Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (Read 391628 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #105 –
Seems you've been learning from the NRA.  Any time there's a mass shooting, you can rely on the NRA to protest that "this isn't the time to make political comments regarding gun control".  WTF?  It's EXACTLY the time to make those points, as Obama has stated every time he has called for action in the wake of recent shootings.

Concerning Zika, it is EXACTLY the time to be calling for a reconsideration of reproductive rights.  These are countries in which even contraception is discouraged or banned. The pro-lifers would prefer to rail against abortions performed merely to save 'promiscuous women' from taking reponsibility for their sexual activities.  But what about married women who have been faithful to their husbands and who face devastation merely because they were bitten by a mosquito?  The Catholic Church and the mostly male politicians are happy to force women, often poor women, to run the risk of giving birth to babies with severe birth defects.  You can bet your bottom dollar they'll do bugger all to help them financially if that fate befalls them.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #106 –
Quote from: Mav on
Seems you've been learning from the NRA.  Any time there's a mass shooting, you can rely on the NRA to protest that "this isn't the time to make political comments regarding gun control".  WTF?  It's EXACTLY the time to make those points, as Obama has stated every time he has called for action in the wake of recent shootings.

Concerning Zika, it is EXACTLY the time to be calling for a reconsideration of reproductive rights.  These are countries in which even contraception is discouraged or banned. The pro-lifers would prefer to rail against abortions performed merely to save 'promiscuous women' from taking reponsibility for their sexual activities.  But what about married women who have been faithful to their husbands and who face devastation merely because they were bitten by a mosquito?  The Catholic Church and the mostly male politicians are happy to force women, often poor women, to run the risk of giving birth to babies with severe birth defects.  You can bet your bottom dollar they'll do bugger all to help them financially if that fate befalls them.

I'm not religious but I doubt you can claim that the various Churches do bugger all financially to help people in those countries. The stance you take is certainly an NRA style claim like, "The police don't help so you'd better get a gun!"

Quote from: Michael Selgelid and Euzebiusz Jamrozik
The belief that Zika might cause microcephaly is largely based on a recent spike in reported numbers of cases in Brazil. The virus has been detected in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women with microcephalic babies. There is also an apparent increase in the severity of microcephaly (smaller head sizes) in Brazil.

However, estimates of microcephaly cases in Brazil are in the process of being revised down. This suggests there may have been a transition from under-counting to over-counting of cases.

Disclosures;
Euzebiusz Jamrozik receives funding from an Australian Postgraduate Award (PhD Scholarship).
Michael Selgelid does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above

The expert advice is that other than extreme and severe cases of microcephaly it's almost impossible to accurately diagnose in utero, it is also reported that the majority of Zika detections in placental fluid have lead to no observable effects in the child. Only a very small percentage have any effects that appear on a wide scale of symptoms many of which cannot be differentiated from other causes like alcohol consumption, rubella and herpes;

Quote from: Michael Selgelid and Euzebiusz Jamrozik
Other possible causes of increased microcephaly – infections such as rubella and cytomegalovirus (a member of the herpes family), as well as malnutrition and heavy alcohol consumption – should also be considered.

The World Health Organisation admits it has not yet been scientifically proven that Zika causes microcephaly.

You haven't read The Conversation links, you wouldn't be making spurious claims about the epidemiology of Zika if you had. I won't be so bold as to claim my opinions, or those dredged from the Huffington Post, are more insightful or valuable than the doctors and biologists who study the disease and have been looking for cures for many years.

Quote from: Michael Selgelid and Euzebiusz Jamrozik
Even if Zika sometimes causes pregnant mothers to have babies with microcephaly, this does not necessarily mean every infected mother would have an affected baby.

Assessing the risks of Zika thus requires knowing the percentage of infected pregnant women who give birth to babies with microcephaly. If this percentage is higher than the percentage of uninfected women (which has not, to date, been shown), it might be safe to conclude that Zika increases the relative risk of microcephaly.

Even then, the absolute risk that an infected pregnant woman will give birth to an affected infant might still be quite low.

Michael Selgelid
Director, Centre for Human Bioethics; Director, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Bioethics, Monash University

Euzebiusz Jamrozik
PhD Candidate, Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University
The Force Awakens!
 

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #107 –
Yep, I'm sure the Church will pay for child care for years to allow poor mothers to go to work or work from home to help support their families.  Maybe it will pay mothers a weekly benefit so they don't need to work and can concentrate on a disabled child.  Maybe they'll also pay for early intervention services including occupational and speech therapists and physiotherapists.  And Brazil has a reputation for supplying welfare to the poor and needy.  Businesses in Rio even came up with an effective program to reduce the number of street kids.  Maybe, though, hiring killers to thin their numbers wasn't the best way to go.

