Not too long ago, I wrote about how all science denial is a form of conspiracy theory. Ever since that concept crystalized in my mind, I’ve been finding more and more examples that reinforce just that conclusion: All science denial is conspiracy theory. Last week, CNN did a story about just one such example, the case of Ty Bollinger and his wife Charlene. I’ve written about them before, as this pseudoscience- and quackery-loving couple represent two of the most prominent members of what I like to call the “Cancer Truth” movement. That CNN story struck me as an excellent reason to check in on the Bollingers to see what they are doing in the age of COVID-19. Unsurprisingly, they’re grifting, and they’ve conveniently glommed on to the conspiracy theories of 2020 and beyond, the better to profit from promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories.
“The cancer truth movement” is a movement that denies that chemotherapy and other conventional oncologic treatments for cancer are effective (indeed, it’s often claimed that these “cut/burn/poison” treatments do more harm than good) and that claims that various alternative medical treatments can cure cancer. Like all science denying movements, “cancer truthers” base their denial of science-based oncology in conspiracy theories, in which big pharma and conventional oncology doctors “suppress” the evidence that chemotherapy does more harm than good and that alternative medicine “cures” cancer, unconcerned about all the patients they supposedly harm or kill as long as pharma and oncologists profit off of chemotherapy. It’s very similar to the way antivaxxers also claim that the CDC, physicians, and big pharma are “suppressing” the “proof” that vaccines cause more harm than good, as long as pediatricians and other doctors, as well as big pharma, can profit off of vaccines. Truly, at its core the central conspiracy theory of the cancer truther movement is basically the same as the central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement. Both are variants of the central conspiracy theory of science denial.
Before I discuss the CNN story, first let’s take a moment to look back Ty and Charlene Bollinger’s history. One thing that this couple is known for is a series of videos entitled The Truth About Cancer. As I like to point out, when you see anything entitled “The Truth About” something, almost invariably you are looking at something that is anything but the “The Truth.” What you are looking at is propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, and, as Harriet Hall pointed out, there is a ton of misinformation about cancer and chemotherapy in The Truth About Cancer. Harriet did the overview, and I dug deep into one episode, in which the Bollingers promoted Rigvir, an unproven treatment promoted by Latvian doctors.
Unfortunately, Ty and Charlene Bollinger are experts at what we call “fire hosing,” the art of spraying so much misinformation over so many hours that countering it becomes so onerous that most skeptics will demur. Certainly, I did, because I just didn’t have the time to devote ten hours just to watch the series, plus who knows how many more hours to dissect the hundreds of individual bits of disinformation. Dissecting YouTube videos and video series that quacks produce is incredibly time-consuming, and, I suspect, the quacks know it. No wonder Ty and Charlene Bollinger soon pivoted to a series they called The Truth About Vaccines, which used much the same technique of “fire hosing,” only this time to spread antivaccine misinformation.
I well remember how Ty Bollinger victimized a young cancer patient. Does anyone remember Cassandra Callender? She was a 17-year old who came to my attention over five years ago, when there was a national furor over her case. In brief, she developed Hodgkin’s lymphoma and refused standard-of-care chemotherapy, with the support and encouragement of her mother. There was a court case, and it was ordered that she undergo chemotherapy, and it was shortly after this point that Ty Bollinger interviewed her to promote cancer quackery and “resistance” to chemotherapy. She did, but as soon as she turned 18, she stopped therapy. Unfortunately, ultimately she relapsed and her cancer progressed. Sadly, she died last year, and her mother continues to blame science-based oncology for her death, rather than the quackery that she pursued as soon as she turned 18, while the Bollingers continue to blame dark conspiracies “suppressing” evidence for “natural cures” for cancer.
So no one should be surprised by the CNN story:
As the Trump faithful gathered around the Capitol on January 6, two conspiracy theories peddling in government mistrust converged: The fraudulent belief that the election was stolen, and the dangerous narrative that Covid-19 vaccinations are wildly unsafe.
“We’re being led off of a cliff,” Del Bigtree, an anti-vaccine activist, told the crowd at the “MAGA Freedom Rally D.C.” about a block from the Capitol.
“I wish I could tell you that Tony Fauci cares about your safety…” he said. “I wish I could believe that voting machines worked… but none of this is happening.”
In the wake of Trump’s electoral defeat, some leaders of the anti-vaccine movement latched onto the “Stop the Steal” crusade, advancing their own conspiratorial claims and, in some cases, promoting private business ventures, CNN has found. Some prominent anti-vaxxers say they directly coordinated with organizers of the DC rallies in January and pushed their message at other MAGA demonstrations, and on pro-Trump podcasts and social media platforms.
Which brings us not just to Del Bigtree, a frequent topic of this blog, but to Ty and Charlene Bollinger:
The event was organized in part by a political action committee run by Ty and Charlene Bollinger, a married couple who run websites and sell documentaries that claim to reveal “the truth about vaccines” and range in price from $199 to $499. They also market alternative health books and other products.
The Bollingers have engaged for years in what they describe as health-freedom activism. But in recent months they took up another cause.
In early November, they co-authored a post about “voter fraud and election meddling” for the website of political operative Roger Stone, who has taken credit for coining the phrase “Stop the Steal” to help then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016. Last November, Stone wrote in a webpost that he “strategized” with the Bollingers.
Since the pandemic began, I’ve often alluded to how a lot of people have been surprised at just how fast antivaxxers joined forces with COVID-19 cranks, antimaskers, and anti-“lockdown” activists—and even QAnon conspiracy theorists—but shouldn’t have been. All one has to understand is the concept that all science denial is a form of conspiracy theory. Once that is understood, it becomes utterly unsurprising that antivaxxers joined forces with all manner of COVID-19 conspiracy theorists and pro-Trump conspiracy theorists. Indeed, it was basically inevitable that they would. Moreover, when it comes to grifters like Ty and Charlene Bollinger, the inevitability is even more obvious, because the opportunity for grift has been magnified by COVID-19 and “Stop the Steal” conspiracy theories.
Back to the CNN story:
In a video posted on January 4, Charlene Bollinger said she was working with other organizers on plans for the January 6th protests including “Ali” — an apparent reference to Ali Alexander, a leader of the broader “Stop the Steal” movement.
Two days later, Charlene Bollinger introduced the speakers at her group’s rally near the US Capitol, plugged her documentaries and blasted what she called, “the forced Covid vaccine, such a scam.” She also told attendees that her husband Ty wasn’t with her because he had gone to join the siege.
“I told him… they are storming the Capitol, and he looked at me and said, ‘Do I need to stay here?’ I knew he wanted to go. I said, ‘Honey go,’ so he did,” she said.
Charlene Bollinger added that Ty texted her and said he was “outside” the Capitol. She then prayed “for the patriots that are there now inside. They’re trying to get inside that Capitol. Lord, use these people to eradicate this evil, these swamp creatures.”
CNN also gets it (mostly) right:
While outlandish claims of a stolen election may appear disjointed with vaccine fearmongering, their union at recent political rallies does not surprise Ahmed, of the Center for Countering Digital Hate.
Ahmed said fulltime anti-vaccine advocates often search for new audiences within other fringe movements with which they can build alliances. And he said it’s not a coincidence that some of these professionals sell products like health supplements.
I say “mostly” right because Imran Ahmed misses what a lot of people miss. It’s not just about the grift, although there is no doubt that it is about that. It’s not just about building alliances, although there is no doubt that it is about that. It’s about a lot more than the grift and building alliances. It’s about an affinity for conspiracy theories and how, if you believe in one conspiracy theory, it’s very likely that you will be receptive to believing in other conspiracy theories. The grift is just the icing on the cake for people like the Bollingers.
Again, if you look at this through the lens of the concept that all science denial is a form of conspiracy theory, and it should not be the least bit surprising that Ty and Charlene Bollinger, Del Bigtree, Sherri Tenpenny, and other antivaxxers would naturally join forces with COVID-19 conspiracy theorists like Simone Gold and with “Stop the Steal” conspiracy theorists who believe that there was a grand conspiracy to falsify vote totals and “steal” the election from Donald Trump. I will admit that even I was somewhat surprised at just how quickly antivaxxers inserted themselves into this entire conspiracy ecosystem surrounding COVID-19 and the election.
At this point, I will again point out that, contrary to the belief that antivaxxers are all crunchy hippie-dippy lefties, antivaccine beliefs are the pseudoscience that encompasses all political orientations from left to right. That being said, right now, in 2021 (and at least since 2015), the loudest, most radical, most dangerous voices in the antivaccine movement are right wing. Sure, there are occasional exceptions, like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., but the vast majority of the antivaccine movement has tacked right. The reason dates back to the battle over SB 277, the California law passed in 2015 that eliminated nonmedical exemptions. It was then that antivaxxers discovered the true effectiveness of using messaging emphasizing “health freedom,” “parental rights,” and the castigation of “government overreach” as a gateway to antivaccine conspiracy theories, and now the Republican Party has become, in essence, the party of antivaxxers dating to at least a couple of years before the pandemic.
Then, of course, there’s the grift, which is why Ty and Charlene Bollinger so happily saw the “Stop the Steal” conspiracy theory as an opportunity to profit, just as they had seen antivaccine conspiracy theories as an opportunity to profit before that and “cancer truth” conspiracy theories before that.
It’s particularly amusing to see Ty and Charlene Bollinger respond to the CNN story. Predictably, they call the CNN report “fake news,” taking a page from—who else?—Donald Trump. They also liken the CNN report to Holocaust denial:
Despite over 500 reported deaths from the COVID vaccine (according to the CDC’s VAERS database), the CNN report insinuates that vaccines are undeniably “safe” while totally ignoring the indisputable $4.4 Billion paid out to Americans damaged by previous vaccinations – an amount paid by the DHHS itself! Congressman Adam Schiff once sponsored a House Resolution declaring that there have never been any deaths attributable to vaccinations. This is like claiming that the holocaust never happened –a repugnant and idiotic notion.
No, Mr. Bollinger. That’s utter nonsense, and you’re just using VAERS the way that antivaxxers have always misused VAERS by imputing causation from the reports made to the database. (I just wrote about that two days ago!) But what about Bollinger’s claim about Adam Schiff? I rather suspect it comes from Schiff’s letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, in which he pointed out that there is “no evidence to suggest that vaccines cause life-threatening or disabling diseases, and the dissemination of unfounded and debunked theories about the dangers of vaccinations pose a great risk to public health.” None of what Schiff wrote is incorrect.
Bollinger apparently very much resents the claim that he and his wife are profiting from their activities. I laughed out loud when I read this passage:
CNN’s attempts to depict us as “profiteers” running an “empire” is yet another dishonest and deceitful attack. We are extraordinarily proud of the work we have done in our documentary films – The Truth About Cancer and The Truth About Vaccines. And while we have generated income from our documentary films, we find nothing wrong with making a living. What CNN’s “hatchet job” failed to mention was the fact that over the past six years, we have donated over $250K to charities that help people with cancer and vaccine damage, and we also have personally funded events to bring awareness to health freedom and the legitimacy of questioning the safety of vaccines.
And while brazenly disparaging us for selling products, in true “fake news” form, the CNN report failed to mention the record profits made by the vaccine manufacturing pharmaceutical giants in 2020, with the top 10 companies accumulating profits in excess of $400 billion.
Not surprisingly, they also failed to mention that the four companies that make all 72 of our vaccines (Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Glaxo) are four of the most corrupt companies in the world. They are serial felons, and have paid $35 billion the last 10 years for falsifying science, for defrauding regulators, for lying to doctors, and for selling drugs that they knew were poisonous and knew were going to kill people, but still acquired FDA approval and took to market. Even the FDA admits, on its own website, that over 106K Americans die each year from “adverse drug reactions” to pharmaceuticals which are “FDA approved” and properly prescribed and used.
In other words, don’t attack us for our grifting because we donate some of the profits from our grift to charities promoting the same “cancer truth” and “vaccine truth” that we do and big pharma makes so much more money than we do for producing products that work! And look at the false claim based on utter innumeracy and badly done studies that medical errors and adverse drug events kill 100K people a year!
And, says Bollinger, CNN hates our religion:
The CNN piece ridiculed and mocked us for our religion – this is not only elitist but also beneath contempt. The senseless acts of violence inside the Capitol on January 6th were committed by misguided individuals, and we had nothing to do with promoting or inciting violence. Those who were engaged in the illegal and politically senseless acts should be punished, however a broad-based smear of anyone who asked legitimate questions about the integrity of the vote in the 2020 elections and asserting that they are somehow responsible or connected to these unlawful acts is despicable and appalling. It’s the new McCarthyism.
This one puzzled me. I went back and reread the CNN story, looking for any mention of religion and found no mention of Charlene Bollinger’s religion, Ty’s religion, or even any religion, much less any mocking of their religion. While it’s true that there is a strong correlation between evangelical Christian beliefs and QAnon, this particular story didn’t really mention it other than in the video mentioning how the rally on January 6 was “part prayer service,” with a clip of Charlene Bollinger “praying for the patriots” who were trying to get into the Capitol and hoping for their success. I suppose that one could, if one really, really tried, portray that as “mocking” Charlene Bollinger’s religion, but what I saw was a report showing her praying for the mob that overran the Capitol Building.
In the end, conspiracy theories are the problem, and, as Mark Hoofnagle put it:
And:
Antivaccine conspiracy theorist are no different, as I’ve documented when I’ve recounted the increasingly violent rhetoric coming from the antivaccine movement. It’s no wonder that antivaxxers were all-in with the “Stop the Steal” rally.
196 replies on “Grifters gonna grift: Cancer quacks Ty and Charlene Bollinger pivot to antivaccine and “Stop the Steal” conspiracies”
As we know, certain types of people are more vulnerable to belief in conspiracies** and faux explanations can serve to decrease the feeling of uncertainty and lend some ( imagined) control over largely unpredictable situations: over the past year, in general, things have become even more unpredictable than usual. Doesn’t it make sense that grifters would take advantage of this condition to increase their own visibility and number of supporters? PLUS because of the pandemic, it’s possible that their yearly sales have decreased thus necessitating additional income streams. Most of those I survey have branched out in this manner.
As I’ve also noted, cranks whose main claim to fame ( infamy?) had been hiv.aids denialism later turned to antivax BS so why not cranks turning to Covid deialism?.
** you should know, I’ve mentioned the characteristics enough times
As someone who is dealing with a family member who has embraced anti-science sentiments, I would like very much to believe that it’s possible to reason them out of that position. That person is otherwise smart and quite talented. Unfortunately, they have so much certainty that they have the right of it that it’s pretty much impossible to argue with them. It’s done a real number on the discourse in my family because nobody wants to talk to them about anything that might set it off.
And, that’s unfortunate. It reinforces the walls of the filter silo rather than weakening them. How can you ever break free of a filter silo problem if you never talk to anyone who isn’t like minded?
@ foolish physicist
“How can you ever break free of a filter silo problem if you never talk to anyone who isn’t like minded?”
The trick I use is to teach rationality on other topics than the one that raises emotions. Therefore: 1. pick a topic where you know there are no emotional incentives to go into conspiracy theory mode 2. explain how to get to truth, you need an exterior source of validation (a mathematical proof is something that is exterior to one’s mind, an experiment is exterior to one’s mind, etc…) 3. get them to acknowledge that if rationality applies to that uncontroversial topic, it should also apply to the controversial one.
That’s a first step. At least they then understand how to think rationally, by giving credence to what’s called “objectivity”. They then understand what is “objective” and what is “not objective”. They may still believe in conspiracy theories, but at least they can identify why skeptics think this way and why conspiracy theorist think another way. Instead of simply believing that skeptics are part of the conspiracy…
Won’t go into the second step for now. But, in all honesty, there is a methodology. Though it really takes time, and can only be done IRL. Not on the net: discussions are too rough and brutal online for that oral and interpersonal approach to be fruitful.
But IRL, I must say I do have some modicum of success driving the basics of rationality through the ears of fence-sitters and sometimes moderate conspiracy theorists. Online, it’s much more complicated.
” On-line it’s much more complicated” : F68.10
You’re correct. For many reasons.
A possibility is that opponents here might be amongst the most entrenched who consider themselves on a mission to attack the ringleaders of the ‘ corrupt establishment’ to ‘spread the word’, ‘speaking truth to power,’ taking it upon themselves to “enlighten” us That attitude frequently comes across loud and strong. They’re here as combatants.
Since I read AoA and TMR over the years, strong advocates detailed how they would approach pregnant women/ mothers in food stores, leave anti-vax literature in doctors’ offices or on local bulletin boards and solicit elected officials. Of course, their on-line actions mirror their RL activities. I imagine that people who are on-the-fence or only weak tea advocates won’t get as embroiled in months long campaigns over vaccines or other SBM. They might just listen in : you won’t directly interact with them although they can read your words. So you can’t assess the (likely) effects you’ve had.
Some good news:
RFKjr has been tossed off of Instagram because of misinformation. He’s still on other social media who have been awfully slow despite recent moves in late 2020.
It would be nice if there was an easy out. I’ve found that cognitive dissonance is profoundly hard to deal with: you can try to teach rationality on one uncontroversial point, but that doesn’t mean that agreement acquired on that point translates elsewhere. People can partition parts of their beliefs with astounding efficiency.
And, there’s hope with fence setters because they aren’t completely invested in any particular direction, so you can nudge such people.
Can you imagine what conversations must be like at the big Kennedy family meet-ups? I have a feeling that there’s a lot of tip-toeing around on certain topics, “Yes Robert, sure thing Robert… say, what do you think about the gravy?”
@ foolish physicist
“I’ve found that cognitive dissonance is profoundly hard to deal with: you can try to teach rationality on one uncontroversial point, but that doesn’t mean that agreement acquired on that point translates elsewhere. People can partition parts of their beliefs with astounding efficiency.”
Indeed. But the trick is to make them realize the need for an exterior criterion of validation or refutation. So indeed, first deal with topics were it is obvious for them. Make them really internalize and make conscious that requirement for external validation of refutation. And then you can gradually explain how that applies to more and more “controversial” topics. As long as they have that conscious understanding of when a criterion of validation or refutation is exterior to one’s mind, you can move forward. Each time someone partitions their beliefs, it is because of that refusal to consider exterior validation or refutation. For instance, if someone rejects a series of scientific papers, they reject exterior validation or refutation. If they are conscious of the need for such exteriority, they start identifying that they are going in a conspiracy theory. Not that it holds them back… but at least, they have a methodology to identify objectively what is a conspiracy theory and what is not. Because they understand that criterion of exteriority as a requirement for rationality.
It’s tough to convey to you in a mere comment. But the thing is that interpersonnally on a one-to-one basis, it’s doable to convey this logic. Doesn’t mean it gets accepted. But you can make it understood if not accepted if you take time to drink it over with your pal. The thing is that, usually, people are not interested in epistemological-metaphysical discussions like that, and conversations can quickly go off into religion or other sidetracking issues. Which is why it takes time as you need to stay on focus to get your point through. While being tolerant to keep the conversation rolling through all the bullshit you’ll have to deal with and smile through.
You can only plant seeds of rationality. You’re not paid as a full-time job to rewire their brain rationally when school failed… But it’s doable to plan the right seeds.
@ ( not very) foolish physicist:
Belief in conspiracies may address needs to understand and control an uncertain environment and to raise self-esteem for the individual and group ( see K. Douglas et al Psychology of Conspiracy Theories 2017) so if they’re doing it for a purpose, we might know how to react accordingly.
