I am starting to feel like I am watching a typical slasher flick when the dumb blonde does something spectacularly and predictably DUMB. Why is it that “science” never sees the link to “science-fiction”? Sometimes I really hate that I read…

pretty scary…from other artices I’ve read apparently the recreation was complete around september 2008.

“So what is the consensus on the “Swine flu…?”

I’m not sure a “consensus” like that would exist so soon in the game.
We needs to see it run its course, and look at the results (propagation, death count, regions affected, etc.)
Of course, it also depends on whether you’re looking for a “total consensus” or a consensus among certain factions of society (medical professionals, general population, radical lesbian muslim vegetarians, etc.) : )

I, personally, don’t actually have a view on this, or any theories brewing in my head that I believe in. (Yeah, I touched on an example of a speculative theory earlier, but it’s not my own, nor do I have any compelling reason to adopt it.)

Until we see how it might, or might not, spread, and what damage may be yet to result, there’s no data out there that would discredit any of what is being reported. As it unfolds, it will either fit with what has been said already, or it won’t. If it doesn’t, that would be when “alternate theories” might be applicable.

Contrary to any impression I may have inadvertently made earlier, I do agree with Matty, in that we should be careful about jumping on any “conspiracy bandwagon” before getting and checking all the available facts. A sound “conspiracy theory” is the product of applied intelligence, but an unfounded one is nothing more than the rantings of a nutcase, and can actually be dangerous to society.

“Use responsibly”
: )

And about the “improperly introduced” vaccines: (this may be tangential to the base topic, but I think it applies)

My mom keeps getting her flu shot every year, but I refuse to do so because I have some pretty solid trust in my own immune system and not so much in the pharm industry. It kills me to see commercials for prescription drugs aimed at consumers directly who then go and demand them from their physicians. True that a good Dr. will take some responsibility at that point, but then take a look at all the commercials from the ambulance chasers doing their thing with the fallout from something that wasn’t all it was cracked up to be and maybe caused more damage. I roll my eyes everytime I see an ad claiming science has “discovered” the secret to weight loss! Didn’t phen/fen teach us anything? Many of the health issues address by the pharm companies are preventable with proper diet//better nutrition and exercise or lifestyle change, but no one talks about that because there isn’t a way to profit from it. Too much stuff is getting pushed through testing without even considering possible long-term effects and the folks who buy it without question are the ones who pay the price, sometimes with their lives.

Just as with “consensus” data, scientific data can be skewed as well, or simply not analyzed correctly and mistaken conclusions drawn, and the prominent number of drug recalls in the last couple decades makes me think that the experts in the industry have been a bit short-sighted lately. Not to mention the fact that there is a great deal of misleading (even if not deliberate) contextual misinformation in the media. Example: the notion that “sugar free” and “fat free” foods = “healthy” foods, when fat isn’t what makes people fat, but starch and ALL of the sugar substitutes contain chemicals that have been directly linked to cancer!

Everything comes down to weighing the risks, and the problem is there isn’t enough understanding that just because the authority gave an “OK” doesn’t mean that there isn’t still risk involved. When I feel like I might be on the more frail side from advanced age I might consider a flu shot, but right now I think what doesn’t kill me will make me stronger. Also since there is no history of cervical cancer n my family (or any cancer that I am aware of – even despite the fact that both grandfathers were pretty heavy smokers), I’m going to wait at least a year maybe two before I consider that new vaccination for the human papilloma virus and see if anything untoward turns up in the wake. On the other hand, my partner’s mother is an ovarian cancer survivor and we just lost his half-sister to astrocytoma, so if we were to have a child I would definitely be considering it for her.

The wisdom in anything is being able to allow all possibilities and then decide for yourself, which would indicate to me all of the people who have met in healthy debate here are more shepherds than sheeple! It is refreshing to see that there are still folks making some use out of the grey matter rattling around in their skulls…

I never actually thought you were a troll.
I just used the term as a backhanded comment.
Call it a feeble attempt at a “colourful finish”.
And, I didn’t mean it.
I do apologize for that, and will make a concerted effort to be more civil, if you will.
Let this go “on the Record” [smirks at Henry] as the “First Order of Business”.

