Slashdot Mirror

And yet prostate cancer kills more men than the amount of people, both males and females, killed by breast cancer. Where are our support ribbons?

You don't get a support ribbon for lying. 27,681 men died from prostate cancer. 40,860 women and 464 men died from breast cancer. And you failed to note that half of all men decide not to treat their prostate cancer.

And yet prostate cancer kills more men than the amount of people, both males and females, killed by breast cancer. Where are our support ribbons?

You don't get a support ribbon for lying. 27,681 men died from prostate cancer. 40,860 women and 464 men died from breast cancer. And you failed to note that half of all men decide not to treat their prostate cancer.

I opened both links, even went to the actual CDC report (link: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volum...) and there are exactly zero references for the bacteria coming from pigs. Try searching for the words "pig" and "farm". So much for lecturing others on reading TFA...

"Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections."

Well, that sucks. Now, how do those numbers compare to historical measurements, accounting for the significant improvement in reporting reliability? The reality is that infectious disease rates were about three to five times worse in the 30s and 40s, because we were still at the beginning of a large-scale improvement process in general sanitation throughout daily life, not just hospitals.

"Antibiotic-resistant infections can happen anywhere. Data show that most happen in the general community; however, most deaths related to antibiotic resistance happen in inpatient healthcare settings, such as hospitals and nursing homes"

Let's say that again, simplified: "most deaths occur in care facilities". That's a great talking point, but what about where most fatal infections were acquired? If you get infected with a resistant bacteria in your kitchen, and go to the hospital for it before dying, it still counts as a hospital death.

Lusting for the good old days is a very dangerous habit. You have to remember that you are only able to recall the stinging pain because you were one of the survivors. The people whose lethal infections weren't cleaned by iodine can't speak up to remind you of their story, except as historical statistics.

The problem is also far more complicated than just "clean things". Over-use of antibiotics contributes to the prevalence of AR strains, but careful management is actually mostly what protects vulnerable patients. That is hindered by the stupid humans in the mix, who don't trust doctors and undermine their practice (for example, by bringing home-cooked desserts into a hospital isolation room). That in turn is a symptom of poor medical knowledge among the public, partly due to the confirmation bias you've shown here.

"Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections." https://www.cdc.gov/drugresist... "Antibiotic-resistant infections can happen anywhere. Data show that most happen in the general community; however, most deaths related to antibiotic resistance happen in inpatient healthcare settings, such as hospitals and nursing homes" https://www.cdc.gov/drugresist...

"Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections." https://www.cdc.gov/drugresist... "Antibiotic-resistant infections can happen anywhere. Data show that most happen in the general community; however, most deaths related to antibiotic resistance happen in inpatient healthcare settings, such as hospitals and nursing homes" https://www.cdc.gov/drugresist...

Smoke is usually bad for you, even if it's not from tobacco. Firefighters have about double the normal rate for cancer (not just lung cancer), some 60-70% of them develop cancer. (source)

Computers/automation/robotics have been replacing workers of all stripes including white collar workers since the ATM was introduced in 1967. Every place I have ever worked has had internal and external software that replaces white collar workers (where you used to need 10 people now you need 2).

The reality is that the economy is limited by a scarcity of labor when government doesn't interfere (the economy is essentially the sum of every worker work multiplied by their efficiency as valued by the economy in dollars). As people are freed from jobs that are highly repetitive, there are always more complex, less repetitive jobs out there because the consumer is always looking for the next big thing to improve their lives/increase their free time/reduce their work load. Entire multi billion dollar industries have been created after the introduction of the ATM and will continue to be created. Competition will always push prices down to equilibrium with demand, and I predict now that when fast food restaurants are completely automated with one or two highly skilled technicians (who can make $45k a year btw) running things, prices will drop to levels near what you would pay to make the food at home, order accuracy will be higher, and food borne illness will be unheard of (48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die every year from food borne illness.) Food handling automation was inevitable, the minimum wage hike is just a catalyst to make it happen a little sooner. When driving is automated, traffic will be much lighter, people will not have to own their own cars to travel anywhere; pollution will go down due to the elimination of bad driving habits, ride sharing and reduced traffic. Traffic fatalities, one of the top causes of death in ages 18-25 (over 40,000 per year in total) will be a thing of the past. There will still be fatalities, but probably reduced by 100x or so in the first 10 years.

https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneb...
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.g...

