Slashdot Mirror

Nobody is forcing anyone in Eastern Europe to be criminal, that's a ridiculous claim. So many Gypsies in Eastern Europe live in poverty because those countries are, by European Union standards, quite poor themselves. A lot of people there live in poverty - some of them are Gypsies.

Poverty IS the major cause of crime.
There's no better proof of that than observing exact same practices as done by the poor and by the rich.
In the case of the poor it's a crime.
In the case of the rich, at worst it's a "legal issue". At best it's "aggressive and shrewd business practice".

And that's disregarding the epigenetic burden of generations of poverty (all them fun diseases that weren't really a burden on poor people before all food became cheap processed carbs and fats), inherited psychological trauma and downright segregational injury one might "luck into" by choosing to be born poor.
Particularly when choosing to be born into a poor country where such health issues will tend to be ignored, untreated or too expensive to treat - for much longer than in the rich countries.

Which is where you should look for that "forcing".
Much like with those stereotypes of belligerent Irish drunkards and criminals - the real cause for prejudice may actually be older prejudice from centuries ago.

Antibiotics are required to get over sinus infections (without waiting over a month in misery), which I get almost every time I get a cold.

Thank you for so aptly proving my point. Sinus infections are one of the classic overuse scenarios, since in most cases they're viral and thus antibiotics are utterly useless. (Oh, and by the way, you generally can't tell for sure whether you have one of the fairly rare bacterially-driven sinus infections until about 10 days in, at which point most cases are on the verge of clearing up on their own.)

Again, this is something you want instead of something you're against, so you basically just shrug it off, justify your own overuse, deny the well-understood and common-sense notion that antibiotic resistance in humans is driven by antibiotic overconsumption by humans, and ignore the mass of literature that quantifies exactly how serious the problem is getting:

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is recognized as one of the greatest threats to human health worldwide. Just one organism, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), kills more Americans every year than emphysema, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson’s disease and homicide combined.

So -- are we ready to take "one of the greatest threats to human health worldwide" head on, classify antibiotics as a controlled substance, criminalize misuse, and go door to door making sure people aren't taking them on the sly? Yeah, didn't think so. Once again, the current flap over vaccination is an astoundingly hypocritical, transparent excuse for exercising what would otherwise be considered an unacceptable degree of power and control over currently disfavored groups/mindsets.

Hahaha, no. Just do not blindly trust things a scientist says, verify against common sense, scientific basics and genral consensus in the respective field. Yes, that takes work. Be very careful when they give opinions though (not "expert opinions"). That is a codeword for "I am going to forget that I am a scientist now". Also, the worst liars usually get exposed after a while, even if the damage is often already done when they do: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

addictive

Its not addictive.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The most appealing explanatory mechanism I've read about center around the screens' blue light disturbing the circadian rhythm, as the brain interprets it as daylight, thus delaying sleepiness, e.g.:

Blocking Short-Wavelength Component of the Visible Light Emitted by Smartphones' Screens Improves Human Sleep Quality, Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express, 2018

The findings obtained in this study support this hypothesis that blue light possibly suppresses the secretion of melatonin more than the longer wavelengths of the visible light spectrum. Using amber filter in this study significantly improved the sleep quality. Altogether, these findings lead us to this conclusion that blocking the short-wavelength component of the light emitted by smartphones' screens improves human sleep.

I suspect this is related to the issue, but there may be multiple factors at play here.

Slightly on topic, and just posting this here for visibility:

This study was done with the premise of only screens, nighttime usage and specifically adolescence mental wellbeing. There has been a lot of studies but ruling the technology itself out can be helpful so care can be placed properly.

The CONTENTS or more specifically, the usage, of the screen might still be harmful, i.e social media use and mental health[1], video game use and lack of sleep and mental health[2], etc.

Citation: 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... 2: https://www.ingentaconnect.com...

It also found that the use of digital screens 2 hours, 1 hour, or 30 minutes before bedtime didn't have clear associations with decreases in adolescent well-being, even though this is often taken as a fact by media reports and public debates.

