On 8/9/2013 8:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/2013 1:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:05:56 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?
>>>
>>> It seems not - sorry, it's been a rough couple of days for me. :/
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>> Yeah, missed it too, but, in my case, because this is *actually* one of
>> the bullshit arguments I hear from a lot of people (interestingly, quite
>> a few of which are libertarians).
>
> That's the sign of a good poe, though.
>
> Jim
>
Actually, one of the sites one which that concept was coined now bans 
its use. The reason being that bad, stupid, pointlessly mad, arguments 
are so common, from certain sorts of people, there, that its impossible 
to tell when someone is, in fact, joking, and when they are serious, and 
therefor address the serious ones. It is a victim, in effect, of its own 
success, since, you can't combat stupid, by labeling every single such 
thing that gets posted as, 'There is no way this guy is serious." lol

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2013 12:02 PM, Warp wrote:
> "He doesn't accept the theory of evolution, therefore he's an idiot"
> is *not* an ad hominem.
>
> "He is in jail for tax fraud, and thus you shouldn't be listening to
> what he has to say about the theory of evolution" *is* an ad hominem.
> (He might be wrong about evolution, but he being in jail for tax fraud
> is completely irrelevant to the issue.)
>
Hmm... Does that mean, "He is an engineer, so listening to him about 
evolution is pointless.", ad hominem then? Because, from my experience, 
sometimes these things are more like maxims. lol

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2013 3:00 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
> smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
> the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a hypocrite.
>
> If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think."
>
> (Yes, the implication is there - "if you don't agree with what I'm
> saying, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> describe what you are" - you set up a strawman and knock it down by
> implying that those who don't agree with you are sick.)
>
Hmm. I am not going to defend Warp's spiral into poor defense of an 
argument, but, I will toss in my two cents. "Mandatory Public 
Education". Every argument you can make against forced vaccines can be 
made against public education, and often is. But, we can also see the 
immediate consequence of "good" education, and the decline of thinking, 
skills, etc., from "not" having it. And, very nearly the exact same 
argument is made, by those attempting to get rid of, undermine, or 
replace is, "We should be allowed to choose." They even went so far as, 
during the Reagan administration, actually passing laws that "prevented" 
some states from extending that education, as a free service, into 
colleges. All because people who can't tell their ass from their elbows, 
or the East India company in Pirate of the Caribbean, from the same 
entity, in the real history books, don't want to be "dictated to" by 
"totalitarians, bent on making their kids think the wrong way."

Its hardly a surprise that the "method" these people want to employ 
amounts to, one other subjects, including "prayer in schools", is also 
"totalitarian", and aimed at simply replacing the current perceived 
dictators with there own. As bad as it may sound, sometimes, you do need 
the Havelock Vetinari's in charge of some things, even if its just to 
keep the Winders and and Snapcases out (for those that don't get this - 
Vetinari is the dictator of Ank-Morpork, in the disc world series, and 
no longer on the assissin's list, due to everyone deciding that, for the 
first time, the city was actually working. Winder was a total nutcase... 
think.. a dark ages version of Nixon, and Snapcase, while not seeing 
sedition, and murders under every rock, was, otherwise.. worse.)

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 8/10/2013 12:02 PM, Warp wrote:
> > "He doesn't accept the theory of evolution, therefore he's an idiot"
> > is *not* an ad hominem.
> >
> > "He is in jail for tax fraud, and thus you shouldn't be listening to
> > what he has to say about the theory of evolution" *is* an ad hominem.
> > (He might be wrong about evolution, but he being in jail for tax fraud
> > is completely irrelevant to the issue.)
> >
> Hmm... Does that mean, "He is an engineer, so listening to him about 
> evolution is pointless.", ad hominem then? Because, from my experience, 
> sometimes these things are more like maxims. lol

I suppose that, technically speaking, it is. While there's nothing wrong
in being an engineer, that status is still being used as some kind of
reason to discredit their argument, in a completely non-sequitur manner.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.08.2013 00:08, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> I tell you something sick:
>
>> Here in Germany, some decades ago there was a huge campaign pro Iodine:
>> To fight hypothyreosis, people were encouraged to use salt with added
>> Iodine, companies were encouraged to add Iodine to their food products,
>> and farmers were encouraged to add Iodine to the food of their
>> livestock. All for the good of the people, especially (but not limited
>> to) those suffering from undiagnosed hypothyreosis.
>
> Surely you can now point out how the polio vaccine is likewise dangerous,
> and should therefore not be administered worldwide?

It should /not/ be administered to people who are unwilling to accept 
that procedure; first of all I doubt that /any/ vaccination is without 
risk - if only because in the course of production of the vaccine 
something might go wrong, causing people to be infected with polio 
rather than vaccinated against it. How many polio victims are you 
willing to risk in order to protect others?

And second, here's the opening of that can of ugly worms I was refering 
to in my previous post: How many people will you be willing to sacrifice 
in the next, possibly more dangerous world-wide vaccination? And how 
about a scheme to eradicate some hereditary disease?

You can answer those questions with mathematical formulae, but those 
formulae are cold and cruel, as they completely ignore the individuals 
they sacrifice.

> Do you see your "thing X is dangerous, therefore thing Y probably is too"
> fallacy here?

No, because that's absolutely not my point. My point is "thing X is 
dangerous, and thing Y flattens an important moral barrier to X, thus Y 
/is/ dangerous".

And yes, it has been /proven/ in practice that the sort of moral that 
calls for polio to be eliminated by a /forced/ programme, if taken too 
far, will deliberately /kill/ for that higher good.

What you're totally ignoring is that diseases can also be effectively 
pushed back by /voluntary/ vaccination programmes. No, of course those 
don't eradicate the virus entirely; but don't tell me that smallpox is 
entirely dead - you will surely still find it in some secret labs.

>> Sacrificing people's freedom to reject some medical procedure, in order
>> to try achieving some greater medical benefit for all, opens up a can of
>> particularly ugly worms we've seen crawling across Europe before.
>
> There's a big difference between your iodine example and things like
> smallpox and polio: These latter things are contagious, and by not
> taking a vaccine, you are potentially spreading the disease to others.
> You are, thus, not responsible only for your own wellbeing, but of other
> people as well.

Obviously an unvaccinated person can only spread the disease to other 
unvaccinated people. An unvaccinated person is thus responsible for 
getting the disease in the first place, but he/she is /not/ responsible 
for other people getting the disease, because it would have been the 
responsibility of those others to get vaccinated in order to protect 
themselves.

> There's another difference: Smallpox and polio can be completely
> eradicated. Once they are gone, they will are gone for good, and nobody
> ever will have to suffer from them or need any further vaccinations for
> them.

While that may sound all good and nice, it totally ignores the moral 
fallout of a forced vaccination scheme, and also totally neglects the 
possibility of a longer-lasting, more expensive but entirely voluntary 
programme, which will come without that fallout.

What would you have prefered to end WW2 in the Pacific - a conventional 
bombardment of Japan that might have led to more immediate casualties on 
both sides, or the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs that ended the war in a 
single flash, but (besides causing unimaginable suffering among those 
people who survived) caused moral fallout that the world is still 
chewing on today?

Your answer to this question might be different from the one I would 
give, but I'm sure you will acknowledge that it is difficult to answer, 
and that each person should be entitled the right to their own answer, 
no matter what facts and numbers are presented.

While you may not see the moral implications of a forced polio 
vaccination scheme, they are there, and they are - I think - of similar 
severity as in the Hiroshima/Nakasaki boms question, so each observer 
(and consequently each person on this forum) should be entitled to their 
own opinion on this matter, without polemic attempts to invalidate their 
opinion, like the following:

> By not removing those diseases from the Earth when we have the means to,
> we are responsible for all the lives that are lost or ruined. Many of
> them will be people who would most certainly have wanted to live and be
> healthy. The blood is in our hands if we allow people to suffer and die
> when we are sitting on the cure because of our moral sensibilities.

I'll ignore this last paragraph of yours, and especially that "blood is 
[on] our hands" part, because I don't think that you have the right to 
invoke this kind of polemics in this discussion.

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2013 0:08, Warp wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> I tell you something sick:
>
>> Here in Germany, some decades ago there was a huge campaign pro Iodine:
>> To fight hypothyreosis, people were encouraged to use salt with added
>> Iodine, companies were encouraged to add Iodine to their food products,
>> and farmers were encouraged to add Iodine to the food of their
>> livestock. All for the good of the people, especially (but not limited
>> to) those suffering from undiagnosed hypothyreosis.
>
> Surely you can now point out how the polio vaccine is likewise dangerous,
> and should therefore not be administered worldwide?
>
> Do you see your "thing X is dangerous, therefore thing Y probably is too"
> fallacy here?

Clipka is mainly telling a story. Just to explain his position. Which 
is about forced medication/vaccination. There is no claim anywhere that 
polio vaccines are dangerous or even 'probably' dangerous.

Which means that what you did put in quotes was not in his text, just in 
your mind. Do I need to remind you what it is called if you attack not 
what someone said but your own exaggeration of that?



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> It should /not/ be administered to people who are unwilling to accept 
> that procedure; first of all I doubt that /any/ vaccination is without 
> risk - if only because in the course of production of the vaccine 
> something might go wrong, causing people to be infected with polio 
> rather than vaccinated against it. How many polio victims are you 
> willing to risk in order to protect others?

And once again we come back to the question: Do you think the smallpox
vaccination program (which was sometimes administered via borderline
force), which has saved millions of lives, was a bad thing?

If the same western culture zeitgeist had been in place in the 60's and
70's as today, smallpox would very probably still exist, killing countless
innocent people who wouldn't have to die from that disease.

If you could go back in time, and had the power, would you have stopped
those semi-forced vaccinations from taking place, risking smallpox not
being completely eradicated, with the subsequent deaths up to this day?

