some post hoc explanation. The claims become unfalsifiable and thus completely unscientific.

If vaccines aren't effective and aren't important for herd immunity, how do you explain the increase in for example whopping cough that seems to follow the anti-vaccine movement?

Although on the effectiveness of vaccines I'm guessing we won't get anywhere fast as it will very soon boil down to a massive conspiracy theory?

 

[Gifter]

Do you have the sources for your first two statements?

As for your claim about what has happened after the removal of mercury: What if the rates had dropped? Wouldn't you then have said "see, we told you so, autism was caused by vaccines". What if the rates had stayed the same? Would it then have been "removal of mercury has had an effect, but the change has made it just as bad so the rates are the same"? It seems that whatever the evidence there is some post hoc explanation. The claims become unfalsifiable and thus completely unscientific.

If vaccines aren't effective and aren't important for herd immunity, how do you explain the increase in for example whopping cough that seems to follow the anti-vaccine movement?

Although on the effectiveness of vaccines I'm guessing we won't get anywhere fast as it will very soon boil down to a massive conspiracy theory?

Can't be arsed to try to engage you B.E. as it gets knowhere, there is no improvement in understanding things by debate with you (in these areas).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hep.510300511/abstract

Abstract
Mutants of adeterminant of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) identified in vaccinated children pose a potential threat to long-term success of vaccination programs. We examined the mutants of adeterminant (residues 110-160) of HBsAg in hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA–positive children identified during previous serosurveys in Taipei undertaken just before (1984), 5 years after (1989), and 10 years after (1994) universal vaccination began. In HBV DNA–positive children from 3 surveys, the prevalence of adeterminant mutants increased from 8 of 103 (7.8%) in 1984 to 10 of 51(19.6%) in 1989 and 9 of 32 (28.1%) in 1994 and was higher in those fully-vaccinated than unvaccinated (12/33 vs. 15/153,P= .0003). Most amino acid changes of the variants clustered in residues 125-129 and 140-149. In all 27 children with detectable mutants, the mean age of those vaccinated was younger than those unvaccinated (4.8 ± 3.8 vs. 7.9 ± 2.3 yrs,P< .05); and mutations occurred in a region with greatest local hydrophilicity (residues 140-149) more frequently in those vaccinated than in those unvaccinated (10/12 vs. 6/15,P= .0253). More mutated residues and more mutations at neutralizing epitopes, such as N146, C147, T148, and C149, were found in the 1994 survey. Vaccinated children may contract variant infections through vertical or horizontal transmission. Universal vaccination has accelerated an accumulation of HBsAgadeterminant mutants with amino acid changes critical for immune escape in vaccinated children who became carriers, suggesting that new vaccination strategies should be considered.

Think the vernacular is a little harsh and owes to translation, but cited by hundreds. Could produce hundreds more from respected scientists, but it's a folly as your gate is kept tightly shut.

 

[Gifter]

Trouble is you see, I know this brick. I was taught by a rock band called warrior soul, to 'learn before acceptance, decide who you should be' that line always stuck with me.

So right or wrong, misguided or truth it's my truth to call out.

 

[braineclipse]

You have a strange way of not engaging me Gifter, I thank you for the link as I asked, but the rest seems like - engaging.

Calling me narrow minded (although with other words) for example, not something I appreciate and something I will answer to despite you saying that you're not interested in a debate. To me having objective standards for analyzing evidence is not narrow minded, the only way to actually be open minded is to have objective standards for analyzing evidence in my opinion. Without it you essentially end up at relativism, like when you present one scientific paper as evidence, but dismiss the scientific consensus.

As for your last post I'm sure we have often disagreed on these topics, but if I've said that you have no right to say what you say or made any indication that I would like to keep you from "calling out your truth" then I do apologize, this has not been my intention. As far as I can remember though I've only discussed issues that have come up, as I will continue to do.

 

[scaramanga]

Can't be arsed to try to engage you B.E. as it gets knowhere, there is no improvement in understanding things by debate with you (in these areas).

