Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most

Quantum Quack said:
I certainly don't want babies born in a worse state... do you?
Any guarantees this wont happen with CRISPR? Nope!
Click to expand...
Correct. Nor are there any guarantees that a vaccine won't kill you. But I bet you still receive them.
No, I prefer Darwinistic principles to manage evolution and not human gambling...
Click to expand...
So you are opposed to sanitation, vaccines, antibiotics and surgery?
Do you believe in natural evolution or are you a human creationist?
Click to expand...
Evolution is how we were created. It should not determine how we live.
There is no reason at all why a more wise scientific world could not guide human evolution rather that trample on it and effectively destroy it, like we have and are currently doing.
Click to expand...
You are a supporter of eugenics, then - creating a sort of 'master race' of genetically superior humans.
true, they are not reversible which tells you something about scientists who claim to know what they are doing...
Click to expand...
So you are opposed to cardiac bypass surgery?
You know about all those super bugs in hospitals don't you after all you have medical training don't you..What are the odds for a major epidemic of antibiotic resistant infections that makes small pox look like a common head cold...We are currently breeding our next global pandemic right now...and you know it, which makes you complicit just like it makes me and everyone else who knows, complicit in a moral trade off between immediacy and long term survival.
Click to expand...
High. Thus we should be careful when treating MRSA and VRE, and we should develop new antibiotics.
Oh I really do hope my concerns are proven unfounded... truly...especially for all those unborn children that will be affected by a heavy dose of radiation...in the fall out zones and because of increased background rads globally...
Click to expand...
We've had much worse accidents. Take Chernobyl. 60 provably killed by radiation. 4000 estimated in the area due to higher incidence of cancer. (Note that there is no direct evidence of this; it's the result of an epidemiological analysis.)

That's bad. But that's due to the worst possible disaster. Compare that to the 800,000 people killed by coal pollution throughout the world every year. So even if we had one Chernobyl per year (which we don't have), we'd have 200X fewer deaths a year due to nuclear power vs coal power. Switching every coal plant to nuclear would save hundreds of thousands worldwide every year.
 
Quantum Quack said:
There is no reason at all why a more wise scientific world could not guide human evolution rather that trample on it and effectively destroy it, like we have and are currently doing. But you got to know what you are doing to do that...
Click to expand...
billvon said:
You are a supporter of eugenics, then - creating a sort of 'master race' of genetically superior humans.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I am seriously curious how a supposedly learned medical professional such as yourself, can possibly arrive at the conclusion that you have arrived at regarding your response to my post . ( see above quotes)
  • What do you mean by a belief in natural evolution being equated with (artificial) eugenics?
  • Do you think your post is a good example of those trained in the health industry?

I shouldn't have to post the following explainer but I will any how....( for those so called "ignoramus's" that are the subject of this thread)

If science was more observant and respectful of natural evolutionary processes and principles they might actually generate more sustainable outcomes..

After all, is that not what natural evolution is all about.... Sustainability...

For example:
A Bacteria's immunology is evolving faster than a human's immunology.... why?
Why do we not know?
  • Is it because we seek to cheat the human evolutionary process giving the bacteria an environment to naturally evolve faster?
  • Would it not be far better to work with the evolutionary processes and not cheat the evolutionary processes to achieve a more sustainable result?
another:
There is an opioid crisis currently in play .
Opinion:
Typically people when confronted with severe anxiety suffer sever pain in the central chest region, under the ribs and experience breathing problems ( No. I am not going to use the medical terminology).

So they decide to take a strong pain killer (opioid based) that deals with the pain and helps the patient regulate his breathing ( slows it down) and get on with their day (nights are worse) and fail to deal with the root cause of the anxiety. So they have skipped the evolution bit and decided to use Opioids to cheat it. Same situation with Diazapam (valium -benzodiazepines ) but considerably worse.
As you know opioids are highly addictive and the concluding social result is to be expected.
Typically prescribed by doctors in good faith...end result... disaster.

