Stupid shit in Medellin

[Orgasmico]

Woke up to crazy rain this morning. Yesterday I got in my Uber just before a torrential downpour. Electricity was spotty and wifi was out for a few hours. If you're coming to Medellin soon, check the weather and bring your umbrella.

[Mr Enternational]

When I speak of 'science', I generally mean 'the science community in general'. As you agree it is often (but not always) wrong. As a species we seem to be very good at developing technology (scientific breakthroughs) but lag way behind in understanding its impact.

They understand. I think they just use more of a cross that bridge when we come to it approach. When cars came out they knew the engine exhaust gave off pollution. But at least we will not have to deal with all this horseshit everywhere anymore. When electric cars came out they knew how mining lithium for the batteries fucks up the environment and the miners. But at least we will not have to deal with this smog anymore.

[JustTK]

No ridicule. Just pointing out the obvious. Work on your phrasing. "DDT caused the polio epidemic. " If the virus already existed and was already causing polio, the most DDT could have done was facilitate the epidemic.

Next is Science itself, the methodology used by everyone to find solutions.

Which brings us to the third player, Capitalism. Scientists are both brilliant and ignorant. They often look only at potential benefits for humanity and overlook environmental risks, or opportunities for financial gain. Fortunately, Capitalism is there to save the day. Capitalism weighs the human cost against profits for shareholders. It's a brutal, but effective scale.

When I speak of 'science', I generally mean 'the science community in general'. As you agree it is often (but not always) wrong. As a species we seem to be very good at developing technology (scientific breakthroughs) but lag way behind in understanding its impact. The issue w the COVID discussion here, I think, is that you are willing to accept what one section of the scientific community is saying, the section that is corrupted by capitalism, and dismiss the skeptics. It seems your general leaning is on the wrong side of the fence on this one.

As far as the new hypothesis goes WRT polio – polio refers to a paralysis caused by inflammation at the base of the spine. The polio virus causes this, but so do various other things – the virus is far from unique in causing that. So when 'scientists' claim that they recorded polio in the 18th century – they mean that people were observed with this paralysis at that time. No doubt there were sufferers of paralysis at the time, but that does not mean that the virus caused it. And indeed, no scientist had the know-how to identify a virus at that time. So the new hypothesis is that the polio VIRUS arrived in the USA at the end of the 19th century along with the new and widespread use of DDT, thus causing the epidemic.

Note – a polio epidemic is not the same as polio. Just as COVID can exist without there being a COVID epidemic.

[JjBee62]

Your response just illustrates my point JB. You assume you know the argument and it is too simple and then you ridicule it, but it is not that way at all. I can link the video if your interested. It is not an argument akin to that the COVID vax contains track and spy technology.

You also skip the significant point that science pointed to DDT being safe.

No ridicule. Just pointing out the obvious. Work on your phrasing. "DDT caused the polio epidemic. " If the virus already existed and was already causing polio, the most DDT could have done was facilitate the epidemic.

I'm not interested in watching a video. If you link the peer-reviewed study demonstrating the link between the epidemic and DDT, I'll look it over. As I've stated several times, there are no requirements for posted videos. Anyone can post anything. With comment filtering and blocking they can even control the responses. It's the educational equivalent of a dictatorship.

On the other hand, a study, submitted to publication and opened up to examination and criticism by members of the field of study, requires the scientist to be able to defend their research. It's how Andrew Wakefield was discredited. He falsified data for financial gain.

More problems with your phrasing on the last paragraph. Science didn't point to DDT being safe. A scientist first synthesized the compound. Later another scientist discovered it was an effective insecticide and it was widely and successfully used to combat malaria by killing mosquitoes. Scientists and health organizations determined, based upon the data available at that time, that the benefit of battling malaria outweighed the risks against humans.

Science, on the other hand kept collecting data. Science determined that the environmental impact of widespread DDT use outweighed the benefits and most usage has been banned for 50 years. Science has continued to examine human health effects to determine in what other ways DDT may be harmful.

It's crucial to understand the 3 elements involved. First there are scientists, people who are passionate about unraveling questions and finding answers. They generally are highly focused upon the path their research takes.

