Skip to main content

It appears the anti-vaccine caucus has bubbled up to the tepid surface again. It's always worth revisiting Dunning-Kruger syndrome, a phenomenon that never seems to really ebb. It's the tendency of the least informed, most willfully ignorant or in some cases the most wantonly dishonest, to insist that they and they alone know and bravely speak The Truth:

[T]he D-K phenomenon tends to take the form of parents who think that their University of Google knowledge trumps the knowledge of physicians and scientists who have dedicated large swaths of their lives to the rigorous study of conditions such as autism and the question of how vaccines work.

Nowhere is the D-K effect more intense and painful to behold than at a blog with a name so arrogantly misplaced that it lights up the planet with its waves of burning stupid. I’m referring, of course, to The Thinking Moms’ Revolution (TMR), where the denizens think so highly of themselves that they refer to themselves as “Thinkers” (yes, capitalized).

Oh I must disagree a tiny bit, Dr. Orac. There are many blogs, discussion groups, and, lately, even popular TV series on channels once dedicated to legit science and history, now locked in fierce competition for the ultimate badge of ignorance with the site you flagged. Including claims as outlandish as secret alien societies or stealthy Sasquatch clans operating unnnoticed right under our collective noses.
  • From the ragged edge of space and time, a faster-than-light phenomenon called inflation, which is central to Big Bang Cosmology, got a Big Boost this week.
  • What organism do you think has the longest, most intricate genetic blueprint known to biological science? I bet you won't guess the answer!
  • Young kids and not so young kids, T. rex may be coming soon to a town near you. But be advised, s/he will be looking a little more dressed up than the one you may fondly remember:
    "We've decided to bring them up to date," said the show's self-described "resident dino geek" Philip Millar. "I've been going on about feathers for some years now. And now we've finally taken the leap and we're applying the feathers to the dinosaurs we're fairly confident had feathers."

    Recent discoveries by paleontologist point to the possibility that a large number of non-avian dinosaurs had feathers or something similar — paleontologists call it "dinofuzz" — as part of their body covering, blurring the distinction between dinosaurlike birds and birdlike dinosaurs.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:00 AM PDT.

Also republished by SciTech.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  geez, Darksyde, you must be a glutton for (30+ / 0-)

    punishment . . . .

    Once again, all the anti-vaxxers will come swarming in . . .

    This time, though, how about you stick around and help debunk all their silly crapola, instead of leaving poor little ME virtually alone to fight off the swarm of stoopid. I just spent most of the night trying to teach fifth-grade biology to a gaggle of anti-GMOers.

    ;)

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:07:13 AM PDT

  •  Where's the tip jar? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat
  •  You don't need science. It's been proved. (5+ / 0-)

    If you ask any of my brainwashed friends that believe in Jesus, they will tell you, Science isn't necessary.

    The sad part is there are so many brainwashed people.

    The Sadder part is, they need semi-brainwashed to fuel their brainwashing.  Here's how it works.

    "I go to church, but I believe in science"    Well, there it is, the big problem.  You fund the brainwashing.

    End of rant.

    " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:12:16 AM PDT

    •  That sounds a lot like the rationale... (9+ / 0-)

      ... the SCOTUS gave when they undid part of the Voting Rights Act.

      "You don't need election protection; racism in voting is over!"

      Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

      by Lucy Montrose on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:15:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  sadly, I had a number of anti-GMOers last night (23+ / 0-)

      tell me that "science" is just a paid-shill plot for Monsanto. Because tobacco companies.

      (sigh)

      We have our anti-science nutters just like the rightwing does.

      The good thing, at least, is that we mostly just laugh at our anti-science nutters.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:15:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't the real danger from GMO foods economic? (12+ / 0-)

        As in, Monsanto taking control of your means of production-- and power to set your own pace-- away from farmers. Remember the farmers forced off their land and out of their livelihoods in Food Inc.

        I just wish people would get as up in arms about the labor aspect of GMO, as they do about the purported health detriments.

        What is it about work and labor issues that, deep down, is something really beyond the pale for Americans? Is it too painful to contemplate the hidden implications of what we do every day to earn a living, and therefore we must push all disturbing thoughts about it... by force if necessary?
        Remember-- what really got the hate stirred up against Martin Luther King Jr. was his pro-worker's rights stance... even more than his racial activism.

        Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

        by Lucy Montrose on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:23:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes (16+ / 0-)

          My gripe with GMOs is that Monsanto uses them as a club to kill its competition and impose a feudal dependence upon the entire agrarian sector. That should not be tolerated.  And NO natural process should be patentable for private profit. That should not be tolerated either.

          But the arguments I hear from people here -- "eating GMO causes cancer!!", or "GMO genes cause resistant superweeds!!:--are just scientific nonsense. They don't understand basic biology or biochemistry, and they don't understand what genetic technology is or how it's actually done. It's embarrassing to see, and it does our side no good at all. It just hands Monsanto another stick to beat us with in public.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:33:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Um. (4+ / 0-)

            I'm a little curious about why you think it is "scientific nonsense" that "GMO genes cause resistant superweeds!!".

            Nature, a publication not noted for scientific nonsense (well ... until recently, anyway), seems to disagree with you on the senselessness of the issue.

            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

            by UntimelyRippd on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:44:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They certainly seem to have created... (2+ / 0-)

              ... a new superbug.

              Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

              by Lucy Montrose on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:52:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  because the genes themselves don't have a blooming (10+ / 0-)

              thing to do with it---it's the pesticides that produce the resistance.  If you spray the very same pesticides on NON-GMO crops (as indeed we did with both Roundup and Bt for decades before GMO was even developed), the weeds develop the very same resistance. The presence or absence of the GMO genes is utterly irrelevant. They are not what produces the resistance in the weeds. Simple evolution does that, and it happens the same way whether GMO crops are involved or not.

              Many of the "anti-GMO" arguments are NOT actually even anti-GMO--they are anti-pesticides. The effects of Roundup and Bt on the environment are not caused by the GMO genes---their effects are exactly the same whether they come from an implanted gene or are sprayed from an airplane.

              I'm all in favor of regulating ALL pesticides and herbicides, GMO or not, so they are not used at levels that cause environmental harm (and if that means that Monsanto's GMO seeds become pointless, then tough shit on Monsanto). But blaming GMO crops for the effects of pesticides because that's what the pesticides get sprayed on, is like blaming your lawn for the effects of fertilizer runoff because that's what the fertilizer gets sprayed on. It's scientific nonsense.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:12:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Um. (3+ / 0-)

                I don't think you are correct.

                Spraying glyphosate can help select for a resistant mutation, but the mutation has to be there to begin with. Some such mutations may or may not happen "accidentally" in nature. There do seem to be some plants that have some natural glyphosate resistance.

                Nonetheless, as the study cited in the nature news item shows, engineering resistance into a desired species can, via crossbreeding, result in transferring the trait to a weed species.

                This is pretty straightforward plant genetics, and I can't think why you deny it (or ignore it). Far from being nonsense, it's actually obvious.

                To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                by UntimelyRippd on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:31:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think you missed my point completely . . . . (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rduran, O112358, susans

                  and in fact you just reinforced my point---it's the exposure of the weeeds to the herbicide that results in the resistance to it.  The GMO genes don't have a blooming thing to do with it. If you spray the very same herbicides on NON-GMO crops, you will get the very same resistant weeds, through the very same process of selection.

                  The presence or absence of the GMO genes is utterly irrelevant.

                  Nonetheless, as the study cited in the nature news item shows, engineering resistance into a desired species can, via crossbreeding, result in transferring the trait to a weed species.
                  But THAT is a very valid point, and is indeed the ONLY place where the actual presence of GMO gene makes any difference. I think the appearance of herbicide resistance through this process is a minor part, though--and ultimately irrelevant since any weeds exposed to the pesticide will develop resistance sooner or later. That is inevitable evolution, and it can't be prevented.

                  Monsanto could have avoided this whole problem by the simple expedient of making their pollen sterile, but for some reason known only to them, they didn't. And that of course is also what led to the silly spectacle of GMO pollen flying the coop and producing GMO plants in other farmer's fields and Monsanto rather ridiculously suing them for "stealing" their "intellectual property".