As for what I meant concerning the term “conspiracy”…
This word, and its sister term, “conspiracy theorist” are being too often used as tools of both propaganda and avoidance these days. The recent Bush Administration honed the technique of using them to a fine art (and introduced the wide application of the word “terrorist” while they were at it). Now, “conspiracy theorist” seems to be the automatic “answer” to anyone with a reasonable question, no matter how much impact, importance, or openness the subject is supposed to have. (Sometimes the “answer” is even “terrorist”.)

What really gets me about it is, a “conspiracy theorist” is simply someone who aspires to try to formulate, prove or disprove a theory on a possible betrayal of some kind. Thanks to some pretty dedicated spin doctors, that definition is practically thrown out the window, in favour of a more distorted and “sensational” one.

Illustration: The US Government’s “Official Report” on 9/11 is, by definition, a “conspiracy theory”.

Hence, I say the use of this term as a one-sided, derogatory statement is illogical.

At no time did I actually state that I truly believed the Mexican Swine Flu was the result of a “miltary leak”. I only tried to say that such a theory might not be totally far-fetched, given that plenty of similar events have been documented. Now, I realize this kind of statement might ruffle a few feathers if not “supported” by a qualifying link. If that’s what you (or Henry) want in this case, I will get a few for you later, but bear with me for now. (I’m just very tired and sleep deprived – long story, you don’t want to read that as well as this one.)

What I do find “interesting” is, that Mexico did just literally rip itself away from Monsanto’s very exploitive GM contract. Monsanto is not very happy with that, and does have the friends and resources on hand to (wait for it!) create enough propaganda to practically ruin the country. (When I’m looking for the other links, I’ll see if I can also give one that illustrates why this idea might have merit.)

Given the conditions in Mexico, it would be very easy to say some kind of “new” disease came from that and is a potential “pandemic”, given the right set of circumstances. Maybe what happened is not actually anything new, and the situation is just being “strategically augmented” to create enough panic to shut down their key industry, tourism. It might also explain, in part, why people don’t seem to be dropping dead outside of Mexico. (The only suspect death so far in Canada was a 2-year-old, and they haven’t yet determined if it even had that flu, or just “any” flu. 2-year-olds are vulnerable to lots of ordinary flus.) I haven’t checked if there have been deaths attributed to this flu in the US. Maybe someone knows that answer?

As far as the rest of our scrap goes, it’s quite obvious we were each talking about 2 different aspects of this subject that don’t really have any relationship. You were trying to reinforce why it all exists, which I really wasn’t trying to argue with you about.

I was merely trying to point out that our “automatic trust” in these things may have been seriously betrayed by some along the way…
(Yes, I’ll dig up the necessary links on the following scenarios, but, I’ll wait for you to request what you want.)

1) Stannous Flouride has proven benefits for teeth, but has proven accumulative toxic effects for the human body. When it was added to toothpaste, that should have cancelled out the need for flouridated water. (If you read the toothpaste packaging, it tells you either not to allow children below a certain stage of development to swallow it, or simply that the substance is not meant to be ingested, depending on what country you live in and what requirements are put on that.)

Flouride levels in our water were reduced slightly in certain regions, after much noise from some prominent professionals, taking into consideration that not all regions enjoy the same availability of toothpaste or dental care (eg. native Indian reserves, etc.). However, questions keep getting avoided to this day: Why is it still in the water at all when we’re not addressing the toxic effects of ingesting an iron bi-product that have been admitted by all? Why should those living in major centers be ingesting it, when it’s in the toothpaste? Why are the indigenous people supposed to continue to ingest the “full amount” when we could bring them dental care? etc.