The painkillers should only be used as a temporary solution to help facilitate an emotional "evolution" that the patient must go through to achieve a sustainable outcome.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
billvon,
Have you done any reading on the subject of human bacterial immunology? Facinating!
Click to expand...

currently there is massive ground being broken in ADHD and children
this is not the precise article but some supporting info to give you an idea

the short story is special diet with vitamins & minerls can make serious in-roads to ADHD in children and probably has good results in adults
https://www.thescienceofpsychotherapy.com/oligomeric-proanthocyanidins-for-the-treatment-of-adhd/

  • Several studies employing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology have revealed abnormalities within the motivational circuitry of individuals with ADHD (Seymour, Reinblatt, Benson, & Carnell, 2015); neuroimaging studies have found unusual patterns of brain activation in individuals with ADHD, particularly within those networks involved in reward processing.
  • A study examining the volume and quality of electrochemical signaling (communication) between brain regions found that ADHD children had atypical functional connections as compared with non-ADHD children (Costa Dias et al., 2013).
  • Studies have revealed a genetic component to ADHD susceptibility; recent research investigating the incidence of ADHD amongst family members has yielded a heritability estimate of 76% in the general population (Faraone et al., 2005).
  • Individuals with ADHD consistently display neurologic symptoms characteristic of insufficient dopamine. Dopamine plays a critical role in brain functions such as movement, attention, learning, and the reinforcing effects of many drugs. Researchers found that by administering a drug that enhances the release of dopamine in the brain of ADHD patients, symptoms were significantly relieved, thus confirming that ADHD symptoms are associated with insufficient dopamine (Carlson, 2014).
  • In our clinic, we have found many nutritional and metabolic disturbances related to the symptoms of ADHD, such as heavy metal toxicity, fatty acid imbalances, deficiencies of magnesium, iron, and zinc, and carbohydrate intolerance.
Click to expand...



ADHD is estimated to affect 2 to 5 per cent of all children, with boys three times more likely to be diagnosed with it.
Click to expand...

imagine if 30% of all violent behaviour is due to ADHD and preventing 75% of that 30% could be as easy as introducing vitamin & mineral supplements to children.

unfortunately many alt-right people and groups wish to make and keep children violent.
 
billvon said:
We've had much worse accidents. Take Chernobyl. 60 provably killed by radiation. 4000 estimated in the area due to higher incidence of cancer. (Note that there is no direct evidence of this; it's the result of an epidemiological analysis.)

That's bad. But that's due to the worst possible disaster. Compare that to the 800,000 people killed by coal pollution throughout the world every year. So even if we had one Chernobyl per year (which we don't have), we'd have 200X fewer deaths a year due to nuclear power vs coal power. Switching every coal plant to nuclear would save hundreds of thousands worldwide every year.
Click to expand...
Do you remember, the reporting of this incident as it unfolded?
The mass hysteria led to countless issues alone including unrelated abortions, massive agriculture loss and so on...
Mass hysteria is quite a serious outcome of any nuclear disaster and not be be down played as incidental. Psycho-somatic induced illnesses are greatly underestimated and currently lacking research as a valid and serious medical condition.
I reviewed the current wiki on the disaster and doubt very much it's veracity. Political censorship, information manipulation, hysterics, all play a significant role in the recording of the history of this event.
I doubt very much is the truth of this incident will ever be revealed.
But what we do know is that they just built a new sarcophagus to protect the environment from a continuing nuclear reaction that they can't stop.

The wisdom of "If you can't stop it, don't start it" being completely ignored and is like getting into a high speed car driving to 200KPH with out any ability to slow down or brakes fitted.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
  • Ozone depletion = science.
  • Climate change = science.
  • GMO = science.
  • Cancer = science.
  • Cold war (nukes) = science
  • Mass shootings = science
  • Mass surveillance = science
  • Eugenics ( gene editing) = science
  • Racial pseudoscience ( white supre-mism -racism) = science
  • just about any thing = science.
is the easy relationship the average ignoramus can draw...
Click to expand...
So, when people made things burn (aka fire) it was a bad thing and brought about the apocalypse sooner?

Natural selection couldn't do what civilization can.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Do you remember, the reporting of this incident as it unfolded?
The mass hysteria led to countless issues alone including unrelated abortions, massive agriculture loss and so on...
Mass hysteria is quite a serious outcome of any nuclear disaster and not be be down played as incidental. Psycho-somatic induced illnesses are greatly underestimated and currently lacking research as a valid and serious medical condition.
I reviewed the current wiki on the disaster and doubt very much it's veracity. Political censorship, information manipulation, hysterics, all play a significant role in the recording of the history of this event.
I doubt very much is the truth of this incident will ever be revealed.
But what we do know is that they just built a new sarcophagus to protect the environment from a continuing nuclear reaction that they can't stop.

The wisdom of "If you can't stop it, don't start it" being completely ignored and is like getting into a high speed car driving to 200KPH with out any ability to slow down or brakes fitted.
Click to expand...

hindu & muslim stampedes killing women & children happen very often
 
Beer w/Straw said:
So, when people made things burn (aka fire) it was a bad thing and brought about the apocalypse sooner?