                  I expect this problem will be solved soon, though. Since Monsanto doesn't WANT their proprietary genes to be given away willy-nilly by Mother Nature for free, I think it pretty likely that in their next GMO plant (and since weeds are already beginning to show resistance to Roundup and to Bt, I presume Monsanto is already working on a new GMO plant for a new herbicide) they will eliminate the headache entirely by making the pollen infertile. If they don't, they're even dumber than I thought.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:55:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So, your first paragraph says I've missed your (4+ / 0-)

                    point, and reiterates your assertion that the "GMO genes don't have a blooming thing to do with."

                    And then your third paragraph admits that, in fact, my statement was valid, and there is a circumstance in which the GMO genes do have something to do with it.

                    And then your third paragraph goes on to express your opinion on the inevitability of some things, rendering my valid statement moot, and more unpleasantly, rendering the cautionary wisdom of people who do not share the opinion as "nonsense".

                    You've got some serious problems with your epistemology.

                    However, to engage you on your own field of combat, one thing that seems pretty clear at this point is that the massive amounts of glyphosate being poured on glyphosate-resistant crops is dramatically accelerating the population shift towards glyphosate-resistant weed species. This suggests that we might have been a lot better off with the equilibrium we had, rather than the one that is emerging.

                    And BTW, weeds are not showing resistance to Bt, because Bt is not an herbicide, it's an insecticide. Unfortunately, though, we have indeed, in a span of less than a decade, selected for a population of Bt-resistant corn root-worms.

                    Either way, I'm not going to speculate on Monsanto's motives or plans, because any such speculation would require a model of their wisdom, their ethics, and their intelligence, and I have nothing on which to base an estimate of any of these things.

                    To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                    by UntimelyRippd on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:20:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yes, I was a little unclear (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mostserene1

                      I was up most of the night. Still a little bleary-eyed.

                      Sick and can't sleep.

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:36:08 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I recced you but will play devil's advocate.. (0+ / 0-)

                      genetically modified crops MAY be essential to feeding the world's growing population.  I don't mean Americans, who have the luxury of shopping at Whole Foods.  

                      I'm talking about 2nd and 3rd world populations that are close to starving.

                      If we choose not to control the breeding (as China did), we have to find ways to increase food supplies.

                      Just a thought.

                      •  I'm not arguing for or against GMO crops in (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        i saw an old tree today

                        general.

                        I'm arguing about one specific risk of GMO technology, and whether or not people who want that risk to be part of the conversation are or are not talking "nonsense".

                        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                        by UntimelyRippd on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:00:26 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  nor am I (0+ / 0-)
                          I'm not arguing for or against GMO crops in
                          general.
                          My gripe with GMO isn't with the genes or the crops themselves, it's with the predatory and feudal way Monsanto uses them. Those are social, political and economic issues, not scientific ones.

                          I'm pointing out though that many of the arguments anti-GMOers use are scientific nonsense. Especially if we are citing things like the pig study to "prove" them.

                          And we should not use those arguments because they make us look like morans.

                          In the end, reality always wins.

                          by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:10:49 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  My comment was in response to Mostserene1, (0+ / 0-)

                            who wanted to play devil's advocate, despite the absence of an opposing counsel. I could have been arguing against GMOs in general, but I wasn't.

                            Like you,  my concerns about GMOs are primarily socioeconomic -- but I think there are also a handful of real scientific questions, most of them environmental. There is an awful lot of hubris that goes along with scientific progress in nutrition.Nobody has detected, in the laboratory, a "meaningful" difference between RBGH-milk and non-RBGH-milk -- so does that mean that there is no difference? It's interesting that they keep coming up with new baby formulas, even though from day one we've been told that whatever baby formula is available is just as good as mother's milk. At least occasionally, these new formulas are in response to a newly-discovered nutrient in real milk that nobody knew was there.

                            Fortunately for me, I avoid RBGH-milk on political principle, so I don't have to worry about whether I think it's doing my kids any harm.

                            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                            by UntimelyRippd on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:51:21 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and once again I find myself . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            in agreement.

                            :)

                            Our side has plenty of good reasons to not like Monsanto or its GMOs.

                            We don't need to make stupid shit up. We should leave that to the corporados, who are much better at it than we are (and besides, I don't mind if THEY look like dishonest dumbfucks).

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:24:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The problem of course is that it's a lot easier (0+ / 0-)

                            to motivate people if there's a public health threat than if there's an esoteric threat to liberty.

                            To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                            by UntimelyRippd on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:39:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Some people say it isn't worth buying... (2+ / 0-)

            ... organic or local food on the grounds that it isn't any healthier for you, and often is more expensive.

            I buy it whenever I can because I care about whether the person who grew/made that food, is earning a decent living.

            Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

            by Lucy Montrose on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:54:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I wish they would use GMO on trees. (0+ / 0-)

            Specifically, to create a beetle-resistant strain of lodgepole pines. It may not work forever (see super-rootworms), but it will buy the trees some time.

            Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

            by Lucy Montrose on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:55:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  "real danger"s -v- objections to GMOs (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lucy Montrose

          The economics and labour impacts you mention are a fair point, and contribute to farm loss and the aggregation of more agribusiness/factory farming.

          Additionally, heavy use of pesticides in big agra, along with widespread use of herbicides from which the GMOs are designed to be immune, are a tangental danger to all of us environmentally.  But with respect, I'd suggest that they're semi-independent from the anti-science question.

          Those are all legit gripes. The anti-science worries re: GMO food consumption kinda baffle me, though. I'm reminded of Cold War Era horror flics with vague anxieties personified by ginormous radioactive ants, carnivorous glowy blobs and such.

          A seldom mentioned, valid danger is inherent in the rise of a monoculture for any particular spp, absent variability, vulnerable to some future selective pressure. Case in point, the Irish potato famines.

      •  There's a lot of moving parts to "anti-GMO" (4+ / 0-)

        A lot of anti-gmo-ers are not "anti-science". In fact they want transparency about the science.
        But,  yes, there are those who take it off into dense growths of giant hogweed.
        Same with "organic" food claims.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:34:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A farmer can't own his own seeds. (11+ / 0-)

          Farmers use their own seeds for next seasons crops.  
          Monsanto has found a way to legally own all future crops and seeds.   That has caused thousands of farmers all over our planet to go in debt so deep, they decide it's better to commit suicide.

          The problem we have is a large corporation has limitless funding to fight legal battles with people who don't really  understand how to fight back, and lose.  

          If you own a farm, and you grow corn, and you use your own seeds from generations of your own corn, yet, with the wind, and bees, and your neighbor using Monsanto GMO seeds, your next crop will belong to Monsanto.  

          That is simply not fair.  Fair is losing.  Monsanto is winning, and farmers are waking up, pulling out their guns, putting the gun in their mouth, and pulling the trigger.

           This is not an exaggeration, this is fact.  

          " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

          by EarTo44 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:43:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  it is indeed intolerable that Monsanto makes (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dewtx, T100R, bythesea

          such a concerted effort to control all information about its product. But of course, they are doomed to utter failure---even the tobacco companies were simply unable to prevent independent studies from demonstrating that smoking causes cancer, despite the best efforts of the corporations to squelch them.

          Scientific information cannot be jailed. Anyone, anywhere, at any time, can carry out an experiment and report the results, and no power on this planet can stop them.

          That is why all of the various CT kookery that depends on "science is hiding the real data from us !!!", whether it's flying saucers or Bigfoot or GMO or vaccines, are, a priori, horse shit.  Science CAN'T hide any data. Anyone can see and measure it for themselves, and nobody can stop them. The very idea is idiotic.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:50:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some more responsible people would say that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i saw an old tree today

            "some scientists are bought by the corporations". Science can't hide data, but scientists can.

            You can't make this stuff up.

            by David54 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:57:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps "Scientific information cannot be jailed" (0+ / 0-)

            as you say, but the truth can be hidden and buried for a long, long time when profits are involved.

            I work at a museum. There's an old book there, 1899 I believe, that deals with human health. One line in the book in particular stuck with me from the first time I read it:

            Smoking causes cancer.

            115 years ago... and up until recently the tobacco industry was still denying that smoking is harmful. There are people who deny it even now.

            You can't trust the industries and corporations who make billions from products to tell you the truth, or to not spend some of those $$$ to influence scientists/ scientific testing. They don't care about the suffering they cause; they care about the $$$.

            •  if it was published over 100 years ago . . . . (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              T100R, terrypinder

              they're not "hiding" it very successfully . . . .