Though it seems like this study had a reasonably strict study design, and may be a welcome addition to the body of literature, this claim belittles the adverse findings in systematic reviews and clinical guidelines:

Screen time and sleep among school-aged children and adolescents: a systematic literature review., Sleep Medicine Reviews, 2015:

We reviewed 67 studies published from 1999 to early 2014. [...] We found that screen time is adversely associated with sleep outcomes (primarily shortened duration and delayed timing) in 90% of studies.

Effects of screentime on the health and well-being of children and adolescents: a systematic review of reviews, BMJ Open, 2019:

Findings of significantly shorter total sleep time with greater mobile device screentime were reported in 10/12 studies, with 5/5 reporting greater subjective day-time tiredness or sleepiness.

American Academy of Pediatrics Announces New Recommendations for Children’s Media Use, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2016:

For children ages 6 and older, place consistent limits on the time spent using media, and the types of media, and make sure media does not take the place of adequate sleep, physical activity and other behaviors essential to health.

It shows that perhaps the schedule and recommendations in the U.S. are a bit much (the broader subject of the sub-thread).

It shows no such thing; you can just as easily conclude that the schedule in other places is rather not enough. Unless you've done comparative studies of outcomes you're just operating on your own biases.

But in answer to the rest, the risk for a baby born to an already infected mother is sufficient that even a small chance that the vaccine might actually have an effect is worth it.

If there's even a small chance that it'll work, then the claim that infants have no immune system is bunk.

Of course we know that it's bunk anyway; you certainly won't hear such nonsense from any medical professionals. And we know that the efficacy of infant HepB vaccination is far better than "a small chance".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m...

97% of the measles vaccines (2 doses of MMR) are effective.

Largest measles epidemic in North America in a decade--Quebec, Canada, 2011: contribution of susceptibility, serendipity, and superspreading events. - PubMed - NCBI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The largest measles epidemic in North America in the last decade, occurred in 2011 in Quebec, Canada, where rates of 1- and 2-dose vaccine coverage among children 3 years of age were 95%-97% and 90%, respectively, with 3%-5% unvaccinated.

METHODS:

Case patients identified through passive surveillance and outbreak investigation were contacted to determine clinical course, vaccination status, and possible source of infection.

RESULTS:

There were 21 measles importations and 725 cases. A superspreading event triggered by 1 importation resulted in sustained transmission and 678 cases. The overall incidence was 9.1 per 100,000; the highest incidence was in adolescents 12-17 years old (75.6 per 100,000), who comprised 56% of case patients. Among adolescents, 22% had received 2 vaccine doses. Outbreak investigation showed this proportion to have been an underestimate; active case finding identified 130% more cases among 2-dose recipients. Two-dose recipients had milder illness and a significantly lower risk of hospitalization than those who were unvaccinated or single-dose recipients.

CONCLUSIONS:

A chance superspreading event revealed an overall level of immunity barely above the elimination threshold when unexpected vulnerability in 2-dose recipients was taken into account. Unvaccinated individuals remain the immunization priority, but a better understanding of susceptibility in 2-dose recipients is needed to define effective interventions if elimination is to be achieved.

Yes, there are a self questionnaires:
Maslach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

and there's also this which I can't find an English version of:
KES/KEDS: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Last time I looked the risk seems to be related to long term lack of recovery and not the stress itself. From what I remember, as long as your stress doesn't affect your recovery (sleep etc) you have a low risk of clinical burnout. Once it starts affecting sleep and preventing recovery there is an increased risk.

If we assume lack of recovery is the real cause and then guess a lot, it could explain the current trend. There would not be one single factor but many like the increased efficiency of many jobs where simple and repetitive tasks are eliminated (thus fewer short breaks for the brain). Smartphones also remove a lot of short mental breaks when our brains used to rest (for example during commutes or waiting for the water to boil).

Perhaps you should stop talking about stuff you have no freaking idea about?

Since when has that ever stopped you.

Your body treats cesium like potassium. It does not bioaccumulate. Your human body, perhaps. No idea. But how is that relevant when your food does?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Your link is paywalled and we can only read the abstract.

Then pay the money, that's what I do.

That's why most experts worry about Iodine and not Cesium or Strontium when evaluating the risk of bio-accumulation of medium lived fission products.

Cs137 and Sr90 are treated like Iodine and Potassium by the body, IIRC. They don't worry about Iodine, they use Iodine in to try to block the uptake of Cs137 if you are exposed to that radio-isotope.