I'm not going to fall into namecalling anymore, but I am going to say
with absolute sincerity that I would not do that even if I could. I see
the lives of all those people as more important than our western moral
sensibilities. If you really want to call it "totalitarianism" then you
can go ahead. It won't change my mind.

People here are comparing forced vaccination programs to totalitarianism
and eugenics. However, a better comparison would be mandatory elementary
education.

Most western countries have mandatory elementary education. The opinion
of the "victims" isn't asked. Parents who would refuse to allow their
children to go to school will be met with ever-increasing sanctions, up
to their children being taken into custody by force.

This would be an even better argument for this kind of state to be
classified as "totalitarian", because it is literally a form of government
where said government imposes its power on its own citizens, disregarding
individual opinions. Yet nobody in their right mind would call this
totalitarianism.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:52070dd3@news.povray.org...

This is going in circles.

You say, "Government is evil and a tool for the rich."

I say, "Then we need less government."

You say, "No, we need more government, with more authority, because 
government is evil and a tool for the rich."

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:52071360$1@news.povray.org...
> Hmm. I am not going to defend Warp's spiral into poor defense of an 
> argument, but, I will toss in my two cents. "Mandatory Public Education".

Not the same thing. /My/ state requires I feed and educate my child, at 
least, once he's born. The education requirements are actually quite modest. 
That the alternatives are not better accepted is society's problem, not the 
state's. It's even conceivable that my national government could require I 
vaccinate my child, though that would, if it were done legally (your lot 
have pushed us nearly into mob rule), require a Constitutional amendment.

This is much different than going to another country and locking up /their/ 
children between 5 and 18-years-old.

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> This is much different than going to another country and locking up /their/ 
> children between 5 and 18-years-old. 

I would like you to tell if you think the smallpox vaccination program was
a good thing or a bad thing.

I ask this because I am finding a notional dissonance here. I get the
feeling that people here want to keep the cake and eat it too: They think
the smallpox vaccination program was indeed a good thing (because it has
saved countless lives), yet they still oppose the idea of such a vaccination
program (because it requires forcing those who refuse to take the vaccine
eg. because of superstitious beliefs, which is in fact the situation with
the polio vaccination program.)

One could argue that the smallpox vaccination program was good, but could
have been handled better (ie. respecting more people's choice). The problem
with that is that it would have taken much longer to eradicate smallpox
(which could well still exist today if it had been done like that), and
countless people would have subsequently died because of it.

Therefore, as ugly as it sounds, the "handling things better" (from a
western moral perspective) would have caused innocent people to die.

*That* is a notional dissonance, and one that I personally do not accept.
I put people's lives ahead of moral sensibilities. If I had to choose,
I would choose the former over the latter, especially in this case,
where no negative consequences were involved. (If there were any negative
consequences to the smallpox vaccination program, they were minor and
short-lasting.)

I do not accept the notion that a harmless vaccination program should be
deterred in order to appease our moral sensibilities, at the cost of
countless lives.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:52079769@news.povray.org...
>
> I would like you to tell if you think the smallpox vaccination program was
> a good thing or a bad thing.

I think the small pox vaccination was a beneficial thing, which is exactly 
as relevant as my thinking the holocaust was a horrific thing.

You don't see this, because people like you and Patrick don't fear power 
anywhere near as much as you covet it. *That's* the dissonance. That's why 
you embrace totalitarianism.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 11/08/2013 2:53 PM, Warp wrote:
> I ask this because I am finding a notional dissonance here. I get the
> feeling that people here want to keep the cake and eat it too: They think
> the smallpox vaccination program was indeed a good thing (because it has
> saved countless lives), yet they still oppose the idea of such a vaccination
> program (because it requires forcing those who refuse to take the vaccine
> eg. because of superstitious beliefs, which is in fact the situation with
> the polio vaccination program.)

So what is strange about believing two contradictory things at the same 
time? That is what people do.

When you get those types of problems. Not only do you need to balance 
the "Good" of the solutions. You need to balance the "Evil", too.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2013 14:30, Warp wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> It should /not/ be administered to people who are unwilling to accept
>> that procedure; first of all I doubt that /any/ vaccination is without
>> risk - if only because in the course of production of the vaccine
>> something might go wrong, causing people to be infected with polio
>> rather than vaccinated against it. How many polio victims are you
>> willing to risk in order to protect others?
>
> And once again we come back to the question: Do you think the smallpox
> vaccination program (which was sometimes administered via borderline
> force), which has saved millions of lives, was a bad thing?

> If the same western culture zeitgeist had been in place in the 60's and
> 70's as today, smallpox would very probably still exist, killing countless
> innocent people who wouldn't have to die from that disease.
>

Many people are not going to believe you anymore when you wear a white 
coat and say you do it because it is good for them. You can not do that 
in any developed country (like for measles in the Netherlands) and also 
not in a developing country. In the latter you can be sure that someone 
will point out that it is just another form of imperialism (often to 
gain something himself, but that is not the point) and there will be 
people that will listen and act accordingly.

Or they have other (mixed) reasons:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255970/Seven-Pakistan-aid-workers-murdered-new-polio-revenge-attack-Killings-blamed-Taliban-avenging-Osama-bin-Laden.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/16/pakistan-militants-kill-health-workers

Another disease we want to get rid of is AIDS, yet there are people that 
claim that AIDS was invented by the west to oppress Africa. That does 
not help an treatment and prevention program. If you try to force such a 
program on them they will retaliate. There is always a US embassy in the 
neighbourhood and if not they can pick victims from the tourists, aid 
workers and ex-pats.

Two years ago we had the bird flu disaster. I.e. there was no disaster. 
Still a couple of companies made good money from it. One side effect is 
that the WHO is in trouble now. Both financially and morally. Does not 
help either.

Several other wide spread campaigns suffered from unforeseen side 
effects (see e.g. clipka's mail and the CAST study). Flu vaccinations 
tend to induce fever is some people. On average less people die when you 
vaccinate, but some die that would still be alive if they had not taken 
the vaccination. So if the flu does not come or in a different shape, 
was it worth it? There are also reports of people dying from polio 
vaccinations. Not many, but OTOH nobody is going to gain reporting them 
anyway.

Large scale vaccinations and medications are a sort of Russian roulette, 
that the results were very positive in one case is no guarantee for the 
future. And there is the real danger of political side effects.

In conclusion:
Getting rid of polio was a good thing. Yet, the method used then, could 
not be applied now. Both because we think different about human rights 
now *and* because the people you would want to vaccinate are thinking 
different.
It is really a pity that reality is sometimes more complicated then one 
would like. Just shouting that reality should behave better and that the 
world would be a better place if we all lived in your simplistic world 
is not going to help. Sorry.

[let's see if you get to this point before starting to shout]
Can we now please get back to the points that Shay made when starting 
this threat?



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 08:26:48 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:52071360$1@news.povray.org...
>> Hmm. I am not going to defend Warp's spiral into poor defense of an
>> argument, but, I will toss in my two cents. "Mandatory Public
>> Education".
> 
> Not the same thing. /My/ state requires I feed and educate my child, at
> least, once he's born. The education requirements are actually quite
> modest.
> That the alternatives are not better accepted is society's problem, not
> the state's. It's even conceivable that my national government could
> require I vaccinate my child, though that would, if it were done legally
> (your lot have pushed us nearly into mob rule), require a Constitutional
> amendment.
> 
> This is much different than going to another country and locking up
> /their/ children between 5 and 18-years-old.

Yep, this. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> You don't see this, because people like you and Patrick don't fear power 
> anywhere near as much as you covet it. *That's* the dissonance. That's why 
> you embrace totalitarianism.

I get the feeling that you are now deliberately trying to make me write
nasty things by trolling me.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> In conclusion:
> Getting rid of polio was a good thing. Yet, the method used then, could 
> not be applied now. Both because we think different about human rights 
> now *and* because the people you would want to vaccinate are thinking 
> different.

This is, in fact, pretty much what I said in my original post in response
to the post about Gates foundation polio vaccination campaign in this
thread. In other words, that it's a pitty that it won't work like the
smallpox campaign did because the cultural zeitgeist has changed.

Many people will suffer, get crippled and even die because of stupid
superstition as well as changed notions in political correctness. People
who wouldn't need to suffer. Humanity is stupid.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.08.2013 14:30, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> It should /not/ be administered to people who are unwilling to accept
>> that procedure; first of all I doubt that /any/ vaccination is without
>> risk - if only because in the course of production of the vaccine
>> something might go wrong, causing people to be infected with polio
>> rather than vaccinated against it. How many polio victims are you
>> willing to risk in order to protect others?
>
> And once again we come back to the question: Do you think the smallpox
> vaccination program (which was sometimes administered via borderline
> force), which has saved millions of lives, was a bad thing?

If it used borderline force, then it was a borderline thing.

> If the same western culture zeitgeist had been in place in the 60's and
> 70's as today, smallpox would very probably still exist, killing countless
> innocent people who wouldn't have to die from that disease.

That may or may not be the case. The smallpox vaccination programme 
might have been just (or at least almost) as successful without 
resorting to borderline force.

> If you could go back in time, and had the power, would you have stopped
> those semi-forced vaccinations from taking place, risking smallpox not
> being completely eradicated, with the subsequent deaths up to this day?

Yes, I might have done that. I might have taken that risk; note that a 
risk is something that may or may not happen.

> I'm not going to fall into namecalling anymore, but I am going to say
> with absolute sincerity that I would not do that even if I could. I see
> the lives of all those people as more important than our western moral
> sensibilities. If you really want to call it "totalitarianism" then you
> can go ahead. It won't change my mind.

