User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 77

  1. #41
    Don't pet me. JAVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    What's your goal with this, @JAVO? I know you're a pretty reasonable guy so I'm not sure why you're posting this kind of stuff. Devil's advocate day or something?
    I think there are bits of useful truth in some of this which are being ignored and dismissed without serious consideration. If someone can be cured of cancer or pneumonia using tools of modern medicine, then that's likely the tool which should be used. But, medications also have their side-effects and consequences. Other things can be cured or prevented using a more natural approach more effectively and efficiently. Even modern medicine acknowledges this to some extent, such as nutrition being important in prevention of cancer and heart disease, and that antibiotics are over-prescribed and often unnecessary.

    Also, there are plenty of morally reprehensible practitioners of modern medicine. Sometimes the facts are twisted or presented in a deceptive way. If risks to procedures or vaccinations are given a spin which hides important facts, then that's a violation of the core principle of informed consent as articulated in the Nuremburg code. A patient can't be informed if they don't fully understand or aren't aware of things. One example is the hype to promote influenza vaccination in the US, something Western medical practitioners in other countries perceive with more skepticism.

    For example:

    Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today. Twenty years ago, in 1990, 32 million doses of influenza vaccine were available in the United States. Today around 135 million doses of influenza vaccine annually enter the US market, with vaccinations administered in drug stores, supermarkets—even some drive-throughs. This enormous growth has not been fueled by popular demand but instead by a public health campaign that delivers a straightforward, who-in-their-right-mind-could-possibly-disagree message: influenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives. Through this lens, the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities,1 precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates.2 Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims. The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated.
    Source: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037

    People who question the safety and value of vaccines are labeled as "antivax nutcases," yet there are also PhDs in immunology who do the same. I haven't read that book yet, but I intend to. [edit:] Here is part of an interesting inverview with the author:

    Vaccinated children are coming down with the same infectious diseases for which they have been fully vaccinated. Why do you think vaccine ‘immunity’—if we can call it that—is so short lived and not adequate?

    We would expect that vaccinated individuals would not be involved (or very minimally involved) in any outbreak of an infectious disease for which they have been vaccinated. Yet, when outbreaks are analyzed, it becomes apparent that most often this is not the case. Vaccinated individuals are indeed very frequently involved and constitute a high proportion of disease cases.

    I think this is happening because vaccination does not engage the genuine mechanism of immunity. Vaccination typically engages the immune response—that is, everything that immunologists would theoretically “want” to see being engaged in the immune system. But apparently this is not enough to confer robust protection that matches natural immunity. Our knowledge of the immune system is far from being complete.
    source: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20...ne-frompovich/

    The dogmatic stance on many medical and scientific issues is simply not warranted [edit: by the evidence]. Things are not as black and white as they first appear.

  2. #42
    Unapologetic being Evolving Transparency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ESI Fi
    Posts
    3,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Bruises are formed from blood leaking out into the tissues when your blood vessels rupture. Holding the spot long enough for the blood to clot and seal the blood vessels will prevent a bruise, since it'll prevent the blood from leaking out of the injured vessels.

    This has nothing to do with "blood proteins", blood pH, pain, or stress. It also can't be generalized to injuries that don't involve bleeding, for what should be obvious reasons.
    So you're saying that stubbing your toe is not a stress to the body? That is odd lol

    There are protiens in the blood, aren't there?

    But, like I said. I'm not really interested in discussing much of this.

    So if I believe in "quackery," then I believe in quackery It works for me. Doesn't have to work for you.

    And I'm not going to just believe what has been put out there on the basis that someone else said so. So I will take your critique into consideration, just like everything else.
    "Once the game is over, the Pawn and the King go back into the same box"

    Freedom isn't free.
    "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ~ Orwell
    I'm that person that embodies pretty much everything that you hate. Might as well get used to it.
    Unapologetically bonding in an uninhibited, propelled manner
    10w12

  3. #43
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Urarienev View Post
    So if I believe in "quackery," then I believe in quackery It works for me. Doesn't have to work for you.
    This is a complete lack of intellectual integrity expressed without embarrassment.