Natural selection couldn't do what civilization can.
Click to expand...
natural selection would not have created AGW or nuclear weapons proliferation, that may very well end that civilization.
The indigenous tribes in Australia, have used fire in sustainable ways for 40,000+ years. They know how to work with evolution and not against it...
and we think they are ignoramuses..... lol
Perhaps it is our arrogance that prevents us from learning what we need to learn from those 'ignoramuses"?
 
Last edited:
Beer w/Straw said:
:EDITED POST:

So, your beef is with politics, is that it?
Click to expand...
omg! Don't get me started...lol

No... yes... uhm every scientist has a "political" agenda... he/ she/them is human after all...

reminds me of a funny story...
I was chatting away with Cortana, the virtual assistant on my mobile, the other day and for fun, I asked her to connect me with Pine Gap.
Cortana's response was this insane laugh....as if to suggest that I was already connected to Pine Gap.

I am not at all sure why you reminded me of that one.... lol
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Do you remember, the reporting of this incident as it unfolded?
The mass hysteria led to countless issues alone including unrelated abortions, massive agriculture loss and so on...
Click to expand...
"Mass hysteria" is preferable to 800,000 deaths. Even if it means you lose some crops.
Mass hysteria is quite a serious outcome of any nuclear disaster and not be be down played as incidental. Psycho-somatic induced illnesses are greatly underestimated and currently lacking research as a valid and serious medical condition.
Click to expand...
I am all for more spending on mental health, to help people who have psychosomatic illnesses and hysteria.
But what we do know is that they just built a new sarcophagus to protect the environment from a continuing nuclear reaction that they can't stop.
Click to expand...
The nuclear reaction ended decades ago. They built that structure to prevent leaching
The wisdom of "If you can't stop it, don't start it" being completely ignored and is like getting into a high speed car driving to 200KPH with out any ability to slow down or brakes fitted.
Click to expand...
More like going 600kph in an airplane that literally cannot stop in the air without stalling and crashing. But it's the safest way to travel. Strange eh?
 
Quantum Quack said:
  • What do you mean by a belief in natural evolution being equated with (artificial) eugenics?
  • Do you think your post is a good example of those trained in the health industry?
Click to expand...

"A more wise scientific world that would guide human evolution" is pretty much the definition of eugenics.
If science was more observant and respectful of natural evolutionary processes and principles they might actually generate more sustainable outcomes.
Click to expand...
Sure. And we are getting better all the time. Note new WHO guidelines over antibiotic usage in both humans and animals.
After all, is that not what natural evolution is all about.... Sustainability...
Click to expand...
?? No, not at all. Evolution often drives organisms to explode in population and destroy whole ecosystems. Evolution drives survival of a species - NOT survival of an ecosystem.

A Bacteria's immunology is evolving faster than a human's immunology.... why?
Click to expand...
"Immunology" is a science. I think you meant "bacterial antibiotic resistance is evolving faster than we can make new antibiotics." This is because we are spending less on antibiotic development (not very profitable) and because life evolves.
Why do we not know?
Click to expand...
?? We do know.
There is an opioid crisis currently in play .
Opinion:
Typically people when confronted with severe anxiety suffer sever pain in the central chest region, under the ribs and experience breathing problems ( No. I am not going to use the medical terminology).

So they decide to take a strong pain killer (opioid based) that deals with the pain and helps the patient regulate his breathing ( slows it down) and get on with their day (nights are worse) and fail to deal with the root cause of the anxiety. So they have skipped the evolution bit and decided to use Opioids to cheat it. Same situation with Diazapam (valium -benzodiazepines ) but considerably worse.
As you know opioids are highly addictive and the concluding social result is to be expected.
Typically prescribed by doctors in good faith...end result... disaster.
Click to expand...
Right. People misuse drugs all the time. Going by your approach, we should allow these people to take fatal overdoses, thus letting evolution solve the problem and improve the gene pool. I prefer a more humane approach, even if it means there are more living addicts.
 
billvon said:
"A more wise scientific world that would guide human evolution" is pretty much the definition of eugenics.
Click to expand...
You really could benefit by looking up the definition of eugenics, then perhaps re-address the issue ...in the context of our discussion.
 
billvon said:
"Immunology" is a science. I think you meant "bacterial antibiotic resistance is evolving faster than we can make new antibiotics." This is because we are spending less on antibiotic development (not very profitable) and because life evolve
Click to expand...
Ok.. so I can conclude that you are unaware of a bacterias auto immune system and how that system develops resistance to attacks like any good naturally evolving bug should and would. It's a pity that humans are not as good at it as our pervasive bugs are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top