              ;)

              I don't know why people keep citing the tobacco companies as a successful conspiracy, since they failed utterly.  They simply could not hide the fact that smoking causes cancer---everyone knew it, and people were publishing it for decades. The tobacco companies denied it, waved their arms about it, and put out their own fake studies, but in the end, they failed completely--they simply could not stop doctors from noticing that people who smoked, got cancer. Science can't be hidden.

              It was tobacco industry lobbying that prevented the government from DOING anything, for a long time, about what everyone already knew. (And of course it was people's willingness to smoke DESPITE knowing that it causes cancer--as they still do today.)

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 05:40:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'd say that the tobacco companies' hiding (0+ / 0-)

                the facts about cancer for close to 100 years was a very successful conspiracy. Count up the vast amount of suffering and death (and the people who even now deny the connection) and balance that against the fortunes made by selling tobacco products; the companies didn't lose.

    •  Science is hard. Believing is so easy. (nt) (6+ / 0-)

      ". . .as singularly embarrassing a public address as any allegedly sentient primate ever has delivered." - Charles P. Pierce

      by Rikon Snow on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:35:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If a were a total bastard... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      foresterbob, mamamedusa

      I would write a book about how you could start a religion and use it to make money and have people obey me.

      Then I would start a religion like that. I might even convince parents to sign over their teenage kids to me, so I could use them as slaves for a number of years.

      Fortunately/Unfortunately I'm Belgian, and if it doesn't concern beer or chocolate, waffles or diamonds, being invaded by everyone and his brother-in-law or chopping off Africans hands, we're not at the top of our game.

      I ride the wild horse .

      by BelgianBastard on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:47:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's why I tell people I have a political beef (0+ / 0-)

      with organized religion. (most organized religion)
      Whether I'm an atheist or not is debatable (depending on the definition of "God"), but I tell people that religion can't be discussed in this country because it always morphs into a discussion about control and power and who I'm going to let tell me what to think.

      I think it stimulates their thinking, rather than giving them something they find easy to reject because God.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:47:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In fairness (3+ / 0-)

      you can believe in Science and also go to church and/or have religion. You just have to know what they are both for.

      Church is great for teaching us how to be better people, and helping us to cope with things that science cannot teach us (what happens when we die?). There are many churches that believe in the science of evolution, just not the direct line of apes-to-humans.

      Also the church provides a pretty good historical record, much of which can be supported by science.

      The problem is that they both require faith, and people feel that they are required to be faithful to one-or-the other.

      •  fail. Religion is the problem. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        O112358, emelyn, gsenski

        Religion is creating the illusion that Magic is better than science.
        Your church might not be as guilty, but it's adding fuel to the ignorant fires that burn.

        " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

        by EarTo44 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:50:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Science is a religion and requires faith (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          i saw an old tree today

          and is just as much "magic" as religion.

          Look, I don't believe in creationism and instead believe that the universe was created from the big bang. I also believe in evolution, etc...

          Although Scientists have yet to definitely prove either, people still accept it is as fact. Why is that? Because you believe it is true and because people tell you to believe.

          How is that any more right or wrong than someone believing in divine intervention?

          I agree that the church focuses too much energy on the miracles and wonders of Jesus and Heaven, and instead should take a more Jeffersonian approach.

          But despite the "magic" at least the Bible teaches people to be kind to one another, perhaps you should check your intolerance at the door and check out the Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.

          •  if you think science is just "faith and belief" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gsenski, EarTo44

            then I hereby offer to drive you to the nearest bridge so you can declare your belief that gravity doesn't exist, and show us your faith in that belief by jumping off. After all, the "scientific laws of gravity" are just something that people tell you to believe, right? Just faith and belief, right?

            I got the keys. Are you game to test out your faith?

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 02:53:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't like your insinuation (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              i saw an old tree today

              that I should kill myself. You should be HR'd for that.

              Perhaps you should try to be a nicer person and not such an intolerant fool.

              •  don't be an ass (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                EarTo44

                My meaning was clear to everyone, including you.

                In the end, reality always wins.

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:05:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your meaning was abundently clear (0+ / 0-)

                  You suggested that I should jump off of a bridge and allow gravity to have a nasty effect on my body, and that you would would drive me there to make certain of this.

                  Ergo, you want me to kill myself. It's purely science.

                  •  no, try again (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    EarTo44, T100R

                    I suggested that since science is just a belief, that you would magically float to the ground unharmed without a single hair out of place, thereby demonstrating to the whole world that you're NOT just a buffoon for suggesting that science is just a belief.

                    Unless of course science is NOT just a belief, and you ARE just a buffoon for suggesting so . . . .

                    Which is it?

                    In the end, reality always wins.

                    by Lenny Flank on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 05:25:14 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  well done. (0+ / 0-)

                      Magic won't defeat gravity.  Science is truth, until proven wrong.  Religion is to abandon common sense, blind faith, and to believe in the absurd.   Once the absurd is proven, the religious have a way of simply pushing that one aside, as if it did not count.

                      Religion is simply magic.  Yahhh. Magic. Oh, and money.  Lot's and lot's of money.

                      Oh, and costumes.  

                      " With religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

                      by EarTo44 on Sun Mar 23, 2014 at 08:54:47 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't need church or religion (0+ / 0-)

        Religions, faith and churches are not necessary to learn how to be a better person.  When folks ask how I learned a moral code without faith or religion, seeing as a I grew up with a couple of atheist parents, I point to evolution, the fact that we are all one species, no one of us better than another and so not entitled to special treatment under law, that nobody can give me a moral justification for poverty, hunger, starvation, genocide, etc.

        •  I concede that churches (0+ / 0-)

          seem to be more concerned with separating people from their money or consolidating power, than they are about teaching right/wrong...however that doesn't mean that the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran aren't useful resources on how to be better human beings.

          There are dozens of great books out there teaching us how to have a better moral code. Dale Carnegie is probably just as good as Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John... but he's not necessarily better.  

  •  Science and Dkos? reality has no place here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:12:41 AM PDT

  •  I did guess the Biggest Genome, sort of. (8+ / 0-)

    I didn't know it was that specific plant, but I did guess it was a plant.  (Getting my Ph.D. in plant virology helped!)

    Plants have amazingly complex genomes, and manipulate them in ways that would reduce us animals to mush.  They are simpler lifeforms, so their blueprint isn't nearly as "rigid" as ours.  Indeed, their ability to mix and match their genomes is a good part of how we managed to turn field grass into wheat, wild maize into corn, etc.  We were doing genetic manipulation on plants millenia before we realized what "genes" were (and in fact, before we even ceased being hunter-gatherers).

  •  About the new "Cosmos" (13+ / 0-)

    The first two episodes surprised me a little by seeming to be addressed to those who know very little about science, or are suspicious of it. And/or middle-school students.

    The episodes had a tone of attempting to persuade or convince such people that yes, science really IS valuable and real and even spirtually reverent!

    In the 60s and 70s, as I recall, people who didn't believe in the value of scientific thought and research were considered simply ignorant yokels. They weren't given any respect or deference in the media.

    How things have changed since the ubiquitous presence of religious/right-wing influence in the halls of government and media.

    Or am I imagining that?  

    •  I liked the way they established the premise (11+ / 0-)

      in the first show (Science is.) and then in the second show they really went straight at the bullshitters.
      ...and apparently the Creationists are howling. It's clearly doing damage.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:51:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately, Ignorance IS Strength... (5+ / 0-)

      For one of our major political parties. Their whole appeal is based on stuff that just doesn't work in practice. Since they can't admit that, they've declared war on critical thinking. (Actually true - see this news from Texas)

      In the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff department, here’s what the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:

      Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

      Authoritarian groups do NOT want people who question anything; they just want followers who will follow orders.

      If COSMOS is spending so much time making a case for science, it's because there has been a determined effort to make people stupid.

      Sean Hannity spends a lot of time on his radio show joking about how he's just a dumb guy who can't understand all this crazy stuff liberals and Democrats are talking about. (I feel like calling in just to reassure him that no one is disagreeing with him when he says he's an idiot.) But he does know who his audience is - people who feel like they're dumb and have trouble understanding what's happening. If they can't make sense of the world because they're being fed lies, this is all about telling them it's okay to just go with what they  believe.

      And then they tell them what to believe.

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:23:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  some sympathy for those against vaccinations (0+ / 0-)

    Look, I totally agree that what they are doing is wrong and misinformed and dangerous.

    However, vaccinations tend to come from big pharma, part of the corporations that do so much to harm society and who do lie to us.