But Iodine's isotopes are harder to detect than Cesium's which is why you see these articles about Cesium.

They're all hard to detect in food because the water in the food acts as a moderator to the alpha, beta and gamma radiation radiation emitted by radio-isotope.

The fact we can detect it at all says more about the sensitivity of our instruments than risk to the environment. They are measuring a difference of 0.4 atomic events per volume of seawater! Remember the conversion factor there is on the order of 10^22!

No, what it says is the instruments aren't sensitive enough to protect the food supply when foodstuffs are moving in tons. How are you going to detect Pu-239 in a ton of lettuce? Plutonium Chloride is highly soluble and treated like iron by the body as the beggining of many metabolic processes.

In many cases, you can create a free account, then bookmark the summary or a search for the DOI on PubMed and just wait until the full article is also available on there for free.

A limited version of this is already in effect, as articles that arise from research supported by many (possibly all) US federal government grants must be available on a public access site with 12 months of the official date of publication (links to NIH and NSF policies). Lobbying by publishers blocked an effort for no or a shorter waiting period.

Perhaps you should stop talking about stuff you have no freaking idea about?

Since when has that ever stopped you.

Your body treats cesium like potassium. It does not bioaccumulate. Your human body, perhaps. No idea. But how is that relevant when your food does?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Your link is paywalled and we can only read the abstract. And since fish, shrimp and things people eat don't use Cesium to build their body structure, they won't accumulate heavy metals over time. Cesium, like Strontium, is a heavy metal and won't combine with carbon or participate in other biological reactions. That's why most experts worry about Iodine and not Cesium or Strontium when evaluating the risk of bio-accumulation of medium lived fission products. But Iodine's isotopes are harder to detect than Cesium's which is why you see these articles about Cesium. The fact we can detect it at all says more about the sensitivity of our instruments than risk to the environment. They are measuring a difference of 0.4 atomic events per volume of seawater! Remember the conversion factor there is on the order of 10^22!

Perhaps you should stop talking about stuff you have no freaking idea about?

Your body treats cesium like potassium. It does not bioaccumulate.
Your human body, perhaps. No idea. But how is that relevant when your food does?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Yes people have done studies that show this. I quickly searched "drug dog double blind tests" and got "Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes". You could search more thoroughly, but I think the answer to your questions is yes. We have studied this, and the dogs are biased by their handlers. My impression is that it is not insignificant either, but that's just me talking now (from a vague recollection of reading an article in the past).

It's an interesting idea. PubMed may not have any anti-vax peer-reviewed articles in the library, but there are at least some articles included that are, at least, on the fringe. See the first few search results for "earthing" as an example. So even when links to PubMed are included, you can end up with weird content. PubMed's disclosure about how journals are included in the library and the quality of individual articles isn't prominent enough, in my opinion. This is based on my own experience with people seeing an article published under an NIH URL and assuming this means the contents have been validated by the government's own scientists.

Too bad these sites don't provide preferential recommendations/promotions to accounts and posts that contain links to PubMed articles. If they're going to use these algorithms, they could certainly promote accounts that link to the original publication even if those accounts promote a conspiracy theory, that the research was real and is being suppressed, etc.

That would at least get actual scientific research reports out front. If you can find anti-vax peer-reviewed research on PubMed, you go right ahead and link/share it. If you can't find it there because it's "being suppressed", find (and let the sites promote) any other sites that publish experimental research in any kind of refereed journal. It would hopefully get this information more in the open and at least cursorily examined for reputability and accuracy by people on the fence.

Stanton A Glantz, author of your link, is a hack who is in it for the grant money and has made a career with the anti-smoking schtick. He just switched it up to anti-vaporizers when he realized that is where the money is.

Here is a link that goes into great detail about what a hack Glantz is

Can you explain to me why both the US NIH and UK NHS have both stated that vaping is 95% safer than smoking cigarettes?

30 seconds of googling revealed this. To save you the reading,

Several lines of evidence indicate that nicotine may contribute to the development of cancer. Evidence from experimental in vitro studies on cell cultures, in vivo studies on rodents as well as studies on humans inclusive of epidemiological studies indicate that nicotine itself, independent of other tobacco constituents, may stimulate a number of effects of importance in cancer development (5, 6).

