(x)
This badly-written article on the 2012 wiki (which is a thing that EXISTS, apparently.) is about Nostradamus' predictions of 2012. From what I could pick out from the wall of text, there was a book discovered at the National Library in Rome and there is "evidence" that it was the last work of Nostradamus, and this article is advertising a special on it that will be airing on the History channel. The depressing downfall of the History channel aside, the article states that "The predictions of Nostradamus were in agreement with the scientist of
today that the solar system will pass through the galactic plane of the
Milky Way galaxy, as the earth enters its 25,800 year precession. When
this happens, the gravitational wave, which exist as a flat plane along
the equatorial region of the milky way sends this across any passing
solar system, including Earth and the Sun, causing earthquakes in both
Sun and all the planets. In this region there are broken planets and
asteroids that may cause near massive object collision with earth, but
also as the solar system passes the equatorial region will the planets,
including earth shifts its rotation. According to Nostradamus, when this
passes, whole continents will be under water in a matter of 6-10 hours,
where most of Asia will be underwater, but also other coastal regions.
The land will sink fast and responsible for most of the destruction, but
during this passing the earth will lose its orbit around the sun,
massive earthquakes starts from the polar shifts and gravitational waves
bringing on earthquake and sinking of continents. The spokes of wheel
disappears in one of Nostradamus drawings which signifies that earth
will no longer be in orbit or following cycles, and hence the
disappearance of spokes. The sinking of land will also experience land
underwater coming out at the same time, and will take matter of hours
for a land to sink 2000 feet under the ocean much like Atlantis, which
was about 2200 feet, located off the coast of Cuba."
I really hope you were able to understand what the author was trying to say, because to me I just could not understand a word.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Vaccines and Autism Timeline
This is a timeline of how this whole debacle began, and has been continuing since. It starts with Wake field publishing his study, and on the left gives examples of pro vaccines-causing-autism things that have happened, mostly public thing like Jenny McCarthy's campaign; on the right it tells of some of the numerous studies showing no link between autism and vaccines.
Mercury proved not to cause autism (again).
Article
This article, from Fox news of all places, discusses a study that shows that mercury in vaccinations, an uncommonly used and commonly quoted additive to vaccines, does not cause autism. Though not the first study disproving a link, the rumor never seems to die, so people continue doing new studies. The kind of mercury that has specifically been called a concern is called ethylmercury. From the article, "The researchers collected urine samples from 54 children with autism spectrum disorders, and compared these with three other groups: 115 children from the general population, 28 children who attended special schools (mainly because of learning disabilities), and 42 children who didn't have autism, but had a sibling with the condition."
This article, from Fox news of all places, discusses a study that shows that mercury in vaccinations, an uncommonly used and commonly quoted additive to vaccines, does not cause autism. Though not the first study disproving a link, the rumor never seems to die, so people continue doing new studies. The kind of mercury that has specifically been called a concern is called ethylmercury. From the article, "The researchers collected urine samples from 54 children with autism spectrum disorders, and compared these with three other groups: 115 children from the general population, 28 children who attended special schools (mainly because of learning disabilities), and 42 children who didn't have autism, but had a sibling with the condition."
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Stem cells beat kidney rejection
Article
This article discusses a new use of stem cells being tested in Islamabad. I'm pretty sure all of you know what an organ transplant is, but some of you might not know that if the organ doesn't come from a close family member (and sometimes even if it is), it can cause serious complications, most notably the recipient of an organ's immune system recognizing the organ as an "attacker" and attacking the transplanted organ. There are special drugs that recipients of those transplants must take that repress their immune systems, but they have serious complications and would have to be taken every day for the rest of their lives. A new strategy to combat that without medication that is being tested is a few days after the transplant, injecting a small amount of stem cells into the area, in hopes to generate a modified immune system that won't reject the organs. So far, the results have been phenomenal. From the article, "Although the patients started off with the same anti-rejection drugs, the aim was to reduce these slowly, hopefully withdrawing them completely over time. Five out of the eight patients involved in the trial managed to do this within a year." 47-year-old Lindsay Porter, from Chicago, a recipient of the treatment said: "I hear about the challenges recipients have to face with their medications and it is significant. It’s almost surreal when I think about it because I feel so healthy and normal." If this proves to have long-term effectiveness, it could be a huge breakthrough in medical science.
This article discusses a new use of stem cells being tested in Islamabad. I'm pretty sure all of you know what an organ transplant is, but some of you might not know that if the organ doesn't come from a close family member (and sometimes even if it is), it can cause serious complications, most notably the recipient of an organ's immune system recognizing the organ as an "attacker" and attacking the transplanted organ. There are special drugs that recipients of those transplants must take that repress their immune systems, but they have serious complications and would have to be taken every day for the rest of their lives. A new strategy to combat that without medication that is being tested is a few days after the transplant, injecting a small amount of stem cells into the area, in hopes to generate a modified immune system that won't reject the organs. So far, the results have been phenomenal. From the article, "Although the patients started off with the same anti-rejection drugs, the aim was to reduce these slowly, hopefully withdrawing them completely over time. Five out of the eight patients involved in the trial managed to do this within a year." 47-year-old Lindsay Porter, from Chicago, a recipient of the treatment said: "I hear about the challenges recipients have to face with their medications and it is significant. It’s almost surreal when I think about it because I feel so healthy and normal." If this proves to have long-term effectiveness, it could be a huge breakthrough in medical science.
"An Elaborate Fraud?"
Article
This article, varying from the basic format of articles severing the connection between autism and vaccines, is more about the backlash from the original infamous study, and why that study has been discredited, that why exactly autism and vaccines aren't linked. I'd like to address both of those points in their own sections.
Why the study has been discredited:
The number on reason the study has been discredited, and the reason most of his (Wakefield's), co-authors withdrew their names was that Wakefield had been paid 435,000 pounds ($674,000) by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers using the results of the study. That is in incredibly large conflict of interest that he, unsurprisingly, failed to mention. The second, equally important but less-cited reason the study has been officially discredited is that there is strong evidence that Wakefield fabricated a large portion of the test subjects medical history, editing, excluding, and just plain making-up data that would have rendered his study inconclusive, false, or even just less convincing. Form the article, "Godlee, [BMJ]'s editor-in-chief, said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR vaccine and three never had autism." Essentially, though some of the data may possibly be useful, though personally I highly doubt it, the study itself needs to be thrown out. To the scientific community, it has been, but to most of the population "discredited" means nothing. Wakefield himself "was found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct in May 2010, and was struck off the Medical Register, meaning he could no longer practice as a doctor in the United Kingdom." (Wikipedia)
The backlash:
Across the U.S. and the United Kingdom, as a direct result of this study, MMR vaccination rates have dropped, falling as low as 80% by 2004 in Britain, and measles and mumps outbreaks have happened at a frightening increase. According to the article, "In the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than in any other year since 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
Though the study has repeatedly failed to stand up to scrutiny, and has never been able to be replicated, for some reason it continues to be cited and defended.
This article, varying from the basic format of articles severing the connection between autism and vaccines, is more about the backlash from the original infamous study, and why that study has been discredited, that why exactly autism and vaccines aren't linked. I'd like to address both of those points in their own sections.
Why the study has been discredited:
The number on reason the study has been discredited, and the reason most of his (Wakefield's), co-authors withdrew their names was that Wakefield had been paid 435,000 pounds ($674,000) by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers using the results of the study. That is in incredibly large conflict of interest that he, unsurprisingly, failed to mention. The second, equally important but less-cited reason the study has been officially discredited is that there is strong evidence that Wakefield fabricated a large portion of the test subjects medical history, editing, excluding, and just plain making-up data that would have rendered his study inconclusive, false, or even just less convincing. Form the article, "Godlee, [BMJ]'s editor-in-chief, said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR vaccine and three never had autism." Essentially, though some of the data may possibly be useful, though personally I highly doubt it, the study itself needs to be thrown out. To the scientific community, it has been, but to most of the population "discredited" means nothing. Wakefield himself "was found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct in May 2010, and was struck off the Medical Register, meaning he could no longer practice as a doctor in the United Kingdom." (Wikipedia)
The backlash:
Across the U.S. and the United Kingdom, as a direct result of this study, MMR vaccination rates have dropped, falling as low as 80% by 2004 in Britain, and measles and mumps outbreaks have happened at a frightening increase. According to the article, "In the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than in any other year since 1997, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
Though the study has repeatedly failed to stand up to scrutiny, and has never been able to be replicated, for some reason it continues to be cited and defended.
A Bittersweet Ending
It was hard for me, actually, to decide what my last blog post for this class should cover. I thought I could possibly relate some uplifting story about stem-cell research, or perhaps elaborate upon the origins of the inexplicable need for people to believe conspiracy theories like HAARP, or perhaps I could even discuss the immense beauty suggested by the multiverse - all the intricate ways in which we will never understand the world in which we live.
But, instead, I decided to ask why we, specifically, decided to take this class. It's easy to deconstruct the motives of terrified parents of autistic children blaming vaccines, seeking an outside answer - an institution on which they can project their fears. But it's harder, I think, to ask ourselves why we wish to shoot these people down, snort at their misplaced concern.
Conspiracy theorists believe in conspiracies so that they may feel they have some control in their lives. In an increasingly volatile world, comfort may be found in feeling correct. So, are we just a backwards version of the people who believe that the world will end in 2012? It's possible that we are looking in the opposite direction, but for the same thing - to feel secure in our rightness.
But, you know, we are right. Right?
But, instead, I decided to ask why we, specifically, decided to take this class. It's easy to deconstruct the motives of terrified parents of autistic children blaming vaccines, seeking an outside answer - an institution on which they can project their fears. But it's harder, I think, to ask ourselves why we wish to shoot these people down, snort at their misplaced concern.
Conspiracy theorists believe in conspiracies so that they may feel they have some control in their lives. In an increasingly volatile world, comfort may be found in feeling correct. So, are we just a backwards version of the people who believe that the world will end in 2012? It's possible that we are looking in the opposite direction, but for the same thing - to feel secure in our rightness.
But, you know, we are right. Right?
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Lets All Work Together, Ehh?
Scientist believe that cancer depends on a small group of stem cell to propagate their existance and continue their spread to the rest of the body. Leukaemia is no exception. The isolation and destruction of Leukaemia stem cells is likely to be the most effective way to cure the disease. However, as you can imagine, this is rather dificult to do if stem cell research is banned.
