Re: [silk] War on Science?
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 9:37 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian > WHO has defined vaccine protocols that address your concern > "The politics of polio" by Dr. Pushpa Bhargava an eminent microbiologist who returned his Padma Bhushan in protest. https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/The-politics-of-polio/article15239258.ece Ground reality is messy and corrupt.
Re: [silk] War on Science?
How easy is it for parents (ALL parents) to find the UN protocol? If an organization had sexual harrassment protocol on paper and it was not very easy to find it, and there was an instance of sexual harrassment in that organization, what happens? On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 09:37 Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > > > WHO has defined vaccine protocols that address your concern > Also the supposed individual risk from vaccines is vanishingly rare and > this is well documented too > Plus some of the things most vaccine deniers allege have never yet been > backed with data > > > > --srs > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 9:33 AM +0530, "Ra Jesh" > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think the main problem in the vaccine 'system' is that there is the > collective societal benefit and risk and there is individual benefit and > risk and the two are conjoined. > > But unlike some other systems, the collective societal benefit can only be > realized by people forcibly taking on the individual risk. If individuals > opt out because the individual risk benefit equation doesn't work for them, > the collective societal benefit ceases to exist. > > I can't think of any other similar system that doesn't become oppressive at > some level. E.g. Nation state, armed forces, universal education, etc etc. > > So, if the above is true then the vaccine system is oppressive at least to > some people. > > When you layer this with the fact that the societal necessity for vaccines > is discussed as an absolute with not much nuance about what vaccines are > absolutely necessary and what vaccines are kind of optional, then the > oppression becomes more insidious. > > If a parent is 'encouraged' to give their child a vaccine that's actually > not mandatory but it's couched in a list of other mandatory vaccines to > make the parent believe it's mandatory... > > At this level, it is a breakdown of the system. 'Science' cedes this > terrain to politics and claims innocence. But when people fight back about > the politics, science is held up as the holy cow to be protected. > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 09:17 Udhay Shankar N On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 10:36 > PM Srini RamaKrishnan > > wrote: > > > > Similarly there are kids who get polio solely because of the vaccine, > > > Vaccine-derived > > > polioviruses (VDPVs). No one disputes this, but now it becomes a > > > philosophical question whether even one victim is one too many. Guess > > which > > > side the drug companies are on? > > > > > > > Any risk analysis needs to start with the question "what is the threat > > model?". Similarly, any solution design needs to start with "Don't make > > things worse" (the Hippocratic principle can be viewed as a special case > of > > this). > > > > In the above context, the threat model is not "one victim", but > "potential > > pandemic". > > > > Without going into attenuated vs. killed vaccines, I agree that kids > > getting polio from vaccines is a bad thing. It is a special case of "kids > > getting polio" which the vaccine is an attempt to fight against. Can that > > be improved? Sure. I believe you are sincere in dismissing it. I just > don't > > happen to agree. > > > > Udhay > > > > > > > >
Re: [silk] War on Science?
WHO has defined vaccine protocols that address your concern Also the supposed individual risk from vaccines is vanishingly rare and this is well documented too Plus some of the things most vaccine deniers allege have never yet been backed with data --srs On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 9:33 AM +0530, "Ra Jesh" wrote: I think the main problem in the vaccine 'system' is that there is the collective societal benefit and risk and there is individual benefit and risk and the two are conjoined. But unlike some other systems, the collective societal benefit can only be realized by people forcibly taking on the individual risk. If individuals opt out because the individual risk benefit equation doesn't work for them, the collective societal benefit ceases to exist. I can't think of any other similar system that doesn't become oppressive at some level. E.g. Nation state, armed forces, universal education, etc etc. So, if the above is true then the vaccine system is oppressive at least to some people. When you layer this with the fact that the societal necessity for vaccines is discussed as an absolute with not much nuance about what vaccines are absolutely necessary and what vaccines are kind of optional, then the oppression becomes more insidious. If a parent is 'encouraged' to give their child a vaccine that's actually not mandatory but it's couched in a list of other mandatory vaccines to make the parent believe it's mandatory... At this level, it is a breakdown of the system. 'Science' cedes this terrain to politics and claims innocence. But when people fight back about the politics, science is held up as the holy cow to be protected. On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 09:17 Udhay Shankar N On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 10:36 PM Srini RamaKrishnan > wrote: > > Similarly there are kids who get polio solely because of the vaccine, > > Vaccine-derived > > polioviruses (VDPVs). No one disputes this, but now it becomes a > > philosophical question whether even one victim is one too many. Guess > which > > side the drug companies are on? > > > > Any risk analysis needs to start with the question "what is the threat > model?". Similarly, any solution design needs to start with "Don't make > things worse" (the Hippocratic principle can be viewed as a special case of > this). > > In the above context, the threat model is not "one victim", but "potential > pandemic". > > Without going into attenuated vs. killed vaccines, I agree that kids > getting polio from vaccines is a bad thing. It is a special case of "kids > getting polio" which the vaccine is an attempt to fight against. Can that > be improved? Sure. I believe you are sincere in dismissing it. I just don't > happen to agree. > > Udhay >
Re: [silk] War on Science?
