Ok, I'll explain it.

It's a comedic piece, not a lecture on reproductive health.

It doesn't matter if condoms are 97, 80 or 50% effective. They are being used as a stand-in for something that HAS a 97% consensus on its accuracy.

Granted, it's not a completely perfect analogy (they are comparing efficacy to consensus), but it's poetic licence. In other words.....

it's a fucking joke.

As for writing people off, everyone is entitled to make mistakes, but really at this point climate deniers are up there with creationists, homeopaths, and flat earthers. There's only so much slack we can cut them, before we move the fuck on and say "If you believe that shit, you're an idiot"

Great post - thanks for taking the time to do this.

Between anti-vaxxers and homeopaths, I don't know which are worse at providing "facts" concocted from anecdote or imagination.

I don't give a shit if a homeopath or an astrologer or a climate denier or any other nutjob you care to name disables comments on youtube. It's simply not a meaningful channel for debate. There are other, better channels.

There's no one claiming to represent everyone who uses the internet saying that online harassment is ok.

But those GG assholes claim to represent "gamers", and no, it's not even slightly about ethics in journalism. It is, in fact, the complete opposite. This is a group that called on Nintendo to withdraw support from reviewers who were critical of Bayonetta.

The fucking hypocrisy is mind blowing. Seriously, think about it. A group that is supposed to be anti-censorship and pro-consumer told one of the biggest names in the industry to boycott a publication because it criticized their product. It is to Nintendos credit that they ignored these assholes who can't understand the difference between critique and censorship.

There isn't some balanced 3rd party POV on GG. Those people are fucking troglodytes, and the sooner they're consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

And yes, of course, I'm ashamed to be part of society sometimes.

I'm not a WASP, but I am Irish and I'm deeply ashamed of some of the racist bullshit associated with my country. I was raised Catholic. Take a wild guess about how I feel about that.

The "gamers are dead" thing has been completely misinterpreted. Did you even read the source article? It's saying that the target market for games isn't "gamers", but just people. Stop marketing to a fictional teenage boy demographic.

And quite frankly, I'm considering buying a t-shirt that says SJW. How the fuck did advocating social justice become a pejorative?

Yep, I understand and agree with your comment.

I think part of the problem is that people aren't going to the source for their information regarding the outcomes of studies, etc. I think many people see click-bait and end up getting linked to sites that seem legit but almost invariably tout homeopathic remedies, have a "flu beating" supplement or book to sell you or harbour some other ulterior agenda. These sites often quote studies but fail to provide citations.

I'd further argue that since many people have a distrust of corporations/government and most have an instinct to protect themselves and their children, there is a tendency towards confirmation bias when they are doing their research.

With that said, we still need to be aware that new information from studies is surfacing all the time and questions about safety or efficacy should not be ignored.

Do better, eh? No problemo.

China: Try reading the actual study (from your first link).

Conclusion:
A timely two-dose MMR vaccination schedule is recommended, with the first dose at 8 months and the second dose at 18–24 months. An MR vaccination speed-up campaign may be necessary for elder adolescents and young adults, particularly young females.

In other words, what's needed is more vaccination.

How Vaccines Harm Child Development: They don't.
First, the article is by Russell Blaylock, who believes "he former Soviet Union tried to spread collectivism by covertly introducing illegal drugs and various sexually transmitted diseases into the United States." He also hangs out with Alex Jones and Pat Robertson.
Second, almost everything in it is bullshit. He even falls back on the "vaccines cause autism" bollocks that was never true and had the idiot shill doctor that made it up stripped of his credentials.

Measles vaccines kill more people than measles, CDC data proves
Holy shit, that's terrible. Oh no, wait, it's a complete misrepresentation. No-one died from Measles, BECAUSE THEY WERE VACCINATED AGAINST IT.

Stop getting your medical information from quacks, liars and homeopaths.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Was I not clear?