When something bad happens, people may find it comforting to blame and rail at an evil culprit/ cartel rather than accept blind, faceless probability in an UNjust world.
@Denice Walter: “in an UNjust world”
Conspiracy Theorists see what you did there.
The real sad truth is that ” True Science” should be open to scrutiny……Open to debate……That is not what happens with those connected to this relatively new religion of ” Anything that comes out of a prestigious Medical publication is the Gold Standard ” ……Modern Cancer treatments do have a poor track record of success…… The couple , you demonized in your one sided article, watched family member after family member perish from conventional Cancer Protocol……it was at this point ,that they decided to do some of their own research…..but why bother commenting……you’re just a shill for the system that’s in place!
So what, specifically, did I get wrong in this post? I’ll wait…
I think Orac going so far as equating science denial and conspiracy theory is going too far, especially at the level of individual cases. But certainly there are any number of individual cases where science denial and conspiracy theory are so intertwined as to be, if not identical, at least inseparable. Maybe your family member’s ’embrace of anti-science sentiments’ doesn’t rise to the level of full bore ‘science denial’. In which case you may get somewhere with reason.
But, generally speaking, you cannot get someone out of a conspiracy theory by reason addressed to those beliefs, as the beliefs aren’t there because of their substance, but because they address some psychological need in a way — and this is crucial — that camouflages that need, both from others and from the conspiracy theorist him/herself. They are coded projection, mechanisms of both defense and offense. The sense of ’empowerment’ generated is articulated to standing against the ‘mainstream’ (sheeple), which is enhanced by the contrarian nature of the (il)logic involved. Thus, reasoning against the position is not only unlikely to get the conspiracy theorist out of it, but may well push them further into it.
Again, this may or may not apply to your family member. fwiw…
“I think Orac going so far as equating science denial and conspiracy theory is going too far, especially at the level of individual cases.”
I held a physics degree while diving well deep into 9/11 truther stuff. I didn’t deny science, I mis-wielded it like a club.
That’s the main technique of science denial.
It is too bad I can’t compare my numbers to NIST because they classified theirs. Apparently, there is this one simple trick to bring down hi-rises that THEY don’t want you to know. {could it be that they are…dun, dun, dun… pre-wired upon construction??}
No matter, I’ve dropped interest anyways.
It’s unfair to focus on the Bollingers’ income, seeing that their hacienda in Tennessee is valued at less than a third of the Mercola mansion in Florida. They probably can barely fit into a home with just under 10,500 square feet and only 8 bathrooms.*
*still, that’s apparently one more bathroom than Joe has. A hardship in any case, seeing how much it must cost to keep all those bathrooms stocked with TP.
Especially given the shortages of TP during the pandemic…
That “shortage” wasn’t really there. It was perceived because of rapidly emptying shelves. The item is ‘bulky’ and not many units fit on the shelves at a time. The perceived scarcity did cause the run to amplify and there are videos of people speculating with toilet paper only to have half of it drop off the back of trucks. Interestingly, these people are mostly Trumpians who also ascribed to it “magically going away in April”. But, speculators; How can one wipe them out/away??
Way to ruin a joke, Poindexter.???♂️
Teh latest books on the conspiracy circuit:
What They Don’t Want You To Know About The Toilet Paper Shortage!!!!!
Fwd by Dull Bigtwig
The Truth About The Toilet Paper Shortage!!!!!
My bad. Let me attempt to rectify that:
How is the starship Enterprize like a piece of toilet paper?
Any one? Any one? Bueller?
Ra! Ra! <– my dad’s been cheering on the defense even though we have fucktons of problems going on right now triggered directly by what Dump tried, and failed, to do.
We have a medical marijuana bill up for grabs in this state. It is baffling that it is the evangelicals rejecting it even as my evangelical mom is now an opiate addict.
“does she do all that in the car? When getting reddy? at the psycyatrist?” … “Nope”, dad says. She is faking it. True, she fell on her ass, but this did not start until January 6. Fox News is still all she will watch.
The Bollingers wrote:
Are we talking net profit here? If so, is it only for vaccine selling, or is it for all the things these companies sell?
I smell some bait-and-switch.
That being said, I wish I was in a position to give away $ 40K a year to charities.
400 billion refers to whole US pharma revenue, not profit (much less vaccine profit):
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-biggest-global-pharmaceutical-markets-in-the-world.html
I am shocked—Shocked!—to find the Bollingers are lying with numbers.
People (and I use that term loosely) like them are the reason I believe fighting against SCAM a waste of time, and what we should instead do is fight for Complementary and Alternative Justice: wherein the bereaved friends and relatives are free to treat their loved ones’ quack killers to a complementary shotgun enema, without fear of criticism or censure by Big Allopathic Law.
A swift solution to both sets of problems, I’m sure y’all will agree.
@ has
“A swift solution to both sets of problems, I’m sure y’all will agree.”
You know, unfortunately, given the killing spree that kind of attitude would trigger in psych wards, I’m not sure you want to really really really go forward with that idea…
My 2 cents.
@ Aarno
Thanks. I suspected as much – I have seen that trick before.
@ Has
Now, now, they didn’t lie. They were just using the wrong word. What do they know about a financial spreadsheet, anyway? They are simple people.
It’s purely by inadvertance that their phrasing may induce a quick reader into some misconceptions.
@F68: Dang those pesky cultural borders. I fear my proposal was a bit too modest.
(It should also go without saying that big allopathic medicine warrants its ass being righteously booted by big allopathic law when it gets out of order. No need for complementary and alternative anything when our imperfect but working systems address their own shortcomings first.)
Athaic said, “That being said, I wish I was in a position to give away $ 40K a year to charities.”
I’m sure that if we could view their tax filing details their “charities” would be anti-science, anti-vaccine kook orgs and the “contributions” are merely a quid pro quo for favorable coverage and promotion of the Bollinger’s wares by those kook orgs.
…Like paying for product advertising but hiding it as a charitable contribution and getting to write it off.
Have fun.
That idea crossed my mind…
According to a 2012 paper by Wood et al. in Social Psychological and Personality Science (“Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories”, DOI: 10.1177/1948550611434786), beliefs in incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated, so that if you believe in one conspiracy theory, you are more likely than the average person to believe in another one even when the two are flatly contradictory. This could mean, for example, that if you believe Princess Diana faked her own death to escape her unbearable life, you are more likely than average to also believe that she was murdered by MI6, even though those can’t both be true.
How about MI6 being in on it to help her escape her unbearable life among the lizard overlords, but they botched it and she really died? Sounds good to me.
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/gates
It strikes me that this might be on topic.
Not just on topic but smoking cigarettes with it afterwards and making it breakfast in the morning.
NYT: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Barred From Instagram Over False Virus Claims
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/us/robert-f-kennedy-jr-instagram-covid-vaccine.html
Hahaha!
Thanks for the heads up, sadmar.
“Instagram took down the account of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the political scion and prominent anti-vaccine
activistkook, on Wednesday over false information related to the coronavirus.”.
At least the NYT got it right by calling him “anti-vaccine” instead of “a vaccine skeptic”.
.
Let the sniveling begin… to be sure to not miss this opportunity for the grifting of the troops… ‘We at CHD promise to sue Instagram for violating our non-existent 1st amendment rights to lie and spread disinformation on their app. Please send all the money you can!!!!!!!11!!!!’
Wonkette rips RFK Jr. apart pretty nicely here.
https://www.wonkette.com/rfk-jr-s-anti-vaxx-nonsense-got-him-kicked-off-of-instagram
I think RFK Jr is going to need more toilet paper after that. He presumably can borrow some from the Bollingers.
Highwire – Del Bigtree – was taken down too, apparently. From reading supporters’ Facebook.
No reaction from RFK Jr. on the Children’s Health Defense Website as of early afternoon.
The site however features a hilarious review of Sin Hang Lee’s new book blowing the lid off HPV vaccination, from fellow Gardasil-o-phobe Mary Holland. According to the review, Dr. Lee has discovered how the Powers That Be plotted to sideline Pap tests in favor of HPV vaccination (somehow both Holland and Lee have failed to grasp that Pap testing, while highly useful is an imperfect diagnostic tool and not a means of prevention). The especially hilarious part is Lee complaining about how “distorted science” led to vaccine approval. Lee, as RIers may remember, is notorious among other things for churning out a paper warning of DNA in the Gardasil vaccine, for which “distortion” would be a kindly adjective.
There is probably a valid corollary to Orac’s finding that science denial consistently involves conspiracy theorizing – in that both rely on an enormous amount of projection.
Currently we have the Natural Nitwit warning that we’ve gone past a tipping point of mass mental poisoning, even while NN churns out hysteria-laden articles about “NeuroPsychoCyber War”, and how worried readers can survive the Valley of the Shadow of Death etc.
The Millions of Imaginary Health Freedom Fighters guy thinks that mass media news stories are so crazy that reporters must fear that someone’s coming after them with a net, to return them to the loony bin. Wait, Tim – is that the shadow of a net overhead?
The level of projection just keeps intensifying.
Forgot an even more hilarious aspect of Sin Hang Lee’s book – it sells for $230!
Not going to pay that much, even for an autographed copy.
@DB: “Forgot an even more hilarious aspect of Sin Hang Lee’s book – it sells for $230!”
Ah, but you’re not its market. Think OT II and coffee table books.
(BTW a full set of Dianetics will easily set you back $4K, so $230 is actually a terrific bargain. Buy it now!)
There’s one up now. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/robert-kenney-jr-instagram-removal-account/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=f76ab033-3a3d-469e-83f2-80c463ef3a5d
Let me guess: science has yet to invent a violin small enough.
I rather suspect that their comment moderation is even more draconian than AoA’s, but time will tell.
Yup, it’s apparently forbidden to politely explain why this item of canonical stupidity is incorrect.
“Shouldn’t use Mozilla, Google, Firefox or Yahoo as a browser. It’ll block sites like Ty’s.”
I didn’t even know Yayhoo had a browser. I feel so irrelevantly old now. Amen, and Amen.
If the Bollingers are gonna say (on video, indisputable):
…then they have no grounds on which to stand for stating:
Such a shame TBollinger didn’t get arrested along with those who invaded the Capitol Building. Then he could do “The Truth About Prison Systems”
“we had nothing to do with promoting or inciting violence”
This is different from doing violence. So the statement could be true.
Well, ok…but no one here thinks TB was going to the Capitol to help the police keep the insurgents out, and the hatred in her prayer was not directed at those storming the Capitiol but rather those serving in the House and Senate.
I do remember Cassandra Callender very well. The thought of her premature passing fills me with sadness, and with a disgust I cannot put into words for the role the Bollingers played in her death.
If all science denial is conspiracy theory (which I doubt, but never mind), then all conspiracy theories are not equal. Some are relatively benign, others kill people. By branching out from cancer quackery to “Stop the Steal” insurrectionism, the Bollingers have gone from blood on their hands to even more blood on their hands.
I wonder how blood figures into the equation, but I have no ideas at the moment..
Blood is red. But old blood stains on my carpet are… brown?
https://youtu.be/hqc1b3oIdHg?t=28
@sadmar:
Conspiracy theory is the exact opposite of scientific thinking. Conspiracy Theory IS science denial and vice versa. Years ago, I read a story. There are conspiracy theorists who believe that the moon landings were faked. NASA released photos of the astronauts’ bootprints on the Moon. How did the conspiracy theorists react?
By insisting the photos were proof that it was fake. They claimed that erosion would have destroyed the bootprints by now, even though there is no atmosphere on the Moon, and those bootprints will last for millenia. To paraphrase Antaeu Feldspar, “Science is about trying to explain the evidence. Conspiracy Theories are about trying to explain away the evidence.
A joke for you: Derek was the head of the local conspiracy theory club. One day, as he was driving home from a meeting, he was in a car crash and found himself at the Pearly Gates. St. Peter and the Archangel Gabriel were there.
“Now listen here! You are a conspiracy theorist. Every single conspiracy you believe in is wrong! Men have walked on the Moon! There are no lizard people controlling things! Vaccines do NOT cause autism! We are sending you back to Earth to correct things. Now go.”
At the next conspiracy club meeting, Derek stood up and took the podium. “Ladies and Gentlemen, I have some news.
The cover-up goes even higher than we thought.”
@Julian Frost: “They claimed that erosion would have destroyed the bootprints by now, even though there is no atmosphere on the Moon”
Mapping freshly accummulating information on top of what we already know is just one of those tricks our brains use to pretend to be more powerful than they really are. Works well enough for distinguishing lions from zebras on the Serengeti, which is all we’re really evolved for.
What distinguishes the conspiracy theorist from an honest enquirer is how they react when that process throws a loop. The honest—and humble—person stops in surprise and checks herself: this doesn’t fit with what I know; is it wrong, or am I? Whereas the conspiracy theorist already KNOWS he is correct. Therefore all errors obviously lie in the new information, most likely the consequence of the conspirators themselves slipping up and its detection yet further confirmation that he’s [brilliantly] onto them and not long now before he [heroically] blows their whole filthy game wide open [to the adulation of all].
Paranoid Narcissism. It’s the base state for all True Woos. Because it’s not enough to be willfully grandiosely self-deluding; one must avoid even the capacity for any sort of self-doubt. Otherwise the whole beloved house of cards could risk tumbling down, and that their egos cannot allow.
I wonder how such people react to lunar laser ranging. (I don’t watch The Big Bang Theory, but apparently it even made an appearance there.)
RFK Jr. has responded to being booted off Instagram for false coronavirus/vaccine claims. In part:
“…reports referred to Kennedy as an “anti-vaxxer.”
Kennedy, founder, chairman and chief legal counsel of Children’s Health Defense, unequivocally rejects those characterizations as false and misleading.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD), including Kennedy, advocates for vaccine safety and health freedom.”
Glad he cleared that up.
“Kennedy and Mary Holland, CHD president and general counsel, issued the following statements on Instagram’s removal of Kennedy’s account:
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of Children’s Health Defense, said:
“Every statement I put on Instagram was sourced from a government database, from peer-reviewed publications and from carefully confirmed news stories. None of my posts were false…
“The pharmaceutical industry is hastily creating vaccines using taxpayer money and untested technologies. These include a rash of risky new products that are exempt from liability, from long-term safety testing and that have not received FDA approval. Emergency Use Authorization is a mass population scientific experiment.”
Nope, no misinformation there.
You see, Instagram silenced RFK Jr. and Del Bigtree only 15 minutes before they were to air a tell-all webinar about Covid-19 vaccination.
It’s just like Soviet Roosha and Krystallnacht.
I wonder why not Facebook (who owns Instagram) also? Some degree of autonomy with policy/algorithms/management?
If people have not yet, take a look at Narad’s link above. OMG it reminds me of that old Star Trek episode where the town is run by children that were schooled by children.
There is no way to even troll these people; If it doesn’t get deleted it would just be incorporated as new wisdom as anything that appears there has the golden ‘approved comment’ status amongst the other commenters.
I should be ashamed of my lack of innovative trolling ingenuity.
” sourced from a government data base, peer-reviewed publications and from carefully
confirmed news stories ” ?
Yeah, that’s what they tell followers but if you look closely, you’ll find that the publications are dodgy, the government data is misquoted or incomplete and the news stories originate at outlets like the High Wire or other cesspits of misinformation. Same as PRN.
After all, his science advisor is Brian Hooker.
This is how they convince somewhat reasonable people: “WE have the science!” they crow.
Most readers won’t- or can’t- go into enough detail to discern their mendacity. They artfully assemble partial truths into a collage of Truthiness.
Woo and anti-vax work because they start out with reasonable statements:
‘ people eat poorly, kids have ‘issues’, pharma makes money’ and then, slide into more outlandish BS compilations.
To be fair, Brian Hooker knows some science – just not epidemiology. He is also completely blinded by his belief that vaccines caused his child’s autism.
It is rather telling that Kennedy stoops as low as Hooker for a scientific advisor. After all, he could have chosen me. I have a much better publication record, don’t publish in dodgy journals, haven’t had any of my papers retracted and have a much higher H index.
“the Republican Party has become, in essence, the party of
antivaxxersconspiracy theory.”% of Republicans who believe (per polling cited by WaPo):
70% Trump actually won the 2020 election and it has been stolen from him
50% Antifa was responsible for the Capitol riot January 6th
34% Climate change is not real
29% Trump has been secretly fighting a pedophile ring of prominent Democrats and Hollywood figures
I’m becoming jaded.
The 34% about climate change didn’t me bat an eyelash. Old news, water under the bridge, etc.
The 50% about antifa at the capitol, OTOH… It was direct on TV. With no shortage of the m0r0ns filming and identifying themselves, for Pete’s sake.
The bison guy is easy to look up.
I’m going to be brutal and declare this type of denial is a mental illness. Or, OK, a tribal reaction. But at this point…
George Orwell was an optimist. We don’t need a Big Brother figure to force us to rewrite reality in our own brains, we happily do it on our own.
@ Athaic
“I’m going to be brutal and declare this type of denial is a mental illness. […] George Orwell was an optimist.”
Don’t. Don’t untie the notion of mental illness from that of genuine suffering. Otherwise it doesn’t make real sense any more, and this has already been too much untied.
George Orwell was indeed an optimist, but there are only three options nowadays: 1. Force truth by force and brutality 2. Force truth by enforcing rational conversation 3. Be carefree be happy (unlikely for long…).
@Athaic: “I’m going to be brutal and declare this type of denial is a mental illness.”
Don’t. Excepting individual cases where there is psychosis, the closest is social contagion.
I think there’s probably good argument that Trump extremists will score high on paranoia, narcissism, and psychopathy, and low on empathy and self-insight. But those are behavioral issues, which may extend into personality disorders; and even the latter is not mental illness but simply a shortage of the neurological wiring that makes H. Sapiens into social animals, which is most likely the product of early development.
@ F68.10 @has
My apologies, I stand corrected.
And I should have known better. Social contagion – yes, that’s the word.
As if I doesn’t fall for that myself.
As if Trump is capable of SECRETLY fighting anything.
LOL
@Denice
“As we know, certain types of people are more vulnerable to belief in conspiracies”
You post all the time on this site about the cabal and conspiracy on the anti vaxxers side.
but to my point
57 years ago a homicide happened, the suspect was later shot and killed. Despite the length of time that has gone by and a federal law which mandated the release of ALL these records in 1992. One government agency has refused to release their records (over 10,000 pages of documents), despite court orders to do so.
As recently as 6 months ago New York state officials hid records from both state and federal officials in an attempt at a cover up, on the deaths of thousands of people.
https://nypost.com/2021/02/11/cuomo-aide-admits-they-hid-nursing-home-data-from-feds/
Now if the a federal agency can defy a court order and a federal law to release documents and a state agency can hide document to mislead state and federal agencies (and the press). What other things are the people behind the scenes of our government hiding, we will probably never know that answer.
I refer to these studies because they show that not everyone is equally vulnerable. Readers should know the experimenters’ names by heart by now. What makes people more likely to be entranced by conspiracy theories? So we can counteract them. People DO study these questions in detail….
Who ever said that governments, industries and institutions are NOT corrupt?: If you look into any group of people there will be malfeasants and miscreants. No one is immune Doctors, lawyers, teachers, researchers, mayors, presidents, prime minsters. YET you know about it. Little by little it comes out. MOSTLY. Not everything. The fact that someone in government acts badly doesn’t mean that everyone does so ..Who expects perfection and black-and-white outcomes? Not me
.