Every tissue, vessel and cell in your body begins as an embryonic stem cell. After you are born, your body maintains hematopoietic stemcells that mature into specific tissues. These cells, here after refured to as HCS, are the olny cells that allow regeneration. It is important to remember that HCS are very diffrent from embryonic stem cells, as HCS are found in your body well after birth.
The argument that stem cell research is murder is complete rubbish. Most research is preformed with HCS rather than embryonic stem cells.
I think it is important for the people who argue against stem cell research to do some reseach of their own. Perhaps if they were more informed, they'd stop impeeding the progress made regarding stem cells and cancer patients. We could be saving lives rather than wasting time.
Every tissue, vessel and cell in your body begins as an embryonic stem cell. After you are born, your body maintains hematopoietic stemcells that mature into specific tissues. These cells, here after refured to as HCS, are the olny cells that allow regeneration. It is important to remember that HCS are very diffrent from embryonic stem cells, as HCS are found in your body well after birth.
The argument that stem cell research is murder is complete rubbish. Most research is preformed with HCS rather than embryonic stem cells.
I think it is important for the people who argue against stem cell research to do some reseach of their own. Perhaps if they were more informed, they'd stop impeeding the progress made regarding stem cells and cancer patients. We could be saving lives rather than wasting time.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The President Supports Stem Cell Research
Controversial science has a powerful ally! Barack Obama, in a press conference in 2009, pledged financial and governmental support for stem cell research. "We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield. At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions.", says the President. He also added that "that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research -- from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit -- and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome -- that is the story of scientific progress in America. When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives."
These are some of my favorite quotes of Barack Obama's. I think they carry a lot of weight, and though outdated, bring up interesting questions. How acceptable is it for the federal government to back up controversial research? And when is it appropriate for said government to remove their support should the science not deliver? Personally I think it's commendable what Obama is trying to do. No progress is made without risk, and this is especially true for science. Many credible scientists believe that stem cell research is how we will make progress medically, and their opinions are not arbitrary. Let's hope that the Obama administration remains effective long enough to see results!
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/03/63835921/1#.T1gvpnKXTCM
These are some of my favorite quotes of Barack Obama's. I think they carry a lot of weight, and though outdated, bring up interesting questions. How acceptable is it for the federal government to back up controversial research? And when is it appropriate for said government to remove their support should the science not deliver? Personally I think it's commendable what Obama is trying to do. No progress is made without risk, and this is especially true for science. Many credible scientists believe that stem cell research is how we will make progress medically, and their opinions are not arbitrary. Let's hope that the Obama administration remains effective long enough to see results!
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/03/63835921/1#.T1gvpnKXTCM
2012; My Thoughts
I feel pretty confident that the world will not, in fact, come to a violent, epic end in the near future. When I think of time, I see a line that extends forever in two directions. I think most people see a line. I don't see an end.
And, I am willing to bet money that on December 22, I will wake up, brush my teeth, comb my hair and continue on with my life. Cause here's the thing. Too many highly credible sources have discredited the whole 2012 thing for me to buy in to it.
I don't believe the Nibiru crap because I feel as though it may be really difficult for a planet that doesn't actually exist to collide with earth.
I don't believe that the Mayan calendar ending in 2012 is some sort of awesome foreshadowing. No, I think those guys just ran out of rock, or maybe the Play Station network just came back up.
We all know that Nostradamus is just a crackpot. He gets a lot of credit for absolutely nothing. When was the last time that guy was right about anything? I mean seriously.
Now, the earth usually doesn't just do things on a whim. It takes a long time for the earth to do anything. I'm pretty sure we don't have to worry about the earth just flipping it's polarity over night.
As for the film 2012, it is a freaking movie. That's all. If I were to get freaked out over every damn movie I ever saw, I'd be in a lot of trouble. I'd be really concerned about all kinds of nonsense. And at that point, I might even welcome the end of the world, just to put me out of my misery.
Needless to say, I will not be investing in any dooms day gear. And I don't recommend that you do either.
And, I am willing to bet money that on December 22, I will wake up, brush my teeth, comb my hair and continue on with my life. Cause here's the thing. Too many highly credible sources have discredited the whole 2012 thing for me to buy in to it.
I don't believe the Nibiru crap because I feel as though it may be really difficult for a planet that doesn't actually exist to collide with earth.
I don't believe that the Mayan calendar ending in 2012 is some sort of awesome foreshadowing. No, I think those guys just ran out of rock, or maybe the Play Station network just came back up.
We all know that Nostradamus is just a crackpot. He gets a lot of credit for absolutely nothing. When was the last time that guy was right about anything? I mean seriously.
Now, the earth usually doesn't just do things on a whim. It takes a long time for the earth to do anything. I'm pretty sure we don't have to worry about the earth just flipping it's polarity over night.
As for the film 2012, it is a freaking movie. That's all. If I were to get freaked out over every damn movie I ever saw, I'd be in a lot of trouble. I'd be really concerned about all kinds of nonsense. And at that point, I might even welcome the end of the world, just to put me out of my misery.
Needless to say, I will not be investing in any dooms day gear. And I don't recommend that you do either.
Everybody, PANIC!
We've reached the beginning of the end! It's evident that the apocalypse of 2012 is upon us! "Earth's magnetic field is about to be shaken like a snow globe by the largest solar storm in five years."-Seth Borenstien
So with solar flares sending solar storm particles rushing through space at us at speeds in the billions of miles per hour, we are starting to realize our demise is upon us. These storms are part of the suns 11-year cycle, however this cycle is said to be the stormiest and most intense of any before this. Why is this? I do not know, but the Mayan's must have. This is only the beginning of our problems, folks! Though the particles sent out by the sun, growing larger as they fly through space, may be a large issue in terms of physical impact, there are worse issues for our modern world. During the last set of solar storms in 2002, GPS systems were down, with newer technologies it is predicted that more technological systems will fail--it is not known which ones yet. A NOAA scientist, Joe Kunches, has confirmed that this spot on the sun could send more particles our way. Could this mean total technological collapse? Will the fear of Y2K re-appear with the threat of these solar storms? I think that as the year progresses and these particle disturbances become more frequent and intense we will be sent into a world-wide technological collapse creating complete chaos. This will lead to system failures, riots, and eventually the storms will be so intense the Earth will explode!!
No, maybe not that. But scientists are nervous about this episode, expecting more to come. NASA's solar physicist calls this storm "...particularly nasty" and seems to think it is an irregular pattern. The same scientists say that there are only three ways to disrupt our technology: magnetic, radio, and radiation emissions. The scientists are worried however because all three disruptions will be present in this blast, as well as in the storms to follow, and that their effects will be strong. So stock up on food and candles everyone because power grids, GPS, radiation, communication systems, and satellites will all be effected or knocked out entirely. Yikes!
You may be have wondered earlier on, if this is an 11-year cycle and and the last surge was in 2002, then shouldn't we not be worried until 2013? Maybe not, but this is only the build-up to something way worse. And with this years solar storms being more intense than ever, as they build up, they could become so bad that the world may end before the worst of the storms (December 21, 2012--to be exact). Technological collapse? Likely. World-wide disaster? Hopefully not. But plan for the worst my friends, for the worst is surely ahead!
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2012/03/07/solar_storm_headed_toward_earth_may_disrupt_power/
Response to previous posts as a whole, and what to do about the misinformation
While reading over the posts over the last few days, I've noticed a particular problem. Some of the posts (including my almost all of my own) seem to be very fond of trashing the outlandish claims conspiracy theorists propose, and admittedly some are quite ridiculous. But I think it's very easy to put ourselves up on a pedestal and say "look those idiots, they're so stupid" and just think of him or her as some random person typing up an article while foaming like a rabid dog. I do recognize the hypocrisy of ranting about this on a blog. But rather than just foaming ourselves (and believe me, I want to just as much as the next person), I think we need to find more productive ways of expressing ourselves. I've seen this in many of the blogs as well, when people back their claims up with factual evidence in order to disprove strange theories.
I think that fundamentally, the primary reason people come up with strange conspiracy theories is because it's hard to access the factual information. For example: in the case of vaccines causing autism, information explaining the effects (or lack thereof) of thimerisol is accessible, but tends to be either too vague or too technical, there's very little in between. I think that the way to at least reduce the number of conspiracy theorists is to make the information more widely available through a variety of mediums. I don't watch cable TV very frequently, but when I do, I am depressed to find that shows such as Animal Planet and Discovery Channel are filling up with reality TV shows about people who own pit bulls and "ghost scientists" performing exorcisms in people's basements. You would think that with so many people getting on television these days (especially if it can include bubble heads from New Jersey), that at least one person has a good idea about how to go about invalidating conspiracy theories in and educational and entertaining way. Obviously there will always be the naysayers who hang onto a conspiracy theory with their fingernails, but at the very least, the correct information will be out there. If we do that, then I think we will have a more informed public and therefore can make better decisions regarding science, technology, and conspiracy.
I think that fundamentally, the primary reason people come up with strange conspiracy theories is because it's hard to access the factual information. For example: in the case of vaccines causing autism, information explaining the effects (or lack thereof) of thimerisol is accessible, but tends to be either too vague or too technical, there's very little in between. I think that the way to at least reduce the number of conspiracy theorists is to make the information more widely available through a variety of mediums. I don't watch cable TV very frequently, but when I do, I am depressed to find that shows such as Animal Planet and Discovery Channel are filling up with reality TV shows about people who own pit bulls and "ghost scientists" performing exorcisms in people's basements. You would think that with so many people getting on television these days (especially if it can include bubble heads from New Jersey), that at least one person has a good idea about how to go about invalidating conspiracy theories in and educational and entertaining way. Obviously there will always be the naysayers who hang onto a conspiracy theory with their fingernails, but at the very least, the correct information will be out there. If we do that, then I think we will have a more informed public and therefore can make better decisions regarding science, technology, and conspiracy.
HAARP and "Weather Warfare"
As far as conspiracy theories go and the posts we have done so far from doomsday to stem cell research, it seems as though HAARP is the most real and threatening conspiracy that faces us today (out of the topics chosen in class, of course). The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Plan has been studied for years by top scientists and tested by military and air-force throughout the United States. The whole concept to me feels a lot like the discovery and existence of nuclear warfare. It didn't take long to find out how destructive nuclear weapons were, for more than just the enemy. But this doesn't mean that all nuclear weapons were demolished, and almost 24,000 exist today over nine countries alone. So any time we could blow half the world to smithereens. Add HAARP to the mix and we could easily wipe out most everything on the planet. The video I have attached shows how important the atmosphere is to the Earth, and HAARP is one of its biggest threats. HAARP can also shake tectonic plates causing massive earthquakes due to the strong vibrations that the high-frequency wave provides.
http://www.staticbrain.com/archive/haarp-weather-modification-for-weather-warfare/
(see first video)
The question however, is will the United States be using this any time soon, and what for? No one really knows. This article claims the military's plan to "control the weather by 2025". But for now I think similar to the nuclear bombs that exist around the world, HAARP will just exist like any other mass means of destruction, until a reason for its use comes up.