  4. #44
    Unapologetic being Evolving Transparency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ESI Fi
    Posts
    3,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    This is a complete lack of intellectual integrity expressed without embarrassment.
    I'm not sure what you're saying...cause I never really know what you're saying...

    Nor do I understand your intentions...

    If you're saying that I'm not upholding proper evidence to my opinion, I have already said like 3 times, that I don't want to discuss much about this. I think I even stated that it's because I'm not especially adept at explaining things. So why bother?
    "Once the game is over, the Pawn and the King go back into the same box"

    Freedom isn't free.
    "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ~ Orwell
    I'm that person that embodies pretty much everything that you hate. Might as well get used to it.
    Unapologetically bonding in an uninhibited, propelled manner
    10w12

  5. #45
    Senior Member two cents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    But if it really did work for thousands of years, then it would be pretty silly to need an organization like the FDA to tell us what to do with it, wouldn't it?
    No, it wouldn't. All evidence we have that something "worked for thousands of years" is hearsay. It MAY, in fact be effective, or it may not, and might even be dangerous to boot. Personally, I feel safer when someone gives me some actual numbers on how many people are helped and how many are hurt by a remedy.

    Let's take everyone's favorite hobby-horse, Aspirin. It's derived from a compound in willow bark. Native peoples with access to the right plants have known of its effectiveness in reducing fever for thousands of years. Well, thanks to modern medicine not only do you not have to go harvest your own willow bark, boil it, and drink nasty-tasting stuff, all the while having NO clue just how much active ingredient you are ingesting... you can take a nice convenient little pill. Oh, and Aspirin IS dangerous, it can and does cause stomach bleeding that can be fatal (and sometimes is). The danger of Aspirin is dose-dependent, and circumstance-dependent. Thanks to regulatory agencies like FDA, you get your pills with a label that tells you what a safe dose would be and when to avoid taking them altogether because you are at an increased risk of bleeding or of dying from it.

    I don't know about you, but I want to know about all those important things. And we are talking about something that reduces fever, which is usually not a fatal condition in itself. The more serious and life-threatening a condition, the more I want to be sure of safety and effectiveness of the agent I use to treat it, and yes, I do want more tangible evidence and more information than some hand-waving about it working for thousands of years.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    Assumptions are funny, but they get tiresome eventually. Your statements demonstrate to me that you actually haven't taken the time to understand the perspective being presented before rushing to a defense. You've defended things which really weren't threatened, and analyzed when it would've been more productive to integrate. These are some of the same flaws of modern medicine and science. You should hope not. What would happen to modern medicine and science if someone involved with research decided to think outside the dogmatic boxes instituted by the pedantic machinations of academia?
    Assumptions ARE funny things! When you talk about "dogmatic boxes instituted by the pedantic machinations of academia" all that makes me think is that you are being paranoid, and inherently suspicious of established authority, no matter what it is or how it operates.

    I have no interest in defending academia or any other institution that is involved in medical research. All I am saying is that you (and everyone else defending quackery) have failed to offer up an alternative that can stand up to the same level of scrutiny that you are imposing on the existing institutions. Criticism is fine (and frequently productive) as long as the same standards are applied across the board.

    Also, if something smells like bullshit, and looks like bullshit on cursory examination, please forgive me for not "taking the time to understand" and dissect it in detail in order to verify it's bullshit. If the world had to come to a grinding halt so we could all sit down and carefully consider the arguments offered up by every crackpot (which are not original, btw), and to refute for 101st time what has already been refuted and disproved, well, nothing would ever get done.

    Oh, and two can play this game. If you really had an open mind, you'd take the time to consider the thorough debunkings of germ-theory denialism that can be had with a quick trip to google. There's apparently even a site devoted to debunking scientific denialism of all sorts: http://debunkingdenialism.com (clever name, that)

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    Actually, pasteurized milk has plenty of live bacteria still in it, sometimes including Listeria:
    Yes, normal pasteurized milk does. There's ultra-pasteurized milk which has less (or none?). The bacteria left in regular pasteurized milk (like Acidophilus) are either neutral (don't cause disease) or beneficial, both for keeping milk fresh longer and for the bacterial communities in our bodies. And even the quote you provided states that the levels of Listeria, if present, are not sufficient to cause harm.