2) There has been some controversy over vaccines, due to discoveries made on some questionable contents administered to some Third World countries, by some questionable companies. Eugenicists were involved. Deaths occurred. Some concern spilled over to our side of the world, as similar interests were discovered here as well.

There were also a few vaccines that were “improperly introduced” in North America not long ago. There were recalls. Apparently not in time for a few unfortunate kids. This part of the story is probably the result of human error, and not anything conspiratorial.

3) Genetically modified food hasn’t exactly been proven a trustworthy thing at this point. Nor can we seem to begin to trust its practitioners. In the guise of “helping less fortunate countries”, they move in, introduce their products, which include seeds that only yield one crop (no regermination for the future). The products are also LICENSED and UNDER CONTRACT and have COPYRIGHTS attached to them, effectively locking them into a life of dependency on the one company, with no ability to save seed for the next year, no rights to clean the seeds of their self-destructive element, and no rights to farm beyond what they’re permitted by contract.

The GM products are also more expensive. And the no-escape contracts cause these people to sell their very soul just to satisfy their obligations. And, because of contracts and licensing conditions, many of these people lose their land, and/or their ability to work.

It has also been documented that GM products don’t appear to give any higher yields than non-GM crops.

I hope this clears up where I was coming from, and helps explain that it’s not that didn’t agree with anything you were saying, it’s just that it really had little to do with what I was talking about. I guess the more we each tried to get back to where we intended to go, the further apart we seemed to be. I think Henry can tell you, we had a similar experience some time back.

As I mentioned, I will post a link or two for whatever part of this you want, if you request it.
(That way you get only what you’re interested in, and not stuff you don’t care to sort through.)
_____________________________

@Henry:

I’m sorry if I contributed to upsetting you.
Hopefully, you’ve found the last posts to be a little more intelligent, and can see where our minds were at.

As mentioned above, you probably don’t have to think too far back to remember we had a similar experience which proved to have a similar cause (we were both “right”, just talking about two unrelated principles).

As for conspiracy thoeries, I openly admit to being very “involved” in some.
Those include the 3 we’ve already touched upon (obviously?), as well as 9/11 (probably my “pet project”), and the whole “NWO” conundrum.

I actually regard it as a healthy activity, as long as you don’t have to “stretch” logic or reality too far in order to understand, formulate, or debunk a theory. To me, it’s just applying yourself in order to solve a riddle, and assessing whether your acting on your own thoughts, or those that have been “passed on” to you. If the theory can’t be properly supported, it’s illogical to promote it. That’s what I think separates a “nutjob” from a true “conspiracy theorist”.

So both “sides” of this debate need to just stop talking past one another.

DA: Stop accusing Matty of being a troll — he’s actually at least attempting to participate in the discussion (albeit from a different viewpoint than you.) We know trolls by, for example, their tendency to not even acknowledge what their opponents say, and just keep sermonizing. (Sam was great for that — I’d present vast swaths of evidence for my position, and he’d just keep “misunderstanding” it.)

So at least give Matty the benefit of the doubt, and don’t just accuse him of being some kind of stupid jackass just because you think his viewpoint is a little too close to “orthodoxy”.

Matty:
Glad to see that you apologized for/clarified your blanket statement about “conspiracy theorists”.
One of the truly beautiful things about the Internet is the way that different “sides” of issues can get themselves heard.
The “consensus” emerging from a relatively-level informational playing-field (where both sides can publicize their views, organize etc.), and the “consensus” created by a bunch of strategically-placed “think tanks” are two very different things.

I personally think the corporate and political elite gain immensely from most “conspiracy” stuff, if for no other reason than it creates a climate of paranoia, and makes people reflexively shy away from particular ideas.

Perfect example of this is the “militia” movement in the USA in the 1990s:

One of the big concerns was that the U.N. would mutate into what they described as a “totalitarian socialist one-world government”, which would then be oppressive. So what do most of these people see as an alternative? Rabid nationalism and some mix of White-racialist survivalist stuff.
(They never stopped to think that an oppressive regime would be MORE easily created under the banner of the U.S. (”Worlds only superpower”.)