I think the main problem in the vaccine 'system' is that there is the collective societal benefit and risk and there is individual benefit and risk and the two are conjoined. But unlike some other systems, the collective societal benefit can only be realized by people forcibly taking on the individual risk. If individuals opt out because the individual risk benefit equation doesn't work for them, the collective societal benefit ceases to exist. I can't think of any other similar system that doesn't become oppressive at some level. E.g. Nation state, armed forces, universal education, etc etc. So, if the above is true then the vaccine system is oppressive at least to some people. When you layer this with the fact that the societal necessity for vaccines is discussed as an absolute with not much nuance about what vaccines are absolutely necessary and what vaccines are kind of optional, then the oppression becomes more insidious. If a parent is 'encouraged' to give their child a vaccine that's actually not mandatory but it's couched in a list of other mandatory vaccines to make the parent believe it's mandatory... At this level, it is a breakdown of the system. 'Science' cedes this terrain to politics and claims innocence. But when people fight back about the politics, science is held up as the holy cow to be protected. On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 09:17 Udhay Shankar N On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 10:36 PM Srini RamaKrishnan > wrote: > > Similarly there are kids who get polio solely because of the vaccine, > > Vaccine-derived > > polioviruses (VDPVs). No one disputes this, but now it becomes a > > philosophical question whether even one victim is one too many. Guess > which > > side the drug companies are on? > > > > Any risk analysis needs to start with the question "what is the threat > model?". Similarly, any solution design needs to start with "Don't make > things worse" (the Hippocratic principle can be viewed as a special case of > this). > > In the above context, the threat model is not "one victim", but "potential > pandemic". > > Without going into attenuated vs. killed vaccines, I agree that kids > getting polio from vaccines is a bad thing. It is a special case of "kids > getting polio" which the vaccine is an attempt to fight against. Can that > be improved? Sure. I believe you are sincere in dismissing it. I just don't > happen to agree. > > Udhay >
Re: [silk] War on Science?
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 10:36 PM Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: Similarly there are kids who get polio solely because of the vaccine, > Vaccine-derived > polioviruses (VDPVs). No one disputes this, but now it becomes a > philosophical question whether even one victim is one too many. Guess which > side the drug companies are on? > Any risk analysis needs to start with the question "what is the threat model?". Similarly, any solution design needs to start with "Don't make things worse" (the Hippocratic principle can be viewed as a special case of this). In the above context, the threat model is not "one victim", but "potential pandemic". Without going into attenuated vs. killed vaccines, I agree that kids getting polio from vaccines is a bad thing. It is a special case of "kids getting polio" which the vaccine is an attempt to fight against. Can that be improved? Sure. I believe you are sincere in dismissing it. I just don't happen to agree. Udhay
Re: [silk] War on Science?
