OP ED-"Little Timmy Wants to Know Why Nobody Likes Airplanes Anymore?

[flyboy0681]

Massive gun sales in Missouri. Paranoia? Boarded up windows. Paranoia?

I am sure the law will prevail and all will be fine.

 

Pure paranoia. What are they expecting to happen? The law will prevail and everyone will be fine. Do you expect hundreds or even thousands of citizens to be gunned down in the streets and in their homes. Pure nonsense.

[flyboy0681]

Freedom of the press...aka Internet.

High speed internet for everybody.

 

 

Ironically, but not unexpected, I read an article last week that the United States has the worst internet connection speeds in the industrialized world and that we pay more for it. South Korea ranks #1 with speeds available to their citizens that would make your jaw drop.

[flyboy0681]

Let's just say I am in "Trust", but verify stage.

 

That's a start!

[flyboy0681]

Speaking of classic Rock and Roll and the "influence"...

Bruce played at a Vets gig and was heavily criticized for the decision to play a CCR song that was anti war. What a bunch of crap. You absolutely can be anti-war without being anti-military.

Digging up the past, going to the well to stir up old wounds. Both sides do it well.

Shameful.

It was and IS a great song. The Boss did it justice.

No Spin Zone spun it wrong....

 

John Fogerty is on my top five list of all time favs.

[flyboy0681]

 

If I may, I think that the theme to which you refer is more denialism than paranoia. I do agree that denialists often do come across as paranoid.

 

A recent essay on denialism (which denialists will quickly point out is written by a left-leaning liberalesque liberal liberally liberating liberal left-wing liberal lies):

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/the-varieties-of-denialism/

"As David Hume put it, a wise person (i.e., a proper skeptic) will proportion her beliefs to the evidence."

 

I found this to be a very interesting article and can see how paranoia and denial can be lumped into one category. What I still can't understand is how some will simply ignore irrefutable evidence. An example of this are people that deny that vaccines work and are not good for Earthlings. And I'm not talking about the people who say there is a solid link between vaccines and autism, that is paranoia. 

[flyboy0681]

Now as to vaccination paranoia.

There is a huge increase in autism in recent generations.

We originally administered vaccines one at a time and to children at a later age.

Now we administer a huge conglomerate vaccine shot at an earlier age. A very early age in some cases.

And those children are experiencing autism. Their parents have observed a different behavior pattern before/after the shots.

What existing research was there before we changed to these big booster shots?

Is it not perfectly rational and logical to develop a hypothesis and do more research on the possible cause of the drastic increase in early age autism.

You really should investigate more as the independent moderate you are before you join a liberal stance against logical scientific research, just because it is supported by a very egotistical, rich, conservative businessman?

Shouldn't we want to do whatever we can to help these children and prevent other children from developing autism?

I am not a scientist ... but none of this sounds like paranoia? Haven't heard any research results about this in several years? Maybe the concerns were unfounded? But it does make sense that a maybe fragile new body shouldn't be injected with numerous virus's at one time? Maybe we should return to individual vaccines administered at a later age? No paranoia - you really should retract your comment.

 

The entire debate on vaccines is not based on the rational. In the late 1980's some had reported an increase in the number of cases of autism. It was speculated that the vaccine preservative Thimerosal, which is made from mercury, was the cause since these toddlers started exhibiting the symptoms hours after administration of the vaccine. In the 1990's some doctor that has now been discredited (Wakefield is his name) said that in his studies there was a direct connection. Fast forward a decade ---> even after Thimerosal was removed as a preservative in 2001, kids are still being diagnosed with autism, some after being vaccinated. Nevermind that the preservative had been a mainstay of vaccines since the 1930's, that doesn't fit into the narrative. Each year we hear of measles outbreaks not in some far off African country, but here in the US due mostly to junk science. 

 

Want some more junk science? Remember 20 years ago women were pulling breast implants out of their own bodies because leakage of the silicone caused a condition called connective tissue syndrome? Well the FDA responded by banning silicone implants and guess what? A study conducted a decade later found the same incidence of connective tissue syndrome in women using saline implants. The only ones that cleaned up on that one were attorneys - big time.

[flyboy0681]

The circumstances I just explained did not mention "Thimersol." It gave a different rational. We're you reading?