    What exactly is your point? That pasteurized milk is no safer than raw? Well, the raw milk might happen to be clean, but it isn't always and that's why we pasteurize it. In fact, we could opt for testing it instead, but that is more expensive and takes time, while milk is a perishable product. I personally happen to really love the taste of raw milk, and sometimes indulge myself. That doesn't mean I want to pay $10 for a gallon of raw milk that's been tested, or take on the risk of always drinking only raw milk that hasn't. It's a matter of risk benefit analysis, rather than dogma.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    Also, most people do not get sick if they consume something containing Listeria bacteria:
    Yeah, I already mentioned that. Listeria is not that bad unless you are a pregnant woman or an immunocompromised individual. But that's just the most common pathogen. How do you feel about diphtheria, nasty streptococcal strains, typhoid fever, and tuberculosis? You can get all of those from raw milk too, although, admittedly, those are less common.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    She actually.
    Oh, hey, I made an (unconsciously) sexist assumption. My bad. Glad to know quackery is also an equal-opportunity occupation. That totally invalidates my point, because she could not POSSIBLY be profiting from bold-faced lies sold to the gullible (or delusional, or both).
    And that's my two cents on the subject.

  6. #46
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    I think there are bits of useful truth in some of this which are being ignored and dismissed without serious consideration. If someone can be cured of cancer or pneumonia using tools of modern medicine, then that's likely the tool which should be used. But, medications also have their side-effects and consequences. Other things can be cured or prevented using a more natural approach more effectively and efficiently. Even modern medicine acknowledges this to some extent, such as nutrition being important in prevention of cancer and heart disease, and that antibiotics are over-prescribed and often unnecessary.

    Also, there are plenty of morally reprehensible practitioners of modern medicine. Sometimes the facts are twisted or presented in a deceptive way. If risks to procedures or vaccinations are given a spin which hides important facts, then that's a violation of the core principle of informed consent as articulated in the Nuremburg code. A patient can't be informed if they don't fully understand or aren't aware of things. One example is the hype to promote influenza vaccination in the US, something Western medical practitioners in other countries perceive with more skepticism.

    For example:


    Source: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037

    People who question the safety and value of vaccines are labeled as "antivax nutcases," yet there are also PhDs in immunology who do the same. I haven't read that book yet, but I intend to. [edit:] Here is part of an interesting inverview with the author:


    source: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20...ne-frompovich/

    The dogmatic stance on many medical and scientific issues is simply not warranted [edit: by the evidence]. Things are not as black and white as they first appear.
    Ahh, ok. I understand a lot better where you're coming from, now. I totally agree that medicine has all sorts of ethical (and sometimes functional) problems and that it isn't black and white. However, muddying the waters with sketchy nonsense like "body acidity" doesn't address those problems at all. I think things like the anti-vax movement and "alternative" cancer cures, far from pointing out the flaws in modern medicine, have actually made it more difficult to challenge medicine, because you're then lumped in with a bunch of nutjobs.

    Medicine has come a long way from its early days, but is nowhere near perfect, either functionally or on an ethical level. I have to say it beats the alternatives by a loooong shot, though.

    Don't get me wrong - some "alternative medicine" seems to work, often for reasons we don't yet understand. But I guarantee there is a reason that makes biological sense and is not related to "energy flow" or whatnot, even if we haven't found it yet. For example, over-use of antibiotics causing resistance is a real problem which is caused by the way bacteria react to antibiotics, not by any mythical effects. Nutrition is really important because it allows the body to keep up its defenses against diseases (in a measurable, known, scientific way!). The placebo effect is also very powerful of course, which is another interesting thing.
    -end of thread-

  7. #47
    Don't pet me. JAVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by two cents View Post
    No, it wouldn't. All evidence we have that something "worked for thousands of years" is hearsay. It MAY, in fact be effective, or it may not, and might even be dangerous to boot. Personally, I feel safer when someone gives me some actual numbers on how many people are helped and how many are hurt by a remedy.