So yeah, I tend to be really cynical about ALL viewpionts, and take all sides with at least a grain of salt.

To clarify, I think much of the concern about vaccines comes not so much from the vaccines themselves, as from the preservatives and such used in their production. (That’s one of the big issues among folks who are concerned that Thimerosol might be involved in Autism.)

So everybody calm down — our Military-Industrial overlords have better ways to amuse themselves (and we, the serfs) than global pandemics. Also, if they built it, they’d probably build in a “fail-safe” to be able to shut it down — else, what kind of “weapon” would it be?
(That’s their basic problem with nukes — way too destructive, and serious blowback potential to your own side, what with radiation and suchlike.)

So everybody just chill.

This being said it is not in the finacial interest of pharmaceutical companies to show up with harmful drug in general and vaccine in particular. True nothing is perfectly safe and vaccine are no exception. However data show that the benefit of very most vaccine far outweigh the risk. People forgot about polyomelitism, small pox, tetani, diphteria and so on and so on that devastated many gerneration of kids until the vaccine. Most vaccine are very safe and actually has becam safer over the years.

Do the study and browse internet about a particular vaccine you are considering to see the pro and the con if you want too. There is a lot of BS on internet but if you search lonng enough you will find the consensus and trust me th econsensus is pretty accurate.

It’s just that the prospect of this swine flu from Mexico being a military weapon made me laugh. If you’ve been to Mexico City, it becomes pretty apparent that infectious disease outbreaks in that part of the world don’t need any help. In this part of the world it is rare that anyone dies of an infectious disease of any kind. Think about all the people you know who died – I bet the majority of them were killed in accidents or died from chronic non-infectious diseases such as heart attack, stroke, or some form of cancer. In most African countries the majority of people die from infections that we have successfully controlled.

By all means keep a close eye on your surroundings and our elected officials. I believe that most of them do have good intentions, but they can also be easily misled. We have great power at our fingertips with the internet being a tool for communication and information (note – it really only has information; the internet has never been called the “knowledge” or “wisdom” superhighway). But with this power of information (both accurate and inaccurate) comes responsibility. I think it’s completely irresponsible to be asking alarmist questions about routine interventions (that were based on sound and valid medical science to begin with) and have so obviously improved our health, increased our life expectancy, and continue to maintain our quality of life by making things like infectious diseases an afterthought.

Troll my ass.

Blindly believing every conspiracy theory is just as silly as blindly believing everything that comes out of the mainstream media. What I DO know for a fact is that we dont know much at all really. Who knows what goes on in secret & behind closed doors, I am sure its very very scary. Conspiracies dont go on forever, they are broken sooner or later. How many years of safe vaccines have we had, if there was something dodgy going on iam sure someone would have caught onto it by now. They cant silence everyone!

Unfortunately the current political & corporate climate lets corporations & politicians prosecute, attack & discredit whistleblowers with impunity. How many times have we seen hackers sued for discovering flaws in hardware & software? Just look at wikileaks raided at the behest of the Australian government after they published the censor list.

Our one daughter isn’t, and we made the decision not to expose her after carefully researching the pros and cons.

Cheers!

2. When somebody uses the phrase “for the record”, it’s pretty obvious that the discussion has deteriorated beyond any recovery. What “record” are we talking about here? Are we addressing ourselves to some hypothetical researchers reading the “wayback machine” version of p2pnet on the Internet Archive 300 years from now? I don’t get it, mostly because I figure the only people reading something like that (if it’s even still actively maintained) will be historians, and they’ll have way better stuff to research than a squabble in the comments on some blog.

3. I’ve been around the “conspiratorial” worldview pretty much all my lilfe: a relative of mine tended toward getting his “news and views” from various “white-power” preacher types on shortwave radio during the 1990s. DA and Matty: I’d suggest — before continuing this weird little pissing contest or whatever it is — that you both head on over to Wikipedia and read up on a CIA operation named “cointelpro”.

