I just visited Iceland, where the day is currently longer - the sun set about 23.00 and rose about 03.00. During the solstice, Iceland experiences almost 24hrs of daylight.
My question is this: How does the flat earth theory explain this change in daylight hours when an observer travels north or south of the equator? Or in other words, why does Antarctica and the Arctic both experience long periods of sunlight and darkness?
The explanation of a "spotlight" sun does not make sense, if we assume that the Arctic is at the centre of the disc, and the Antarctic is a boundary of the disc.
While I don't necessarily agree that the earth is flat, modern science is very technical in how it works. This science has not been used to explain how a flat earth would work in every way. If the minds of modern science were applied to finding out how a flat earth works, like they have been applied to a round earth, flat earth science might have advanced way more rapidly. Perhaps the explanations are coming in the near future.  Perhaps, but the current accepted model of a globe Earth explains this already. This is the main problem with the Flat Earth theory, it seems to be a case of classic conspiracy theory where someone thinks up a hypothesis (a flat earth) and then tries to "prove" all the discrepancies with increasingly complex explanations, such as a "spotlight" sun, with no empirical evidence of said explanations. This is not how the scientific method works, you don't just think up an idea and then think up loads of new ways in which the idea could work. You need to rigorously try and "disprove" your hypothesis, and the harder this is to do, the more weight your hypothesis has. |
|
|
|
|
Iceland is a perfect place for bitcoin mining, their energy is produced almost entirely from renewable sources such as hydro-electric and geothermal, so it's very cheap. It's a beautiful place too, just spent a week doing a lap round the country in a 4x4. Not much civilisation outside Reykjavik, but the volcanic landscape is breathtaking. The hot springs/vents smell strongly of hydrogen sulphide though, basically a mixture of farts and rotten eggs.
|
|
|
|
|
I just visited Iceland, where the day is currently longer - the sun set about 23.00 and rose about 03.00. During the solstice, Iceland experiences almost 24hrs of daylight.
My question is this: How does the flat earth theory explain this change in daylight hours when an observer travels north or south of the equator? Or in other words, why does Antarctica and the Arctic both experience long periods of sunlight and darkness?
The explanation of a "spotlight" sun does not make sense, if we assume that the Arctic is at the centre of the disc, and the Antarctic is a boundary of the disc.
|
|
|
|
Few moral questions for the people in this thread that are opposed to these practices:
1) What moral difference is there between an abortion clinic selling the parts of dead babies for stem cell research, illegally on the black market, and a marijuana dealer selling dank weed illegally on the black market?
- In this context, let's assume that no women were solicited to abort a baby for the purpose of making money - they did so for personal reasons. Please justify your answer logically.
2) If no money is involved, apart from legitimate expenses (which I think is what PP is claiming), so the tissue is purely donated to stem cell research with no profit to PP, does this change your opinion? Why?
3) If the parts were being sold to other, less wholesome organisations (such as underground clubs where people eat fetal tissue), does this change your opinion? Why?
3) If it turns out that PP executives were (illegally I think?) exaggerating the expenses costs, and putting that extra money back into the organisation for care-related use (more clinics/better patient care/better clinicians etc.), would that be immoral? Would your opinion change for this question if the money went to more indirect activity, such as advertising and government lobbying for PP?
4) If it turns out that PP executives were funneling this expenses money corruptly into their own personal pockets (to buy Lambos etc, which is obviously fraud), do you think that this is worse than cases of fraud in other organisations, such as the recent LIBOR scandal, or ENRON scandal in 2001. Bear in mind that these scandals were orders of magnitude worse in terms of money lost by innocent people.
If you think that the (unproven) fraud in 4) is worse than the other scandals I mentioned, can you give some justification why, and who the victims are?
Please try and keep your replies succinct and free of too much emotion. I know this is an emotive subject, and I'm not trying to upset anyone by being logical about it even though I may come across as cold and "Spock-like". Just trying to get past the emotion and see who are the real victims in the scandal. Feel free to answer as little or many of these questions as you like.