Is alt med itself a cabal? Who knows? We can look at what the evidence says…
Right now in the US, activists who overtook the capitol by storm are being investigated using testimony, video and social media.: was there a real conspiracy amongst them? Are they believers in CTs? Who knows! Maybe we’ll learn eventually but I’m sure that many rioters believed in popular CTs..
The difference here is that no one is just stating malfeasance as some alt med people do
shouting “Big Pharma!” and waving their hands, without showing evidence and data. The CTs Orac examines do not pan out when you look closely. RFKjr misinterpreted/ misattributed what he learned about Simpsonwood; Wakefield manipulated data. Bigtree/ VAXXED revealed the Whistleblower to reflect his own beliefs, not reality. That’s the easiest one because it’s all about statistics. ( many articles by Orac see Search fx).
Most of the alt med I survey can be examined critically by merely looking at the statements leaders make and seeking their evidence. Easy. . .
@Denise
You have posted 4 times on this topic, so far and made several statements about scientific research and your opinion/interpretation on them and how they support your theories on how everyone else is a conspiracy believer and how crazy they are. However you have not posted/quoted any scientific, peer review evidence to support your position or your qualification to mentally analyze or evaluate people who you probably have never even met.
I am thinking that maybe you are part of a conspiracy because you believe that those people are plotting against you and those that think like you.
@ Charles Bronski
“I am thinking that maybe you are part of a conspiracy because you believe that those people are plotting against you and those that think like you.”
That’s called having convictions and freedom to associate, you moron. Basic human rights.
Someday there will need to be a reckoning about nursing homes and Covid-19. We need to answer questions like “what did we do wrong?” and “what can we do in the future (like the next pandemic) to avoid a similar problem?”. But it is too easy to use 20-20 hindsight to critique decisions that were made in a crisis that later turned out to be wrong.
The state of New York counted people who died in hospitals separately from those who died in nursing homes and perhaps took advantage of that to make the nursing home problem which was apparent anyway look less dire than it proved to be. But I have yet to see any evidence that they concealed the deaths of anyone or attributed Covid-19 deaths to other causes (although due to testing limitations there are almost certainly many deaths in the early months that were not correctly identified as Covid-19).
And we should remember that on April 10 in New York the case count was actually higher than their current case count whereas most states still have cases well above their peak from last spring and summer. ICU’s were full, morgues were full, doctors were trying to remember if flu deaths were ever this bad, we had only had a useful PCR test to detect the virus for a little over a month and test kits were in short supply. And effective treatments were unknown and some of what was thought to be effective turned out not to be.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronavirus-cases.html
Patients were dying before they could even get into the hospital to be treated. So even though it proved to be wrong, it was not unreasonable to look for a place to put recovering patients so that more of those people could be saved.
For a time capsule listen to how things looked to a New York doctor on the frontlines, you might listen to the first 30 minutes of TWiV 600 interview with Dr Griffin.
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-600/
Do you have any record of what advice you were giving on the Covid-19 Pandemic back in April 2020? It took me about another month to process things, but about a month later I used my still amateurish WordPress skills to publish my take on what was happening.
https://wordpress.com/post/johnrharstine.wordpress.com/71
My recommendations were:
With a year of hindsight, I would add this.
It has proven to take about 14 days for the effect of interventions to begin to appear in the statistics. It took New York 2 months to reach an order of magnitude reduction in cases last spring and they have only reduced cases to half of their January peak in the last month. Most states are having similar problems. Success is happening, but way too slowly.
It is still difficult for the average person to get tested. But rapid antigen tests are starting to become available, especially in group work environments, and reducing the need for PCR tests.
We never got down to the level where we could hope to control the spread by testing, tracing and isolation (TeTrIs). And now there is a tug of war between using public health resources for contact tracing or to support vaccination campaigns.
Perhaps in six months when vaccines are widely available on demand, roughly 50% of the population has been vaccinated, and the case counts are reduced to half of the summer peak; we will be able to do enough contract tracing to limit further spread.
Testing most of the working population and people in group situations like nursing homes and prisons 2 or 3 times a week will also limit the spread of this disease.
Sigh. Charles, no one says that conspiracies don’t happen. Thing is, they get exposed. Someone leaks documents, has a change of heart, journalists or lawyers or other legal agencies investigate. Etc etc etc. The bigger the conspiracy the less likely it is to last. Remember the proverb ‘two people can keep a secret…..if one of them is dead’.
If vaccines caused all the issues that anti-vaxxers claim, it would be a global conspiracy stretching over decades involving thousands upon thousands of people. Yet not one person has ever come forwards to detail their part in it. Not one person has ever made a deathbed confession or tried a plea bargain or secretly leaked financial reports or secret data or chemical formulae. No intrepid anti-vaxxer has ever been able to obtain any incriminating evidence. Every single country in the world vaccinates.
Let’s face it, conspiracy theorists never really try hard to investigate anyway. Why should they when they already know the TRUTH? You can recognise them by the way they demand other people do their work for them.
@ Number Wang:
For sure.
Lately, Dr Novella has written ( SBM) how CT pushers need to keep expanding the parameters of their (uncovered) plot to cover all of the holes in it. If you say, doctors were in on the vaccine scandal, you’ll need to explain how a few honest outliers who might have spoken up would be handled- ( murdered? paid off? sent to deserted isles?) And their killers? Paid off? Killed?
All the papers were destroyed, thrown out in black garbage bags! How about computer backup? Destroyed! Sent to the landfill! ALL gone. But people can dig? Etc.
The number of involved co-conspirators would have to increase exponentially eventually encompassing most humans living .. making it highly unlikely….
@ Denice Walter
“Who ever said that governments, industries and institutions are NOT corrupt?”
Yeah… well… when the new official medical discourse around here is that “science is the new antipsychiatry” (literally, in the text, not joking) I do believe that there is kind of an institutional problem…
And… again… it is autism…
“En 2014, à partir du champ de l’autisme, Loriane Bellahsen décrypte une nouvelle antipsychiatrie qui prend appui sur le modèle médical et plus précisément le cerveau.”
“In 2014, starting from the field of autism, Lorian Bellahsen deciphers a new antipsychiatry that bases on the medical model and precisely the brain.”
So we now have institutions going full conspiracy mode.
Not that I didn’t see it coming. I just did not expect them to go as far as claiming that science = antipsychiatry so gleefully. Who claimed that “all science denial is rooted in a conspiracy theory” ?
In the words of Pierre Dardot, quoted in that link…
“With the new antipsychiatry, we are dealing with, literally, a real “psychophobia” which derives from a real fanaticism of scientific objectivity.”
I rest my case. Institutions may be corrupt, but it cannot be tolerated that they immunise themselves to factual claims and fact-based criticism. The very sin they harass mental patients with…
WHAT????
THAT’S who “The Bollingers” are? Omg; I got a Christmas card from them. A Ty & Charlene Bollinger … How in the hell do they know my address? Wish I had saved it, I don’t remember where it was sent from now, I thought it was meant for my step-son’s family because they used to live here & have the same last name.
But anyway, off topic (sort of). I know the WHO is now recommending a dose of IPV preceding immunization with the OPV to prevent vaccine derived polio (in areas where the OPV is still used). I can’t find any data regarding if there are risks associated with receiving the IVP AFTER developing VDPV, from the OPV.
If a person has acute VDPV; is that a contraindication for the IPV?
@ Christine Kincaid
Starting with the original Salk polio vaccine, cases plummeted from 17,000 or more permanently paralyzed to less than half. The Sabin oral polio vaccine, a live attenuated vaccine, brought the natural virus cases to ZERO in the U.S.; but unfortunately caused a half dozen or so cases per year. Given that the U.S. population had doubled from early 1950s to 1990s, outcome was half dozen or so vaccine-derived cases to potentially 30,000 or more permanently paralyzed cases. And, one could hypothesize that at least a couple of the vaccine-derived cases would, given some genetic predisposition, have developed polio anyway. Then a new enhanced version of the Salk vaccine was developed, a killed vaccine that could NOT possibly cause polio, and, at first we gave the new IPV followed by Oral, no cases, then switched to IPV. In U.S. we have the means to ensure kids get the series of shots necessary for the IPV; but WHO continued with Oral in Third World because extremely difficult to get to remote poor villages and only one time oral needed, etc., so one can follow the WHO campaign and see the elimination of naturally caused polio paralysis in Third World nation after nation; but a small number of vaccine-derived cases. Now, given that even Third World nations have better infrastructure, etc. the WHO is going over to IPV first then Oral, ensuring no longer any VDPV and only needing two times. Polio is a virus that ONLY has humans as reservoir; but unfortunately, a couple of nations have fanatics, e.g., Taliban in Afghanistan, that literally murder vaccinators. WHO (2019 Oct 24). “Two out of three wild poliovirus strains eradicated” Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/two-out-of-three-wild-poliovirus-strains-eradicated
Now, for your question: IPV is a killed vaccine, that means at most it can cause mild soreness in arm, perhaps, short-lived low fever, etc. As mentioned, originally in 1990s, U.S. began first giving one IPV, then oral because IPV takes up to 4 shots. Only one of the three polio serotypes still exist, so if someone had acute VDPV, there would be no purpose for vaccinating. But, just as unscientific as you are, anything is possible.
An Indian pediatrician Jacob Puliyel, an antivaccinationists has written articles giving number of cases of acute flaccid myelitis in India since 2010. First, the total number is exponentially lower than cases of polio prior to WHO campaign, even though Indian population has grown considerable. Second, in 2008 WHO changed criteria from several days paralysis to short-time in order to not miss any cases (all cases had to be lab verified), Third, there exist a number of causes of acute flaccid myelitis, included worm infections, which are rampant among rural poor Indians. Eliminating polio didn’t change exposure among poor, especially children, to such parasites and subsequent paralysis. I’m sure you could care less and jump on Puliyel’s papers.
And, just to make it quite clear, one can follow the WHO polio vaccine campaign and see the elimination of lab confirmed polio in one Third World nation after another with NO other changes that could account for this, e.g., cleaner water, better nutrition, etc.
On another note. I’ve asked and will ask again:
You had twins born extremely prematurely and extremely low birthweight. How do you explain this? You have several children. Were others born prematurely and low birthweight?
OT, but thank you — I was climbing the walls trying to remember his name the other day when the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics came up.
I’m sure you know this already but you should thank Obama and the CIA for that. They’re the ones who ran a fake vaccine program to track down Bin Laden. They knew what the fallout of their own behavior would be and obviously determined it was worth it, for their purposes—screw the fact the world right then had the opportunity to kill a disease that has killed far more people than Al Queda ever has.
Not that the Middle East’s own shitburgs want much provocation; shades of Colonel Kurtz monologue and all that. Extremists narratives simply won’t work if the people can see shades of gray. Their enemy isn’t power and wealth and weapons and hatred, it’s any iota—any possibility—of common understanding or compassion. Exterminating the last two is their first essential step to obtaining all those other things for themselves.
Similarly enthusiastic kidnappers, rapists, and murderers Boko Haram. With extra irony in the name, as where they think the early Islamic world obtained all the original knowledge which it then spent the next hundred-odd years expanding and building upon… (Hint: It came from India and Ancient Greece, you terminal brain sharts. Early Islamic scholars cared for knowledge, not the source.) Except, of course, BK don’t give a crap about that. Like all good degenerate tyrants, they want their underlings ignorant, reactionary, and permanently furious; all the easier to manipulate. Ditto the Trump/QAnon/Alt-Right/etc shit-kickers and the quasifascist atrocity that is now the modern GOP.
Those are the commonalities and differences you should focus on, when drawing the lines in front of your soapbox. It’s only good fortune and self-serving cowardice that US-based AV extremists, now aligning with the US far-right, haven’t yet murdered Fauci or Offit or Pan, or anyone else who publicly advances vaccination. You just know they rub themselves off at the thought of it every night. Had their own gross incompetence on 1/6 not sabotaged their last 4 years of slow escalation of what is now acceptable over what is not, they would likely be reaching that level sometime around now. Because once they’ve killed one they have to kill more, in order to supply justification for the preceding act; and their hit-lists are as long as their lust for cruelty is powerful.
Given how you splash identifying information all over the internet, you probably gave them your address by signing up for something with them directly or with some group that sold your information to them. That’s what happens when you get into a movement so full of grifting.
LOL, it’s amusing (and sad) that Christine thinks it was a Christmas card she got. I’m sure MLMs and 419ers must love her too.
@ Terrie, (& has)
No I don’t buy anything online from “grifters” or otherwise. No newsletters or anything. What would I buy? Do they sell stuff?
It was one of those family photo “Merry Christmas” postcards. It didn’t say anything about cancer, or vaccines. It didn’t come in my name even, just said “Kincaid family”. This is the first I’ve ever heard of them. I first learned about AoA here on RI, as well as Wakefield.
I came here to read about vaccines. RI popped up one day while searching, I’m not part of some antivax cabal. You wouldn’t even know from my social media that I am antivax.
@Christine, Did I say you bought anything? You sign up for a mailing list or sign a petition and they will sell your information all over the place. I’m sure you’ll claim you didn’t, but we all know you have a serious issue with rewriting your own history to make yourself look better.
And if your social media is free of antivax nonsense, I’ll eat my hat.
Terrie:
CK can say anything she wants about not being on anti-vax social media but somehow- not by remote viewing- I saw her long post about her daughter’s death due to vaccines and her mother’s “warning” about vaccines (Vaccine Injury Stories facebook ) under her own name with photos of the baby and of her own mother.: the mother wore her hair up, had glasses and the baby had dark hair. No sign of oxygen assistance to the latter.
There is a thing called Wayback Machine if you can’t get it now…
@Denice I wish I hadn’t googled that. Her profile is filled with antivaxxers leaders she follows. So much for that claim….
And it reinforces my concerns with how much she shares about her son. Makes me sick the way she fails to protect his right to privacy. Excuse me while I go scrub my brain.
@christine kincaid
I wrote a short with your nym as a character. It will never ever be published as it is very, very uncouth. Suffice it to say that your murder/death/kill via hacked sex robot was rather… satiating.
At least, I didn’t place you getting nightly pounded by a Moose as I meanly did with another.
@Terrie: “I wish I hadn’t googled that. Her profile is filled with antivaxxers leaders she follows. So much for that claim….”
It’s Christine; what did you expect? The woman is pathologically incapable of being honest with herself, never mind anyone else.
Like I say, it’s her kids I feel for. Christine herself revoked all sympathy the moment she chose to be a parasitic witch. I can accept people who make mistakes, even horrid ones—Dog knows I’ve made many myself,—but to wallow in and indulge them as service to one’s own greater glory? Sick.
Christine knows no shame; it’s not in her wiring.
“And it reinforces my concerns with how much she shares about her son. Makes me sick the way she fails to protect his right to privacy.”
Narc SOP, and a behavior she shares with a good many anti-vaxxers. Children exist only as extensions of the parental ego. But Christine tells us there aren’t any narcissists in anti-vax, so that’s alright then. Call it whatever you like—it’s still using other people for one’s personal gratification. And incredibly vulnerable people at that. i.e. Abuse.
The antivax movement is well overdue for its own Spotlight moment.
“Excuse me while I go scrub my brain.”
If only Jim Humble had marketed his bottled poison as a Brain Bleach to the sceptic population; he’d be a multi-millionaire by now.
“Omg; I got a Christmas card from them. A Ty & Charlene Bollinger”
I hate it when that happens. What part of “wham, bam, I never want to see you pervs again” fails to sink in with some of the swinger circuit scene?
Charles, I’m not going to write an article for you but in the past 10 years many, many studies have examined what personality traits and demographics are associated with belief in conspiracies and I’ve discussed them over the years-
here are just a few recent ones;
anti-vaxxers are more likely to value freedom and purity Amin et al 2017
those with a greater need for closure Marklenska et al 2018
more need for uniqueness Lantian et al 2015
more narcissistic, anxious, depressed, impulsive Bowes et al 2019′
No one is diagnosing anyone but these people are more likely to believe in CT than those without the trait. It explains why they believe
This stuff is easy to look up e.g. conspiracy and personality
And I won’t write up a CV for you BUT be assured that my background/ education/ degrees/ training,/ experience in life science, education, experimental /clinical psych, counselling, physio etc
frankly outshines that of the people I survey regularly- i.e. I have no mail order degrees, alternate pathways to degrees, business degrees, New Age colleges, career institutes etc..
What’s your background?
-btw- it’s really the data not the person who brings it..
“You have discussed over the years.” You cites are clearly lacking. “freedom and purity” wow what concepts, or the need for closure, it why we have funerals, songs end the way they do, contract have an end date, tests are timed, taxes are due, sporting event have a set time limit,, I could go on but you get the picture.
As is you appealing to authority.
“BUT be assured that my background/ education/ degrees/ training,/ experience in life science, education, experimental /clinical psych, counselling, physio etc
frankly outshines that of the people I survey regularly- i.e. I have no mail order degrees, alternate pathways to degrees, business degrees, New Age colleges, career institutes etc.”
Does exactly what you claim the anti vaxxers and conspiracy theory believer do. “Only I and a few people have the ability to KNOW the truth.”
Yes I am a high school drop out, who couldn’t get past the 3rd grade /sarc….but I know the difference between cow patties and peppermint patties and what you are trying to unload ain’t the good kind of patties.
If one is out in the field, ‘roughing it’, I want the cow ones. Makes for great cooking fuel and heating. I like to be warm and eat well when out collecting certain fungi of an illicit nature.
Of course, nothing starts a fire like the caloric content in Olean potato chips. Great greasy shits to. Now that they are thankfully gone, I rely on magnesium firesteel. https://firesteel.com/
It’s one simple trick that DEALERS don’t want you to know.
@scott allen: “As is you appealing to authority.”
It’s not Appeal to Authority when mentioned as an accompaniment to evidence. Which Denice has all provided. All she’s doing is declaring her own fitness to assess that evidence as someone coming at it from a position of some expertise. You are, of course, welcome to indicate you are more fit to assess that same evidence, or providing counter-evidence of your own. After all, almost anyone can become an expert with sufficient hard work and scrupulous self-honesty.
(BTW, even a non-expert like me can tell when non-experts like you are totally bluffing it, because that’s how amateur you are.)
Deferring to experts who know a lot more than we do about a particular field is one of the many ubiquitous shortcuts we all use to navigate our complex world within a finite time. It’s not ideal or entire robust, but it’s usually “good enough” for our general, non-professional purposes. The trick is in learning how to non-expertly assess if an expert seems credible, or is obviously taking the piss, which starts funny enough with learning how to be scrupulously honest with and critical of oneself.
And don’t pretend you antivaxxers don’t defer to authorities too. Except yours is the pandering religious worship of high priests and gods in human form; the uncritical regurgitation of their holy scripture as a ritual act of devotion, constantly one-upping one another to prove who amongst you is the purest and most deserving of their anointment. Which, to be clear, is Cult of Personality, in case you’re having trouble remembering one fallacy from another.
I remember an argument with a probable YEC believer. He refused to say that radio-isotopic dating was wrong. Just said that no one was there to see it, so we couldn’t prove it was true. For my own sanity, I can only assume that he was unaware of even basic radioactive decay theory/evidence. Because if he was…..and still thought like this…..
I hate to say this but I’m kind a with Scott on this or is this how this internet thingy works, you just type a bunch of stuff, that you claim to have done , seen or heard (the height of moral narcissism) and people who agree with you will pat you on the head and proclaim you are a wise source of information. If I say I stormed the beaches at Normandy, or was ahead of Neil Armstrong and I typed it here, I guess you-all would have to believe it.