You are free to hold this stance; I have no serious problem with that, 
especially since you are not the one to make the call. But please leave 
others the freedom to be of different opinion - at least those people wo 
aren't the ones to make the call either.

> People here are comparing forced vaccination programs to totalitarianism
> and eugenics. However, a better comparison would be mandatory elementary
> education.

No. Education doesn't normally put your health at any risk.

> Most western countries have mandatory elementary education. The opinion
> of the "victims" isn't asked. Parents who would refuse to allow their
> children to go to school will be met with ever-increasing sanctions, up
> to their children being taken into custody by force.

Yes, this might be debatable. But note that it is pretty clear that 
/every/ uneducated child /will/ suffer severe consequences, so it can be 
argued that the government needs to step in for the /individual/ child, 
to protect its right to a good education from being restricted by their 
parents. (And yes, I would argue that if the parents cater for the 
child's education by private means, it should /not/ be forced to attend 
a governmental school.)

In the case of vaccination, you can only invoke this very same argument 
when we're talking about vaccination of children - and even then it is 
/not/ clear whether you're averting factual and otherwise inevitable 
severe consequences for /this/ particular child you intend to vaccinate. 
As a matter of fact, the whole forced vaccination scheme is based on the 
idea of forcing something on /this/ person to prevent /others/ from 
severe consequences - which you /might/ actually be able to avert using 
different means.

The best comparison /is/ eugenics: There, as well, the idea is to impose 
some medical procedures on (most likely unwilling) people to improve the 
health of future generations - with the only major difference that it's 
not about genetic material transmitted within a generation (by a virus), 
but genetic material transmitted from one generation to the next.

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2013 21:31, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> In conclusion:
>> Getting rid of polio was a good thing. Yet, the method used then, could
>> not be applied now. Both because we think different about human rights
>> now *and* because the people you would want to vaccinate are thinking
>> different.
>
> This is, in fact, pretty much what I said in my original post in response
> to the post about Gates foundation polio vaccination campaign in this
> thread. In other words, that it's a pitty that it won't work like the
> smallpox campaign did because the cultural zeitgeist has changed.
>
> Many people will suffer, get crippled and even die because of stupid
> superstition as well as changed notions in political correctness. People
> who wouldn't need to suffer. Humanity is stupid.
>

Except that we (taking the liberty to speak also for your other 
'opponents') don't think humanity is stupid. You can't get back to that 
time without also loosing the benefits of our time. There was a small 
time-window in which the smallpox campaign could have worked and luckily 
it was a disease where the approach turned out to work. Humanity got 
double lucky, I don't count on it to work again next time. It might, or 
it might not. Even if it would work for polio, the downside of forcing 
it is too risky to try that approach.

In the long run it will probably be eradicated but mainly because 
education and standards of living improves. Force will probably only 
play in the hands of those who don't want the situation to improve 
because they benefit from the poverty and ignorance of others. Which 
means that force might actually be counterproductive and delay the 
eradication of polio.

Humanity has become wiser and the human interactions have become more 
complex. I am quite happy with that. Even if it means that polio will be 
longer with us. Which is obviously not my goal. On the contrary, by 
trying to increase the availability of appropriate biomedical technology 
in developing countries, we* hope to create an environment where the 
polio campaign has a bigger change of success. I hope you will also play 
your role in this campaign in a way that fits you.

*) the IFMBE together with our friends in the IOMP

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 22:35:21 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Except that we (taking the liberty to speak also for your other
> 'opponents') don't think humanity is stupid.

Yep.  I think most of humanity understands that issues are not as black 
and white/simple as some would make them out to be.  It's naïve to 
oversimplify things without regard for their inherent complexity - and 
when people are involved, life is rarely simple.

That's one of the problems we have with extreme conservatives over here 
in the US, I think.  (And, truth be told, extreme liberals as well)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > If you could go back in time, and had the power, would you have stopped
> > those semi-forced vaccinations from taking place, risking smallpox not
> > being completely eradicated, with the subsequent deaths up to this day?

> Yes, I might have done that. I might have taken that risk; note that a 
> risk is something that may or may not happen.

So, how many lives would you consider an acceptable loss in the name of
respecting people's freedom of choice? How many deaths would be necessary
before you would change your opinion and accept forced vaccinations?
A hundred? A thousand? A million? How many would you sacrifice?

Do you understand why I find this whole conversation so nauseating?

> > People here are comparing forced vaccination programs to totalitarianism
> > and eugenics. However, a better comparison would be mandatory elementary
> > education.

> No. Education doesn't normally put your health at any risk.

I don't even understand how you can completely reverse the notion of
saving the lives of millions of people into the notion of putting lives
at risk. That's completely backwards.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:520801d4@news.povray.org...
>
> So, how many lives would you consider an acceptable loss in the name of
> respecting people's freedom of choice?

And how many lives would you consider an acceptable loss in the name of 
distain for people's freedom of choice?

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.08.2013 23:27, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> If you could go back in time, and had the power, would you have stopped
>>> those semi-forced vaccinations from taking place, risking smallpox not
>>> being completely eradicated, with the subsequent deaths up to this day?
>
>> Yes, I might have done that. I might have taken that risk; note that a
>> risk is something that may or may not happen.
>
> So, how many lives would you consider an acceptable loss in the name of
> respecting people's freedom of choice? How many deaths would be necessary
> before you would change your opinion and accept forced vaccinations?
> A hundred? A thousand? A million? How many would you sacrifice?
>
> Do you understand why I find this whole conversation so nauseating?

The same question could be asked about the inherent risks of a 
vaccination campaign: How much people are you willing to kill with 
faulty vaccines, allergic reactions, or other complications, in order to 
eradicate polio? How many lives are you hoping to save in addition to 
those that a voluntary vaccination campaign would save?

I know that this entire issue is morally problematic, whichever way you 
turn it. But you seem to be perfectly free of moral worries when it 
comes to trading people's lives for other people's lives based on 
numbers alone, and that is something that /I/ find nauseating. That is 
/exactly/ the soil that was prevalent throughout Europe in the first 
half the 20th century, on which the German idea of Rassenhygiene had 
grown so well.


>>> People here are comparing forced vaccination programs to totalitarianism
>>> and eugenics. However, a better comparison would be mandatory elementary
>>> education.
>
>> No. Education doesn't normally put your health at any risk.
>
> I don't even understand how you can completely reverse the notion of
> saving the lives of millions of people into the notion of putting lives
> at risk. That's completely backwards.

No, not really. You claim that both education and vaccination carry a 
potential benefit; I don't debate that. But I assert that in the case of 
vaccination it is partially offset by an inherent health /risk/ as well, 
while education is virtually free of health risks, so the two make for a 
poor analogy.


As another example of just how complex health issues can be, why don't 
we fight AIDS by forcing everybody in the whole wide world to be tested 
for HIV, and have all the HIV-positive people undergo treatment against 
the virus?

It turns out that if you did this, more healthy people would die from 
the complications of a treatment they would receive due to a 
false-positive test result, than you'd have ill people to save by the 
treatment in the first place.

Post a reply to this message

Am 11.08.2013 23:27, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> If you could go back in time, and had the power, would you have stopped
>>> those semi-forced vaccinations from taking place, risking smallpox not
>>> being completely eradicated, with the subsequent deaths up to this day?
>
>> Yes, I might have done that. I might have taken that risk; note that a
>> risk is something that may or may not happen.
>
> So, how many lives would you consider an acceptable loss in the name of
> respecting people's freedom of choice? How many deaths would be necessary
> before you would change your opinion and accept forced vaccinations?
> A hundred? A thousand? A million? How many would you sacrifice?

By the way, the answer to this question is: As long as I have no bloody 
f***ing idea how many lives it would save and how many it would cost, 
I'd bloody f***ing advocate not imposing it on any unwilling person, and 
rather go with what can be achieved by the voluntary variant.

Heck, maybe the voluntary campaign can provide statistics about the 
risks involved that will convince more people to volunarily undergo the 
vaccination, maybe up to the point where the number of vaccinated people 
is high enough anyway for the campaign to be successful - can you rule 
this out in advance? Is that a basis on which you are willing to 
sacrifice freedom of choice without giving so much as a second thought, 
or at least accepting that others prefer to think about it twice or thrice?

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:31:44 +0200, clipka wrote:

> By the way, the answer to this question is: As long as I have no bloody
> f***ing idea how many lives it would save and how many it would cost,
> I'd bloody f***ing advocate not imposing it on any unwilling person, and
> rather go with what can be achieved by the voluntary variant.

That's a pretty good point.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/
ApprovedProducts/UCM142576.pdf

This is about the smallpox vaccine, and there's a 1 in 175 chance of a 
bad reaction to it.  That's given that the vaccine is handled well and 
not contaminated, and there's competent medical care nearby.

Given that in the western world (US, Canada, parts of Europe at least) 
there's a shortage of competent licensed medical practitioners available, 
it seems irresponsible to me to risk 1 in 175 on a vaccine that's known 
to cause such symptoms as:

 chest pain or pressure 

 fast or irregular heartbeat 

 breathing problems

Especially when those symptoms are serious enough that the CDC recommends 
getting immediate emergency care if you have those symptoms.

This particular vaccine should also not be given to people who:

 have leukemia 

 have lymphoma 

 have had a bone marrow or organ transplant 

 have cancer that has spread 

 have HIV, AIDS 

 have cellular or humoral immune deficiency 

 are being treated with radiation 

 are being treated with steroids, prednisone, or cancer drugs 

So of course, in third world countries, we have a good record of 
diagnoses of these conditions, right, Warp?

Forcing everyone to get this smallpox vaccine *will* result in deaths.  
Surely you are not so heartless as to say "vaccinate everyone whether 
they want it or not and whether it will kill them or not due to an 
undiagnosed medical condition".