    Let's take everyone's favorite hobby-horse, Aspirin. It's derived from a compound in willow bark. Native peoples with access to the right plants have known of its effectiveness in reducing fever for thousands of years. Well, thanks to modern medicine not only do you not have to go harvest your own willow bark, boil it, and drink nasty-tasting stuff, all the while having NO clue just how much active ingredient you are ingesting... you can take a nice convenient little pill. Oh, and Aspirin IS dangerous, it can and does cause stomach bleeding that can be fatal (and sometimes is). The danger of Aspirin is dose-dependent, and circumstance-dependent. Thanks to regulatory agencies like FDA, you get your pills with a label that tells you what a safe dose would be and when to avoid taking them altogether because you are at an increased risk of bleeding or of dying from it.

    I don't know about you, but I want to know about all those important things. And we are talking about something that reduces fever, which is usually not a fatal condition in itself. The more serious and life-threatening a condition, the more I want to be sure of safety and effectiveness of the agent I use to treat it, and yes, I do want more tangible evidence and more information than some hand-waving about it working for thousands of years.
    This statement itself is biased. Harvesting a small piece of bark takes about 10 seconds, and there's no need to boil it. If I grew up in a culture where my parents and all of my relatives cure a headache by chewing let's randomly say a quarter-sized piece of willow bark for 15 minutes, and it works every time with no side effects, then that's not hearsay. It's simply a fact of life and a way of life. It's also free, much easier to obtain, and doesn't require a vast array of facilities and organizations and supervision. Some people prefer dependence, and others prefer independence. I'm glad everyone has their choice, at least in most places.

    Assumptions ARE funny things! When you talk about "dogmatic boxes instituted by the pedantic machinations of academia" all that makes me think is that you are being paranoid, and inherently suspicious of established authority, no matter what it is or how it operates.
    It sounds like you're saying that anyone who questions or challenges authority is paranoid?

    I have no interest in defending academia or any other institution that is involved in medical research. All I am saying is that you (and everyone else defending quackery) have failed to offer up an alternative that can stand up to the same level of scrutiny that you are imposing on the existing institutions. Criticism is fine (and frequently productive) as long as the same standards are applied across the board.
    It's interesting that I don't find the need to frequently use loaded words like "quackery" and "crackpot" which presuppose the issue under discussion.

    Also, if something smells like bullshit, and looks like bullshit on cursory examination, please forgive me for not "taking the time to understand" and dissect it in detail in order to verify it's bullshit.
    Well, be careful with your fecal assumptions. I brought a fake rubber pile of cat poop into Spanish class in high school and surreptitiously put it under the desk of someone prone to making the same assumptions. I simply asked him, "Hey! What's that under your desk?" He looked at it, even poked it, smelled it (the mind is a funny thing when it wants to confirm what it thinks it already knows), and then freaked out and ran to the teacher complaining that there was a pile of crap under his desk. (All of this was just a spontaneous side prank. I had actually brought it in for a show and tell presentation in speech class.) The guilty party was of course obvious: the person who was laughing the hardest. The teacher obviously had cats at home, because she unhesitatingly attempted to dissect the scat with her bare hands, and then confiscated it into a ziploc bag. When I asked for it back at the end of class, she told me that she was turning it into the principal's office, and that I would have to go to him and ask for it back. I found this hilarious, and I enthusiastically went to the principal's office a week later when I thought about it again. When I went to his secretary and demanded "my cat shit" back, she stifled a smile and reported that she didn't have it. I had lost my shit. And worse, the principal was probably playing my trademarked gag on all of the teachers.

    Oh, and two can play this game. If you really had an open mind, you'd take the time to consider the thorough debunkings of germ-theory denialism that can be had with a quick trip to google. There's apparently even a site devoted to debunking scientific denialism of all sorts: http://debunkingdenialism.com (clever name, that)


    If I assert something isn't true, it's denialism. If you assert something isn't true, it's debunking. Your rules are fecal too.