But I got to thinking, if HAARP is said to really be able to control the weather, then will the next question be whether or not HAARP can be a substitute for poor weather caused by climate change and global warming. And will it be argued that the holes in the atmosphere caused by HAARP will be helpful in releasing some of the harmful gasses trapped in now? Seems far fetched, yes, but it was one of the first things that came to mind as I was reading about the environmental and weather affecting qualities of HAARP.
There is no "Devil" in "Vaccine"
This video cites Andrew Wakefield (who you should all be familiar with by now) as a reputable source.
Now, that should be more than enough condemning evidence for me to go off of, but it's really SO big that I'm not going to bother with it for a bit. Honestly, there's a lot of stupid you can pack into a video 8 minutes long (like this one)- lots of claims, few citations. The video mentions cases of multiple girls that have taken the vaccine and experienced symptoms such as seizures, severe abdominal pain, wart outbreaks, paralysis, and fainting spells. They say there were 18 deaths, nearly 4.5 of which due to "blood clots" (by the way, the 4.5 comes from the language in the video, saying "nearly a quarter cited blood clots"). However, the video is titled: "HPV Gardasil Vaccine Proves Lethal - 47 Girls Now Dead". There is mention of one more death, in total, that I could find, bringing the number of alleged deaths up to 19. Although that 18 could have come from just one study (in fact, I believe it did), the video is obligated to mention the source for what otherwise just looks like a wild exaggeration.
That's pretty far from 47 in my book, but I'll chalk that poor bit of math up to the same reason the creator of the video uses Andrew Wakefield (notice the lack of a doctorate- for good reason) as a credible source to back up their point.
To sum it up, this video is chock full of anecdotal evidence, accusations, and exaggerations; all of which it claims are fact-based and rational arguments. Unfortunately, some people still believe that the plural of "anecdote" is "data".
Now, that should be more than enough condemning evidence for me to go off of, but it's really SO big that I'm not going to bother with it for a bit. Honestly, there's a lot of stupid you can pack into a video 8 minutes long (like this one)- lots of claims, few citations. The video mentions cases of multiple girls that have taken the vaccine and experienced symptoms such as seizures, severe abdominal pain, wart outbreaks, paralysis, and fainting spells. They say there were 18 deaths, nearly 4.5 of which due to "blood clots" (by the way, the 4.5 comes from the language in the video, saying "nearly a quarter cited blood clots"). However, the video is titled: "HPV Gardasil Vaccine Proves Lethal - 47 Girls Now Dead". There is mention of one more death, in total, that I could find, bringing the number of alleged deaths up to 19. Although that 18 could have come from just one study (in fact, I believe it did), the video is obligated to mention the source for what otherwise just looks like a wild exaggeration.
That's pretty far from 47 in my book, but I'll chalk that poor bit of math up to the same reason the creator of the video uses Andrew Wakefield (notice the lack of a doctorate- for good reason) as a credible source to back up their point.
To sum it up, this video is chock full of anecdotal evidence, accusations, and exaggerations; all of which it claims are fact-based and rational arguments. Unfortunately, some people still believe that the plural of "anecdote" is "data".
A Response to the Climate of Our Blog (And Maybe Science in General))
I really like the word zeitgeist. As referenced in an earlier post of mine, the zeitgeist is the ethical, intellectual, spiritual, and general cultural climate of a group of people during a specific amount of time. That defined, I'm writing this post to address the zeitgeist of this blog, which, through research, I have realized is largely indicative of the zeitgeist of science today. Few people alive remember a time when science was a new and wondrous thing. What would the pioneers of that generation say if they could behold the things we can do now? Indeed, the very things we discuss on this blog? Imagine Isaac Newton beholding the function of a car, and riding in one. Einstein at the large hadron collider. Galileo observing the moon landing. I find it hard to even comprehend the astonishment. For them there would be nothing else, just these impossibilities made possible by science.
So where along the road of progress did we lose the sense of wonder? Where did all the cynicism come from? Perhaps I delude myself, but I think that those same great minds would greet inaccuracy and falsely leading the people with a drive to achieve even more, to obtain proof and present it scientifically, with an unwavering faith in their method and a certain sanguinity. But I digress, and perhaps science back then was just as vicious and primal as it is now. Should that be the case, however, there is a need to reform. We waste our resources and time attacking those who's opinions are unfounded. Why bother? We could be spending the same time and resources making progress for the betterment of mankind; or, in the cases of those who maliciously misinform the public, making the truth clear and easily accessible. We need more scientists with that zeal, that sanguine. So many are cold and unkind, assertive to the point of being vindictive. They have lost the way, self absorbed and self conscious, simply wanting others to think them correct.
And so it is, for the betterment of our culture, that we need a revolution. Our species depends on scientific progress more than is inherently apparent, in every facet of our lives. Fanaticism and false pretenses damn us in the long run, impeding the advancement of our learning. We have so much potential to KNOW! Why waste that? Science should be a kind and wondrous thing, something that all people can get behind, something that is for the people rather than behind their backs. We could be on Mars by now! So let us get back on the path of progress and leave the self righteousness and cynicism behind! Our assertion that we are already all-knowing has left us in the dark, and many discoveries pass us by. The very nature of science appeals to the good nature of humanity, the innocent desire to learn and explore. Perhaps in time we will learn to see this as a benevolent deus ex machina, an advantage to be exploited rather than an undesirable trait. Until then, the least we can do is keep this blog kind and unbiased, and remember to not be a dick.
So where along the road of progress did we lose the sense of wonder? Where did all the cynicism come from? Perhaps I delude myself, but I think that those same great minds would greet inaccuracy and falsely leading the people with a drive to achieve even more, to obtain proof and present it scientifically, with an unwavering faith in their method and a certain sanguinity. But I digress, and perhaps science back then was just as vicious and primal as it is now. Should that be the case, however, there is a need to reform. We waste our resources and time attacking those who's opinions are unfounded. Why bother? We could be spending the same time and resources making progress for the betterment of mankind; or, in the cases of those who maliciously misinform the public, making the truth clear and easily accessible. We need more scientists with that zeal, that sanguine. So many are cold and unkind, assertive to the point of being vindictive. They have lost the way, self absorbed and self conscious, simply wanting others to think them correct.
And so it is, for the betterment of our culture, that we need a revolution. Our species depends on scientific progress more than is inherently apparent, in every facet of our lives. Fanaticism and false pretenses damn us in the long run, impeding the advancement of our learning. We have so much potential to KNOW! Why waste that? Science should be a kind and wondrous thing, something that all people can get behind, something that is for the people rather than behind their backs. We could be on Mars by now! So let us get back on the path of progress and leave the self righteousness and cynicism behind! Our assertion that we are already all-knowing has left us in the dark, and many discoveries pass us by. The very nature of science appeals to the good nature of humanity, the innocent desire to learn and explore. Perhaps in time we will learn to see this as a benevolent deus ex machina, an advantage to be exploited rather than an undesirable trait. Until then, the least we can do is keep this blog kind and unbiased, and remember to not be a dick.
iPSCs? How do they compare?
I started doing a little bit of research on Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs) after they were mentioned in a radio interview I did a blog post on earlier. Some of us might remember an announcement a few years ago about a research at Kyoto University who managed to revert an adult skin cell in a mouse back to into something resembling an embryonic stem cell. This was the first iPSC. While doing my research, I found this article, which compares iPSCs to Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs).
In this article the author, Dr. Maureen Condic, argues the position that iPSCs are favorable to hESCs because of ethical reasons. iPSCs don't have the same moral connotations hESCs do because iPSCs are derived from the cells of a fully formed human being, not an embryo. In this article, she also briefly discusses the problems with iPSCs, primarily the fact that it is not known if they are comparable to hESCs.
Athough Dr. Condic's arguments are fairly strong, I am somewhat troubled by her response to a question regarding whether or not "left over" embryos from fertility clinics should be used for stem cell research. For her response, she cites a somewhat vaguely worded written piece from the Clinton Administration stating that hESCs from fertility clinics are acceptable as long as no other alternatives are available. However, I disagree with this idea because for the most part, the "left over" embryos are left in cryogenic storage indefinitely or are thrown out. I've always thought this seems like a waste. Particularly in the case of being thrown out, one could argue that doing so is "destroying a baby" just as much as letting the cells be used for medical purposes that could be beneficial for others. I could see people becoming worried about people starting stem cell farms (think The Matrix, except we're not feeding robots) but not using resources that are simply byproducts from another procedure is just wasteful.
Another problem I have with Dr. Condic's arguments is the fact she holds the strong position that iPSCs are equivalent to hESCs while citing a relative lack of evidence for this. For instance, she mentions in passing that a particular researcher has authored "...one of the two iPSC studies" and mentions that it has been determined that human iPSCs are equivalent to hESCs, despite the fact that "tests for human cells are more limited." Also, the article does not mention the size of the studies, which could significantly change the outcome.Finally, Dr. Condic mentions that there have been no studies that directly correlate the performance of iPSCs with hESCs. Before I proceed, I would like to acknowledge that I am in no way trying to question the credibility of these studies, but am simply stating that I think a little more research may be in order. I also recognize the difficultly of this sort of research, but stand by my case that a little more is needed.
Finally, Dr. Condic briefly describes the risk of iPSCs becoming cancerous. This happens in iPSCs because the genes used to transform adult cells into iPSCs are inserted by a virus, which can occasionally result in accidental oncogenesis (creating genes that "turn on" cell replication). For this, she notes that researchers are working on how to fix this problem, but seems a little too optimistic about it, stating it will happen in the next year. I find this interesting because it is a problem that does not occur in hESCs (as far as I know) and therefore gives them an advantage.
I am in no way against iPSC research, I think it would be wonderful to come up with a stem cell that is free of ethical debate. However, I am still somewhat skeptical of how well iPSCs compare to hESCs. I think that research should be done on both types of stem cell until we can verify if one performs better than the other on both a biomedical and ethical scale.
In this article the author, Dr. Maureen Condic, argues the position that iPSCs are favorable to hESCs because of ethical reasons. iPSCs don't have the same moral connotations hESCs do because iPSCs are derived from the cells of a fully formed human being, not an embryo. In this article, she also briefly discusses the problems with iPSCs, primarily the fact that it is not known if they are comparable to hESCs.
Athough Dr. Condic's arguments are fairly strong, I am somewhat troubled by her response to a question regarding whether or not "left over" embryos from fertility clinics should be used for stem cell research. For her response, she cites a somewhat vaguely worded written piece from the Clinton Administration stating that hESCs from fertility clinics are acceptable as long as no other alternatives are available. However, I disagree with this idea because for the most part, the "left over" embryos are left in cryogenic storage indefinitely or are thrown out. I've always thought this seems like a waste. Particularly in the case of being thrown out, one could argue that doing so is "destroying a baby" just as much as letting the cells be used for medical purposes that could be beneficial for others. I could see people becoming worried about people starting stem cell farms (think The Matrix, except we're not feeding robots) but not using resources that are simply byproducts from another procedure is just wasteful.
Another problem I have with Dr. Condic's arguments is the fact she holds the strong position that iPSCs are equivalent to hESCs while citing a relative lack of evidence for this. For instance, she mentions in passing that a particular researcher has authored "...one of the two iPSC studies" and mentions that it has been determined that human iPSCs are equivalent to hESCs, despite the fact that "tests for human cells are more limited." Also, the article does not mention the size of the studies, which could significantly change the outcome.Finally, Dr. Condic mentions that there have been no studies that directly correlate the performance of iPSCs with hESCs. Before I proceed, I would like to acknowledge that I am in no way trying to question the credibility of these studies, but am simply stating that I think a little more research may be in order. I also recognize the difficultly of this sort of research, but stand by my case that a little more is needed.
Finally, Dr. Condic briefly describes the risk of iPSCs becoming cancerous. This happens in iPSCs because the genes used to transform adult cells into iPSCs are inserted by a virus, which can occasionally result in accidental oncogenesis (creating genes that "turn on" cell replication). For this, she notes that researchers are working on how to fix this problem, but seems a little too optimistic about it, stating it will happen in the next year. I find this interesting because it is a problem that does not occur in hESCs (as far as I know) and therefore gives them an advantage.
I am in no way against iPSC research, I think it would be wonderful to come up with a stem cell that is free of ethical debate. However, I am still somewhat skeptical of how well iPSCs compare to hESCs. I think that research should be done on both types of stem cell until we can verify if one performs better than the other on both a biomedical and ethical scale.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
More on Vaccines...
After reading my classmates blogs regarding autism and watching many videos posted by them, I decided to look into it myself, expecting to find the same results. And I did. Consensus states that there are many cases arguing a risk of autism involved in vaccinations, yielding no scientific proof. This article argues, "...teenage boys vaccinated as children were: Twice as likely to suffer from autism, four times as likely to have Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and boys and girls of all ages - vaccinated as children - were more than twice as likely to have developed asthma." This information is credited to "a June survey of more than 10,000 families," and no further information is provided about the survey. What I have not been able to find, is statistics on the percentage of the population that has been vaccinated, and the percentage of autistic children for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients. Why is this information not available, and if it has become such an issue, why are scientists not thoroughly researching the subject to avoid these consistent misconceptions? Many posts about autism cause by vaccines blame mercury levels in some vaccinations, however there are no studies readily available about the relationship between mercury and autism, or the level of mercury it would take to affect a patient regardless of its effects (autism, disease, death, etc). More in this article claims that vaccines cause allergies, depression and other psychological disorders. It becomes hard to decipher what the purpose of the argument is. To attempt to educate the public about the threats of vaccines and demolish all vaccinations, or an attempt to prevent and increase in autistic children and the potential of vaccinations increasing that number? I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions, and don't know why they have yet to be answered after how long this has been an issue.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/204991.aspx
Alternate theory for why we come up with conspiracy theories
In response to Robin's most recent post (March 4), I would like offer an alternate theory as to why people come up with and believe conspiracy theories. In this video, Michael Shermer, of Skeptic magazine, proposes that conspiracy theories arise because we are hard wired to find patterns in everything, and therefore we sometimes connect the dots incorrectly. One example of this would be the link between vaccines and autism. If a child gets his/her vaccines and starts showing signs of autism, we automatically assume that the vaccines must be linked to the autism. This is also magnified by the fact that if a pattern, or supposed pattern, is pointed out to us, then we begin to see it more frequently. Shermer showed this with abstract black and white pictures of dots. This would also explain the 23 enigma and how any other sorts of conspiracies can possibly gain ground.
In some ways, Shermer's theory is complementary with the theory explained in Robin's post. Robin states that conspiracy theories are comforting because they make people feel as if they have some idea about how the world works. For example, Shermer cites both pigeons being given food at random times, and baseball players, who are very superstitious at bat, but not in the field. He states that even in a completely random environment, people will find some sort of pattern and believe it works because it's easier than saying there is no pattern or by going out and doing an investigation. (This doesn't explain why Mythbusters is so popular though. I'm sure we can all agree that explosions have nothing to do with it.)
At the end of his talk, Shermer proposes that the idea of "agenticity" is how conspiracies such as HAARP, the Illuminati, or 9/11 can become popular. He describes agenticity as "the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency, often invisible beings, often from the top down." He goes on to explain that this could explain mono/polytheism, intelligent design, government conspiracies (such as HAARP), aliens coming to save/help mankind (watch the 1950's version of The Day the Earth Stood Still if you don't know what I'm talking about) and other ideas of a supreme power controlling everything. However, he also points out that it can be harder to disregard ideas such as this because conspiracies of this sort can happen, such as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which was instrumented by more than just John Wilkes Booth.
In some ways, Shermer's theory is complementary with the theory explained in Robin's post. Robin states that conspiracy theories are comforting because they make people feel as if they have some idea about how the world works. For example, Shermer cites both pigeons being given food at random times, and baseball players, who are very superstitious at bat, but not in the field. He states that even in a completely random environment, people will find some sort of pattern and believe it works because it's easier than saying there is no pattern or by going out and doing an investigation. (This doesn't explain why Mythbusters is so popular though. I'm sure we can all agree that explosions have nothing to do with it.)
At the end of his talk, Shermer proposes that the idea of "agenticity" is how conspiracies such as HAARP, the Illuminati, or 9/11 can become popular. He describes agenticity as "the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency, often invisible beings, often from the top down." He goes on to explain that this could explain mono/polytheism, intelligent design, government conspiracies (such as HAARP), aliens coming to save/help mankind (watch the 1950's version of The Day the Earth Stood Still if you don't know what I'm talking about) and other ideas of a supreme power controlling everything. However, he also points out that it can be harder to disregard ideas such as this because conspiracies of this sort can happen, such as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which was instrumented by more than just John Wilkes Booth.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Is Consciousness Fundamental to the Cosmos?
This is a topic that’s
been lurking around the edges of the discussions of the multiverse theory. It almost
crops up when the anthropic principle and the topic of God has been discussed.
It is embedded in the multiverse theory that dumps us here as part of a grand
hacker’s job in some simulation software. So, I viewed this video interview of
Andre Linde, the Russian Cosmologist, now at Stanford, who has worked primarily in
Inflationary Theory. According to Linde, “If we avoid consciousness we artificially
limit our ability to understand what’s really going on in the Universe.” Wow,
that is quite a detour from even the bizarre stuff we’ve been reading about the
multiverse. Linde explains that a cosmologist named Brice deWitt decided to
write Schroedinger equations for the wave function of the entire universe. What
he discovered was that how fast the function changes (the time derivative) is
proportional to the energy of the wave function, and the total energy of the
system is zero. This means the universe is not changing. Well, not possible,
right? The only way to resolve this dilemma is to take into consideration the
OBSERVER as part of the system. “Observation is what makes the Universe come
alive,” says Linde. So, if you remove the observer’s “stuff” from the equations,
then you get wave functions that don’t equal zero – the universe starts looking
more interesting than a big goose egg.
The interviewer asks the
question, “It seems like the universe has been around a lot longer than
sentient beings, so how could this be?” Linde refers to the Copenhagen School
(regarding the Schrodinger Uncertainty Principle), that observation creates existence,
and then the object looks like it existed before the observation. Linde then
gives an analogy to the history of thinking regarding matter and space/time. At
the beginning with Newtonian physics, we thought matter was the most important
aspect, and space and time only existed for matter to move through. Then with
General Relativity, space/time acquired its own degree of freedom, equal to
matter. Now, we have Super-space (I assume related to String Theory), where
particles of matter are the excitations of the geometry of Superspace. Linde
poses this question: “Could consciousness be the same? Will we find that
consciousness has degrees of freedom like space/time, and that it’s also
fundamental to the cosmos?” Psychologists have picked up this interesting information, and have even gone so far as to say that consciousness may be a
parallel universe in its own right.
Science or philosophy? I’m
not sure, but it is interesting to think about.
HAARP: Modern Day Monster
Yeah, so apparently HAARP can basically be blamed for everything ever; at least for the Earthquake that only affected Japan. Although I'm loathe to actually go through and read this (it promises to be full of contradictions and poorly-reasoned accusations), I'll go ahead and do it anyways.
This article, if you could call it that, blames Japan's earthquake (please bear with me and ignore the fact that earthquakes aren't exactly weather conditions) on HAARP's terrifying weather control abilities. The writer claims that they have done extensive research- multiple times, in fact, do they make this claim. The evidence they cite is...
Clouds. Yeah, I wish I was kidding too. The article's writer also claims that the HAARP array can fire off "over 1 billion watts of energy!", which, as everyone knows, can cause earthquakes in far-off places (even with the frequency wavelength HAARP boasts, moving a tectonic plate involved also moving an awful lot of landmass and weight, and when it comes down to it, 1 billion volts doesn't get that far- especially when you consider dispersion into the entire Earth's mantle, which is a lot of what really causes plate drift). This writer says that this massive energy output is what causes freaky looking clouds- heaven forbid considering anything like how clouds can get pretty freaky looking on their own.
To be fair, though, it could also have been HAARP in a cooperative effort to raze Japan's cities, along with Godzilla and Susano-o god of storms. That's probably it.
This article, if you could call it that, blames Japan's earthquake (please bear with me and ignore the fact that earthquakes aren't exactly weather conditions) on HAARP's terrifying weather control abilities. The writer claims that they have done extensive research- multiple times, in fact, do they make this claim. The evidence they cite is...