My kids just used normal old-fashioned baby bottles, but we filled them with weed and beer instead of milk. It kept them so docile and quiet.

Homeopathic remedies FTW.

A bunch of local skeptics ran a similar demonstration. They "overdosed" on homeopathic sleeping pills and then tried to stay up as long as they could. Several of them even mixed it with alcohol

Agreed. Homeopathic bullshit is not only ridiculous but can be outright dangerous when substituted for real medicine, and both more money and more lives are affected by it.

But that doesn't mean having this information isn't useful. People do change their minds. I've seen people post in a skeptics group that they used to believe in all kinds of woo until they started questioning it and videos like this helped educate them.

Yes, did. As noted in other replies, if it makes one feel better (or makes one think they feel better) they're going to do it, and the gluten thing is a relatively minor contributor compared to other wonky ideas. Consider - homeopathic medicine, in 2007 the CDC says $2.9 billion was paid out of pocket by adults > 18 years of age. This is one that to me is absolutely ludicrous even before the patient puts the 6C dilution to their lips, but hey it makes some people feel better, so damned if they're going to be influenced by logic. I guess making the effort is justifiable enough for motivation for the presenter, I'm just not that optimistic.

only 4.3 million? Well, it's a start, but I was kinda hoping we'd get a lot more.

These people are what's wrong with humanity. They are anti-science idiots who cling to their stone age beliefs waiting for the second coming all the while oblivious to the real apocalypse that we're staring down the barrel of.

After these idiots are gone, we can then move on to the WBC, creationists, homeopaths, astrologists, the food babe and finally to the real menace, Justin Bieber and his fans.

Or maybe it was a fucking joke?

idiot.

Umm, I'm not sure how your response is relevant to my comment...

Thalidomide was a drug given to pregnant women for nausea iirc which caused horrible defects in children. It was a classic case of a drug that was not regulated properly and should never been allowed on the market.

The reason why drugs undergo testing is because sometimes the side effects are far worse than any benefit they might provide. ShakaUVM was going on about deregulation, but if he'd watched the vid he would have seen the segment on a homeopathic remedy (ie. unregulated) which caused deaths and severe reactions. Perhaps if there was regulation, those people wouldn't be dead...

"Credible psychic"?!?

Now there's an oxymoron!

Like "creationist science" or "homeopathic medicine"....

@enoch, thanks for your comments. I thought it better to respond directly to your profile than on the video, about which we're no longer discussing directly. Sorry for the length of this reply, but for such a complex topic as this one, a thorough and plainly-stated response is needed.

You wrote: "the REAL question is "what is the purpose of a health care system"? NOT "which market system should we implement for health care"?"

The free market works best for any and all goods and services, regardless of their aim or purpose. Healthcare is no different from any other good or service in this respect.

(And besides, tell me why there's no money in preventative care? Do nutritionists, physical trainers/therapists, psychologists, herbalists, homeopaths, and any other manner of non-allopathic doctors not get paid and make profit in the marketplace? Would not a longer life not lead to a longer-term 'consumer' anyway? And would preventative medicine obliterate the need for all manner of medical treatment, or would there not still remain a need to diagnose, treat, and cure diseases, even in the presence of a robust preventative medical market?)

I realize that my argument is not the "popular" one (and there are certainly many reasons for this, up to and including a lot of disinformation about what constitutes a "free market" health care system). But the way to approach such things is not heuristically, but rationally, as one would approach any other economic issue.

You write "see where i am going with this? It's not so easy to answer and impose your model of the "free market" at the same time."

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. The purpose of the healthcare system is to provide the most advanced medical service and care possible in the most efficient and affordable way possible. Only a free competitive market can do this with the necessary economic calculations in place to support its progress. No matter how you slice it, a socialized approach to healthcare invariably distorts the market (with its IP fees, undue regulations, and a lack of any accurate metrics on both the supply-side and on the demand-side which helps to determine availability, efficacy, and cost).

"you cannot have "for-profit" and "health-care" work in conjunction with any REAL health care."