I would have thought it might be best to leave pregnant women to make their own decisions about what risks they can afford to run.  Priests and conservative politicians who aren't willing to put their money where their mouths are should GAGF.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #108 –
Quote from: Mav on
Yep, I'm sure the Church will pay for child care for years to allow poor mothers to go to work or work from home to help support their families.  Maybe it will pay mothers a weekly benefit so they don't need to work and can concentrate on a disabled child.  Maybe they'll also pay for early intervention services including occupational and speech therapists and physiotherapists.  And Brazil has a reputation for supplying welfare to the poor and needy.  Businesses in Rio even came up with an effective program to reduce the number of street kids.  Maybe, though, hiring killers to thin their numbers wasn't the best way to go.

I would have thought it might be best to leave pregnant women to make their own decisions about what risks they can afford to run.  Priests and conservative politicians who aren't willing to put their money where their mouths are should GAGF.

Freedom of choice should be available to all women, they should have it and be able to exercise it without scaremongering from wealthy Western civilisations using the poor South American economies as their political lab!

As for all those impending disabilities you refer to, most likely according to the medical experts the same number of babies will be healthy as was previously the case and none of your subsequent argument remains relevant. You are scaremongering!
The Force Awakens!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #109 –
Seems to me that Brazilian women were scared well before First World countries were even aware of the problem.

Don't worry.  In a few weeks, you won't have to cut and paste choice bits from your favourite experts.  Case-control studies will be completed by then and the issue of causation will be resolved for all intents and purposes.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #111 –
Quote from: Mav on
Seems to me that Brazilian women were scared well before First World countries were even aware of the problem.

Don't worry.  In a few weeks, you won't have to cut and paste choice bits from your favourite experts.  Case-control studies will be completed by then and the issue of causation will be resolved for all intents and purposes.

I stick by my references to heavily qualified, respected and peer reviewed authors and you can keep reading failed print journos and mummy bloggers at the Huffington.

In bold is your complete lack of understanding of the scientific process. For a definitive answer it will take years or even decades. They are still testing Einstein's theories a hundred years later and only made a significant step forward in proving a major part of it last month!
The Force Awakens!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #112 –
Quote from: Mav on
Seems to me that Brazilian women were scared well before First World countries were even aware of the problem.

Don't worry.  In a few weeks, you won't have to cut and paste choice bits from your favourite experts.  Case-control studies will be completed by then and the issue of causation will be resolved for all intents and purposes.

Ignorance personified.....stick to your legal jargon Mav, half a chance there....
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #113 –
LP, are you sure you aren't a spin doctor for the tobacco industry or big coal/oil?  Your attempts to wilfully distort anything that challenges your line is straight out of their playbook.

So, the article I linked was by "failed print journos and mummy bloggers at the Huffington"?  Wow, so you didn't notice the quotes from the following experts:
  • Dr. Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health
  • Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  • Ligia Bahia, a public health expert at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
  • Dr. Ian Musgrave, neurotoxicologist and toxicologist, University of Adelaide
Nor did you seem to have noticed the reference to the NEJM paper, but, don't worry, I've provided a link in a previous post, so you can have a look yourself.

But kudos to you for brandishing the article by a couple of bioethicists as if it's the Bible.  You know, don't you, that one of the authors isn't even a doctor and the other is apparently a clinician of an unspecified type.  I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think I'll go with the experts at the front line rather than bioethicists.  But they do contribute to WHO, so that is something.  Speaking of which, did you know WHO has stated that we are weeks away from determining whether there is a causal link, based on case control studies that are underway?

You see, when treating actual patients, doctors need information urgently.  They can't wait for 100 years to see what scientists think at that point.  Research will go on after the case-control studies but if those studies find a causal link then this will be the basis for ongoing medical and government action.  That further research includes genetic research which will take a year or so.  If any further research disproves a link, then programs will change.  That's how urgent medical situations are addressed.

This is also why I couldn't care less about your "medical experts at 20 paces" duel.  I am not backing a horse in this race.  As the race will for practical purposes be over in a few weeks, I'm happy to wait for the result.  If you want to place a bet and cheer home your horse, be my guest.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #114 –
Quote from: Lods on
Trump v Pope ;D

http://www.smh.com.au/world/pope-francis-says-donald-trump-is-not-christian-trump-calls-pope-disgraceful-20160218-gmy1q8.html

Might actually play well with the non-catholic Christians ( of which the States has many)

Protestant 46.5% Catholic 20.8%
Yep, I wouldn't think it would make much of an impact.  Apparently, a third of Catholics in the US are of Latin American origin and I'd imagine Trump has pretty much written them off already.  The comments about Mexican rapists, killers and drug dealers drew the line very early in the piece.  However, Cuban-Americans are probably mostly Republican voters as they are so rabidly anti-Castro.  If Trump makes a throwaway comment about invading Cuba, he'd probably win them over whatever the Pope says.

It'll be interesting to see whether Rubio will be drawn on this issue as he is a practising Roman Catholic.  He's also the son of Cuban refugees, although his parents fled Batista's Cuba.  Ted Cruz's parents were also Cuban refugees but his father was an evangelical firebrand and Cruz is putting himself forward as a hardline evangelical.

