Posts Tagged ‘Science’

Piglet Plague

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

Let’s have another reality check over the now over-hyped swine flu pandemic.

So far, since the beginning of the year, swine flu has been responsible for over 816 deaths world wide, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). 51 of these deaths have been in the USA.

As sad as this is, let’s compare this to a real world figure of a similar variety. Standard influenza, the everyday common flu, is responsible for approximately 36,000 deaths in the USA per year. If we multiply this by .58 to get a seven month value of 20,880 deaths to roughly match our current position in the calendar, regular influenza is 409 times more deadly than swine flu.

So why do we have government even discussing mass inoculations, pandemic emergencies and military intervention on US soil? Seriously, what’s the scare?

The scare is based on pure speculation. H1N1 swine flu virus is in the same family tree as the Spanish flu, of the great 1918 pandemic. That pandemic killed an estimated 50 to 100 million world wide, 500,000 to 675,000 in the US alone, at about a 2% mortality rate.

Again, as horrid as this is, that means there was a 98% survival rate and our medical science for dealing with hypercytokinemia, which was the leading cause of death stemming from the Spanish flu, is leaps and bounds above our previous methods of dealing with the problem: nothing at all! At least now we have ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, as well as T-cell inhibitors which can offer at least and avenue of attack against hypercytokinemia.

This scare also assumes that swine flu is going to mutate to have a worse effect than it currently does. This certainly isn’t a given fact. Even if it does, and it follows in the Spanish flu’s footsteps, the Spanish flu did it’s work in about nine months time and then simply disappeared as the human immune system naturally reacted and prevented the illness.

So why not play it safe anyway, ignore the fact that regular influenza is currently 409 times more deadly, and get inoculated against swine flu?

In 1976, when the first swine flu scare went through, 40 million were given vaccine shots to help prevent swine flu. Yet, the CDC and other medical organizations now state that there is was no effective vaccine against swine flu, and a new vaccine needed to be created. It was created earlier this year, but it’s yet untested.

From this timeline at WebMD:

“Pandemic swine flu vaccine is already rolling off the production lines of the five different vaccine makers supplying the U.S: 46% will come from Novartis, 26% will come from Sanofi Pasteur, 19% will come from CSL, 6% will come from MedImmune, and 3% will come from GlaxoSmithKline.

“By mid-July, clinical tests of the vaccines sponsored by the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases will begin at the eight Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati; Emory University, Atlanta; Group Health Cooperative, Seattle; Saint Louis University; University of Iowa, Iowa City; University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

“The five vaccine manufacturers will also start separate clinical tests in the U.S., Australia, and Europe. These tests will begin in July and August.”

So, now the questions are piling up. What happened to the 1976 vaccine? If the 1976 vaccine didn’t work, why were 40 million Americans given the shot? If the 1976 vaccine didn’t really work, how do we know that this fast-tracked new vaccine will do any better? Why is the government pushing for everyone to be inoculated with this currently untested vaccine, to the point that they are considering military intervention on US soil?

For my own concern, I don’t see swine flu as a deadly problem. Regular influenza is far worse in fatality rate and far more wide spread. There are too many questions concerning these new vaccines and no where near enough time between the start of clinical tests and the beginning of deployment this autumn, to know whether the new vaccines are effective or even dangerous. The swine flu vaccine of 1976 had hundreds of people developing the extremely rare Guillain-Barre syndrome after vaccination. Thousands have filed suit over the years for this and other illness they claim came from the vaccine. Are similar dangers going to rear up for the new vaccine?

Even more worrisome in all this, is that the government has given legal immunity to any manufacturer of the swine flu vaccine.

This means that if there are unwanted effects, causing crippling illness or death, no one will be able to sue for any compensation. Instead, some special fund will be created by the government, with compensation being dispensed at the whim of a government agency.

That alone is enough for me to avoid the swine flu vaccine. When government steps in to protect an industry from retaliation for causing harm, something is seriously wrong.

Each person will have to decide for themselves, of course. For me, I don’t see the benefit and I see no real danger from this puny piglet plague.

Blonds Started Global Warming

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

A new study by the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen has narrowed down the end of the last ice age to exactly 11,711 years ago.

“Our new, extremely detailed data from the examination of the ice cores shows that in the transition from the ice age to our current warm, interglacial period the climate shift is so sudden that it is as if a button was pressed”, explains ice core researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Centre for Ice and Climate at NBI at the University of Copenhagen.

Must have been human camp fires leading to global warming – or maybe mammoth farts.  Of course, human blond hair can be traced back via the MC1R gene to about 11,000 years ago, so there must be a connection.  Yep, blonds ended the last ice age and started global warming.

Hey, if the Church of Global Warming can make wild, unsupported accusations, I can too…

Science and Religion

Friday, October 24th, 2008

On another board I got into an argument with a group of Christians who claim that there is no problem with mixing science and religion. The Big Bang could have happened by the instigation of God and science should not have issue with this. Furthermore, it is counterproductive to invoke argument between science and religion, as it may have the effect of turning away the more dogmatically religious, further widening the gap between religion and science.

After reading the various arguments to this extent, I felt myself slipping into the Twilight Zone, unable to understand how it was that a naturalistic system (science) could even begin to add on a supernatural system (God), without corrupting the very nature of science itself. No political persuasion should change this dynamic, as far as I’m concerned.

For this, I was labeled a confrontational “New Atheist”, as if it was somehow worse than being an “Old Atheist”.

Frankly, I wasn’t familiar with the term, I had to look it up. I still haven’t figured out who coined the phrase, but it is a label for those like Richard Dawkins, who feel that not only should science be separated from religion completely, but science should challenge religion for the superstitious nonsense that it is. At first being labeled a “New Atheist” left me feeling confused over the implications, but now that I understand the meaning behind it: I accept the label and thank all you deluded Christians for it! I’m quite happy to be thrown into this new class.

You cannot mix science and religion. The reason is a very simple one (one that those I was in argument with refused to accept as even a possibility) that once you apply any supernatural entity, no matter how petty or large, into a naturalistic system – you have corrupted the system. Science is ruled by evidence and there is no evidence for gods, pixies, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, or honest politicians. Once you open the door to that without evidence, you have thrown out science and taken on philosophy. The scientific method starts with observation of the empirical, not mental musings of the ethereal.

Until it can be shown that the interjection of the supernatural into a naturalist system can occur, without corrupting the naturalistic system, there simply is no room for it.  Inserting supernatural answers into a naturalistic system is far more than just being counterproductive – it destroys the system.

I have had many tell me that my “love” of science is my largest downfall – that it leaves me overly skeptical and ignorant of the good that religion has brought to the world.  I counter with this simple test: compare what science has done for humanity in the last 200 years, with the entire history of religion on this planet.  Which has produced more, created more, improved more, furthered knowledge?  Which has ultimately done more for mankind?

Pray all you want, but science landed us on the moon.

Global Warming, We Need You

Tuesday, February 5th, 2008

Bear in mind that the Church of Global Warming is currently in the process of renaming themselves to the Church of Global Climate Change, so that anything can be blamed on that miserable poison CO2. In any case, Russia could have used a little of the old church and China is battling the “coldest winter in 100 years.”

Lake Paliastomi froze over for the first time in 50 years and temperatures were set to drop as low as 67 F (55 C). As the article states, Georgia is a subtropical climate…

Of course the CGW or CGCC is going to say that one off incidents like these aren’t a data point against the global warming hype. Nevermind that the earth has always been going through an awful lot of climate change over the eons. Never mind that Earth was warming on average in the 19th and 20th centuries, before we started to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

But anthropogenic global warming is a fact, because the CGW has a consensus, or so they say.

Pray tell, just what is consensus? It is popular opinion, not scientific fact. Science has held many such a consensus which was proven wrong in the end. What we need is hard data.

Proof to me that CO2 and climate have little to do with each other, comes from work from paleoclimatologists, who show us inconvenient facts, such as Carleton University Professor Tim Patterson’s testimony before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in Canada. (See article.)

“There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.”

Or how about Catherine Brahic’s work in New Scientist (2007-05-17) where she showed in ice core samples the CO2 increase lags behind the temperature by roughly 800 years. Ergo, CO2 cannot possibly cause the temperature change. The same pattern, by studying ice core samples dating back 650,000 years, was confirmed by Holly Fretwell at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC).

The fact of the mater is, that the IPCC is a political organization with a political agenda and though they claim to have a majority of climatologists behind their stance, more and more scientists who have never seen an oil company’s penny are coming out against their position, including some former members of the IPCC.

As for the IPCC itself, the truth came out recently about their position papers, especially the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.

Even this “consensus” is looking weaker everyday.

Addendum 2008-02-11: Yet another article on a group of Canadian scientists who are convinced that the sun is the driving force in climate and are now seeking additional funding for better sun monitoring systems.

Holding Global Warming Up to the Light of Reason

Thursday, November 8th, 2007

Professor Bob Carter, a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, presented an intriguing look at Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory in the scope of scientific method and in the process illuminates a slew of problems with the current AGW propaganda. This is taken from a presentation at the Annual Conference of the Australian Environmental Foundation on September 8th of this year, held in Melbourne.

The speech is shown here in four parts, for a total time of roughly 37 minutes.

It’s the End of the World

Monday, April 30th, 2007

Ever wanted to know the latest or past trend of end-of-the-world scenarios? This site has it all. A very entertaining read on just how wrong we’ve been and how scary things really are.

Visit Exit Mundi and kill some time before we all go.