    It's too bad we can't refocus their enthusiasm and energy for good.

    www.tapestryofbronze.com

    by chloris creator on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:18:28 AM PDT

    •  They are making critics of Big Pharma look bad (16+ / 0-)

      Now any "shills" we meet will just lump those of us who want less of a profit motive, less hustling and more research; in with the nutters. And that pisses me off.

      Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

      by Lucy Montrose on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:26:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  amen to that (12+ / 0-)

        There are plenty of actual reasons to oppose Big Pharma.  We don't need to make stupid shit up.

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:36:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I even-- gasp-- use alternative medicine. (4+ / 0-)

          On occasion. I think there's something to the inflammation theory of illness, for instance; so this winter when I've had this mild but creepy recurring illness that gives me episodes of tonsils that swell painfully for an hour and then go away; I'll be popping my fish oil and vitamins alongside my NSAIDs. And I swear by the power of Emergen-C not only to shorten the duration of my illnesses, but to make me feel more chipper and energetic in general.

          But I always use what has proven to work. The key is, I use both in concert with each other. The alternative stuff is mainly used as an enhancer (even if just quality of life enhancer); but the idea is to pick what works.

          This is especially important with emotional and mood disorders-- on at least one occasion in my life, "western" medicine did NOT work, such as when years ago I was prescribed generic carbamazepine for anxiety. All it did was change the pitch of my hearing-- what mild effects it had on my moods were massively outweighed by my dismay at losing my perfect pitch and ear, and my concerns for any professional musicians who might be prescribed this stuff. I switched to fish oil, which made me feel not just calmer but stronger; and never looked back.

          But for a disease that has a documented cause? A definite, known bacterial or viral pathogen? It's moronic and dangerous to forsake the scientifically proven cure and preventative.

          Maybe anti-vaxism is, in one way, taking the power of the mind-body connection way too far. Allowing "The Secret" to dominate your health thinking. "Clearly Timmy wouldn't have been susceptible to measles in the first place if he'd just banished all his negative moods!"

          Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

          by Lucy Montrose on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:03:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  yep. sadly they seem to allow their anti-corporate (7+ / 0-)

      ideology to run away with their common sense.

      But science is the ONLY way we have to learn about the world around us, and it MUST be defended from everyone who uses and abuses it--even if they happen to share the same ideology I do. (I worked for both Greenpeace and Sierra Club, and have been arrested a dozen times at anti-corporate actions.)

      I hate Big Pharma, Monsanto and TEPCO as much as anyone (more, probably, since I lived near Three Mile Island in 1979). But the fact remains that most of the anti-vax, anti-GMO and anti-nuke arguments I hear here are simply scientific nonsense that shouldn't fool a fifth-grader. Such silly arguments betray a lack of understanding of basic science, they make our side look uninformed and uneducated, and we should not use them.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:26:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you all... (11+ / 0-)

    Our daily lives haven’t changed since the discovery of evidence that gravity waves were created in the first fraction of a second of the Universe as expected.

    But think about that…we can understand what the Universe was like in the instant it came into existence.  We know how it functioned, we know how matter and then galaxies were created.  These are not wild guesses, fanciful myths or stories from God(s).  This work is the result of tens of thousands of hours of research in math, physics and technological innovation over hundreds of years by some of the brightest among us.  And hundreds of thousands of hours from moms, dads, friends and workers of all types who supported them.

    Every concept or experiment was forged by being questioned by equally brilliant scientists hoping to find a flaw in the reasoning to make the whole better.

    Finally almost all of this research was funded by collections of people sharing their resources through governments.  Lots of people sharing a portion of resources they could barely afford to sacrifice to create knowledge that no one has known before.

    The highest form of spiritual practice is self observation with compassion.

    by NCJim on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:24:35 AM PDT

    •  Daily lives are of course changed (0+ / 0-)

      by discoveries like these. It takes more than a few days but as science progresses there is less and less credible room for out and out bullshit and that for example is why people don't get burned at the stake for suggesting the Earth revolves around the Sun.

      Each new discovery of any magnitude does change daily lives precisely because it redefines the space in which reasonable people can disagree and that does shape our collective perception of the world.

      Remember to kick it over.

      by sprogga on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:53:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am absolutely sure malaria is caused by bad air. (10+ / 0-)

    Now buy my book and pay to hear me speak, goddammit.

    I ride the wild horse .

    by BelgianBastard on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:31:09 AM PDT

  •  Btw, folks...the biggest day in television history (0+ / 0-)

    March 30, 2014.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:36:15 AM PDT

  •  Sweet video: (7+ / 0-)

    Chao-Lin Kuo delivers the news to Andrei Linde that his theory of cosmic inflation has been verified experimentally:

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:37:33 AM PDT

  •  finally a name for the crap we have to put up with (12+ / 0-)

    Dunning-Kruger syndrome a.k.a. 'baggerism with/without lemons

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding.
    David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"

    The phenomenon was first tested in a series of experiments published in 1999 by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of the Department of Psychology, Cornell University. The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras. They noted earlier studies suggesting that ignorance of standards of performance is behind a great deal of incompetence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis.
    Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

    tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
    fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
    fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
    recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:38:30 AM PDT

  •  Th, Th That's All Folks! (3+ / 0-)

    there's no way our nation will survive long term with the increasing level of ignorance and poverty in our nation.

    "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

    by Superpole on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:40:19 AM PDT

  •  Has Jenny McCarthy killed children? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, palantir, Aquarius40

    The anti-vax fad had caused a resurgence of measles...
    it does kill.
    She should go live with Bashar Assad or the Taliban.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:41:59 AM PDT

  •  Anti-vax: just shows how deeply they fear autism. (4+ / 0-)

    Autism is, after all, something that will haunt their child for the rest of their life, and render them unemployable, undateable, and permanently unsuccessful. It will keep their kids from ever moving out of their home and living independently. So the story goes.
    Certainly, these parents are too busy and tired to fight against bullies, prejudiced work supervisors, etc. They certainly don't have time or energy to challenge the implication of labeling kids autistic, itself (how much of it is a byproduct of our work culture, which puts an ever harder emphasis on playing well with others without examining whether that definition of collegiality is humane or even healthy?)

    They probably do the mental calculations and conclude that risking a nasty, preventable disease is preferable to a lifetime of social marginalization, poverty and misery. Because changing your own family is always easier than changing a culture.

    Vaccines not even being responsible for autism is not even on their radar; so great is their fear.

    Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

    by Lucy Montrose on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:44:01 AM PDT

    •  I would HR this if I was sure it was serious (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lucy Montrose, estamm, mamamedusa

      Autism is not something that will necessarily render anybody unemployable, undateable or permanently unsuccessful. On the other hand, prejudice against those on the spectrum will do all those things if unchecked.

      I have a son on the spectrum and he is eminently employable, has relationships and is very unlikely to be unsuccessful after he is done with his ivy league education.

      I hope your first paragraph was snark,

      Remember to kick it over.

      by sprogga on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:00:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've been told that I am on the spectrum (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sprogga, Lucy Montrose, ban nock

        I have a tendency, when I become interested in something new to me, to throw myself into it totally for a while and quickly learn as much information about it as I can.  Apparently that is one of the indicators for Asperger's.

        Me, I just thought it was just "curiosity", and one of the things that makes me, me.  (shrug)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:05:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well it is one sign and my son does the same thing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lucy Montrose

          But thats also why he is off to ivy league school!

          We would go skiing when he was 10 or so and he would know every trail on the mountain, every secret trail and so on without ever having been to the mountain before. It was great, you couldn't get lost.

          Remember to kick it over.

          by sprogga on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:10:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It was snark. More precisely, a straw snark-man. (4+ / 0-)

        It's a picture of the bogeyman that lives inside every parent who fears autism that much.

        But our work culture absolutely does not help. An employment climate where a simple difference of opinion can get you labeled "poor fit"? Where anything less than total self-abnegation to your corporate culture could get you, in the eyes of some employers, a reputation for being "difficult"? Where hiring more and more resembles speed dating, or fraternity/sorority rush?

        I wonder if, in redder areas of the country, you could get placed on the autism spectrum merely for being TOO interested in science and books, and not interested enough in sports and dating. Gotta uphold those gender norms, after all.
        People who defy their culture norms have long been labeled "mentally disordered" by the leaders of their dominant culture, with the goal of marginalizing them. Why should autism be used any differently?

        Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

        by Lucy Montrose on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:20:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you for clarifying and elucidating (3+ / 0-)

          I am obviously very sensitive about this because of my son, but I am really glad you were snarking!

          Remember to kick it over.

          by sprogga on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:44:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  even happens in blue-ville (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lucy Montrose

          'you could get placed on the autism spectrum merely for being TOO interested in science and books', and 'a reputation for being "difficult"'

          I simply call it the great middling trend... but the neurotypical v spectrum definitions and distinctions are awfully subtle for a comment thread

          •  That's exactly what I thought. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i saw an old tree today

            All these subtleties-- what makes people so certain of the line between neurotypical and autistic? Why does certainty have a place when talking about such fine distinctions? Then again, we have people pronouncing with great certitude they can read body language and tell when someone is lying... even if they're wrong 50 percent of the time.
            (Is that why people gorge on tabloid journalism, shallow gossip, and reality TV-- to prove they're not on the spectrum?)

            Once when I was very little, a child school counselor wondered if I was autistic. After testing, they determined that I was not. But I still quite socially clueless until college, mainly because I thought socializing would make me a boy-crazy, People magazine reading, dream-and principle-abandoning idiot.

            And I'm sad to say that getting more socially clued-in since then has not made me feel any better about what it takes to be a social success. There's still a lot of stereotype appeal you have to do, and a lot of privilege premium. Those with privilege-- in wealth, looks, race, and personality-- are always going to have an edge in the social game. Privilege is attractive. It makes our greedy little instincts happy.

            And there still is this whole issue I have with boundaries and consent-- namely, this frustration that so much of what I want to do requires cooperation of other people. And they are free to refuse that whenever they want. So it's up to the choice of others to be with me, as to whether I become a social success. Whether they find me attractive, interesting, or useful... which often involves propping up privilege. Which half the time, doesn't work. So much of social life boils down to luck, or seems to; that sometimes I wonder why bother. Because I know better now than to believe that self-presentation is magic. No matter how hard those in the self-help business sell that line.

            You don't have to be on the spectrum to have problems with the interplay of self-determination, boundaries, and consent. And I think that tackling those issues head-on will serve us a lot better than dividing us up into "neurotypical" and "autistic".

            Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

            by Lucy Montrose on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:37:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  There Is Risk with Some Vaccines - (4+ / 0-)

    Flu vaccine for one:

    Who Should Not Be Vaccinated?

    Influenza vaccine is not approved for children younger than 6 months of age.

    People who have had a severe allergic reaction to influenza vaccine should generally not be vaccinated.

    There are some people who should not get a flu vaccine without first consulting a physician.

    These include:

        People who have a moderate-to-severe illness with or without a fever (they should wait until they recover to get vaccinated), and
        People with a history of Guillain–Barré Syndrome (a severe paralytic illness, also called GBS) that occurred after receiving influenza vaccine and who are not at risk for severe illness from influenza should generally not receive vaccine. Tell your doctor if you ever had Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Your doctor will help you decide whether the vaccine is recommended for you.

    I love the circular logic of the bolded section.
    And if you have a Guillain-Barre reaction, the result can be life-threatening and/or life-altering.

    And then there are adjuvants.

    Adjuvants are additives in the vaccine which
    'kick-start" the immune system - often aluminum salts, but in the past mercury-based compounds. (Thiomersal is still used in flu vaccines in the U.S.) For the vast majority of patients they dramatically increase vaccine effectiveness. But for a small fraction, they may overwhelm the immune system and cause permanent damage.

    Adjuvants are never discussed in the brochures or by the medical community. Shouldn't the patient at least have the information with which to make a decision.

    I never knew about adjuvants until I had a Guillane-Barre episode. I may have made the same decision about flu vaccination, but shouldn't I have had the full information beforehand?

    •  which is riskier-------------------- (7+ / 0-)

      Flu, or flu vaccine.

      Whooping cough, or whooping cough vaccine.

      Show us some numbers.  Let's see how many people flu or whooping cough kills every year, and compare it to how many people flu vaccine or whooping cough vaccine kills every year.

      Life is risky. If you want zero risk, wrap yourself in bubble wrap and never leave your bed.  And hope a meteorite doesn't crash through your ceiling and kill you.

      (shrug)

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:59:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ps--that big long release that they make you sign (6+ / 0-)

      before you get the shot?  

      Read it next time.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:01:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This Is Why - (2+ / 0-)

        I have grown to dislike a segment of the DKos community.
        In my comment, I indicated that I had a serious reaction -
        And you post your typical nastiness.

        I pulled down a couple of flu release forms on line and none mentioned adjuvants. So, perhaps, you should read. And develop an attitude of civility, too.

        http://www.globalpediatrics.com/...

        •  sorry for your personal experience (7+ / 0-)

          Your personal experience is a rarity. The risk from the vaccine is a tiny fraction of the risk from the flu.

          It is no reason for anyone else to not get vaccinated. Any more than the fact that some people die from anesthesia means you shouldn't be anesthetized for your open-heart surgery.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:37:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lenny - (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jsquared, RiveroftheWest

            I'm tired of even trying to engage any more.
            You say "Read it next time."
            And then say, "Sorry for your personal experience."
            What about, "Sorry I insulted you."?

            I happen to have advanced degrees -
            And I did happen to get an 800 on my verbal GREs.
            So, I think I can read.

            And I did spend much time reading everything available -
            And had my office on the nursing wing of the school.
            So, I asked for additional advice.

            Your implication - and the other person's here -
            Is that I am some kind of moron or Neanderthal.
            All I stated was that there was no discussion of adjuvants.
            None.

            There has been much discussion here about GM crops -
            And how consumers should have to right to know if they are eating GM food.
            What about knowing what is in the vaccine?

            Yes, adjuvants do improve the effectiveness of vaccines -
            But they involve mercury or aluminum compounds.
            Shouldn't people know that without being called illiterate?

            •  sure, whatever (7+ / 0-)

              Print up a hundred-page disclaimer and have everyone read it.  Fine with me. (shrug)

              Doesn't change the simple fact that the risk from vaccines is miniscule compared to the risk of the diseases, and that miniscule "risk" is no reason for people to not get vaccinated.

              People who discourage others from getting vaccinated, for whatever reason, are killing people.  Literally. People die as a result of that kookery.

              I see no reason to make nice-nice with such people. They are deluded fools, and they deserve nothing else than to be heartily laughed at. Publicly.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:43:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You Have Confirmed - (0+ / 0-)

                What I suspected from the outset.

                And that's why your publishing house has sales of $536.
                Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,693,561 in Books
                There are no customer reviews yet.
                http://www.amazon.com/...

                Your outlook is little different from the creationists you rail against -
                "Believe and act as we do - or you're all going to hell."

                You may enjoy preaching to the choir -
                But your message is not getting past the narthex.

                •  that's pretty funny (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Capt Crunch, emelyn

                  coming from someone who now wants to have a personal pissing contest.

                  Alas, I'm not interested.  To be blunt, I don't give a flying fuck about you personally. All I care is that anyone, ANYONE, who encourages others not to get vaccinated, for whatever dumbass reason, is doing tremendous harm, and needs to be smacked down.

                  So you may continue with your personal pissing if you like (I suggest you insult my mother--she's very overweight). I'm afraid you shall be doing so alone, though.

                  Have fun.

                  (shrug)

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:31:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Seriously - a pediatrics warning? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aquarius40, emelyn, mamamedusa, gsenski

          Do you even understand there are different medication requirements for children from adults?

          You offered NOTHING that should be taken seriously.

          •  Cesspool - (0+ / 0-)

            I have come to the conclusion that Daily Kos is increasingly a cesspool. Although I have been a lifelong progressive, many people of the left seems to have a profound need to tell others how to think and act. The Marxist term "false consciousness" comes to mind - but it still applies to how the left views those with whom they disagree. Such a view will permanently constrain the left to marginality.

            I seem to have more success having a civil conversation with neighbors and church members with whom I have significant political disagreements than many here at DKos.

            Meanwhile, worldwide, the real political contest is between the corporate and the far right. So, please, enjoy being "right".

    •  There is risk with ANYTHING (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, mamamedusa

      Driving a car.
      Eating peanuts.
      Flying in an airplane.

      I'm willing to bet you do all those without a second thought.

      When people don't get vaccinated they put others at risk.

      Additionally you don't give ANY reference to back up your claims. Nothing.

      I can't take anything you say seriously if you don't even back it up.