It would support your theories if you supplied your scientific links to your “research” not some dunning-kruger rant “frankly outshines that of the people I survey regularly” (that is some kind of ego you have going for you) and referring to what a fat guy says after leaving a buffet “I ett it all” is not a link.
@ Kay West
“…people who agree with you will pat you on the head and proclaim you are a wise source of information.”
Not me.
I love how everyone agrees with everyone on the internet who supports their own views. Except for anti-vaxxers and other conspiracy theorists who only agree with the TRUTH. Not sure where they get their version of the truth from in order to evaluate other peoples truth. I mean, it’s not scientific data so there must be some other source of evidence. Surely it can’t be personal opinion? Can it?
@Kay West: You showed that straw man. You showed it good.
@ scott allen
““You have discussed over the years.” You cites are clearly lacking.”
Denice has nothing to prove to you, big boy.
““freedom and purity” wow what concepts”
Yeah. They do attach themselves to pseudoscience. For various reasons: Some people believe freedom should extend to freedom from truth. This can’t happen… Purity, on the other hand is tied to unrealistic expectations, and, hence, science can never achieve the unrealistic and is therefore bad in the eye of these beholders…
“or the need for closure, it why we have funerals”
Let any dumpster be my graveyard. Feed my corpse to the dogs.
“As is you appealing to authority.”
No, this is an argument from authority. Not an appeal to authority.
An argument from authority is “Here, look, there is that guy that is well respected that says something on the topic you’re interested in. You should have a look, critically of course, to the arguments in his book”.
An appeal to authority is “Hey! Many people pretend this guy is a know-it all! Surely he must be right!”
Very very very different.
Denice gave you references in support of her argument. This is an argument from authority. Not an appeal to authority. See above for the distinction.
“Does exactly what you claim the anti vaxxers and conspiracy theory believer do. “Only I and a few people have the ability to KNOW the truth.””
No. Different. Knowledge is created by research and handed down critically through various systems of transmission of knowledge. In the western world, essentially through universities. (Even though I consider them failing at their mission in my country nowadays). These systems are necessary for knowledge to perpetuate itself through time. Other systems of transmission of knowledge, such as New Age colleges, are faulty in more than one way.
It is to the honor of the US to have a mostly free education system where many types of higher education can be experimented (though I’d consider mail order degrees to be fraud plain and simple) and I wish it’d be more free where I live. Doesn’t change the fact that there is a clear-cut difference between Harvard and New Age colleges. The fact that various colleges exist is, on one hand a good thing, as it is a symptom of a marketplace of ideas that is not closed to even bad ideas from where, sometimes, a good one may emerge. But that, on the other hand, doesn’t excuse people from entertaining the confusion on the notion of truth itself: yes, the MIT is more solid scientifically than many other places in the world. Fact.
“Yes I am a high school drop out, who couldn’t get past the 3rd grade /sarc”
I value these people. I value people rising above their educational limitations. I even think that the fact that nowadays high school dropouts dabble in pseudo-science as a mimicry of real science is a dangerous development but nonetheless an important and liberating one: if high school dropouts manage to differentiate between science and pseudo-science, and some will, this will end up mildly shattering the structures of intellectual authority and liberating more knowledge to what the marxists call “the masses”. Not everything is wrong in the modern-day pseudoscience fuckfest in this respect. But the outcome really does matter… really does matter…
@ F68.10:
There’s a quick synopsis about CT believers ( K. Douglas et al, 2017 The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories) that outlines much of what I’ve discussed**. Notice that I deliberately left out CT believers’ rejection of expertise which we see demonstrated here and elsewhere.
You mention the need for external verification-
alties are always carping about Wikipedia’s articles which do not rely upon the subjects’ PR. Susan Gerbic is particularly despised because she teaches newbies how to find reliable, multiple, external sources which alties don’t like at all. A woo-meister*** remarked: “Susan is a picture hanger!” ( she owned a gallery) whilst he is a
“PhD”. That’s not a valid criticism even if he had an actual doctorate, not a suspect one, because she sources her material correctly and he does not.
Assessing expertise in a particular area has to involve external sources rather than self-ordained grandiosity
we observe that alt med prevaricators assiduously insult and reject experts ( Fauci, Offit, Orac etc) and higher education as a matter of course and present their own experts. Universities and media are corrupt and untrustworthy they claim yet some dude who sells supplements on the internet, presents fraudulent studies, riles up right wing survivalists, makes pseudo-documentaries or scares parents about the many evils of vaccines is undeniably reliable.
Which leads me to my habitual question for trolls:
Can you show me an accredited, standard university anywhere that teaches a course on what you advocate?
** internet users can easily find all of the references I supply by typing in the names and dates given or the subject of the research
*** PRN has a shitload of anti-Wikipedia articles. They just love Orac.
.
.
@ Denice
“You mention the need for external verification-
alties are always carping about Wikipedia’s articles which do not rely upon the subjects’ PR.”
Right. Though there is another source of Wikipedia-hatred: people in position of authority and academics who believe that quoting journalistic sources on their topic in Wikipedia without being allowed to “correct” them is intrinsically defamatory.
Suprising (or not…) to see them behaving the same way as Gary Null: Wikipedia seems to be a more efficient catalyst of debate (you know: facts…) than the ballot box around here… That’s why they hate it.
But they’re not “alties”. They are people fearing that Wikipedia supersedes official statements when it comes to State prerogatives. Fearful and mainstream authority-worshipping righties. (Again: I’m center-right, but not “fearful” of Wikipedia…) You can’t imagine the level of hatred against the Internet and talk-shows on TV around here. They really do not like it, losing their power of influence…
Some people really want to shut down Twitter, I swear. And they instrumentalise death threats from muslim French youths on young French atheists such as Mila to argue for a crackdown on the Internet. This is starting to seriously stink.
They also fear the influence of the English-speaking cultural sphere very much as it challenges their national idiosyncrasies and ideologies. Terrorised to see, for instance, that the word “racism” in the US and here are two words that do not mean quite the same thing… And somewhat rightly so terrorized. But they want to control the terms of the public debate way too much to be able to mount a sensible counter-discourse promoting what they call “universalism”.
Which, honestly, will be an enterprise that may only be achieved with more separation of State and University around here. Much more separation, and more free speech, specifically in spheres of public authority. Otherwise, the English speaking cultural sphere is way too much intellectually competitive for national ideologies to persist in the end. They will end up being crushed. People know it deep down but won’t admit it. And are frightened.
I guess you do not see that facet of the Wikipedia-hatred kaleidoscope from the US. But around here, it’s really clear provided you pay attention.
And discrediting Wikipedia to these ends also feeds conspiracy theories which are now rampant. The place where the prime minister comes from has gone full conspiracy theory mode at the local executive power level. This is not US-specific anymore at all…
@Denice Walter: “Universities and media are corrupt and untrustworthy they claim yet some dude who sells supplements on the internet, presents fraudulent studies, riles up right wing survivalists, makes pseudo-documentaries or scares parents about the many evils of vaccines is undeniably reliable.”
[applause]
This is what the black-and-whitists don’t get, of course. It’s not that we “know” we’re right—we hedge our bets precisely because we understand all scientific knowledge is provisional, incomplete, and known to be off. It’s that we know they’re wrong, precisely because they don’t. And the grifting nature of their sources is out in the open, visible to all who aren’t deliberately deceiving themselves for ego gratification. It’s a cult of personality; an MLM; a religion. And it’s obvious AF.
None so easy to fool as those who want to be lied to. Not an ounce of plain honest self-reflection amongst the whole stinking lot.
@ has:
Thank you for your kind words.
Orac and his minions experience the same derision and dismissal right here at RI**,
which is why I try to
— expose the truly egregious nonsense spouted by woo-meisters and anti-vaxxers as well as their suspect backgrounds and how they benefit- money and fame
— ( my new project) Drs DG and SN ( elsewhere ) inspired me to ask: why do particular people fall prey to CTs and BS? How are they different from the rest of us?
Psychologists have been studying this over the past 20 years***: there are demographics and personality variables that affect vulnerability.( partial summary by K. Douglas et al 2017) which can inform us about why people disregard SB material and reality so easily and maybe, just maybe enlighten us about how to counteract denialism, cults of personality as rumour mills.
As you can tell by reading interactions with trolls, amongst the hardcore, no argument or data are likely to affect them but we can sharpen our messaging for those less entranced online or in RL..
** I think that Orac has created a RL lab of sorts to observe this phenomenon
*** much earlier precursors in Social Psych, 1960s on
@Denice Walter: “I think that Orac has created a RL lab of sorts to observe this phenomenon”
You’re certainly in a good place to find solid rocks upon which to sharpen your rhetorical blades. Although any reasonably informed pro-science anti-scam forum will do: SBM, Skeptical Raptor, Edzard Ernst’s blog, and so on. Like other religious cliques (e.g. Mormons), altie true believers are compelled to witness not just to spread their beliefs but also to reinforce their sense of persecution. It feeds their identity as Special Outsiders, hence the usual sheeple rejoinder evern as they drop hundreds of dollars on their religious revival (e.g. DB’s “Health Freedom Summit” scam below), and thousands more on pamphlets, pills, and other magic rituals that prove they are the Chosen Ones, and you are the rubes.
Even so, if it was only them that suffered for their needy narc behaviors then no-one else would give a crap. But they are driven inflict their need for attention and need to control on others as well, particulary the frightened and vulnerable, such as people with cancer and autistic kids. They make themselves into richly-deserved targets, then revel in the incoming barrage as it proves they hold power. Look no further than Gerg’s shitposting, or Christine’s “woe is me”. They are incredibly manipulative and, frankly, absolute human scum for what they inflict on others in service to their own glory and profit.
This is why I often point to r/raisedbynarcissists, because parents are supposed to be super-caring with their children’s best interests at heart, and enjoy special privileges and status in our society because of that. And yet, there are young adults personally testifying that their own parents are unspeakable (literally: no-one will speak of it) monsters, who perpetrate the most appalling abuse on their own children even as they maintain the outward-facing deception of happy families—the best families—and the rest of the world says nothing about it. Even when it is clear there is something wrong under that surface. Because no-one else wants to deal with the pain, or rock the boat, or acknowledge our own everyday littles abdications of responsibility to others as we try to make it through life ourselves.
I just wish professional psychologists would get stuck in, as there’s a lot to learn here and a lot that really needs to be said out loud (spoken from a position of informed expertise with the mountain of hard evidence to back everything said up, natch). Our humanity needs help.
@ has:
I try very hard to circulate SB psychological/ physiological information/ research about these matters as well as my own observations about alt med and its perpetrators.
Some of my RL work involves assisting students/ potential students who want to acquire higher education despite their families’ influences and/ or that of their culture ( esp. women, older students, EFL status, internationals). Many are fighting to get ahead academically.
Also encouraging: Orac, sceptics, Wikipedia, social media outlets and MSM are attacked mercilessly because they reveal woo/ anti-vax MOs to an extent that
I imagine these entrepreneurs losing money because
— they have to create their own social media alternatives to FB, YT etc hire IT
— they seem to be sponsoring “conferences” and “seminars”, soliciting funds for their “charities” and having special “sales” awfully frequently.
When I read trolls’ BS and passive aggressive attacks, I think instead about those students who pursue reality-based education wholeheartedly. and smile.
:
—
@Denice Walter: “ Some of my RL work involves assisting students/ potential students who want to acquire higher education despite their families’ influences and/ or that of their culture ( esp. women, older students, EFL status, internationals). Many are fighting to get ahead academically.”
You’re a mensch, you know that right? KBO
@ Joel,
"You had twins born extremely prematurely and extremely low birthweight. How do you explain this? You have several children. Were others born prematurely and low birthweight?"
None of them were but why are you asking “how do I explain this”? It was an extremely unusual pregnancy from the start, in fact, it was considered a reportable (to the CDC) event. They started as naturally conceived triplets (no fertility meds) & I lost 1 at 10 weeks in a hospital ER, retaining the other 2. Then I had PROM at 23 weeks, at work in a patient’s room & stayed inpatient for the next 6 weeks, carrying them until Chorioamnionitis developed & they were developed by emerg c-sec within hours after a fever set in.
My 2nd set of twins were 38 weeks, weighing 6lbs 3oz & 5lbs 13oz. All of my other seven single births were over 8lbs 9oz & three of them were 9lbs+.
@ Christine
You wrote previously:
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2020/06/19/becker-and-blaxill-use-covid-19-to-claim-vaccines-cause-sids/#comment-430144
christine kincaidsays:
June 25, 2020 at 1:47 am
@ Joel,
They were 29 weeks. She was 2 lbs, 14 oz.
And I responded:
Thanks for info. Yep, not low birth weight; but very low birthweight (less than 3 lbs 5 oz), and very preterm, since full term 40 weeks
Following my above response, you didn’t “correct’ me, so, now you claim normal gestation and birthweight. How can I conclude otherwise than you are just plain DISHONEST!
@ Joel,
I’ve had twins twice. My daughter who died of “SIDS” was one of the first set of twins, who were initially triplets. They were born at 29 weeks & she was 2 lbs 14 oz. Her twin brother was 2 lbs 13 oz. I carried them for 6 weeks after my water broke at 23 weeks. Their fraternal sibling was miscarried at 10 weeks.
The SECOND set of twins were born at 38 weeks, at 6 lbs 3 oz & 5 lbs 13 oz.
@Joel: “Following my above response, you didn’t “correct’ me, so, now you claim normal gestation and birthweight. How can I conclude otherwise than you are just plain DISHONEST!”
I think you should fairly conclude† that Christine is simply a rotten communicator and inept/incompetent in general. Which is understandable since she has salad for brains.
She does lie about plenty of other things, of course.
—
† I would counsel you take that higher road too, as beating on a bereaved parent—even one as slimy and disingenous as our Ms Kincaid—is never a good look. Just let Christine be herself: that speaks loudly enough.
And Joel,
Thank you for your reply about the IPV. If a person who already was ill with Polio were to take the IPV, would they be at risk from complications similar to how a person with the measles would be if they took the MMR (while sick)?
@ Christine Kincaid
Do you understand what you read? I made it clear that giving IPV to someone ill with polio would have NO risk of complications. It is a killed vaccine. Maybe sore arm, mild fever; but why would anyone give the vaccine to someone with acute polio unless they were totally stupid and/or incompetent?
As for MMR during active measles, I did search of Google Scholar and PubMed, only found articles where parents refused MMR because of fear of autism.
Since your question implies “complications” of a person with the measles if the took MMR (while sick), can you give any references or just your ignorant antivax fantasy world. And I don’t mean references on some blog; but actual journal article.
And I repeat my above comment. You gave very low birthweight and premature delivery, now you change. You just aren’t trustworthy! ! !
Who’s going around giving measles vaccine to those who have measles (unless we’re talking about vaccination of unprotected individuals within 72 hours or so of exposure to measles)? What dire “risk from complications” would such people supposedly have due to vaccination?
Next, Christine will tell us of the horrific risks to those exposed to rabies who then get rabies vaccine.
@ Christine
Very low birthweight starts at 3.3 lbs or lower.
Because many babies with very low birthweight are also premature, it can
be difficult to separate the problems due to the prematurity from the
problems of just being so tiny. In general, the lower the baby’s birthweight
the greater the risks for complications. The following are some of the
common problems of very low birthweight babies:
Low oxygen levels at birth
Inability to maintain body temperature
Difficulty feeding and gaining weight
Infection
Breathing problems, such as infant respiratory distress syndrome (a
respiratory disease of prematurity caused by immature lungs)
Neurological problems, such as intraventricular hemorrhage (bleeding
inside the brain)
Gastrointestinal problems, such as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). This
is a serious disease of the intestine common in premature babies.
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
Notice the last one “SIDS”
Your twins were much lower than 3.3 lbs and the lower the weight, the higher the risk; but it has to be the vaccine. You really refuse to even consider Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc. There are always things that happen before other things; but it doesn’t mean they cause them. In 1976 a man visited his doctor for the flu shot, had a mass heart attack and died. Got into papers; however, turned out he had had several heart attacks before. What if he had the final one just before the vaccine?
Despite your training as a nurse, you want to see the world in black and white, a clear cause for everything. Well, unfortunately doesn’t work that way. With polio, for instance, originally estimated that only 1 in 100 cases develop permanent paralysis, so why? Genetics, epigenetics, exposure to some environmental toxin, and on and on it goes. Shit Happens. Losing a child is always a tragedy; but believing it was vaccine when child/infant was far below 3.3 lbs and at risk for numerous problems, including SIDS. Your illogic when asking about giving polio vaccine to someone with acute polio or MMR to someone currently infected with measles, just looking for another reason to find fault with vaccines, despite being illogic, just continues your pathetic thought processes.
You are tiresome.
Though I doubt it, for sake of argument maybe the vaccine hastened something that would have developed anyway. Even you have to accept that your very low birthweight very premature infant was a special case, so why do you try so hard to discredit vaccines for other children? If your kid had been given an antibiotic for sepsis and went into anaphylactic shock would you then rail against antibiotics, warning all parents to avoid antibiotics since even rare cases of sepsis may survive?
@ Joel,
No I wouldn’t be “anti-antibiotic” if a child experience anaphylaxis from an antibiotic. That’s a truly rare occurrence & sepsis is life threatening. If a doctor wanted a healthy child to take a prophylactic antibiotic & they died from anaphylaxis; that would be a problem.
My questions about giving the IPV to an acutely ill polio patient, or the MMR to a person sick with measles had nothing to do with making vaccines look bad.
You said that anyone who would do that would be stupid or incompetent. I will have to extrapolate the answer to what I was curious about from that.
I remember that you claimed that this is WHO recommendation. Can you us a citation ? I know that WHO recommends IPV vaccination in this case, but it surely exclude acute polio cases.
@ Christine
“Antibiotics are the most frequent, and a growing, cause of life threatening anaphylaxis in the operating theatre, the largest prospective audit of anaphylaxis related to anaesthesia and surgery has found” [Ingrid Torjesen (2018 May 13). Antibiotics are the main cause of life threatening allergic reactions during surgery. BMJ. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2124
“Anaphylaxis to penicillin occurs once in every 2,000 to 10,000 courses of treatment, with death occurring in fewer than one in every 50,000 courses of treatment.” Wikipedia. Anaphylaxis.
I guess NOT quite as rare as you choose to believe. I could spend more time and find more info; but the above suffices.
And severe adverse events to vaccines are also rare. And you still refuse to even consider that given you started with triplets, one died, two born very low birthweight and very premature, both with HIGH RATES of problems, including SIDS, that the vaccine preceding the tragic SIDS death of one of the twins was NOT causative, just coincidental. And you still refuse to admit that given the EXTREME circumstances of your very low birthweight and very premature twins, that even if, though highly unlikely, the vaccine contributed to SIDS, perhaps, it would have occurred a day or two later, that your overall anti vaccine stance goes against overwhelming evidence that vaccines confer benefits, avoiding or minimizing illness, reducing risk of hospitalization, reducing risk of death, reducing risk of disabilities versus extremely low risk of serious adverse events.
@ Christine Kincaid
Just to be absolutely clear, I have NEVER asked you to state clearly that vaccines did not cause your infants SIDS. I would NEVER claim absolutely that vaccines could not possibly cause some extremely rare event. Given a world of almost nine billion people with every possible genetic combination, various genetic predispositions, epigenetic, birth problems, etc. etc. anything is possible; however, given the absolute overwhelming evidence of the benefits of vaccines vs rare adverse events, SIDS ruled out by research (though, as I wrote, no research can rule out 1 chance in 100s of million), if you were honest and believed in science, what you should be promoting is additional research into vaccines and very low birthweight, very premature births. There are alternative vaccine schedules for various disorders, etc. Whether further research will find risk of vaccines and SIDS, I doubt, but you could push for it, and anything is possible; but, if you, as a nurse, were honest, you would promote vaccines and advise only parents of very low birthweight very premature to consult with doctor and, perhaps, either postpone or just have good monitoring system in place.
Anyone who has followed your comments on this blog recognizes your overall hostility to vaccines. Unacceptable!
Oo, we’re going to be inundated with Science in only two days.
Yes kiddies, it’s the 2021 Health Freedom Summit, featuring a star-studded array of your favorite alt/antivax loons, including:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Andy Wakefield
Del Bigtree
JP Sears
Paul Thomas
Erin Elizabeth
James Corbett
Sherri Tenpenny
Joseph Mercola
Sayer Ji
‘Health Ranger’ Mike Adams
Ty + Charlene Bollinger
Peggy Hall
Polly Tommey
Professor Dolores Cahill
Clay Clark
Larry Cook
James Lyons-Weiler
And many more
Sign up early, and for only $49* you get an event pass and lots of valuable goodies, including a Mask Freedom/Resistance guide and Total Detox Guide. Even better, part of the proceeds go to Andrew Wakefield’s film production company!
*should be lots of opportunities to buy survival supplies, supplements, books and other essentials from the eminent panelists.
**of the less familiar presenters, James Corbett is an “investigative journalist” who tells us that Covid-19 vaccination is meant to usher in a Brave New World of “consensual medical experimentation”. Dolores Cahill has been involved in spreading a variety of Covid claptrap; also, Dolores Cahill appears in a list of co-authors of a 2016 Yehuda Shoenfeld paper (since retracted) pushing the idea of vaccine-inducted autoimmunity. There’s oodles of Science here, people!
***James Lyons-Weiler, world-famous “objective, pro-vaccine rational scientist” (his words) needs no introduction.
“James Corbett”
Ohh. Although, his series “Film, Liturature, and the New World Order” does feature many of the greats and some real zingers of analysis from a different perspective.
https://youtu.be/bglgZrFQgZo?t=255
@ Dangerous Bacon
This could be said for most of the eminent people on this keynote speaker list.
I was trying to remember the name of that guy from greenmed, and here he was.
Plenty of old names for us old hands at RI.
Is that Clark the heir of Hulda Clark? Will there be a live demo of her fluke zapinator?
(next to the booth promising a space free of EM pollution, of course)
It would be delicious if it was one of these predatory conferences where the speakers have to pay for the privilege of addressing a crowd.
Although, at the end, that would be the same. it’s the attendees and other followers who foot the bill.
Still, it would be fascinating to watch the dynamics and the establishing of the pecking order among all these… mind-alike people.
@ Dangerous Bacon
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, being retired on a budget, I just renewed my membership in the World Flat Earth Society, so I’ll have to pass on the above. ?
There’s a lot of difference among those folks in terms of the ideologies articulated to the woo — I wonder how RFKJ feels about sharing billing with insurrectionists. I suspect the “Health Freedom” rubric indicates a certain, ahh, rightward tilt overall. But I wonder if the diversity is a “something for everyone” strategy, or to what extent it evidences the oft-noted tendency of conspiracy theorists to hold completely contradictory beliefs at the same time.
“There’s a lot of difference among those folks in terms of the ideologies articulated to the woo”
Ikd, sadmar. The morning yappers on the one talk radio here this morning were going on about how Alabama is not like Maine as far as being ‘Trumpy’ and debating on who could claim the title of ‘trumpiest’ {amongst retarded alabama candidates} in 2022.
They even praised Richard Shelby whose ‘Senate Launch System’, SLS, legislated to use 45 year old engines and companies such as Boeing, in which the ‘core’ sputtered out after less than a minute in an eight minute test and has already sunk 22 billion dollars in developement and will cost 2 billion per launch.
This guy fought tooth and nail against commercial crew funding and even letting private sector rockets fly. When most of the country thinks about getting into space, they aren’t thinking “that has to go through Alabama, first” The program, infrastructure, and “cost+” beauracracy are stillborn; yet, they train everyone on how to coddle the putrid infant.
It disgusts me. Proud to wear that rotten Trump albatross, they are rubbing everyone’s noses in it to get them acclimatized and comfortable with the stench of it not naturally falling off.
I’m pretty sure I got sidetracked somewhere; so, there is that.
Keele University disgraces itself by accepting donations to fund research by Christopher Exley, “Mr. Aluminum”.
“A Freedom of Information Act request by the Guardian has found that Exley received £173,612.42 in donations and gift aid from May 2019 to the end of 2020, ranging from £5 to £77,278.12. Donations to his research have surged during the pandemic, with £158,621.27 of the total sent since Covid emerged at the end of 2019.”
“A $15,000 donation from Robert Kennedy Jr, a prominent anti-vaccine activist who has shared a social media post about the Bill Gates “microchip” conspiracy theory in the pandemic, was the only donation to Exley rejected by Keele University in the time period. Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine group Kennedy chairs, confirmed to the Guardian that it had tried to send the money.”
“In a post on Children’s Health Defense’s website, Kennedy voiced surprise that his donation had been rejected. In an email to him, Prof David Amigoni, the pro vice-chancellor for research and enterprise at Keele University, said accepting the donation could “generate potentially negative media coverage” and jeopardise relationships with other funders of other research, including the NHS and the National Institute for Health Research.”
http://theguardian.com/education/2021/feb/09/keele-university-accepting-funds-for-researcher-who-shared-vaccine-misinformation?fbclid=IwAR1MwEKO4FL2JOBmxg_xNfIksmC8FKQ8m64nYp1VnbHVdr4s2SsLKqo1qBU
So: Keele doesn’t care about being associated with poor research that jeopardizes public health – unless it could cost them other research funding.
Nice.
@ Terrie & Denice,
Writing a post on someone else’s page isn’t the same thing as having an antivaccine presence on social media. If that’s the page I am thinking of, I’m not a member there anymore. I left 2 groups when they went all Trump, Q-Anon & anti-mask weird. If you really looked me up you saw nothing on my page; no memes nor shared posts from antivaxers & you know it.
Hoping you get your covid vaccine soon.
I guess we can add Facebook to the things you don’t know anything about.
@Terrie,
That’s something you may be right about.
‘do not resuscitate’ notices given to Covid patients with learning disabilities”
In Germany under Hitler they called this the “T-4 Program”, now they just call it modern medical care
Coming to Obamacare/Medicare/Medicade soon.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/13/new-do-not-resuscitate-orders-imposed-on-covid-19-patients-with-learning-difficulties
@ Sophie Amsden
While it is morally offensive to single out those with learning disabilities with a “do not resuscitate” notices, it does not resemble the Nazi T-4 program which actively sought out and actively killed psychiatric patients, handicapped people, mentally deficient people, e.g., retarded, Down Syndrome. And despite what many think of the Germans at the time, the program was done in secret. When it was revealed, many Germans protested and it ended, at least for a period of time. Most people don’t realize Hitler NEVER got the majority of the vote and even a portion of those who voted for him did so, ignoring some of what he said, believing it just typical political exaggerations, because at the time the streets of Germany were dangerous do to violence between numerous groups, etc. Oh, I am Jewish, grew up knowing concentration camp survivors and have read lots of books and articles as well as viewed most available documentaries.
Obviously you, like many ill-informed, ideologically rigid people, see things in black and white.
I don’t like Obamacare, not because it or Medicare, etc.will also begin “do not resuscitate” notice; but because Obama wanted signature legislation his first year and couldn’t get an excellent single-payer system, so he compromised with for-profit health care companies to get Obamacare, keeping them in business, taking about 30 cents of every dollar for profits, exorbitant CEO salaries, and huge bureaucracies that make getting care, continuity of care, etc. more difficult. Not worse than previous system; but only slightly better, but costing ever more Because often of copays, high-deductibles, etc. people delay getting care until quite sick, then get care; but often actually costing system more and leaving patient with residual problems.
I realize that you are closed minded; but for others, I suggest reading two papers I wrote (and, by the way, I have lived in Sweden and Canada, keep in touch with friends and happenings and their health care systems are far better than portrayed by our corporative controlled media):
Joel A. Harrison (2008 Jun 19). Paying More, Getting Less: How much is the sick U.S. health care system costing you? Dollars and Sense magazine. Available at:
http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html
Joel A. Harrison (2018 Aug 10). The Case for a Non-Profit Single-Payer Healthcare System. Physicians for a National Health Program. Available at:
http://pnhp.org/news/the-case-for-a-non-profit-single-payer-healthcare-system/
@ Sophie Amsden
One other key point. Yep, horribly wrong for “do not resuscitate” orders for anyone who is capable of being saved; but what about our for-profit health care system that denies often care and/or delays care, often giving second class care based on whether someone is insured or not or what level of insurance they have? At least in UK, despite spending close to the lowest percent of GDP on health care among Western European nations, health care is free and the vast majority of Brits get good health care, can’t say that about Americans.
An excellent book that documents with extensive footnotes just how greedy and dishonest our health care system is:
Elizabeth Rosenthal (2017). An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back. Penguin Books.
The first half is incredible; but the second half of book not so. Rosenthal assumes that Americans are against single-payer healthcare so she offers second rate solutions. Americans are only against single-payer healthcare because the for-profit health care industry, often represented on board of directors of media companies or given immense amount of advertisements, and a politics based on corporate monies, doesn’t inform Americans about single-payer, though despite the aforementioned, polls over and over show majority of American still favor single-payer.
Bernie Sander’s Medicare for All was NOT socialized medicine! I lived in Sweden for almost 10 years where hospitals and clinics were owned by government and vast majority of healthcare personnel were salaried employees and, among other things, infant mortality among lowest in world, including refugees from Middle East and Africa. I lived in Canada for two years where hospitals and clinics were privately run non-profits and most doctors with private offices.
In fact, Sanders has NEVER called for nationalization of our farms, our auto industry, steel mills, etc. He is better seen as a Social Democrat. In Sweden, with socialized medicine and absolute free education, including university, at least when I lived there, on a per capita basis, they had more small ma and pop businesses than in the U.S. and, before advent of for-profit medical journals, again, on a per capita basis, more peer-reviewed journal articles. The words “socialist”, “liberal”, “leftist” etc. are not used in American politics to explain anything, just to arouse emotions and shut minds.
@ Everybody
Saturday I got the second MODERNA Covid vaccine shot. Around 9 pm my left deltoid became quite sore, more so than after the 1st shot. Then for a couple of hours off and on I experienced short rounds of chills. Temperature 90 degrees. My usual temperature is around 97.5. Didn’t sleep well, really exhausted during my 5 am daily one mile walk with my dog. Spent most of Sunday just exhausted; but by late afternoon back to normal. I was SOOO delighted to have experienced mild adverse reactions since told me my immune system was reacting, despite being in my mid 70s. I will, of course, continue to wear a mask when out shopping and maintain physical distancing.
I have been following closely the new COVID variants and so far the vaccine will protect against them; but even if it doesn’t completely protect against some future variant, it will in high probability confer some cross-immunity.
What was nice about getting vaccine was that since I was volunteer in September for clinical trial, didn’t have to phone to get appointment and all went extremely smoothly. As volunteer my next scheduled visit is in March when they will also probably do nasopharyngeal swab to see if any virus shedding. Given the high level of antibody and t-cells that the Moderna vaccine was found to confer, chances are little to no virus shedding. We’ll see; but even if minimal viral shedding, still, together with mask, will basically protect those around me.
mRNA vaccines explained to people of…um…just about all levels of understanding.
https://xkcd.com/2425/
Don’t forget the mouseover bubble.
Did the Biden administration just go in for the conspiracy theory about the Covid? Aren’t they repeating much of what Trump has said about WHO? This was issued right after WHO claimed that exonerated the Chinese government of involvement in Covid
“And at this critical moment, protecting the WHO’s credibility is a paramount priority. We have deep concerns about the way in which the early findings of the COVID-19 investigation were communicated and questions about the process used to reach them. It is imperative that this report be independent, with expert findings free from intervention or alteration by the Chinese government.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/13/statement-by-national-security-advisor-jake-sullivan/
They do seem to be currently withholding information from the latest international WHO investigators.
Is it to cover up a lab leak? Perhaps. But it is more likely that it is just ‘because China’ and don’t want to appear inept at slow acting upon, and then persecuting, a whistle blower’s publicly disclosed warning of a new pneumonia.
Ta bu tali algia gigga chen ching {butchered, I know} — “He doesn’t totally understand this situation” — John Huntsman, 2012 presidential candidate
@ Sophie Amsden
Nope! Given politics, it is normal to form an independent commission to look at all the evidence. Asking a question is quite different from a rhetorical question, that is looks like a question; but actually only arouses suspicion. Trump almost never asked questions; but did use rhetorical questions.
I have been closely following COVID since January. Based on all the evidence so far, the Chinese government probably did delay by up to two weeks clearly deciding it was person-to-person transmission and beginning of potential pandemic; but even the bits and pieces they released were enough to get several other nations to act appropriately, that is, take preventative measures while Trump actually did the opposite. Though Trump admitted in taped interview that he knew it was extremely dangerous, just didn’t want to panic people. Yet, long into pandemic he still refused to roll model mask wearing, even claimed only to discredit him, and pushed for early easing of measures which, in turn, led to upturn in deaths. Everything was about Trump. And there is some credible evidence that SARS – Coronavirus – 2 was already in U.S. by middle of November, so even if Chinese had acted sooner, might not have made much difference.
And if you want to look at delays in dealing with an epidemic, U.S. leads the world. President Reagan was early on warned of AIDS; but because he and his advisors thought it only a gay disease, why care about them, so, until his friend Rock Hudson developed it three years later, U.S. did nothing. Then when WHO tried to deal with AIDS in Africa, U.S. withheld funds for distributing condoms. So, the largest killer in modern times, AIDS, was pandemic that might have been nipped in the bud if U.S. had acted early on and supported the WHO.
Also, the WHO does a remarkable job considering constraints, that is, nations like U.S. threaten over and over to withhold funds. U.S. politics even during the “Best of Times” often Trumps science. There is a recent book on history of WHO, well-worth reading:
Marcus Cueto, Theodore M. Brown, and Elizabeth Fee (2019). The World Health Organization: A History. Cambridge University Press.
And protecting the WHO is important. With global warming increasing risk of pandemics, mass international travel, etc. no nation can go it alone. What is needed is to learn from WHO problems not to denigrate them; but to strengthen them.
@ Sophie Amsden
I should also point out that in 2008 or 9, WHO warned of pandemic flu. Well, number who died of H1N1 was not greater than usual flu season, though GREATER PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE DIED. So, WHO got a lot of flack. In other words, to some extent damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Warn based on credible evidence, doesn’t pan out and damned. And following 2009, funding was cut to WHO. So, they needed to be sure. Well, public health doesn’t work that way. The best evidence of a potential outbreak can end up wrong for factors beyond control.
What I would like to see is every government committing to a level of funding for WHO and WHO accorded more independence from politics. Won’t ever happen; but then again, our own CDC faces the same problem. CDC has a National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Thirty years ago they did research on gun violence, quality research. Republicans threatened to close down entire center if they didn’t cease research on gun violence. So, they did. Politics trumps public health and science. Among other things they compared several Canadian cities with American cities with similar demographics and found equal violence, that is, fist fights, knifings, etc; but U.S. death and serious injury rate was exponentially greater because guns often used.
So yes, WHO does a lot of good research.
“If you do not have any respiratory symptoms, such as fever, cough, or runny nose, you do not need to wear a medical mask. When used alone, masks can give you a false feeling of protection and can even be a source of infection when not used correctly”
https://twitter.com/WHOWPRO/status/1243171683067777024
As to another one of your straw men.
“Thirty years ago they did research on gun violence, quality research.”
All the CDC did is use the FBI/RCMP statistics and repackage them included suicides and homicides to fit a narrative and then claimed that the CDC should be in charge of gun information issues.
In Canada they have around 700 homicides with guns in a population of 37 million, in the US we have gun homicides of about 8,000 with a population of 340 million. Not a huge difference. where the difference comes in is in suicides by firearms. The US does beat Canada in that category
Sophie’s statistics are off just a wee bit.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Murders-with-firearms-per-million
As for the CDC allegedly saying it should be “in charge of gun information issues” (whatever that means) – cite?
Given the Dickey Amendment, she would seem to have things exactly backward.
@ Sophie Amsden
I don’t know where you get your statistics, but (and I have lots more):
Total deaths in U.S. due to firearms in 2019 was 13,927
FBI (2019). Murder Victims by Weapon, 2015-2019. Available at:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
Total deaths in Canada due to firearms in 2018 was 249.
Statistics Canada (2021 Feb 16). Number and percentage of homicide victims, by type of firearm used to commit the homicide. Available at:
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510007201
13,927/249 = 56
U.S. had 56 times more deaths from firearms than Canada; but U.S. is only about 10 times as large.
Going back a few years:
“There were 130 homicides committed with a handgun in 2016, Statistics Canada said in a recent report, which was the most in more than a decade . . . in the United States, by comparison, the report notes there were 7,105 homicides committed with a handgun in 2016, accounting for 47 per cent of all homicides south of the border that year.”
Fletcher, Robert (2018 Aug 31). Canada gun facts: Here are the latest stats on firearm deaths, injuries and crime. CBC News. Available at:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-gun-facts-crime-accidental-shootings-suicides-1.4803378
7,105/130 = 55, U.S. had 55 times as many handgun murders.
And many suicides are rash desperate where guns make the difference. Take pills and often one can be discovered and saved and many go on with reasonable lives. The point is that guns leave little time for reflection. I guess you think it all right if someone in moment of desperation takes their own lives???
And if you compare U.S. with many other nations, e.g. Scandinavian, UK, Australia, etc. gun deaths per capita even higher.
Another example: Dylan Matthews and Javier Zarracina (2015 Oct 3). This chart proves that the United States has failed at protecting its citizens from gun. VOX. Available at:
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9443917/united-states-gun-death-europe
“homicide rates are six times higher in the United States than in most other developed countries, and firearm homicides account for much of this difference. Grinshteyn and Hemenway also found that, U.S. rates of firearm suicides are eight times higher than in other developed countries. In addition, unintentional firearm deaths are more than six times more common in the United States than in comparison countries.”
Rand Corporation (2020 Apr 22). U.S. Gun Policy in a Global Context. Available at:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/key-findings/us-gun-policy-in-a-global-context.html#
And the following articles:
Jay Dickey and Mark Rosenberg (2012 Jul 27). We won’t know the cause of gun violence until we look for it. The Washington Post. Available at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-wont-know-the-cause-of-gun-violence-until-we-look-for-it/2012/07/27/gJQAPfenEX_story.html
Christine Jamieson (2013 Feb). gun violence research: History of the federal funding freeze. American Psychological Association. Available at:
https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence
And the article comparing Canada city with comparative demographics to U.S. I mentioned:
Sloan JH et al. (1988 Nov 10). Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and homicide. A tale of two cities. New England Journal of Medicine: 319(19): 1256-62. ABSTRACT Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3185622/
And, of course, you don’t admit you were wrong in playing the Nazi card, T-4 program.
Joel, why would I admit I was wrong when the T-4 programs was exactly what Germany laws allowed. Explain the difference… the extermination of unwanted sick/enfeebled persons.