Add to what Charles said - Science is observable, testable and repeatable. Which means you can observe x, test your hypothesis of what (y) causes x and you can + others can repeat y leading to x. This means that for something like vaccination for which you have several generations of scientific data, you had better come up with actual data supporting a different hypothesis rather than a rational seeming request to see all sides of a particular situation. On 03/02/19, 2:08 AM, "silklist on behalf of Charles Haynes" wrote: On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:23, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: The goal of applied science is not the truth. Since world war 1 the goal of > "science" has been subverted to find applications that can be monetized: > this can be called technology or engineering but not science. > So you're saying the goal of technology or engineering is to make money, I can agree with that. The "goal" of science is still to try to make testable predictions about the observable world. Always has been. > Those with the real scientific temper cannot accept a solution that still > has open questions, What you call "open questions" I would call "unexplained observations" or "untested hypotheses." > We largely don't fund "science", worldwide, we fund technology development. > We've hardly made any fundamental breakthroughs in understanding reality in > the last few decades It's not at all clear that science "attempts to understand reality." The idea that there is an underlying "reality" to be understood is an interesting hypothesis, but it's sounds like "hidden variables" which has been conclusively disproved. In any case, while the claim is subjective, I'd argue that we've actually made quite a few fundamental scientific breakthroughs, especially in nuclear physics, astrophysics, medicine, and mathematics. > Science is fundamentally about healthy disagreement and debate over the > truth until it is conclusively found with no room for argument. > That's flat out wrong. Science *never* "conclusively finds truth." Not ever. That's religion, not science. Science merely comes up with "the best" explanation for current observations and makes predictions about the results of future observations. Science *always* includes the possibility of observations that contradict our current understanding. > There's a club of 500 eminent researchers in the field and doctors > including Nobel laureate Kary Mullis (the inventor of the PCR test) who > insist, vehemently so, that there's no proof that AIDS is caused by HIV. > Kary Mullis has never actually done any scientific research in AIDS or HIV. He also believes in Astrology. > These are unquestionable experts in the field > They are not experts in the field of HIV or AIDS. These are not crazy flat Earthers. > Actually they are. HIV as the causative agent of AIDS is solid science. > Such open questions are routinely brushed under the carpet, Nope. They've been addressed, and in the case of HIV/AIDS thoroughly refuted. > Science must also look seriously at the idea that there's no such thing as > objective reality, It does, depending what you mean by your definition of "objective reality." The Copenhagen interpretation says that "reality" is created by observeration. I'm personally not a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation but it's certainly a part of mainstream science. -- Charles
Re: [silk] War on Science?
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:23, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: The goal of applied science is not the truth. Since world war 1 the goal of > "science" has been subverted to find applications that can be monetized: > this can be called technology or engineering but not science. > So you're saying the goal of technology or engineering is to make money, I can agree with that. The "goal" of science is still to try to make testable predictions about the observable world. Always has been. > Those with the real scientific temper cannot accept a solution that still > has open questions, What you call "open questions" I would call "unexplained observations" or "untested hypotheses." > We largely don't fund "science", worldwide, we fund technology development. > We've hardly made any fundamental breakthroughs in understanding reality in > the last few decades It's not at all clear that science "attempts to understand reality." The idea that there is an underlying "reality" to be understood is an interesting hypothesis, but it's sounds like "hidden variables" which has been conclusively disproved. In any case, while the claim is subjective, I'd argue that we've actually made quite a few fundamental scientific breakthroughs, especially in nuclear physics, astrophysics, medicine, and mathematics. > Science is fundamentally about healthy disagreement and debate over the > truth until it is conclusively found with no room for argument. > That's flat out wrong. Science *never* "conclusively finds truth." Not ever. That's religion, not science. Science merely comes up with "the best" explanation for current observations and makes predictions about the results of future observations. Science *always* includes the possibility of observations that contradict our current understanding. > There's a club of 500 eminent researchers in the field and doctors > including Nobel laureate Kary Mullis (the inventor of the PCR test) who > insist, vehemently so, that there's no proof that AIDS is caused by HIV. > Kary Mullis has never actually done any scientific research in AIDS or HIV. He also believes in Astrology. > These are unquestionable experts in the field > They are not experts in the field of HIV or AIDS. These are not crazy flat Earthers. > Actually they are. HIV as the causative agent of AIDS is solid science. > Such open questions are routinely brushed under the carpet, Nope. They've been addressed, and in the case of HIV/AIDS thoroughly refuted. > Science must also look seriously at the idea that there's no such thing as > objective reality, It does, depending what you mean by your definition of "objective reality." The Copenhagen interpretation says that "reality" is created by observeration. I'm personally not a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation but it's certainly a part of mainstream science. -- Charles
Re: [silk] War on Science?