Next is Science itself, the methodology used by everyone to find solutions. You use Science finding girls. You've developed your methods, tested them and determined which ways work best for you. Your fellow scientists in the field of mongerology might disagree with your methodology or findings. Some might use the same methods but ignore the human risks, and seek out underaged, trafficked, abused or addicted women. The science isn't evil, but it's subject to abuse.

Which brings us to the third player, Capitalism. Scientists are both brilliant and ignorant. They often look only at potential benefits for humanity and overlook environmental risks, or opportunities for financial gain. Fortunately, Capitalism is there to save the day. Capitalism weighs the human cost against profits for shareholders. It's a brutal, but effective scale.

As an example, look at asbestos, incredibly useful and highly profitable. Capitalism jumped in and exploited all the benefits of asbestos and money was made. Fortunately, for them, asbestos related health issues generally take decades to manifest, plus decades more to isolate the cause. Meanwhile, Capitalism used scientists to find more profit from asbestos. Eventually, science catches up, asbestos use is regulated and the grandchildren of the earlier Capitalists lose part of their trust funds.

Part of survival is the ability to make decisions. Often a bad decision is better than no decision. When it comes to any of the subjects currently being discussed here, decisions were made, based upon available data. And yes, part of the data is always focused on profit. Looking at Covid, drastic measures were taken. Some were ineffective. Years from now, more will be known about the effectiveness of each. Long after we're both dead science might decide that nothing should have been done about Covid, or it might determine failure to react would have been disastrous.

Meanwhile this is just a frivolous debate for a few people, and an excuse to babble incoherently for others.

[JustTK]

DDT was invented in 1874. First suspected case of polio was in 1773.

I'm not suggesting DDT is safe to put on your corn flakes, but it doesn't take much to argue against something that didn't yet exist causing something else.

Your response just illustrates my point JB. You assume you know the argument and it is too simple and then you ridicule it, but it is not that way at all. I can link the video if your interested. It is not an argument akin to that the COVID vax contains track and spy technology.

You also skip the significant point that science pointed to DDT being safe.

[Casa No Va]

DDT was invented in 1874. First suspected case of polio was in 1773.

I'm not suggesting DDT is safe to put on your corn flakes, but it doesn't take much to argue against something that didn't yet exist causing something else.

Aristotle.

"The sign of an intelligent mind is some who can entertain and idea without having to accept it".

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/d...s-ddt-science/

[JjBee62]

Not at all. You do not think many beliefs of yesteryear were based on the science of that day? So people just threw leaches on each other because they believed it would do something? No. The science of that day was enough to prove it would do what they were saying. The same as some science of today is enough to prove some things that will be discredited in years to come. One day Pluto is a planet and the next day it is not. Pluto has not changed in billions of years, but science has.

You have the cart before the horse. The science comes after the beliefs, either as an attempt to prove or contest the beliefs. At times, and we're in one of those times now, beliefs overthrow reason. We're just entering into a new dark age.

You do realize that leeches are still used in medicine and have several applications? Now there was a period when leeching was overprescribed for almost everything, but if you were in the Navy you surely remember when Ibuprofen was given out like Halloween candy (and not long before that it was Tylenol 3 with Codeine).

Perhaps a basic explanation of what science is could simplify the conversation.

Science is the use of observation and experimentation to determine the best possible answer using available data. Technically, science is always wrong, at least in hindsight, because we're always learning more and improving data collection.

[JjBee62]

Bayer / Monsanto are paying out millions and millions to settle medical claims against Roundup bcos it causes cancer, although their version of science and the one that the establishment scientists accepted as correct at the time, showed that it was safe.

I watched a very compelling discussion today about how the Polio epidemic was caused by DDT. Another pesticide. Scientists still deny this, although they prefer to burn up a strawman rather than confront the real claim (just as they do with COVID). It seems that a huge proportion of the worst illenesses facing mankind have been caused by man following the 'science'.

DDT was invented in 1874. First suspected case of polio was in 1773.

I'm not suggesting DDT is safe to put on your corn flakes, but it doesn't take much to argue against something that didn't yet exist causing something else.

