What is "good sense" about denying something that (a) has happened in the past (1918 pandemic) and (b) may, however unlikely you perceive it to be, happen in the future?
Seems to me that the better part of valor is to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
This country just witnessed a classic example of head-in-the-sand thinking with respect to a perceived possible natural disaster. Knowledgeable people were warning and predicting that Katrina would happen, and it did. It would've cost a fraction of the ultimate toll to have prepared, but no one did. Likewise, it would cost a fraction, individually, to prepare for a flu pandemic, yet I see people thinking, "Nawwww, it cannot possibly happen; therefore, I intend to take no proactive measures to protect myself and my family from one of the greatest disasters that could possibly befall mankind--a repeat of 1918."
And you call that "good sense?" Why?
You'll be the one, among the unprepared, screaming the loudest when no face masks can be found for you.
__________________
The Truth is out there...somewhere.
There is a word describing: "It can happen to others, but not to me --"
I used to think that it was 'solipsism', but that word doesn't seem to fit per our modern dictionary. Anyone know the word I'm looking for? It was used to describe why we can get soldiers to do the things they do back in the '40s.
It would now describe why there is not general preparation for any emergency.
__________________ Imagined knowledge kills learning . . . The cure for boredom is curiosity...there is no cure for curiosity..
Here, from this web site, is Dr. Mercola's Comment on common sense:
It's starting to look like there's a hidden agenda behind the manufactured avian flu scare that goes far beyond pushing needless and potentially harmful drugs that don't work anyway. I guess if you can't frighten people with a flu epidemic that never happened, you can limit the rights of travelers and collect private information anyway for the sake of nothing.
Sad but true.The entire bird flu scare is one of the most blatant hoaxes of recent times, and the popular media continues to reinforce the baseless story. You've been hearing about it for months and months now, and what's come of it? Next to nothing. And nothing ever will, except possibly you losing more of your hard-earned freedoms.We have been warned that anywhere from 200,000 (at best!) to 2 million people at worst will die from the bird flu.
The bird flu epidemic hoax reminds me just how uncommon "common sense" is. Folks, where is the sound basic science here? How do they make the giant leap of faith that the very few deaths so far worldwide will translate to 2 million or even 200,000 deaths from a virus that does NOT readily spread from birds to humans, or humans to humans?Most of the people who have acquired this infection were bird handlers who were in continuous contact with these sick birds.
Does anyone in their right mind envision similar circumstances in the United States?Research like this would typically be thrown in the trash if it did not strongly support some ulterior purpose.
What might the purpose of these scare tactics be, you ask?Kickbacks to drug companies is one reason. Their drugs don't work, but the massive windfall from government contracts to help the United States "prepare" against avian flu has helped their bottom lines nicely, not to mention the profits of their allies in the government.And the above article points toward a second, and possibly even more sinister, reason to keep us all afraid.I am currently working on a fast-track book called the Great Bird Flu Hoax that I hope to have published this summer. It will expand on this important issue even further.
And then we have this.
More Immunity to Tamiflu
Here's something I expect will probably get the powers that be -- namely federal health officials and the mega-drugmakers -- more concerned about the avian flu epidemic/hoax: The H5N1 virus may now be resistant to Tamiflu, something I warned you about last year.
Recently, two Vietnamese patients treated early on with Tamiflu died from the flu anyway. What's more, these cases demonstrated a high resistance to that worthless drug.
In those patients who died, researchers found the virus had mutated so it could better overcome the natural functioning of neuraminidase, a genetic chemical that creates and releases copies of infected cells.
Another interesting factoid: A reminder that as many as 18 percent of the children who are treated with Tamiflu develop a drug-resistant strain of the disease. Even the British Medical Journal warned us recently that the avian flu virus isn't capable of causing a human pandemic.
Hmmm I didn�t know he had barrowed my conspiracy hat I will have to go over and get it back.
... although Xania's suggestions are good. Invincible is another word.
Tamiflu, by the manufacturer's own admission, is of limited usefulness in the case of a pandemic, only shortening the duration of illness (if you live at all) by 1.5 days. By now, everybody knows it.
Thanks a bunch guys! Just when I was planning to jump all over Ruby Tuesday (seems like fun), you beat me to it.
Anyway, let me do the best I can with what I have left:
Quote:
Just who are these Very Bad People? Where are they hiding or, more correctly, where are they meeting?
They don't meet or communicate at all. I think you know me well enough now. I'm not a great believer in conspiracy theories. I don't believe any government has put together a nasty flu virus in the lab, to decimate the population. Not because governments are too nice for that, but because they'e not smart enough to do that.