Homicides in Canada 249 …..??
https://www.statista.com/statistics/433663/number-of-homicides-in-canada-by-province/
As to your claims that the CDC was forbidden by law to record gun deaths is a complete lie. The only thing they are not allowed to do is to lobby or advocate for gun laws
The CDC is very bad at collecting evidence/statistics on gun crimes/shootings/homicides, the FBI has been doing that for better than 70years and with mandatory reporting by doctors, hospitals it’s a whole lot better than the CDC covid records. And they compile records from the source (local and state police) While the CDC takes random samples from a list of 100 or so hospitals and extrapolates the data on gun shots.
The US is very low on the homicide rate compared to the world, the US has a gun homicide rate of about 4.5/5.3 for the past 5 years (and that rate was dropping until the summer of 2020). We are ranked around 104 in gun deaths out of almost 300 countries.
To put gun deaths in perspective. The US is number 1 in the following areas, number of persons who die because of medical mistakes 400,000, number of drug overdose deaths, 85,000, number of person killed in auto accidents 39,000. The total number of deaths due to firearms is around 30,000 but that includes self defense, accidental, police involved and suicide. Considering that there are over 450 MILLION guns in the US, the deaths should be more in comparison to other countries .
You of course will dismiss this article because it was published by those NRA/Trump loving right wing fanatics at FiveThirtyEight
“The CDC Is Publishing Unreliable Data On Gun Injuries. People Are Using It Anyway.”
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-cdc-is-publishing-unreliable-data-on-gun-injuries-people-are-using-it-anyway/
@ Sophie Amsden
You write: “As to your claims that the CDC was forbidden by law to record gun deaths is a complete lie. The only thing they are not allowed to do is to lobby or advocate for gun laws.” WRONG! I happen to personally know some of the gun violence researchers who left the CDC because funding to look at gun violence ended. And I gave two articles which I’m sure you didn’t even attempt to read.
You write: “The CDC is very bad at collecting evidence/statistics on gun crimes/shootings/homicides, the FBI has been doing that for better than 70 years and with mandatory reporting by doctors, hospitals it’s a whole lot better than the CDC covid records.”
Are you completely BRAIN DEAD. Above I gave the FBI report! ! !
You write: “The US is very low on the homicide rate compared to the world, the US has a gun homicide rate of about 4.5/5.3 for the past 5 years (and that rate was dropping until the summer of 2020). We are ranked around 104 in gun deaths out of almost 300 countries.”
Yep, if you compare us to Third World nations, we do well; but compare us to Western European, Canada, Australia, Japan, we rank poorly. Do you understand the difference between a modern technological advanced democracy and a Third World nation?
You write: “Considering that there are over 450 MILLION guns in the US, the deaths should be more in comparison to other countries.”
And that’s the problem. Yep, if we restricted guns like Western European nations, Australia, etc. we would have fewer murders and suicides overall, since guns play a major role. What an absolutely stupid thing to say. I guess if we legalized drinking and driving, there would be more automobile fatalities. Wow!
As for some of death from guns for “self-defense”, yep; but several poorly done studies by supporters of NRA didn’t mention that they interviewed gang members. Well, yep, rival gangs do kill each other and use guns in self-defense against each other. And why would someone need to defend themselves with a gun unless someone else had a gun? Against a knife one can run, duck into a store, lock ones door, many escapes, no escape from a gun. In fact, prior to Civil War, American law on self-defense was “back to the wall”, basically, if you could get out of situation, then not considered self-defense.
And you write: “You of course will dismiss this article because it was published by those NRA/Trump loving right wing fanatics at FiveThirtyEight “The CDC Is Publishing Unreliable Data On Gun Injuries. People Are Using It Anyway.”
Again, you ignore that I gave FBI statistics, etc. And the article points out the non-fatal gunshot injuries, not deaths which are much easier to determine. So, I actually have NO problem with the article. Do you even understand the difference between injuries and deaths???
And you write: “Joel, why would I admit I was wrong when the T-4 programs was exactly what Germany laws allowed. Explain the difference… the extermination of unwanted sick/enfeebled persons.”
Again, are you BRAIN DEAD? The T-4 program actively sought out people and brutally murdered them. In many cases, people whose heart have stopped, when revived, if even successful, suffer some long term disabilities. And not too long ago it was stopping of heart that determined death, now brain waves. So, while I think every human life is precious, it is a far cry to not try to bring someone dead back to life versus actively seeking out and killing people.
And even the article you referred to is ambiguous: “Mencap said it had received reports in January from people with learning disabilities that they had been told they would not be resuscitated if they were taken ill with Covid-19.” Told by who? Hospital director, doctor, friend??? “Mencap said some seem to have been issued for people simply because they had a learning disability.” SEEM TO??? “CQC is due to publish a report on the practice within weeks.” “Edel Harris, Mencap’s chief executive, said: “Throughout the pandemic many people with a learning disability have faced shocking discrimination and obstacles to accessing healthcare, with inappropriate Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) notices put on their files and cuts made to their social care support.” Documentation please??? What does he base this on? And: “spokesperson from the Department of Health and Social Care said: “It is completely unacceptable for ‘do not attempt CPR’ decisions to be applied in a blanket fashion to any group of people. This has never been policy and we have taken action to prevent this from happening.” So, I’ll wait for the report before I make any absolute claim.
By the way, people born with learning difficulties often have other health problems leading to shorter lives, greater vulnerability to many things. Still, we should do everything we can for them; but again, compared to number who die and suffer long term disabilities in U.S. due to our for-profit system, which includes people with learning disabilities, something that I wrote and you ignore, why focus on UK? I guess if hospital doesn’t take in and they die, not a “do not resuscitate order?” I don’t share your belief in perfect knowledge, especially when you don’t understand the difference between gun injuries and deaths, ignore that I gave FBI statistics, don’t understand the difference between actively seeking out and killing people and passively doing nothing to revive someone currently dead and jump to conclusions based on one newspaper article.
As for number of deaths from medical mistakes, figure is controversial, something I won’t waste my time going into because it wouldn’t change your sick mind. You find a statistic that fits your confirmation bias and stick by it.
<
blockquote>The US is very low on the homicide rate compared to the world, the US has a gun homicide rate of about 4.5/5.3 for the past 5 years (and that rate was dropping until the summer of 2020). We are ranked around 104 in gun deaths out of almost 300 countries.
How cute, Sophie’s lying with evidence. Needs to work on her sleight of hand though; those clunky switcheroos really give her away.
There is a neat table here which may help to illustrate Sophie’s oh-so-careful omission:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The years sampled vary a bit but for sake of argument let’s assume there isn’t large variations for each country year on year. The nice thing about that table is that you can click on the headings to sort by individual columns. For instance, click on Rate to sort from lowest to highest. Let’s see if Sophie can tell us what broadly distinguishes the majority of countries that appear above “USA” from the majority of countries that appear below.
I mean, it’s not as if “The USA has fewer murders than Afghanistan and waaay fewer than El Salvador” is that much of a boast. (Even less so if you consider that several of those countries’ disorder is at least partly caused by decades of self-serving US foreign interference, up to and including overthrowing democratically elected governments and launching wars of aggression on extremely dubious grounds.)
@ Sophie Amsden
Typical to choose an early WHO response. And keep in mind that Trump had put pressure on them, threatening to withhold funds, and the U.S. only recently had begun suggesting use of masks. The following is a later WHO response, only two months later. Keep in mind that several nations adopted masks and physical distancing early on; but the U.S. and several other nations, e.g., UK did not. I’m sure if you disagreed with doctors who found a bacteria caused ulcers that you would find quotes from experts earlier that ulcers were caused by stress and diets. One can always, if one looks hard enough, make any point and further below is current WHO recommendations for masks. And, also, keep in mind that only later, after March, did peer-reviewed studies on effectiveness of masks start coming out, though masks were used as far back as 1918 pandemic with some success.
From June 7, 2020
What is WHO’s view on masks?
Masks should be used as part of a comprehensive strategy of measures to suppress transmission and save lives; the use of a mask alone is not sufficient to provide an adequate level of protection against COVID-19. You should also maintain a minimum physical distance of at least 1 metre from others, frequently clean your hands and avoid touching your face and mask.
Medical masks can protect people wearing the mask from getting infected, as well as can prevent those who have symptoms from spreading them. WHO recommends the following groups use medical masks.
Health workers
Anyone with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, including people with mild symptoms
People caring for suspect or confirmed cases of COVID-19 outside of health facilities
Medical masks are also recommended for these at-risk people, when they are in areas of widespread transmission and they cannot guarantee a distance of at least 1 metre from others:
People aged 60 or over
People of any age with underlying health conditions
Non-medical, fabric masks are being used by many people in public areas, but there has been limited evidence on their effectiveness and WHO does not recommend their widespread use among the public for control of COVID-19. However, for areas of widespread transmission, with limited capacity for implementing control measures and especially in settings where physical distancing of at least 1 metre is not possible – such as on public transport, in shops or in other confined or crowded environments – WHO advises governments to encourage the general public to use non-medical fabric masks.
Available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200909183732/https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/q-a-on-covid-19-and-masks
WHO (Last updated 1 December 2020)
Masks should be used as part of a comprehensive strategy of measures to suppress transmission and save lives; the use of a mask alone is not sufficient to provide an adequate level of protection against COVID-19.
If COVID-19 is spreading in your community, stay safe by taking some simple precautions, such as physical distancing, wearing a mask, keeping rooms well ventilated, avoiding crowds, cleaning your hands, and coughing into a bent elbow or tissue. Check local advice where you live and work. Do it all!
Make wearing a mask a normal part of being around other people. The appropriate use, storage and cleaning or disposal of masks are essential to make them as effective as possible.
Available at:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
Keep in mind that one can find fault with every human organization if one looks hard enough. Humans are, well, humans, not g-ds. The question is do some organizations on the whole do on the whole a good job and are there ways to improve, not look for every flaw. As I wrote earlier, unfortunately the WHO is subject to financial and political pressures from donor nations and the U.S., not just under Trump; but historically has pressured the WHO. I suggested an excellent book on WHO history above.
@ Sophie Amsden
Oops! My population stats for Canada and U.S. slightly off. Canada not 33 million but 37 million, U.S. not 330 million but 340 million. Slightly changes ratio; but result still U.S. exponentially higher in gun murders and suicides. And as pointed out by Narad, the DIckey Amendment resulted in CDC not being allowed to even look at gun violence.
Joel
As to your point on medical errors and deaths,
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us
But then Johns Hopkins is probably a Trump front group.
Here is the Dickey amendment
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf
“These experts assert that while the Dickey Amendment placed constraints on the agency, it did not ban the study of gun violence outright.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/cdc-gun-violence/476814/
I gave you the readers digest condensed version in the Atlantic piece.
So either you lied about your friends at the CDC or they lied to you.
And once again you relied on Narad to give you correct information.
right now the CDC only has 10,000 employees.
The FBI has over 3,500 employees (out of 38,000) just collecting and analyzing crime data. This date is very high quality (the best in the world) due to implementation in the 1960’s of a UCR (Uniform Crime Report) Which means a crime report in New York city has the same qualities as a crime report made in Denver. Plus the personnel assigned by over 13,000 police departments (about 35,000 people in all) to produce the data given to the FBI.
So which do you think would be better at gather gun crime and homicide information, an agency that can’t say how many people died from Covid or died with Covid. Or an agency that can respond with in hours to a major crime wave or trend.
Please cite me the “back to the wall” pre civil war legal precedent. As to your claim of gang self defense, you’re using a made up drive-by shooting as your made up research. Incidentally gang shootings are revenge in nature not self protection The fact of the matter is that the “gun control act of 1968” lead to more deaths, as inexpensive, less accurate firearms and zip guns were prohibited, the “gangs” then bought or stole guns that were more reliable and more accurate and had higher capacity, thus leading to more deaths.
That Hopkins study is horrible. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2016/05/16/do-medical-errors-really-kill-a-quarter-of-a-million-people-a-year-in-the-us/
Would you rather they pushed more people out of windows, little girl? — Archie Bunker
Dammit, I can’t help myself
Do posters here get to pick and choose which science to believe. Does the science ever get settled and do you just get to label science you disagree with “debunked” science ?
But even in Orac’s link the IOM study 20K, 40K or 90K people die from medical errors.
Joel ( of the Dunning Kruger Effect) went into a tirade for citing newspapers, magazines and books.
So the more original research papers were cited and now Joel is using newspapers, magazines, book, anecdotal “evidence’ and stories told to him.
Is this alternative facts, I’ve heard so much about?
As to non treatment of poor people at US hospital Hill-Burton took care of that
Joel you probably need to revisit Graham’s hierarchy of Disagreement. “when you resort to name calling you have lost the argument”
“I wonder what her level of education is? What she does for a living?”
“Literally, you are a dishonest asshole!”
“you are full of shit”
“I’ve wasted enough time on a low life sack of shit like you”
“Are you insane???”
“So what makes us differ is you are either lazy and/or closed minded, probably both.”
I am a little surprised you didn’t use the “C” word, but you did implied it when you cited “Sophie Amsden, Natalie White, Greg, Christine Kincaid, Beth Clarkson” as bad actors in your opinion 4 out of the 5 were female.
@ Sophie
“Does the science ever get settled and do you just get to label science you disagree with “debunked” science ?”
The Earth still isn’t flat. So there is an objective difference between settled science and debunked science. Do you disagree with that?
“But even in Orac’s link the IOM study 20K, 40K or 90K people die from medical errors.”
Medical errors are problematic. But tell me… is dropping science and facts a way to decrease medical errors? Don’t you need to refer to a notion of truth somewhere along the road to start dealing with medical errors? How is dropping science going to help you?
“Joel ( of the Dunning Kruger Effect) went into a tirade for citing newspapers, magazines and books. So the more original research papers were cited and now Joel is using newspapers, magazines, book, anecdotal “evidence’ and stories told to him.
Is this alternative facts, I’ve heard so much about?”
Nope. Everything counts as evidence, even lies. It’s simply that some evidence is proved to be faulty, fraudulent, not enough, supersedes others, and there also is a hierarchy of evidence that derives from epistemological considerations. It’s kind of a mental swamp to understand all this, but there are rules. Not everything flies.
“Joel you probably need to revisit Graham’s hierarchy of Disagreement. “when you resort to name calling you have lost the argument””
Assuming there is a real debate between civil people, perhaps. In the age of the Internet, these prerequisites obviously aren’t met, and this rule hence can’t apply.
I disagree with Joel on some aspects of how he values education, but overall, given the conflictuality of the Internet nowadays, it is true that we cannot afford to debate in a civil fashion with just anyone. That era is over, and one of the goals of the modern age is to recreate areas of civil debate. Honestly? I miss UseNet.
“I am a little surprised you didn’t use the “C” word, but you did implied it when you cited “Sophie Amsden, Natalie White, Greg, Christine Kincaid, Beth Clarkson” as bad actors in your opinion 4 out of the 5 were female.”
So? If jerks happen to be women, that doesn’t make them less jerks. I tend to be much more lenient towards Christine Kincaid and much more civil towards Beth Clarkson than Joel, but you and Nathalie White, honestly, there is no point wasting time debating. We need to shift to rhetorical manipulations to humiliate you both up to the point where you start to understand what debate and evidence is all about. Until then, gloves are off. It’s bareknuckles. When you start behaving like Christine and Beth, I’ll change attitudes. Though Joel probably won’t…
Is Sophie another one who thinks scientific consensus is determined by people sitting around over tea and biscuits having a chat?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
“Although the Dickey Amendment did not explicitly ban it, for about two decades the CDC avoided all research on gun violence for fear it would be financially penalized.”
Sounds like the NRA’s paid-for message was delivered clear and loud. And not a single bruise visible on the victim either!
Perhaps Sophie should look up what “chilling effect” means? She enjoys a good sleight of hand, after all.
@ EVERYONE
I just want to make it absolutely clear that I could care less about individuals like Sophie Amsden, Natalie White, Greg, Christine Kincaid, Beth Clarkson and others. What bothers me and what I hope my comments provide is ammunition for reasonable people. Well-done studies have found that around 70 or more percent of American public lack basic understanding of science and critical thinking. And with the birth of social media, echo chambers have formed where many never attempt to double check what they read, just accept as “true.” In Christine and Beth’s case, they appear to understand science; but ignore when it doesn’t suit them.
As I’ve pointed out above, Sophie attacks CDC stats, giving more credibility to FBI, ignoring that I gave FBI. Sophie confuses problems in estimating gunshot injuries with much easier to get accurate statistics on gunshot deaths. Sophie jumps on one newspaper article that seems to give contradictory accounts, explaining that an investigation is underway. And she ignores that in U.S. many deaths and disabilities occur because of refusal to provide health care to uninsured and underinsured or providing second rate care.
And her use of Nazi T-4 is particularly upsetting, given that, as a Jew, I understand the difference between what the Nazis did, actively seeking out and killing people and a passive approach to acting on people who are currently “dead”. And, I repeat, I believe all lives important, so, if such a program exists, then those involved should face severe penalties. However, if I were a doctor, I would NOT revive someone suffering intensively if it would only prolong the suffering for a short additional time.
Sophie is a prime example of a lack of scientific understanding, lack of logic, cherry picking documents that confirm her biases and ignoring others.
I wonder what her level of education is? What she does for a living?
The T-4 program started just as you described what you, yourself would do.
In this directive, Dr. Karl Brandt and Chancellery chief Philipp Bouhler were “charged with responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians…so that patients considered incurable, according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, can be granted a mercy killing.”
https://www.britannica.com/event/T4-Program
I never went to school, so you are way better than me…..
I saw someone here posted this reference.
Dunning Kruger Effect.
“cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the meta cognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude”
@ Sophie Amsden
In the early 20th century, it was common knowledge and hush-hushed but well known that physicians, in Germany, say, were quite liberal in mercy killings in an extralegal context. What had to be done had to be done, at times…
This is why nazi policy on euthanasia kind of were modeled on existing practices. Making them more legal. It was a rather easy transition…
Somehow, T4 went far beyond euthanasia into eugenics, and not any kind of eugenics: massively homicidal eugenics. That’s a tad different from the problematic of euthanasia… And while eugenics and euthanasia was not that secret as German people were reminded publicly by propaganda posters that a disabled person cost them money, and their money, things went really overboard and in secret as Joel wrote: even random physicians were unaware that by refusing to discharge a disabled WW1 war veteran because life was too rough for him outside hospital, they were marking the little cross on official forms that condemned the guy to euthanasia. So, yeah, secret did play a major role in keeping the lid on the matter. (Though it’s also hard not to retrospectively connect the dots between what occurred in camps and the public propaganda on the eugenics program… so the German did not “know” but I also find it hard to believe that they thought things were completely clear… if not on extermination camps at least on the topic of euthanasia of mental patients…)
So there is a difference between, on one hand, the Rheinland bastards and mental patients being gassed and, on the other hand, say, assisted suicide. Or overworked hospitals… That article in the Guardian you gave is nothing that can be compared with T4. Get real…
The Nazis were also happy to point to the US’s own Jim-Crow eugenics-friendly behavior, as an excuse if not an inspiration outright.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/11/what-america-taught-the-nazis/540630/
@ has
And the fact that, in France, eugenics received very little popular support, contrarily to the US or Germany, is also why both French catholics and French left-wingers feel little guilt over specifically racist contemporary issues.
They feel no guilt over scientific racism and eugenics. Because they have much less guilt…
Which also blinds them to contemporary racial issues in a more social and historical sense… They still think black people are white. That women are men. And that jews are catholics.