The biggest mistake we could make as a country is to go the way of the universal basic income. If we get to a point where there are 10x more job seekers than jobs, then we can revisit the issue, but right now there are about 5.5 million job openings in the US and there would probably be 4x that if the government wasn't actively chasing businesses to Asia. Current real unemployment is about 6% so 9.6 million. When US companies bring back $2.1T this year and the health insurance boondogle is fixed (universal annual HSAs, nationwide competition, standardization of policies; identical to what was done by Republicans to life insurance in the 1990s which reduced the costs by 60%), the job market will very likely explode. Economists understand this and that is part of why the DOW is up 1200 points since the election. The Obama economy was of his own making after the first 2 years due to the ACA and excessive regulation, and, like the Carter economy, it will be unleashed with the next administration.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03...
https://www.bls.gov/news.relea...

The researchers are not claiming that Vitamin D deficiency causes autism. They are claiming it increases the "Risk of Developing Autism", which is subtly different. Lots of chronic diseases and conditions are not so cut and dry as "Vitamin D deficiency causes Rickets".

Pedantics. The basis is the same. If more children become autistic among women who have a deficiency of Vitamin D, then there is the possibility of having women who get the proper amount having children who do not become autistic. Perhaps the lack of vitamin D does not specifically cause autism, but it might block what does specifically cause autism in a child who is predisposed.

Even with the moral questions ignored, it may be impossible to show a 1:1 causation between any single environmental factor and autism development, but we can potentially learn which factors can causally influence risk.

Sure. It's like the tobacco industry laywers argument - though not in the service of obvious evil.

But there is hardly any good reason to set out purposely deprive anyone fmor a proven nutrient, so what we do is take the moral yet roundabout method of a push for all people to address the lack of vitamin D since present day lifestyles and some people's genetic dispositions and locations do not match. As well, it is well documented that Vitamin D is a real problem today : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... https://www.cdc.gov/media/rele...

We know the effects of a lack of vitamin D, it is not in doubt. So that's where the moral problem of a controlled experiment comes into play. If the concept of vitamin D deficiency is related in some manner to development of autism, it is hard to come up with a moral way to deprive people of it.

The only possible moral experiment would be to have a recommendation that all women receive enough vitamin D, then take a control group who are specifically tested and monitored for proper Vitamin D levels, then comparing the autism rate of their offspring to the general public. It's not remotely perfect, but as noted, some of the most likely Vitamin D deficient people have a well documented and well deserved suspicion of human medical experimentation. It isn't paranoia when you can point to historical documents. I've no doubt that you can tell an American of African descent that she need to make certain she gets enough Vitamin D, but you will probably get a different reaction to asking her to be in a study, and "here - take these". People who have been purposefully infected with Veneraial diseases, and treated by being not treated, who have infected their wives and children (congenital syphilis) by race are perhaps not going to trust that approach.

Regardless, can you come up with a moral excuse for anyone to be deprived of Vitamins?

Nope. Cars are safer than 20 years ago. The top 3 causes now are:

1. 39k - Accidental poisoning
2. 35k - Motor vehicle traffic deaths
3. 32k - Falls

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...

Falls will likely overtake cars as the population ages, and we keep making cars safer.

since you questioned the need altogether.

No I didn't. You're equating me questioning your morals with me questioning the need for morals. You are choosing your morals as an unarguable axiom which makes any degree of debate pretty much impossible.

Since my initial comments revolved around the concept of marriage, it more or less invoked the biblical law of not coveting thy neighbors wife, which breaking that common sense rule has led to much pain and death in our world, affecting adults and children.

That has nothing to do with divorce. Once you're divorced, she's no longer your wife. And some people seem happy with open/poly/misc relationships. It's not my cup of tea, but as long as no one's getting hurt, I don't see a problem with that.

Teen pregnancy

I assume you are in favour of teen pregnancies then. Because the only way morals could be on the decline is if teen pregnancies are DECREASING, which they are:

https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregna...

Yes that was me being facetious.

STD rates,

Pretty flat for heterosexual people, rising for gay men. Well, the number reported are rising. Hard to know what was unreported before.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/ne...

murder for passion,

Hard to tell, but the overall murder rate has decreased quite sharply.

the popularity of click-to-fuck apps

There's nothing immoral about that, so the existence of such a thing does not indicate a slide in morals.

statistics, a once-simplistic mathematical tool

Of all the claims you've made, that is the wildest.