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hep.510300511/abstract

Abstract
Mutants of adeterminant of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) identified in vaccinated children pose a potential threat to long-term success of vaccination programs. We examined the mutants of adeterminant (residues 110-160) of HBsAg in hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA–positive children identified during previous serosurveys in Taipei undertaken just before (1984), 5 years after (1989), and 10 years after (1994) universal vaccination began. In HBV DNA–positive children from 3 surveys, the prevalence of adeterminant mutants increased from 8 of 103 (7.8%) in 1984 to 10 of 51(19.6%) in 1989 and 9 of 32 (28.1%) in 1994 and was higher in those fully-vaccinated than unvaccinated (12/33 vs. 15/153,P= .0003). Most amino acid changes of the variants clustered in residues 125-129 and 140-149. In all 27 children with detectable mutants, the mean age of those vaccinated was younger than those unvaccinated (4.8 ± 3.8 vs. 7.9 ± 2.3 yrs,P< .05); and mutations occurred in a region with greatest local hydrophilicity (residues 140-149) more frequently in those vaccinated than in those unvaccinated (10/12 vs. 6/15,P= .0253). More mutated residues and more mutations at neutralizing epitopes, such as N146, C147, T148, and C149, were found in the 1994 survey. Vaccinated children may contract variant infections through vertical or horizontal transmission. Universal vaccination has accelerated an accumulation of HBsAgadeterminant mutants with amino acid changes critical for immune escape in vaccinated children who became carriers, suggesting that new vaccination strategies should be considered.

Think the vernacular is a little harsh and owes to translation, but cited by hundreds. Could produce hundreds more from respected scientists, but it's a folly as your gate is kept tightly shut.

Gifter, am I reading that correctly? That they studied 103, 51 and 32 kids and drew conclusions from the correlation?

 

[Gifter]

Sorry BE, just noticed I didn't answer your question about Wakefield's study. I don't believe I have so will check it out as soon as I can.

It's cool if you do look into this, you may wish to read from both sides;

http://www.naturalnews.com/035513_Andrew_Wakefield_vaccines_autism.html

Robert Scott Bell: The autism community came together, we had a great event, they were supporting you and raising some funds for your legal efforts to go after the British Medical Journal, Brian Deer, etc. and now we're learning of some tremendous news. This week after the expo, your co-author on the Lancet MMR paper, Professor John Walker Smith was exonerated, won a legal appeal.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Absolutely, in the High Court in the UK, the long awaited outcome of John Walker Smith's appeal. People who don't know, John Walker Smith is one of the founding fathers of pediatric gastroenterology in the world, he is an outstanding physician and very, very well respected and a leader in the field, a teacher of so many of today's young pediatric gastroenterologists. Back in 1998 we published in the Lancet on the discovery of a new bowel disease in children with autism and an association in time that the parents had made with MMR vaccine and for that, for those efforts, he was in an effort I think to get me to stop vaccine safety research, to send a message to everybody else, he lost his medical license along with me. He was allowed to appeal, I couldn't afford to but he was funded to appeal and he was completely and utterly exonerated in the high court. The judge issued a resounding condemnation of, I think in legal terms, at least in my opinion, the way in which the General Medical Council's case was handled. Asking why would a man of this caliber even consider taking a risk in effect. That's my reading of the opinion, but you know some of the criticisms of the GMC were very, very harsh and it may interest the readers- here you may think that there would be experts in research and experts in pediatric gastroenterology and child psychiatry sitting on the panel to judge this doctor, but there weren't. There were two lay people, one general practitioner with no experience in research, and rather than having a child psychiatrist they had an adult psychiatrist and rather than having a pediatrician they had a geriatrician. So right from the outset you can see how flawed the process was.

Robert Scott Bell: Incredibly so, many of the parents actually ended up on video on YouTube in support of both you and in this case the release of this information that finally came out that exonerated him, that is Professor Walker Smith. Though, you're right in saying that, that it's really a kind of strange notion that a reporter can file a complaint like this when no patients had and in fact, quite the opposite. The support for both of you and everybody involved has been tremendous from the parent community.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield: That's right, and the case really essentially was the General Medical Council's case is that he was performing experimental research on children that was inappropriate, that the tests were not indicated, and that this was an ethical violation. Now, here you have a journalist telling the world's leading pediatric gastroenterologist the test he's ordered on children to establish the source of their gastrointestinal symptoms, for example, is inappropriate. How bizarre a situation is that? Deer has no medical or scientific training whatsoever, and Professor Walker Smith's case and my case indeed has been that this was done for clinical purposes, this was to understand the origins of the suffering of these children and to alleviate it and that's what was achieved and in the process a novel, apparently novel inflammatory bowel disease was discovered and the tragedy, Robert, now is that we've spent all these years fighting this battle when the time could've been spent so much better, actually caring for these children and getting them better and that's very, very sad.