And they then get confused when black people say they are black. Or when muslims confess that they are not atheists… Doesn’t compute. (It’s also true that atheists also have a hard confessing that they are not muslims in France… nor catholics… but that’s again another topic).
(There is a great sketch – “The World Championship of Victimhood” – where that topic is highlighted by a black guy with crazy ideas and whose “alleged” antisemitism is up to debate as much as the financial solidity of bitcoin is, the so-called French humoristic branch of Al-Qaeda. But it’s way too impolitically correct to link in).
@ Sophie Amsden
First, the Dickey amendment is not all Congress did. As I wrote above:
Christine Jamieson (2013 Feb). Gun violence research: History of the federal funding freeze. American Psychological Association. Available at:
https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence
Literally, you are a dishonest asshole! ! And I could list more. So you are the dishonest one, not: “So either you lied about your friends at the CDC or they lied to you”
And, NO, I didn’t rely on Narad, I gave numerous citations and have many more.
And you continue to ignore that I GAVE THE FBI STATISTICS.
And again, you are full of shit claiming the CDC “can’t say how many people died from Covid or died with Covid.” I could cite numerous articles; but given you continue ignoring that I gave FBI data, that I gave several citations, and on and on it goes.
And as Orac points out, the Hopkins study of medically caused deaths is horrible; but if it suits your beliefs, why should you care.
As for back to the wall, also called duty to retreat:
Mineo, Liz (2017 Mar 7). The loaded history of self-defense. Harvard Gasette. Available at:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/03/the-loaded-history-of-self-defense/
Wikipedia. Castle doctrine.
“The earliest American self-defense doctrine imposed a general Duty
of Retreat, but also admitted exceptions of the kind just described.” In the
mid-to-late nineteenth century, however, the American approach changed as homegrown legal commentators, 38 influential state supreme courts, and United States Supreme Court opinions developed a more robust Stand Your Ground doctrine, which became a widely adopted basis for self-defense in this country. Perhaps the leading case was Erwin v. State in 1876.
Cynthia Ward (2015). “Stand Your Ground” and Self Defense. College of William & Mary Law School. Available at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2841&context=facpubs
And an excellent book: Richard Maxwell Brown (1991) No Duty to Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society. Oklahoma University Press.
You write: “As to your claim of gang self defense, you’re using a made up drive-by shooting as your made up research.”
Well, I have a box of articles in my garage that I’m not about to go through; but one criticizes another’s where some of the people he interviewed were gang members, not just for drive by shootings. However, I did find this:
Self-defense is an ambiguous term that involves both objective
components about ownership and use and subjective features about intent (National Research Council, 1993). Whether one is a defender (of oneself or others) or a perpetrator, for example, may depend on perspective. Some reports of defensive gun use may involve illegal carrying and possession (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; [Kleck, 2001]), and some uses against supposed criminals may legally amount to aggravated assault (Duncan, 2000a, 2000b; [McDowall, Loftin, and Presser, 2000; Hemenway, Azrael, and Miller, 2000]; Hemenway and Azrael, 2000).
RAND (2018 Mar 2). The Challenges of Defining and Measuring Defensive Gun Use. Available at: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/defensive-gun-use.html
So, you accuse me of lying, ignore articles I listed that clearly back up what I write and on and on it goes. So, I’ve wasted enough time on a low life sack of shit like you. However, I hope that others following this exchange will learn something.
And, yes, I know the history of the T-4; but, again, the UK “do not resuscitate” which you base on one newspaper article (if it bleeds, it leads), and ignore that article has contradiction and that committee is looking into it and you assume a slippery slope that if Nazi Germany ended up killing, so will UK. Are you insane???
And I know the Dunning-Kruger effect quite well. My first M.A. was in social psychology and I continue to follow developments.
You write: “I never went to school, so you are way better than me…..”
No, I’m not better than you because I went to school. I’m better than you because I don’t rely on one or two articles, especially newspaper articles and I actually followed the links you gave and read them. You obviously didn’t even try to read some of my linked articles. So what makes us differ is you are either lazy and/or closed minded, probably both.
I suppose swords and neutral particle beams are right out. Even though, in close quarters, a good dose of exa-blast emf precludes them telling on me later. That rubber shit they wear, whilst being useless against dog slobber, really nicely bursts into flames upon a little HPM pulse from, say, an oscillatad virual cathode.
@ Joel:
I’ve noticed that the self-educated ( U of Google, Grad School of Solipsism) whether they are anti-vaxxers, woo-meisters or trolls, focus in closely on one aspect of research or theory that they like and disregard everything else in the area of inquiry which gives them a distorted image of what the research is really about.
Most people do not have the overview necessary to select materials that are relevant to an area of study- that’s why we have universities and experts-. and would be surprised if they ever looked into an actual course syllabus or took a course. WE know because we navigated the system successfully and learned how to evaluate research and meaningful questions to consider as we dug through reams of historical, theoretical and experimental data and were evaluated on our progress. . .
Because we hear so much from vaccines-cause-autism advocates, isn’t it interesting that they hone in on auto-immunity, dysbiosis and the BBB YET, I’ve never once heard them discuss prenatal development, I wonder why that is? There are loads of research and new material comes out every month that solidifies the basic findings.
Since we’re both interested in SB education for adults through the internet:
I’ve been looking into studies that show which variables make people more likely to be vulnerable to the lure of woo, anti-vax, CTs and easy shortcuts which I’ll report. .
Also note that Canada banned assault type weapons last year after the Nova Scotia incident and is considering allowing cities to ban handguns as well.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/16/international-home/handgun-bill-canada.html
I’m not really crazy about weapons laws predicated mainly on appearance, because that deer rifle will shoot you just as dead depending on how it’s configured,* but yah, this was covered last night on the CBC’s As It Happens.
McDonald v. Chicago was the defining case in the U.S., but some allowance should be made for the fact that the police have no legal obligation to defend you or your home. I don’t know about the intricacies of Canadian law.
*Short-barreled shotgun being best for urban self-defense, IMHO, so you don’t go accidentally sending slugs next door. Not sure what my ex-roomate keeps around, but he was an active-duty Marine.
@ F68.10:
re your comment today:
The medical error question has been a subject here at RI for years ( recent- Orac’s link above) : infamous woo-meister, Gary Null, produced a book and film that exaggerates medical error to a ridiculous extent ( Search fx “death by medicine”) yet sources like these and the less prevaricated ones get quoted frequently.
re that ‘anti-feminist’, Joel:
Joel is fair to people based upon evidence and doesn’t fail to call BS no matter where it originates. I have never ONCE heard him insult women who present reasonable material.
Actually, I may be somewhat less lenient with women trolls that either you or him:
it’s the fucking 21st century! Women have had the doors open to them in higher education for a long time. Media and the internet can democratise learning so that even those deprived of a formal education need not be languishing in a dismal realm of backwardness, squandering their lives in alt med fantasies, vaccine rumour mills, scandalous news factories and pseudo-science gossip columns rather than seeking fact based informational sources
I know that some trolls have had hard lives but that doesn’t immunise them from criticism if they persist in misinforming people publicly.
-btw- you are great!.
“Women have had the doors open to them in higher education for a long time.”
True. Though I think on balance women still have to work harder than white middle-class men to reach the same goals. Status quos don’t like change, least when it threatens their own hoarded privilege.
But you’re right: to have that opportunity available to you, and flounce it just so you can pump up your ego and social status by embracing and promulgating fabulist narc bullshit is a disgusting offense to every single woman from Hypatia onwards who has lived, worked, and died to break those doors down to begin with.
(One might even argue that women who punch down are worse than men who punch down, precisely because they know what it is to be punched at themselves. It’s one thing to be thoughtlessly callous; quite another to be knowingly so. But I’m a white middle-class dude already talking from a position of privilege, so poorly qualified to argue either way.)
I’ve ended up on the receiving end of Dr Harrison once or twice (here and elsewhere) but I never thought it was sexist. Just plain old miscommunication.
@ Sophie Amsden
You write: “As to non treatment of poor people at US hospital Hill-Burton took care of that.” NO IT DIDN’T. “Lack of health insurance is associated with as many as 44,789 deaths per year in the United States” (Wilper, 2009; see also Gorski, 2012) and many others suffer because of inability to obtain medical care. And, by the way, rural rednecks against Medicaid fail to realize that rural hospitals and clinics, currently closing at record rates, are partially funded by Medicaid. Wow! Citing an act from 1946 as if it was fully implemented and continues to apply. Look above for my two articles on health care. Read them! ! !
As for cussing you out, it was after you accused either my colleagues or me of lying. I gave one article that clearly stated there was a freeze on funding to CDC for ANY research on guns. And made clear I have many more. As for the DIckey Amendment not banning outright study of gun violence, only CDC mentioning gun control, idiotic take on your part. If the CDC had continued to carry out research on gun violence and more and more data overwhelmingly found guns major contributor to deaths and injuries in U.S. what do you think the outcome would have been? Many groups and members of Congress citing the studies, etc. Just a couple more articles about funding stop (Frankel, 2017; Kaplan, 2018)
As for Civil Debate, you are the one accusing someone of lying, you are the one harping on FBI data better than CDC, ignoring that it was FBI data I referred to, claiming I shouldn’t rely on NARAD when I had already listed several other papers; but always grateful for more. In fact, I downloaded ALL of your linked papers and filed them appropriately. In a civil debate, people actually respond to what the other writes/states and certainly don’t call them liars when they back up with objective literature what they stated.
As for “C” word, I mentioned 4 women out of 5 because they are the ones who have posted most when I have been involved lately. Pathcoin is another; but don’t know what gender. Scott Allen has sometimes actually said something reasonable; but other times, nope. By the way, one of the CDC researchers who told me that Congress had stopped funding gun research was a woman, on the faculty of the medical school where I was also on the faculty. And several of my still alive oldest friends are highly successful career women, one a professor emeritus and former assistant dean of a major university and another, an Afro-American woman, working at a major medical organization back east. Falling back on your gender as a defense while ignoring why I attacked you personally, well, just another example of your stupidity and/or intellectual dishonesty! ! !
As for Graham’s Heirachy of Disagreement.
1. Refuting the central point – which I did several times, you ignored
2. Refutation – did it several times, you ignored
3. Counterargument – did it several times, you ignored
4. Contradiction
5. Responding to tone
6. Ad Hominem
It was you who called either me or my colleagues liars, so I responded in kind.
Just another example of your STUPIDITY, referring to Graham’s Heirarchy and ignoring the first positive points represented in my comments and backing with numerous sources. Wow!
In my life I’ve had to change my mind on a number of things; but only when logical scientific arguments backed by valid numerous papers were presented.
References:
Frankel TC (2017 Oct 4). Why gun violence research has been shut down for 20 years. Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/
Gorski D (2012 Oct 15). Mortality and Lack of Health Insurance. Science-Based Medicine. Available at: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/health-insurance-and-mortality/#
Kaplan S (2018 Mar 12). Congress Quashed Research Into Gun Violence. Since Then, 600,000 People Have Been Shot. New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/health/gun-violence-research-cdc.html
Wilper AP et al (2009 Dec). Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults. American Journal of Public Health: 99(12): 2289-2295. Available at: http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
I’m not an acronym, I promise.
so your references are journalism majors who write for newspapers and people who host blogs (quoting their own posts, not peer review published works)( you didn’t read all of the post from Orac about Medicare or Medicaid) but none the less, I am impressed……..
As I said the CDC is enamored with themselves and has no clue about guns, guns violence (and yes, you did use the FBI gun stats).
As to your statement about the Dickey amendment…
you never posted anything about the Dickey amendment other then to quote Narad (a poor source of information)..
“And as pointed out by Narad, the DIckey Amendment resulted in CDC not being allowed to even look at gun violence.”
and if you had actual read the “Dickey” amendment you would have observed that it did not cut funding for the CDC research of Gun Issues (the CDC realized it had viruses and diseases to look for and realized that the FBI was in a much better place to study the issue), it just stopped them from lobbying about them. If you friends at the CDC who were fired had been any good at their jobs the FBI would have hired them.
As post you and others on this site are impressed with their own education and overestimate their abilities and are clueless as how they sound to the general public…..
You might want to have a chat with “Dorit” about how you and others view you and them, in your racist and misogynist posts (yes, you know black people and women and that gives you a pass). And remember this post at your criminal or civil trial, because those 70% are the people who will judge you (the other 30% were smart enough to get out of jury duty).
“studies have found that around 70 or more percent of American public lack basic understanding of science and critical thinking.”
These are the same people who pay taxes and support research and you want to “follow the science”. Remember that when the Cultural Revolution starts in the America’s, you are the Kurt Von Schleicher of the latest era,’one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
holy fuck this b**ch got game. Look, Sophie {I never even named a cat ‘Sophie’ wtf??} If you want a big gun then I can oblige in exchange for a minimal toothilessness hummer.
It won’t be steel and stamped, but it will fit in your astro van with the rest of the beany babies. tick, tock… Ohh!! Too late you don’t reply. To bad orac has me in moderate, I had a really nice flux compression set to give away.
You can see how arrogant the anti-vax side is. They go on about trials, facing justice, just deserts etc but never once consider that they are wrong. Imagine how an anti-vaxxer feels when they realise their mistake. They’ve been convincing vulnerable people, ethnic minorities and everyone else they can that vaccines are dangerous. People have died because of anti-vax propaganda. I wonder if this is likely to be brought up at their trial?
I’m touched, Sophistie. What does it take to earn scare quotes like Prof. Reiss gets?
@ Sophie Amsden
Regarding education, one of my all-time favorite authors, who didn’t even have a high school diploma, whose book I still own, have read several times, and recommend to everyone: Eric Hoffer “The True Believer”
The couple who introduced my parents. The husband with a high school education was an avid reader. They were like family to me and I spent a lot of time at their home. One room had wall-to-wall bookshelves filled with books. Not novels, etc; but history books, biography, science, etc. and I used to borrow them and he would discuss with me. And when I lived in Sweden I trained Aikido. There was a student group and regular group. I opted for the regular group, included store clerks, longshoremen, a fireman, police officers, etc. Every Saturday we would meet at a restaurant. Several were extremely well-read, longshoremen and store clerks, and quite capable of entering into a civil dialogue.
As for women, if G-d forbid something happened to President Biden, I would be quite happy to see Kamala Harris as President and if after 4 years Biden keeps his word and doesn’t run, vote for Kamala Harris for President, not only a woman; but a woman of color. However, if I had had my choice, I would have preferred Stacy Abrams from Georgia as Vice President. a Black Woman
Race, Religion, Gender, Transexual, meaningless categories because, for example, ISIS is actually a betrayal of what Mohammed taught, KKK and some evangelist, a betrayal of what Jesus taught. Each of the aforementioned categories or any combination says nothing about an individual’s intelligence, creativity, integrity, compassion, etc. etc.
As a Jew, I would have NO problem with voting for Ilhan Omar or Rashid Tlaib if they were running in my district.
As for Christine Kincaid, as i wrote, my problem with her is she basis COVID on science; but ignores science when it comes to tragic SIDS death of one of her infants and I did NOT ask her to rule out vaccines, just admit it possible that given the extreme low birthweight and prematurity that the vaccine could have been simply coincidental; but what angers me more is that even if a case could be made that the vaccine contributed, the extreme low birthweight and prematurity of her infant would be a rare case and she should not be attacking vaccines in general.
As for Beth Clarkson, she just wants alternative vaccine schedules. Well, in certain circumstances they are called for; but the vaccine schedules were developed by a large group of experts based on science (see members at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/members/index.html ). The schedule is based on ensuring children get the vaccines in a timely manner. Alternative schedules would require more visits and if left to individuals as more and more opted for this, smaller number would be vaccinated within reasonable time period. Remember the Disneyland measles? What if a parent had a child going through chemotherapy for some type of leukemia? What if child promised Disneyland visit following treatment? If that child had been exposed to measles the outcome would have been quite serious. Or just take the kid to a public park or supermarket. I’ve seen interviews with parents antivaccine who state quite clearly they can’t think about other kids, just focus on their own; but we live in communities. Should kids with various immune disorders be locked away? “There but for the Grace of G-d Go I.” I wonder what one of these parents would think if their child becomes seriously ill because exposed to another unvaccinated child, that is, if their child had an immune problem.
In addition, Beth has a doctorate in mathematical statistics and according to her: “helping manufacturing and service industries through the use of quality improvement techniques, surveys, and statistical analysis of data . . . I specialize in computing material properties, engineering design basis values, quality improvement, statistical graphics, and basic statistical analysis for research purposes.” No doubt she does high quality work; but not even remotely related to epidemiological research. She claims she has had a course in epidemiology, well, I had one course in mathematical statistics, even got an A, one of the most difficult courses I’ve had; but I’ve NEVER used it since. While she has devoted her career to a specialized application of statistics, I have focused on research methodology in Social Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Epidemiology, and learned basics of immunology, microbiology, and infectious diseases. And even if she could find a doctor who agreed with an alternative schedule, not valid unless specific reason, e.g., genetic disorder, autoimmune disease. Bob Sears pushed alternative schedules, etc.
And, though flu vaccines only confer some protection, 30% of those infected with flu are asymptomatic and, thus, can pass it on. Vaccine doesn’t eliminate this; but at least reduces chance. So, if Beth goes shopping and infects some senior citizen or person with autoimmune disease, obviously she could care less. Well, I get flu vaccine every year; but not just for myself; but to do what I can to protect my fellow human beings. As the saying of Rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me; but if I am only for myself, what am I?: If not now, when?
No man is an island, just to quote another cliché, so Dorit in a previous exchange was right that sometimes alternative schedules are called for; but not at the whim of someone who hasn’t displayed any knowledge of epi, immunology, microbiology or infectious diseases; but just assumes because she is bright person and accomplished in one branch of science, she should decide. And not just because their are a few doctors willing to oblige.
Well, as I’ve said before, I consider myself reasonably intelligent, well-educated; but if someone gave me half dozen plans for building a bridge over a river, I couldn’t judge which best plan because I have, among other things, never studied structural engineering. So my problem with Beth is her belief that she has the right to make decisions without the basic sciences and with contempt for being part of a community.
@ Sophie Amsden
As I wrote, I already posted several references regarding the freezing of funding before adding Narad’s suggestion. I then posted several others which you continue to ignore. I did read the Dickey Amendment; but, as I wrote, not being able to testify regarding gun control or make statements accordingly doesn’t alone affect what would happen if the CDC continued such research and the articles I referred to clearly PROVE that Congress made it clear to the CDC that if they did any gun research they would suffer severe reductions in funding. Don’t you understand plain English?
So, “how they sound to the general public”. I guess you consider yourself a spokesperson for the “general public.” Well, I belong to a currently closed YMCA gym with people from ALL walks of life and often after working out drink coffee together and I don’t think they would consider someone like you their spokesperson. Some are libertarians, some conservatives, some liberals, some Christian, some Moslem, etc. and we have civil discussions on many topics. But, perhaps, you could be a spokesperson for Trump supporters or antivaccinationists or anti-climate change believers or, perhaps, Qanon.
You write: “You might want to have a chat with “Dorit” about how you and others view you and them, in your racist and misogynist posts (yes, you know black people and women and that gives you a pass). And remember this post at your criminal or civil trial, because those 70% are the people who will judge you (the other 30% were smart enough to get out of jury duty).”