1) The babies were still alive when they got cut up. Their flesh needed to be viable for research. Injecting any kind of poison would defeat the purpose of the sale of those babies. If you believe in the respect of laws, one of them forbids the use of ultrasound to move the baby around, still inside the womb, to harvest its parts. This is what the person on the video says. That part was already covered and well answered by a lady (I believe she is a woman, on the internet no one knows for sure) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1122310.msg12028727#msg12028727What moral difference is there between an abortion clinic selling the parts of still alive babies for stem cell research, and gangs in india cutting little children so they look better for begging? Absolutely no differences. http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/04/gang-profits-from-maimed-child-beggars/The babies were always going to die, whether they were technically alive is arguable, that depends on your definition of life. It's debatable whether the ultrasound is an issue at all, as I touched on earlier. Jesus christ, you think there's no difference between slashing a 7 year old's penis and maiming him further (to exploit him to make profit for a criminal gang), and dissecting a dead fetus to get tissue for research to save people's lives? That's shocking. You do understand that the maimed 7 year old has a whole life ahead of him, and the fetus has literally none, (the woman's decision, not PP's)? I read a comment on a news site about the PP scandal, to paraphrase: "It's a shame that fundie Christian Republicans care more about saving fetuses than actual real-life children. And when a girl does have an unwanted kid, the Rebublicans refuse to give enough welfare to support it!" I'm not suggesting you're a fundie christian republican, but it reminded me of attitudes such as yours. 2) The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research In recent years, new methods of cellular reprogramming have enabled the derivation of so-called induced pluripitent stem (iPS) cells, which seem to have the full powers of embryonic stem cells but are from adult body cells.http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/section.php?id=71Bloodletting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting was believed to be the most amazing advance in medicine for centuries, until it became clear it was a useless barbaric tradition, or as scientific as alchemy. The same fate will happen to the barbarism of cutting up still alive babies. Why would anyone want to defend the past is beyond me... Don't quite see how this relates to my question, but yeah the research into adult stem cell harvesting is certainly interesting. However they don't seem to have the potential of embryonic stem cells. Quite why you talk about bloodletting, is a mystery to me. Are you trolling? Bloodletting was stopped because people realized it was detrimental and killed people. Stem cell research helps save people's lives and advance science. 3.1) Like cannibalism, or eating the placenta? http://www.webmd.com/baby/should-i-eat-my-placentaThe core of your questions is based on the belief that a baby is not human. Maybe you believe it becomes human as soon as it takes it first breath? Or maybe you believe post natal abortions is as justified as pre natal abortion? I do not believe a human, at any stage of its development, is a product, like weed in the pocket of an undercover cop. I am trying to answer based on my belief but going into that hypothesis is a moot point to me. Not a product, so no other possibilites to make money off baby body parts. I meant cannibalism. My question cannot be based on any belief, the answer arguably could though. See, It's hard to discuss with you because instead of answering simple questions, you speculate on my opinion and ask me more questions. If you just addressed what I said, it would make things easier. Anyway, the definition of a commodity/product is simply something that has value to others. I posted a link earlier which gave instructions on how to sell a poo for $40. Do you also disagree with sperm banks? They are a stage in human development. Your points are related to actual abortion, not what happens to the fetus afterwards. 3.2) The fundamental of your question is "innocent until proven guilty, guilty being doing something like ticket scalping on a side to make pp better". Why would anyone be against cheating the IRS? How come they don't talk about what you believe they should be talking? No one forced them to say what they said in the videos. If you believe tax payers should pay more for pp then that is your position. What was that? $500M they get already? 0bamacare is supposed to do everything pp is supposed to do. PP does not need to exist, thanks to 0bamacare. Why would anyone be for government waste of money in purpose? I will never understand.
What? This hyperbole is unrelated to my question, and pretty unintelligible.
4) If a baby is a product, or commodity in your mind, then I understand your need to compare what we see in the videos, and Enron. ..." in terms of money lost by innocent people. "
Baby being cut up for profit = innocent victims. If I use your example then pp is Enron, a profiteer selling the flesh, LITTERALLY, of innoncent people.
"Spock-like"
How many hearts does mr spock have?
Vulcans only have one, but it is located where the human liver would be
You are obviously not a... Vulcan...
No, I don't think live babies are commodities. But dead ones are, because they were aborted by the free will of the mother. They have value, and fit the definition of commodity. It's cold, but it's the truth. Dead babies don't kill themselves after a life of suffering, as a result of fraudulent lenders repossessing their house (for example). That's why corporate fraud is on another level to what we're talking about here. Live long and prosper, don't die in a meth lab explosion because your mother couldn't support you. |
|
|
|
...
I will try and reply tomorrow, spent about an hour on the last post, live long and prosper hehe. |
|
|
|
Firstly, thanks again for the clear reply - It's refreshing to read posts which state the author's points clearly, without emotional hyperbole. Few moral questions for the people in this thread that are opposed to these practices:
1) What moral difference is there between an abortion clinic selling the parts of dead babies for stem cell research, illegally on the black market, and a marijuana dealer selling dank weed illegally on the black market?
- In this context, let's assume that no women were solicited to abort a baby for the purpose of making money - they did so for personal reasons. Please justify your answer logically.