BTW, I was a smoker for 20 years and loved every second of it. If I thought for a minute that any form of nicotine wasn't terrible for my health, I would be on it again in a heartbeat.

The animals studies which led the IARC to that conclusion were incredibly bad, and I believe have all been retracted. They made a bad call but refuse to back down; there's a reason no other scientific organization has followed suit.

The farmer study you're referring to (if it's the same one I'm thinking of; who knows since you've provided no references) found that:

"glyphosate was not statistically significantly associated with cancer at any site. However, among applicators in the highest exposure quartile, there was an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with never users (RRÃââ=Ãââ2.44, 95% CIÃââ=Ãââ0.94 to 6.32, Ptrend = .11), though this association was not statistically significant. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m...

Emphasis mine.

This directly contradicts the scaremongering nonsense you're trying to credit them with.

I don't know about "likely," as that seems a bit premature to say. From what I could sleuth, the focus seems to surround the surfactant used in Roundup, for which I could only find a single paper showing evidence for toxicity in petri dishes:

A glyphosate-based pesticide impinges on transcription., Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 2005:

The surfactant polyoxyethylene amine (POEA), the major component of commercial Roundup, was found to be highly toxic to the embryos when tested alone and therefore could contribute to the inhibition of hatching.

Many things will kill unprotected cells in vitro. I don't suppose you know of any other papers, or even in vivo studies?

This is the evaluation by IARC that opened up for the lawsuits:

IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2015:

The herbicide glyphosate and the insecticides malathion and diazinon were classified as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).
[...]
For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals.

That IARC evaluation was subsequently criticized, and other high-profile papers and agencies were unable to reach the same conclusions:

A regulatory perspective on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate, Journal of Toxicology and Health, 2015:

It appears that IARC has overreached in its conclusion by failing to consider the vast body of literature supporting the notion that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. Besides, IARC has failed to place potential hazard into a context of actual risk. When the conditions of glyphosate use in Egypt is rationally analyzed, it appears that exposure of the public to glyphosate is order of magnitudes far below the zero-risk dose.

The BfR has finalised its draft report for the re-evaluation of glyphosate - BfR, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, 2015:

In conclusion of this re-evaluation process of the active substance glyphosate by BfR the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of glyphosate exposure and risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 2016:

Bias and confounding may account for observed associations. Meta-analysis is constrained by few studies and a crude exposure metric, while the overall body of literature is methodologically limited and findings are not strong or consistent. Thus, a causal relationship has not been established between glyphosate exposure and risk of any type of LHC.

EPA Releases Draft Risk Assessments for Glyphosate, Environmental Protection Agency, 2017:

The draft human health risk assessment concludes that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The Agency’s assessment found no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label. The Agency’s scientific findings are consistent with the conclusions of science reviews by a number of other countries as well as the 2017 National Institute of Health Agricultural Health Survey.

Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC, Archives of Toxicology, 2017:

Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potential to mammals, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is p

This is the evaluation by IARC that opened up for the lawsuits:

IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2015:

The herbicide glyphosate and the insecticides malathion and diazinon were classified as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).
[...]
For the herbicide glyphosate, there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate also can cause cancer in laboratory animals.

That IARC evaluation was subsequently criticized, and other high-profile papers and agencies were unable to reach the same conclusions:

A regulatory perspective on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate, Journal of Toxicology and Health, 2015:

It appears that IARC has overreached in its conclusion by failing to consider the vast body of literature supporting the notion that glyphosate is not a carcinogen. Besides, IARC has failed to place potential hazard into a context of actual risk. When the conditions of glyphosate use in Egypt is rationally analyzed, it appears that exposure of the public to glyphosate is order of magnitudes far below the zero-risk dose.

The BfR has finalised its draft report for the re-evaluation of glyphosate - BfR, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, 2015:

In conclusion of this re-evaluation process of the active substance glyphosate by BfR the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of glyphosate exposure and risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 2016:

Bias and confounding may account for observed associations. Meta-analysis is constrained by few studies and a crude exposure metric, while the overall body of literature is methodologically limited and findings are not strong or consistent. Thus, a causal relationship has not been established between glyphosate exposure and risk of any type of LHC.