Sorry, but this is just absurd. What else can I say?

"but if we use your "free market" model against a more "socialized model".which model would better serve the public?"

The free market model.

"if we take your "free market" model,which would be under the auspices of capitalism."

Redundant: "free market under the auspices of free market."

"disease is where the money is at,THAT is where the profit lies,not in preventive medicine."

Only Krugman-style Keynesians would say that illness is more profitable than health (or war more profitable than peace, or that alien invasions and broken windows are good for the economy). They, like you, aren't taking into account the One Lesson in Economics: look at how it affects every group, not just one group; look at the long term effects, not just short term ones. You're just seeing that, in the short-run, health will be less profitable for medical practitioners (or some pharmaceuticals) that are currently working in the treatment of illness. But look at every group outside that small group and at the long run and you can see that health is more profitable than illness overall. The market that profits more from illness will have to adapt, in ways that only the market knows for sure.

Do you realize that the money you put into socialized medicine (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.) is money you deplete from prevention entrepreneurship?

(As an aside, I wonder, why do so many people assume that the socialized central planners have some kind of special knowledge or wisdom that entrepreneurs do not? And why is there the belief that unlike entrepreneurs, socialist central planners are not selfishly motivated but always act in the interest of the "common good?" Could this be part of the propagandized and indoctrinated fear that's implicit in living in a socialized environment? Why do serfs (and I'm sure that, at some level, people know that's what they are) love the socialist central planners more than they love themselves? Complex questions about self-esteem and captive minds.)

If fewer people get sick, the market will then demand more practitioners to move from treating illness into other areas like prevention, being a prevention doctor or whatever. You're actually making the argument for free market here, not against it. Socialized bureaucratically dictated medicine will not adapt to the changing needs as efficiently or rapidly as a free market can and would. If more people are getting sick, then we'll need more doctors to treat them. If fewer people are getting sick because preventive medicine takes off, then we'll have more of that type of service. If a socialized healthcare is mandated, then we will invariably have a glut of allopathic doctors, with little need for their services (and we then have the kinds of problems we see amongst doctors who are coerced -- by the threat of losing their license -- to take medicaid and then lie on their reports in order to recoup their costs, e.g., see the article linked here.)

Meanwhile, there has been and will remain huge profits to be made in prevention, as the vitamin, supplements, alternative medicine, naturopathy, exercise and many other industries attest to. What are you talking about, that there's no profit in preventing illness? (In a manner of speaking, that's actually my bread and butter!) If you have a way to prevent illness, you will have more than enough people buying from you, people who don't want to get sick. (And other services for the people who do.) Open a gym. Become a naturopath. Teach stress management, meditation, yoga, zumba, whatever! And there are always those who need treatment, who are sick, and the free market will then have an accurate measure of how to allocate the right resources and number of such practitioners. This is something that the central planners (under socialized services) simply cannot possibly do (except, of course, for the omniscient ones that socialists insist exist).

You wrote "cancer,anxiety,obesity,drug addiction.
all are huge profit generators and all could be dealt with so much more productively and successfully with preventive care,diet and exercise and early diagnosis."

But they won't as long as you have centrally planned (socialized) medicine. The free market forces practitioners to respond to the market's demands. Socialized medicine does not. Entrepreneurs will (as they already have) exploit openings for profit in prevention (without the advantage of regulations which distort the markets) and take the business away from treatment doctors. If anything, doctors prevent preventative medicine from getting more widespread by using government regulations to limit what the preventive practitioners do. In fact, preventive medicine is so profitable that it has many in the medical profession lobbying to curtail it. They are losing much business to alternative/preventive practitioners. They lobby to, for example, prevent herb providers from stating the medical/preventive benefits of their herbs. They even prevent strawberry farmers to tout the health benefits of strawberries! It is the state that is slowing down preventive medicine, not the free market! In Puerto Rico, for example, once the Medical Association lost a bit to prohibit naturopathy, they effectively outlawed acupuncture by successfully getting a law passed that requires all acupuncturists to be medical doctors. Insanity.