They're lying to the women (saying the parts are just tissue, yet believing them to be human organs). They're harming the women (more than necessary) to collect the tissues. Well, I would argue that what the doctors call the tissue/human organs is irrelevant, (seeing as the women already know that by having an abortion they will be killing the baby, and their decision is not based on what happens to the fetus afterwards). It seems your point relates more to the actual decision of having an abortion, not what happens to the fetal parts afterwards. Technically, the parts are both tissue, and human organs - tissue is a scientific term for a collection of cells, in this case cells from a [dead] human baby. So both terms, in my opinion are accurate. The problem that you're getting at I think, is that abortion law is based on the fetus not developing to the stage of a "classical human", one that can feel pain, have thoughts etc. Although it is a valid point, I don't think it relates to what happens to the baby parts after abortion - the law states that babies can be aborted before they develop to a certain point, and PP follow these laws. I don't see any moral issue with them using the wrong technical terms for fetal organs. If you disagree with abortion in general, or the stage at which a fetus is legally allowed to be aborted, then this is a separate issue; not related to how PP treat the fetal tissue after abortion. Now, your point about harming women is more serious. Are you saying that clinicians are putting patients in more physical pain than necessary, to increase chances of extracting better quality fetal tissue, without the patients consent? That would be unethical IMO, but not so if they warn the patient in advance, assuming the patients have agreed to donate the fetal tissue. 2) If no money is involved, apart from legitimate expenses (which I think is what PP is claiming), so the tissue is purely donated to stem cell research with no profit to PP, does this change your opinion? Why? No, I think it's pretty obvious, they're still lying to the women and harming them more than necessary. Again, I don't see the problem with what they call the tissue, whether it's baby/human/stem cell tissue. It's not really lying because the term is just semantic, the women already know that their baby will die, and if they desire, donated to stem cell research. But as I said, I wouldn't agree with a woman being harmed/hurt more than necessary without their consent. If there is evidence of this, I would condemn the practice. In fact, I think that all aborted fetuses should be donated to stem cell research. It seems crazy not to use stem cells to help other people in need, when it's such an amazing resource to help people with degenerative diseases, and to grow new organs for people. 3) If the parts were being sold to other, less wholesome organisations (such as underground clubs where people eat fetal tissue), does this change your opinion? Why? That would add another moral objection. Some women may not like it if they found out their fetus was being eaten, or used in some religious practice. I agree that this adds another moral objection, I think it should be up to the woman having the abortion where the fetal tissue goes after the procedure. OK, you do understand that the cell lines used in the research of flavour enhancers bought by Pepsi from Senomyx were from an baby aborted in 1972? Let me try and explain how far away this is from simply drinking fetal tissue: - A baby was aborted in Holland in 1972
- A specific type of cell was taken from the kidneys of said baby
- These cells were cultured, eventually producing a cell line called Human Embryonic Kidney 293
- The original cells went through many changes (genetic transformations) before becoming HEK 293
- This cell line is used in many beneficial applications, such as cell biotechnology, especially in protein research
- Senomyx used this cell line by adding receptors to the HEK 293 cell that detect taste.
- This allows them to test many flavour additives very quickly, to see if they taste sweet or savoury etc.
- The flavour enhancer in Pepsi would have been tested on this cell line, but this is the only contact with the cell line it would have
- There would be no more contact with the cell line before the flavour enhancer is used in consumer products such as Pepsi
It's similar with vaccines, some were developed with similar cell lines derived from aborted fetuses from 20+ years ago. But they don't contain cells from an aborted fetus. Don't worry, you are not eating or being injected with bits of dead baby! 3) If it turns out that PP executives were (illegally I think?) exaggerating the expenses costs, and putting that extra money back into the organisation for care-related use (more clinics/better patient care/better clinicians etc.), would that be immoral? Would your opinion change for this question if the money went to more indirect activity, such as advertising and government lobbying for PP? Yes, the lying, and tricking people and hurting them more than necessary is still there. Fair enough, you don't think that this is an "everybody wins" scenario? It seems that the labs get their cells (to advance medicine and save more lives), and the patient gets their premium care. However, I do have an issue here with an underground market, which may well favour bigger/richer institutions. I feel if there is a market for this type of commodity, the smaller guys may get pushed out, leaving only the bigger, possibly more corrupt guys (Glaxo/Bayer etc.) 4) If it turns out that PP executives were funneling this expenses money corruptly into their own personal pockets (to buy Lambos etc, which is obviously fraud), do you think that this is worse than cases of fraud in other organisations, such as the recent LIBOR scandal, or ENRON scandal in 2001. Bear in mind that these scandals were orders of magnitude worse in terms of money lost by innocent people.
If you think that the (unproven) fraud in 4) is worse than the other scandals I mentioned, can you give some justification why, and who the victims are?
I suppose both had to do with lying to others, and putting them out and harming them (in different ways), so logically very similar.... However, I personally believe that killing a baby is a sin, so I think that lying to someone to get them to commit a sin is much worse. Because the women have to live with it, the fathers have to live with it, and it all might have been avoided if the PP employee had not lied to try to get an outcome. I know some may say it's not a lie to call a baby a fetus, but here's the thing.... Killing babies was considered murder, that's why they had a court case about it. The only reason they allow the killing of tissue (babies) is because the law calls them fetuses and tissue, not babies. According to the law it is only murder when the intact baby is delivered. These PP employees are purposefully getting the intact babies, for one. But even in situations where they're not, they are calling them human organs etc. They know it's a human, and yet they just killed it to get it out. They're purposefully telling the women that it's just tissue, but they know better. That's a disgrace and immoral. I understand and respect your opinion, although I mostly don't agree. Your justification is basically the same as earlier, stating they were "lying to others" (the harming I'm unclear on, so I won't comment on that) My view is, the seriousness of an act of fraud should be based on the personal/societal harm inflicted by said fraud. And I'm sorry, but even if PP was committing what they're accused of, I don't think it's in the same league as, say, the ENRON scandal in terms of suffering of innocent people. Literally no-one is being victimised (apart from possibly the dead fetus, and maybe stem cell research facilities). Your comments, such as " it all might have been avoided if the PP employee had not lied to try to get an outcome." imply that solicitation was involved. This is not the case, as far as we know, all patients were treated because they had a personal reason for the abortion. Whether the PP employee calls it a fetus/baby/lump of cells I don't think has an effect on the final decision. After all, the woman made an appointment to have an abortion by her own free will. I assume your quite a religious person? I'm not religious (I guess I class myself as an agnostic-atheist/humanist), but I can identify with the fact that most religions advocate peace and condemn suffering for the human species. Your last paragraph resonates with me - I can see that you have a strong sense of preserving life, which I admire. However, you continuously reference the semantic terms the employees use (as if their terms are influencing the patients decisions) , and you need to understand that the women are going here of their own free will. They want an abortion for whatever reason, and I think we should respect that. In fact, I think that abortions help humanity as whole, by keeping population down and limiting poverty. |
|
|
|
|
Few moral questions for the people in this thread that are opposed to these practices:
1) What moral difference is there between an abortion clinic selling the parts of dead babies for stem cell research, illegally on the black market, and a marijuana dealer selling dank weed illegally on the black market?