Surely this is more than a *numbers* issue for you, isn't it?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.08.2013 01:10, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:31:44 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
>> By the way, the answer to this question is: As long as I have no bloody
>> f***ing idea how many lives it would save and how many it would cost,
>> I'd bloody f***ing advocate not imposing it on any unwilling person, and
>> rather go with what can be achieved by the voluntary variant.
>
> That's a pretty good point.
>
> http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/
> ApprovedProducts/UCM142576.pdf
>
> This is about the smallpox vaccine, and there's a 1 in 175 chance of a
> bad reaction to it.  That's given that the vaccine is handled well and
> not contaminated, and there's competent medical care nearby.

Speaking of numbers and facts:

- One type of polio virus (type II) has already been eliminated by 1999, 
suggesting that a voluntary vaccination is a sufficiently successful way.

- We're speaking of about 1000-2000 cases of poliomyelitis worldwide per 
year; presuming that number refers to paralytic poliomyelitis (i.e. 
infections affecting the central nervous system), and given a lethality 
of 2%-20% among those cases, the yearly death toll is in the hundreds 
worldwide. (To put this into some perspective, in Germany alone about 
for thousand people die in traffic accidents each year.)

- The oral vaccine the WHO uses in their campaign is actually a 
deliberate infection with live polio viruses, except that the strains 
used have genetic mutations that prevent them from causing paralysis; 
aside from this, it is a full-fledged polio infection. Back-mutations of 
those viruses occasionally occur, and are estimated to cause 250-500 
cases of paralytic poliomyelitis worldwide per year, i.e. 25% of all 
cases. Note that we haven't mentioned about other side effects of the 
vaccination yet (most of which are actually symptoms of a non-paralytic 
polio infection), such as diarrhea.

- As a matter of fact, by using oral vaccine the WHO is /not/ 
eliminating the polio virus at all; it is just deliberately(*) spreading 
the benign mutated strains (which still cause general symptoms such as 
headaches, vomiting and diarrhea) to push back the more potent wild 
strains. Now recall that the benign viruses can back-mutate, and you 
will notice that the more potent variant of the virus is bound to come 
back. Strains of back-mutated vaccination viruses have already been 
identified in the wild by now.

- (*)Yes, this is actually /desired/ part of the vaccination scheme, and 
one of the reasons why oral vaccination instead of injections are used: 
Vaccinating one person is expected to cause relatives and neighbors to 
get infected with the vaccine virus as well, effectively vaccinating 
those, too. You may note that this approach is pretty robust against 
individuals refusing to be vaccinated. As a matter of fact I'd consider 
it borderline in itself.

- One major factor why polio hasn't been eliminated already (probably 
more so than individuals refusing to be vaccinated) is poor hygienic 
conditions in underdeveloped regions leading to frequent cases of 
diarrhea in children, and the fact that the oral vaccine is ineffective 
in such cases, so the campaign will take time and patience anyway.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/11/2013 5:49 AM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:52070dd3@news.povray.org...
>
> This is going in circles.
>
> You say, "Government is evil and a tool for the rich."
>
> I say, "Then we need less government."
>
> You say, "No, we need more government, with more authority, because
> government is evil and a tool for the rich."
No, no, no, no. I am not saying we need "more". I am saying that simply 
"less" doesn't bloody do anything except, usually, kill things you 
actually do need, in some deluded attempt to fix the problem. Its bloody 
insane, for example, to have 3-4 different departments, all working at 
cross purposes with each other, to solve the same problem, because, 
someplace back in time, there "might" have been difficulties in one 
agency handling all of them, so they just tacked on more agencies, until 
none of them could do their damn jobs, even if assholes where not 
appointing people to run them, with the intent to make sure they can't.

But, the alternative always seems, stupidly enough, to cut agencies to 
the bone, so that, even if they could have, handled the work of the 
other 3, they now can't because they have a) had their staff cut by 
stupid amounts, b) their hands tied with a lot of convenient 
legislation, which stops them from using what they do have efficiently 
(like certain rules in place for gun enforcement, where is you are lucky 
enough that a state has the data on file, you are gold, but the federal 
agencies are not **allowed** their own DB, and there is now specific law 
*requiring* that all sellers file paperwork in a sale. It doesn't matter 
how big/small, corrupt of otherwise, something is, if the only way it 
can work is by **becoming corrupt** and bending/breaking the law, to do 
the job in the first place, or.. at least for how ever long it takes for 
someone to give them a legal loophole, to do it anyway.), and c) whole 
swaths of the agency have to close down, limiting their enforcement.

Oh, and that is without mentioning, of course, BS like the law 
protecting "food supplements and natural products", which can rob 
agencies, already over worked, and understaffed, of the right to even 
enforce anything in the first place.

EFFECTIVE government, not just bloody smaller. What do people not get 
about that idea?

Post a reply to this message

On 8/11/2013 11:17 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 08:26:48 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
>> news:52071360$1@news.povray.org...
>>> Hmm. I am not going to defend Warp's spiral into poor defense of an
>>> argument, but, I will toss in my two cents. "Mandatory Public
>>> Education".
>>
>> Not the same thing. /My/ state requires I feed and educate my child, at
>> least, once he's born. The education requirements are actually quite
>> modest.
>> That the alternatives are not better accepted is society's problem, not
>> the state's. It's even conceivable that my national government could
>> require I vaccinate my child, though that would, if it were done legally
>> (your lot have pushed us nearly into mob rule), require a Constitutional
>> amendment.
>>
>> This is much different than going to another country and locking up
>> /their/ children between 5 and 18-years-old.
>
> Yep, this. :)
>
> Jim
>
... Right.. Because it was so clear this is what was being talked about. 
Seriously though.. At the bare minimum, I would say, if you plan to not 
put pressure on other nations to do something sane, then you need to 
make sure you a) never have anyone sneaking in, b) your own people *are* 
vaccinated, and c) that to even enter the country "requires" they meet 
the same basic medical requirements to even get in.

I mean, you do know there has been a rise in some things "thought to be" 
nearly eradicated precisely because of both the increase of people from 
certain areas, entering, combined with the insane anti-vax movement, right?

BTW, the super star of that BS, is now promoting e-cigs, presumably on 
the theory that the same "dangerous substance" that causes "autism", in 
her universe, is harmless if its used to smoke tobacco, but not if 
injected in trace amounts.. Because, of course, an disproven connection 
to autism is **much** worse than the nicotine which does have "proven" 
effects on lung development, birth weight, etc., in babies... Sigh...

Post a reply to this message

On 8/11/2013 7:32 AM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:52079769@news.povray.org...
>>
>> I would like you to tell if you think the smallpox vaccination program
>> was
>> a good thing or a bad thing.
>
> I think the small pox vaccination was a beneficial thing, which is
> exactly as relevant as my thinking the holocaust was a horrific thing.
>
> You don't see this, because people like you and Patrick don't fear power
> anywhere near as much as you covet it. *That's* the dissonance. That's
> why you embrace totalitarianism.
>
> -Shay
>
>
You need to stop making assumptions, and putting words in other people's 
mouths.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/11/2013 11:04 AM, andrel wrote:

> Two years ago we had the bird flu disaster. I.e. there was no disaster.
> Still a couple of companies made good money from it. One side effect is
> that the WHO is in trouble now. Both financially and morally. Does not
> help either.

Which is, as unfortunate as it is idiotic. WHO determines its actions 
based on the statistical odds that something bad is likely to happen. 
The math told them, "There is a bloody high probability that this mix of 
genes could prove to be a serious problem, if it became wide spread." 
Turned out not to be accurate. But, the average person always seems to 
assume that the "experts" are omniscient.

Its actually kind of ironic. In this case, everyone got pissed because 
they said, "We think there is a big change of a huge problem here." In 
the case of, for example, Katrina, you had some "expert" claiming that 
the sea level rise was "within" acceptable statistical ranges, with 
respect to spilling over the levees, and they actually **lied**, 
claiming that the maximum level was a few feet under the max levee 
height, without including the "statistical" factor, that it might be 
something like 10 feet higher or lower than that. If the ass had turned 
out right, he would have been praised for it. Instead, he guessed wrong, 
and it was a disaster, and everyone blamed pretty much ***everyone 
else***, including the ones that knew he had lied.

When it comes to things can can kill people, being right as as bad as 
being dead wrong, depending "entirely" on whether you got it wrong and 
people died, or you got it wrong, and everyone starts whining that you 
cried wolf, and they will, more often than not, try to take everyone 
around you down with you, for the "mistake".

Post a reply to this message

On 8/11/2013 1:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 22:35:21 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> Except that we (taking the liberty to speak also for your other
>> 'opponents') don't think humanity is stupid.
>
> Yep.  I think most of humanity understands that issues are not as black
> and white/simple as some would make them out to be.  It's naïve to
> oversimplify things without regard for their inherent complexity - and
> when people are involved, life is rarely simple.
>
> That's one of the problems we have with extreme conservatives over here
> in the US, I think.  (And, truth be told, extreme liberals as well)
>
> Jim
>
To be honest, if you define "conservative" as, "Having a strict dogma, 
which must be followed.", then.. there is no "extreme liberals". The 
problem is inflexibility, from both extremes, with respect to accepting 
any fact, idea, or proposition, which doesn't fit their perception of 
how the universe works. That, and, much more to the point, both fear of 
the imagined consequences, and denial of the possibility they could be 
wrong about it.