It basically involved the CIA infiltrating dissident organizations and screwing with their minds.

I may be extremely cynical, but I’ve personally come to the conclusion that very probably a significant amount of the hysteria involving things like Flouridation, Chemtrails, GM food, weaponized plagues etc. is deliberately manufactured and disseminated by the very organizations such things claim to implicate.

Yeah, I’m cynical, maybe, but I’m also smart enough to know when I don’t know something first-hand.

DA: it’s discouraging to see you accusing Matty of being a troll, simply because he doesn’t agree with your assessments.
Matty: blanket condemntation of “conspiracy theorists” is equally short-sighted, because it basically requires that entire subjects be declared off-limits simply because they’re supposedly “conspiracy theories”. Prime example: I’m accutely concerned about stuff like corporate “personhood”, and the fact that it’s at the root of a lot of really bad shit going on in our culture.
Unfortunately, questioning corporate power (or even the status quo in regard to Intellectual Property laws) got our erstwhile buddy “Sam I Am” to accuse me of simply being “anti-business”.
He accused Jon of exhibiting “an anarchist’s public glee” or some such drivel.
So pardon me if I can’t bring myself to take either “side” of this so-called “debate” seriously.

When you’re done calling one another names and insulting one another’s intelligence, I’ll maybe check back in.
(I feel much better, now.)

This is a tough one, coming from someone who is teetering on the cusp of wearing a foil hat. Both sides of the argument have merit, but I think the discussion has gotten a bit off-topic. I think the hard part is to get a real grasp of how single-minded and greedy it is possible to become, but once you can fathom that, it is not such a leap of logic to imagine what kind of abberant behavior might result from that. While I know from experience that 90% of people are idiots, conspiracy theorists or not, I will say that the past 8 years have definitely been a strong indicator that our guv’ment don’t always operate above board. Add to that the fact that the 90% idiocy rate also applies to those in positions of power (also STRONGLY evidenced by the last 8 years =D) and I conclude that just because something is a really dumb idea doesn’t preclude the possibility that it won’t be attempted.

I agree with the statements about the internet being a source of information that many entities would like to get control over. Knowledge is power, after all, and what better way to control the direction of power than to control the flow of information? I am hoping that the sheer vastness of the net will keep it at least one step ahead of the gatekeepers, kinda like the little dutch boy trying to put a finger in the dam… but I think the mass media is reacting to the competition by stepping up the sensationalism. Personally I am disgusted with the yellow journalism that is more the rule than the exception in today’s mass media, and I am grateful for the particular education that I had for the ability to take it with a grain of salt. At the same time, I see that often the existence of “evil” is not so much evil as it is a result of clouded perception or judgement. After all, I think that very few people actually committ evil acts with the intent of furthering wickedness, but rather they imagine that what they are doing is for the best because they do not see clearly, and do not realize that they are making assumptions based on bad data. Fear is one of the biggest reasons for this, though often we don’t even realize what we are afraid of.

That all being said, let’s say that I would not be surprised to discover that any viral outbreak had some misguided science behind it, but I am hoping that reason has a tiny bit of a lead over complete idiocy in the circles of power, and instead suggest comparing hard numbers against the hype to see what pans out. It is difficult to tell from the news sources what exactly the climate of this “outbreak” really is due to the medias penchant for drama and exaggeration. As I understand it, it is a virus’s nature to be virulent, so the fact that a flu is highly contagious is not worrisome in and of itself, but rather more to the point is the question of whether this is a particularly more damaging virus that is out of proportion to the corresponding natural circumstances. We are living in close quarters as the population density continues to increase, and nature has a way of keeping balance when certain elements overextend themselves, so it is hardly unreasonable to expect that we might find our biggest battles being fought against microorganisms if we can’t learn to moderate our own situation and survival of the fittest remains the rule.