You just confirmed above that "toddlers started exisbiting the symptoms hours after administration of the vaccine." You said it yourself! So with your vast knowledge and PhD in medicine - you cast down your all inclusive paranoia and junk science verdict and the matter is closed? This has nothing to do with breast implants, except that you wish to bring that into your conclusion.

A good logical MODERATE might at least admit that it is perfectly logical and appropriate to form a hypothesis and conduct some studies. If the concern proves to be unfounded ... Then great ... at least we know one more thing that it is not!

And someone was on here casting stones with the same words (like arrogance and unkind) that you are displaying at Scott just a day or two ago ...? I am not seeing much difference ...

 

Oy.

 

A lefty would say there is not direct link to autism, a righty would say there is a direct connection and a moderate says that in a normal population there will be x number of cases of autism that can't be explained. Maybe it's fluoridated water.

 

The MMR vaccine had been licensed and in use since 1970. Why all of a sudden in 1998 somebody said "all of these new cases of autism are caused by the MMR vaccine because that's when the kids started showing symptoms".  From what I had read, nothing in terms of dosage had changed from the 1970's to 1990's. Maybe the parents were giving the kids a certain candy after the shot, a treat that wasn't around decades earlier and that it interacted with the vaccine. Who knows?

 

Let's just say that the medical community has been stymied by this subject.

[flyboy0681]

You just confirmed above that "toddlers started exisbiting the symptoms hours after administration of the vaccine." You said it yourself!

 

 

 

I didn't respond to this statement. Naturally I should have said "was the cause since these toddlers WERE REPORTED as started exhibiting the symptoms hours after administration of the vaccine". By not saying "reported" implies that I personally witnessed children exhibiting autistic tendencies right after an injection, and that is not the case. It is regrettable and I stand corrected.

 

I mentioned Thimerosal because you brought up the subject of autism after a vaccine, and the debate at the time centered around the MMR vaccine and the preservative as the cause.

[rob]

The medical community isn't stymied at all. There is no link to vaccines causing autism. Not a single credible shred of evidence. No matter how many misinformed celebrities you want to parade out for a cause; it's not true.

I'm not an expert on this, but I am related to one of the nations foremost experts on Autism and Autism education. I've done my homework.

[flyboy0681]

The medical community isn't stymied at all. There is no link to vaccines causing autism. Not a single credible shred of evidence. No matter how many misinformed celebrities you want to parade out for a cause; it's not true.

I'm not an expert on this, but I am related to one of the nations foremost experts on Autism and Autism education. I've done my homework.

 

My original point was that vaccines are not believed to have been the cause. When I said stymied I refer to the recent increase in the number of cases, although I have read that even that is up for debate since the definition of the autistic spectrum has changed in recent years.

[rob]

Exactly. The mental health field has expanded the definition and the breadth of the Autism Spectrum. More children being diagnosed with autism doesn't necessarily mean more children have autism, it is entirely possible that it simply means more children have access to professionals who can properly diagnose the disorder.

[Tom]

A good logical MODERATE might at least admit that it is perfectly logical and appropriate to form a hypothesis and conduct some studies. If the concern proves to be unfounded ... Then great ... at least we know one more thing that it is not!

It depends on what the question is, and how we raise it.

We should not yell FIRE?!? in a crowded building.

We should especially not yell FIRE?!? in a crowded building based on galactically implausible yet theoretically possible idea (based on an overly simplistic scientific understanding) specifically when we SHOULD know that even raising the question will cause deaths.

Just imagine what scientists could accomplish if not having to satisfy the whimsical "logical" ideas of every ignorant yet influential human who walked the earth.

[jetdriven]

Ironically, but not unexpected, I read an article last week that the United States has the worst internet connection speeds in the industrialized world and that we pay more for it. South Korea ranks #1 with speeds available to their citizens that would make your jaw drop.

After traveling the world over, that is pretty much correct. With exception of some countries in Africa, the US has the slowest internet I've ever seen. And it's the most expensive because I shop it everywhere i went. Personally we only have DSL or cable available. The DSL requires a phone (Verizon policy, not really required) and it's about 55$/mo and it won stream YouTube videos. The cable is 1 meg but we had it before, it often froze for 5-10 minutes at a time and generally sucked too.

Amsterdam was the best. 80 gigs of movies in about 4 hours.