    Yes, normal pasteurized milk does. There's ultra-pasteurized milk which has less (or none?). The bacteria left in regular pasteurized milk (like Acidophilus) are either neutral (don't cause disease) or beneficial, both for keeping milk fresh longer and for the bacterial communities in our bodies. And even the quote you provided states that the levels of Listeria, if present, are not sufficient to cause harm.

    What exactly is your point? That pasteurized milk is no safer than raw? Well, the raw milk might happen to be clean, but it isn't always and that's why we pasteurize it. In fact, we could opt for testing it instead, but that is more expensive and takes time, while milk is a perishable product. I personally happen to really love the taste of raw milk, and sometimes indulge myself. That doesn't mean I want to pay $10 for a gallon of raw milk that's been tested, or take on the risk of always drinking only raw milk that hasn't. It's a matter of risk benefit analysis, rather than dogma.

    Yeah, I already mentioned that. Listeria is not that bad unless you are a pregnant woman or an immunocompromised individual. But that's just the most common pathogen. How do you feel about diphtheria, nasty streptococcal strains, typhoid fever, and tuberculosis? You can get all of those from raw milk too, although, admittedly, those are less common.
    There are bacteria capable of tissue destruction left in milk too. Pasteurization is a mere modern convenience, not a necessity or miracle of science.

    Oh, hey, I made an (unconsciously) sexist assumption. My bad. Glad to know quackery is also an equal-opportunity occupation. That totally invalidates my point, because she could not POSSIBLY be profiting from bold-faced lies sold to the gullible (or delusional, or both).
    I was just surprised that you hadn't checked out the site at all, because her gender is obvious to anyone who did.

  8. #48
    Don't pet me. JAVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    If germ theory and vaccines are useless, then how do you explain the total eradication of smallpox?

    It seems pretty effective to me.
    I'm coming back to this because smallpox is a fun discussion. Remembering that one cannot infer causation from correlation, the official explanation is funny because it doesn't even match the data on a correlative level, yet it's claimed that vaccination is the cause of the eradication. Look at a graph of smallpox mortality vs. year. It's not clear what caused smallpox to decline, but I think a better explanation is probably improved health and sanitation practices.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    This is a complete lack of intellectual integrity expressed without embarrassment.
    Or maybe labeling something as quackery is an intellectually dishonest attempt to discredit it?

  9. #49
    Senior Member two cents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    This statement itself is biased. Harvesting a small piece of bark takes about 10 seconds, and there's no need to boil it. If I grew up in a culture where my parents and all of my relatives cure a headache by chewing let's randomly say a quarter-sized piece of willow bark for 15 minutes, and it works every time with no side effects, then that's not hearsay. It's simply a fact of life and a way of life. It's also free, much easier to obtain, and doesn't require a vast array of facilities and organizations and supervision. Some people prefer dependence, and others prefer independence. I'm glad everyone has their choice, at least in most places.
    If the conditions you have presupposed are true, sure, it's easy to just follow your family's example. It still doesn't give you any understanding of what risks you are taking (nothing wrong with taking risks, but it's reasonable to want to know how "risky" they really are, no?). Suppose the conditions are different. I don't know where to go find a suitable willow around where I live, what species of willow will do (weeping willow? others?), how much bark to take, how to take it without hurting the tree, and how to consume it. Chewing a piece of bark doesn't sound very inviting either.

    If I knew of an herbal remedy that I have personally observed to be effective, and had easy access to it, I might use it (though I might also look it up, just to make sure I was aware of any known risks). If someone I don't know and whose credentials I have no reason to trust tells me they know of a remedy that they've seen help other people, well, why should I trust the anecdotal evidence they provide me? You seem to want to trust absolutely anyone who isn't the established authority and is against the established authority. I know the established authority has problems and what they are, that doesn't mean some other person or institution that paints themselves as a better alternative actually IS a better alternative and doesn't have their own problems which could be much worse. I would want evidence that they are free of the problems they are pointing out in others, AND ALSO free of other serious problems I could think of.

    And since anecdotal evidence apparently holds such sway for you, what about all the people you know who are helped by "modern medicine"? It's not just effective for the anonymous "millions of people out there", but for you and the people you know.