      •  Comments Like This - (0+ / 0-)

        Are why the left has always marginalized itself.
        "Shrill" and "strident" have been used for decades.
        And you certainly give credence to that.
        Nota bene - the bold face above.

        And thanks for sensitivity.

        PS - Would you like me to post all of my personal medical information?  Would that satisfy you? Or would you then make snide remarks about my choice of treatment options?

        •  I would make snide comments (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aquarius40, mamamedusa

          because you offer NOTHING to back up your goofball position.

          If that offends you consider this: I find it offensive that someone would insist I take their comments seriously when they obviously don't have a clue.

          I find it offensive that you throw a tantrum because you make unsubstantiated claims and then get called on it.

          As to your personal medical journey - I don't care. You could be making that up too.

      •  Untrue. Severe peanut allergy. n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  The kind of mercury used in vaccines IIRC (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnnygunn

      is not a problem, just a scaremongering tactic the anti-vaxxers use to scare you.

      The allergic reaction, on the other hand, is real. I have severe egg allergy and cannot get the flu vaccine. I have asked and no pharmacy near me has the egg-free version.

      And given the rise in food allergy, especially in poor children, an allergic reaction to a vaccine based in one of the top eight food allergens is a very real threat. Unlike the autism crap, which is a meaningless coincidence as autism symptoms present about the same time as vaccines are being administered, not because of the vaccines, kids can die from allergic reactions.

      So can we adults.

    •  No One Has Responded about Adjuvants - (0+ / 0-)

      And I have mentioned it several times.
      Should patients be informed about the presence of adjuvants in vaccines?

      Yes, no, maybe??

      •  sure. why not? (0+ / 0-)

        Put it in the disclaimer and let them sign.

        (shrug)

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:14:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  as long as . . . . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Capt Crunch, mamamedusa

          the "risks" are REAL risks, and not the made-up bullshit arm-waving ones we typically see from anti-vaxxers.

          I suggest it be in the form of a chart. One one side, we have the total figure for all persons known to have died from vaccines and/or adjuvants.  On the other side, the total for all persons known to have died from the disease being vaccinated against.

          Let em decide which is the bigger "risk".

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:16:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Jenny McCarthy? Really? (3+ / 0-)

    How did this talentless imbecile become the go-to spokesperson for anything? Who champions this low IQ dunce?

    And as the song and dance begins, the children play at home with needles, needles and pins.

    by The Lone Apple on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:52:15 AM PDT

  •  Yes, but is it purple? (dinofuzz) (0+ / 0-)

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:53:02 AM PDT

  •  Love the reference (5+ / 0-)

    To The University of Google .

    Where everyone becomes an honorary PhD and expert on any subject in any field after just a few clicks.

    Government of, for, and by the wealthy corporate political ruling class elites. Elizabeth Warren Progressive Wing of political spectrum.

    by emal on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:55:51 AM PDT

  •  Is there a prize for knowing the answer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a gilas girl

    to the genome question? But then, I might be the only Kossack whose office art includes drawings of loblolly pine and Douglas-fir.

    I admit to being amazed to learn that a tree could have a genome that is far more complex than that of our own species. If trees could talk, they might call us simple life forms.

  •  just a quibble (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a gilas girl, bythesea

    I won't spoil the answer, but that's just the largest genome that has been sequenced to date.  There are (I think) much larger genomes known to biological science.  Some fern or amphibian would have been my guess.

    It's still a wonderful feat of sequencing!

  •  This is about Identity as much as Ignorance (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foresterbob, a gilas girl, Aquarius40

    What makes groups like the anti-vaxxers stand out is that they are in groups. Plenty of individuals believe stuff that isn't so, but they don't necessarily go out looking for others join or convert.

    They've centered their lives around a shared belief system, much like a form of religion or some other kind of community where they can enjoy the company of others who believe what they do. The act of believing in something together with others is an important part of the shared delusion; they draw strength from it.

    There's also the fact that what they believe fills a need in their lives - it provides answers to problems they haven't been able to solve any other way.

    This is why it can be so hard to change the minds of people who believe something that is not only wrong, it is provably wrong - because it is about much more than facts.

    This is why the Galactic Commensurate is putting long odds on the chances the Human Race will ever get its act together.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:05:16 AM PDT

  •  The amoeba. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a gilas girl, bythesea

    I win.

    To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

    by UntimelyRippd on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:10:28 AM PDT

  •  Where do anti-vacc'ers board their dogs? (5+ / 0-)

    I'm taking my dog into a kennel for a few days while I'm on vacation.  They require that all dogs be up to date on their vaccinations.  They won't allow a dog to stay without a vet's vaccination list showing this.  (They can make exceptions, but the dogs need proof via a titer that they do not have any diseases.)  If these idiots don't believe in vaccines, then what do they do about their dogs?

    "In 20 years, the GOP will be small enough to drown in a bathtub." - me

    by estamm on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:12:26 AM PDT

    •  Friends and family (0+ / 0-)

      People have friends and family that don't require boarding their animals while away.

      I have 2 dogs, one's nearly 11 and the other 12. My lab just died at nearly 13.

      None of them were vaccinated beyond the required first shots.

  •  Hysteria et al (3+ / 0-)

    Seems to me that the vaccinators are also "hysterical". If you read the various research articles (NOT the synopsis or the media-slanted versions), the picture becomes quite different. In a previous set of postings, Wakefield's name was mentioned with accompanying insulting verbiage. If you actually read his article you will see that Wakefield never said that the vaccine was responsible. What he actually wrote was that the type of measles that was in the vaccine was in the intestines of the six children he tested, and that it needed to be further looked into.
    To all of you who are upset about the recent outbreaks of measles, think about the vast amount of children come into the world nowadays in America who have life-altering conditions. And no, I am not saying vaccinations are the whole problem. I think they are part of the problem. Every baby in America, by the time they are 1 year old, have had more than 38 vaccinations, and most of these are within the first few days of life. This is a huge task for that immature system to manage. Why don't we space them out so that if an effect is going to happen, there is time to monitor it?
    As a health care practitioner of 30+ years I can tell you that the health of the young people whom I see these days is, for the most part, far worse than when I was first in practice.
    What is going on here? We have one of the highest instances of infant and mother mortality and morbidity. Our longesvity overall is dropping rapidly. And more.
    So instead of screaming about the anti-vaxxers and joining that hysteria, why not start looking at the big picture. Getting the measles might be a good thing as it might be "training" the immune system to respond to foreign bodies (a research article from Isreal about 20 years ago suggested this).
    The picture is bigger than the question of whether to or whether to not vaccinate.

    •  when anyone mentions the name "Wakefield" (7+ / 0-)

      approvingly, I stop reading.

      He is a known fraud.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:26:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A few questions... (6+ / 0-)
      As a health care practitioner of 30+ years I can tell you that the health of the young people whom I see these days is, for the most part, far worse than when I was first in practice.
      1) Where do you practice medicine?

      2) Have you ever written a peer-reviewed scientific paper?

      If you actually read his article you will see that Wakefield never said that the vaccine was responsible.
      3) The paper was retracted for data falsification. Given this fact, does it matter what he wrote in the paper?

      ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

      by TFinSF on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:58:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  by the way, thanks for your first comment ever in (0+ / 0-)

      this thoughtful, appreciative site, I see you are what would be in my state a fully licensed and referrable medical practitioner with publications; with the magic of Google, 2 of the 3 questions asked of you could have been discovered instantly, I don't think you need respond, and frankly asking someone to name professional credentials without willing to share their own is suspicious to me, unless they're playing some better than though head trip unrelated to science

      •  Thanks for at least addressing the other side (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i saw an old tree today

        I'm not an anti-vax person by any means, but who are we to just blithely assume that all of the vaccines are safe for use?  Not everybody's immune system works in the same way, and while most children who get vaccinated will not suffer any ill effects, there are other documented cases of children being vaccinated who have suffered some adverse reactions which led to more serious medical conditions.  When I was the age of many young children today, the vaccines I received were of different compositions than the ones administered today, and they were also spaced out over several months.  We are we to be so arrogant to dismiss the concerns of some parents whose children are suffering from autism or some other auto-immune disease after receiving vaccinations?

    •  Important to look at the potential range of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i saw an old tree today

      factors behind the declining health and wellness of our children (exploding obesity, allergies, emotional issues, etc,) as they are the "canaries in the coalmine" of our society.  We are living with an unprecedented combination of environmental, pharmaceutical, food chemical and electromagnetic influences, any/all of which could be contributing to this situation.