Srini RamaKrishnan wrote on 2/2/19 9:06 AM February 2, 2019: I don't think I'm qualified to make sense of all the medical literature, but here's what is obvious to me. Science is fundamentally about healthy disagreement and debate over the truth until it is conclusively found with no room for argument. I don't think such certainty is ever the provenance of science. Even after we think we know what's going on, some Einstein can come along with a more descriptive model. A lot of medical practices become universal before they have been rigorously tested. We can't make good risk/benefit analyses of medical interventions if we don't have good data, and it takes many decades of general use before longterm data is available. If you have any questions (and I have many) about public health vaccination practices, there are many who dismiss your concerns out of hand, because any issues with vaccines make a person an ignorant anti-vaxxer. Similarly there are kids who get polio solely because of the vaccine, Vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs). Kids get polio from the live, attenuated oral polio vaccine. They don't get it from the killed, injected vaccine. There is good evidence that the OPV provides better and longer-lasting immunity than the IPV. The current US vaccine schedule requires the IPV, and the OPV is no longer available. I wonder whether this is a good thing. Sure, polio is rare now, but what happens if there's an epidemic and huge swathes of the population are no longer immune to polio? My concern about many of the vaccines against the childhood diseases have to do with the fact that the vaccines are worse at conferring immunity than the disease. Thus, we now have a pool of adults who are susceptible to measles (I'm likely in that demographic), rubella, chicken pox, mumps, etc. I fear that we are setting the stage for some truly devastating epidemics. When the crowd diseases first hit populations, they decimated them. Over time, we domesticated the diseases (as it were). Their virulence decreases and they became nuisances for children rather than epidemics that killed substantial portions of the adult population. So now we vaccinate against those disease, conferring temporary partial immunity on the population. Perhaps eradicating these diseases is a mistake and we would do better keep them endemic and try to reduce their virulence, as we are attempting to do with bed nets and malaria. One of the advantages to endemic childhood diseases is that adults whose immunity might be waning are re-exposed to them many times over the course of their lives, thus refreshing and strengthening their immune responses to the organism. I've wondered whether the current shingles epidemic in young adults is a side effect of vaccination against chicken pox. Vaccination and pesticides have a lot in common. In both cases, we're trying to eradicate organisms we don't like instead of learning to live with them. When that boomerang comes back, it can give us a nasty clout on the head. No one disputes this, but now it becomes a philosophical question whether even one victim is one too many. Guess which side the drug companies are on? Medical treatments typically come with a business agenda. Should we trust that our health rates higher than the profit motive for the pharmaceutical and medical tech industries? Such open questions are routinely brushed under the carpet, and that raises the question - what is the role of profit motive and wanting to be seen to be doing something? It should be discussed with more seriousness than I see currently. Yes, I agree. Instead what I do see is a lot of hoarse rhetoric from those living in the majority consensus reality. And a lot of discrediting the loyal opposition. Undoubtedly some good continues to come from drug companies and medical research, I'd go further and say that modern medicine indisputably saves and improves many lives. There is a lot of great research and practices in amidst the scientism. it's not all bad, but there's an air of confidence that's unearned. They are not doing anything about wellness, they don't even cure diseases most of the time, only dealing with eradicating symptoms. This is a bit too dismissive of medical care that helps many people stay well a lot longer. My husband was diagnosed with pre-diabetes and some other worrying signs that his high-simple-carb diet was affecting his health. His doctor encouraged him to change his diet. He has lost weight, his blood sugar is in the normal range, and his blood pressure has dropped significantly. The doctor could have given him pills to manage all of that, but the HMO we belong to values wellness over pharmaceutical profits. I know quite a few older adults whose lives are better because their doctors have recommended lifestyle changes that have improved their overall health and functional mobility. Putting down
Re: [silk] War on Science?