We have, in effect, the problem that nothing ever broke the back of the 
evangelical/Pentecostal type movements in the US, the middle ground has 
become something that no one, outside maybe the middle east, or parts of 
Africa (where they might open the meeting with an argument about altie 
meds, and close it with a vote on what to do about the local population 
of "witches" they think are stealing their socks at the laundry), might 
call "centrist", and the left fringe has reacted to the rise of the 
right fringe by radicalizing at well. By comparison, most of the 
bullshit we see in the US would never happen in most of Europe, and if 
it did, the people involved would be laughed out of the room.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:30:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> ... Right.. Because it was so clear this is what was being talked about.
> Seriously though.. At the bare minimum, I would say, if you plan to not
> put pressure on other nations to do something sane, then you need to
> make sure you a) never have anyone sneaking in, b) your own people *are*
> vaccinated, and c) that to even enter the country "requires" they meet
> the same basic medical requirements to even get in.

The problem here is that you're aiming for a 100% solution.  But nothing 
is ever 100% certain - that's life.

As evidenced by the current state of "homeland security" in US airports.

When you get to 100% security, you have no freedom.  So you have to 
balance the two, and the debate is about finding the right balance.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:51:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> To be honest, if you define "conservative" as, "Having a strict dogma,
> which must be followed.", then.. there is no "extreme liberals". 

Which isn't how I was defining "conservative".  I was using the US 
political definitions, and we do have extremists at both ends of the 
spectrum.

My perception, though, is that there are more extremists/extreme 
positions on the right, but I'm fully aware of my biases there as a 
social liberal myself (I do tend to consider myself fiscally 
conservative, though, so I'm not easily pigeonholed).

> The
> problem is inflexibility, from both extremes, with respect to accepting
> any fact, idea, or proposition, which doesn't fit their perception of
> how the universe works. That, and, much more to the point, both fear of
> the imagined consequences, and denial of the possibility they could be
> wrong about it.

Yep, that's a huge problem.  It pretty much defines the political 
landscape here in the US right now - nobody can compromise because 
they're too invested in positions and backed by people who are unwilling 
to compromise - even if the politician is.

We need term limits, and restrictions on leaving government and working 
for governmental lobbies.  Such a high percentage of people in elected 
office go on to become lobbyists that while they're legislating, they're 
thinking about their own future jobs and appeasing their future bosses.

That's just wrong, because it doesn't put the country first.  They 
convince themselves that they DO put the country first, but when they're 
thinking about their next job first, then clearly the country is at least 
second.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:52095fb0@news.povray.org...
>
> EFFECTIVE government, not just bloody smaller. What do people not get 
> about that idea?

More efficient while at the same time more authoritarian, and somehow exempt 
from corruption.
Have I got it now?

Why can't the rest of us have such logical goals?

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:5209622f$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> You don't see this, because people like you and Patrick don't fear power
>> anywhere near as much as you covet it. *That's* the dissonance. That's
>> why you embrace totalitarianism.
>>
>> -Shay
>>
>>
> You need to stop making assumptions, and putting words in other people's 
> mouths.

What words? You're damned good and ready to fix everything IF we'd all just 
get out of the way and let you control prices, wages, borders, and bodies. 
That's not coveting power?

I guess those of us who want anything different are just too selfish and 
short-sighted to "get it."

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2013 5:17 PM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:52095fb0@news.povray.org...
>>
>> EFFECTIVE government, not just bloody smaller. What do people not get
>> about that idea?
>
> More efficient while at the same time more authoritarian, and somehow
> exempt from corruption.
> Have I got it now?
>
> Why can't the rest of us have such logical goals?
Aaaargghh! You honestly think you get "less" corruption, and less 
authoritarianism, when your 3-4 extra departments have to "negotiate" 
with each other to get things done, and you can sneak things in, without 
the public knowing, so that agency A has its power extended, while the 
public is being distracted with something that B, C, D and E are doing?

Its hardly a bloody wonder libertarians don't have any answers, they 
can't even grasp how things are screwed up as they are now, never mind 
how to actually fix them, without f-ing over literally everyone that 
does need a service, in the process "of" fixing them.

I think I have had about enough at this point. You seem to have endless 
complaints, fears, and endless distrust, but your solution amounts to 
nothing more than, "Get rid of it all, and everything somehow magically 
fixes itself." It wasn't even "good" science fiction, but its supposed 
to apply to the real world? lol

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2013 5:22 PM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:5209622f$1@news.povray.org...
>>>
>>> You don't see this, because people like you and Patrick don't fear power
>>> anywhere near as much as you covet it. *That's* the dissonance. That's
>>> why you embrace totalitarianism.
>>>
>>> -Shay
>>>
>>>
>> You need to stop making assumptions, and putting words in other
>> people's mouths.
>
> What words? You're damned good and ready to fix everything IF we'd all
> just get out of the way and let you control prices, wages, borders, and
> bodies. That's not coveting power?
>
Those are exactly the words, and since I never actually said any of 
them, @%$%$#^&^^ stop already.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2013 4:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:30:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> ... Right.. Because it was so clear this is what was being talked about.
>> Seriously though.. At the bare minimum, I would say, if you plan to not
>> put pressure on other nations to do something sane, then you need to
>> make sure you a) never have anyone sneaking in, b) your own people *are*
>> vaccinated, and c) that to even enter the country "requires" they meet
>> the same basic medical requirements to even get in.
>
> The problem here is that you're aiming for a 100% solution.  But nothing
> is ever 100% certain - that's life.
>
> As evidenced by the current state of "homeland security" in US airports.
>
Wow.. And now we have someone else telling me what I think.

And, BTW, the problem with "homeland security" period, never mind in 
airports, is that its all fucking puppet theater. We know that what 
works is watching for problem people, dealing with them in a civilized 
fashion, and only harassing the ones that actually show signs of being a 
likely problem, just like other countries, who haven't had a whole hell 
of a lot of terror attacks at their airports, do. Instead, we rely on 
machines, which are not always effective, and people keep looking for 
ways to get around, we harass "everyone" that goes through the place, 
use dogs that, in some studies, have been shown to be more likely to hit 
on things that their human partner reacts to, than actually detecting 
the things they are supposed to be looking for, and watch lists, which 
are so bloody useless they catch more people that are legitimate 
travelers than they have actual terror suspects.

If you think that I am looking for some sort of 100% solution, then what 
the frak does it say that you think we need to merely, somehow, 
"improve", with more theater, and false security, something that isn't 
even a 10% solution?

> When you get to 100% security, you have no freedom.  So you have to
> balance the two, and the debate is about finding the right balance.
>
> Jim
>

I must be talking a foreign language, because you and Shay keep reading 
things into what I am saying that have jack all to do with what I 
actually meant. Or, you are just so, stupidly, scared to death of 
anything involved in government that you can't help but imagine that 
anyone trying to fix it, instead of destroy it, wants a damned 
dictatorship, with perfect solutions. Either way... at this point you 
have both lost all respect from me on this issue, in no small part 
because you keep claiming I said things I never bloody did, because that 
is purely what **you** want to believe I meant.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/12/2013 4:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> We need term limits, and restrictions on leaving government and working
> for governmental lobbies.  Such a high percentage of people in elected
> office go on to become lobbyists that while they're legislating, they're
> thinking about their own future jobs and appeasing their future bosses.
>
You are forgetting: Kill 'Citizens United'. It doesn't matter if you fix 
the rest, if some corpseration can funnel shit loads of money at bribing 
them into office.

I mean, what is it with radicals anyway, that they always have to call 
something the total opposite of what it is. If they had a, "Save The 
Fuzzy Bunnies", bill, it would actually contain legislation that 
provided open, year round, licenses to kill people's pet rabbits. I 
suppose, we can add "citizens" to the list, along with "family", and 
"values" as a near certainty that they people behind it are full of 
shit, and believe in none of the things listed.

Hmm. Probably get a kick out of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx9eH3qOJXw

Post a reply to this message

On 13-8-2013 0:42, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 8/11/2013 11:04 AM, andrel wrote:
>
>> Two years ago we had the bird flu disaster. I.e. there was no disaster.
>> Still a couple of companies made good money from it. One side effect is
>> that the WHO is in trouble now. Both financially and morally. Does not
>> help either.
>
> Which is, as unfortunate as it is idiotic. WHO determines its actions
> based on the statistical odds that something bad is likely to happen.
> The math told them, "There is a bloody high probability that this mix of
> genes could prove to be a serious problem, if it became wide spread."
> Turned out not to be accurate. But, the average person always seems to
> assume that the "experts" are omniscient.

In this case there was the additional problem that people that were 
claiming there would potential be a big disaster had ties to the 
industry that profited from the 'precautions'. That was the moral 
problem here. If there had been a great outbreak, of course nobody would 
have complained, that is true.



> Its actually kind of ironic. In this case, everyone got pissed because
> they said, "We think there is a big change of a huge problem here." In
> the case of, for example, Katrina, you had some "expert" claiming that
> the sea level rise was "within" acceptable statistical ranges, with
> respect to spilling over the levees, and they actually **lied**,
> claiming that the maximum level was a few feet under the max levee
> height, without including the "statistical" factor, that it might be
> something like 10 feet higher or lower than that. If the ass had turned
> out right, he would have been praised for it. Instead, he guessed wrong,
> and it was a disaster, and everyone blamed pretty much ***everyone
> else***, including the ones that knew he had lied.
>
> When it comes to things can can kill people, being right as as bad as
> being dead wrong, depending "entirely" on whether you got it wrong and
> people died, or you got it wrong, and everyone starts whining that you
> cried wolf, and they will, more often than not, try to take everyone
> around you down with you, for the "mistake".
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:520aa599$1@news.povray.org...

> Aaaargghh! You honestly think you get "less" corruption, and less 
> authoritarianism, when your 3-4 extra departments have to "negotiate" with 
> each other to get things done, and you can sneak things in, without the 
> public knowing, so that agency A has its power extended, while the public 
> is being distracted with something that B, C, D and E are doing?

Again, you're arguing against Libertarianism by criticizing government!!!