That said, an IDGAF society showcasing utter debauchery as entertainment

As recently as 1936 there were public executions in the USA. I'd say watching people fuck on film is a much more wholesome activity than watching someone get slaughered.

The YOLO generation is too wrapped around FOMO to deal with consequences, and from a legal standpoint, the politically correct prefer a slap in the wrist.

A slap on the wrist and consequences for WHAT precisely? For doing something privately between consenting adults? Why would that even be illegal?

since you questioned the need altogether.

No I didn't. You're equating me questioning your morals with me questioning the need for morals. You are choosing your morals as an unarguable axiom which makes any degree of debate pretty much impossible.

Since my initial comments revolved around the concept of marriage, it more or less invoked the biblical law of not coveting thy neighbors wife, which breaking that common sense rule has led to much pain and death in our world, affecting adults and children.

That has nothing to do with divorce. Once you're divorced, she's no longer your wife. And some people seem happy with open/poly/misc relationships. It's not my cup of tea, but as long as no one's getting hurt, I don't see a problem with that.

Teen pregnancy

I assume you are in favour of teen pregnancies then. Because the only way morals could be on the decline is if teen pregnancies are DECREASING, which they are:

https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregna...

Yes that was me being facetious.

STD rates,

Pretty flat for heterosexual people, rising for gay men. Well, the number reported are rising. Hard to know what was unreported before.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/ne...

murder for passion,

Hard to tell, but the overall murder rate has decreased quite sharply.

the popularity of click-to-fuck apps

There's nothing immoral about that, so the existence of such a thing does not indicate a slide in morals.

statistics, a once-simplistic mathematical tool

Of all the claims you've made, that is the wildest.

That said, an IDGAF society showcasing utter debauchery as entertainment

As recently as 1936 there were public executions in the USA. I'd say watching people fuck on film is a much more wholesome activity than watching someone get slaughered.

The YOLO generation is too wrapped around FOMO to deal with consequences, and from a legal standpoint, the politically correct prefer a slap in the wrist.

A slap on the wrist and consequences for WHAT precisely? For doing something privately between consenting adults? Why would that even be illegal?

Aye, this is a valid point that people here have overlooked or are blissfully unaware of. Perhaps drinking a bit of seawater tainted with ingredients from Fukushima may be orders of magnitude less harmful radiation-wise than eating a banana (when measured across, say, one day), but if the human body cannot excrete the ingredients, then the human body is up the creek without a paddle. Check out Section 1.4 in this write-up about the body's ability to process and excrete cesium: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/... So. In a nutshell: if something like cesium 137 accumulates and accumulates in your body over time, then even minute doses can become problematic for your longevity. For whatever it's worth, I've been laying off sushi since 2010.

Firearms-related homicides are down by more than 50% from their 1993 peak. Injuries resulting from criminal mis-use of firearms are down by more than 70% over the same time period.
Look at the CDC data. Heart disease and cancer are by far the leading cause of death, killing over 600k and 500k each.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...

Firearms related homicides don't even make the top ten.

First, this isn't the United States we're talking about. This is the State of California, proposing legislation for its own state jurisdiction.

Second, the United States has a thing you may have heard of called the Centers for Disease Control. The CDC does in fact have a list of notifiable diseases, which you can see here. Vancomycin-resistant infections are on that list, vancomycin being one of the "last resort" antibiotics used to treat severe, resistant staphylococcus aureus and clostridium difficile infections.

So it would appear that the California State Senator just wants to tighten up the requirements even further and ensure that the information is made available to the State of California.

What a horrible thing.

The National Healthcare Safety Network (part of the Centers for Disease Control) tracks all kinds of things, including MDROs (Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms). The gentleman from California is just posturing. .

The Andromeda Strain was published in 1969.

The United States has some disease reporting, it started at least 75 years ago before the antibiotic bubble. This CDC Report summarizes the present state of disease reporting, in two pages. We need higher standards of reporting and legal penalties for failure to report.

The US population grew by about 3 million people from 2015 to 2016, which comes out to about 250,000/month.

To be clear, you mean the twelve months from January through December 2015, right? Your numbers look off to me.