EPA Releases Draft Risk Assessments for Glyphosate, Environmental Protection Agency, 2017:

The draft human health risk assessment concludes that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The Agency’s assessment found no other meaningful risks to human health when the product is used according to the pesticide label. The Agency’s scientific findings are consistent with the conclusions of science reviews by a number of other countries as well as the 2017 National Institute of Health Agricultural Health Survey.

Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC, Archives of Toxicology, 2017:

Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potential to mammals, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is p

Post the scientific study that proves it or GTFO.

https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co...

Yeah, scary shit
https://www.darpa.mil/program/...
https://www.nature.com/article...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://www.theguardian.com/sc...

The circadian rhythm of temperature in humans during a 26-hr sleep-wake schedule

These results show that a 26-hr sleep-wake schedule can be a more powerful zeitgeber than the natural 24-hr zeitgebers. Factors that might determine whether an individual will entrain to the 26-hr schedule are discussed.

Sorry but all of that is just anti-vaxxer crap. There does not exist a single controlled peer-reviewed study that indicates that the Mumps vaccine is anything but 90+% effective. E.g we have this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Recently, numerous large-scale mumps outbreaks have occurred in vaccinated populations. Clinical isolates sequenced from these outbreaks have invariably been of genotypes distinct from those of vaccine viruses, raising concern that certain mumps virus strains may escape vaccine-induced immunity. To investigate this concern, sera obtained from children 6 weeks after receipt of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine were tested for the ability to neutralize a carefully selected group of genetically diverse mumps virus strains. Although the geometric mean neutralizing antibody titer of the sera was lower against some virus strains than others, all viruses were readily neutralized, arguing against immune escape.

The HPV vaccines are not given to newborns, the lowest age to get it are 9 years of age. And it's 100% vital to give it before the girl becomes sexually active

The flu vaccine story is also fake, or rather there where a single study that once showed a potential link but then further studies where done (this is how science works, you cannot draw conclusions from a single study), that showed that there where no link: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/...

There was one study (published in 2012) that suggested that influenza vaccination might make people more susceptible to other respiratory infections. After that study was published, many experts looked into this issue further and conducted additional studies to see if the findings could be replicated. No other studies have found this effect. For example, this article [99 KB, 5 pages] in Clinical Infectious Diseases (published in 2013). It’s not clear why this finding was detected in the one study, but the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not a common or regular occurrence and that influenza vaccination does not, in fact, make people more susceptible to other respiratory infections.

Amish populations don't object to vaccines over religious reasons. The largest reason they provide is concern over the safety or efficacy of vaccines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Mennonites appear to have the same views for rejecting vaccines rather than religious.

The only religious objection to vaccine tend to come from sects where they believe in faith healing and that frequently manifests as a general across the board rejection of modern medicine.

How the outbreak in Disney was not a wild strain.

Are you trolling? Disneyland outbreak was genotype B3. http://outbreaknewstoday.com/p...

Since I know pro-vaxxers won't do any research on their own, rather relying on the supposed experts to tell you what to believe, here is a link for you. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

Yeah, someone got genotype A measles unsurprising considering the billions of shots that have been given. The idea that this could be responsible for outbreaks involved a catastrophic misunderstanding of science. See even if you shed genotype A. It's still vaccine strain, the likely case for someone who encounters it in sufficient quantity is - vaccination.

Another link for the unbelievers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

This simply looks at post hoc ER visits. Not actual events.

How the outbreak in Disney was not a wild strain.

Are you trolling? Disneyland outbreak was genotype B3. http://outbreaknewstoday.com/p...

Since I know pro-vaxxers won't do any research on their own, rather relying on the supposed experts to tell you what to believe, here is a link for you. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

Yeah, someone got genotype A measles unsurprising considering the billions of shots that have been given. The idea that this could be responsible for outbreaks involved a catastrophic misunderstanding of science. See even if you shed genotype A. It's still vaccine strain, the likely case for someone who encounters it in sufficient quantity is - vaccination.

Another link for the unbelievers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

This simply looks at post hoc ER visits. Not actual events.

And yet, we have this story from just a few months ago: https://www.ageofautism.com/20... Do vaccines work? Yes. Are they safe? For most, yes. However, some people have had adverse reactions, including death, after a vaccine shot: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b... Why is it assumed that vaccines are 100% safe for everyone? I can eat a bag of peanuts, but some people can die from just a trace of peanut. Why wouldn't vaccines be the same? Also, vaccines contain some toxic chemicals. I know the levels in an individual vaccine shot should be safe, but how about when a doctor administers multiple vaccines at once? Here's a list of vaccine ingredients: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/p... Then we have stories like this: https://www.news-medical.net/n...

Largest measles epidemic in North America in a decade--Quebec, Canada, 2011: contribution of susceptibility, serendipity, and superspreading events. - PubMed - NCBI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

But they don't have a right to endanger other people.

I completely agree. If you get your kid vaccinated, you should have to keep them isolated from the safe and clean population.

Or do you not know about the Measles outbreaks that have been in the news? How the outbreak in Disney was not a wild strain. Or the outbreaks in Alberta, that were traced back to the strain used in the vaccines? So you pro-vaxxers are spreading outbreaks around and blaming innocent people. Do you also like to shame rape victims for being raped!!!

Since I know pro-vaxxers won't do any research on their own, rather relying on the supposed experts to tell you what to believe, here is a link for you. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The latest studies by actual scientists who care to know if these things are safe are finding that we were lied to about that as well. As many as 1 out of 168 end up with harmful side effects from vaccines. But in the US, less than 1% are reported as vaccine harm or side effects. So it looks safe because you aren't looking. And why would anyone want to look when you are immune from lawsuits anyway.

Another link for the unbelievers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

But they don't have a right to endanger other people.

I completely agree. If you get your kid vaccinated, you should have to keep them isolated from the safe and clean population.

Or do you not know about the Measles outbreaks that have been in the news? How the outbreak in Disney was not a wild strain. Or the outbreaks in Alberta, that were traced back to the strain used in the vaccines? So you pro-vaxxers are spreading outbreaks around and blaming innocent people. Do you also like to shame rape victims for being raped!!!

Since I know pro-vaxxers won't do any research on their own, rather relying on the supposed experts to tell you what to believe, here is a link for you. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The latest studies by actual scientists who care to know if these things are safe are finding that we were lied to about that as well. As many as 1 out of 168 end up with harmful side effects from vaccines. But in the US, less than 1% are reported as vaccine harm or side effects. So it looks safe because you aren't looking. And why would anyone want to look when you are immune from lawsuits anyway.

Another link for the unbelievers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Ah, one of the references suggests why this might be a relevant article.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29101220?dopt=Abstract

Oh, and his 1788 paper on the Cuckoo is now widely regarded as being the first study of the remarkable life cycle of the bird.

try: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The limits seem to vary depending on who you ask. You're using the guidelines for known danger to health/life, but there are negative effects long before it causes permanent damage or kills someone; an NIH study summarized here found a 15% decrease in cognitive function in offices at the 1000 ppm level, and a 50% decrease at the 1400 ppm level.

Keep in mind, those raw levels aren't what you're exposed to indoors; you can't keep indoor levels identical to outside levels (doing so would require either insanely high ventilation levels that would waste most of your heat/AC, or you're at very low occupancy), so 300 ppm above outside levels is fairly typical; it's considered "acceptable" as long as it's below 600 ppm below outside levels (thus the 1000 ppm standard in the present day where outside levels are around 400 ppm). So if outside CO2 levels are at 1200 ppm, indoor levels are likely around 1500-1800 (higher when in poorly ventilated rooms), which is well beyond the 50% decreased cognitive function level, and approaching the level (2000 ppm) at which some people experience nausea, sleepiness, headaches, etc.

Also background radiation is - of course - believed to *increase* cancer risk: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

Your 'thermostat theory' does not make sense to me and I have never read about this in the scientific literature. Obviously, if it would be healthier to produce "protective-molecules" evolution would cause production to increase even without additional radiation until the overall optimum (considering all trade-offs) is reached. Why additional radiation should then be helpful is beyond my understanding.

It is nice to see more confirmation in this direction. Almost all research in the past decades was focussed on the health benefits of endurance training, however strength seems to be a better indicator for health than endurance, e.g. as noted in this longterm study, even when equating for lifestyle choices like smoking (so it's not that stronger people just make better decisions).

Grip strength seems also to be a good (and easy to measure) indicator. Also the stand-sit test which has become common practice in geriatry is practically a measure of strength.

Why muscle and strength (of course one has to exclude enhanced athletes with supraphysiological amounts of muscle) is so healthy is still not totally clear, but there are already two factors standing out, which cannot be replicated by endurance type of training: The first benefit is better mobility and protection against injury, in particular in high age. Second, when you are hit with a wasting disease, or just stop eating like you used to and get into a protein deficit, your body can take those aminos from your muscle instead from your precious vital organs. In particular atrophy in the heart is very hard to reverse (a struggle many recovered anorexics have).

Bill, every time you pull shit out of your ass and eat it, your tiny balls shrink a little more. You are not a phlebotomist obviously. You've already been corrected you illiterate moron.
   

There is *zero* net benefit from the modern human insulins over the older and vastly cheaper animal based insulins.

The advantages of human insulin over animal insulin is probably somewhat slight, and is further offset by some disadvantages. However human insulin isn't "modern"; it's been in use since the 1980s, grandpa! Modern insulin analogues absolutely do provide advantages over both animal and human insulin, as do modern delivery methods.

"A literature search spanning the last 25 years was carried out to identify publications addressing issues of insulin initiation, how insulin analogs can help overcome barriers to initiation, and the advantages of pen-type insulin delivery systems. Seventy-five publications were identified. These references illustrate that the drawbacks associated with regular exogenous human insulins (soluble and NPH) are improved with modern insulin analogs. The more rapid absorption of prandial insulin analogs compared with human insulin eliminates the need for an injection-meal-interval, increasing convenience, while basal analogs have no discernible peak in activity. Modern insulin delivery devices also have advantages over the traditional vial and syringe. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m...

Yes, he does. Cannabis use has acute - and potentially chronic - affects on memory.

Here's a list of different foods and their analysis of various kinds of nitrosamines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

You'll find them in fruits and vegetables, sauces, fish, vegetable oils. The meats don't particulary stick out, except for salted fish (which I think it rarely mentioned when people talk about danger of processed meats).

I wondered how far we'd get into t6his before someone pulled the "I have an anecdote that refutes your scientific survey" bullshit.

I wondere how far we'd get into this until a coward showed up strutting like a cock-a-whoop, thinking he'd scored the game winning touchdown.

Anecdotes? If you were capable of googling you could find that it's real.

https://www.webmd.com/balance/...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-we-worry/201805/espresso-stress-o-coffee-anxiety-and-panic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... Not an anecdote in the bunch. Caffeine is a psychoactive substance, and excessive consumption can be a real problem. Deal with it.

While you're at it, care to refute climate change with a picture of snow on your lawn?

Nope, because the relationship between the composition of an atmosphere and the atmosphere's energy retention characteristics is irrefutable.

Claims that there is no relationship between caffeine consumption and panic attacks, well now that's the anti-science viewpoint, my dear coward.

A longitudinal study by the NIH found that vaping is a gateway to smoking, and it is likely that access to vapers increases tobacco use among adolescents.

No. Caffeine in the form of 4 cups or more of coffee per day actually has a preventative effect according to this meta-analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

So anyhow - I know a woman who nearly died of heart palpitations from excess coffee - Perhaps you can draw up legislation to make over 4 cups of coffee illegal.

People's health depends on it!

No. Caffeine in the form of 4 cups or more of coffee per day actually has a preventative effect according to this meta-analysis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The measles vaccine is definitely not 100% effective. Whenever there are measles outbreaks, something like 20% of the cases are previously immunized people who should have had immunity if the vaccine were 100% effective. Please note that I am just providing this information for the sake of accuracy and perspective. It does not constitute an argument that vaccinations are not beneficial. You can have an over 90% vaccination rate, and then when you look at the vax status of the measles cases, the vaccination rate in that population is only 20%. That is pretty clear evidence that the vaccine works. But it is also proof that the vaccine is not 100% effective. So it is not "functional immunity for all intents and purposes."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m...

Ah no effects. Nothing like what's been observed here... Measles virus-induced suppression of immune responses - NCBI - NIH