- In this context, let's assume that no women were solicited to abort a baby for the purpose of making money - they did so for personal reasons. Please justify your answer logically.
2) If no money is involved, apart from legitimate expenses (which I think is what PP is claiming), so the tissue is purely donated to stem cell research with no profit to PP, does this change your opinion? Why?
3) If the parts were being sold to other, less wholesome organisations (such as underground clubs where people eat fetal tissue), does this change your opinion? Why?
3) If it turns out that PP executives were (illegally I think?) exaggerating the expenses costs, and putting that extra money back into the organisation for care-related use (more clinics/better patient care/better clinicians etc.), would that be immoral? Would your opinion change for this question if the money went to more indirect activity, such as advertising and government lobbying for PP?
4) If it turns out that PP executives were funneling this expenses money corruptly into their own personal pockets (to buy Lambos etc, which is obviously fraud), do you think that this is worse than cases of fraud in other organisations, such as the recent LIBOR scandal, or ENRON scandal in 2001. Bear in mind that these scandals were orders of magnitude worse in terms of money lost by innocent people.
If you think that the (unproven) fraud in 4) is worse than the other scandals I mentioned, can you give some justification why, and who the victims are?
Please try and keep your replies succinct and free of too much emotion. I know this is an emotive subject, and I'm not trying to upset anyone by being logical about it even though I may come across as cold and "Spock-like". Just trying to get past the emotion and see who are the real victims in the scandal. Feel free to answer as little or many of these questions as you like.
|
|
|
|
We are talking about people, who eat dolphins and dogs .... Do you think they worry about the sustainability of a Bitcoin network?
AAHAHAHAAAAAA Brilliant! This could be straight out of a Chris Morris sketch. |
|
|
|
Personally I have no problem with radioactivity... It's an eternal and inevitable part of our world, just like air, water or sunlight:   (c) myself However, I have problem with these greenpeace zombies, who have brought nothing but damage and growing entropy.  Agree with you, if nuclear energy is done properly, then it is the most efficient source of energy, and the best choice for the environment. Unfortunately it has a bad reputation because when there is an accident, it's pretty dramatic. Here's an analogy for trying to get through to the "greenpeace zombies": Imagine the difference between airliners and cars, specifically when they have accidents. Airliners rarely crash, but when they do it's pretty gnarly, and it's in the news. Cars crash all the time, and kill loads more people, but many people perceive cars as safer. Imagine that nuclear energy is airliners, and fossil fuel combustion is cars. Except that nuclear energy is a lot safer than airliners, and getting safer all the time. Well OK, maybe not the best analogy in the world, but you gotta keep it simple for these guys yo. PS. Have you got any brazil nuts? Point your Geiger counter at one and take a photo. For science. |
|
|
|
[ranting]
Whatever, if you wanted to talk about gut bacteria then you could have said so clearly in your first post, rather than linking to an article that claims one thing, but cites data regarding another thing altogether. It seemed as though you were replying to me, because you quoted my post, then said "Not OK", implying that you disagreed with my post. Then you linked to an article that directly contradicted my post (the article did, the paper it cited didn't). It does seem like slightly odd behaviour, to bring up a point in this confusing roundabout way, but hey ho. I'm done here, good luck if we get an Ebola outbreak at some point. |
|
|
|
Yes, you are wasting your own time.
We are so grateful for you "going out of your way" to criticize studies which at no point I claimed were conclusive evidence of anything except that the correlation between vaccines and autism should be studied further. Your claim that one large study showing there is no correlation should end the debate shows your complete ignorance of scientific method. Furthermore, you conveniently skipped over a very extensive list of studies linked in that article supporting Dr. Wakefield's conclusion that the subject should be studied further, and that there is a link between gut bacteria and autism (fact). He at no point claimed it was proof of a link between MMR and autism, but you wouldn't know this because you are simply parroting second hand information and pretending you took the time to educate yourself about the subject.
U wot m8??  Enough about vaccines and autism. OK? Not ok. New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism – Again (MMR Vaccine Causes Autism) The paper you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with a link between vaccines and autism I will be waiting patiently for you to produce a single independent human efficacy and safety study for injected vaccines. *posts list of genuine vaccine studies your huge list of studies did not include one single study about the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. uuuh well actually all of the studies are about the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans... If you've got a problem with any of them, then you need to discuss it specifically, like I'm doing. Not just accuse me of swamping you with studies haha. Anyway, I just posted great studies proving my point, and now you're asking me to produce more studies to prove another point (moving the goalposts). Then you spin the argument to talk about how there's a link between "gut bacteria and autism", when we were not saying anything about gut bacteria. The only reason that gut bacteria are in the discussion is because you posted a study (second quote above), that you said was proving a link between MMR vaccine and autism. However, even though the title of the article said this, I read the ACTUAL PAPER, and saw that it had nothing to do with the article, and was actually to do with GI symptoms. Here's a tip, NEVER TRUST ANYTHING FROM THAT SOURCE AGAIN. They lied to you. Always read the actual paper.
The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303"
First 3 papers are about GI conditions in autism patients, not the link of MMR and autism which was being discussed earlier. Will check the rest later. No, that's the shitty source that I questioned earlier. The headline of the article you posted earlier DIRECTLY CONFLICTS with the scientific paper it quotes. You do see how that is problematic, right? Again, I ask you to please quote the section which gives evidence for your viewpoint that MMR vaccine causes autism I would, except I never made this claim, and neither did Dr. Wakefield. He suggested the subject needs further study, and I agree with him. How should I be expected to defend a premise I did not make? You are making wild assumptions here and expecting me to explain them. You don't get to assign an argument to me and force me to defend it when I never even made that argument. That is not how debate works. Yeah, you made this claim when you answered my post saying the MMR autism link was bullshit. You said it was "not OK" and posted the article I talked about above.
I am refuting your claim that the science behind the safety of vaccines is settled, because it is not by a long shot. You are so blinded by your bias you aren't even reading my words, you just assign a viewpoint to me based on your past interactions with people you deem "antivaxers" in a pathetic attempt at marginalization.
I don't need to show you anything, because you are arguing based on points I never made, therefore your argument is disingenuous at its premise. My only argument is that the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines is not sufficiently documented. I never asked you to watch any youtube videos, those were for people actually interested in educating themselves and learning about the subject, not for people who have decided they know the results for a fact and consider the study of the subject a "waste of time".
Ha OK. It's not settled (science never is, 100%), but to counter the evidence I've shown you need to provide evidence of equivalent or higher statistical significance. I linked a HUGE meta-analysis of over 1 million people. A meta-analysis is a statistical representation of as many individual studies as possible. The more studies and the better the design of the meta-analysis, the more accurate the results. This evidence trumps any other on the face of the earth right now - this is the "further study" you talk about. They did it, and these are the results. If you want to prove your point, you absolutely DO need to show something, otherwise you lose the argument. You made a claim (in your first post in reply to me) I refuted it, and you haven't yet come up with a single critique of my evidence. This whole thread is about vaccines causing autism, man up and smell the coffee - they fucking don't. |
|
|
|
It shows 88 nodes atm. But anyways, these statistics are based on the IP of the node, and since China has many issues with internet censure,i
believe that most of the node operators are placing their nodes behind VPN, which ultimatively shows the node to be in different country.
There is no other logical explanation that i can think of in regards to such a low number of nodes there.
cheers
This seems legit, makes total sense. I mean, not only do the chinese nodes need to circumvent the Great Firewall, it's also in their interest to keep their activity hidden from the Chinese government. |
|
|
|
How the fuck can injecting mercury, aluminum, live viruses, as well as other inflammatory substances NOT have a toxic effect on the body and brain? There are NO INDEPENDENT STUDIES covering the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. I am sure you believe there are though, so I challenge you to find ONE study that does this. For every other drug on the market this type of testing is required, yet there are none for vaccines. I wonder why that is... Have fun.
