It is currently Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:44 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:19 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
I've got to be honest I think he is going to go full time cube on us and deny everything


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:41 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 473
Ko wrote:
Microwave ovens work by using energy to excite the water molecules in food, causing them to vibrate more and move around more. This causes the food to heat up. There is no chemical change involved. Microwave ovens operate in frequency ranges between radio and infared frequencies. If radio waves were harmful to human beings, we wouldn't last a second on earth.



this is only kind of incorrect, microwaves dont excite water molecules to heat up whatever is inside the oven, it just blasts whatevers in there with radiation which bounces off and gets converted into thermal energy as the radiation slows down and imparts its kinetic energy to whats being heated. demonstrably by the microwave having the ability to heat up things without high water content.

this thread is also pointless because Lokiare is never going to change his mind. for all we know, he thinks we are a part of this massive blind liberal agenda to give everyone AIDS and make our children autistic, reactions coming from a very real primal fear of things we don't exactly understand and desperately want to find something to blame for. maybe it would be defensible to believe in anti-immunization pseudoscience if you were a parent terrified that its your fault your child has a developmental disorder. but to that end, consider the following: children used to die of mumps, measles, smallpox, and polio in developed countries all the time. these diseases are easily avoidable through immunization. for decades, children in developed countries did not die of mumps, measles, smallpox, or polio. developmental science evolved and autism became more widely recognized, rather than being diagnosed as "retardation" or "just being slow." people notice children get diagnosed with autism around the same time children receive inoculation; correlation does not mean causation, but if you want to know why your kid has autism its as good as any reason. so people stopped letting their kids get vaccinated. now, kids are getting measles, mumps, and polio. even if it is demonstrable that thiomersal preservatives used in vaccinations can be linked to autism, which peer-reviewed studies have failed to do time and time again, it cannot be within the amounts that make endangering the entire population with diseases like polio or maybe in the future smallpox acceptable.

but again, it serves no purpose. this fellow will think what he will, buy into what he will, buy his special sunscreen and listen to his talk radio and live a proud life, and all we can claim to have gotten out of it was the gross schadenfreude of second-hand embarrassment at his backward ideas.

_________________
[9:41:58 PM] kylel: IM THE RETART


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:43 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Glasir wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
Quote:


[Citation Needed]

The cool thing about Wikipedia is that there are citations at the bottom of every page, with in-text links to the relevant ones. It's actually where the whole [citation needed] thing comes from! Wow!

In this case, the link redirects to an irrelevant article from three years later praising the virtues of some algae or another. Happily, the Wayback Machine has a copy of the original, which you can find at this link. The relevant section is titled "A LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR THE "COURSE" OF AIDS".


Reading the original he makes none of those claims.

They are saying that a certain class of drugs that are meant to treat AIDS and HIV can actually cause the same symptoms, not that AIDS and HIV is caused by the drug. Reading skills are key. If you understand what HIV and AIDS is, then you know that many things can cause AIDS (acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome). Basically anything that seriously disrupts the immune system like drugs and viruses other than HIV. AIDS is most commonly associated with HIV because it is the most common cause. The two are very separate things.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:44 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3118
gnomebitten wrote:

this is only kind of incorrect, microwaves dont excite water molecules to heat up whatever is inside the oven, it just blasts whatevers in there with radiation which bounces off and gets converted into thermal energy as the radiation slows down and imparts its kinetic energy to whats being heated. demonstrably by the microwave having the ability to heat up things without high water content.


I learned a new thing today wow. When I was learning about microwaves stuff in my chemistry class I was told it was specifically the water molecules. wowzers


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:03 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Ko wrote:
Lokiare wrote:


Your arguement is that this jospeh guy is a logical and scientifically-minded person. These quotes show that he is not. boo hoo
In the articles I'm linking he's literally talking about studies done by other scientists. Its irrefutable peer reviewed studies.


Lokiare wrote:
[Citation Needed]


did you even read the article. if you control+f that entire statement you can find the citation right inside the article. 0/10 for effort.


Yep read the articles which others seem not to have. they clearly are repeating other scientists findings, not claiming anything outrageous. If you can't accept those other peer reviewed articles, that's on you not them.