The goal of applied science is not the truth. Since world war 1 the goal of "science" has been subverted to find applications that can be monetized: this can be called technology or engineering but not science. Those with the real scientific temper cannot accept a solution that still has open questions, they don't care about time to market - but the engineers and technicians among them say, perfect is the enemy of good, and vilify the opposition because persistent doubt gums up the marketing machine. We largely don't fund "science", worldwide, we fund technology development. We've hardly made any fundamental breakthroughs in understanding reality in the last few decades compared with what we did in earlier centuries when most science was theoretical. There's almost no appetite for it. Nobody has the patience to do real science, which is par for the course for the attention deficit generation we have become. On Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 10:36 PM Srini RamaKrishnan I don't think I'm qualified to make sense of all the medical literature, > but here's what is obvious to me. > > Science is fundamentally about healthy disagreement and debate over the > truth until it is conclusively found with no room for argument. > > There's a club of 500 eminent researchers in the field and doctors > including Nobel laureate Kary Mullis (the inventor of the PCR test) who > insist, vehemently so, that there's no proof that AIDS is caused by HIV. > These are unquestionable experts in the field who chose to swim against the > current of consensus, risking their careers. They've been writing papers > for the last thirty years, but the amount of hate they've got from the > larger medical community reminds me of the dark ages when scientists met in > secret societies. > > These are not crazy flat Earthers. > > Similarly there are kids who get polio solely because of the vaccine, > Vaccine-derived > polioviruses (VDPVs). No one disputes this, but now it becomes a > philosophical question whether even one victim is one too many. Guess which > side the drug companies are on? > > Such open questions are routinely brushed under the carpet, and that > raises the question - what is the role of profit motive and wanting to be > seen to be doing something? It should be discussed with more seriousness > than I see currently. > > Instead what I do see is a lot of hoarse rhetoric from those living in the > majority consensus reality. > > Undoubtedly some good continues to come from drug companies and medical > research, it's not all bad, but there's an air of confidence that's > unearned. They are not doing anything about wellness, they don't even cure > diseases most of the time, only dealing with eradicating symptoms. > > Putting down traditional medicine as alternative is also definitely kind > of majoritarianism that is aided by the rich pharma giants. Which is a > tragedy because they actually were developed in ages when profit motive was > absent. > > Science must also look seriously at the idea that there's no such thing as > objective reality, as I outlined in earlier messages. Limiting precision is > what enables objective reality. > > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 7:27 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> one study indicates that measles can "erase" a person's other >> immunities, leaving them vulnerable to infections for 2-3 years >> afterwardhttps:// >> www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/05/07/404963436/scientists-crack-a-50-year-old-mystery-about-the-measles-vaccine >> >> >> >> >> --srs >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 4:22 PM +0530, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" < >> sur...@hserus.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Research says that even malnourished kids benefit by the way >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527386/ >> And that's not the only nonsense hegde spouts besides quoting other >> charlatans in this space like Gary Null >> Here are a couple of rebuttals you can read >> http://nirmukta.com/2012/06/17/science-is-not-the-enemy-dr-hegde/ >> And then this by Dr Balasubramanian of LV Prasad Eye Institute and former >> head of the CCMB in Hyderabad for decades - one of the most articulate >> writers on science in india >> https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/medicinebashing-is-too-much-with-us/article4728002.ece >> Hegde is a fraud - no question about it >> >> >> --srs >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 4:06 PM +0530, "Srini RamaKrishnan" wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.moneylife.in/article/science-and-politics-of-vaccines/36886.html >> >> The more I read I find his stand on vaccination very reasonable, he merely >> says giving vaccines to malnourished children is dangerous. A full stomach >> is better than a vaccine at preventing infection. >> >> I thought you had done your research Suresh, so I didn't check earlier. >> >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 3:50 PM Srini RamaKrishnan On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, >>
Re: [silk] War on Science?
