are you suggesting there is a possibility that it can?

Load me up!
>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^doogle:
Didn't see much squirming. Or any.

Then again, she didn't quite make me confident in the idea that water can cure malaria...

>> ^doogle:

Didn't see much squirming. Or any.


Then again, she didn't quite make me confident in the idea that water can cure malaria...

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


lol although there are defintly mental conspircy things holographic planes and totaly weard shit there are a whole bunch of things that everyone would want and agree with , it seems the ultra conservatives and people who made money out of 911 benofit the most out of verbaly atacking truthers.

evan if a % of truthers come out with stupid shit i think the vast majority of people actually have legitimate questions which Evan outside of 911 would serve well to be anserd/investigated.

The 911 official report has sections missing and dosent realy shine a light on blatant governmental faileors.

the other weird stuff like how american government wont admit they shot the other plane down ,I guess if they admited to that it puts more questions on there reluctance inactivity to shoot down th eplanes that hit WTC and pentagon.

What i really dont understand is the truthers that make shit up or focus on details that could never be proven disproven and dont realy serve any benofit to know the ansers to.

In the end ultimetly bush administration/ whoever funds them and who ever owns us government right now will pritty much do whatever the fuck they want it seems that some "truthers" think some how knowing the full story behind 911 will fix politics result in those responsible going to jail in the end evan if a photograph was found with bush presing a button that said blow up wtc nothing would happen.

there are loads of strange things with the London bombings as well , but if annything what the terrorist atacks go to show is that we cannot realy do annything to stop them , and its actualy a realy low risk to be killed in one , if for example 4k people died every year from terrorism that still way way way less people that get run over by cars. If you spent evan a fraction of the war money used to fight terrorisum on car safty then u wud save more people do more good in the world , i mean evan put that money into clean water forest restoration, redusing malaria . thats whats obsurd about the situation

I do believe this is what they call an ass handing.

or was that just something that guy in the park made up..?>> ^Tymbrwulf:

2:12 - Professor Philip Stott:
He has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, although he has published books on the subject.
Writes books instead of having his theories subject to peer review.
2:18 - Professor Paul Reiter:
The UK government has said that Reiter "does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published" - Source
2:33 - Professor Richard Lindzen:
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound."
3:07 - Professor Patrick Michaels:
Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John Holdren,[8] told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."
He also gets money from fossil fuel companies.
7:06 - Patrick Moore:
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[36] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."[41] Dr Leonie Jacobs of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands has accused Moore of being paid by the timber industry in order to deliberately mislead the public about logging.
He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement"
I wish they would source the people on all the other claims. Would be nice to fact check those as well.
What kind of debate are you trying to start here, blankfist?

2:12 - Professor Philip Stott:
He has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, although he has published books on the subject.
Writes books instead of having his theories subject to peer review.

2:18 - Professor Paul Reiter:
The UK government has said that Reiter "does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published" - Source

2:33 - Professor Richard Lindzen:
Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound."

3:07 - Professor Patrick Michaels:
Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John Holdren,[8] told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."
He also gets money from fossil fuel companies.

7:06 - Patrick Moore:
Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[36] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."[41] Dr Leonie Jacobs of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands has accused Moore of being paid by the timber industry in order to deliberately mislead the public about logging.
He is accused of having "abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement"

I wish they would source the people on all the other claims. Would be nice to fact check those as well.

What kind of debate are you trying to start here, blankfist?

There is no such thing as evolution. God created AIDS, cancer, Tay-Sachs Disease, meningitis, influenza, bubonic plague, malaria, dysentery, tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and droughts. And he did it to FUCK WITH YOU. Praise be upon him.

@jonny: "Following that logic to its conclusion, any living thing without a well developed hominid brain would be subject to euthanasia, wouldn't it?"

-I understand your points, but this is my take on the neural angle: Animals have feelings and volition, which wouldn't be how we describe anencephalic babies. When a mouse is hungry it cries. When an anencephalic baby needs food it does nothing because it cannot experience hunger or generate actions.

-This is my take on the economics angle: If it cost $10,000 per year to keep alive every mouse in the world, yes, we would feel that money was better spent elsewhere. We could invest it in scientific research to make sure anencephaly never happens again, or invest it in humanitarian organizations that can save a human life for around $1000, through things like fighting malaria or developing better access to clean water.

>> ^dag:

Brilliant. Great for malaria- and then later- the commercial application of this for backyard BBQs would be very popular.


Surely, use one to help fund the other?

50% of this sale goes towards setting these up in africa

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Brilliant. Great for malaria- and then later- the commercial application of this for backyard BBQs would be very popular.

Jesus, the merciful, loving, caring, compassionate Lord that he is, would never let such suffering exist in this world. Besides murder, auto accidents, cancer, heart failure, malaria, aids, starvation, exposure, war... etc. Such things obviously only exist because of non-believers and their pact with Satan. It's their fault. Though I still don't get how Satan somehow does bad shit and keeps countering the work of the freaking universal creator.. when Satan himself was supposedly created by God. Oh well. I guess it isn't suppose to make sense. Just believe in it. I should stop asking questions already. Those be Satan's methods.

Let's see, $450,000,000 would buy 56 million MMR vaccinations, treat every case of malaria in Africa for a year, drill 150,000 wells for clean drinking water...

...or, you could have a badass yacht with missiles and lasers and stuff.

Alternatively, you could buy three F-22 jet fighters or 2/3 of a Stealth bomber.

The world is a weird place.


>> ^BoneRemake:

450 Million. Hmm I wonder how much Infrastructure and support service that could do undeveloped nations. Oh but he obviously needs another boat. Any Charity this guy gives however little it is compared to what he spends on himself, doesn't make him any better of a person, I am grossed out by such spending on such gaudy horrid atrocities.

While indiscriminate spraying of DDT is obviously stupid and dangerous, the rise in worldwide malaria rates in response to the restrictions on DDTs use have killed hundreds of thousands to millions of humans.

Now, unfortunately, it's too late. Like not using all of one's prescribed antibiotics, we allowed mosquitoes to develop a resistance to DDT when we stopped using it and it doesn't work anymore (at least not as well).

By the early 1960s we had malaria cases in India down to almost zero from 75 Million in 1947. Sri Lanka went from 2.8 million cases in 1946 to 17 cases in 1963. Malaria was on the verge of extinction in these places.

Then we lost DDT thanks to Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring". By 1976 there were 6.4 million cases in India. Today it sits between 2 and 3 million cases a year and India is one of the luckier ones. Throughout most of sub-Saharan Africa more than 50% of all children are infected. In Zambia, in 2005, there were 1353 cases for every 1000 children under 5 years old. That means a huge percent of the children are infected more than once a year.

Was DDT dangerous to spray indiscriminately? Absolutely. Was it saving millions of lives? Without a doubt.

Be careful about which diseases you're talking about. Because, when it comes to mental health, scientific/cultural imperialism seems to be alive and well:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122490928

Obviously when you're talking about a cure for something like Polio (cured) or Malaria, AIDS, etc, it's a different story...but arguments like the one you're making often bleed over into things like mental health when people don't preserve the nuance. You can make "scientific" claims about psychology as well and be horribly wrong. Mr. Harris is talking about more concrete science that will come from more precise study of the brain in the future. If you asked him, I doubt he'd be willing to make moral judgments based on current psych.

Wikipedia on Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann - the inventor of homeopathy:

Hahnemann claimed that the medicine of his time did as much harm as good:

My sense of duty would not easily allow me to treat the unknown pathological state of my suffering brethren with these unknown medicines. The thought of becoming in this way a murderer or malefactor towards the life of my fellow human beings was most terrible to me, so terrible and disturbing that I wholly gave up my practice in the first years of my married life and occupied myself solely with chemistry and writing.[3]

After giving up his practice around 1784, Hahnemann made his living chiefly as a writer and translator, while resolving also to investigate the causes of medicine's alleged errors. While translating William Cullen's A Treatise on the Materia Medica, Hahnemann encountered the claim that cinchona, the bark of a Peruvian tree, was effective in treating malaria because of its astringency. Hahnemann believed that other astringent substances are not effective against malaria and began to research cinchona's effect on the human body by self-application. Noting that the drug induced malaria-like symptoms in himself, he concluded that it would do so in any healthy individual. This led him to postulate a healing principle: "that which can produce a set of symptoms in a healthy individual, can treat a sick individual who is manifesting a similar set of symptoms."[3] This principle, like cures like, became the basis for an approach to medicine which he gave the name homeopathy.

So, homeopathy is based on an idea from a man who thought that medicinal drugs in the late 1700 was potentially harmful. No shit. The understanding of chemistry and medicine is incomparable to today's sciences, the periodic table, a vital part of the basics of chemistry wasn't invented until nearly 100 years later. Belief that this kind of treatment is as effective, if not more than conventional medicine is beyond me.

I'd like to quote Dara Ó Briain "people say 'well, science doesn't know everything' - well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise, it would stop."

and

"Well herbal medicine, 'herbal medicine has be around for thousands of years', indeed it has, and the stuff that worked became, medicine"

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dara-O-Briain-on-Homeopaths-and-Nutritionists

probably doesn't have much of a range though, so it's more of a replacement for mosquito nets than for DDT... *sigh*... if only a safe version of DDT existed, malaria would be gone in a jiffy.