...

Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Yes, I think that the tests of the triple vaccines such as MMR are inadequate. There have never been any safety studies of giving two doses and yet that is now almost universal practice in the developed world, but that's never, ever been subjected to a safety study. And as you say, some children are now receiving nine, ten vaccines on the same day. That has never, ever been subjected to any kind of scrutiny by the FDA or anyone else. How can that possible adopted into common clinical practice and not be negligent?

In full:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035513_Andrew_Wakefield_vaccines_autism.html#ixzz2Xv36Sh9U

Medical dictatorship IMO. Led by $ rather than health.

 

[Gifter]

You have a strange way of not engaging me Gifter, I thank you for the link as I asked, but the rest seems like - engaging.

Calling me narrow minded (although with other words) for example, not something I appreciate and something I will answer to despite you saying that you're not interested in a debate. To me having objective standards for analyzing evidence is not narrow minded, the only way to actually be open minded is to have objective standards for analyzing evidence in my opinion. Without it you essentially end up at relativism, like when you present one scientific paper as evidence, but dismiss the scientific consensus.

As for your last post I'm sure we have often disagreed on these topics, but if I've said that you have no right to say what you say or made any indication that I would like to keep you from "calling out your truth" then I do apologize, this has not been my intention. As far as I can remember though I've only discussed issues that have come up, as I will continue to do.

I know I did engage you in the end! But it was a parallel post, not the research I'd read at all. But you must admit it is quite a difficult post to respond to is it not? Yet you have 'scientific consensus' behind you so you should be able to present meaningful reason as to why vaccination has scientific validity and such concerns are ill-founded.

It is just like the cigarette companies fight, which was kept at bay through corruption in legal process for decades, it will tumble because myself and all the parents I'm in contact with, deep down, see that their babies get sick from the vaccines. The only question is extent sadly IMO. I feel damaged by the ones I've had I'm sure others are the same who have asthma and allergies, IBS etc.

Maybe it's just me...

 

[Gifter]

I'm coming at this from a personal viewpoint. Since I stopped using pharma as a means to assist ailments I have noticed a very positive effect on my physical and emotional well-being.

I also use foods, exercise and spiritual well-being to keep myself healthy and my immune system strong. It's my personal experience and why I am personally not so trustful of this industry.

I am a big fan of science and its connection with spirituality. I adore the fact that scientists spend their lives continually trying to prove themselves wrong in their quest for knowledge!

I agree with your views on the anti-vaccine phalanx when it comes to those trying to peddle 'alternative medicines' for profit or fame. I like to read up on the positive effects on foods for keeping illness and disease away from oneself. I don't consider this alternative thinking, just common sense. Add to that a little dose of positivity and a kick-ass attitude

Now if you'll excuse me, these trees won't hug themselves....

Lovely post AuraRaman

 

[Gifter]

You are what you eat... physically, mentally, emotionally.

 

[braineclipse]

I know I did engage you in the end! But it was a parallel post, not the research I'd read at all. But you must admit it is quite a difficult post to respond to is it not? Yet you have 'scientific consensus' behind you so you should be able to present meaningful reason as to why vaccination has scientific validity and such concerns are ill-founded.

It is just like the cigarette companies fight, which was kept at bay through corruption in legal process for decades, it will tumble because myself and all the parents I'm in contact with, deep down, see that their babies get sick from the vaccines. The only question is extent sadly IMO. I feel damaged by the ones I've had I'm sure others are the same who have asthma and allergies, IBS etc.

Maybe it's just me...

Are you questioning that there is a strong scientific consensus that vaccines work?

Just to be clear I'm not saying that all vaccines are completely harmless, just that the benefit far outweighs the risks and that the risks are overstated by the anti-vaccine movement. As such I have no real issues with the study you posted, taking it at face value without going into further detail to see if it has been replicated I can accept that there are problems detected and that ways to deal with those problems are being looked into. Particularly as the study points out in the discussion part that vaccination should be continued.