I don't think I'm qualified to make sense of all the medical literature, but here's what is obvious to me. Science is fundamentally about healthy disagreement and debate over the truth until it is conclusively found with no room for argument. There's a club of 500 eminent researchers in the field and doctors including Nobel laureate Kary Mullis (the inventor of the PCR test) who insist, vehemently so, that there's no proof that AIDS is caused by HIV. These are unquestionable experts in the field who chose to swim against the current of consensus, risking their careers. They've been writing papers for the last thirty years, but the amount of hate they've got from the larger medical community reminds me of the dark ages when scientists met in secret societies. These are not crazy flat Earthers. Similarly there are kids who get polio solely because of the vaccine, Vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs). No one disputes this, but now it becomes a philosophical question whether even one victim is one too many. Guess which side the drug companies are on? Such open questions are routinely brushed under the carpet, and that raises the question - what is the role of profit motive and wanting to be seen to be doing something? It should be discussed with more seriousness than I see currently. Instead what I do see is a lot of hoarse rhetoric from those living in the majority consensus reality. Undoubtedly some good continues to come from drug companies and medical research, it's not all bad, but there's an air of confidence that's unearned. They are not doing anything about wellness, they don't even cure diseases most of the time, only dealing with eradicating symptoms. Putting down traditional medicine as alternative is also definitely kind of majoritarianism that is aided by the rich pharma giants. Which is a tragedy because they actually were developed in ages when profit motive was absent. Science must also look seriously at the idea that there's no such thing as objective reality, as I outlined in earlier messages. Limiting precision is what enables objective reality. On Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 7:27 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian > > > > > one study indicates that measles can "erase" a person's other > immunities, leaving them vulnerable to infections for 2-3 years > afterwardhttps:// > www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/05/07/404963436/scientists-crack-a-50-year-old-mystery-about-the-measles-vaccine > > > > > --srs > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 4:22 PM +0530, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" < > sur...@hserus.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Research says that even malnourished kids benefit by the way > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527386/ > And that's not the only nonsense hegde spouts besides quoting other > charlatans in this space like Gary Null > Here are a couple of rebuttals you can read > http://nirmukta.com/2012/06/17/science-is-not-the-enemy-dr-hegde/ > And then this by Dr Balasubramanian of LV Prasad Eye Institute and former > head of the CCMB in Hyderabad for decades - one of the most articulate > writers on science in india > https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/medicinebashing-is-too-much-with-us/article4728002.ece > Hegde is a fraud - no question about it > > > --srs > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 4:06 PM +0530, "Srini RamaKrishnan" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.moneylife.in/article/science-and-politics-of-vaccines/36886.html > > The more I read I find his stand on vaccination very reasonable, he merely > says giving vaccines to malnourished children is dangerous. A full stomach > is better than a vaccine at preventing infection. > > I thought you had done your research Suresh, so I didn't check earlier. > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 3:50 PM Srini RamaKrishnan On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 1:32 > PM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > >> There is absolutely no open mind possible for vaccine deniers. And they > >> cause far too much harm to be anything other than dismissed outright. I > am > >> sorry if we disagree on that matter. > >> > > > > Before you completely close your mind I'd like to know what you know of > > his talks? > > > > The only bit on vaccination I could find was this, > > https://youtu.be/Pi4mpCmiTGg > > > > Which doesn't sound like vaccine denial at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [silk] War on Science?
