New Scientist had an article in 2007 with a whole bunch of data and evidence on Climate Change: Climate Change - a guide for the perplexed.
The one about human activity causing the rise in CO2 is here.
It even has a Guide to assessing the evidence
David, thanks for your story on the way you came around to trust the MMR (I have come around too, to the extent that I might now give it to a child of mine, whereas before I would have done all I could to avoid it being used on my child, though this is all hypothetical, so I may have felt differently "In real life" - agreeing to our daughter having the Whooping Cough vaccine back in 1984, was a hard enough decision).
Moving on to the guy bigjiver has presented to us, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, around the turn of the seventeenth/eighteenth century, it is interesting that Darwin paid tribute to him. Sometimes it takes a challenge to our views to make us really think hard about what we are doing or thinking (not that our conspiracy theorist friends seem to have those concerns!). Watson and Crick thought a rival had got there first and worked out the structure of DNA, but they were able to realise quite quickly that whoever it was had got it wrong, and no doubt this spurred them on.
Then there was Andrew Wiles (another Andrew!?) who managed to prove Fermat's last theorem: "Proving the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture was an enormous task, one that many mathematicians considered impossible. ... But he needed help from a friend called Nick Katz to examine one part of it. Wiles managed to fix the problem by merging two approaches. ..."
One of the interesting things about this Andrew, was that he felt the need to shut himself away in order to carry on his apparently "impossible" task, not even telling his wife what he was doing, (as though any criticism or distraction at all might have defeated him). Then having spent so long on it, years solely concentrating on the task and almost failing it looked at one time as though he might lose his sanity if he didn't complete it they said.
Is that why we here sometimes struggle when we can't agree, though to a lesser degree obviously?
Finally, anyone got any good David Icke conspiracy theories to share? I know the one about powerful people who transmogrify into lizards, or with lizard heads, because he spoke about that on the now defunct Russell Brand radio show on BBC 2 (anyone hear that "classic" broadcast?).
New Scientist had an article in 2007 with a whole bunch of data and evidence on Climate Change: Climate Change - a guide for the perplexed.
The one about human activity causing the rise in CO2 is here.
It even has a Guide to assessing the evidence
Love dance, will travel
Yup. See, I was looking for 'Wakefield' but he never used the name. Coo, chiz.
I never ignore new information, whether it fits with my ideas or not.Sorry, I am not going to buy into this at all, lets leave it there. We don't have to agree do we, and it doesn't matter a tuppenny **** what either of us think does it, as we're not medically trained.
Please continue to ignore any information I brought before you which doesn't fit with your ideas, and return to more imaginative thinking on conspiracy theories and theorists we all want to hear about I'm sure.
BUT...you (I presume) have been made aware of the same information that I have:
- Wakefield carried out his research and prepared its publication without informing his co-workers and co-authors that he was receiving Legal Aid money from personal injury lawyers looking for a link between MMR and autism
- Wakefield submitted his paper for publication without notifying the editors that he had been receiving those monies
- He publicised his data to the national press - presumably in order to obtain maximum publicity for himself - despite the fact that he must have known that with a sample size of only 12 his work was only fit for a marginal note in the scale of MMR investigation worldwide
- As a doctor, he was aware of the fact that MMR vaccination was an important link in health policy makers' efforts to eradicate those illnesses in the same way as had been done with polio, and yet he deliberately ignored the deleterious effect on that effort which his self-publicisation would probably have
- ...a deleterious effect which has seen the first deaths from measles in years and over 1500 cases last year, as opposed to a dozen or so in the year after Wakefield published
- In the years since he published, the avalanche of evidence against his conclusions has become literally overwhelming, yet he has murmured not so much as as a bat-squeak of doubt
- It now looks like he made up the published data anyway
...and yet you would argue that he is a fine upstanding citizen?
I find myself wondering just how badly behaved someone must be before you start disapproving of him!
You do realise the article you're quoting from was written by an A-level student? I really doubt you'd find many professional mathematicians who considered proving Taniyama-Shimera to be impossible. (Since professional mathematicians tend to be pretty careful about using words like "impossible").
Dear Barry,
I started out arguing this one with Dave didn't I then have somehow found myself at odds with you, even though Dave and I seem happy to leave things as they've settled (each happy for different reasons to believe using MMR may be our choice, or preference should we ever face that decision again).