[1] says that the US population grew by almost 4M from births in 2015, [2] says 2.6M people died, [3] says 750K naturalized, and [4] says 70K refugees were admitted. That gives about 2.2M "official" population growth. Obviously that doesn't count illegals, who are probably harder to count with any degree of accuracy.

1998 births was much the same, according to [5]. I imagine the majority of those have started to, or soon will, enter the workforce about now. And a similarly large number will leave the workforce too.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...
[3] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
[4] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
[5] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...

The US population grew by about 3 million people from 2015 to 2016, which comes out to about 250,000/month.

To be clear, you mean the twelve months from January through December 2015, right? Your numbers look off to me.

[1] says that the US population grew by almost 4M from births in 2015, [2] says 2.6M people died, [3] says 750K naturalized, and [4] says 70K refugees were admitted. That gives about 2.2M "official" population growth. Obviously that doesn't count illegals, who are probably harder to count with any degree of accuracy.

1998 births was much the same, according to [5]. I imagine the majority of those have started to, or soon will, enter the workforce about now. And a similarly large number will leave the workforce too.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...
[3] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
[4] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
[5] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...

The US population grew by about 3 million people from 2015 to 2016, which comes out to about 250,000/month.

To be clear, you mean the twelve months from January through December 2015, right? Your numbers look off to me.

[1] says that the US population grew by almost 4M from births in 2015, [2] says 2.6M people died, [3] says 750K naturalized, and [4] says 70K refugees were admitted. That gives about 2.2M "official" population growth. Obviously that doesn't count illegals, who are probably harder to count with any degree of accuracy.

1998 births was much the same, according to [5]. I imagine the majority of those have started to, or soon will, enter the workforce about now. And a similarly large number will leave the workforce too.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/n...
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...
[3] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
[4] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/defa...
[5] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...

On a hunch I decided to see if there's a correlation between obesity and antibiotics (which are known to kill both the good and bad types of gut bacteria)

Here's a map showing antibiotic prescribing rates.
http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/co...

Here's a map showing obesity rates:
https://www.maxmasnick.com/med...

Correlation is not causation, but in my unprofessional opinion, these maps look eerily similar.

I blame it on lightning.

http://www.vaisala.com/VaisalaImages/Lightning/avg_sd_2005-2014_CONUS_2km_grid.png

On a hunch I decided to see if there's a correlation between obesity and antibiotics (which are known to kill both the good and bad types of gut bacteria)

Here's a map showing antibiotic prescribing rates.
http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/co...

Here's a map showing obesity rates:
https://www.maxmasnick.com/med...

Correlation is not causation, but in my unprofessional opinion, these maps look eerily similar.

Yes.

People with symptomatic illness have transmitted Zika before they had symptoms, while they had symptoms, and after symptoms resolved.
http://www.cdc.gov/zika/hc-pro...

What are the odds? How many people get it overall?

About 3.9 per 100,000 people, at least in the USA, according to this paper.

And why him specifically?

Genetics and/or environmental factors. Nobody knows for sure. The fact that he's a white male stacked the deck against him.

Even to me, as a non-religious person, it appears like a punishment of some sort.

Then I think you need to re-evaluate your concepts of morality. People who get ALS don't "deserve" to get it.

Driving is dangerous,

Is it? I drive a fair bit, and sure it's more risky than lying on your couch, but not by much. I think the word 'danger' gets over-exaggerated these days considering how safe just about everything is relative to even 50 years ago.

Umm, yes, driving IS dangerous -- it's basically one of the most dangerous things people do. "Unintentional injury" is the leading cause of death in people age 1-44 (and the third highest after cancer and heart disease in people aged 45-64), according to CDC stats.

And of those causes classified as "unintentional injury" again according to the CDC, motor vehicle accidents are either the LEADING or second-highest cause of death for all of those age groups.

Bottom line -- being involved with cars (either as driver, passenger, or as a pedestrian around cars) is basically the MOST dangerous single activity people deliberately choose to do on a regular basis.

Driving is dangerous,

Is it? I drive a fair bit, and sure it's more risky than lying on your couch, but not by much. I think the word 'danger' gets over-exaggerated these days considering how safe just about everything is relative to even 50 years ago.

Umm, yes, driving IS dangerous -- it's basically one of the most dangerous things people do. "Unintentional injury" is the leading cause of death in people age 1-44 (and the third highest after cancer and heart disease in people aged 45-64), according to CDC stats.

And of those causes classified as "unintentional injury" again according to the CDC, motor vehicle accidents are either the LEADING or second-highest cause of death for all of those age groups.

Bottom line -- being involved with cars (either as driver, passenger, or as a pedestrian around cars) is basically the MOST dangerous single activity people deliberately choose to do on a regular basis.

I see you're still spreading this lie. A lack of placebo controls cannot be argued to imply that there are lingering safety concerns, period.

Placebo controls do not reveal hidden safety concerns. It is literally impossible for placebos to do what you are claiming. There have been large trials on safety and they are more than sufficient. Your babbling about double-blind "gold standards" demonstrates a profound ignorance of how medical studies actually work and what the purpose of placebo controls are. Adding a placebo control would either do nothing or make vaccines appear even safer, depending on what is being measured and how.

In autism there is still clearly a rising trend, you know...

No, there is clearly not a rising trend. There is a clearly a rising trend in autism diagnosis. 30 years ago, people didn't get routine mental health screening and the definition of autism was much, much narrower than it is today. "Autism spectrum" was not a phrase that was often used 30 years ago. Aspergers was considered a different disorder entirely. Any psychologist can confirm this for you. Examination of older editions of the DSM will confirm this. Examination of access to mental health care confirms this. A conversation with any psychologist will confirm this. I will not link spam at this time as I don't have the time to gather it in a neat stack for you, but as you are a proven liar I hope this is not necessary.

Autism is not like heart disease. This is a moronic thing to imply. The definition of heart disease doesn't radically change every 15 or so years. More to the point, autism rates have not fallen among individuals who have refused MMR or other vaccinations.

Currently 1 in 25 American children (yes: American, because that's the only place with an insane inoculation frequency) falls prey to an autism spectrum disorder.

That comment set off my bullshit detector, and the CDC says it's about 1 in 68.

Actual harm to people who were vaccinated? Yeah, I thought that was impossible.

Tell me again how vaccinated people shouldn't be getting the diseases they are vaccinated against.

http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/previe...

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/bl...

Don't let facts (science) get in the way of sciency religion.

Bullshit. There is no such restriction on freedom of speech.

Here is my question, have you ever seen a study (double blind) on the safety of the full schedule of vaccines. Here is the CDC version ...

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/sc...

22 Vaccines from Birth to 15 months alone. You are so 100% sure that 22 schedule is safe and effective? Without Proof or even evidence? That is sciency, not science.

Bullshit. Sure there is. Try yelling "FIRE!" in a crowed movie theater and see how long it takes you to end up in trouble for inciting panic and causing a clear and present danger to those around you. People in trusted positions of authority on medical matters are doing the same thing when they discourage people from getting their vaccines.

Also if you had even the slightest understanding of science and ethics you would know both why such rigorous testing cannot be done and why it isn't necessary. We have mountains of historical data showing that vaccines work.

Your uneducated ravings on this topic are pseudo sciency BS at its worst.

Have you ever seen scientific study of the full schedule of vaccines in a double blind?

No and you haven't either. Conducting such a study would be hugely unethical because it would involve exposing large numbers of people to preventable diseases with known means of prevention. Double blind studies are ideal when possible but there are plenty of other valid means of studying diseases without resorting to double blind studies.

A vaccine may be safe, but the full schedule of vaccines has NEVER been studied.

Not true at all. It has been studied extensively. Furthermore there is substantial empirical evidence than any safety concerns about the full schedule of vaccines is a very small effect if it exists at all.

Now, tell me. where is the actual science on the full schedule of vaccines?

In the clinical studies for each and every vaccine and diseases that could conceivably be related to their administration. I suggest you go speak to an epidemiologist since you are in need of a clue about this. I'm sure they'll be happy to fill you in.

In other words, do you have scientific proof that a full vaccine schedule is safe. Until then, you're just sciency not scientific.

Yes we do have proof that a full vaccine schedule is safe. Scientific proof in the form of a measurably healthier populace and hugely reduced incidence of disease with barely any measurable side effects despite copious studies about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

You have a right to your opinion. however once you join certain professions, in this case medical, you have an overarching responsibility to do no harm and only provide sound medical advise

Bullshit. There is no such restriction on freedom of speech.

Here is my question, have you ever seen a study (double blind) on the safety of the full schedule of vaccines. Here is the CDC version ...