What I don't understand is how you can point to one study as evidence for what you're saying whilst at the same time reject scientific consensus on for example efficacy. What value could a single study possibly have that the entirety of scientific consensus on the topic doesn't dwarf? What makes you accept one and reject the other?

I suggest that if we are to continue that we drop the arguments by analogy as they add very little than pure opinion to a discussion like this. I could just as easily say that the anti-vaccine movement is the same as any science denialists like young earth creationists or global warming deniers, I think those are better analogies, but you probably won't. It doesn't really get us anywhere. It's worth pointing out though that a change in the scientific consensus was a major part in changing the views on smoking.

We know enough about the flaws in human reasoning at this point, self fulfilling prophecies, confirmation biases and other biases and so on that the kind of "argument from common sense or personal experience" you present essentially means nothing to me personally. It doesn't matter how strongly or deeply you believe it. Science is (in part) the history of common sense being proved wrong.

 

[Baleforce]

It's a dangerous thing, my wife got her head filled with all sorts of anti MMR poison after our daughter was born, someone signed her up for a rag called informed parent which was full of this brick, it took me a couple of months but thankfully I managed to get her to see reason and our little girl had it

 

[Gifter]

Are you questioning that there is a strong scientific consensus that vaccines work?

Just to be clear I'm not saying that all vaccines are completely harmless, just that the benefit far outweighs the risks and that the risks are overstated by the anti-vaccine movement. As such I have no real issues with the study you posted, taking it at face value without going into further detail to see if it has been replicated I can accept that there are problems detected and that ways to deal with those problems are being looked into. Particularly as the study points out in the discussion part that vaccination should be continued.

What I don't understand is how you can point to one study as evidence for what you're saying whilst at the same time reject scientific consensus on for example efficacy. What value could a single study possibly have that the entirety of scientific consensus on the topic doesn't dwarf? What makes you accept one and reject the other?

I suggest that if we are to continue that we drop the arguments by analogy as they add very little than pure opinion to a discussion like this. I could just as easily say that the anti-vaccine movement is the same as any science denialists like young earth creationists or global warming deniers, I think those are better analogies, but you probably won't. It doesn't really get us anywhere. It's worth pointing out though that a change in the scientific consensus was a major part in changing the views on smoking.

We know enough about the flaws in human reasoning at this point, self fulfilling prophecies, confirmation biases and other biases and so on that the kind of "argument from common sense or personal experience" you present essentially means nothing to me personally. It doesn't matter how strongly or deeply you believe it. Science is (in part) the history of common sense being proved wrong.

You have found faith in that which distorts and obfuscates real truth and science. Hinders real progression, by allowing corporate cash kittens to direct proceedings, destroying the careers of those who speak out about that which is plainly obvious.

As said, the truth will out as web stat analysis is going to be a real boon to long term implications and correlations. They (CDC, FDA, BMC etc) can steadfastly refuse to release comparative analysis of +-Vaccinated, but the world wide web has other ideas about that. Hopefully this will be the kick up the ass the whole healthcare arena needs.

This is my kind of vaccine, getting my wife lots of Biodynamic dairy. As this says, recent reports show that people who get their Conjugated Lineolic Acid from Organic sources have 50% more ruminant acid cis-9, trans-11;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugated_linoleic_acid

This happens to be rich in butter oil which I get from spring grass fed cows (which increases sulphated vit D as the sun arrives, K2 Menaquinone 7, plus lots of activators, or hooks), plus plenty of alkaline minerals to digest itself making it an outstanding whole food, of tremendous health impact. This is not woo, it is age old knowledge, it is folk understanding of the way of things. Which science is just now breaking apart to understand why and simulating very poorly still. Like fermented cod liver oil, another world class nutritional source (the vikings used to carry a vat on their ships, perhaps you need some to imbue some of that spirit!).

My diet (well my wifes, I'm still to prone to junk bursts) is world class.

Norweigan Kelp - http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=135

Organic UnSulphured Blackstrap Molasses - http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=118

I believe in nature as the best way of keeping well. Science will get there...

 

[Gifter]

The wiki link has something MarkySimmo would be interested in;

In 2012, NIMML conducted a human clinical trial administering 6 grams/day of a CLA supplement to Crohn's disease patients and reported a remarkable improvement in Crohn's disease activity index and quality of life measures.[11] These clinical improvements paralleled modulation of T cell responses in blood subjects that received CLA supplement.