Quote:
Lokiare wrote:
That's common knowledge. Its been proven accurate over and over.


no it isn't. Microwave ovens work by using energy to excite the water molecules in food, causing them to vibrate more and move around more. This causes the food to heat up. There is no chemical change involved. Microwave ovens operate in frequency ranges between radio and infared frequencies. If radio waves were harmful to human beings, we wouldn't last a second on earth.


Sorry no. Radio waves are all around us, but at much lower levels. They also do cause medical problems. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Harmful-Radio-Waves-The-Invisible-Health-Threat-Of-Wireless-SmartMeters-1.pdf

Another article about the studies that have been done that prove that microwaving food alters it chemically and causes health problems. Pay special attention to the citations at the bottom.

Quote:
Lokiare wrote:
Yep, because you can't tell the truth if you are selling something right?


this has nothing to do with what he said. If you deny the fact that suncreen, a product used (aka tested) frequently by many people for the last 50 years, actually does not work, you are an idiot

It's not character assassination if someone is wrong. get over it

such a long post, now I feel like cyclone jerk


Except they didn't claim sunscreen doesn't work. They claimed it was bad for you. I'm not sure which article you are referring to for the sunscreen one, but I found this one with a cursory search on http://www.startpage.com.

It helps if you actually read the article. It isn't saying they don't block the sun. Its saying that some of the chemicals used in sunscreen cause that same cancer or cause the cancer to accelerate. Huge difference...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:08 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
door (dooooooooooor) wrote:
also it is not ad hominem to talk about personal expertise

if a 19 year old english major is writing a paper on vaccinations for their intro level writing class, and a tenured professor of medicine who has been studying them for decades does the same, it isn't "ad hominem" to say, hey, the 19 year old probably doesn't know what the #$%! they are talking about, and we shouldn't really take their arguments as seriously as the professor of medicine

likewise, if you're citing the daily mail and denying HIV causes AIDS, I doubt you really know what the #$%! you are talking about, as a general rule


Actually it is an ad hominem attack because you are looking at the person and not the data they are providing. You are saying that because of their history or something associated with them, that any data they provide is totally wrong without looking at the data...

Now you might be talking about an appeal to authority. You can appeal to authority, as long as it is not put in doubt by facts or logic. As soon as a fact disputes an authority, you start to commit an 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:21 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
gnomebitten wrote:
Ko wrote:
Microwave ovens work by using energy to excite the water molecules in food, causing them to vibrate more and move around more. This causes the food to heat up. There is no chemical change involved. Microwave ovens operate in frequency ranges between radio and infared frequencies. If radio waves were harmful to human beings, we wouldn't last a second on earth.



this is only kind of incorrect, microwaves dont excite water molecules to heat up whatever is inside the oven, it just blasts whatevers in there with radiation which bounces off and gets converted into thermal energy as the radiation slows down and imparts its kinetic energy to whats being heated. demonstrably by the microwave having the ability to heat up things without high water content.

this thread is also pointless because Lokiare is never going to change his mind. for all we know, he thinks we are a part of this massive blind liberal agenda to give everyone AIDS and make our children autistic, reactions coming from a very real primal fear of things we don't exactly understand and desperately want to find something to blame for. maybe it would be defensible to believe in anti-immunization pseudoscience if you were a parent terrified that its your fault your child has a developmental disorder. but to that end, consider the following: children used to die of mumps, measles, smallpox, and polio in developed countries all the time. these diseases are easily avoidable through immunization. for decades, children in developed countries did not die of mumps, measles, smallpox, or polio. developmental science evolved and autism became more widely recognized, rather than being diagnosed as "retardation" or "just being slow." people notice children get diagnosed with autism around the same time children receive inoculation; correlation does not mean causation, but if you want to know why your kid has autism its as good as any reason. so people stopped letting their kids get vaccinated. now, kids are getting measles, mumps, and polio. even if it is demonstrable that thiomersal preservatives used in vaccinations can be linked to autism, which peer-reviewed studies have failed to do time and time again, it cannot be within the amounts that make endangering the entire population with diseases like polio or maybe in the future smallpox acceptable.

but again, it serves no purpose. this fellow will think what he will, buy into what he will, buy his special sunscreen and listen to his talk radio and live a proud life, and all we can claim to have gotten out of it was the gross schadenfreude of second-hand embarrassment at his backward ideas.