If you think there is no profit in preventative care or exercise, think GNC and Richard Simmons, and Pilates, and bodywork, and my own practice of psychotherapy. Many of the successful corporations (I'm thinking of Google and Pixar and SalesForce and Oracle, etc.) see the profit and value in preventative care, which is why they have these "stay healthy" programs for their employees. There's more money in health than illness. No doubt.

Or how about the health food/nutrition business? Or organic farming, or whole foods! The free market could maybe call for fewer oncologists and for more Whole Foods or even better natural food stores. Of course, we don't know the specifics, but that's actually the point. Only the free market knows (and the omniscient socialist central planners) what needs to happen and how.

Imagination! We need to get people to use it more.

You wrote: "but when we consider that the 4th and 5th largest lobbyists are the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry is it any wonder that america has the most fucked up,backwards health care system on the planet."

You're actually making my point here. In a free market, pharmaceutical companies cannot monopolize what "drugs" people can or cannot take, sell or not sell, and cannot prevent natural alternatives from being promoted. Only with state intervention (by way of IP regulations, and so forth) can they do so.

Free market is not corporatism. Free market is not crony capitalism. (More disinformation that needs to be lifted.)

So you're not countering my free market position, you're countering the crony capitalist position. This is a straw man argument, even if in this case you might not have understood my position in the first place. You, like so many others, equate "capitalism" with cronyism or corporatism. Many cannot conceive of a free market that is free from regulation. So folks then argue against their own interests, either for or against "fascist" vs. "socialist" medicine. The free market is, in fact, outside these two positions.

You wrote: "IF we made medicare available to ALL american citizens we would see a shift from latter stage care to a more aggressive preventive care and early diagnosis. the savings in money (and lives) would be staggering."

I won't go into medicare right now (It is a disaster, and so is the current non-free-market insurance industry. See the article linked in my comment above.)

You wrote "this would create a huge paradigm shift here in america and we would see results almost instantly but more so in the coming decades."

I don't want to be a naysayer but, socialism is nothing new. It has been tried (and failed) many times before. The USSR had socialized medicine. So does Cuba (but then you may believe the Michael Moore fairytale about medicine in Cuba). It's probably better to go see in person how Cubans live and how they have no access to the places that Moore visited.

You wrote: "i feel very strongly that health should be a communal effort.a civilized society should take care of each other."

Really, then why try to force me (or anyone) into your idea of "good" medicine? The free market is a communal effort. In fact, it is nothing else (and nothing else is as communal as the free market). Central planning, socialized, top-down decision-making, is not. Never has been. Never will be.

Voluntary interactions is "taking care of each other." Coercion is not. Socialism is coercion. It cannot "work" any other way. A free market is voluntary cooperation.

Economic calculation is necessary to avoid chaos, whatever the purpose of a service. This is economic law. Unless the purpose is to create chaos, you need real prices and efficiency that only the free market can provide.

I hope this helps to clarify (and not confuse) what I wrote on @eric3579's profile.

Guess my point fell with a @criticalthud. There is a huge difference between immunizations and homeopathy, even if you think they have a similar theoretical basis. Immunizations are not a treatment; they are preventative. You would never inject someone who had yellow fever with more of the yellow fever virus. Homeopaths on the other hand would treat a burn by putting it in the flame (http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/on-the-treatment-of-burns/), so I guess 'fire with fire' might be more apt.

Also, I'm not convinced that he is completely kidding.

I dunno. I can kinda get behind her idea.

Yeah, at first glance it seems ridiculous, but you're not looking at the big picture!

If Muslims aren't allowed to write about Christianity, then Christians aren't allowed to write about science. It gets even better:

- creationists cannot write about evolution
- homeopaths cannot write about medicine
- republicans cannot write about government
- and psychics cannot write about fucking anything