    I have some anecdotal evidence of my own, too. As an adolescent, I almost died of an easily treatable infection which my mother mis-identified as a cold and treated me with various "alternative medicine" remedies for, all the while ignoring that I was getting progressively worse. If my older sister didn't come for a visit, seen me in horrible pain and barely able to breathe (severely dehydrated too, though she couldn't have known by looking) and taken me to the emergency room I might have died that night. Intravenous fluids and a course of antibiotics and voila, I was right as rain in a week. But I guess that's evidence of nothing, certainly not germ theory, and antibiotics work by some magic or another.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    It sounds like you're saying that anyone who questions or challenges authority is paranoid?
    Nope. Anyone who throws around terms like "dogmatic boxes" and "pedantic machinations" probably is though.


    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    It's interesting that I don't find the need to frequently use loaded words like "quackery" and "crackpot" which presuppose the issue under discussion.
    No, clearly words like "dogmatic boxes" and "pedantic machinations" presuppose nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    If I assert something isn't true, it's denialism. If you assert something isn't true, it's debunking. Your rules are fecal too.
    Yeah, that's the thing, you can only assert something and expect to be believed if you back it up by direct evidence or authority (or both), either your own or someone else's. You are not a biologist or a medical doctor and neither am I. You cite one of a small number of doctors who believe something that the overwhelming majority of doctors (which I cite) believe is untrue and contradicted by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. But the sheer number of trained specialists that support germ theory is precisely what makes you suspicious of anything they might say, because they are the ESTABLISHMENT (shock horror), and must be conspiring to silence dissenting voices of brave heroes that just want to open our eyes to the TRUTH.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    There are bacteria capable of tissue destruction left in milk too. Pasteurization is a mere modern convenience, not a necessity or miracle of science.
    No one says pasteurization is a miracle. You could do the same at home, by boiling your milk. Yes, I would say it's really convenient to be able to buy milk and drink it, rather than worrying about boiling it first.

    Where is your assertion that there's "bacteria capable of tissue destruction left in milk too" coming from? Why is this the first time I'm hearing that pasteurized milk is in any way dangerous? We are constantly bombarded by warnings and news of mass illness from things like beef, tomatoes, lettuce, etc, but there's a deathly silence on milk...

    Also, I thought bacteria didn't cause disease? Isn't that what we've been arguing about?

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    I was just surprised that you hadn't checked out the site at all, because her gender is obvious to anyone who did.
    Why would I? Your teacher might not mind taking an interest in what looks like crap to the extent of risking the unpleasantness of handling said crap, but I generally try to avoid noxious stimuli. You've quoted enough of her writing to give me a good idea of what the rest is like. She's not actually original, and she isn't saying anything I haven't read (lots of) before, and read point-by-point refutations of (written by credentialed scientists, btw).

    But hey, if you want to see what someone who paid attention specifically to her and taken time to address her points, here you go:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...e-internation/
    And that's my two cents on the subject.

  10. #50
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAVO View Post
    It's not clear what caused smallpox to decline, but I think a better explanation is probably improved health and sanitation practices.
    No, it is rather clear, and this total eradication is more related to two facts which have nothing to do with "improved health and sanitation practices":

    1/ The smallpox virus is transmitted only through humans, it cannot survive in other animals, other places or other kind of bodies like most other virus. It's not a zoonosis.

    2/ In that case, the vaccine was so powerful that many considered that the immunity would last for decades, or even for life.

    Thus, in this specific case, it was possible to eradicate it.

    You seem to see grey areas even when there is none. Clearly, "you want to believe". If it's a matter of personal faith (like what your sources and article seem to imply), then be honest with it.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

Similar Threads

  1. What type is Niccolò Machiavelli - Based on his Portrait
    By Mal12345 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-03-2016, 10:01 PM
  2. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-28-2012, 03:58 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-13-2012, 04:06 PM
  4. What color is your magic - Based on The Black Prism by Brent Weeks.
    By r0wo1 in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 10:14 AM
  5. What is personality based on?
    By sculpting in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-10-2010, 10:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO