Alex Jones, Food Babe, AntiVax and other such Woo

[Green Habit]

I've tired of John Oliver, but we can use as much pro-vaccination stuff out there as possible. Carries on the fine work in the entertainment realm as Penn and Teller did, who I'm sure would tear the vaccine delayers up if they were still doing their show.

I wonder... assume a neutral position for minute and follow me down another rabbit hole. We know that a range of health issues are caused by inflammation and overreactive immunological responses, why is it discounted that some children's immune systems have more destructive responses than others? I'm not arguing against vaccination or delaying vaccinations, it seems unscientific given the breadth of genetic diversity and gestation conditions to take an absolutist position here. I think the whole mercury preservatives thing can be discounted but that's not the only possibility, that's just the easy one to understand (blame corporations).

There are certainly a few people that may have a legitimate adverse reaction to vaccines. But that makes even more important for everyone else that doesn't to vaccinate, so that we can reserve our limited leeway under herd immunity for those few.

[McParadigm]

This has probably been posted somewhere in here already but

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

Hilarious, but take it to the Alex Jones thread McP!

[Strat]

[BurtReynolds]

Watch this and then tell me there is a God

[Bi_3]

Honestly, I can't comprehend what this is because it sounds like we heading to back to invisible forest spirits here:

https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-ev ... edibility/

[Green Habit]

Honestly, I can't comprehend what this is because it sounds like we heading to back to invisible forest spirits here:

https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-ev ... edibility/

As usual, Simpsons did it.

[Bi_3]

Honestly, I can't comprehend what this is because it sounds like we heading to back to invisible forest spirits here:

https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-ev ... edibility/

As usual, Simpsons did it.

[B]

Honestly, I can't comprehend what this is because it sounds like we heading to back to invisible forest spirits here:

https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-ev ... edibility/

Isn't that the Pixar theory?

[BurtReynolds]

This sounds like easily-dismissible bunkum...

yup

[simple schoolboy]

Not "Woo" so much, but unfounded fear of GMO: I bring you Nassim Nicholas Taleb. There could be fat tails and black swans and the like, but there's basically no historical data.

Does he believe in a precautionary principle in all cases?

[run2death]

"I don't think what happened here is a genuine calamity."

The InfoWarsing of America. What a bunch of sick fucks.

https://www.facebook.com/VICEselects/vi ... 565899235/

[run2death]

Not "Woo" so much, but unfounded fear of GMO: I bring you Nassim Nicholas Taleb. There could be fat tails and black swans and the like, but there's basically no historical data.

Does he believe in a precautionary principle in all cases?

Fear of GMOs is very much woo.

There is ZERO data that proves GMOs are bad for you in any way AND they face WAY more testing.

[simple schoolboy]

Not "Woo" so much, but unfounded fear of GMO: I bring you Nassim Nicholas Taleb. There could be fat tails and black swans and the like, but there's basically no historical data.

Does he believe in a precautionary principle in all cases?

Fear of GMOs is very much woo.

There is ZERO data that proves GMOs are bad for you in any way AND they face WAY more testing.

Regarding GMOs, at least for existing GMO crops the modifications, while maybe not fully understood are pretty limited. The GMO crops on the market are pre-CRISPR, and were probably just swapped from one pre-existing crop to another, kind of like the hybrids up until now.

Also, Mr. run2death, you must be familiar with the precautionary principle. Anti-GMO folks are not the only ones to sign on to this.

[Bi_3]

Not "Woo" so much, but unfounded fear of GMO: I bring you Nassim Nicholas Taleb. There could be fat tails and black swans and the like, but there's basically no historical data.

Does he believe in a precautionary principle in all cases?

Fear of GMOs is very much woo.

There is ZERO data that proves GMOs are bad for you in any way AND they face WAY more testing.

Regarding GMOs, at least for existing GMO crops the modifications, while maybe not fully understood are pretty limited. The GMO crops on the market are pre-CRISPR, and were probably just swapped from one pre-existing crop to another, kind of like the hybrids up until now.

Also, Mr. run2death, you must be familiar with the precautionary principle. Anti-GMO folks are not the only ones to sign on to this.

This is a very important point. Private work on genetic modification has gone elliptical in the post-CRISPR era and it's making things that are quite different than "golden rice". It will be far more difficult to assess safety when the next generation GMO food stuffs comes to market.

[run2death]

Not "Woo" so much, but unfounded fear of GMO: I bring you Nassim Nicholas Taleb. There could be fat tails and black swans and the like, but there's basically no historical data.

Does he believe in a precautionary principle in all cases?

Fear of GMOs is very much woo.

There is ZERO data that proves GMOs are bad for you in any way AND they face WAY more testing.

Regarding GMOs, at least for existing GMO crops the modifications, while maybe not fully understood are pretty limited. The GMO crops on the market are pre-CRISPR, and were probably just swapped from one pre-existing crop to another, kind of like the hybrids up until now.

Also, Mr. run2death, you must be familiar with the precautionary principle. Anti-GMO folks are not the only ones to sign on to this.

Except again, there's zero evidence that eating gnome edited foods is dangerous. The big NAS study delved into CRISPR extensively.

Are people using the precautionary principle or are people just been watching to much bad sci-fi and poorly researched food documentaries?

[bart]

That is my new favorite autocorrect typo.

[run2death]

"Selective sciencing" is a pet-peeve of mine. Either you believe in science and use it to guide your judgments or you don't.

People who use it to bolster their opinions and arguments on one subject (say global warming), then ignore it on another topic (say GMOs) are fucking infuriating to me.

[run2death]

That is my new favorite autocorrect typo.

Ugh!

GENOME.

[Bi_3]

Not "Woo" so much, but unfounded fear of GMO: I bring you Nassim Nicholas Taleb. There could be fat tails and black swans and the like, but there's basically no historical data.

Does he believe in a precautionary principle in all cases?

Fear of GMOs is very much woo.

There is ZERO data that proves GMOs are bad for you in any way AND they face WAY more testing.

Regarding GMOs, at least for existing GMO crops the modifications, while maybe not fully understood are pretty limited. The GMO crops on the market are pre-CRISPR, and were probably just swapped from one pre-existing crop to another, kind of like the hybrids up until now.

Also, Mr. run2death, you must be familiar with the precautionary principle. Anti-GMO folks are not the only ones to sign on to this.

Except again, there's zero evidence that eating gnome edited foods is dangerous. The big NAS study delved into CRISPR extensively.

Are people using the precautionary principle or are people just been watching to much bad sci-fi and poorly researched food documentaries?

It’s not CRISPR itself that is dangerous, its the “new” things that it can produce that should concern us.