But usually the conspiracies start when somebody - in government or in the industry - pulls a major boo-boo. For example by letting a large quantity of chlorine gas escape. The morons who let that happen go unpunished, because the mishap is covered up by their peers and their superiors. Of course, several cases of severe respiratory problems are observed. But the public is reassured. "No danger is to be expected. It's just some virus going around." The government in a neighnoring country thinks: "A virus? They're talking through their hats... But wait a minute... If we go along with that story, there's money to be made!" So they start selling antiviral drugs. And so, country after country embraces the virus hoax (while knowing all the time that it's a scam), and uses it to its own advantage. Now that's what I call "very bad people".
"The core of evil is ego-centricity, whereby others are sacrificed rather than the ego of the individual." - Scott Peck
Don't you find it strange that your government an the whole corporate world is now insisting that you should be prepared for the coming bird flu pandemic? As you pointed out yourself, nobody was talking about being prepared for a major hurricane in Louisiana. But of course! Re-enforcing levees costs money. Telling people to buy masks, gloves, and Tamiflu brings in money.
I'm not alone in this (although I probably wouldn't care if I were). Here's an article you can find on Dr. Mercola's website:
"Is it like Y2K, where also nothing happened?" asked Juan Lubroth, a senior veterinary official at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, referring to the expected computer failures that did not materialize as 1999 turned to 2000.
I'd say yes! you wouldn't believe the fun I had in the late nineties, ridiculing the panic about the coming "millennium bug" in all computers around the world. Of course nothing happened. Even the cheapest digital watches kept on running without any errors. But I'm sure some people made money off that millennium bug. But was I received by the Queen and honored internationally? Sad to say: No. And to think I was the guy who had been bringing people good news for 2 years! I feel definitely undervalued. And you'll see that when (not if) this bird flu cockadoodle turns out to be a dud, I won't be honored and worshipped again...
Anyhow, dear Ruby, governments may not be smart enough to set up a well-planned conspiracy, but they are pretty good at covering up their mistakes and even making money off them.
[color-blue]Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing,"
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D. Vermont),
[/color]
The reason that Y2K didn't happen is that thousands of corporations worked around the clock for many months to keep it from happening. Of course, you can't prove a negative, so we'll never know what may have happened had they NOT taken steps to prevent Y2K from happening. But you can't say that just because the world DIDN'T collapse that the efforts of thousands of people to avoid the Y2K meltdown were wasted.
I fervently hope that the bird flu is nothing more than cockadoodle, but I'm planning as if it will, in fact, happen. It costs nothing to do so and I may have my very life to gain.
Skepzilla wrote:
Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing,"
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D. Vermont),
But Skep, but Skep, If you would quote all of the exchange with 'leaky'Leahy (D, Vermont), it would become immediately apparent what a complete idiot the man is. And this guy is a senator!
Well, I have to ask, Do any intellligent people go into politics? Wouldn't they do better in a more intellectually stimulating and satisfying environment?
In UK, members of Parliament are generally thought of as society's drop-outs. They go into politics because there is nowhere else suitable for them!
Good one, Xania. But I retain this flaw: I still believe that there are some good people in government, just not very many.
At this point I believe that our constitution should be modified to require and IQ of at least 80 before any elected official can take office--that would drive out at least half of our U.S. current congress people.
(Of course those such as Kennedy, for example, would demand to be grandfathered in )
I think this one was from Mark Twain:
[Suppose a man were an idiot and suppose he were a member of congress, ah but I repeat myself.]
�At this point I believe that our constitution should be modified to require and IQ of at least 80 before any elected official can take office--that would drive out at least half of our U.S. current congress people.�
I will second that. But for some reason we keep re-electing the same old idiots.
Anyway is this a scam or a conspiracy? You decide. This is from the latest AARP Bulletin, that great organization that�s want everyone to live a better live so long as they are first in line. From the sound of this article �FDA woes. Why protecting our medicine is so complicated.� It appears that they are slowing coming to the realization that we may have a problem.
Here is a table they included showing the FDA committee voting that lead to the approval of three common drugs.
Vote of the full committee.
Vioxx 17 yes 15 no
Bextra 17 yes 13 no
Celebrex 31 yes 1no
But if members with conflict of interests were excluded we get these results.
Vioxx 8 yes 14 no
Bextra 8 yes 12 no
Celebrex 21 yes 1no
Also stated:
The FDA has 200 employees, who are reviewing about 975 generic drug applications,
while it has 700 employees who are reviewing about 150 new-drug applications.
How can this be? Well it is seems new-drug applications and testing are paid for by the manufactures while generic drug testing is paid for out of the FDA�s budget.
�Despite the backlog. The FDA told congress in February that its generic drugs office can do the job with the resources it has on hand. A response that has generated criticism on Capital hill. �The thing that is really screwy� says Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo. �is they have a huge backlog of generic drugs and yet are not asking for any more money.��
In UK, members of Parliament are generally thought of as society's drop-outs.
I've always enjoyed hearing Tony Blair speak. He strikes me as dynamic, articulate, highly intelligent and erudite. He's probably over-qualified to be Prime Minister.
At this point I believe that our constitution should be modified to require and IQ of at least 80 before any elected official can take office--that would drive out at least half of our U.S. current congress people.
It takes high emotional intelligence to lead effectively. I'd rather have a high school dropout with vision and integrity in public office than all the Harvard lawyers (high IQ) that populate Capitol Hill now.
At this point I believe that our constitution should be modified to require and IQ of at least 80 before any elected official can take office--that would drive out at least half of our U.S. current congress people.
It takes high emotional intelligence to lead effectively. I'd rather have a high school dropout with vision and integrity in public office than all the Harvard lawyers (high IQ) that populate Capitol Hill now.
Ruby, you may be right, but I remain unconvinced. I haven't studied EQ and have thought IQ was imperfect at best. But I am curious. Why do you think a Harvard lawyer would have a high IQ? Also, just to show how warped I am, I don't think of congress as a bunch of leaders.
Based upon the following info, I will probably remain in my present relaxed state
"Defining emotional intelligence
The distinction between intelligence and knowledge in the area of cognition (i.e. IQ) is very clear, where generally, psychological research demonstrates that IQ is a reliable measure of cognitive capacity, and is stable over time. In the area of emotion (i.e. EQ) that distinction between intelligence and knowledge is murky. Current definitions of EQ are inconsistent about what it measures: some (such as Bradberry and Greaves 2005) say that EQ is dynamic, it can be learned or increased; whereas others (such as Mayers) say that EQ is stable, and cannot be increased. Mayer's (2005a) is consistent with cognition-based definitions of intelligence and knowledge, stating that emotional "intelligence is unlikely to be any more easily raised than general intelligence," but "emotional knowledge can be increased. . . fairly easily." Under Mayer's definition, emotional knowledge would be the level of perception and assessment that an individual has of their emotions at any given moment in time."
Sorry, I just wouldn't want to be led by someone who makes emotional decisions. And I would prefer congress to analyse and deliberate well.
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Let's see now, there's a number of issues playing now at the same time. I'm trying to sort them out.
If I get your drift, "EQ" is just thinking on your feet.
I'll leave the evaluation of the U.S. Congress to you, American citizens. If Representatives and Senators are idiots, why did you elect them?
I have enough on my mind regarding our own members of Parliament. Most of them are indeed idiots, but we didn't really elect them. We just vote for a political party (of which there are a dozen or so). Then the party picks out the idiots to serve in Parliament. Your (American) system is better; you pick the candidates yourself. So why do you blow it every 2 years?
I didn't really expect you to like Patrick Leahy, Donee. But I sort of liked this quote. I think citizens (of any country) are entitled to know what their government is doing. especially if it comes to "dirty dealings" (an expression from Martha Mitchell during the Nixon years). And a lot of these "dirty dealings" of today seem a lot dirtier to me than a simple break-in at the Watergate apartments.
And - Oh yes, Ruby! Tony Blair is dynamic, articulate, highly intelligent and erudite. He's probably over-qualified to be Prime Minister. And therefore he should be promoted to Lord Chamberlain at the court of George W. Bush. When the clarions called out to go to war in Iraq, you should have seen Tony Blair stand up proudly and shout: "Yes. Massa!!"
I leave any further comments to Xania, who is better qualified on the subject and who has to live with the man.
It looks like I'm picking on you today, Ruby , but I simply have to react to your statement:
Quote:
The reason that Y2K didn't happen is that thousands of corporations worked around the clock for many months to keep it from happening.
Yes, yes, that's what they want you to believe, con men as they are. But the computer owners (both companies and individuals) who did absolutely nothing also found their computers to be working as usual when the year 2000 rolled around.
But there's no doubt that the scaredy cats and the nervous nellies paid a lot of money to the rip-off artists who promised to save them from the "millennium bug".
Thinking about it, I could do that:
On Jan. 1st of 2007 a large meteorite will hit Los Angeles. It's probably impossible to prevent this from happening, but I'm working hard on it. Please send me your donations, so that I can prevent the disaster!
And then... after Jan 1st 2007 comes and goes without anything happening, I'll claim that, thanks to my untiring efforts, the path of the meteorite could be diverted and a great disaster could be averted.
8)
)
But I sort of liked this quote. I think citizens (of any country) are entitled to know what their government is doing. especially if it comes to "dirty dealings" (an expression from Martha Mitchell during the Nixon years). And a lot of these "dirty dealings" of today seem a lot dirtier to me than a simple break-in at the Watergate apartments.
And therefore he should be promoted to Lord Chamberlain at the court of George W. Bush. When the clarions called out to go to war in Iraq, you should have seen Tony Blair stand up proudly and shout: "Yes. Massa!!"
Linear Mode