And assumptions and personal attacks will get you nowhere. How about throwing some facts around instead of trying to associate me with some other agenda that I am not a part of?

I've linked several articles that list the studies that show vaccines are linked to autism and a host of other negative side effects. Try reading them or refuting them, but please quit ignoring the facts I'm presenting. It only weakens your argument.

I'm not against real 'clean' vaccines where they only have the disabled viruses in them. Instead they are trying to inject many many dangerous chemicals into you that are not needed. Not to mention they grow this stuff in eggs, and caterpillar cells, so you can get contaminated from that.

A little info on what's actually in your vaccines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORy7aPLE ... 081D7A2B19

Talks about the actual chemicals that are in vaccines and the amounts.

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:21 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Almost forgot. List of package inserts for vaccines that show the side effects.

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:25 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Just so you know, I'm 100% for clean vaccines harvested from humans who are naturally immune. I'm against the chemicals and adjutants that are added to create an 'immune response' (which is how they measure how effective a vaccine is)...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:28 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 19, 2013
Posts: 2156
Identity: Otter
Preferred Pronoun Set: Otterself
Lokiare wrote:
I've linked several articles that list the studies that show vaccines are linked to autism and a host of other negative side effects. Try reading them or refuting them, but please quit ignoring the facts I'm presenting. It only weakens your argument.
.


I linked to a couple of websites and articles that call the whole thing into question including a website for Autism that says it's inconclusive

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:02 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
trappedslider wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/features/top-13-flu-myths

Also from wiki article

Mercola has also received three warning letters from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for violations of U.S. marketing laws. The first two letters, dated 2005 and 2006, charged Mercola with making false and misleading claims regarding the marketing of several natural supplemental products, which violated the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.[4] In the most recent letter, sent in March 2011, Mercola was accused of violating federal law, by making claims about the efficacy of certain uses of a telethermographic camera exceeding those approved by the FDA concerning the diagnostic and therapeutic potential of the device (regulation of such claims being within the purview of the FDA). Dr. Mercola has challenged the FDA's order stating that "We believe that the FDA's warning letter is without merit and is an attempt to regulate the practice of medicine, which the agency does not have the regulatory authority to do. Our use of the thermography device is consistent with its 510(k) clearance for use by health care professionals in their diagnosis and treatment of patients."

and Mercola.com has featured positive presentations of the claims of AIDS denialists, a fringe group which denies the existence of AIDS and/or the role of HIV in causing it

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=771&page=2


Is this the post you are referring to?

Somehow I missed it. Let me go through each link individually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
The first link only talks about a few studies. None of which I linked. Not only that, they don't actually deny that deaths happen, only that the risk of death is acceptable compared to the alternative.

http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/pol ... and-autism
Following the second link gets us this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16807526 which concludes that vaccines do cause autism. This one also does the same http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16733480 there are many many more on that list from the link in the article you mention.

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/featu ... -flu-myths
This one is filled with gems like this:
"Sure, most people who get the seasonal flu recover just fine. But the seasonal flu also hospitalizes 200,000 people in the U.S. each year. It kills between 3,000 and 49,000 people." which means out of 311,800,000 population of the U.S. 0.0008% have negative side effects from the flu. Most of the myths don't address a single question real people have about the safety of the vaccines. The only one with any relevance is "Flu Myth #11: Vaccines are dangerous.". This one talks about how they are taking out Thimerisol to make parents more ok with the vaccines. Unfortunately what they don't tell you is they are simply finding other adjuvants that haven't been tested or have mercury as a main ingredient. Overall this article is extremely lacking in any real data. No studies are cited. Its simply a media statement.

As to the Mercola letters. That's standard procedure. Did you know they (corporations and the FDA) want Vitamin manufacturers (of things like Vitamin C and D) to run expensive studies as if they were regulated drugs and then present the evidence and lobby the FDA like a drug company to get approval to sell the product. That's the kind of stuff Mercola is dealing with. Pressure from corporations who fund the FDA and provide their revolving door lead members are trying to stamp out the low cost (and not copyrightable) vitamin industry.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=771&page=2
Funnily the link you posted here is directly to the page that describes that they are wanting to prevent AIDS through awareness. They say nothing about not wanting to fight it with drugs or deny it exists. It helps if you read your own links before posting them...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:06 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Just_a_cleric wrote:
I said it before to you and I'll say it again. 68% of statistics is made up.


Just so you know statistics aren't made up. They are manipulated and used to show a point that may not exist, but usually the numbers came from somewhere...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:13 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 515
Speaking of manipulating statistics...
Lokiare wrote:
But the seasonal flu also hospitalizes 200,000 people in the U.S. each year. It kills between 3,000 and 49,000 people." which means out of 311,800,000 population of the U.S. 0.0008% have negative side effects from the flu.

That percentage assumes that (a) the only negative side effect that counts is "death", and (b) the death count is at the very lowest limit of the given range.

Under the more reasonable assumption that "hospitalization" implies a negative side effect from the flu, the percentage would be 0.06%.

_________________
ego-sig


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:17 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Glasir wrote:
Speaking of manipulating statistics...
Lokiare wrote:
But the seasonal flu also hospitalizes 200,000 people in the U.S. each year. It kills between 3,000 and 49,000 people." which means out of 311,800,000 population of the U.S. 0.0008% have negative side effects from the flu.

That percentage assumes that (a) the only negative side effect that counts is "death", and (b) the death count is at the very lowest limit of the given range.

Under the more reasonable assumption that "hospitalization" implies a negative side effect from the flu, the percentage would be 0.06%.


Sure, that still proves my point though...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:23 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 515
Lokiare wrote:
Sure, that still proves my point though...


Please clarify -- what point are you referring to? (preferably with premises and associated, reputable citations) This thread has been all over the place.

[edit] oh, about statistics? All it says is that for statistics to be meaningful, you have to actually say how you got them. Like I did, and you didn't.

_________________
ego-sig


Last edited by Glasir on Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:27 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 968
Lokiare wrote:
Just_a_cleric wrote:
I said it before to you and I'll say it again. 68% of statistics is made up.


Just so you know statistics aren't made up. They are manipulated and used to show a point that may not exist

you finally got something right

_________________
Ko wrote:
1. it's "for all intents are purposes". I don't care if you were joking.


What does B^) mean?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:25 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Glasir wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
Sure, that still proves my point though...


Please clarify -- what point are you referring to? (preferably with premises and associated, reputable citations) This thread has been all over the place.

[edit] oh, about statistics? All it says is that for statistics to be meaningful, you have to actually say how you got them. Like I did, and you didn't.


I did. I posted links of where I got every statistic. Its on you, if you didn't click them and verify it...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:30 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 291
Glasir wrote:
Lokiare wrote:
Sure, that still proves my point though...


Please clarify -- what point are you referring to? (preferably with premises and associated, reputable citations) This thread has been all over the place.


Lokiare wrote:
Glasir wrote:
Speaking of manipulating statistics...
Lokiare wrote:
But the seasonal flu also hospitalizes 200,000 people in the U.S. each year. It kills between 3,000 and 49,000 people." which means out of 311,800,000 population of the U.S. 0.0008% have negative side effects from the flu.

That percentage assumes that (a) the only negative side effect that counts is "death", and (b) the death count is at the very lowest limit of the given range.

Under the more reasonable assumption that "hospitalization" implies a negative side effect from the flu, the percentage would be 0.06%.


Sure, that still proves my point though...


Since you cut out half of what I said, lets go back to the actual quote above. Your chance of having a complication related to the flu is far less than 1%. So why risk dying or brain damage if you have such a low chance of complications? Not only that but why not take a risk free alternative like Vitamin C and D that have been proven to be more effective? Why not use a clean vaccine harvested from a human?

In other words my point is they want you to take unnecessary risks for little or no gain...

_________________
Image


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:16 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 27, 2013
Posts: 89
Yarium wrote:
I've always wondered why conspiracy theorists thought that any government would want to self-sterilize. After all, population = power, right?
From what I've read, those conspiracy theorists claim the government would only target those they deem 'unproductive' since they eat up food & resources without giving back enough in return. Kinda makes sense, but doesn't mean its right. :V


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:54 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 6317
Location: New York
OP update:

I feel fine. Except my arm hurts. Nurse got me right in the tattoo.

_________________
"In all fairness that probably is a sight that would make you stop and reevaluate your life choices." ~ Garren_Windspear

Talcar Battle Map
The Tower
Initiative Order
Talcar Characters


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group