As far as your "actual paper" that is just an abstract. I am not sure how you expect me to honestly review the study based on a synopsis. Furthermore, I never said Wakefield was right, just that he did not commit fraud. I believe the subject deserves further study. As real scientists know, the studies should never be over because science is never settled. You on the other hand are of the belief that the subject should just be ignored. I will be waiting patiently for you to produce a single independent human efficacy and safety study for injected vaccines. TBH I thought I was linking to the full paper, but you're right, only the abstract is available to view. However, you get an idea of the study just from the abstract, it includes the statistical results, and the huge sample size (which I think trumped any other study to date). It actually used an extra variable: It looked at children with older siblings that had autism, and compared the chance of the younger children getting autism. Here is the conclusion: In this large sample of privately insured children with older siblings, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD, regardless of whether older siblings had ASD. These findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD. Yes, Wakefield was fraudulent in his Lancet paper. He did not divulge huge conflicts of interest with his sample. Even if he wasn't fraudulent, it was still a shitty study with a tiny sample size. It was also of a case-control design, which is easier to perform than a cohort study, but nowhere near as effective for finding the cause of disease: Here's a link which explains the difference: http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/cohort-and-case-control-studies-pros-and-cons/As for your question about a study regarding the safety of vaccines, many have been done. Here's a document with a big-ass list: https://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdfAnyhow, we aren't talking about whether all injected vaccines are safe. They probably are, but we are specifically investigating whether a link between MMR vaccines and autism exists. I've shown, with studies that are far more statistically significant than the ones posted by believers in the autism link, that it's bullshit. Not only that, but I have shown specifically what was wrong with said studies. Now it's your turn to poke holes in my sources. Good luck. "Getting an idea" of the study doesn't allow me to critically examine it. It would be like if I made a conclusion about a book, handed you the first page of cliff notes, then asked you to refute my point, it is completely disingenuous. As I already stated, the Wakefield paper NEVER MADE THOSE CONCLUSIONS, all he did was suggest the subject needs further study. Others made those conclusions for him, you can not attribute that to him. As MakingMoneyHoney stated, the CDC was forced to admit they purposely destroyed related evidence showing very clearly there is an agenda at play in an attempt to destroy Wakefield's career for daring to suggest the subject needs further study. Additionally your huge list of studies did not include one single study about the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. Of course it is a nice way to try to waste my time digging thru reams of studies you throw at me in bulk as if they all support your argument. Furthermore if I did point out some flaw in any of the studies, because you referenced a giant list, all you have to do is say "oh no I didn't mean that study... I mean this one..." giving you a perfect excuse to not have to back up your claims one bit. NOTE: for those of you who are actually looking for real scientific information regarding vaccine safety (or lack there of), I suggest you listen to all parts of this presentation by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, it is quite informative. For everyone else, don't bother watching it, because we all know you don't care enough to actually dedicate that much time to listening because your minds are made up and you are too lazy to examine the situation critically anyway even if you could understand it with your complete ignorance of scientific method. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFQQOv-Oi6UThe medical industry has plenty of room for improvement, stop supporting the myth that it is infallible: http://rblaw.net/medical-negligence-3rd-leading-cause-death-united-states/In Dr. Wakefield's own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40suCKnjbIWE ARE talking about injected vaccines being unsafe, that is the WHOLE POINT of this thread. I realize it is inconvenient to your bias towards support of vaccines, but that does not magically make it irrelevant. If there are SO MANY independent scientific studies conducted regarding the human safety and efficacy of injected vaccines, you should have NO PROBLEM citing JUST ONE of them. If you are so completely in the right you should have no problem at all finding one and standing behind it. This is a CRITICAL POINT, because it demonstrates very clearly that THE SCIENCE NEVER EXISTED, and this is nothing but the marketing of a dangerous product which is MANDATORY. It seems I'm wasting my time here. I went out of my way to criticise the studies you are citing (including the article about a study you posted which actually had NOTHING to do with the issue): You posted it to refute me, yet you have not touched upon it since. Could it be that you didn't actually read the paper, even though it was cited in the bullshit article you linked, claiming content that doesn't exist? That's bad form. Again, I ask you to please quote the section which gives evidence for your viewpoint that MMR vaccine causes autism... Good luck. I also showed how Andrew Wakefield is a fraudulent individual, who failed to declare conflicts of interest in an important study, and again you fail to refute my points. All you seem to be able to do is move the goalposts (ask me for more studies that give evidence for the safety of vaccines in general, which I do) without making any refutation of my main evidence, which are 2 massively statistically significant papers, 1 a cohort study of 95,000 people, the other a meta-analysis of 1.25 million people. Both pieces of evidence MASSIVELY REFUTE your opinion. Again, I went out of my way to refute your evidence. I didn't question your links, ask you for more evidence etc, I simply asked you to refute mine. If you can find faults with my 2 pieces of evidence, please state them. I have provided adequate evidence that counters your claims, which are backed by objectively far inferior evidence. The burden of proof is on YOU, I do not need to refute any more claims of yours. I'm not going to watch any youtube videos. Link me to relevant studies/analyses and I'll read them. And learn some more about science, specifically epidemiology. Here's a really good book that explains a lot about how to interpret medical trials and Bad Science |
|
|
|
Enough with this non-existent link between vaccines and autism. Did you not read about the year-old meta-analysis of 1.25 million people showing no link? Read more here: https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autismDo know how many children were sampled in Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper which started this whole debacle off? 12. Yes that's right, TWELVE. And they weren't even fairly sampled - some of their parents were suing over alleged vaccine injury - a huge conflict of interest. So enough about vaccines and autism. OK? *Scratches head* Did you watch the C-SPAN video? The Center for Disease Control (CDC) ADMITTED to holding evidence from trials, and destroying those documents instead of publishing them. State Rep from Florida, Bill Posey
I rise today on matters of scientific integrity and research. To begin with, I am absolutely, resolutely, pro-vaccine. Advancements in medical immunization have saved countless and greatly benefitted public health. That being said, it’s troubling to me that in a recent Senate hearing on childhood vaccinations, it was never mentioned that our government has paid out over $3 billion through a vaccine injury compensation program for children who have been injured by vaccinations.
“Regardless of the subject matter, parents making decisions about their children’s health deserve to have the best information available to them. They should be able to count on federal agencies to tell them the truth. For these reasons, I bring the following matter to the House floor.