[JustTK]

Not at all. You do not think many beliefs of yesteryear were based on the science of that day? So people just threw leaches on each other because they believed it would do something? No. The science of that day was enough to prove it would do what they were saying.

Bayer / Monsanto are paying out millions and millions to settle medical claims against Roundup bcos it causes cancer, although their version of science and the one that the establishment scientists accepted as correct at the time, showed that it was safe.

I watched a very compelling discussion today about how the Polio epidemic was caused by DDT. Another pesticide. Scientists still deny this, although they prefer to burn up a strawman rather than confront the real claim (just as they do with COVID). It seems that a huge proportion of the worst illenesses facing mankind have been caused by man following the 'science'.

[Iguana Six]

.....The Great Debates of the ISG Biomedical Division.

What did Rick tell Morty? "Give it up Morty. You are trying to sell tickets to the policeman's ball to a black teenager."

I'll check back in a week or so.

[Villainy]

I think we can all agree on one point. No one is going to change their mind.

Anti-covid vaccine believers think the other side are idiots and mindless sheep.

Covid vaccine believers think the other side are idiots and uneducated.

You can go back and forth but it accomplishes nothing. Isn't there better things to do?

OK, OK let me see if I can explain it to you.

1. This is the "Stuipid Shit in Medellin" forum. If you can't abide by mindless banter, then by all means, feel free to leave.

2. "Isn't there better THINGS to do? Since "things" is plural, you should have used "Aren't instead of Isn't".

[Villainy]

I got the jab twice. The first was by choice when the vaccine effectively prevented a person from getting Covid.

The second was ten months later when the vaccine did not work and was mandated for travel.

I guess your little brain does not understand the difference between the words voluntary and mandate or the words effective and not effective. All it can handle is provaxx and antivaxx.

Maybe your brain is as alcohol and aluminum soaked as Huacho's is.

I am delighted to be among the group (with Huacho) who have a brai. Not surprisingly, you are conspicuously absent from that group.

[Mr Enternational]

You're confusing beliefs with science.

Not at all. You do not think many beliefs of yesteryear were based on the science of that day? So people just threw leaches on each other because they believed it would do something? No. The science of that day was enough to prove it would do what they were saying. The same as some science of today is enough to prove some things that will be discredited in years to come. One day Pluto is a planet and the next day it is not. Pluto has not changed in billions of years, but science has.

[MoonShot]

I think we can all agree on one point. No one is going to change their mind.

Anti-covid vaccine believers think the other side are idiots and mindless sheep.

Covid vaccine believers think the other side are idiots and uneducated.

You can go back and forth but it accomplishes nothing. Isn't there better things to do?

[JjBee62]

Didn't Bayer say the same thing when they started selling heroin over the counter to treat coughs and headaches? Didn't the universe used to revolve around the earth? Science is always real until it is proven to be dead wrong.

You're confusing beliefs with science.

Science is never "dead wrong (explanationat end). " Scientists can be dead wrong, but that's extremely rare. Most often, when a scientist turns out to be dead wrong it's because they falsified data for their own benefit. Take Andrew Wakefield for a relevant example.

In order for science to be accepted as valid (based on the data currently available) it has to be repeatable and observable by other scientists, the peer review process. Most of the "science" which is supposedly being suppressed won't be submitted for peer review and is only published in fringe publications which don't require peer review.

Putting it in golf terms, in any tournament play, each golfer scores his own round, but his card must be reviewed by his opponent. Any errors result in penalties. Now imagine a tournament, 72 players. At the end of the round, 71 players had their card reviewed by someone they played with. All good. However, number 72 refused to let anyone check his card and claimed to have shot 20 under par for the round. He's disqualified, canceled, suppressed and it's all big golf trying to control the world, and not a guy cheating at golf.

Science is a constant attempt to find better answers, not right answers, better answers. Opium probably works quite well on headaches, heroin is derived from opium, as is morphine. Now we have aspirin, ibuprofen, acetaminophen and others to provide better answers for headaches. We've also found better answers to using leeches or fire to remove evil from a person.

All those planes you fly on, science did that. Your car, your guns, your food and the bed you sleep on all brought to you by science.