I read an article a while back about Trump giving a speech to the students at an evangelical college, was it Liberty University?  He mangled some biblical references and he emphasised that he's a winner who get's even with those who cross him.  One student asked whether he should turn the other cheek.  He replied that the Bible talks about an eye for an eye.  The author of the article asked the head of the Uni whether his attitude was Christian.  He echoed the eye for an eye line and said that God didn't expect his followers to be weak. We've all seen how hardline conservative Christians in the US are.  I'd imagine that the Pope's criticism would be dismissed very quickly by them.  They are Old Testament "Christians" whereas the Pope is very much a New Testament guy.  Cardinal Pell criticised the Pope for his comments about climate change and he'd probably be happy to back Trump here too.

There was a funny skit a while back in which Jesus read out the most vicious comments by the Republican candidates as if they were his own  :))

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #116 –
Quote from: Mav on
So, the article I linked was by "failed print journos and mummy bloggers at the Huffington"?  Wow, so you didn't notice the quotes from the following experts:
  • Dr. Francis Collins, director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health
  • Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  • Ligia Bahia, a public health expert at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
  • Dr. Ian Musgrave, neurotoxicologist and toxicologist, University of Adelaide
Nor did you seem to have noticed the reference to the NEJM paper, but, don't worry, I've provided a link in a previous post, so you can have a look yourself.

I noticed all the references, and I also noticed after reading almost the entire content of them that the author cherry picked facts from those papers to support their position. Referring to those authors and papers isn't enough for you to become a viable source of relevant information Mav, you have to read and understand them and then think critically!

Reality in science isn't about winning a debate or opinion, it's about facts which you seem to dishonor regularly by ranking them the same as opinion. So I can only surmise that if historically we'd left debating science and medicine to the unqualified fans of the legal system we would probably no longer exist now!

As for the urgency of the situation, it's more a media creation than a reality, like the continued fear of Thalidomide despite knowing the root cause of deformities from errors in the manufacturing process for over 50 years. Errors that were relatively basic by modern standards. So a medicine that can cure migraine, help countless women and people suffering chronic pain remains banned. Mostly because of the fear of lawyers and the scare mongering of the media.

Now we are seeing resources diverted from the study of diseases that are proven to kill thousands ever year like Yellow fever, Dengue Fever, Japanese Encephalitis, etc., etc.. Most of this being based on media scare mongering, the very same feminine primal fears that the creators of the movie Alien used to produce one of histories most fearful creature features, the monster within! What a disservice they do to everyone, mothers, babies and victims of other Flaviviruses.

It's the Zombie Apocalypse Mav, see if you can find a lawyer to sue someone on your behalf, maybe the producers of Walking Dead!
The Force Awakens!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #117 –
Let's give the debate a break and reconvene when actual scientists have released their studies.  After all, you can still argue your conspiracy theories then.

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #118 –
Quote from: Mav on
Let's give the debate a break and reconvene when actual scientists have released their studies.  After all, you can still argue your conspiracy theories then.

Better yet, go over to a real forum on the issue to test out hypotheses, a forum like the one I listed earlier started and managed by CSIRO and peer reviewed where specialists can openly criticise and discuss blogger articles and their own opinions. They will let you read the lot for free and even answer your questions. That website was created for the very reason to be a resource that media and everyday individuals can cross check and keep up to date on current science and not rely on the media itself. They will without bias point out the various conflicts of interest in the media reports and published scientific opinions, they will also offer opinions but declare when it is such. They also have to publicly declare their interests to participate, unlike Huffington post. These people will also know much of the material and immediately highlight the cherry picking of facts.

Then you can extend your research to the backgrounds on some of the people making various claims about Zika, Larvicides and other effects. Many come from Anti-GMO, Anti-vaccination, Political Lobbyist Groups, etc., etc..

Of course you could just follow the reports and discussions on a peer reviewed site and ignore the blogger diatribes.

While you are at it you may learn about vectors, a bit about Wolbachia and it's potential for controlling all Flaviviruses might be a useful starting point! Keeping in mind you have to know the position of those who argue for and against the use of Wolbachia, funded researchers, drug company representatives, religious fundamentalists, etc., etc.. Some of whom donate heavily to US political parties, and others whose livelihood depends on the funding of governments! Not every site is equal, not ever site requires disclosure!
The Force Awakens!

Re: US Presidential Election 2016

Reply #119 –
HERE'S an article which describes what's involved in case-control studies.

Are you still going, LP?  Your're like a passionate fan trying to browbeat an opposition fan about why team A will beat team B.  Sadly, all of that time and effort may well be pointless when the final score is known.  Unless you have the resources of the tobacco industry, you can't influence the findings that will be published.  So, just chill and wait for the studies. 

In the meantime, it's good to hear that the Colombian government has relaxed abortion laws to enable pregnant women to make their own decisions and the Pope is considering allowing condoms to combat the Zika virus.