>
> Its hardly a bloody wonder libertarians don't have any answers, they can't 
> even grasp how things are screwed up as they are now, never mind how to 
> actually fix them, without f-ing over literally everyone that does need a 
> service, in the process "of" fixing them.

Libertarians don't want to fix ANYONE. That's the entire *point* of 
Libertarianism. I think you need to do some reading.

>
> I think I have had about enough at this point. You seem to have endless 
> complaints, fears, and endless distrust, but your solution amounts to 
> nothing more than, "Get rid of it all, and everything somehow magically 
> fixes itself." It wasn't even "good" science fiction, but its supposed to 
> apply to the real world? lol

We're better off with less authority in the hands of more people. There's 
nothing magical about it. This is the principal America was founded on 
before we all started trying to "fix" each other. And I don't fear 
government, I fear an unrestrained majority of people who "know better than 
I do."

ps. The regulation you're so fond of? What you don't know--and may never 
fully realize unless you run a business--is that regulation is like a poll 
tax: it's a speed bump to the rich, a road block to the middle class, and a 
BRICK WALL to the poor. Regulation is necessary to protect our shared 
resources, but regulation has to be minimal because it INCREASES INCOME 
INEQUALITY. Think some of these things through before you start deciding 
what's best for your neighbors.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:40:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 8/12/2013 4:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:30:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> ... Right.. Because it was so clear this is what was being talked
>>> about.
>>> Seriously though.. At the bare minimum, I would say, if you plan to
>>> not put pressure on other nations to do something sane, then you need
>>> to make sure you a) never have anyone sneaking in, b) your own people
>>> *are*
>>> vaccinated, and c) that to even enter the country "requires" they meet
>>> the same basic medical requirements to even get in.
>>
>> The problem here is that you're aiming for a 100% solution.  But
>> nothing is ever 100% certain - that's life.
>>
>> As evidenced by the current state of "homeland security" in US
>> airports.
>>
> Wow.. And now we have someone else telling me what I think.

If the stated goal is the total eradication of a particular disease, then 
yes, it's a 100% solution that you're looking for.

If I've misunderstood, please, clarify rather than claim that I'm telling 
you what you think.

> And, BTW, the problem with "homeland security" period, never mind in
> airports, is that its all fucking puppet theater. 

Yep, absolutely agree.

> If you think that I am looking for some sort of 100% solution, then what
> the frak does it say that you think we need to merely, somehow,
> "improve", with more theater, and false security, something that isn't
> even a 10% solution?

Um, no, I didn't say anything of the sort.  Please go back and re-read 
what I wrote and then tell me where I even came close to claiming that.

> I must be talking a foreign language, because you and Shay keep reading
> things into what I am saying that have jack all to do with what I
> actually meant. Or, you are just so, stupidly, scared to death of
> anything involved in government that you can't help but imagine that
> anyone trying to fix it, instead of destroy it, wants a damned
> dictatorship, with perfect solutions. Either way... at this point you
> have both lost all respect from me on this issue, in no small part
> because you keep claiming I said things I never bloody did, because that
> is purely what **you** want to believe I meant.

Patrick, you need to calm down.  Seriously, dude, take a chill pill or 
something.

You get so worked up about stuff that you're reading something that's not 
there.  I generally *agree* with you on a lot of stuff, but really - I'm 
not claiming that you've said things.  I've interpreted what you've said 
and have attempted to engage in what is known as "active listening".  So 
if I've misunderstood something, please clarify.

But I would ask that you do it without frakking swearing at me.  OK? :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:47:05 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 8/12/2013 4:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> We need term limits, and restrictions on leaving government and working
>> for governmental lobbies.  Such a high percentage of people in elected
>> office go on to become lobbyists that while they're legislating,
>> they're thinking about their own future jobs and appeasing their future
>> bosses.
>>
> You are forgetting: Kill 'Citizens United'. It doesn't matter if you fix
> the rest, if some corpseration can funnel shit loads of money at bribing
> them into office.

Absolutely agree that CU needs to go away.  I really think the supreme 
court got it wrong - that money = speech and corporations = people is 
just ridiculous.  People on both sides of the political aisle agree.

> I mean, what is it with radicals anyway, that they always have to call
> something the total opposite of what it is. If they had a, "Save The
> Fuzzy Bunnies", bill, it would actually contain legislation that
> provided open, year round, licenses to kill people's pet rabbits. I
> suppose, we can add "citizens" to the list, along with "family", and
> "values" as a near certainty that they people behind it are full of
> shit, and believe in none of the things listed.

I don't know - I see this all the time and wonder myself what it is about 
cutesy naming on legislation, as if "PATRIOT Act" were some sort of 
marketing name so people could say of those who don't support it that 
they're "not patriotic".  Stupid BS way of drafting legislation - but 
then again, legal documents always are overblown, wordy, and often 
written to obfuscate what's actually in them.

> Hmm. Probably get a kick out of this:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx9eH3qOJXw

Yep, that was what I would describe as a "very funny bit" that John 
Oliver did. :)

Post a reply to this message

> Which is, as unfortunate as it is idiotic. WHO determines its actions
> based on the statistical odds that something bad is likely to happen.
> The math told them, "There is a bloody high probability that this mix of
> genes could prove to be a serious problem, if it became wide spread."
> Turned out not to be accurate. But, the average person always seems to
> assume that the "experts" are omniscient.

I know people who think the experts are wrong every time they predict 
20% chance of rain and it doesn't rain. It also doesn't help when 
journalists publicise their incorrect analysis of statistics as if they 
were fact.

> the case of, for example, Katrina, you had some "expert" claiming that
> the sea level rise was "within" acceptable statistical ranges, with
> respect to spilling over the levees, and they actually **lied**,
> claiming that the maximum level was a few feet under the max levee
> height, without including the "statistical" factor, that it might be
> something like 10 feet higher or lower than that.

IIRC sea/wave heights are characterised by how often you would expect 
(in a statistical sense) to see a particular height. eg above 10 metres 
would be once in 10 years, above 15 metres once in 100 years etc. 
Obviously if you design your structure to cope with 15 metres that 
doesn't mean you won't see a 16 metre wave tomorrow and it will be 
destroyed, but many people seem to think this way, and the journalist 
would write that the engineer was incompetent as the structure should 
have lasted at least 100 years.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-8-2013 11:17, scott wrote:
>> Which is, as unfortunate as it is idiotic. WHO determines its actions
>> based on the statistical odds that something bad is likely to happen.
>> The math told them, "There is a bloody high probability that this mix of
>> genes could prove to be a serious problem, if it became wide spread."
>> Turned out not to be accurate. But, the average person always seems to
>> assume that the "experts" are omniscient.
>
> I know people who think the experts are wrong every time they predict
> 20% chance of rain and it doesn't rain. It also doesn't help when
> journalists publicise their incorrect analysis of statistics as if they
> were fact.
>
>> the case of, for example, Katrina, you had some "expert" claiming that
>> the sea level rise was "within" acceptable statistical ranges, with
>> respect to spilling over the levees, and they actually **lied**,
>> claiming that the maximum level was a few feet under the max levee
>> height, without including the "statistical" factor, that it might be
>> something like 10 feet higher or lower than that.
>
> IIRC sea/wave heights are characterised by how often you would expect
> (in a statistical sense) to see a particular height. eg above 10 metres
> would be once in 10 years, above 15 metres once in 100 years etc.
> Obviously if you design your structure to cope with 15 metres that
> doesn't mean you won't see a 16 metre wave tomorrow and it will be
> destroyed, but many people seem to think this way, and the journalist
> would write that the engineer was incompetent as the structure should
> have lasted at least 100 years.

Yes, and that is why geologists were tried and condemned to jail 
sentences recently in Italy for not predicting the L'Aquila earthquake 
correctly.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 8/13/2013 3:25 PM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:520aa599$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Aaaargghh! You honestly think you get "less" corruption, and less
>> authoritarianism, when your 3-4 extra departments have to "negotiate"
>> with each other to get things done, and you can sneak things in,
>> without the public knowing, so that agency A has its power extended,
>> while the public is being distracted with something that B, C, D and E
>> are doing?
>
> Again, you're arguing against Libertarianism by criticizing government!!!
>
>>
>> Its hardly a bloody wonder libertarians don't have any answers, they
>> can't even grasp how things are screwed up as they are now, never mind
>> how to actually fix them, without f-ing over literally everyone that
>> does need a service, in the process "of" fixing them.
>
> Libertarians don't want to fix ANYONE. That's the entire *point* of
> Libertarianism. I think you need to do some reading.
>
>>
>> I think I have had about enough at this point. You seem to have
>> endless complaints, fears, and endless distrust, but your solution
>> amounts to nothing more than, "Get rid of it all, and everything
>> somehow magically fixes itself." It wasn't even "good" science
>> fiction, but its supposed to apply to the real world? lol
>
> We're better off with less authority in the hands of more people.
> There's nothing magical about it. This is the principal America was
> founded on before we all started trying to "fix" each other. And I don't
> fear government, I fear an unrestrained majority of people who "know
> better than I do."
>
> ps. The regulation you're so fond of? What you don't know--and may never
> fully realize unless you run a business--is that regulation is like a
> poll tax: it's a speed bump to the rich, a road block to the middle
> class, and a BRICK WALL to the poor. Regulation is necessary to protect
> our shared resources, but regulation has to be minimal because it
> INCREASES INCOME INEQUALITY. Think some of these things through before
> you start deciding what's best for your neighbors.

Sigh.. You need to read more, and better. You keep coming up with 
assumptions about what I am saying, and why, that bare no resemblance at 
all, to anything other than what you *want* me to have said.