It's no wonder since we all got scared of using real butter and moved to frankenvegetable oil our arteries can barely move the viscous sludge around, lacking in all the good qualities and outshining the bad butter may have if other fats and nutrients are ignored.

 

[Gifter]

Scara, everything aside, have a read up about good oil for your wife and baby, omega 3 for brain of course is well established fact.

I get high vitamin butter oil and fermented cod liver oil by green pasture who follow Weston Price traditions (on these products anyway). It's the best start to the best start, coupled with lots of glasses of non-homogenised (at least) organic full fat milk (better raw grass fed but that would be beyond acceptance of course). That is an outstanding blend (we have Flax, well I have just Flax n Butter Oil being vegi).

My girl passed her ROP check yesterday, she's gone from stage 2 to none present It's the diet!

 

[Gifter]

Back on the Conjugated Linoleic Acid; A European team led by the Swiss scientist Lukas Rist has found that mothers consuming mostly organic milk and meat products have about 50% higher levels of rumenic acid in their breast milk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumenic_acid

Folk foods, they knew best.

 

[braineclipse]

It's a dangerous thing, my wife got her head filled with all sorts of anti MMR poison after our daughter was born, someone signed her up for a rag called informed parent which was full of this brick, it took me a couple of months but thankfully I managed to get her to see reason and our little girl had it

It's a very dangerous thing. Why I struggle to leave anti-vaccine posts on forums I frequent go unanswered. Needless to say Gifter will disagree with my examples, but some quick examples of the harm:

1. http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html

This is a webpage that estimates the number of preventable illnesses and deaths in the US as a result of the anti-vaccine movement. It's an estimate, it's not perfect, but I think it highlights a good point - although somewhat crassly one might say.

2. The fight against Polio, a fight that mankind was on course to winning in the early to mid part of the last decade. Now we're probably looking at 4-5 more years and the delay has cost thousands of lives and immense human suffering as well as a lot more money of course. If completed it will save lives, money (primarily in the third world) and probably be one of the greatest achievements we as a race ever accomplished. It will be an actual reason to feel just a little bit proud to be a human. Now there are many more issues at play than just the anti-vaccine movement, but they to played their part in halting this progress.

As a side note Ewan McGregor made a couple of episodes of a tv-show called 'Cold Chain', a good watch not too dissimilar in style to a long way down/round, but following some of the longest trails that the vaccines are transported to the most remote parts of the world.

3. A resurgence seen in diseases as a result of the anti-vaccine movement and loss of herd immunity. There are a lot of examples, a quick google search will bring up plenty of news articles. This problem, as far as I understand, is growing and the correlation between the resurgence seen and a drop in vaccination rates in any given area is fairly strong. Although this is not something I have a link to right now, it's something I might be able to dig up if need be.

 

[braineclipse]

You have found faith in that which distorts and obfuscates real truth and science. Hinders real progression, by allowing corporate cash kittens to direct proceedings, destroying the careers of those who speak out about that which is plainly obvious.

As said, the truth will out as web stat analysis is going to be a real boon to long term implications and correlations. They (CDC, FDA, BMC etc) can steadfastly refuse to release comparative analysis of +-Vaccinated, but the world wide web has other ideas about that. Hopefully this will be the kick up the ass the whole healthcare arena needs.

My post was rather long and perhaps it could have been better worded. It started with a very simple question related directly to the post I quoted and your previous posts in this thread though. As I tried to better understand the specifics of what your opinion is. A question you chose to ignore before preaching a bit, claiming to understand not only what real truth is, but also what real science is without any justification at all.

Then onwards and sideways to the next topic.

I must congratulate you on this second, much more successful, disengagement.

 

[Gifter]

My post was rather long and perhaps it could have been better worded. It started with a very simple question related directly to the post I quoted and your previous posts in this thread though. As I tried to better understand the specifics of what your opinion is. A question you chose to ignore before preaching a bit, claiming to understand not only what real truth is, but also what real science is without any justification at all.

Then onwards and sideways to the next topic.

I must congratulate you on this second, much more successful, disengagement.

LOL, I know.