Suggest a Topic
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
2012 conventions
2012 election
2013 session
arts
arts and culture
author
ballot measures
basketball
bomb
books
boy scouts
budget
bullying
business
charlie hales
children
clackamas
climate change
coal
college
courts
crime
culture
culture club
democrats
drugs
economy
education
environment
family
film
fluoride
food
gay rights
guns
handguns
health
health care
health insurance
high school
history
housing
immigration
internet
kitzhaber
law
legislature
lgbt
literary arts
living
marijuana
marriage
media
medicine
mental health
military
minor parties
mohamed mohamud
movies
music
native americans
news
newspaper
obama
olympics
oregon
our town
parenting
pers
photography
police
politcs
politics
port
portland
portland business journal
president
prevention
public safety
religion
republicans
rnc
romney
rural
salem
sam adams
sandy hook
schools
science
shooting
sports
suicide
supreme court
taxes
technology
television
terrorism
theater
third parties
transportation
union
university of oregon
washington
wildfire
women
see all tags >>
Morrolan's comments:
on Taking Shots
I really don't have anything to add to Mucker's post. Well said.
posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
"Use yor brain, not someone elses [sic]"
The process of scientific investigation, experimentation and conclusion is designed to be transparent so that others can look at the process, replicate the experiments and confirm the results. If I look at a well-documented study supporting a conclusion, look at three other studies confirming that conclusion and at five articles critiquing and ultimately confirming the conclusion reached, am I relying on the insight, training and hard work of others? Absolutely. Am I doing so blindly, without critical insight or indepenent thought? Absolutely not.
If, on the other hand, I hear about one child who gets sick soon after receiving a shot, and that was subsequently diagnosed with autism, and I conclude from that one incident not only that "vaccines cause autism" but that all vaccines are dangerous and without merit, I am not using anyone's brain in a productive manner.
Science is about doubting things until they are proven. It is proven that vaccines can protect populations from certain communicable diseases, if they are administered to a sufficient portion of the population. It is not proven that vaccines are related in any way to the causation or onset of autism. (Neither is it disproven, although the existing evidence seems to discredit the assertion.) Vaccines DO have side effects, some of them serious. We should not ignore that, nor should we allow that fact to cloud the broader public health benefits that vaccination provides.
The process of scientific investigation, experimentation and conclusion is designed to be transparent so that others can look at the process, replicate the experiments and confirm the results. If I look at a well-documented study supporting a conclusion, look at three other studies confirming that conclusion and at five articles critiquing and ultimately confirming the conclusion reached, am I relying on the insight, training and hard work of others? Absolutely. Am I doing so blindly, without critical insight or indepenent thought? Absolutely not.
If, on the other hand, I hear about one child who gets sick soon after receiving a shot, and that was subsequently diagnosed with autism, and I conclude from that one incident not only that "vaccines cause autism" but that all vaccines are dangerous and without merit, I am not using anyone's brain in a productive manner.
Science is about doubting things until they are proven. It is proven that vaccines can protect populations from certain communicable diseases, if they are administered to a sufficient portion of the population. It is not proven that vaccines are related in any way to the causation or onset of autism. (Neither is it disproven, although the existing evidence seems to discredit the assertion.) Vaccines DO have side effects, some of them serious. We should not ignore that, nor should we allow that fact to cloud the broader public health benefits that vaccination provides.
posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
Let me see if I follow your logic.
1. The medical industry has a financial incentive to develop and sell vaccines.
2. Anyone with a financial incentive to do something will do ANYTHING to pursue that incentive, including poisoning millions of children.
3. Anyone who listens to someone with a financial incentive to say what they are saying is a "sheep" who is unwilling or unable to think for him or herself.
4. Anyone who says anything bad about the products offered by those with a financial incentive to sell those products must be right, whatever they are saying.
Nobody who has criticized the composition of this show has said that the topic was unimportant or that a meaningful, fact based discussion should not be held about it. I would love to see both sides bring their well-conducted, peer-reviewed, scientifically valid research to the table for a fair airing. This show was not that.
And, BTW, your reference to the Challenger and the astronauts who died in that tragedy is offensive and demeaning to them and their memories. Those seven people were explorers and scientists who intimately understood the technology they were relying upon and the risks they were taking in the name of scientific advancement. Invoking them as "victims" of a profit-oriented science industry is wrong headed and belittling.
1. The medical industry has a financial incentive to develop and sell vaccines.
2. Anyone with a financial incentive to do something will do ANYTHING to pursue that incentive, including poisoning millions of children.
3. Anyone who listens to someone with a financial incentive to say what they are saying is a "sheep" who is unwilling or unable to think for him or herself.
4. Anyone who says anything bad about the products offered by those with a financial incentive to sell those products must be right, whatever they are saying.
Nobody who has criticized the composition of this show has said that the topic was unimportant or that a meaningful, fact based discussion should not be held about it. I would love to see both sides bring their well-conducted, peer-reviewed, scientifically valid research to the table for a fair airing. This show was not that.
And, BTW, your reference to the Challenger and the astronauts who died in that tragedy is offensive and demeaning to them and their memories. Those seven people were explorers and scientists who intimately understood the technology they were relying upon and the risks they were taking in the name of scientific advancement. Invoking them as "victims" of a profit-oriented science industry is wrong headed and belittling.
posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
Ugh. I am very disappointed in you ToL.
You gave 85% of this show to two non-scientists who believe that they know better.
I feel for Mr. Handley - he sounds like a good, caring parent. He his not a scientist. Correlation is not evidence of causation.
Your guests, Ms. Margulis and Mr. Handley are fanatics -- neither of them was engaging in a debate. They were evangelizing their illogical, unfounded beliefs, using the platform you gave them.
You gave 85% of this show to two non-scientists who believe that they know better.
I feel for Mr. Handley - he sounds like a good, caring parent. He his not a scientist. Correlation is not evidence of causation.
Your guests, Ms. Margulis and Mr. Handley are fanatics -- neither of them was engaging in a debate. They were evangelizing their illogical, unfounded beliefs, using the platform you gave them.
posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
As far as I can see, there is one piece of research cited in these articles -- a study from New Zealand in 1996 that found a correlation between Hepatitis B vaccination and juvenile diabetes. This is a finding that has not been substantiated or replicated by further research. The remainder of the citations in these articles are either self-referential "see my other ariticles" or citations to articles on other anti-vaccine websites.
posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on Taking Shots
This debate is exemplary of a fundamental problem with broad discussions about science.
Dave Miller just made a comment to the effect that "the scientific community believes" that the risks of vaccines are justified by the benefits of avoiding disease, while others "believe" that there are side effects (such as autism) that are too great. This is a completely false equivalency, designed to stoke an argument. What we need to look at is not what some individuals "believe," but WHY they believe these things, and what their evidence is for these beliefs.
In the case of the scientists and doctors who "believe" that vaccines bring great benefits to the public health, these beliefs are based upon hundreds of well conducted scientific studies and vast epidemiological evidence over many decades. In the case of the opponents of vaccines, their "beliefs" are based upon pop culture, rumors and unsupported anecdotes.
This is similar to the "debate" between supportors of the "theory of evolution" and creationists. The sloppy use of language and creation of false equivalancies by the media perpetuate a "controversy" that doesn't deserve to exist at all.
Dave Miller just made a comment to the effect that "the scientific community believes" that the risks of vaccines are justified by the benefits of avoiding disease, while others "believe" that there are side effects (such as autism) that are too great. This is a completely false equivalency, designed to stoke an argument. What we need to look at is not what some individuals "believe," but WHY they believe these things, and what their evidence is for these beliefs.
In the case of the scientists and doctors who "believe" that vaccines bring great benefits to the public health, these beliefs are based upon hundreds of well conducted scientific studies and vast epidemiological evidence over many decades. In the case of the opponents of vaccines, their "beliefs" are based upon pop culture, rumors and unsupported anecdotes.
This is similar to the "debate" between supportors of the "theory of evolution" and creationists. The sloppy use of language and creation of false equivalancies by the media perpetuate a "controversy" that doesn't deserve to exist at all.
posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context
on As We Are: Obese People
Typically a thin person with diabetes has Type I diabetes, an auto-immune disorder that attacks the insulin producing cells in the pancreas. Without insulin they cannot utilize the carbohydrates they ingest. Type II diabetes results from eating too many carbohydrates and desensitizing cells. It is often called diet-controlled diabetes because when people with Type II diabetes watch what they eat, exercise and lose weight they often see a lessening of the severity of their diabetes. Some people even lose the diagnosis of diabetes.
I know many "fat" people and love them. They're beautiful, intelligent, funny and NOT (NOT!) lazy.
Even so, we can't hide from the consequences of our actions.
I know many "fat" people and love them. They're beautiful, intelligent, funny and NOT (NOT!) lazy.
Even so, we can't hide from the consequences of our actions.
posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context
on August Ideas
I think it would be very interesting to have a show about online communities, forums, blogs, etc. and whether unrestrained public comment is good, bad or indifferent.
The Times Magazine had a piece recently about Internet trolls ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html[/url]). This is just one species of some very negative behavior that can appear when you have unfiltered, anonymous communication. Another thing that can happen is the development of "echo chamber" type communities that allow people with negative or irrational behaviors and beliefs to communicate and reinforce each other in insular groups. Finally, the signal to noise ratio can sometimes be so low that it is quite difficult to identify the valuable, reliable communications.
I am a passionate advocate of free speech, so it goes against my grain to even suggest this, but is all this communication really a good thing?
The Times Magazine had a piece recently about Internet trolls ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html[/url]). This is just one species of some very negative behavior that can appear when you have unfiltered, anonymous communication. Another thing that can happen is the development of "echo chamber" type communities that allow people with negative or irrational behaviors and beliefs to communicate and reinforce each other in insular groups. Finally, the signal to noise ratio can sometimes be so low that it is quite difficult to identify the valuable, reliable communications.
I am a passionate advocate of free speech, so it goes against my grain to even suggest this, but is all this communication really a good thing?
posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context
on As We Are: Obese People
The fact that some people may have incentives to exaggerate the risks associated with a thing is not evidence that those risks do not exist.
If you are seriously saying that there are NO health risks associated with being overweight, I point you to: the Mayo Clinic [url]http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=complications[/url], Harvard Medical School [url]http://hms.harvard.edu/public/disease/obesity/[/url], Stanford Medical School [url]http://healthlibrary.stanford.edu/resources/internet/bodysystems/nutrition_obesity.html[/url], etc.
Even the article you quote is not saying the risks do not exist:
[quote]This book does not argue that there is no relationship between weight and health. It argues, rather, that the health risks associated with higher-than-average weight have been greatly exaggerated, while all sorts of related but far graver risks have been ignored. In particular, this book emphasizes that poverty, poor nutrition, and a culture that makes it easy for Americans to be sedentary are important public health issues in America today. We should be encouraging Americans to be physically active, to eat well, and to provide reasonable access to medical care for those among us who lack it.[/quote]
All of that is easy to agree with and does not support an argument that being overweight carries no health risks.
If you are seriously saying that there are NO health risks associated with being overweight, I point you to: the Mayo Clinic [url]http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=complications[/url], Harvard Medical School [url]http://hms.harvard.edu/public/disease/obesity/[/url], Stanford Medical School [url]http://healthlibrary.stanford.edu/resources/internet/bodysystems/nutrition_obesity.html[/url], etc.
Even the article you quote is not saying the risks do not exist:
[quote]This book does not argue that there is no relationship between weight and health. It argues, rather, that the health risks associated with higher-than-average weight have been greatly exaggerated, while all sorts of related but far graver risks have been ignored. In particular, this book emphasizes that poverty, poor nutrition, and a culture that makes it easy for Americans to be sedentary are important public health issues in America today. We should be encouraging Americans to be physically active, to eat well, and to provide reasonable access to medical care for those among us who lack it.[/quote]
All of that is easy to agree with and does not support an argument that being overweight carries no health risks.
posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context
on As We Are: Obese People
The Fat Acceptance Movement is understandable to me at a personal level, yet troubling from a societal and public health standpoint.
People should not be stereotyped based upon their appearence or physical characteristics. Ostracizing and ridiculing individual people is not going to make either them or our culture healthier.
That said, there is overwhelming medical evidence that, all other things being equal, being overweight makes us less healthy. Overweight people have higher rates of many diseases; they spend more on health care over a given period of time than non-overweight people; they die younger.
Fat Acceptance is fine to the extent it means that fat people should be respected, valued, evaluated and held responsible exactly like people who aren't fat. I have a real problem with it, though, to the extent that the movement attempts to obscure the medical facts concerning the health consequences of being overweight.
People should not be stereotyped based upon their appearence or physical characteristics. Ostracizing and ridiculing individual people is not going to make either them or our culture healthier.
That said, there is overwhelming medical evidence that, all other things being equal, being overweight makes us less healthy. Overweight people have higher rates of many diseases; they spend more on health care over a given period of time than non-overweight people; they die younger.
Fat Acceptance is fine to the extent it means that fat people should be respected, valued, evaluated and held responsible exactly like people who aren't fat. I have a real problem with it, though, to the extent that the movement attempts to obscure the medical facts concerning the health consequences of being overweight.
posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context
on Primary Conversations: Secretary of State
I would like to know the candidate's positions on the initiative process.
I believe that the initiative process, while intended to be populist and progressive, is out of date with the reality of modern politics. It enables minority special interests to push through deceptively packaged or radical legislation that is very harmful to the established, considered and democratically established policies of the state. (Measure 37 is a case in point here.)
I believe that the initiative process, while intended to be populist and progressive, is out of date with the reality of modern politics. It enables minority special interests to push through deceptively packaged or radical legislation that is very harmful to the established, considered and democratically established policies of the state. (Measure 37 is a case in point here.)
posted 5 years ago
view in context
on TAG, You're It!
Our consistent failure to meet the basic needs of Talented and Gifted students, let alone to challenge them to meet their full potential, is a grave disservece to them, but it is also a serious danger to our future as a state and a country.
I am consistently troubled by the investment choices we make at the societal level. I realize this is a highly imperfect analogy, and that some may find it offensive, but I think it has some value:
If, as a society, we had a large amount of money to invest in the stock of different companies, would it be the right choice to invest FAR more in the lowest performing companies, hoping to bring them up to average, while investing very little in the top performing ones? Would we expect that to give us a good return on our investment as a society?
I fully realize that we are not talking about companies -- we are talking about children. We cannot and should not simply be willing to let children fail. Nevertheless, as a society, can we afford to continue to make the same upside down investment decisions we have been making?
I am consistently troubled by the investment choices we make at the societal level. I realize this is a highly imperfect analogy, and that some may find it offensive, but I think it has some value:
If, as a society, we had a large amount of money to invest in the stock of different companies, would it be the right choice to invest FAR more in the lowest performing companies, hoping to bring them up to average, while investing very little in the top performing ones? Would we expect that to give us a good return on our investment as a society?
I fully realize that we are not talking about companies -- we are talking about children. We cannot and should not simply be willing to let children fail. Nevertheless, as a society, can we afford to continue to make the same upside down investment decisions we have been making?
posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context