Clouds. Yeah, I wish I was kidding too. The article's writer also claims that the HAARP array can fire off "over 1 billion watts of energy!", which, as everyone knows, can cause earthquakes in far-off places (even with the frequency wavelength HAARP boasts, moving a tectonic plate involved also moving an awful lot of landmass and weight, and when it comes down to it, 1 billion volts doesn't get that far- especially when you consider dispersion into the entire Earth's mantle, which is a lot of what really causes plate drift). This writer says that this massive energy output is what causes freaky looking clouds- heaven forbid considering anything like how clouds can get pretty freaky looking on their own.
To be fair, though, it could also have been HAARP in a cooperative effort to raze Japan's cities, along with Godzilla and Susano-o god of storms. That's probably it.
Why Do Conspiracy Theories Happen?
It is possible to swiftly discredit conspiracy theories like HAARP and 2012 without so much as a second glance, to label the creators of said theories nut-jobs and leave it at that. While these theories are convoluted, conclusion-based, blame-seeking and just plain incorrect, the fact that they exist and have nominally wide followings is worthy of study and investigation. Why do people follow conspiracy theories, even the flimsy ones, not grounded in any kind of scientific foundation?
A recent article in Psychology Today addressed just this question, citing multiple reasons that conspiracy theories have become exceedingly prevalent in our particular contemporaneity.
Firstly, the article points out that conspiracy theories often act as comfort. A morphine drip for an exceedingly cynical public. In a society where people constantly feel uninformed and unable to control the events around them (think: 9/11), there is comfort in having a black-and-white vision of the world, a deceptively simple way to explain the things over which one has no control.
The article also mentioned the the increasingly digitized nature of society is helpful in popularizing conspiracy theories, and creating a snowball effect in which they get larger and larger - a la HAARP and the Vaccines Cause Autism scare.
A lot of factors create a conspiracy theorist, but Psychology Today certainly proposes many adept interpretations of the current conspiracy epidemic.
A recent article in Psychology Today addressed just this question, citing multiple reasons that conspiracy theories have become exceedingly prevalent in our particular contemporaneity.
Firstly, the article points out that conspiracy theories often act as comfort. A morphine drip for an exceedingly cynical public. In a society where people constantly feel uninformed and unable to control the events around them (think: 9/11), there is comfort in having a black-and-white vision of the world, a deceptively simple way to explain the things over which one has no control.
The article also mentioned the the increasingly digitized nature of society is helpful in popularizing conspiracy theories, and creating a snowball effect in which they get larger and larger - a la HAARP and the Vaccines Cause Autism scare.
A lot of factors create a conspiracy theorist, but Psychology Today certainly proposes many adept interpretations of the current conspiracy epidemic.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
The End of the Universe: chilling, ripping, crunching, bouncing or snapping?
Greg Laughlin, a leading scientist of the doomsday, the real doomsday, as predicted by physics
and not apocalyptic New Agers, suggests we should begin packing our bags to
leave for Mars, in, say, about a billion years, after we survive a number of
ice ages and at least 10 meteors of the End Cretaceous Extinction Event size
(the one that did-in the dinosaurs). This would be necessary, since our sun
would be 10% more energetic, and “the oceans will boil away and the atmosphere
will dry out as water vapor leaks into space, and temperatures will soar past
700 degrees Fahrenheit, all of which will transform our planet into a Venusian
hell-scape choked with thick clouds of sulfur and carbon dioxide.” Pleasant, eh?
But, by that time, Mars will be a balmy place just waiting for our
inhabitation, particularly if a few adventuresome of us arrive there ahead of
time, and get the atmosphere jump-started with a heady mix of perfluorocarbons
and other greenhouse gases. After the sun gets too hot and big as a Red Giant
and fries Mars after another 4.5 billion years, we can head on over to Jupiter’s
moon Europa, and then to Saturn’s moon Titan for the next 130 million years,
just enough time to get the matter-antimatter-annihilation powered spaceship
ready for the voyage to Proxima Centauri.
‘Cause
that’s the likely place we’d be headed. It’s a red dwarf star, only 4.2 light
years away from us, and more stable than our sun. If not Proxima Centauri, then
some other red dwarf, because they’re the most common stars, and have been
found to have probable inhabitable planets. We can live for trillions of years
near these red dwarf stars. Alas, the red dwarfs will die out, and then we can
start using the energy from brown dwarfs, possibly by creating our own stars.
For another 10 billion billion years.
Sadly,
the last days of humanity in this universe will come at that point. It could be
that the anti-gravity of dark energy will push all remaining resources too far
away for humans to see or reach – the
Big Chill. Then there’s the Big Rip, where dark energy really gets going and
starts yanking the contents of the universe to pieces, all the way down to ripping
atoms apart. But, some enterprising humans might have found a wormhole to
another universe to escape through. Anything’s possible.
article: link
other: article on the big crunch, the big chill and the big rip.
Friday, March 2, 2012
When does life start, and when do ethics apply?
I just now read an article about the ethical issues with stem cell research. This article argues that human life begins at the embryonic stage, and to fertilize an egg simply to harvest the embryo is inhumane and horrible. This article reeked of fanaticism for me (just look at the URL), but I cannot claim that it's understanding of the science is incorrect. It is true that stem cells usually come from embryos, and the embryos usually are a product of in vitro fertilization, or IVF. Sperm and eggs are donated to scientists, who fertilize the eggs and wait for a blastocyst to grow. Each bout of IVF can produce many blastocysts, and the promising ones are grown into embryos. Then the embryos are harvested for stem cells, usually destroying the embryo in the process.
I agree that this is not ideal. But I agree in the sense that a vegetarian thinks cattle ranching is not ideal. A quote from the article;" Even if stem cell treatments ultimately prove successful, embryonic stem cell treatment involves the deliberate killing of a human being in order to use his body parts to treat another human being." This statement is implicit of a sensationalist writer. To the uninformed reader, it paints a picture of tiny, dismembered babies being cut and pasted onto another human. This is clearly not the case! In my opinion, an embryo is no more a human being than dead skin or cut hair. I would say that life begins when the heart begins to beat, when the brain begins forming synapses, when the fingertips begin to feel and the lungs inflate with breath. To anthropomorphize an unfeeling mass of cells in order to garner sympathy and agreement is not a fair or true tactic. It would be best to impartially inform the masses of both sides as clearly and honestly as possible, as opposed to misdirecting them. Maybe then we would have more people crying for a stop to such debates, so that scientific progress can continue unabated.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/ethics/whystem.htm
I agree that this is not ideal. But I agree in the sense that a vegetarian thinks cattle ranching is not ideal. A quote from the article;" Even if stem cell treatments ultimately prove successful, embryonic stem cell treatment involves the deliberate killing of a human being in order to use his body parts to treat another human being." This statement is implicit of a sensationalist writer. To the uninformed reader, it paints a picture of tiny, dismembered babies being cut and pasted onto another human. This is clearly not the case! In my opinion, an embryo is no more a human being than dead skin or cut hair. I would say that life begins when the heart begins to beat, when the brain begins forming synapses, when the fingertips begin to feel and the lungs inflate with breath. To anthropomorphize an unfeeling mass of cells in order to garner sympathy and agreement is not a fair or true tactic. It would be best to impartially inform the masses of both sides as clearly and honestly as possible, as opposed to misdirecting them. Maybe then we would have more people crying for a stop to such debates, so that scientific progress can continue unabated.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/ethics/whystem.htm
Vaccines and the Link to Autism
Looking through the lens of a conveniently located YouTube video, we might just be able to find something on that. According to many (idiotic) people, the link between vaccines and autism is so absolute that they have even gone out to protest about it. This hopefully can't get very far due to their lack of evidence, even the original article published in the Lancet was taken off the sight due to it's lack of credible truth to support its claims. Even in the video, an autism specialist says that there is no proven link between vaccines and autism. In fact, there is no link at all. The preservative many people blamed was removed from vaccines, and yet the autism rate continues to rise.
No, if these idiots could just get it through their thick, minimal-IQ heads that there is NO EVIDENCE and therefore NO LINK between vaccines and autism. If they could simply understand that the preservative was REMOVED COMPLETELY on their push and autism continues to rise. Maybe if they realized that the first signs of autism have ALWAYS begun around the first 1-2 years of life.
Maybe their kids JUST HAVE AUTISM and it's not anyone's fault but their own that they have dedicated so much time pointing fingers that we lack the money to research and cure it.
They're idiots.
Ignorance must truly be bliss.
No, if these idiots could just get it through their thick, minimal-IQ heads that there is NO EVIDENCE and therefore NO LINK between vaccines and autism. If they could simply understand that the preservative was REMOVED COMPLETELY on their push and autism continues to rise. Maybe if they realized that the first signs of autism have ALWAYS begun around the first 1-2 years of life.
Maybe their kids JUST HAVE AUTISM and it's not anyone's fault but their own that they have dedicated so much time pointing fingers that we lack the money to research and cure it.
They're idiots.
Ignorance must truly be bliss.
NASA Denies Doomsday
In an article I came across while googling the 2012 doomsday to fill my mind with further conspiracies that I could use as excuses to spend my year in the most reckless way possible. To my dismay, the most credible and factual article I found told me that doomsday will not exist anytime in our near future.
The article is an interview with NASA scientists that goes through asking questions related to the Mayan calendar's ending and the existence/threat of Planet X or Nibiru as well as many other theories on doomsday including meteor hits, solar storms, polar shift and more. The answer scientists have is, "Where is the science?" They can't find it, and no one else seems to be able to either. Similar to the build up of Y2K at the beginning of this millennium, the 2012 apocalypse has become an obsession and a distraction for people through the media and popular culture. Why worry about the legitimate problems at hand when the end of the world could be coming?!
Also similar to our theory on the number 23, theories behind a 2012 apocalypse are everywhere, right at our fingertips. But if we look up reasons why there WON'T be a doomsday, theres at least double if not triple or quadruple amounts of information that is scientifically based and thoroughly researched, some from extremely credible sources such as NASA which prove these theories to be terribly wrong.
Point is, the world is not coming to an end, go back to your boring daily lives everyone.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html
The Age of Aquarius
OK, so, this is actually kind of worrying to me. At this point in time, we are getting to find more and more astronomical and astrological coincidences on the notorious date of 12/21/2012. This December, we are either screwed or in for one heck of a ride as far as I'm concerned and I don't know whether to be excited or extremely worried. What brings all this to my attention? This article right here. It goes through a few of the coincidences that fall on the date.
