bjack on 19/3/2015 at 23:12
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Because it's going to be perceived that way.
Speaking of which.....I'll bet you could make a killing by marketing "organic vaccines" right now. You need to get your bosses on that.
Bwah ha ha ha :thumb: And you know that would work too. Sad!
I liked your post showing the question about water. I guess that the one wanker that believes water has no electrolytes drinks only de-ionized water. OK, plain tap water will not have enough salt in it, so eat a box of fries or some pretzels! Oh, but the nitrosamines! Oh the gluten! Lions and tigers and bears! Oh my!
I am a supporter of rights, but those rights stop when your actions directly endanger me and mine. I can safely drive at over 100 MPH in many circumstances, so I have a right to do so? Little Betty doesn't have her shots, but she has not infected anyone... yet, so it is OK? I pity the kids that get sick because their new age or strict religious parents decide the kids must follow their way. That is not to say it is only the new age and fringe religious that are anti vaccine.
This is not the same as differing cultural views, food tastes, and other credos. I don't care if Jews must wear hats and not eat pork. It does not kill me that Muslims pray 3 times a day. I don't care if someone worships a piece of wood. I do care if they send out little biological weapons into the streets though.
And XOKAK? Amen!!!!!!!!!! + 100K
faetal on 20/3/2015 at 06:25
I have a cousin who hasn't vaccinated his kids and proudly proclaims as such on facebook, with links to the usual "Andrew Wakefield was framed" bullshit. He says that it's a week off school and then they're immune anyway, what's the big deal (like we just invented vaccines to reduce inconvenience or something). When I asked him if he'd heard of measles encephalitis, he said he hadn't. I explained. Then I asked him if any of the kids who go to school with his kids have immune deficiencies, he said he didn't know. When I asked him if any of their relatives were elderly, or pregnant (let's not forget why we immunize against rubella) or had immune deficiencies, he said he didn't know. I asked him if he was OK putting them at risk and he pretty much told me to fuck off and reverted back to the (by now) non sequitur of "they're MY kids". I love my cousin, but fuck's sake...
It's a position without reason. This is why I made the drink driving comparison. I have a friend who drink drives and when I chastise him about it and the risk to others, he just ignores the logic, the drink driving stats, the science of reaction times, risk assessment and cognitive impairment and repeats his notion that drives just as well drunk, maybe better because I'm over cautious. It's not about any kind of logic, it's about hanging on to a viewpoint which you feel you're too invested in to modify.
bjack on 20/3/2015 at 19:15
* Mothers changing diapers on food counters.
* Very sick people coming into work, even nurses and doctors.
* Sandwich makers wearing gloves, yet making change with same gloves on.
* Going to a spin the needle party with bisexual biker friends.
* Drunk or high driving
* Hunk or dry diving
* People who use bad examples and bad puns
:joke:
bjack on 20/3/2015 at 22:28
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
So presumably you're proposing taking children away from the influence of their parents and sending them to science education camps.
Yeah! CAMP! I wanna go!
(
https://www.facebook.com/FeministsAgainstVaccination/photos/a.1662919010602024.1073741827.1662044917356100/1675330549360870/?type=1)
I know this is from the hated FaceBook and the link may not even work, but the image is waaaaay out there. I want to post the jpeg, but I cannot do it for some reason.
Part of the tag line:
"Studies have shown that vaccines serve as a gateway drug to heroin. The patriarchy has been known to employ the use of heroin to keep women under their power by keeping them addicted" It must be a joke.
Tony_Tarantula on 21/3/2015 at 04:57
Quote Posted by bjack
Bwah ha ha ha :thumb: And you know that would work too. Sad!
Solves everything. Everyone else can keep vaxxing as much as they like, while the people who are worried about side effects can spend a bit more cash and buy the mercury free "organic" vaccine.
Oh, by the way, the "anti vaxx" movement does not appear to be a conservative one as far as I can tell. I live in a very conservative area and most of them are reflexively pro big-business....which includes big pharma companies. As far as they're concerned it's yet another attempt by evil libs to destroy capitalism. Most of the anti vaxxers I've met are either libertarian "government is out to get me"(which, unfortunately, keeps sounding more plausible with every leak) or new age lefty types who believe that anything artificial = bad and that it throws of your spiritual energy or some such.
And yes, Monsanto is a very "questionable" company. There's some shit they get away with, some of which you can find in archived news articles and a lot of which you can't, that would have gotten any other company fined so severely as to result in a forced sale. Same principle as Goldman Sachs: stuffing the chief regulating agency with alumnae from your company pays off in spades.