You really are NUTS! I gave examples; but I’ve interacted with and had friends who were black, hispanic, arab, muslims, etc. most of my life. And others have commented on this that I have NOT exhibited misogynistic nor racists posts. I think you need to get back on your meds as you appear to be delusional. So, you support ignorant of science and critical thinking people condemning me. You just keep revealing just how contemptible you are as a human being, a perfect role model for Trump supporters. There is a defense mechanism in traditional psychology called projection. Simply people try to deny their own despicable hateful selves by trying to see it in others. Thus, clearly you are the racist! ! !
You write: “These are the same people who pay taxes and support research and you want to “follow the science”.”
First, taxpayers pay taxes; but don’t have a final say on exactly where they go. Second, the Republican Party since Nixon’s Southern Strategy, that is, without directly stating so, became the racist party after Johnson and the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and Voting Rights Act in 1965. And, it is mainly Republican politicians that have cut funding to various sciences, Trump just being an extreme example. I should also point out that taxpayers support medical schools, doesn’t mean they understand medicine. But many who vote Republican not only don’t understand science; but actively reject it as do many antivaccinationists. Anecdote, personal beliefs, etc. and the echo chamber of social media. And the fact that most people don’t understand the basics of science nor critical thinking is quite problematic as it means that their choices, their actions may actually lead to harming them as they are easily manipulated, incapable of independent thought.
So, you identify me with the last leader of the Weimer Republic who was murdered by the Nazis. In other words, you identify the Cultural Revolution you hope for with Nazis???
I’ve asked before and I’ll ask again: What do you do for a living???
One last thing, you state: “If you friends at the CDC who were fired had been any good at their jobs the FBI would have hired them.”
They weren’t CDC employees, they were faculty from other universities on short-term research grants placing them at the CDC. Just one more example of what an absolute asshole you are, assuming facts not in evidence. I knew them because they were tenured faculty who spent six months at CDC.
@ Joel A. Harrison
Sophie has an interesting view of the world, isn’t it? To quote:
I wasn’t aware that the FBI has a research department in social sciences and economy, and is collecting data from trauma units about gun violence. OK, maybe the latter does happen, but I suspect the FBI is more interested in catching the perpetrators of said gun violence than figuring out why there are so many people liberally using their guns.
I guess she is confusing “gun research” with “searching with a warrant”.
(Joel, please go easy on telling people they are off their meds – some of us do take meds)
@ Althaic
Apologies. I have known a lot of good people on various psychiatric medications. I shouldn’t let someone as incredibly irrational as Sophie get to me.
You write: “so your references are journalism majors who write for newspapers and people who host blogs (quoting their own posts, not peer review published works)”
The articles were discussing acts of Congress which is exactly what journalists write about. Peer reviewed published works involves research, not reporting. Just HOW STUPID ARE YOU???
Actually the answer is obvious. You cite Hill-Burton, one law from 1946 as if it applied to all cases and even continues today. Well, in 1965 Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid; but while Medicare funded through taxes, Medicaid split with States. each state deciding if will even implement and how much will fund, Feds matching funding, more or less. In beginning, my state California reimbursed doctors same amount as Medicare; but now Medicaid reimbursement so low that many doctors will not accept Medicaid patients. And cuts to Medicaid has led to closing of rural hospitals and clinics, etc. But do cite 1965 Medicaid law and ignore any later developments and other Congressional acts. You keep focusing on Dickey Amendment as if it was all Congress did regarding CDC and gun research. Incredible. In your immense stupidity rejecting articles by journalists about other actions taken by Congress.
You won’t say what you do for a living; but are you a Trump supporter? Do you believe in Qanon? Do you think climate change is a hoax?
How many Muslims do you consider friends or even interact with? How many blacks? How many hispanics? Do you even have any friends? What meds are you on??? Come on, tell the truth???
And I think your immense hostility to CDC probably is proof you are a Trump supporter.
Wow, you chastise Sophie about her projections, yet your rants are filled with projections. (and misinformation)
1. your friends lost their research funding (according to your changing story). I think Orac could tell you that many research funding/grants are stopped every year or have a short life span, I wasn’t aware that research funding was an open ended check book that lasted for ever.
2. The civil right act of 1964 was passed because it had more Republican support then Democrat support. 80% of Republicans supported the bill only 60% of Democrats supported the bill (ie. vote for it.) If it wasn’t for a white Republican (William McCulloch) the bill would have never passed the house.
3. Your description of Kurt Von Schleicher needs some research, he actually helped Hitler come to power, he thought he could control Hitler, but he was wrong. (Tyrants always kill their supporters once they gain power as the supporters are the source of future opposition, Trotsky ,Robespierre etc.)
4. Your claim to have Black, Muslim, Hispanic, Arabs friends is also a sign of hidden racism, as you look to surface features to identify people. To point out people’s race, sex, religion is in itself racist and sexist and is used to stereotype people. Race is a social construct and has no real meaning and but has been use by racist. Your identification of Harris, Obama, etc. as black is in an of itself racist, as neither are a single race but a collection of “races” (as we all are).
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
Good grief. Chuckles, would you like to come to Chicago for a stroll in Englewood? I think they have a Harold’s Chicken Shack that’s open late. You can ask they patrons whether they think the term “Black” is “racist.”
^ “the patrons”
You will doubtlessly also have a salient analysis of blackfishing.
Well, they are.
For better and worse, it’s part of their identity. They should not be judged on it. But that makes them role-models to emulate. And denying them that part of their identity is no better than only seeing that part.
So I don’t mind if it’s pointed out. Especially as it seems to irritate a lot of people.
Depends on the context. Are we talking “bloody immigrant”, or “succeeded, where not so long ago it would not have been possible, however dedicated and good they were?”
Joel was pointing out how diverse the people he is mingling with are. It’s not just the “one Black friend”.
“First Black president”. “First Black Woman VP”. That has a nice ring to it.
We French still have to reach “first woman” or “first POC”. The better we got so far is “First Hungarian”.
(French joke about one of our past presidents who was obviously jealous of Obama’s achievements)
@ Charles Bronski
“Tyrants always kill their supporters once they gain power as the supporters are the source of future opposition, Trotsky ,Robespierre etc.”
Poor poor poor Robespierre…
“Your claim to have Black, Muslim, Hispanic, Arabs friends is also a sign of hidden racism, as you look to surface features to identify people.”
I think I’d like to meet the genius who first claimed that having black friends is proof of racism. He definitely deserves a medal…
@ F68.10
Ah, you noticed it, too?
I’m confused. Did Robespierre kill Trotsky?
@ Charles Bronski
First, I made it absolutely clear that my colleagues received a short-term grant. They were tenured faculty at universities. As for research funding, I made it absolutely clear that Congress not only passed Dicks Amendment; but documented Congress pressured CDC to stop using funds for gun research or else. Do you understand English?
Yep, Republicans in Congress voted for Civil Rights Act. At one time Republican Party was party mainly of middle class; but with Nixon’s Southern Strategy, following passing of Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, the South went Republican (LBJ was a democrat and introduced and supported the acts, so the South jumped at chance to switch parties, do you want references to Nixon’s Southern Strategy and its disguised racism?).
Yep, Kurt Von Schleicher did originally support HItler, thinking he could control him; but also to save any vestige of democracy and, of course, he was wrong. As you point out, tyrants often kill their supporters. But Sophie seemed to agree with the Nazis killing him.
As for my pointing out the identify of friends, Sophie accused me of being a racist and misogynists. Several other commenters pointed out they totally disagreed with her; but how should I have responded? Yep, I knew their race, ethnicity, religions because, as a Jew, I went with Catholic friends to mass, with a Black friend to his Baptist church, loved the music and warmth, attended Bahai meetings, have been to Mosques, Buddhist temples, birthday parties where they served ethnic foods. In Israel in 1978 took bus from East Jerusalem to Birzeit University to visit friend from undergraduate years who was faculty. A bit scary being only Jew on bus. Entered office, asked for him, told he was in class, so sat and waited. Office workers whispered, look suspiciously at me. Then he entered office, saw me, rushed over and hugged me. Said something to others and they came over and welcomed me. We all went to lunch. I asked him what he said, he replied he told them they could trust me. Back in Jerusalem he put me in touch with some Jewish groups that supported one Palestine with clear separation of Church and State and equal rights for all. I attended several meetings and found out later they were infiltrated by Shin Bet, Israel’s FBI, so I’m probably on their list, somewhere in archives. Well, undergraduate roommate was leader of local chapter of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and led draft card burning. I was there; but didn’t dare burn my draft card. Well, two FBI agents came to our house, interrogated us, and somewhere in FBI archives my name is probably on list. And, if you want to read a more recent OpEd protesting treatment of refugees from Middle East by Trump, you can find:
Joel A. Harrison (2017 Feb 20). READER’S EDITORIAL: TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION BAN FROM 7 MUSLIM NATIONS SHOWS IRRATIONAL PREJUDICE AND POTENTIAL DEATH KNELL FOR AMERICAN COMPASSION. East County Magazine. Available at: https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/reader’s-editorial-trump’s-immigration-ban-7-muslim-nations-shows-irrational-prejudice-and-potential
As for listing Harris and Obama as black, I am quite aware of both having mixed backgrounds. I simply was making a statement that however one described them it would not affect my vote, just as I would happily have two Moslems currently in Congress representing me. I actually submitted another comment that should be posted shortly before this one where I clearly explain that I understand that race is a social construct. I have an entire collection of books refuting racism. One excellent book is:
William H. Tucker (1994). The Science and Politics of Racial Research. University of Illinois Press
But more importantly, as Sophie, you don’t seem to have carefully read everything Sophie wrote and my comments.
Is it possible to identify people without surface features? Dental records I suppose or DNA? Bit of a long wait before you discover that you’ve been making suggestive comments to the bloke next door instead of your wife. Wait, I think I mentioned sex somewhere in there. And a possessive pronoun. I’m a terrible person.
How times have changed!
Republicans like Everett Dirksen still supported equal rights while the Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond and James Eastland almost blocked the Civil Rights Act. Fortunately Mike Mansfield used a bit of parliamentary sleight of hand to get the bill directly to the Senate floor, where it took 60 days to get to a vote.
LBJ and HHH knew the Senate inside out and managed to dig up enough support to overturn a filibuster.
LBJ knew he had probably lost the southern vote for the near future but still thought the issue was worth fighting for.
Nixon’s southern strategy began the decades of change that have led to our current mess.
@Charles Bronski Your history requires some cleaning up:
Von Schleicher tried to control Hitler. That is why Hitler got him killed. Von Papen tried to tame him, and Papen’s career had incredible downward spiral, but he got a post as an ambassador.
Civil right law was proposed by Kennedy and pushed through by Johnson. Neither of them were Republican, as you may know. Eisenhower was much more moderate.
Voting pattern was regional, Southerners usually voted against. Interesting thing is that all Southern Republicans voted against, but all Southern Democrats did not.
@ Sophie Amsden
I just phoned a colleague to check my memory. When Congress pressured CDC to stop researching guns, NO ONE WAS FIRED. It was a small group within a larger CDC center. A couple left, the others were just assigned new tasks. In your immense stupidity, you don’t even understand the word “fired.” Fired means doing something inappropriate in job. A friend worked for a company years ago when a shortfall resulted in letting a number of people go. They chose those last hired; but all were totally eligible to collect unemployment. If fired from job, not eligible for unemployment. Did you learn English as a second language?
And I’m so glad you revealed your true self with glee at Nazi murder of man representing last attempt to preserve the Weimar Republic. As someone once said something to the effect: “Democracy is a terrible form of government except when compared with all others.” I’m old, anyone remember the exact quote.
Sophie: “…you and others on this site are impressed with their own education and overestimate their abilities and are clueless as how they sound to the general public…..”
Another case of massive projection.
It is sad. 🙁
Joel did these researchers work for the CDC or not, did they still work for the universities or the CDC. your story keeps changing. “they were faculty from other universities on short-term research grants” (note SHORT TERM). As to your point, if you boss quits paying you are you fired or have you quit. As to unemployment, you obtain benefits as long as your termination was NOT from egregious acts (stealing from you employer etc.). Did these “researchers” get unemployment checks or what was your point, or was that just more rants.
I am not gleeful at the Nazi’s murder of a man who helped the Nazis come into power, he was a early supporter of the Nazis and not a defender of republic, please read history.
Reading comprehension is not you strong suit. No where in the Dickey amendment does it stop the CDC from conducting gun research, that is plain simple English.
Talk about rants.
You won’t say what you do for a living; but are you a Trump supporter? Do you believe in Qanon? Do you think climate change is a hoax?
How many Muslims do you consider friends or even interact with? How many blacks? How many hispanics? Do you even have any friends? What meds are you on??? Come on, tell the truth???And I think your immense hostility to CDC probably is proof you are a Trump supporter.
As to your last sentence, I think if you conducted a poll right now about opinions of the CDC I would bet that most American have a negative view of them.
“Public trust in CDC, Fauci, and other top health officials is evaporating, poll finds”
https://www.statnews.com/2020/09/10/trust-cdc-fauci-evaporating/
“Egregious acts”? What part of “fired” do you not understand, Ms. Reading Comprehension? At-will employees can be fired for any reason or no reason whatever.
In Illinois (PDF; have fun) at least, you’re eligible for unemployment benefits so long as your condition is due to no fault of your own. And, of course, the employer can argue that there was cause — such as wearing purple socks — so as not to have to pay their share.
@ Sophie Amsden
First, the ones I directly spoke with did NOT work for the CDC; but were tenured at universities; but due to their connections, working with CDC were well-aware of what was going on. Second, you keep focusing on the Dick’s Amendment, again, as if it was the only action that Congress took. How STUPID are you??? I clearly gave references that proved that the CDC was forced to stop funding gun research. And, as I wrote, it was a small group of researchers in a larger center that did the gun research and a couple left for academic appointments and the rest just were assigned other projects. You are incredibly stupid, continuously ignoring what I wrote and continuously focusing on one thing, e.g., Dickey Amendment, Hill-Burton Act.
And you ABSOLUTELY STUPID statement that the 70% will try me in court. Well, mob rule, ignorance of basic science and critical thinking, actually studies showing many Americans reject science, prefer the echo chambers of social media, shows who you are. Yep, I’m sure if I were on trial that many jurors would find me guilty, regardless of evidence, simply because of what I stand for, so what else is new?
As for public trust in Fauci and CDC, etc. what does that really say? We know that almost half of Americans support Trump, so, for them, obvious they would believe him. We know that people need to blame someone. We know that idiots like you don’t understand that the CDC, for instance, has been severely underfunded for years and even those not supporting Trump are suffering from the pandemic. Just one more example of your absolute stupidity, relying on polls. You do know that polls change, they very depending on who runs them, and even minor events can change people’s minds. Yep, keep on displaying your ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY.
Oh, as for my “racism”, the Freedom rides happened during my junior and senior years in high school. I thought of joining them; but my parents were against because of the dangers and I decided not to out of cowardice. Yep, given what I already knew about the viciousness of many Americans, I just was chicken. When living in Sweden, I participated in a number of protests and their were counterprotestors. No weapons, just placards and some shouting. In U.S. national guard shot and killed unarmed students at Kent State and Mississipi State. They did it without order from their officers. Even killed an ROTC student just walking by; but nothing happened to them and polls showed majority of Americans thought they were right to do so. The family of the ROTC student received phone calls from people saying he got what he deserved. They weren’t even aware he wasn’t part of student protest. So, you referring to polls, to 70%, I guess if you lived during time of lynchings in South, you would cite stats on how many supported it. So, just to be clear, I supported Civil Rights from time I was kid; but, was a coward. Oh well.
I’ll ask again. What do you do for a living? Are you too ashamed to say???
And no comment about my proof that “back to the wall”, “duty to retreat” was American law, with exceptions, until Court decision after Civil War?
And just another reference that I know you won’t bother to read, free download,
National Research Council I2005) Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. National Academies Press.
It has a huge reference list.
It is clear that you are incapable of any type of rational thinking; but, given I’m sheltering-in-place and currently can’t even walk my dog as waiting for delivery of a couple of books I ordered, one on history of genetics by David Quammen, whose previous books I’ve read and will be third book for me on history of genetics. Each author overlaps in what they cover; but also cover some different things; but all cover the history of eugenics and racism and clearly show how science refutes it.
But the best book I read on racism I still own from 1961 when I was in high school, Black Like Me about a journalist who arranged to be injected with chemicals and time before a sunlamp, etc. to appear black, then rode Greyhound buses through South during the late 1950s. When asked he always gave his name, where he was from, his marriage status, and yet his life was threatened, he was treated like shit, etc. I had nightmares, imagining I was exact same person, just with different skin color. I suggest you read the book. You can probably find free pdf online, get from local library, or buy inexpensive copy, author John Howard Griffin. Just one example of how early in my life I could identify with people from different races (though race a fictitious concept), ethnic groups (in Sweden I was friends with a couple Armenians and learned about the Turkish genocide towards them during World War I and subsequently read more), had classmates in Elementary school who were Mexicans and played at their homes, etc. And my father worked at a place with black janitors and invited fellow workers to barbecues when I was toddler. I remember them playing with me. So, you are FULL OF SHIT accusing me of being a racist. And I don’t hate people like you, just find it frightening that so many people are as unscientific, illogical, picking one thing, e.g., Dickey Amendment, etc. I don’t hate you, I hate what you represent. I find you and your kind frightening, no different from lynch mobs, who often hung innocent people or juries who convict someone, often ignoring the evidence, based on subconscious/unconscious reasons.
Oh, you criticized my referencing paper by David Gorski, a blog paper. Well, his papers are well-documented with links to many articles. And I often go to the articles, read them, download them for my library. Gorski is a well-respected cancer surgeon, has a track record of research grants and peer-reviewed articles, etc. In fact, I don’t understand how he finds the time after treating patients, supervising interns and residents, writing grants, conducting research, etc. to find the articles he basis his blog posts on and then write his blog posts. Sometimes I think he is a clone or, perhaps, a Droid. In fact, I think ORAC is his real name, representing a superbeing from another universe and David Gorski is his nom de guerre. ?
So, please, keep posting, display your ignorance, etc.
Reality check: public confidence in the U.S. government’s response to the pandemic is increasing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/01/26/trust-in-government-information-on-covid-19-surges-under-biden-poll-reports/
@ Sophie:
“As to your point, if you boss quits paying you are you fired or have you quit.”
That’s not correct. There is also the third category “laid off”. That is when a person’s employment is terminated but not because of their conduct or work product, but because their employer chose to eliminate the position. Layoffs are not the fault of the employee. Firing is usually for cause (spurious or not).
I’m very surprised you don’t know this; “layoffs” have been part of the working vernacular since at least the late 1980’s.
I’ve wondered that myself, but there’s too much vernacular. Just another case of semiliteracy.
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”
Whomever Churchill was referring to remains unknown, as far as I can tell (see, e.g., here.
Revelation 13:1
If the ‘beast’ (which is supposed to be different than all other beasts before) is a system of government {even one determined by watery bints lobbing scimitars in thy general direction} and the ‘sea’ is the global masses of people; then there is one new form left to try — a globally elected world dictator.
I’m taking Sophie’s reference at her words — That is not something she learned in grade school but rather some group she’s in. Of which, there seem to be a lot rising up all over the globe. She is helping to ensure that the ‘sea’ is and undulating body of scum and rot and I shudder to think what ‘beast’ may rise from that.
Guhh. So, I went to the Richard Burton School of Overacting. Sue me.
[…] we’ve frequently warned over the last year, these conspiracy theorists who argue against science-based medicine typically want to upsell you into their own snake oil sales funnel. And as we’ve been warning for […]
[…] The Bollingers got their start as cancer cure quacks but have recently pivoted to become leading COVID-19 vaccine deniers. […]