  •  There's another important study that... (8+ / 0-)

    shows those who believe that those who think evolution or climate change are conspiracy theories (pdf) among scientists are more likely to accept other conspiracy theories  such as the moon landings being faked.  And are likely to react to any challenge to their beliefs as proof of yet another conspiracy theory.

    A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and the rejection of other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, in press; LOG12 from here on). This article analyzes the response of the climate blogosphere to the publication of LOG12. We identify and trace the hypotheses that emerged in response to LOG12 and that questioned the validity of the paper’s conclusions. Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere’s response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future.
    In other words: these guys showed that people who didn't believe in climate change were likely to believe in some other anti-science conspiracy. When they published their paper, it became the focus of a NEW anti-science conspiracy.
    •  It's a strange form of narcissism (5+ / 0-)

      if you think about it: the belief that entire establishments exist to pull the wool over one's own eyes.

      Someone upthread noted that it was about Identity as much as Ignorance, and I think that has something to do with it.  But it is also reminiscent of something one of my Graduate School Professors became (relatively) famous for identifying, naming and then demonstrating (with evidence), "the Mean World Syndrome".  More likely to happen with folks who were isolated and watched a lot of television (both news and entertainment).  You perceive the world to be a scary place and then that colors most of your other perceptions, values, beliefs and political opinions.

      I kind of see these anti-science CT peddlers as a mutation of that.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:47:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it's related to the idea, (5+ / 0-)

        "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence".

        If someone does something that screws you over, and especially if it happens more than once, you start trying to figure out why they're out to get you, when probably, they aren't thinking about you at all.

        This is one of the reasons why wisdom so often entails humility: to properly understand the things that are going on around oneself, and the behavior of the people one encounters, one must first properly quantify one's own significance in the matter.

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:52:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's all about ego and self-worth (2+ / 0-)

    For the vast majority of people, it's almost impossible to admit (especially to yourself) that someone else is better at something, or smarter than you are. It's a painful thing to realize, so they'll go to incredible lengths to deny it and prove that THEY'RE really the smart ones - whether it's science, politics, or religion. This is also behind most the giant meta fights you see on teh interwebs - the 'I'm the smartest person in my house so I can't be wrong!' attitude.

    "When does the greed stop, we ask the other side? That's the question and that's the issue." - Senator Ted Kennedy

    by Fordmandalay on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:32:18 AM PDT

  •  Actually … there is science (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not a fan of vaccines for a large part of the population because of new science coming out.   About 40-50% of the population has the Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene mutation (MTHFR), and vaccines are in fact very dangerous for those people (especially kids) because metals in the vaccines impact the methylation cycle.

    Evidence that shows that kids who have the MTHFR gene mutation that are vaccinated, have a higher rate of autism.

    http://dramyyasko.com/...

    http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/...

    •  Um (6+ / 0-)

      Right.

      "40-50%" has "the" mutation? Which mutation is that?

      "very dangerous"? How dangerous is that?

      "metals in the vaccines impact the methylation cycle"? Do they? Has someone demonstrated that the actual metals in the actual vaccines actually make their way into actual cells and actually impact "the methylation cycle" (whatever you think that means)? Or do you mean that someone has shown in vitro that cells treated with thimerosal take up the mercury and show modifications in methylation? Or do you mean that someone has shown in vitro that cells treated with mercury show modifications in methylation?

      From what I can tell, the two links you provide give some evidence of some possible mechanism by which some vaccines could possibly cause a problem. That's as far as the evidence goes. The study from the oxford journals article has nothing to do with metals, and actually, not a hell of a lot to do with vaccines. The mechanisms they suggest by which the smallpox vaccine triggered (mild) adverse reactions would apply just as well to a real viral infection.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:22:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh good god, not Yasko (8+ / 0-)

      You lose all credibility citing her, as she is a notorious medical woo crank. Nobody in the medical community takes her seriously, and quite a few call her nonsense dangerous. I'm curious how you claim "new science" but link to a Powerpoint presentation from 2004 (that is not in any way a peer-reviewed piece of science, btw).

      The Oxford journal article is from 2007, and it does not actually support the claims that the genetic mutation is as widespread as claimed, nor that vaccines are "very dangerous" for those people. Certainly not kids, since the study only relied on adults.

      This is the typical dishonesty of the anti-vax crowd. Glom on to some scientific article, inflate and distort its significance and then link it was the pseudoscience of medical snake oil peddlers like Yasko.

    •  curious---- (6+ / 0-)
      I'm not a fan of vaccines for a large part of the population
      are you a fan of polio and whooping cough and diptheria for a  large part of the population . . . ?  Or do you think if we stop vaccinating people, those diseases will not come back again because  . . . what . . .  freedomz?

      Let's compare numbers.  Give us one column containing ALL of the deaths you claim have happened from any vaccine of any sort, ever. And next to that, place a column showing ALL of the deaths caused by vaccine-able diseases. Let's see which column has bigger numbers.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:34:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This brings me to a point I've made before: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, mamamedusa

        The only real problem with vaccines is that they have done their job too well. We now have several generations of people who are lucky enough to have never known a world with polio, who have never heard a whooping cough victim gasping for breath for five minutes at a time. Combine this with antibiotics and improved sanitation and we have created a world where people equate "serious illness" with "having a bad cold". This is in fact a good thing, but people lose perspective, take their good fortune for granted and lose sight of what it takes to maintain that world.

        The other point I've made is that if people really want to get rid of vaccines, the solution is to vaccinate the hell out of everybody. We did it with smallpox and now no one gets a smallpox vaccination. We're close to doing it with polio (Pakistani anti-vaxers being the fly in that ointment). Keep it up.

    •  I guess I'm speaking to the wrong crowd (0+ / 0-)

      I suppose all of you also think that GMOs are okay.

      Or that margarine and canola are good for you.

      Or that whole wheat is good for you.

      I think it's all of you that have been manipulated by big pharma, big ag, and the processed food industry.

  •  I find the first block quote offensive (3+ / 0-)

    referencing "University of Google knowledge."

    Be fair.  If we didn't all deeply disagree with the anti-vax movement, wouldn't we feel a little more respect for people who try, in whatever way they can, to express some skepticism and try for independent evaluation rather than just swallowing whatever Authority tells them?  

    We here accept the self-serving and frequently corrupt nature of corporations, and sometimes even government.  Why should we exclude the biotechs and, given evidence that the EPA is influenced by Big Ag, why should we exclude the CDC?

    I've no use for the manipulators and am angry about the unnecessary illnesses and deaths, as presumably we all are.  But belittling people who are trying their best to deal with the contemporary world of disinformation is unnecessary and unbecoming in my opinion.

    •  there is a difference between (6+ / 0-)

      "having an open mind" and "letting your brain fall out".

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:22:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is that difference? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wa ma, i saw an old tree today

        Is it clear which side of the line these folks are on, and which side we are on?  Or does it just feel good to hurl epithets at those on the other side of an issue?

        Public health is a tricky subject, because it involves herd immunity and weighing public interest against individual interest.  That public-vs.-individual conflict seems like fertile ground for rebellion, to me.  So you come down on the side of public interest.  Do you go so far as to believe that decisions in this area are purely about balancing individual and public interest, and magically free from any influence of corporate interest?

        Does knowing that medical Authority has been wrong for decades on major issues such as the supposed cardio-protective effect of HRT, the supposed benefits of a grain-based, low-fat diet, and many other issues not create grounds for skepticism?

        If your doctor subscribed to the new guidelines to put you on statins starting at age 60, would you accept that without trying to learn anything about the pros and cons on your own?

        •  you can't tell the difference? Really? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emelyn, mamamedusa

          Really and truly? No idea how to tell? None at all?

          Then your brain has fallen out.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:05:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  best I can tell is it's us vs. them, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wa ma, i saw an old tree today

            which is seductive, I admit, but imo not legitimate.

            If there's a qualitative difference between believing, for example, that atrazine (banned in Europe) is legal and widely used in the U.S. because its sales benefit the manufacturer and the manufacturer has been able to influence scientists and regulators, and believing that vaccines are required for analogous reasons, please explain it to me.

            Stephen Covey suggests "first seek to understand, then to be understood."  If we want to persuade people to vaccinate their children, not to indulge our sense of superiority but actually to save lives, we would do well to show respect for where they are coming from.

