Jump to content
IGNORED

CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp


IronicallyMaeve
 Share

Recommended Posts

Aw Petrel, you are so sadly predictable.

... The dismissive attitude , the adding exclamation points to imply criticism , the use of " moderate risk" to ignore real life impact. Acting like doubling the risk of ADHD is no big deal - when that doubling is from 10% of the population to 20% of the population - not from , say 1 in a thousand to 2 in a thousand - . And, of course, the catch all " further studies are needed " - has there ever been a subject that didn't say further studies are needed?

So many textbook dismissive tactics.

Here's another article. I'm sure the studies will be " too old" " not a large enough sample size" " more studies needed" and on and on. Perhaps you could use your scientific training to get a PR job for a cigarette company?

http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap5.asp

I'm going to try to bow out of this thread. FJ is too weirdly Faux News like when it comes to these topics. Not vaccines in particular, which I think have been generally demonstrated to be safe and effective, but a blind kowtowing to anything corporate. It's as weird to me as it would be to some of you if you were looking through Free Jinger and suddenly discovered the majority of posters were rabidly anti- marriage equality or thought birth control was a tool of the devil or that the Pearls were an excellent resource for parenting info. Just this one subject where people are so, so far off the mark of what you would expect.

I so agree with this. I can't remember if it was always this way or not. I also think the general public (in US) has started being less and less anti-corporate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just pointing out organic farming is a huge industry, as are various alt-med and anti-vaccination groups and celebrities. There's a boatload of money to be made selling organic gluten-free brownie mix, much less the newest miracle weight loss supplement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just pointing out organic farming is a huge industry, as are various alt-med and anti-vaccination groups and celebrities. There's a boatload of money to be made selling organic gluten-free brownie mix, much less the newest miracle weight loss supplement.

Yes, while some are going on about being anti Pharma or food or Monstanto or whatever, let's not forget that organic/natural/anti gmo groups are also reaping in profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, while some are going on about being anti Pharma or food or Monstanto or whatever, let's not forget that organic/natural/anti gmo groups are also reaping in profits.

And are doing so while disregarding the health and quality of life of their own customers and workers.

That said, I don't believe any of us would disagree that problems in any sector should be studied and addressed. We just aren't okay with claims that they're far worse than they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. . . . almond flour--There are 1.6 grams of carbs in 100 gram portion. It's ZERO on the glycemic index. NO saturated fats. 144 calories.

For comparison: white flour has 76 grams of carbs in a 100 gram portion, is 53 on the glycemic index, and 0.3 gram saturated fat. 366 calories.

If you don't care, fine, but there IS a difference. And for me it's huge.

Almond flour has WAY more calories per gram than what flour. Almond flour is half fat by weight. Bob's Red Mill lists a 28g serving of almond flour as having 160 calories. That's about 600 calories per cup.

Almond flour is delicious but not exactly a health food. Now I want almond flour brownies, lol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw Petrel, you are so sadly predictable.

... The dismissive attitude , the adding exclamation points to imply criticism , the use of " moderate risk" to ignore real life impact. Acting like doubling the risk of ADHD is no big deal - when that doubling is from 10% of the population to 20% of the population - not from , say 1 in a thousand to 2 in a thousand - . And, of course, the catch all " further studies are needed " - has there ever been a subject that didn't say further studies are needed?

So many textbook dismissive tactics.

Here's another article. I'm sure the studies will be " too old" " not a large enough sample size" " more studies needed" and on and on. Perhaps you could use your scientific training to get a PR job for a cigarette company?

http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap5.asp

I'm going to try to bow out of this thread. FJ is too weirdly Faux News like when it comes to these topics. Not vaccines in particular, which I think have been generally demonstrated to be safe and effective, but a blind kowtowing to anything corporate. It's as weird to me as it would be to some of you if you were looking through Free Jinger and suddenly discovered the majority of posters were rabidly anti- marriage equality or thought birth control was a tool of the devil or that the Pearls were an excellent resource for parenting info. Just this one subject where people are so, so far off the mark of what you would expect.

But the problem is that none of what you say takes into account, for example, the fact that diagnoses have gone up for other reasons, two of which are better understanding of conditions and overdiagnosing of conditions. No one is kowowting to anything corporate. What are people are pointing out is the shadow "science" that has popped up with advent of the internet is often creating causation where is may just be correlation. So there is an increase in ADHD. Is it because chemicals are causing it or because doctors recognize it more readily? Or because people are looking for easy answers and pushing doctor shoppong for diagnosis when they cannot handle their kids? There is more of the latter than I think we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to think there is a connection between organophosphate exposure and ADHD because it's biologically plausible and supported by other research, although this particular study only shows an association, which of course does not demand causality.

The reason we always say more study is required is because science is messy and frustrating, results are often misleading, and experiments are often only able to answer a few of the questions we have.

Interestingly a very similar study on pyrethroid metabolites showed a similar association between pyrethroid exposure and ADHD, which suggests organic farming would have the same issues to deal with.

In everything there are trade offs, and all we can do is attempt to minimize the risks. It is a fact that we need to farm to produce enough food to feed the earth's population. At the moment we cannot do that with organic techniques, for the sake of argument assuming that is the best approach (I don't think so, I think a hybrid approach is needed, at least in the medium term).

But even if we did switch to organic farming, there are still harms. Pesticides are still required. We still need to convert land from wilderness to farmland. Heck, we still need farm machinery, which is dangerous--both adults and children die in farm accidents. Should a hunter gatherer then look at us and call us evil for using these techniques when we know there is inevitable harm that will result? We can't go back to some idyllic time when we lived in harmony with nature--in fact we've been dealing with the benefits and harms of agriculture since we left the hunter gatherer lifestyle thousands of years ago, and from the beginning profoundly changed the face of the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.