Slashdot Mirror

https://co2coalition.org/
Also, cold periods are far more deadly than warm periods.
So even if CO2 caused warming, for which there's no evidence, it wouldn't be bad.
The temperature record has been defrauded:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not only have climate alarmists failed to make any predictions on the climate that came through, a real understand of temperature has been reached:
https://www.omicsonline.org/op...

ummm... RTFA I said "50,000 people in the US alone have died from Cdiff in the last 10 years." In my more recent post, I point out that in 2011 alone, there were 500,000 cases of CDI, so in 10 years, that would be 5,000,000 cases of CDI. So my ballpark number of 50,000 deaths was a fatality rate of about 1%. Put down your crack pipe and step away from the keyboard... http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news...

Furthermore, I know that in 1999 there were very few CDI, but the cases and fatalities rose dramatically over the last 17 years, and between 2006 and 2016 the deaths were between 8,000 and 29,000 per year, see here: http://slideplayer.com/slide/3... This easily adds up to over 50,000 deaths between 2006 and 2016, so again, I think you need to leave off whatever you have been smoking for a while.

Furthermore, you might want to educate yourself a bit instead of talking out of your ass about things which you are clearly ignorant "If infections had a 60% death rate I would be probably dead 20 times now." NO RTFA, PRE ANTIBOITCS MOST SERIOUS INFECTIONS WERE FATAL...

Quoting from this article: https://www.healthychildren.or...

"Before antibiotics, 90% of children with bacterial meningitis died. Among those children who lived, most had severe and lasting disabilities, from deafness to mental retardation.
Strep throat was at times a fatal disease, and ear infections sometimes spread from the ear to the brain, causing severe problems.
Other serious infections, from tuberculosis to pneumonia to whooping cough, were caused by aggressive bacteria that reproduced with extraordinary speed and led to serious illness and sometimes death."

For more fun reading, you can see how mideval medicine was during WW1, which was pre antibiotics https://www.omicsonline.org/op...

It's somewhat tangential to what I believe the intent of your question is but: https://www.omicsonline.org/op... http://healthland.time.com/201...

And this link (Ads for sugared products leading to obesity) is generally accepted as a ground truth of advertising to children. I fully accept the inevitable counter argument of "parenting", but as a parent I will also say, there are times when you cave just to get the kids to STFU and give you a moment of peace.

So the result is that advertising makes kids want things. No kidding. That's not harming them.

It's somewhat tangential to what I believe the intent of your question is but:
https://www.omicsonline.org/op...
http://healthland.time.com/201...

And this link (Ads for sugared products leading to obesity) is generally accepted as a ground truth of advertising to children. I fully accept the inevitable counter argument of "parenting", but as a parent I will also say, there are times when you cave just to get the kids to STFU and give you a moment of peace.

That's bullshit. The anti-vax crap is on both sides of the political spectrum. The current President (a far right-winger) has spouted anti-vax BS, and there's been a bunch of it among religious groups who've then had outbreaks.

https://www.omicsonline.org/op...

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

http://scienceblogs.com/insole...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...

But it's not just religious idiots who've latched onto the anti-vax hysteria, it's also some elements on the left, namely the loony ones who are also into various other "alternative medicine" hokum.

Remember, the "left" isn't a coherent, homogeneous group of people by any stretch, in fact it's a coalition of basically everyone who isn't right-wing. The right-wingers are generally conservative, which means they like the status quo, "traditional values", etc., so anyone who departs from this mindset is automatically left-wing, even though that can mean completely different philosophies ranging from simple "progressivism" (basically what Nordic countries have--democratic republics with a bunch of welfare state services and heavier regulation) all the way to actual communism. So the "left" includes irreligious people who want science and evidence-based thinking to determine public policy, and also fruity people who believe in garbage like "metaphysics" and the "ascended masters".

Maybe. Maybe not:

http://science.sciencemag.org/...

There have been several studies to date transplanting gut flora from "skinny" rats and mice into "obese" rats and mice resulting in weight loss with the same diet composition. They have also showed the reverse to be true.

Furthermore there seems to be some evidence that sugar-alcohols and artificial sweeteners may be better food for the growth of bacteria that favors an obese phenotype.

http://www.omicsonline.org/bac... http://www.scientificamerican.... http://www.nature.com/nature/j... http://www.nature.com/news/sug...

(FWIW - I am a doctor (MD) but I am not an endocrinologist/obesity researcher)

If you cannot show harm

Oh, for chrissake:

http://omicsonline.org/open-ac...

http://www.theatlantic.com/hea... (this one is notable because the author received death threats immediately after publication)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05...

then you are in exactly the same position as anti-vaxxers.

Did I call it or what? My first post in this comments section predicted that I would be compared to anti-vaxxers. If I were to continue, I guarantee I would soon be compared to racists, Nazis and worse.

Look, I don't care if there are GMO plants. I just want it to be spelled out, right in the "nutritional data" that is already on the label, that this food is the product of a patented organism.

I find it interesting that all these "pro-Science" people are so vehemently opposed to this one bit of truthful information being given to consumers. For some reason, the believe there is a fact that consumers don't have the right to know. Further, there have been industry lawsuits attempting to stop companies who do NOT use GMOs from labeling their products as NOT containing GMOs. Go figure. I guess "Science" is fungible when it comes to people's right to know what they're eating. Since when has "Science" been in favor of people not knowing something.

On top of that, glyphosphate is one of the least toxic herbacides out there that generally breaks down relatively quickly in the environment.

Sorry, that's just not true. Higher levels of it have been found in the internal organs of chronically ill people.

http://omicsonline.org/open-ac...