            •  horse shit (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              T100R, TFinSF, emelyn, puckmtl

              There's no "us vs them".  It's "reality vs idiotic CT tinhattery".

              If you think there are two equally valid sides to every story, then tell me where I can see the valid evidence for a flat earth, and a sun that revolves around it.

              Anti-vaxxers are at that level of nuttiness.

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 09:53:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  seems like you're here to call names (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wa ma, i saw an old tree today
                If you think there are two equally valid sides to every story, then tell me where I can see the valid evidence for a flat earth, and a sun that revolves around it.
                I don't think this at all.  I think that there's trying to accomplish something in the world, and there's indulging one's feelings of superiority, and the two are darned near mutually exclusive.

                I would rather accomplish something such as persuading parents to vaccinate their children, than sit around thinking up epithets to call them.  Persuasion is a form of negotiation, and whether you want to refer to Covey or to truisms such as "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar," it's only effective if it starts from a basis of respect.

    •  Ridiculing conspiratorial thought is fine. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      T100R, Capt Crunch, emelyn

      Those people focus on the abnormal, so their use of google is merely to find information which supports their bias.  Because they exhibit abnormal thought in this instance, everything that they believe they know must be questioned.

      •  Are you serious? (3+ / 0-)

        Don't you find that pretty much everyone has a flaw in their thinking somewhere?  If you discard the entirety of someone's thought the instant you find some flakiness somewhere, in my experience there'd not be much scope left for meaningful discussion.

        Don't you think that the big scary Government that requires your children to have all these shots, and requires you to be presented with paperwork telling you all of the bad things that have ever happened to people given these vaccinations, might kinda seem tyrannical to some folks?

        Where I am coming from is that although it can feel good to indulge in a little arrogance and superiority, in terms of accomplishing anything I believe it is always more constructive to approach the issue with humility and respect for the other guy.

    •  That's the argument climate change deniers use (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NancyK, emelyn, Catte Nappe, mamamedusa

      Identical.

      I've seen my Rep - Dana Rohrabacher repeat that exact same thing to justify questioning human influence over climate change.

      "Hey - we're just skeptical."

      Bull shit.

      People that endanger others because of stupidity and crackpot ignorance do not deserve respect. They deserve laughter and derision.

  •  Behold the mighty jaws of the feathered dinosaur (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa

    IMG_1531

    Libertarianism, n: A political philosophy some people embrace after the roads have been paved. (Stolen from Kurt Weldon)

    by lineatus on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 07:59:32 AM PDT

  •  Colbert sez... (0+ / 0-)

    Texas GOP calls for end to critical thinking in schools

    http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/...

    Colbert gets mind blown by Neil deGrasse Tyson (after some riffing on Guns and Churches and a few ads, 10 minutes in.)

    http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/...

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 08:00:59 AM PDT

  •  Penn and Teller nailed the anti-vax foolishness (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, rduran

    And how they are putting their children at far greater risk than vaccinating, even if there was a link to autism (which there isn't, of course).

    https://www.youtube.com/...

    (not sure how to embed...)

  •  Anita Hill (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    T100R, denise b

    22 years later that still pisses me off, how she was treated.  IMO it would be every bit as bad today, and that pisses me off even more.

  •  do Pterodactyls and Pteronadons have feathers? (0+ / 0-)

    that would be quite interesting, it would allow finer trim
    and better Cd.

    •  they were covered with fibers that looked more (0+ / 0-)

      like hair. Though it was actual mammalian hair with follicles and such.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:33:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  argh, typo---> (0+ / 0-)

        Though it was NOT actual mammalian hair with follicles and such.

        Sorry if my writing is starting to get fuzzy.  I've been sick off and on for several months now, and last night I was utterly unable to sleep more than a few short naps. I'm a bit bleary right now. And still can't sleep.

        :(

        In the end, reality always wins.

        by Lenny Flank on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 10:35:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  are feathered dinosaurs warm blooded? (0+ / 0-)

    it would make a lot of sense, giving them higher
    power density, broader operating range, and
    weather resistance.

  •  OT DarkSyde I have a big favor to ask. Rev. Al .. (0+ / 0-)

    ..Sharpton (and all of MSNBC have updated their video format to the <iframe> embed HTML which won't load on Daily Kos for me. I have to go back to their older version of the website and use the <embed> type HTML to have the videos work at DK.

    So far Reverend Al Sharpton 'Politics Nation' is (mostly)only available in the modern  <iframe> type as you have successfully loaded here. It seems his crew isn't updating the older website as Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes and others are, but they too may end that updating and continue only the  <iframe> availability

    I retrieved this embed code below, in blockquotes, from viewing the source. It's the actual HTML that you used to embed todays Chris Hayes video. I retrieved and back slashed it so it would be visible in this comment here.

     How can I use the modern <iframe> embed as you have here?

    Is it only for front page authors like yourself and won't work for regular comments. The <iframe HTML also won't for a Dairy either.  

    This is the HTML you used for todays Chris Hayes video.

    <center><iframe src='http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/EmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_hayes_5truther_140320' height='433' width='550' scrolling='no' defang_border='no'></iframe></center>

    It appears the anti-vaccine caucus has bubbled up to the tepid surface again. It's always worth revisiting Dunning-Kruger syndrome, a phenomenon that never seems to really ebb. It's the tendency of the least informed, most willfully ignorant or in some cases the most wantonly dishonest, to insist that they and they alone know and bravely speak The Truth:

    I ask because I would really like to post Reverend Al Sharpton as I did here: Criminal injustice: the American cradle to prison pipeline.

    His work on the PIC and Jim Crow re-dux as well as his latest work on restoring the Voting Rights Act is very important work that I would like to be able to share.

    If there is a way to learn how to use the <iframe> HTML for us non-front pagers I would greatly appreciate it.  

    Who knows it may even save the world..okay.. never mind that last sentence but seriously (just my way of begging a little bit LOT) it there is a way please let me know okay?

    Thank you very much DarkSyde

    P.S. here I have embedded the video HTML directly below:

    ..see? nothing. Is there a solution for regular commenter @ Daily Kos? Thanks again

  •  I saw one special on T. Rex that imagined that (0+ / 0-)

    it was more like a vulture--scavenging and what not--and therefore they gave it vulture-like plumage and the bald head.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:52:43 AM PDT

  •  Neil DeGrasse Tyson is fighting the ignorant. (0+ / 0-)

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 11:53:12 AM PDT

  •  Science can be blind (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i saw an old tree today

    The value of Applied Sciences relies on the Scientific Method and the infallible Ethics required to never compromise before all external influences.

    Risk Analysis will show you that The Applied Sciences are not infallible. They are compromised quite frequently by those willing to look the other way.

    The value of Vaccination is measured in several fields as safeguards against fallible Food Science.

    It doesn't matter which field of Applied Sciences you work in [Aerospace, Environmental Science, Automobile Industries, HVAC, Power Systems, Fuel Distributions, Solar, Wind Energies, Hydroelectric Power, hundreds more] there are countless compromises that we call Factors of Safety (FoS).

    In an ideal world, Factors of Safety would be as high as possible. In the world of business, FoS woudn't exist.

    In the legal world we see compromise on levels required and often never met resulting in death and lawsuits.

    In the world of Health, our FoS is too low. To ignore this is to believe our Biological Sciences have a magic wand to solve all problems, just because it says, ``Scientifically Tested and Certified'' on the Wand.

    We can tackle a lot of our diseases by raises the FoS on all Emissions, quality of materials used and sound applied principles of Risk Analysis required only Best of Breed Solutions for our needs.

    Do that and you'll see far less concerns with Vaccines simply due to the fact our average health will have improved orders of magnitude for the better, leaving the best system in the world to keep us healthy and running as efficiently as possible:

    The Human Body.

  •  Birds of a feather... (0+ / 0-)

    "...blurring the distinction between dinosaurlike birds and birdlike dinosaurs."

    You mean like the distinction between Ron Paul and Rand Paul?

    The Talker They Lie, The Poorer I Get

    by Wing Nut on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 05:01:55 PM PDT

  •  Happy to see Trudeau go to jail (0+ / 0-)

    The guy is a fraud.  Unlike the anti-vaccination movement he made millions.  But I guess that the anti-science framework is the common denominator.  This is an epidemic phenomenon once you throw in the creationists.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Sat Mar 22, 2014 at 06:25:32 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site