[flyboy0681]

After traveling the world over, that is pretty much correct. With exception of some countries in Africa, the US has the slowest internet I've ever seen. And it's the most expensive because I shop it everywhere i went. Personally we only have DSL or cable available. The DSL requires a phone (Verizon policy, not really required) and it's about 55$/mo and it won stream YouTube videos. The cable is 1 meg but we had it before, it often froze for 5-10 minutes at a time and generally sucked too.

Amsterdam was the best. 80 gigs of movies in about 4 hours.

 

 

Maybe, and I don't what all you guys calling me a socialist over this, maybe the reason we have such poor service here is because profit takes center stage for the few providers that we have in this country (Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon) and they don't care to invest in the infrastructure that would provide us the fastest connection speeds. Perhaps charging the most and providing the least sits well with them, as opposed to other countries which rely on their governments to setup the infrastructure and do what is required from the get-go.

 

Just a thought.

[scottfromiowa]

I agree with and appreciate the last few posts. Did not know our internet was so slow in comparision to the rest of the world. Interesting and unfortunate, although I guess not knowing how good it can be has been an "ignorance is bliss" for me.

I am a vaccine "believer". Of course with millions of anything administered there will be some issues. Don't know (autism), but we have benefited tremendously as a society from vaccines.

[scottfromiowa]

It depends on what the question is, and how we raise it.We should not yell FIRE?!? in a crowded building.We should especially not yell FIRE?!? in a crowded building based on galactically implausible yet theoretically possible idea (based on an overly simplistic scientific understanding) specifically when we SHOULD know that even raising the question will cause deaths.Just imagine what scientists could accomplish if not having to satisfy the whimsical "logical" ideas of every ignorant yet influential human who walked the earth.

Last paragraph/Sentence. Not necessary. Not appreciated. Editorial duly noted.

[flyboy0681]

This looks vaguely familiar.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/01/08/bush-amnesty-plan-raises-immigration-concerns/

[rob]

My ONLY point of contention was: it is NOT paranoia to research the possible effects of large shots of multiple vaccines, when children who were "normal" before the shots, began to exhibit symptoms immediately after the shots. It seems pretty rational to me? Wouldn't we be derelict if we did not investigate?

I stand by my comment.

The idea that you could immediately display symptoms of Autism after a shot is asinine. What are these symptoms, exactly? Autism isn't marked by a rash, or bruises, or a third arm growing. It's neurological and doesnt appear on blood tests or imaging (MRI/CT). The only parent able to diagnose "symptoms" of Autism would be a specialized medical professional. Not even the doctor giving the vaccines would be qualified to make the diagnosis. No one with any sense would come to that conclusion without multiple evaluations in multiple situations over the course of time.

To say a child displays symptoms of anything other than an allergic reaction immediately after being given a vaccine is ridiculous. To say it about Autism is absolutely moronic. We all have taken medications throughout our lives, how many have had immediate effects?

[Tom]

My ONLY point of contention was: it is NOT paranoia to research the possible effects of large shots of multiple vaccines, when children who were "normal" before the shots, began to exhibit symptoms immediately after the shots. It seems pretty rational to me? Wouldn't we be derelict if we did not investigate?

I stand by my comment.

 

 

The concern of autism being the result of a vaccination that immediately causes symptoms is simply not scientifically rational. 

 

To answer your question, we would not be derelict in neglecting to investigate the BS theory.  More properly, though, understanding the consequence of the assertion, the theory had to be tested.  And the theory was proven wrong, though people continue to harbor doubt or worse. 

 

 

[flyboy0681]

The idea that you could immediately display symptoms of Autism after a shot is asinine. What are these symptoms, exactly? Autism isn't marked by a rash, or bruises, or a third arm growing. It's neurological and doesnt appear on blood tests or imaging (MRI/CT). The only parent able to diagnose "symptoms" of Autism would be a specialized medical professional. Not even the doctor giving the vaccines would be qualified to make the diagnosis. No one with any sense would come to that conclusion without multiple evaluations in multiple situations over the course of time.

To say a child displays symptoms of anything other than an allergic reaction immediately after being given a vaccine is ridiculous. To say it about Autism is absolutely moronic. We all have taken medications throughout our lives, how many have had immediate effects?