With that in mind, I remember coming down with chicken pox in grade school; average sick leave of about 2 weeks was the norm, but I was better in a week, and I had one friend was particularly hard hit and out for 3. I had strep once and felt like I got hit by a truck, but I got better. So my question is not so much about how to avoid catching the flu or avoiding it, but what are my chances of SURVIVING it should it prove unavoidable? Does this bug carry a disproportionate mortality rate, or are the people that are dying from it generally elderly or very young or otherwise immune-compromised or not able to take steps to recover like hydration and rest or the like? Exactly how many people ARE actually dying from it? Are there common factors in those succumbing to the illness like similarities in genetic makeup? Is the “super” part of “super-flu” its contagiousness or its debilitating effects? I don’t fear becoming ill so much as becoming DEAD, and this seems to be the kind of statistical information that the media is glossing over with the focus being on reporting the panicky reactions of people while simultaneously neglecting to point out the fact that peoples reactions to the news is NOT a danger barometer by any means, preferring to heighten the drama by adding to the hype so that people will tune in at 11:00. THAT is what I find to be irresponsible, though it is probably motivated more by greed than conspiracy.

No matter what we do, death is the inevitable consequence of life. I don’t think there is cause for suspicion of conspiracy or even of military stupidity unless it is an unnaturally specific or unnaturally broadbased contagion that is somehow doing more damage than it ought to in terms of the surrounding environmental circumstances. I am leaning towards the idea that concentrated populations and closed environments that actually concentrate pollutants are a more likely culprit than deliberate mischief, though I do not rule out unexpected consequences of scientific tampering that may have been better intentioned as well. (Example: whatever genetic guidance has been given to make some plants more hardy in some ways has cost them in others – I don’t think my aging is the only reason that mangoes don’t seem as fragrant or as flavorful as they did when I was 10.)

At any rate, I think we need to meet somewhere in the middle as far as trust and suspicion goes. In a world where we still haven’t learned not to kill each other over lesser differences, it isn’t so far fetched to think that we might not be sheltered from the folly of a few. If we didn’t understand that to some degree we would hardly be keeping tabs on sites like this in the first place, nor would there be a reason for their existence. And it also pays to be skeptical of skepticism so that fear of fearmongering doesn’t become its own monster. The day that we stop considering the merit of an opposing view is the day we hasten our own end.

All I’m going to say at this point is that you keep going further and further in a direction I certainly wasn’t taking you.
And, all the time you’re doing that, you’re just throwing in more and more shit that doesn’t have anything to do with what I’m talking about. And, you’re still sniping. (Remember, that’s how this got started. You set the stage.)

Since you obviously can’t follow the context or meaning of what’s being said, or construct a paragraph free of childish insults, there’s not much point in arguing with you about any of this. That would just be “scientifically illiterate” on my part, now wouldn’t it?!
(Oh, pu-leeeze!)

For your information, the reference to Monsanto was a CLUE to what my posts were about, and not some simple, isolated incident involving one company. It was a clue to something you could have simply Googled and gotten countless hits for, and would have lead you to the rest. And, you wouldn’t have had to cherry-pick.

It’s not about “fear-mongering”.
It’s about the greedy psychopaths that are right out there in the open for you to see, if you turn your head and look.
It’s not a new story, nor is it something intelligent people have made a habit of denying. It’s been going on for some time now.

And, there’s no cherry picking involved here. There is currently a great deal of activity on such subjects of man-made viruses, vaccines, flouridated water, and GFM. Thousands of professionals and academics are voicing a variety of concerns – infinite publications are out there in a desperate effort to get people like yourself out of this “protective bubble” of denial they don’t even realize they’ve been in. Your reaction is common, and natural. People are so conditioned to believe they’re being so well looked after, they don’t allow themselves to believe anyone would mean them any harm. (9/11 was a classic piece of proof on that.)

As they say, you can lead a horse to water…
(At least the horse won’t blame you if it dies of dehydration because it didn’t take its head out of its ass and drink when given the opportunity.)

I’m through feeding the troll now, Jon.
(Sorry!) : )
)8 P>