Still.. How the hell is "regulation" what causes income equality? Pretty 
damn sure that sound a lot like the total bullshit you get where someone 
making more money that bloody god says, "Oh, waaaah! I am making more 
than anyone else ever has, and cheating my way out of more taxes in the 
process, than the robber barons of the industrial revolution ever did, 
but all those regulations are **forcing** me to take a $10 million 
dollar bonus, while firing 10,000 people, cutting the hours of the rest, 
and lowering their pay caps!" Its weapons grade bullshit, and, at this 
point, I really don't care what imaginary justifications you have for 
thinking otherwise, since, like above, with the whole, "how is current 
government a problem with libertarianism", BS, you won't bother to 
understand my point, or maybe just can't.

Hint: My attack on libertarianism wasn't about having 3-4 agencies are 
stumbling all over each other, it was the bloody stupid ass "fix" people 
like you would support, which is to gut them all, so they can't even do 
as piss poor a job as they already do, then point fingers at someone 
else, and whine, "It wasn't me!", when that screws things up even worse.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/13/2013 4:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I don't know - I see this all the time and wonder myself what it is about
> cutesy naming on legislation, as if "PATRIOT Act" were some sort of
> marketing name so people could say of those who don't support it that
> they're "not patriotic".  Stupid BS way of drafting legislation - but
> then again, legal documents always are overblown, wordy, and often
> written to obfuscate what's actually in them.
>
Not to mention business contracts, legal documents in general, and the 
part of most employee handbooks that explain just how totally screwed 
you are, now that you where dumb enough to get hired by someone.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/14/2013 2:17 AM, scott wrote:
>> Which is, as unfortunate as it is idiotic. WHO determines its actions
>> based on the statistical odds that something bad is likely to happen.
>> The math told them, "There is a bloody high probability that this mix of
>> genes could prove to be a serious problem, if it became wide spread."
>> Turned out not to be accurate. But, the average person always seems to
>> assume that the "experts" are omniscient.
>
> I know people who think the experts are wrong every time they predict
> 20% chance of rain and it doesn't rain. It also doesn't help when
> journalists publicise their incorrect analysis of statistics as if they
> were fact.
>
Much of this is intentional, like.. if its a 50% chance, always report 
it as 60%, instead, so that, when it isn't true, the public has an 
"unexpected" good day.

>> the case of, for example, Katrina, you had some "expert" claiming that
>> the sea level rise was "within" acceptable statistical ranges, with
>> respect to spilling over the levees, and they actually **lied**,
>> claiming that the maximum level was a few feet under the max levee
>> height, without including the "statistical" factor, that it might be
>> something like 10 feet higher or lower than that.
>
> IIRC sea/wave heights are characterised by how often you would expect
> (in a statistical sense) to see a particular height. eg above 10 metres
> would be once in 10 years, above 15 metres once in 100 years etc.
> Obviously if you design your structure to cope with 15 metres that
> doesn't mean you won't see a 16 metre wave tomorrow and it will be
> destroyed, but many people seem to think this way, and the journalist
> would write that the engineer was incompetent as the structure should
> have lasted at least 100 years.

Except, that isn't what actually happened. I don't remember the actual 
numbers, but, roughly, it was like this:

Levee height - 45 feet.
Expected "average" water height - 36 feet.
**Known** variation, during storms - +-15 feet

Again, not the exact numbers. However, it was **not** the press that 
reported it as 46 feet "maximum", it was the climatologist **on sight**, 
who told the mayor that it would *only* reach 46 feet, when, in reality, 
the actually level could have been, based on the known storm surge data, 
which he flat out ignored, between 32 feet, and 51 feet, a *huge* range 
of error, which only becomes a problem if the storm "surges" to the 
higher end of the probable numbers.

This is a bit like playing Russian roulette, your "odds" might be 5 in 6 
of not getting the bullet, but.. if you do, then it doesn't bloody 
matter, at all, what the odds where, at that point of "not" getting it. 
Yeah, there might have been, say, a 10% chance if the storm surging 
enough to make it over 45 feet, and a, say, 90% change that it would be 
"much" lower, but, it doesn't mean jack all if you are wrong, and jumps 
over into the 10% range of things that, "Probably won't happen."

The actual, supposed, scientist, himself, simply ignored the odds of 
being wrong, and reported, "I see no reason to believe, at all, that it 
will rise higher than the 'average'."

A book I read a while back stated that this was a bit like a common joke 
among statisticians: A statistician drowned in a river. The river had an 
'average' yearly depth of only 0.5 inches." The point of the joke being 
that the river might be dead dry 3 weeks out of the year, and 50 feet 
deep, in a flash flood, during the middle of the rainy season, but the 
"average" is only 0.5 inches. The moron that told the mayor his "expert" 
opinion used the "average", and totally failed to mention what the 
"maximum" might end up being. By the time *someone else* got around to 
pointing out this was dangerously wrong, there where hours, instead of 
days, to try to evacuate anyone.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:55:21 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 8/13/2013 4:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't know - I see this all the time and wonder myself what it is
>> about cutesy naming on legislation, as if "PATRIOT Act" were some sort
>> of marketing name so people could say of those who don't support it
>> that they're "not patriotic".  Stupid BS way of drafting legislation -
>> but then again, legal documents always are overblown, wordy, and often
>> written to obfuscate what's actually in them.
>>
> Not to mention business contracts, legal documents in general, and the
> part of most employee handbooks that explain just how totally screwed
> you are, now that you where dumb enough to get hired by someone.

Well, yeah - I'm having to review a couple of NDAs I'm under right now, 
just to be able to talk intelligently about them during a couple 
interviews I have coming up later in the week.

I've been told by people in the legal profession that I have a pretty 
good instinct for that stuff - if I had more ambition, I'd probably go to 
law school myself, but I don't want to work *that* hard. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Levee height - 45 feet.
> Expected "average" water height - 36 feet.
> **Known** variation, during storms - +-15 feet

That's just what I was talking about. There is no such thing as a 
"known" variation. That 15 feet you mention (I know it's just an 
example) will represent some kind of statistical distribution. Does the 
water get to 36+15 feet *every* storm, 1 in 5 storms, 1 in 20 storms or 
what? The designers *will* have figured this out, in most developed 
countries it's illegal not to.

> This is a bit like playing Russian roulette, your "odds" might be 5 in 6
> of not getting the bullet, but.. if you do, then it doesn't bloody
> matter, at all, what the odds where, at that point of "not" getting it.

It does matter if you are expecting 500 storms over the next 50 years, 
it matters a lot whether you get flooded 250 times, 25 times, or twice.

> Yeah, there might have been, say, a 10% chance if the storm surging
> enough to make it over 45 feet, and a, say, 90% change that it would be
> "much" lower, but, it doesn't mean jack all if you are wrong, and jumps
> over into the 10% range of things that, "Probably won't happen."

If the engineer states that 90% of storms will not breach the levee, 
then he is not "wrong" when one does. If a statistically significant 
number of storms do breach the levee (ie not just 1 or 2 storms), and 
it's more than 10% *then* he is wrong.

> The actual, supposed, scientist, himself, simply ignored the odds of
> being wrong, and reported, "I see no reason to believe, at all, that it
> will rise higher than the 'average'."

And nobody questioned this ridiculous statement? Did this person 
actually have any qualifications?

> A book I read a while back stated that this was a bit like a common joke
> among statisticians: A statistician drowned in a river. The river had an
> 'average' yearly depth of only 0.5 inches." The point of the joke being
> that the river might be dead dry 3 weeks out of the year, and 50 feet
> deep, in a flash flood, during the middle of the rainy season, but the
> "average" is only 0.5 inches.

A statistician would obviously know to also look at the distribution and 
not just the average :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 8/15/2013 12:42 AM, scott wrote:
>> The actual, supposed, scientist, himself, simply ignored the odds of
>> being wrong, and reported, "I see no reason to believe, at all, that it
>> will rise higher than the 'average'."
>
> And nobody questioned this ridiculous statement? Did this person
> actually have any qualifications?
>
Sadly, the whole reason he "was" listened to was the fact that, 
apparently, he was the "expert on the scene", and had been working there 
locally, as the "expert" on this subject for years. Its not like this 
sort of thing doesn't happen, and way too often in many cases. Even 
experts will only, sometimes, see what they want to see, or they think 
their boss wants to see, and will convince themselves that, if the boss 
wouldn't like the truth, the truth can't be anything other than what the 
boss would want it to be.

Oh, on a sideline, and more to the point of the whole argument we have 
been having here.. Been reading a new book "Do you Believe in Magic?" by 
Paul A. Offit. In the current chapter he has a timeline of regulation on 
"patent" medicine. It goes like this:

1906 - Its strongly suggested, on lots of good evidence, that there 
needs to be regulation of patent medicines. Products containing 
everything from opium, to hashish, to even morphine, and who knows what 
all else, are being marketed to literally "everyone" including children, 
and its killing people, who have no idea how dangerous any of it is. 
Some of these products contained, in the cases of those with alcohol in 
them, proofs (i.e., percent content of alcohol) which where **higher** 
than many hard liquors, like Whiskey.

Around the same time, a hard core socialist, who wanted "less" 
government, instead of more, ends up writing "The Jungle". It horrifies 
the public so much they demand something be done to make their food 
safer. One of the notable things - rats everyplace, including in the 
food being sold, along with, obviously, their droppings, urine, and who 
knows what else. (This point I make because it comes up later, all over 
again.)

The Pure Food and Drug act, as watered down version of what one of the 
proponents of changing things wanted, required that, *gasp* if it 
contained a drug, you have to label that it did, and how much. There was 
no requirement that they prove it did what they claimed, or where safe 
to use.

1927 - A new agency was formed, Food, Drug and Insecticide 
Administration (it was previously the USDA Bureau of Chemistry who 
handled it), three years later, it was renamed the FDA.

Early 1930s - Squibb, Merck, Winthrop, Eli Lilly, Parke-Davis, and S. E. 
Massengill Company of Bristol, all start making a product, for children, 
which is a lovely purple color, tasted like raspberry, and contained as 
much as 72% of diethylene glycol. Less than 3% was shown, in their own 
tests, to cause kidney failure in rats.

1937 - Massengill ships 240 gallons of the stuff, while ignoring the 
signs that it is dangerous. 350 people drank it, all of them suffering 
numerous symptoms, and over 100 of them died from kidney failure, 34 of 
them children. It was the first, and last, batch ever sold.

1938 - The Food, Drug and Cosmetic act passes, requiring that a new 
product "must" be proven safe ***before*** you sell it, that plants had 
to be kept clean, and inspected, etc. Again - they still didn't need to 
prove that it actually **worked**.

1957 - A German company Chemie Grunenthal, releases a sedative called 
thalidomide, declaring it safe, even for pregnant women. This lead to a 
birth defect called phocomelia, and damaged the at least 24,000 unborn 
children, half of which died before birth. An attempt to license it in 
the US was turned down by the US FDA.

1961 - A new law was added, again, it required that they not only prove, 
before sale, that the drug was "safe", but also "effective", before it 
was allowed to market.

So far, so good, right.. Well..

1972 - Linus Pauling goes nutso, and stops doing sound science, and 
instead starts promoting "megavitamins". The FDA states, "We have no 
evidence, that massive doses of these things are safe, as such, we need 
to consider testing them first, before allowing them to continue being 
sold on the market." Some of these things contain 150 percent of the 
"recommended" amounts. At this time, its only a $700 million dollar 
industry.

1974 - Senator William Proxmire proposes that this is unreasonable, and 
has the NHF behind him (the guys making money selling this stuff, and 
whose board is made up of:

	Harry Hxosey - made his fortune selling arsnic, pepsin, potassium 
iodide and laxitive to "treat cancer", then fled to Tijuana, to avoid jail.

	Fred Hart - president of the Electrical Medical Foundation, a maker of 
useless devices, which he claimed could cure diseases (a precursor to, 
basically things like the "bomb detectors" someone else was recently 
charged with selling, which where basically a dowsing rod).

	Royal Lee - Owner of one of the big vitamin companies, and claimed 
polio was curable via "diet alone".

	Kirkpatrick Drilling - The lawyer, and also layer to a quack cancer 
cure group, called Cancer Control Society.

	Bruce Halstead - convicted of 24 counts of fraud, for claiming that an 
herbal tea called ADS could cure cancer, and which was made from 
bacteria found in human feces, and sold at #125 - $150 a quart.

	Victor Earl Irons - maker if Vit-Ra-Tox, which he sold door to door, 
and claimed would cure nearly *everything* you can imagine. He was also 
one of the "coffee enema" nuts.

1975 - Proximere's bill passes. It goes into effect 1976. It denies the 
FDA the right to regulate how much of any sort of vitamins someone puts 
in to a product.

1991 - Pauling is even, himself, taking insane amounts, and promoting 
others do so, of vitamin C, in doses up to 10,000 milligrams (he later 
dies, month after his wife, both of them from cancer, likely caused by 
vitamin C poisoning, which has 'already' been shown to likely be 
dangerous, even as he is promoting taking more of it). There is no 
research, no facts, no information, and no one, other than the 
manufactures think its a good idea for this to continue, and they love 
it because they can literally claim that vitamins will do everything 
from cure every disease known to man, to possibly make you fly (assuming 
they could manage to make the commercial convincing enough). A 
proposition is made to allow recall of any food, drug, device, or 
cosmetic, which violated the law, represents a significant risk to 
humans, or animals, **or** constituted fraud.

The industry immediately began a campaign to convince the public that 
the government wanted to not just regulate, or determine the safety, of 
products, but the ban them, and arrest the people buying them, like they 
where raiding drug labs, or arresting purchasers of illegal products. 
They insisted that we, the public, needed to stop this from happening. 
And, we fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

1992 - 100 people develop kidney failure, due to a "slimming" new 
product, containing a plant extract. 70 of them had to have kidney 
transplants or dialysis, and many later developed bladder cancers. This 
is only one of the most notable signs that things are seriously wrong.

1993 - Despite evidence already appearing that there where safety issues 
already known, and unanswered questions, and a complete lack of 
information on "any" of it, as well as opposition from every medical 
college, doctor's organization, agency, and other group of experts on 
the planet, they passed the Supplement Health and Education Act. The 
times calls it the "Snake Oil Protection Act". The test of the bill does 
several things - 1. It denies the FDA any right to require testing on 
either vitamins, or, now, anything at all labelled a "food supplement". 
2. It allows companies to, for the first time since 1906 for them to not 
tell you what everything is *actually* in it. 3. They do not need to 
prove it works, ever. And, 4. They do not need to prove it is safe. The 
public had spoken, with a bit of prompting from a lot of propaganda, and 
declared, "We don't want to know, just let us buy it!"

1994 - The bill becomes law, and the industry is worth $4 billion dollars.

2007 - A year before one of the bigger disasters which this bill causes, 
its worth $28 billion.

2008 - More than 200 people, including a 4 year old, are, again, due to 
a new product, poisoned with Selenium in the products Total Body Formula 
and Total Body Mega. They where suppose to have only 200 micrograms, but 
had 40,800 micrograms. Since the industry is now 100% unregulated, only 
170 out of 51,000 new products have *ever* been tested for safety, since 
1994. Third party tests show that not only may the "listed" contents be 
harmful, but as much as 20% of them may contain dangerous levels of 
lead, mercury and arsenic.

2009 - A recall does happen, on 15 thousand bottles of a supplement 
given to autistic kids, which is found to contain undeclared levels of 
antimony.

Betwee 1983 and 2004, 1.3 million actual reports are filed, about bad 
reactions, of which 175,268 required medical treatment, and 139 died. By 
2012, the FDA, last year, its estimated that the number of adverse 
reactions, reported or otherwise, are close to 50,000 a year.

68% of the public believe that the government requires reporting of side 
effects. 58% that the FDA has to approve supplements, and 55% believe 
that the manufacturers of these things cannot out right lie about how 
safe they are, or what they do. All of which is, thanks to the "Snake 
Oil Protection Act", completely wrong.

Oh, and, here is where those rats come in. In 2007, they decided to 
finally let the FDA do the standard inspections of the labs/factories 
that make the stuff. They can't stop them selling it (unless its 
contaminated, of course), require they test it for safety, or prove that 
it actually does what it is supposed to, but they where allowed to make 
sure it wasn't, for example, mixed in a toilet, or something. It might 
as well have been. Of 450 manufacturers of supplements, roughly half had 
"major" health violations, or just plain.. wtf issues. On the relatively 
sane end, where the ones that either just randomly tossed in ingredients 
(they didn't even have recipes they followed), or changed what they 
contained, without bothering to relabel them. On the sick and horrifying 
end, was the ones whose product where mixed in places infested with 
rats, which contained everything from feces, to urine, to, in some 
cases, dead rat.

2012 - As of last year, and this one, no new law exists to fix this, and 
the industry is worth $34 billion. Also - third party studies, after 
study, after study, show that herbs often do not do what they claim, at 
all, or do entirely different things, or cause cancer, instead of curing 
it, and on, and on. The evidence mounts that a medical disaster looms, 
and its killing people, but, its "natural", and the public demanded the 
right to buy it untested, unproven, possibly unsafe, and not even 
required, if it is found unsafe, to inform them of it. Some big pharma 
drug has side effects, they spend half the commercial telling you. A 
"bioidentical" extract, which is the same, identical, chemical, probably 
even, in some cases, made in the same lab, and there doesn't even need 
to be a warning label, as long as it marketed as a "supplement", not a 
medicine. And, because of this, the public **believes** that "natural is 
safer than stuff made in a lab".

Yeah, effectively "deregulating" the industry definitely improved 
business for these people, growing, in 1972 from a $700 million dollar 
'vitamin' industry, to a $34 billion dollar, "Magical Miracle Cure" 
industry, but.. you know.. I don't think it made the world better (never 
mind safer), people healthier, the public "more informed" (as apposed to 
ignorant of the facts, and not legally required to be told them), and.. 
I have a damn hard time seeing how the "market" is going to fix the 
problem, instead of the government changing them mind and letting the 
FDA do what they, and every other medical expert on the bloody planet, 
who wasn't a total nutcase, suggested in the first place, and make them 
test the stuff, just like any other drug, before being allowed to sell 
it, never mind claim that it cures, or treats, an actual disease.

And, yeah, it was a bloody Democrat that put the final nail in the 
coffin of safety and common sense on this one. Which just goes to show 
that its not which side you are on that determines how dangerous the 
things you promote are, but purely **what things**. And, that, no matter 
what some people might claim about their own political views, goes for 
*anyone* that thinks a particular political theory can, "solve all our 
problems", instead of applying the ones that work for a specific problem 
to that problem, and *not* to all the other ones. Sometimes, that means 
the market does best. Sometimes.. it means the market is an idiot. 
Figuring out which one is which matters. Claiming, as some people might, 
that not even trying to figure it out, or put in safety 
nets/valves/etc., in the mean time, to keep the whole thing from 
exploding, while we try to figure it out.. is insane, and no different 
than one other, "My system can cure everything." Its the political 
version of the mess I presented above. But, no one, to date, and 
proposed an Fools and Dogma Administration, to make sure people bloody 
test their wild theories, and both prove what they will do, as well as 
if they are "safe", before selling them to the public.

And.. I am pretty sure they would refuse warning labels, if someone 
tried to insist they list ingredients, and side effects, too.

Post a reply to this message