However, if you wish to discuss this further I would be delighted if you came to the following forum, where someone with what I would say is an "open mind" is trying to look at all the evidence, as you say you do (scroll down the following page on the mayor of London's forum):
http://www.boris-johnson.com/forum/
I look forward to catching up with you there, and taking up the matter as I can't see where you've addressed the evidence presented, (which came to me via that forum) and I don't want to badger you into doing so here, where I'm far more entertained by those suggesting ways to stuff animals etc.
I will just throw in one more comment for you, and that concerns two families I've come across who have avoided all vaccinations so far as I'm aware (one family who lives near me didn't even go for electric lighting until the last ten years, but they are nonetheless very popular and hard working people). In the second family I'm thinking of the mother decided not to give her daughter's even polio vaccine, but more fit and healthy people you couldn't imagine (even the mother was tasty if you know what I mean). I totally accept that these people have benefitted from the fact that the majority of the population do get their children vaccinated, and this is what has protected them, along with their own healthy immune systems (not all people exposed to infections develop the actual diseases of course).
So, what are we to do, force everyone to have all vaccinations, including those who are adamant they don't want them, or trust them?
Whatever your answer to that question I still maintain that unless people like Dr. Wakefield are prepared to stand up and say unpopular things, or things that may be unpopular at the time with their masters, then the chances that errors will one day come to light become diminished. Gastric ulcers were shown by an Aussie doctor to be largely caused by bacteria (the Helicobacters I believe) living in the gut some years ago. The medical establishment tried to ridicule his research, not least the pharmaceutical companies who made money out of gastric ulcer remedies (I used to work for one of these, and generally think they do a great job, but not always perhaps).
I'll leave it there and get back to considering what might be best to assist in floutation of fidos!
I have three kids and all of them are vaccinated, even though naturally, as a parent, I was worried about the whole autism scare.
Parents who don't get there children vaccinated are either ignorant or selfish. There are no excuses as you can have the MMR vaccine in three parts if you're prepared to pay for it, but instead they put the rest of the population at risk by potentially causing an epidemic.
It's like these mothers who won’t let their teenage daughters have the vaccination to protect them against the HPV virus. What's wrong with these people?
I do have an open mind, I'm not a 'follower' of Andrew Wakefield.
My conclusions that vacinations are harmful are based on two actual events.
1. My cousin (born perfectly normal) had the MMR vacination as a baby and became a cabbage, mentally and physically.
She spent her life in an institution for handicapped children and died aged 10, when her body finally gave out.
There is also a government department that pays out compensations to children who have been damaged by vacinations, but not killed (I don't think) It is for care.
2. When my boys were small a good friend of mine took her baby to our GP's for her MMR. Whilst there a baby actually died immediately after the shot.
Needless to say, all the mother's scarpered. [quote]
Well of course, vaccinations are BIG money for the pharmas.
They pay an incentive bonus to GP's. The more vacinations GP's carry out the bigger the monetary bonus.
Ah ha, touche, etc. etc.
Take a look at this website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A521966 and although my extracts below are taken from a students website, they are nonetheless true statements (I knew all those hours watching TV would come in somewhere):
http://plus.maths.org/issue47/featur...zak/index.html
"Andrew Wiles earned a bachelors degree from Oxford University in 1974 and a PhD from Cambridge in 1980."
The story of the problem that would seal Wiles' place in history begins in 1637 when Pierre de Fermat made a deceptively simple conjecture. He stated that if is any whole number greater the equation
....and that this theorem would never be proved (there ther "impossible" bit)
Wiles stated:
"You can't really focus yourself for years unless you have undivided concentration, which too many spectators would have destroyed"
"Wiles decided that the only way he could prove it would be to work in secret at his Princeton home. He still performed his lecturing duties at the university but no longer attended conferences or told anyone what he was working on. This led many to believe he had finished as a mathematician; simply run out of ideas. After six years working alone, Wiles felt he had almost proved the conjecture.
There it was that in June 1993 Andrew Wiles announced his historic proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, but he still had another year to go after an error was found, so it came to be that after 358 years and 7 years of one man's undivided attention that Fermat's last theorem was finally solved."
I rest my case M'lord
Last edited by grahamg; 10th-February-2009 at 02:32 PM.
Er... (emphasis mine)
At this point I should probably point out that my Galois Theory supervisor at Cambridge was Richard Taylor, who was the guy who worked with Wiles to fix the problem with the original proof. I suspect I may know a little more about this than an A-level student.Originally Posted by That Webpage
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks