Deacon Patrick, With all due respect, the United Kingdom's high court ordered NHS to stop funding Homeopathy in 2017 (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/06/05/high-court-backs-nhs-decision-stop-funding-homeopathy/)
They did this because the fact that it is ineffective makes it dangerous. Please protect your family, do not rely on non-medical remedies in this very serious situation. I am biased because my wife is a Nurse-Practitioner Midwife, who works at a Hospital in NYC, my brother is a top chemist at a major pharmaceutical, and his wife is an MD at UCSF where they are specifically treating COVID cases. With love, Antone On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 8:07:39 AM UTC-4, Deacon Patrick wrote: > > Och, Drw! That's frustrating. Here's how my kids, ages 7-19, would respond > to me if I did something like that. "Uh, Papa? Part to whole." Part to > whole is a fallacy of logic. Just like now is a great time to ride, it's > also a great time to read. Here is the book we use to homeschool our kids > on the fallacies of logic. > https://www.amazon.com/Fallacy-Detective-Thirty-Eight-Recognize-Reasoning-ebook-dp-B006M8OZV4/dp/B006M8OZV4/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1584617368 > > What is strange to me is that some folks put me into the anti-science > group because I want science to actually be science, and adhere to logic > and reason. Much of currrent "scientific" conclusions are based on > presumptions, some named, others not. Those presumptions may be wrong. > Often prove to be. Naming that and asking questions about the "science" is > not being anti-science, it is being proper science. Science should stand up > to rigorous debate and be repeatable. So, to apply this to the climate > change, the world has always experienced climate change, often greater and > faster than what we currently are experiencing, so the science tells us. > Science also tells us that human activities change, at least in some way, > various pieces of the climate engine (an engine we do not, your Dad is > correct, understand at all well yet), though. what effect they have on the > whole is not yet understood. Now the logic, rather than science kicks in > (or not). What cause, today's change? If some percentage of climate change > is human caused, what is the solution? How do we know, given we don't > understand the big climate engine, we don't cause unintended consequences, > much as happened in the 90's with the environmental cry to save the planet > by not using paper bags and switching to plastic. Oops. That's not > anti-science or science-skeptical. That's reasonable. Urging people to slow > down, and take time to know what we know and also name what we don't know > is essential to applying science in a way that helps rather than harms, > that upholds human dignity rather than inadvertently undermining it. > > The challenge with COVID19, as may well be the case with climate change, > is the possibility we need to act now to prevent greater harm later. Maybe. > But there are other approaches (Great Britain's for example, is to allow > exposure and treat the sick with a war time mentality, and use homeopathy > (because it is part of their healthcare system) and thus rapidly reach herd > immunity for a virus that appears to be here for the long term. That > approach is challenging the underlying presumption that we are > technologically advanced and can solve this better than our body's built in > systems. Maybe. Maybe attempting that will cost a lot and leave us more > vulnerable when it turns out we aren't as advanced as we hoped, and a good > ol' "chicken pox party" is really the best of the not-so-great options. > That is part of science. > > With abandon, > Patrick > > On Wednesday, March 18, 2020 at 11:33:16 PM UTC-6, Drw wrote: >> >> I’d classify members of my family as science-skeptical, like a number of >> the higher up posts, so I am not As deeply offended as others, but I’m >> growing more and more curious. I would ask what anyone who resists doing >> what every scientist and expert is suggesting expects to gain from such >> resistance. >> >> My father found a small flaw on a graph today and used that as evidence >> that “nobody really knows what’s going on”. That seems to be the line on a >> bunch of stuff. Climate change- “nobody knows everything/the jury is out.”. >> I don’t understand the need to shove these tiny wedges into what we do >> know. Who does it help? What does anyone gain? What do you personally gain >> by downplaying the information of people who know more than you on a >> certain subject? Where does the need to do that downplaying come from? >> >> Seems like the potential damage of using irrelevant info to dismiss >> relevant info is...risky. >> >> The conversation I had today was frustrating. Excuse the venting. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/65e2335a-1965-41ac-84a6-5f16dc8040da%40googlegroups.com.