1. We're in for the Age of Aquarius beginning on the day of the winter solstice, aka the 21 of December. This means that we're likely going to be seeing (according to astrology, maybe it's accurate, maybe it's not) more modernist, revolutionary, and humanitarian people according to the description of the Auarius sign.
2. The Mayan calender ends. This does not imply the end of the world, though, because the Mayan calender is a circle and therefore is a cycle that goes on forever. It implies a major change, but we will be starting at one again.
3. The year of the Water Dragon begins shortly thereafter. I have no clue what this implies, but I feel like it's important.
4. The controversial apocalyptic book of Revelation coincides with the conditions set by the Age of Aquarius. The book of Revelation presents a world situation of open-eyes where we care about the situation around us and want to do something about it. This is an Aquarius trait, humanitarianism.
5. EVERYTHING ELSE. If you look for coincidences, they will be there. That's just kind of how it is.
So, yeah, be paranoid if you'd like. Preparation is relative, just like everything else.
1. We're in for the Age of Aquarius beginning on the day of the winter solstice, aka the 21 of December. This means that we're likely going to be seeing (according to astrology, maybe it's accurate, maybe it's not) more modernist, revolutionary, and humanitarian people according to the description of the Auarius sign.
2. The Mayan calender ends. This does not imply the end of the world, though, because the Mayan calender is a circle and therefore is a cycle that goes on forever. It implies a major change, but we will be starting at one again.
3. The year of the Water Dragon begins shortly thereafter. I have no clue what this implies, but I feel like it's important.
4. The controversial apocalyptic book of Revelation coincides with the conditions set by the Age of Aquarius. The book of Revelation presents a world situation of open-eyes where we care about the situation around us and want to do something about it. This is an Aquarius trait, humanitarianism.
5. EVERYTHING ELSE. If you look for coincidences, they will be there. That's just kind of how it is.
So, yeah, be paranoid if you'd like. Preparation is relative, just like everything else.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
How People Delude Themselves
Even though thimerosal--a mercury-containing and allegedly autism-causing chemical--has been removed from most vaccines, people continue to believe that vaccines cause autism. Why? The David/Goliath factor: big bad money-grubbing pharmaceutical companies vs. private-practice Dr. Dudenheimer. The general public is more likely to believe the friendly-looking Dudenheimer than the enormous corporate behemoth towering over his shoulder. But if Dr. Dudenheimer hears on the internet that vaccines cause autism and decides to test this, he will have some experimental bias. Say it with me, folks: BAD SCIENCE! The big pharmaceuticals will then have less power to debunk this; any attempts they make will reek to the public of the very bias that tainted Dr. Dudenheimer's results.
So the root cause of this disinformation can be traced back to fear-mongering and bias. Boatloads of bias.
So the root cause of this disinformation can be traced back to fear-mongering and bias. Boatloads of bias.
HAARP=Weather Warfare
Or so this article says. It proposes that HAARP could be used to manipulate the weather in such a variety of ways to cause disaster ecologically. Fantastic, no? Now, this website is obviously a conspiracy website judging by the way the information is presented. Heavily biased, yes, but it is taking the initiative to explore the "what could go wrong" of HAARP.
Before this, I was unsure of what HAARP was, and--to use the term of a classmate--it still comes across to me as a "bitchin' radio tower." It provides at least a partial picture of ozone deduction and the greenhouse effect, therefore allowing us to understand the way our climate is changing, but it also makes way for a new kind of warfare.
Weather warfare.
Targeted flooding, droughts, winters the likes of which even Russia has never seen, all of these are possible under the influence of HAARP according to the author of the article. I do not doubt that, if it isn't possible now, that it couldn't be possible sometime in the near future. Still, I must stay skeptical of the idea that a single species could bend even the weather to their will. Nature is a powerful force, and one that will not sway easily to mortal intervention. I believe that we're arrogant for thinking that we even have a chance at manipulating it for very long. Even so, better safe than sorry.
Before this, I was unsure of what HAARP was, and--to use the term of a classmate--it still comes across to me as a "bitchin' radio tower." It provides at least a partial picture of ozone deduction and the greenhouse effect, therefore allowing us to understand the way our climate is changing, but it also makes way for a new kind of warfare.
Weather warfare.
Targeted flooding, droughts, winters the likes of which even Russia has never seen, all of these are possible under the influence of HAARP according to the author of the article. I do not doubt that, if it isn't possible now, that it couldn't be possible sometime in the near future. Still, I must stay skeptical of the idea that a single species could bend even the weather to their will. Nature is a powerful force, and one that will not sway easily to mortal intervention. I believe that we're arrogant for thinking that we even have a chance at manipulating it for very long. Even so, better safe than sorry.
Mother Shipton
The Mother Shipton Prophecy is one of the more ridiculous (and, therefore, constantly utilized) theories supposedly outlining the 2012 apocalypse. The basic premise revolves a woman named Ursula Southeil (a.k.a Mother Shipton) and her famous, prophetic visions. Her prophecies were published in 1641 (80 years after her recorded death) and apparently adequately predicted the death of Henry VIII, the Great Fire of London, The advent of the printing press, The defeat of the Spanish Armada, and - to top it all off - World Wars I and II.
The verse in her prophecy that lead people to believe in a possible prediction of the 2012 apocalypse reads thusly:
When pictures seem alive with movements free
when boats like fishes swim beneath the sea
when men like birds shall scour the sky
then half the world
deep drenched in blood
shall die.
It is helpful to note that nowhere in the prophecy is there a specific reference to 2012. Conspiracy theorists make the case that while the 2012 apocalypse is not explicitly referenced, because all the other prophecies fit together so well, it's the only logical explanation. It would be fair to say that does not function as a particularly adequate rebuttal.
It is also entirely possible that Mother Shipton, great prophetess of the sixteenth century, might not have existed in the first place. Richard Head (that is, indeed, his real name), the man who composed her biography, admitted that he wove a narrative from some stories he'd heard and marketed them as The Life and Times of Mother Shipton.
So, uh, mystery solved.
The verse in her prophecy that lead people to believe in a possible prediction of the 2012 apocalypse reads thusly:
When pictures seem alive with movements free
when boats like fishes swim beneath the sea
when men like birds shall scour the sky
then half the world
deep drenched in blood
shall die.
It is helpful to note that nowhere in the prophecy is there a specific reference to 2012. Conspiracy theorists make the case that while the 2012 apocalypse is not explicitly referenced, because all the other prophecies fit together so well, it's the only logical explanation. It would be fair to say that does not function as a particularly adequate rebuttal.
It is also entirely possible that Mother Shipton, great prophetess of the sixteenth century, might not have existed in the first place. Richard Head (that is, indeed, his real name), the man who composed her biography, admitted that he wove a narrative from some stories he'd heard and marketed them as The Life and Times of Mother Shipton.
So, uh, mystery solved.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Religious responses to Stem Cell Research
While searching around on YouTube today, I found a rather interesting BBC radio broadcast which briefly discussed the religious controversies over embryonic stem cell research in response to President Obama lifting the ban on stem cell research. The two sides of the argument were represented by Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, and by Omar Sultan Haque, a Muslim philosopher.
Radio broadcast
The interview started out with Land stating that he was "extremely disappointed" in Obama's decision and claims that he does not support "experimentation that would lead to the death of unborn babies." He then goes on to explain that such research is unnecessary because of the recent discovery of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. He describes iPSCs as a "gift" to the president that allows for the benefits of stem cell research without causing death. The interviewer then asks Haque to describe the Muslim view on embryonic stem cells. Haque claims there are no direct sources for this, but claims he would not characterize embryonic stem cells as unborn babies and pointedly states that Land used the phrase to draw an emotional response from the audience. He then goes on to state that historically, Christianity tended to support Haque's view over Land's. The interviewer ask Haque if he would support "other research" (presumably iPSC's) and Haque states that he would. However, Haque changes the subject slightly and begins to attack Land's arguments. He asks Land to specify how embryonic stems differ from any other type of cell, to which Land states the primary difference is time, and that "an embryo becomes a human being", unlike a skin cell. Haque then rhetorically responds "why don't we convict women for genocide just by having their normal cycles?" The interviewer steps in and asks Land what he believes Obama's message is concerning the conflict between science and religion. Land replies that he believes Obama is removing the morality from the scientific world, which could lead to horrific experiments like those performed by the Third Reich. The interviewer presents the same question to Haque, who bats it aside in favor of criticizing Land's word choice, but implying that he does not believe religious beliefs should influence sound scientific principles.
I found this broadcast quite interesting because although both sides used arguments I've heard before, they both brought up good points that I had not considered before. As pointed out by Haque, Land attempted to appeal emotionally to the listeners, which is a logical fallacy. However, the idea that embryonic stem cells could in fact be seen as human beings is the most common argument I've seen against stem cell research. Obviously I really can't back this up, but I would say this is not the case, it's simply a group of cells; they are not aware of their existence, can't feel pain, differentiated into a complex organism, or done anything else that truly defines them from any other cell as an independent human being beyond having a unique genome.
Although I agreed with Haque, I was annoyed by the fact that he spent very little time expressing his own views and instead preferred to attack Land's ideas. Also, his comment relating a woman's natural cycle to genocide was also a logical fallacy. But through his attacks, he exposed the flaws in the anti-stem cell position. He also briefly mentioned that he more or less subscribes to the idea that people become more human as they continue to exist. Although I would not say an infant is less human than an 80-year-old, I would argue that for reasons I mentioned before, a human embryo should be classified as a group of cells, not as a person.
Despite the fact that I disagreed with Land's view, he did bring up a good point. Although I highly doubt that embryonic stem cell research could lead to a second Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, he does bring up that there is no definite moral standard regarding what is and is not acceptable treatment of humans and animals in medical studies.
Radio broadcast
The interview started out with Land stating that he was "extremely disappointed" in Obama's decision and claims that he does not support "experimentation that would lead to the death of unborn babies." He then goes on to explain that such research is unnecessary because of the recent discovery of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells. He describes iPSCs as a "gift" to the president that allows for the benefits of stem cell research without causing death. The interviewer then asks Haque to describe the Muslim view on embryonic stem cells. Haque claims there are no direct sources for this, but claims he would not characterize embryonic stem cells as unborn babies and pointedly states that Land used the phrase to draw an emotional response from the audience. He then goes on to state that historically, Christianity tended to support Haque's view over Land's. The interviewer ask Haque if he would support "other research" (presumably iPSC's) and Haque states that he would. However, Haque changes the subject slightly and begins to attack Land's arguments. He asks Land to specify how embryonic stems differ from any other type of cell, to which Land states the primary difference is time, and that "an embryo becomes a human being", unlike a skin cell. Haque then rhetorically responds "why don't we convict women for genocide just by having their normal cycles?" The interviewer steps in and asks Land what he believes Obama's message is concerning the conflict between science and religion. Land replies that he believes Obama is removing the morality from the scientific world, which could lead to horrific experiments like those performed by the Third Reich. The interviewer presents the same question to Haque, who bats it aside in favor of criticizing Land's word choice, but implying that he does not believe religious beliefs should influence sound scientific principles.
I found this broadcast quite interesting because although both sides used arguments I've heard before, they both brought up good points that I had not considered before. As pointed out by Haque, Land attempted to appeal emotionally to the listeners, which is a logical fallacy. However, the idea that embryonic stem cells could in fact be seen as human beings is the most common argument I've seen against stem cell research. Obviously I really can't back this up, but I would say this is not the case, it's simply a group of cells; they are not aware of their existence, can't feel pain, differentiated into a complex organism, or done anything else that truly defines them from any other cell as an independent human being beyond having a unique genome.
Although I agreed with Haque, I was annoyed by the fact that he spent very little time expressing his own views and instead preferred to attack Land's ideas. Also, his comment relating a woman's natural cycle to genocide was also a logical fallacy. But through his attacks, he exposed the flaws in the anti-stem cell position. He also briefly mentioned that he more or less subscribes to the idea that people become more human as they continue to exist. Although I would not say an infant is less human than an 80-year-old, I would argue that for reasons I mentioned before, a human embryo should be classified as a group of cells, not as a person.
Despite the fact that I disagreed with Land's view, he did bring up a good point. Although I highly doubt that embryonic stem cell research could lead to a second Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, he does bring up that there is no definite moral standard regarding what is and is not acceptable treatment of humans and animals in medical studies.
I AM ANGRY!!!!!!! PART 2
The other day I was once again on the Internet, that seems to happen allot, when I once again stumbled upon A VIDEO THAT MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL!!!!!! It was video on Youtube that showed clips from a certain news station. Any guesses??? It can't be that hard......... it's FOX! The news clip was trying to be used as proof that vaccines cause autism, and on first inspection they are right, but Fox News is NEVER right. I had to look into it more, and I knew the way to do this was by watching the rest of the video, Fox has the habit of debunking their lunatical tirades at the same time they are making them. It did not take them long either. They brought in a medical expert, who revealed something very important. The girl who had gotten autism from the vaccines, HAD ALREADY HAD AUTISM PRIOR TO GETTING THE VACCINE!!!! I surely hope that you can understand the significance of this. Vaccines do not cause healthy people to get autism, they only rarely bring autism out in people who already autistic. I can see how people might think that that is a bad thing, and arguably it is. But autism always surfaces after a time, if you are born autistic, than you will have symptoms of autism. Taking the risk of not having an autistic child vaccinated because you want them to enjoy a few years of un autistic life just long enough for them to miss it when the symptoms set in. This akin to being born blind, or going blind at the age of 5. If the later happens than you are devastated because you will miss seeing, but if you are born blind than arguably you do not loose anything, which helps the transition become easier. But I digress I am delving into a very controversial ethics issue. The bottom line is this, the girl mentioned in the video would have gotten autism regardless if she had not taken the vaccine. It is helpful to no that vaccines might cause autism to surface, but as a result of this coming from Fox, vast quantities of people will be too scared to get vaccines for a reason that is not worth dieing for. One must also keep in mind that autistism can be triggered by any number of things, I have personally witnessed someone who had autism brought out by a head injury suffered in football. Following that logic, vaccines, football and any activity that carries the risk of a head injury should be illegal. Not to mention any numbers of other factors can trigger autism to emerge, stress trauma, sickness, time, or anything that effects the brain. Vaccines are just one more thing to be added to that list. ANYTHING can trigger autism, their is no point in blaming it on one measly thing.
By: Anti Väinämöinen
By: Anti Väinämöinen
The Big Brane?
Sense the 1920s the commonly excepted scientific theory for the creation of the universe has been the Big Bang Theory. A theory for which a singularity of infinite mass exploded to release the cosmos we know today. I was recently poking around on sciencenews.org when I found an article about a whole different theory that connects the big bang theory with string theory to offers a new theory of how the big bang happened, why scientists think it will happen many more times in the future, and why there could be different universes each with different properties.
In 1981 a scientist names Alan Guth proposed the idea that the universe underwent a short period of faster than light expansion known as inflation. Scientists now think that this period of inflation could have happened many times before and will happen many more times in the future, each time sprouting a new bubble of universes. These universes could have completely different states of matter, different laws of physics, and even different state s of time. But the question is, why?
In a new model produced Dr. Steinhardt at Stanford University the multitudes of universes could be attributed to the constant expansion and contraction of three-dimensional sheets of space know as branes, minute distances away from each other which travel along an extra dimension of space. When they are separated the branes are wrinkle free which represents a universe that is completely devoid of matter or a time when the universe has expanded to the point where matter is so spread out that it barely exists. When the branes are close together they develop wrinkles that represent seeds of galaxies and other massive cosmological masses, this would represent time when the universe has a massive amount of condensed matter. When the branes finally collide they release a massive amount of energy and trigger the emergence of a new universe and the cycle of the branes slowly moving apart repeats’. To an observer, this collision would be a “big bang” or a “big bounce.” In this model there are unlimited universes that have been created or have yet to be created and all universes have an effect on each other due to the wrinkles left of the branes of space. The only way scientist know to test this theory is to continue the search for massive gravity waves that have left their mark on the very fabric of space time with each “big bounce.” The European Space Agency’s Planck spacecraft is on it way to look for these massive waves effect on the cosmic background radiation, although scientists predict that the waves to could be so spread apart it could take a millennia to even start to recognize patterns in the radiation, they have to start somewhere.
Source Article:
Other Scources
Vaccines do not cause autism, plain and simple.
I recently read an article written by a contributor to Discovery: Fit and Health that intelligently summarizes and debunks the deadly myth that vaccines can cause autism. The article was written by a woman named Katie Lambert, who holds an English degree from the University of Georgia. Far from the person you would expect to be contributing to a medical column, but this just proves that all it takes to effectively analyze a subject is smart research and the effective use of true critical thinking.
Originally people thought that increased rates of autism and the link to vaccines could be attributed to a preservative used in most vaccines called Thimerosal, which is known to have trace amounts of toxic mercury. There is much wrong with this argument, as the author points out. Thimerosal contains less than 1 microgram (or one millionth of a gram) of mercury. So little it would have no impact on the human body. Secondly, Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is not the same as the methylmercury, the kind of mercury that can bioaccumulate and cause poisoning. Furthermore, Thimerosal was removed from all vaccines other than the flu vaccine after re-evaluation of the chemical and upon further request you can receive a flu vaccine without Thimerosal. Even with the removal of Thimerosal, autism rates continued to rise. Yet people still make the argument that Thimerosal is the cause of rising autism rates.
One of the main catalysts that accelerated the growing alarm that vaccines can cause autism was a study conducted in 1998 by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. The study concluded that soon after receiving the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) some children developed advanced autism. Lambert’s article explained how, not only was Wakefield’s study conducted on just 12 children, but after an investigation, it was found that Dr. Wakefield “altered and falsified” his data. The only reason that the study has such a profound effect on the public was because it was an easy study for people to understand, due to its simple nature. It was also published in one of the most prestigious medical science journals.
Finally, Lambert’s article explains the dangers of not being vaccinated. Vaccines are arguably one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Due to vaccinations, deadly diseases such as polio, smallpox, pertussis, and diphtheria, have been practically eliminated. What people don’t realize is that not so long ago, it was not uncommon to know someone on your block who died or was disabled from one such sickness. Because of this the misleading fear that vaccines cause autism, parents are no longer vaccinating their children, subsequently herd immunity is dropping and these deadly diseases are on the rise.
Source Article:
Link to further sources:
People who preach that vaccines are bad should be imprisoned.
Growing up in one of the most well educated communities in the country one could assume people to have the knowledge not to believe the absurd rumors about the danger of vaccines. However for one reason or another, the population in the city of Boulder tends to believe that vaccines are bad and do not have their children vaccinated. Because of this lack of vaccinations, Boulder Colorado’s herd immunity has dropped significantly, leaving the vaccinated portion of the community susceptible to diseases brought on by the non-vaccinated populous in the community.
About five years ago, I received my scheduled TDaP (Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis) booster vaccine. Unfortunately about a year later I found myself diagnosed with Pertussis, a sickness more commonly know as whooping cough. Due to the poor decisions of the people who decided not to vaccinate their children, but are immune to decease through herd immunity, I ended up in the hospital and under legal quarantine for a week (For those who don’t know what that is, if you leave your house and they catch you, you go to prison) despite receiving my vaccination. My immune system was down all of the following year leading to more sickness. Due to the damage I received over the month or so of continuous coughing, I was then diagnosed with permanent asthma. I just wanted to put into perspective how serious and real the danger of not receiving a vaccination can be. People should not have to suffer due to the unbelievably irrational community that buys into claims that are based on literally non-existent science. Vaccines are one of the most brilliant advancements in science. Lets not reverse the progress they have made.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Recent Article: Anti-Vaccination
"The correlation between 38 vaccines given in the first two years of life and autism has not been studied." -- Mary Tocco
-
This entire article is composed of exactly the same argument--that we live in the age of information and scientific evaluation, and yet "The United States has one of the worst Sudden Infant Death (SIDS) rates in the modern world."
For one thing, the U.S. does not, in any stretch of the imagination, have one of the highest infant mortality rates. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has a "5.98 deaths/1,000 live birth" rate. Other countries, such as Zambia (total: 64.61 deaths/1,000 live births) or Mongolia (36 deaths/1,000 live births) have a much higher rate of infant deaths--to mention only a few countries at random. Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. has an average (perhaps even below average) infant mortality rate. Perhaps Tocco's version of the "modern world" only consists of North America.
For another, the correlation between vaccines given in the first two years of life and autism has, in fact, been studied. There are multiple scientific journals and studies that have reported on the subject over the past 20 years, each saying precisely the same thing: vaccines do not cause autism. In fact, vaccines can't cause autism because of the properties associated with the autism spectrum such as the fact that it occurs in the brain and is present since birth (though it is generally dormant for upwards of 5-10 years).
This article makes me genuinely begin to question the integrity of some researchers and reporters in the U.S.--how educated are they? Can we trust them to accurately report any unbiased, unsheltered facts?
-
This entire article is composed of exactly the same argument--that we live in the age of information and scientific evaluation, and yet "The United States has one of the worst Sudden Infant Death (SIDS) rates in the modern world."
For one thing, the U.S. does not, in any stretch of the imagination, have one of the highest infant mortality rates. According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has a "5.98 deaths/1,000 live birth" rate. Other countries, such as Zambia (total: 64.61 deaths/1,000 live births) or Mongolia (36 deaths/1,000 live births) have a much higher rate of infant deaths--to mention only a few countries at random. Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. has an average (perhaps even below average) infant mortality rate. Perhaps Tocco's version of the "modern world" only consists of North America.
For another, the correlation between vaccines given in the first two years of life and autism has, in fact, been studied. There are multiple scientific journals and studies that have reported on the subject over the past 20 years, each saying precisely the same thing: vaccines do not cause autism. In fact, vaccines can't cause autism because of the properties associated with the autism spectrum such as the fact that it occurs in the brain and is present since birth (though it is generally dormant for upwards of 5-10 years).
This article makes me genuinely begin to question the integrity of some researchers and reporters in the U.S.--how educated are they? Can we trust them to accurately report any unbiased, unsheltered facts?
Monday, February 27, 2012
What HAARP actually is
I'm sure this has already been covered on this blog, but I am going to post this anyway. Mostly because I don't want to go through the whole blog looking for it.
I just read a very nice post about why HAARP is surrounded by conspracy theories, but I realized that I don't know what HAARP's actual purpose is. My solution to this problem? I read the Wikipedia page. Its primary purpose is to analyze the ionosphere. Using this analyses, we could create enhancements in the ionosphere that would lead to technological advancements in radio communications and surveillance. The frequencies emitted by HAARP that are so attractive to conspiracy theorists are used to test "basic natural processes that occur in the ionosphere under the natural but much stronger influence of solar interaction, and how the natural ionosphere affects radio signals." HAARP is where most of our knowledge on the ionosphere comes from. It is a very difficult region of the atmosphere to study because it is too high for balloons to reach, but satellites can not be used there because the air is to thick.
After all this though, I still was not sure what exactly HAARP is. In short, it's just a bitchin radio tower.
I just read a very nice post about why HAARP is surrounded by conspracy theories, but I realized that I don't know what HAARP's actual purpose is. My solution to this problem? I read the Wikipedia page. Its primary purpose is to analyze the ionosphere. Using this analyses, we could create enhancements in the ionosphere that would lead to technological advancements in radio communications and surveillance. The frequencies emitted by HAARP that are so attractive to conspiracy theorists are used to test "basic natural processes that occur in the ionosphere under the natural but much stronger influence of solar interaction, and how the natural ionosphere affects radio signals." HAARP is where most of our knowledge on the ionosphere comes from. It is a very difficult region of the atmosphere to study because it is too high for balloons to reach, but satellites can not be used there because the air is to thick.
After all this though, I still was not sure what exactly HAARP is. In short, it's just a bitchin radio tower.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Curious
In this video, the reporters detail the newest genetic research being conducted in Iran--documenting pieces of a conference about stem cell research. This seems normal enough, but it makes me wonder a bit--nowhere in the video do they mention any sort of controversy over this study. I know that here in the U.S., we've made a big stink about stem cell research in terms of the values of human life and even stretching into the debates over abortion--but is that problem just as prevalent in other countries, such as Iran? Our government and press have always been nagged about stem cell research, to the point where, in 2009, president Obama made a public announcement about the research ban. If we are making such a huge deal over this potentially life-saving research here, what about other countries with other religions and creeds?
-
On many other videos about stem cell research, there have been comments that openly bash all religion as a rule--claiming that, if we didn't have religion, then we could move forward in science. While this may or may not be true on some level, I have to question if religion is really the source of the madness. Perhaps we should look at other, outside sources for examples before we become so quick to accuse.
-
On many other videos about stem cell research, there have been comments that openly bash all religion as a rule--claiming that, if we didn't have religion, then we could move forward in science. While this may or may not be true on some level, I have to question if religion is really the source of the madness. Perhaps we should look at other, outside sources for examples before we become so quick to accuse.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
The Mayan Calendar, Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjKUqQ2uSzg&feature=plcp&context=C331a118UDOEgsToPDskILmxdmAU3wmeSR1aybOsWc
That link up there is an excellent Youtube video made by a guy named Hank Green, who is awesome for many reasons, but - in the case of this class - because he understands the workings of the Mayan calendar.
So, as I'm sure has been re-iterated tirelessly on this blog, the idea behind the 2012 apocalypse dwells in the supposed end of the Mayan Calendar on December 21st, 2012.
But...the Mayan Calender doesn't end then.
Quick explanation: The Maya had a really good sense of time in the long term, and thus they made many, many calendars. The particular calendar put into question by the 2012 apocalypse theory is, roughly translated, called The Long Count Calendar. The Maya created this calendar specifically for the purpose of measuring really long periods of time and the dates on the calendar are denoted in a format created by the Maya, it looks like this:
One day - K'in
20 days - Winal
360 days - Tun
20 years - K'atun
144,000 days, or about 394.26 years - B'ak'tun
*Note: The Maya used this to mark the days from what they called "The Last Creation" into the indefinite future. The Maya believed that they lived in the fourth "Creation" and marked time from the beginning of said creation - which has been calculated to August 11th, 3,114 B.C.
So, the Maya mark time like this:
# of B'ak'tun. # of K'atun. # of Tun. # of Winal. # of K'in.
So, here is what July 4th, 1776 looks like: 12.8.0.1.13
Now, December 21st, 2012 looks like this: 13.0.0.0.0
That is, legitimately, the only special thing about December 21st, 2012. It's the first day of a new B'ak'tun. The last time that the calendar clicked over to a new B'ak'tun was September 18th, 1618 - a day known for being notoriously uninteresting and certainly not apocalyptic.
To be fair, the Maya did predict that "The Last Creation" would last for 13 B'ak'tun, but nowhere in Maya lore does that indicate there will be acid-rain, plagues of frogs or murders of firstborn sons.
So, it looks as though there aren't going to be any imminent threats.
That link up there is an excellent Youtube video made by a guy named Hank Green, who is awesome for many reasons, but - in the case of this class - because he understands the workings of the Mayan calendar.
So, as I'm sure has been re-iterated tirelessly on this blog, the idea behind the 2012 apocalypse dwells in the supposed end of the Mayan Calendar on December 21st, 2012.
But...the Mayan Calender doesn't end then.
Quick explanation: The Maya had a really good sense of time in the long term, and thus they made many, many calendars. The particular calendar put into question by the 2012 apocalypse theory is, roughly translated, called The Long Count Calendar. The Maya created this calendar specifically for the purpose of measuring really long periods of time and the dates on the calendar are denoted in a format created by the Maya, it looks like this:
One day - K'in
20 days - Winal
360 days - Tun
20 years - K'atun
144,000 days, or about 394.26 years - B'ak'tun
*Note: The Maya used this to mark the days from what they called "The Last Creation" into the indefinite future. The Maya believed that they lived in the fourth "Creation" and marked time from the beginning of said creation - which has been calculated to August 11th, 3,114 B.C.
So, the Maya mark time like this:
# of B'ak'tun. # of K'atun. # of Tun. # of Winal. # of K'in.
So, here is what July 4th, 1776 looks like: 12.8.0.1.13
Now, December 21st, 2012 looks like this: 13.0.0.0.0
That is, legitimately, the only special thing about December 21st, 2012. It's the first day of a new B'ak'tun. The last time that the calendar clicked over to a new B'ak'tun was September 18th, 1618 - a day known for being notoriously uninteresting and certainly not apocalyptic.
To be fair, the Maya did predict that "The Last Creation" would last for 13 B'ak'tun, but nowhere in Maya lore does that indicate there will be acid-rain, plagues of frogs or murders of firstborn sons.
So, it looks as though there aren't going to be any imminent threats.
HAARP: Scientists’ Funding Ploys
HAARP has a full catastrophe of conspiracy theories associated with it, including that it is being developed to control weather, cause earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and even to control minds. However, the history behind HAARP reveals that the true conspiracies revolve more around politics and funding for scientific endeavors than these far-fetched creations of an over-active imagination. Wired Magazine published this article, “Strange New Air Force Facility Energizes Ionosphere, Fans Conspiracy,” on 07/20/09, which mostly details the history of the HAARP project. Turns out, the project’s funding history was only slightly less bizarre, but in a less apocalyptic way, as the conspiracy theories it spawned. The author of this article, Noah Shachtman, comments: “Bringing HAARP to fruition was, well, complicated. A group of scientists had to cozy up to a US senator, cut deals with an oil company, and convince the Pentagon that the project might revolutionize war. Oh, and along the way they sparked enough conspiracy theories to make the place sound like an arctic Area 51.”
Most of the conspiracy theories were invented by the scientists just trying to get funding for an experiment that was essentially to super charge that ionosphere and see what happens. But that’s not what they told the oil company (Arco) whose land and gas rights they wanted to use for this project. An Arco scientist, Bernard Eastland, told Arco that it “could fry Soviet missiles in midflight or maybe even nudge cyclones and other extreme weather toward enemies. That's right: weaponized hurricanes.” From Arco this idea was transferred along a line of political contacts up to the Pentagon’s advanced research arm, DARPA. The project even had a code name: Jason. All along this line, the claims for its military abilities were exaggerated and expanded, until it could brainwash people, provide x-ray visions of subterranean earth bunkers, etc.. Oh, and Ted Stevens, the Alaskan senator who built the $233 million “Bridge to Nowhere,” wrote the seed funding of $10 million dollars for HAARP as a pork barrel addition to a federal budget.
So, most of the conspiracy theories were grounded in what scientists had exaggerated about the project to get funding. Then along comes Nick Begich, who writes a book called “Angels Don’t Play this HAARP,” giving the conspiracy theories easy access and an enthusiastic leader. The interesting thing about Begich: his father was an Alaskan Congressional Representative who died in a plane crash in 1972 when Nick was only 13. The plane was never actually found, however, and Nick was obsessed with conspiracy theories and mysteries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)