one study indicates that measles can "erase" a person's other immunities, leaving them vulnerable to infections for 2-3 years afterwardhttps://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/05/07/404963436/scientists-crack-a-50-year-old-mystery-about-the-measles-vaccine --srs On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 4:22 PM +0530, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: Research says that even malnourished kids benefit by the way https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527386/ And that's not the only nonsense hegde spouts besides quoting other charlatans in this space like Gary Null Here are a couple of rebuttals you can read http://nirmukta.com/2012/06/17/science-is-not-the-enemy-dr-hegde/ And then this by Dr Balasubramanian of LV Prasad Eye Institute and former head of the CCMB in Hyderabad for decades - one of the most articulate writers on science in india https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/medicinebashing-is-too-much-with-us/article4728002.ece Hegde is a fraud - no question about it --srs On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 4:06 PM +0530, "Srini RamaKrishnan" wrote: https://www.moneylife.in/article/science-and-politics-of-vaccines/36886.html The more I read I find his stand on vaccination very reasonable, he merely says giving vaccines to malnourished children is dangerous. A full stomach is better than a vaccine at preventing infection. I thought you had done your research Suresh, so I didn't check earlier. On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 3:50 PM Srini RamaKrishnan On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 1:32 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> There is absolutely no open mind possible for vaccine deniers. And they >> cause far too much harm to be anything other than dismissed outright. I am >> sorry if we disagree on that matter. >> > > Before you completely close your mind I'd like to know what you know of > his talks? > > The only bit on vaccination I could find was this, > https://youtu.be/Pi4mpCmiTGg > > Which doesn't sound like vaccine denial at all. > > >
Re: [silk] Tech & Social Good: Please Help Me Collect Readings & Syllabi
Hi yosem, Have you published this compilations anywhere ? On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 10:25, Yosem Companys wrote: > Hi All, > > Does anyone know whether there's a collection of all syllabi and readings > on technology and social good (or public good or social change)? If such a > collection doesn't exist, could you help me create one? > > The readings can be from any discipline, seminal or not, and academic > or not. Ideally, I'd like to get cross-cultural readings, so we have > representation of diverse perspectives from around the world. > > For the Stanford Program for Liberation Technology, I once made a list of > all the topics on social good that I found on Twitter that intersected with > technology. These included the following: > >- Accountability, Corruption, Openness, and Transparency (e.g., Open >Data, Freedom of Information - FOI) >- Activism, Protests, and Movements (e.g., Occupy, Anonymous, > Hacktivism) >- Agriculture, Farming, and Food Security (e.g., eAgri, Fishing, >Mariculture, Aquaponics, Aquaculture) >- Censorship, Repression, and Freedom (e.g., Freedom of Expression - >FoE, Free Speech, NetFreedom, Right to Information - RTI) >- Construction, Housing, and Real Estate (e.g., Smart Homes, Internet of >Things) >- Democracy, Politics, Elections, and Voting (e.g., Netroots, Tea Party, >eVoting) >- Development (e.g., Information and Communication Technologies for >Development - ICT4D, Tech for Development - Tech4Dev, Global > Development - >GlobalDev) >- Economics (e.g., Participatory Economy, Peer-to-Peer Economy, Commons) >- Education (e.g., Information and Communication Technologies for >Education - ICT4E, Open Education, eLearning, MOOCs) >- Energy and Power (e.g., Microgrids) >- Entrepreneurship (e.g., Social Entrepreneurship - socent, Social >Innovation) >- Environment (e.g., Brownfields, Landfills, Superfund Sites, Climate >Change, and Land, Water, and Air Preservation) >- Finance (e.g., Microfinance, FinTech, Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies) >- Governance (e.g., eGovernance - eGov, Open Governance - OpenGov, >Governance 2.0 - gov20) >- Health (e.g., eHealth, mHealth, Telemedicine) >- Human rights >- Manufacturing (e.g., Additive Technologies, 3D Printing, >Do-It-Yourself - DIY, Robotics) >- Media (e.g., Journalism, Social Media) >- Organizing and Organizations (e.g., Nonprofits, Community-Based >Organizations, Cooperatives, Labor Unions) >- Physical Spaces and Locations (e.g., Libraries, Coworking Spaces, >Makerspaces, Hackerspaces, Fab Labs, Tool Sharing Libraries, Smart > Cities, >Mapping) >- Policy and Law (e.g., Policy Innovations, Legal Innovations) >- Privacy (e.g., Rules, Regulations, Laws, Frameworks) >- Resilience During Conflicts, Natural Disasters, and Other Crises >(e.g., Crisis Mapping; Robotics) >- Security, Physical or Cyber >- Social Science (e.g., Impact of Technology on Society) >- Transportation and Supply Chain on Land, Water, and Air (e.g., >Hyperloop, Autonomous Vehicles, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Drones, Smart >Roads) >- Volunteering (e.g., Crowdsourcing, Participatory Mapping) >- Water Security (e.g., Watersheds, Water Purification) > > The list above isn't meant to be exhaustive, so please feel free to suggest > other forms of grouping topics or let me know if I missed an important > topic or hashtag. > > I truly appreciate your help and advice, and I look forward to hearing from > you soon. > > Thanks, > Yosem > -- Regards, Vasanth