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/sc...

22 Vaccines from Birth to 15 months alone. You are so 100% sure that 22 schedule is safe and effective? Without Proof or even evidence? That is sciency, not science.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...

Pretty much a textbook example of what happens when unvaccinated and not fully vaccinated individuals are placed in an environment with carriers.

You're thinking the point of the research is to know more about chicken pox, aren't you?

Autoimmune diseases are pretty much the leading cause of death and disability in the US right now, so any basic research that might produce a better knowledge of how the immune system 'forgets' has the potential of producing some very significant benefits--the holy grail here probably is a way to basically edit the immune system's memory banks so we can remove 'bad' definitions. Any lead here is worth checking, even if you end up discovering that actually all of these 'otherwise healthy vaccine recipients' actually are cases of vaccine failure that had gotten hidden by herd immunity.

That last is still something we kind of need to know about, because wrong estimates of effectiveness and failure rates have implications, and past investigations into these sorts of things have caused changes to procedures. It might end up being just yet another round of reminders going out that if the vaccine is supposed to be stored in a fridge that means, amazingly enough, it needs to be stored in a fridge. It's been a bit over a decade since the last one for clinics that take care of humans, so we may be due. (I didn't study immunology specifically. I am in the biomedical field, and aiming to work in health care.)

Since you may need it: CDC doesn't reccomend that health care workers get a booster, so it looks like the current evidence may be that the 'otherwise healthy vaccine recipients' of your data point are currently suspected of being cases of vaccine failure. The effectiveness of two doses of this vaccine is listed as 90%, which is pretty respectable but does mean not everybody's going to actually come out with long-term immunity. (In fact, it means about one in ten people will get anything from a brief period of resistance to none whatsoever.)

This could've made sense if you provided a reference to backup such a ridiculous claim. Here allow me to help: http://www.vpc.org/press/state...

Look at what that "report" shows and compare it to my claim. I said that stricter gun laws correlate to higher murder rates. What does VPC claim? Look closely. They claim stricter gun laws reduce gun death rates. Do you see the distinction? I am looking at murders regardless of the weapons used because I'm not a heartless bastard that thinks stabbing people to death is somehow "better" than shooting a person to death.

Then look at how "gun deaths" are defined.

The deaths include gun homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings.

They include a self inflicted gun shot resulting in death, a suicide, as a "gun death" for their statistics. Four of those top five states on the VPC "report" have suicide rates above the national average, and the fifth? That is Louisiana with a suicide rate so close to the average that it is difficult to find the difference from the national score.

When looking at the 5 lowest "gun death" states we see Hawaii has an above average suicide rate, by a small margin. The other four are below average on suicide rates.

It seems the evidence shows mostly that those that choose suicide tend to do so with a gun. There is also a tendency for an armed populace to reduce murders,and an unarmed populace to choose suicide by some non-firearm means.

References:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe...
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/...

I

My apologies. I failed to interpret your note about the lack of 'an actual controlled study' as referring to 'an actual controlled study about X'.

If you really want to learn about the dangers of second-hand smoke, you could try reference #3 from the fact sheet, entitled 'The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke'. There you will find executive summaries and overviews of the report, as well as links to the complete report. You can even get everything in a convenient pdf format.

Technically, this publication is not 'an actual controlled study'; instead it is built on a large number of controlled studies. I would suggest that it meets any reasonable criteria for your controlled study requirement.

If there's a link to an actual controlled study anywhere in there, I can't find it.
What was wrong with the link I used in my comment? That study, which was reference #8 in the fact sheet, describes its methodology, shows its data, and has a couple dozen more references if you want to get further into it.

Brought to you by the same people who recommended transfat laden margarine for your health.
And? What does that ad hominem have to do with the work of a completely different group of scientists?
It's the way of science - when we learn more, we sometimes find that we made mistakes before. If you're only going to accept information from people who have never been wrong, you're not going to learn much.
PS - I can't find where the CDC itself recommended margarine. Have a link?

Here you go, a whole bunch of citations on second-hand smoke, all in one spot and very easy-to-read:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat...

From the abstract of one of the linked papers: No risk-free level of SHS exposure exists.

Here you go, a whole bunch of citations on second-hand smoke, all in one spot and very easy-to-read:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat...

From the abstract of one of the linked papers: No risk-free level of SHS exposure exists.

Deaths due to second hand smoke this week: 9,100 or 1,300 deaths every day (source)

That's the deaths from all smoking. According to your link the annual U.S. deaths from second-hand smoke totals 42,000, which is 115 per day.

More interesting is the comparison, that for every 10 deaths of smokers there is 1 death by second-hand smoke. That's higher than I would have thought.

Your CDC link talks about deaths caused by smoking, NOT second-hand smoke.

Everyone knows (has known for ~40 years now) that smoking kills at a tremendous rate, the dangers of second-hand smoke are much less clear cut. The CDC's best (most alarming) guess at the effect is 2.5 million people since 1964. That's a little under 1000 a week.

And even that figure is derived by assuming that every single death of a nonsmoker caused by smoking-related diseases is directly caused by secondhand smoke (i.e. the natural incidence of lung cancer, etc., in the population would be zero if not for smoking), which is an extremely suspect assumption.

Thats the wrong question. The better question is: How much harm has the apparatus done to our freedoms and economy? Europe will no longer trust its data in our hands, and much of the world becomes more adversarial. Is nothing sacred anymore? I shutter to think of the day our thoughts can be digitized, stored, analyzed, and archived.

As for the "intelligence apparatus" and its usefulness... Please. To do what? Protect human life? Congress could save more human beings THIS WEEK in the US by banning tobacco and classifying nicotine a narcotic.

Deaths due to terrorism since 1995 in the US: 3,264 (source)
Deaths due to second hand smoke this week: 9,100 or 1,300 deaths every day (source)

I should mention that although smoking kills 10,000 people a week, I don't support banning it, since that would require taking away our liberties and freedoms. But so does government surveillance, and I would ban that. Its too expensive, doesn't protect all that much life, and tramples on our ideology.

In the US, seems to have involved mostly draining swamps and eliminating standing water.

Sri Lanka also did that, nearly a century ago. But it didn't eliminate the disease. There were still residual malaria cases. Those cases were eliminated by tracking down and treating the individual carriers, especially asymptomatic carriers. That is not "sanitation".

In the US, seems to have involved mostly draining swamps and eliminating standing water.

Seems most of the reduction happened before DDT was available.

So what happens when mosquito populations crash and the natural ecosystem begins to unravel? How many people will die then? Also, FYI Africa has no active Zika transmission. http://www.cdc.gov/zika/geo/ac...

Here's the deal with Zika. IF you're not a pregnant woman- it's really not that bad.

Guillain-Barre syndrome is no walk in the park.

out of the 3,500 species of mosquitos out there, only about 200 bite man

Why? And in a related note, apparently only two mosquito species transmit Zika. Why?

I'm asking because that Nature link only seems to be considering consequences of the loss of the species as a food source. What about some of the other possible consequences? Could these human-biting mosquitoes be filling an ecological niche, and without them could biting flies (which hurt like hell) end up filling the now-empty niche and exploding in population? Could Zika mutate into a different form which allows it to be transmitted by other mosquitoes, or even flies?

You can't just consider whether the rest of the ecosystem could survive the loss of mosquitoes. You have to look at how it would react to the loss.

effective

        Except that hand sanitizers are only effective in quite limited subset of situations.

Actual effectiveness ratios for birth control:

US CDC document on actual effectiveness

Highlights:

Condoms are about as effective as the withdrawal method, sponges, or the rhythm method. 20% or so failure rates. Spermicides are worse (!) (28%) 9% annual failure on the pill.

The only truly effective contraception methods are *just* the methods they won't allow young kids to get. I had to get a signoff from my wife at age 29 for a vasectomy. I was told they wouldn't do it if i were single or if I had been married with no children. Reason: ex post facto lawsuits by women aggrieved by the urologist denying them children within their marriage. Similarly, just try walking in and asking for your tubes tied at 16 or an IUD implant.

The bottom line is that the "conservatives" advocating abstinence training are actually right. The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to encourage them to stop fucking so much. The birth control available to them _does not work_. They should all just screw bareback from what I can see.

I am religious, spiritual, and conservative. My sect teaches that all sex outside the bonds of marriage is sinful, but most forms of birth control within marriage are ok (but abortion is considered sinful in most cases). Abstinence is the method that is 100% effective, so it should be stressed. Realistically, a certain percentage of kids will experiment, so other methods should also be taught.