“In August 2014, Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, worked with a whistleblower attorney to provide my office with documents related to a 2004 CDC study that examined the possibility of a relationship between [the] mumps, measles, rubella vaccine and autism. In a statement released in August, 2014, Dr. Thompson stated, ‘I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics.’
“Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the following excepts from the statement written by Dr. Thompson be entered into the record.
“Now quoting Dr. Thompson.
“‘My primary job duties while working in the immunization safety branch from 2000 to 2006, were to later co-lead three major vaccine safety studies. The MADDSP, MMR autism cases control study was being carried out in response to the Wakefield-Lancet study that suggested an association between the MMR vaccine and an autism-like health outcome. There were several major concerns among scientists and consumer advocates outside the CDC in the fall of 2000, regarding the execution of the Verstraeten Study.
One of the important goals that was determined up front, in the spring of 2001, before any of these studies started, was to have all three protocols vetted outside the CDC prior to the start of the analyses so consumer advocates could not claim that we were presenting analyses that suited our own goals and biases.
We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either 18 or 36 month thresholds, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with MMR vaccine could lead to autism-like characteristics or features. We all met and finalized the study protocol and analysis plan. The goal was to not deviate from the analysis plan to avoid the debacle that occurred with the Verstraeten thimerosal study published in Pediatrics in 2003.
‘At the Sept 5th meeting we discussed in detail how to code race for both the sample and the birth certificate sample. At the bottom of table 7, it also shows that for the non-birth certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge.
‘All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September 2002, not to report any race effects from the paper. Sometime soon after the meeting, we decided to exclude reporting any race effects. The co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study.
The remaining four co-authors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room, and reviewed and went through all the hardcopy documents that we had thought we should discard, and put them into a huge garbage can. However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hardcopies of all documents in my office, and I retain all associated computer files. I believe we intentionally withheld controversial findings from the final draft of the Pediatrics paper.’ -- "end of quote of the doctor"
“Mr. Speaker, I believe it is our duty to insure that the documents that Dr. Thompson are not ignored. Therefore I will provide them to members of Congress and the House Committees upon request. Considering the nature of the whistleblower’s documents as well as the involvement of the CDC, a hearing and a thorough investigation is warranted.
“So I ask, Mr. Speaker, I beg, I implore my colleagues on the appropriations committees to please, please take such action.”
You might want to read this thoroughly: http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.aspWhat I don't understand with you anti-vaxxers, is that it seems nothing can possibly change your mind. I posted a meta-analysis of over 1 million people which shows no link... No, the science is never truly settled, but when you have properly designed studies with that sort of sample size, it's seems ludicrous to go back to your case-controlled studies with a sample size that you can almost count on your fingers and toes... |
|
|
|
How the fuck can injecting mercury, aluminum, live viruses, as well as other inflammatory substances NOT have a toxic effect on the body and brain? There are NO INDEPENDENT STUDIES covering the safety and efficacy of injected vaccines in humans. I am sure you believe there are though, so I challenge you to find ONE study that does this. For every other drug on the market this type of testing is required, yet there are none for vaccines. I wonder why that is... Have fun.
As far as your "actual paper" that is just an abstract. I am not sure how you expect me to honestly review the study based on a synopsis. Furthermore, I never said Wakefield was right, just that he did not commit fraud. I believe the subject deserves further study. As real scientists know, the studies should never be over because science is never settled. You on the other hand are of the belief that the subject should just be ignored. I will be waiting patiently for you to produce a single independent human efficacy and safety study for injected vaccines. TBH I thought I was linking to the full paper, but you're right, only the abstract is available to view. However, you get an idea of the study just from the abstract, it includes the statistical results, and the huge sample size (which I think trumped any other study to date). It actually used an extra variable: It looked at children with older siblings that had autism, and compared the chance of the younger children getting autism. Here is the conclusion: In this large sample of privately insured children with older siblings, receipt of the MMR vaccine was not associated with increased risk of ASD, regardless of whether older siblings had ASD. These findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD. Yes, Wakefield was fraudulent in his Lancet paper. He did not divulge huge conflicts of interest with his sample. Even if he wasn't fraudulent, it was still a shitty study with a tiny sample size. It was also of a case-control design, which is easier to perform than a cohort study, but nowhere near as effective for finding the cause of disease: Here's a link which explains the difference: http://www.theanalysisfactor.com/cohort-and-case-control-studies-pros-and-cons/As for your question about a study regarding the safety of vaccines, many have been done. Here's a document with a big-ass list: https://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdfAnyhow, we aren't talking about whether all injected vaccines are safe. They probably are, but we are specifically investigating whether a link between MMR vaccines and autism exists. I've shown, with studies that are far more statistically significant than the ones posted by believers in the autism link, that it's bullshit. Not only that, but I have shown specifically what was wrong with said studies. Now it's your turn to poke holes in my sources. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Enough with this non-existent link between vaccines and autism. Did you not read about the year-old meta-analysis of 1.25 million people showing no link? Read more here: https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autismDo know how many children were sampled in Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper which started this whole debacle off? 12. Yes that's right, TWELVE. And they weren't even fairly sampled - some of their parents were suing over alleged vaccine injury - a huge conflict of interest. So enough about vaccines and autism. OK? Not ok. "Another accusation, that Dr. Wakefield asserted a definite link of MMR vaccines to autism was never published. He never made that claim. Some of his team colleagues put forth their interpretation that MMRs were linked to autism, but that was not part of Wakefield's Lancet paper. Dr. Wakefield was looking into the possible link of those commonly experienced gut disorders in children under five years old as a precursor to their autism related behavior. That link to MMRs was actually made by the parents of those 12 participating children. They were doing fine until they received MMR vaccinations, and the parents reported this to Dr. Wakefield's team. Dr. Wakefield included the parents' reports in the case study findings. Including parents' observations in case study reports is highly appropriate. Dr. Wakefield's only conclusion was the measles/gut disorder connection to autistic behavior possibilities merited further study." http://www.naturalnews.com/033425_BMJ_Andrew_Wakefield.htmlNew Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism – Again (MMR Vaccine Causes Autism): www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/21/new-published-study-verifies-andrew-wakefields-research-on-autism-again-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/Try again. Well yeah, It would be hard for Wakefield to say that a study of only 12 people had enough statistical significance to claim a definite link. But the conflicts of interest (and his press conferences) show that that was what he was implying. Anyway it's irrelevent what he said/thought, the paper was properly fraudulent. This guy called himself a scientist, yet was doing things like paying children at his son's birthday party for blood samples. Does that seem like a fair, ethical and unbiased way to do research to you? The paper you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with a link between vaccines and autism - as far as I can see it claims a link between autism and GI symptoms. And there were only 25 participants. Here's the link to the actual paper: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058058 - please quote the part where a link between vaccines and autism is shown. In addition to the meta-analysis I posted previously, here's a single study (not a meta-analysis), and also a cohort study. Of 95,000 people. Article about study: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/no-link-between-mmr-and-autism-major-study-concludesActual paper: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2275444I've shown what's wrong with Wakefield's paper, and with the study you just posted. Now you tell me exactly what's wrong with my two sources. |
|
|
|
Enough with this non-existent link between vaccines and autism. Did you not read about the year-old meta-analysis of 1.25 million people showing no link? Read more here: https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autismDo know how many children were sampled in Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent paper which started this whole debacle off? 12. Yes that's right, TWELVE. And they weren't even fairly sampled - some of their parents were suing over alleged vaccine injury - a huge conflict of interest. So enough about vaccines and autism. OK? |
|
|
|
|
If there's a strange increase of "holistic practitioners" dying in mysterious ways, then it's most likely a result of skewed data presented by "holistic practioners". They're good at that, you know.
|
|
|
|
That's not good. There are many cases of hate crimes towards transgender people. IMO, far more crimes are being commited by the transgenders than those which are directed towards them. You got a source for that, Emperor? Because...  EDIT: acs beat me to it |
|
|
|
|
^Not at all, thanks for the clear post. In reply:
1) This may be true, but if your quote is credible then would they show the screen to the patient? I don't see how the ultrasound is part of the main issue: Surely if you are pro-life, and you think that ultrasound = less abortions, then this is a good thing, right?
2) Ah, now this makes sense, thanks for making me aware of the connotation. I can see how this could upset people, however I think that it's more an issue of semantics and tone. This type of blunt tone occurs in loads of professions, the workers here could be guilty of "thought crime", but luckily it's not yet illegal. There might be an internal backlash, but if I got sacked for the trivial misdemeanor of "using the wrong technical term" then I'd be angry.
And no, I don't think a worker in an abortion clinic should be charged for murder, for calling a fetus a "baby boy", which is what you're implying. That's ridiculous, can you see the implications of what you're saying, and how smear tactics like that can destroy peoples lives?
3) I don't see why it matters whether the fetus/baby/group of cells is intact or not. Sorry to be blunt, but it's dead.
4) OK, now this is by far the most serious of your points, because it implies that PP were knowingly selling on the black market. This seems to be the part which may be technically illegal. However, I don't see how this is morally worse than, say, someone selling weed on the street. The way I see it, what they are selling is dead. It has no rights. Incidentally, I can't think of many other dead things that are illegal to sell. The only things I can think of are protected plants/animals like certain trees, rhino horns etc. Also poisons/weapons/explosives/drugs/live humans. All of these have arguably logical reasons for the ban, which tend to be about saving human lives.
The only reason I can think of for banning profits from fetal tissue, is to stop smaller institutions having to pay over the odds for samples and to stop monopolisation of the commodity (sorry for the bluntness, but fetuses are a commodity). Why are people not talking about this? (I would have but I only just thought of it)
So I admit that they may be guilty of black market selling, but we should wait for a trial before judging them IMO. I don't like how this issue is being jumped on by anti-abortionists, when abortion law is a totally separate issue. If a woman decides to have an abortion, then the baby will die. That baby is never coming back, so don't emotionally judge it in terms of potential/human life and frame it as something it isn't. Think of it as donating organs on death, which everyone should do IMO.
My logic is, if you don't want a baby, then don't have one. We should be trying to save real humans that are in need, rather than concentrating on saving unwanted babies, that may well end up with a poor quality of life. It's not fair on the baby, or on society.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