 

I think the reference comes from parents who reported that kids who were alert and engaged before the vaccine suddenly shut down right after it.

[flyboy0681]

Just a brief observatation: Some have started a pattern -with our looming and ever growing national debt, to leaving Iraq too early ... to our borders being left virtually open, ... through to Ebola - to LABEL and whimsically dismiss anyone or any train of thought contrary to your accepted and left-wing approved train of thought as "paranoid" and "paranoia."

Not sure that is a good practice?

(Yeah, it was just a few rouge IRS agents in Cinncinnati, and it was a horribly offensive YouTube video too, and Iraq is completely secure because ISIS is the varsity team and not a threat.)

 

These subjects on their own do not carry paranoia tendencies. But when Fox mixes them with headlines such as "Fox News Alert: children crossing the border illegally are carrying dreadful diseases" or "ISIS members are crossing over the US-Mexican border and are coming to get you" or "our Fox News in-house medical consultant projects tens of thousands of Ebola cases by the end of the month", then that does stir the paranoia pot. Look no further than the guy who sells hazmat suits over the internet. His business quintupled overnight.

[DaV8or]

Maybe, and I don't what all you guys calling me a socialist over this, maybe the reason we have such poor service here is because profit takes center stage for the few providers that we have in this country (Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon) and they don't care to invest in the infrastructure that would provide us the fastest connection speeds. Perhaps charging the most and providing the least sits well with them, as opposed to other countries which rely on their governments to setup the infrastructure and do what is required from the get-go.

 

Just a thought.

 

Bingo! We have a winner! Other countries consider internet to be common infrastructure, like water, electricity and roads. Their governments either put the equipment in themselves, or they heavily subsidize it. Also, since many of these countries are just now laying in the infrastructure they are going for the latest and greatest on the first go. We are left to private industry, who's job is to maximize profit, not provide us with the best possible broadband service. We won't get anything better until the content providers and the advertisers require it. Basically, we will always have internet that is "just good enough".

 

The socialist countries believe that having fast internet with loads of broadband width is going to somehow benefit the country and allow them to advance in the digital age. This is the debatable part. Lots of broadband and high speeds just means they can deliver more garbage to us faster. I'm not sure that is a big step forward.

[flyboy0681]

 

 

The socialist countries believe that having fast internet with loads of broadband width is going to somehow benefit the country and allow them to advance in the digital age. This is the debatable part. Lots of broadband and high speeds just means they can deliver more garbage to us faster. I'm not sure that is a big step forward.

 

Yes and no. High capacity lines in India has helped build their outsourcing industry by leaps and bounds. If they didn't have the capacity to handle it, they would have failed in their efforts to become the worldwide center of software development and all of those American programmers may still have been employed. The same goes for their call centers, if their infrastructure was not in place, that call you made to Delta Airlines may have actually been picked up in Atlanta.

[flyboy0681]

Not wage/benefit structure in making outsourcing decisions, but the speed of the internet?

NOPE.

 

Read Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat". Software development from across the planet requires a tremendous amount of bandwidth and while the Indian's attempted to break into the field in the early 90's, the industry didn't take off until high speed lines started showing up. The amount of development taking place there could not have been accomplished using magnetic tapes and sending them back to the US via Federal Express.

 

Not many people remember this, but 6 years ago a major communications artery was severed in Egypt. This line goes on to supply India with their internet and for the few hours until the line was repaired, most of Bangalore was without service and American companies were absolutely freaking out. Read all about it:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_submarine_cable_disruption

 

So to answer your question, low wages did not bring software development to India, high speed communications did. But it's the low wages that keeps the machinery churning and makes it such an attractive alternative. Remove the high speed lines and what you will have left is a 19th century India (which it still is in 95% of the country) - unless they come here to do the work.

 

As a software developer of 30 years, I am extremely tuned into what's going on with outsourcing and have lost a lot of my business to Indian's. This is one subject in which I happen to know a lot.

[Tom]

Read Thomas Friedman's "The World Is.........

 

The problem with reading is that, in so doing, you are often confronted with information that is not consistent with your previously held beliefs.  The further afield your baseline worldview, the greater the intensity of the cognitive dissonance, and the less likely the individual is to subject himself to such internal conflict.  In short, the individual is less inclined to or won't read.  It is fairly clear through this thread who reads and who doesn't.