Also I am surprised you haven't mentioned this yet because you should be a lot more familiar with it than I am: The results of GMO trials vary dramatically depending on the length of the trial. The one used for approval was only a 90 day trial....not that it's a unique failing. A lot of the food additives that are turning out to be harmful were approved as "safe" during initial, relatively brief trials but public-friendly summaries of the research indicate adverse effects over longer periods of time.
If you're going to talk about how it's a few kook studies that were recalled then you should also, for the sake of honest discussion, also mention that some of those studies were changed in response to criticism and passed multiple rounds of peer review:
(
http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14)
faetal on 21/3/2015 at 10:46
I haven't mentioned it because I didn't know about it. I don't get new science uploaded into my head like a weekly newsletter. It's interesting and I've taken a look - though on quick glance, it seems to be a single study of one organism. Which doesn't support the statement "The results of GMO trials vary dramatically depending on the length of the trial". If you're going to use references, support the things you're saying, not "is maize strain A safe over X time".
I don't GMO is "the future of food" necessarily, I also don't know if it's overall going to be better than normal grown crops. What I do know is that we're facing a global food shortage at some point in our future caused by population growth and changing climate and being hysterical about possible tools to dampen this is not helping.
If we're being intellectually honest here, will you admit that you are already decided about GMO and are only looking for things which back up what you think? Because it's suspicious when someone with no science training is certain about something before finding the references. You seem more certain of its badness than I am of its use and I'm fairly certain I've read more papers on it (largely without the bias of searching without laoded terms as I encounter a fair few in toxicology journals).
Try reading some systematic reviews and not just the ones which sound like what you already think. Otherwise, no point in reading anything if you aren't prepared to have your predispositions challenged. From what I can tell, there are mixed reports and most of the concern involves containing the genes from cross-pollinating until we know more, but like with vaccines, having these things decided at a high level by those without appropriate education because they don't like the sound of it, isn't the right way to go.
bjack on 22/3/2015 at 17:17
Thank you for posting that New York Time article link. It seems that the "wussies" have found a way to silence speech via a terribly twisted interpretation of Title IX. Some of these same people want to reduce the voting age down to 16 years old and make it mandatory. If poor Peter Pantywaist and Suzy Pacifier cannot deal with some naughty words (or just reality for that matter), how on Earth are they mature enough to make decisions that effect us all?
The article asks what these protected little waifs will do one they get into the real world. I tell you what. We'll see far more zero tolerance rules at work and far more law suits. Just wait for the "Justice in the Workplace" act of 2016. For any employer of more than 25 people, one is not allowed to conduct performance reviews, since these may cause angst and foster a hostile working environment. The sad thing is there are people out there that would cheer that idea! Obama will declare that since everyone is subject to federal tax, they are also subject to Title IX. Just wait. Shit, I probably gave them an idea. :eek: :cheeky:
Tony_Tarantula on 22/3/2015 at 18:05
Quote Posted by faetal
If we're being intellectually honest here, will you admit that you are already decided about GMO and are only looking for things which back up what you think? Because it's suspicious when someone with no science training is certain about something
before finding the references. You seem more certain of its badness than I am of its use and I'm fairly certain I've read more papers on it (largely without the bias of searching without laoded terms as I encounter a fair few in toxicology journals).
I think a more accurate statement is that I think more due diligence should have been performed on the current strains in use before we started putting them in almost every corn product Americans eat. I'm not entirely confident in their long term safety as most of the studies performed to date are too short to capture the effects that I've been told about from people in related businesses. Until then I prefer to avoid Monsanto Maize(I'm not as worried about the other GMO's due to the lack of reported issues).
Another factor that I'm worried about is what they're doing to the environment. There's also a significant ecological risk associated with their use as they have (
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24/abstract) "brought about substantial increases in the volume and quantity of pesticides applied". You don't even need an undergraduate education to know why that's a bad trend.
That said it's admittedly secondhand information. I'm paraphrasing what I've been told by a member of my extended family who works one tier below the C-suite at a biotech company that's a household name.
Tony_Tarantula on 22/3/2015 at 18:10
Quote Posted by faetal
Try reading some systematic reviews and not just the ones which sound like what you already think. Otherwise, no point in reading anything if you aren't prepared to have your predispositions challenged. F
rom what I can tell, there are mixed reports and most of the concern involves containing the genes from cross-pollinating until we know more, but like with vaccines, having these things decided at a high level by those without appropriate education because they don't like the sound of it, isn't the right way to go.
The section in bold is exactly what I've been trying to get you to admit. Last time I checked, "mixed reports" isn't a good enough standard to release a chemically new product for mass distribution.....and there's no reason for me to use a product that has "mixed reports" when I could just as easily pay a few cents more for a version that we've been eating for millenia without any side effects.
Again, it is admittedly anecdotal but what I've heard about them is worse than that. They seem to be devastating to reproductive health in the long term.
