As this thread somehow got my forum name attached to it (I wonder how - maybe it a conspir......?!) I wished to add a few last comments before it disappears into the ether.
Firstly where do conspiracy theories end and paranoia begins I wonder?
One or two forum members who have posted above, including myself, are very happy to dismiss most of the conspiracy theories imaginable (I'd dismiss the JFK one too, by the way), but remain sceptical about the information our government has given out on others. It would be fair to say however, wouldn't it, that some scepticism as to the government's stated position is sometimes healthy (after all a war has been fought on a false basis fairly recently).
My old secondary school, an independent or grant maintained grammar school at the time I was there, were keen to instruct us students at an early age about pervasive, intrusive governments, and the dangers associated with these. One of the first books I was given (History prize, Upper 4C) was "Animal Farm" by George Orwell - "Two legs bad, four legs good" etc. - that phrase must seem odd, mustn't it, to anyone who hasn't read thee book (not that there will be any such people on the Ceroc Scotland forum of course?). Then there was Aldous Huxley's book, "Brave new world" too. Anyway, I hope you appreciate that there were efforts made by our teachers to ensure we didn't take everything at face value that our government told us, or our government did. Throughout our history we were told there has been misinformation in fact, for example from the "Bow Street Runners", employed by the government before the police force was set up, said to have made up threats in order to satisfy their masters (- an early conspiracy theory obviously).
So, where are we now? Should we be more prepared to accept the views of those who feel man never went to the moon, or avoid being deflected away from whatever it is our governments may be up to now?
I'll leave you with that thought...................... - no I won't, I still want to get to the bottom of this issue of buoyancy for dogs, and what they should be stuffed with to ensure this (maybe hot air perhaps ).
Oh, and what happened to Double Trouble's original thread I wonder, another conspiracy I take it......(?)
Ideally, I suppose, we should simply learn to look at the evidence and facts available to us, and to make judgements based on that, rather than on what we want to believe. Or, at the very least, to recognise when our emotions are clouding our judgement.
Which, I'll grant you, isn't always as easy as it sounds.
As for the dogs, I think I'll let you do your own experiments. Anything else would simply be heresay.
They all start with paranoia - This might be a plot. The rational mind gathers the evidence and separates the true from the false.
I was told, some time ago, by someone who knew, that the most reliable source of news was the BBC world service very early bulletin. After that the man from the ministry got in ...One or two forum members ... remain sceptical about the information our government has given out on others. It would be fair to say however, wouldn't it, that some scepticism as to the government's stated position is sometimes healthy (after all a war has been fought on a false basis fairly recently)...
I was brought up on those books too, and George Orwells 1984.My old secondary school, an independent or grant maintained grammar school at the time I was there, were keen to instruct us students at an early age about pervasive, intrusive governments, and the dangers associated with these. One of the first books I was given (History prize, Upper 4C) was "Animal Farm" by George Orwell - "Two legs bad, four legs good" etc. - that phrase must seem odd, mustn't it, to anyone who hasn't read thee book (not that there will be any such people on the Ceroc Scotland forum of course?). Then there was Aldous Huxley's book, "Brave new world" too. Anyway, I hope you appreciate that there were efforts made by our teachers to ensure we didn't take everything at face value that our government told us, or our government did. Throughout our history we were told there has been misinformation...
Since the vaccination scares have been mentioned here, I thought I would point out that in three separate judgments handed down on Thursday, three different US Federal Court judges (a type of judge known as a Special Master) dismissed petitions based on claims that autism had been caused by MMR vaccinations.
There had been several thousand petitions under the US Vaccine Act (sounds like emergency legislation to allow congressmen and senators to keep their seats) for compensation payments for injuries resulting from childhood vaccinations. It was decided that one test case would look at the question of causation, and then the other cases could take their cue. The one test case was then extended to three. (The Vaccine Act does not allow class actions, unlike US tort law generally.)
The senior Special Master, in the case of Cedillo, said:
"The record contains about 7,700 pages of Michelle Cedillo’s medical records alone. The parties filed a total of 23 expert reports in this Cedillo case alone, and a total of 50 expert reports including the Hazlehurst and Snyder cases. During the evidentiary hearings, 16 expert witnesses testified in Cedillo, four in Hazlehurst, and eight in Snyder. The hearing transcripts totaled 2,917 pages in Cedillo, 1,049 pages in Snyder, and 570 pages in Hazlehurst. The parties filed six post-hearing briefs in this Cedillo case alone, totaling 462 pages.
In addition, the amount of medical literature filed into the records of the three cases was staggering. In the Cedillo case alone, the parties filed a total of 658 medical journal articles, medical textbook excerpts, or other items of medical literature. Many more such documents were filed into the Hazlehurst and Snyder cases, so that a total of 939 different items of medical literature were filed into the three case files (even after excluding from the count those documents that were filed in more than one case). Some of those items were extremely lengthy. (E.g., Ex. JJ, 163 pages; Ex. L, Att. 1, 617 pages; Ex. BB, Att. 94, 306 pages.) I have not attempted to calculate the total number of pages of those 939 documents, but clearly the total runs well into the tens of thousands of pages. And most of those documents are densely packed with difficult, technical information, so that studying even a medical journal article that is only a few pages long can require a lengthy time period.
Further, the complexity of the material involved here is daunting as well. The medical records, expert testimony, and medical literature involve many different subspecialties of biology and medicine, including neurology, gastroenterology, virology, immunology, molecular biology, toxicology, genetics, and epidemiology."
All three judgments were resoundingly against the petitioners. In each case the Master found that the petitioners had failed both to show that the particular child had been damaged by the MMR vaccine, but also failed to show both that MMR was capable of causing autism and failed to show that thimerosal was capable of causing autism.
The masters found that autism characteristics in the brain were relatively well understood and associated with pre-natal events, that there was a strong genetic component of autism, and that no post-natal events had been shown to have any causative link with autism. They also found that measles damage to the brain was relatively well understood, that measles virus acitivity in the brain led almost invariably to death, and that no damage to brain or brain cells caused by measles virus was of a type similar to the damage noted in autopsies of autistic brains.
Although the tone throughout is neutral and bland, as is fitting for most judgments, the masters were all but scoffing at the inadequate arguments and total absence of even half-hearted proof in the petitioners' cases. They all mentioned profound sympathy with the families but were not shy of pointing out that their shared illusions in respect of MMR were fostered by the doctors concerned, one master saying that in his opinion this verged on medical negligence.
If anyone else wants to read the judgments (more than 600 pages of them!) you can find them here.
Three different judges all assessing the evidence - what (one presumes is) the best evidence the anti-vaxxers could come up with, in what (one presumes) were the best cases they could find in the thousands that had launched a petition - as not much better than worthless should hole the MMR-causes-autism battleship below the waterline, and put a big bung in the cakeholes of idiots like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey.
However, some US political dipstick has already made a comment to the effect that - "well, these are judges, not doctors" (who the hell does he suppose the judges would get their evidence from? Bugs Bunny and Deppity Dawg?) so presumably he feels that the jury is still out.
Who'll give me odds on the theories fizzling out?
The scientist amongst us will know. I mean really Barry, this is common knowledge. Also it's the reason why many vegetarians have to avoid vaccinations.
You can't just put a shots of measles, mumps and ruebella into a vaccine on it's own, it has to be mixed with something.
Perhaps due to the CJD scare (the one in the 90's I'm talking about) they are now using human cells?Offside rule?
You wouldn't be moving the goalposts, would you, Astro?
I somehow ended up watching part of a program on conspiracy theorists. Some people who had researched it reckoned that you could normally work out how much people would believe conspiracy theories from their own relationships/experiences. This backs up what you say above about the government.
Or maybe the real truth is that the conspiracy theorists are right and the scientists were there to try and convince us otherwise
I think it's simpler than that.
I think you can create a number, by multiplying someone's IQ by the age at which they last studied a science subject, and the resulting factor will very closely track the statistical chance of that person believing in conspiracies.
The same factor will be a good indicator of that person's propensity to believe in woo.
Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 19th-February-2009 at 12:06 PM. Reason: ...almost missed a chance to use 'propensity', an under-appreciated but excellent word!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks