@kronosposeidon. I balk at your comparison that the theory of relativity is to a physicist what virology is to a obstetrician/gynecologist. That aside, your example above was pinpointing the Swine Flu "epidemic", and we know now that hasn't been a real threat at all. In fact, it has proved, so far, no more dangerous than the flu.

I understand you're a union man who hates concepts of free enterprise, and that's cool, but I don't think your arguments have any real merit. I mean, you're sexy as shit, but if you remove your sexiness then you're left with a union man with a protectionist agenda. Wiener rubs!

What I'm saying, blankfist, is that a man who calls himself a doctor, yet has outdated knowledge of virology, calls into question his judgment on other issues. It would be like trusting the judgment of a physicist who hasn't bothered to learn about relativity. Trusting someone who is so out of touch with a field that relates to his field of expertise is scary. If his knowledge is so out date in medicine, than what makes him an expert in other fields, like economics?

And GeeSussFreek, Obama may know little about virology, but I'm sure he'd be willing to listen to people who were actual experts, rather than go on his shaky knowledge like Ron Paul does.
The unshakable faith that some people place in market forces rivals the faith that born-again Christians place in a deity that allegedly walked on water and raised the dead. That might be helpful, if that deity could raise the dead people killed by Typhoid Mary. But by God, do NOT restrict her liberty! Market forces will save the day!

First of all, just because there haven't been a great number of deaths from H1N1 yet doesn't automatically mean were out of the woods. There is a good evolutionary potential for it to mutate to something worse.

Secondly, who says that H1N1 is the only potentially dangerous virus out there? Even if the H1N1 virus never mutates into something terrible, it doesn't mean that other viruses won't. So we need someone who has a better understanding of them at the helm, or at least someone who doesn't think his knowledge of virology he acquired 50 years ago is still completely true today.

Finally, if there is a deadly pandemic like the 1918 Spanish flu, you better believe there should be mandatory vaccinations. If hospitals everywhere are overflowing with flu patients, then public health is overwhelmingly more important than the rights of one person to say no to vaccinations. One person's liberty doesn't trump my right to live. Typhoid Mary would be the poster child for Ron Paul's approach to disease control.

Should we wait until a deadly pandemic breaks out before we let market forces do their supply/demand dance? Or can we encourage sensible approaches to serious public health issues? Time after time, when vaccination rates drop, disease morbidity and mortality go up. We can't let a political/economic theory dictate public health policy. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Being that we are all still alive from the swine flu epidemic, I would say that it was most likely completely overblown. If you have watched other videos from him on the matter, you will of learned that 20 years ago there was a similar fear endued rather than data endued pandemic. In that case, the cure killed more people than the illness. Furthermore, if you watched any of his stuff, you would learn that he isn't against vaccines, he is just against making them federally controlled. Saying everyone gets a flu shot doesn't mean it is actually possible as the MASSIVE shortages on H1N1 showed. It didn't matter that the government was mandating it for certain people as there simply wasn't enough. Once again, he isn't against vaccination, merely legal mandate of them.
But ya, age is pretty interesting. If you look at him though, he hardly seems at the end of his rope yet. Some people get those lucky genes, he seems to be one of those few. He was actually an Olympic level runner when he was much younger.

Virtually every generation thinks that theirs is particularly troubled and that the end of days may be nigh. Doomsday beliefs in one form or another have been around for millennia. Maybe we are teetering on the edge of the abyss right now, but I don't think so. Even world war doesn't mean the end of mankind. World War II killed over 50 million people, but it was far from threatening to the entire species. Even if we had nuclear war there would still be survivors in many unbombed areas of the globe. I won't deny that nuclear war would be catastrophic, but so was Black Death, which wiped out anywhere from 30% to 60% of Europe's population between 1348 and 1350.

In fact the only thing that concerns me is some sort of super virus that spreads easily and kills rapidly. Ever see "Twelve Monkeys"? Something like that. But not knowing a goddamn thing about virology or infectious diseases, I don't know how likely such an event would be.

BOO!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hiv, virus' to 'HIV, virology, microbiology, Human immunodeficiency, virus, Retroviridae' - edited by mauz15

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ted, virus, Nathan Wolfe, animals' to 'Ted, virus, Nathan Wolfe, animals, virology, microbiology, epidimiology' - edited by mauz15

Basically every research institute, university, college, and industrial scientific business has subscriptions and deals with basically every journal out there with the exception of those with terribly low impact factors or terribly speciallized topics. The most important factors to consider when publishing research papers are impact factor and relevance. In other words, how many people will read it? and will the RIGHT people find it easily or even stumble upon it?

The price that these journals charge for access to their publications (subscriptions, never buy papers one at a time unless you absolutely have to) basically serves to keep them afloat.

Also, many major journals are moving toward free online access. Journal of Virology is an example. It is the highest journal specific to my field and is easily accessable free through pubmed or through their own website. The people (i.e. scientists) who need to see the research that is out there always have access to it through their emplyers. The papers in these journals are essentially useless to the public anyway, so truly, it doesn't need to be free. Of course, it is nice when it is though. The public gets scientific information via media sources. One of the jobs of scientists and journals is to get that information to those media sources in a format that anyone can understand. Books/textbooks are other sources for Joe Q.

Phew D: I live in the neighbourhood of a very large virology lab. I think I would probably have a heart attack if I happened to see them having a drill like this!

A [drunk] girl at the annual meeting for the American Society of Virology in '08 sang this during the break of the [incredibly good] cover band that performed at the party at the end of the week. I LOLed as did a few hundred other geeks like yours truly. Heh. nice.

I heard Doc_M was recruited into the virology field by the CDC because he's the only living being that ebola is scared of. He doesn't need to wear a biohazard suit in the lab; the viruses do. Mad cows get their shit together when they see him enter the pasture.

Forget about his work place; just walking into his house is an assault on your genome. And if you touch any *sticky surfaces, contact your next of kin.

http://www.videosift.com/video/60-Minutes-Saddam-pretended-to-have-WMD
Hot off the presses, or whatever you call that for TV.

"Oh come on, you're starting to sound like Bill O'Reilly now."

I'll take that as a compliment Farhad ::raspberry:: hehe. j/k.
Anyway, if it were a conservative "watchdog" group talking about Hillary or Ron Paul, I imagine it would be called a Right Wing Hit-job. I hear that a lot.


"You seem to take them at their word even in the face of deceitful comments, unethical behavior, shady practices, outright lies and collusions."

It often comes down to the fact that you and I trust different sources of information. If it comes from the Washington Post or Rolling Stone, I'm skeptical. If it comes from Fox News or the National Review, you're skeptical. The list goes on and extends into almost every argument we have. We trust different sources of what is "fact" and what is not. Jeez, this is sounding like a choggie post, if less... um... creative.

On the vaccine issue... in fact, on many of these issues, we remain to disagree about who is lying and colluding. The government may have, but the "whistle-blowers" certainly have, in my opinion. I hold my opinion based on my general understanding of molecular biology, biochemistry, and virology. I don't think the studies linking vaccines to autism are well done and they have not stood up to scrutiny, but I'm not going to get into this again. I respect the CDC and might even seek employment there in the future... if I can stomach the bureaucracy... and the travel. I think we also disagree on the concept of authority or "expert-ness"... to invent a word. Oh well. I'm tired of arguing about that sort of thing. It never gets anywhere, maybe I'll go charter and write an essay on the topic.

Plainly everyone in here had a different perspective leading up to the war and it's interesting to see the different views.

More later maybe. Gotta work.

Finally... Science speaks... Bout time Doc.

I do biology no justice... Forgive me for my ignorance about the details of virology.

Rhetorical(or persuasive) arguments are generally framed using ethos, pathos, or logos. In other words, credibility of the author, an appeal to emotions, or an appeal to the facts. In a scientific debate, pathos is not essential.

My point was this: In my opinion, your source does not a have a background which makes her an expert in the topic she is talking about. She does not do research in the field, and she is not a specialist in virology. Therefore, my next attempt to establish whether or not a good argument could be framed was to do a literature search. I could not find anything to support your claim on ISI, or PubMed, but that is not to say there isn't any.

I think the burden of proof is on the believer and in this case the popular view is that vaccines are good, you have to prove to me otherwise. I think any scientist would tell you "Show me a scientifically peer reviewed experimental paper that confirms your beliefs."

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying the elements to sway my opinion are lacking.

I see your point blankfist, and in some cases I would agree with you. But even if a percentage of the populus stopped inoculating their children, that would represent a significant number. There are two reasons why I hold my social contract argument:

1. If that part of the populus was suddenly eliminated from the work force because of an outbreak of some disease that could drastically effect an economy.

2. My impression, is that this percentage is providing an opportunity for viruses to mutate, and nullify the efficacy of the vaccine. But I am not an expert, Doc is however, and I hope he joins this discussion. My fear is that their decisions are inherently putting others at risk.

Moreover, if a parents fear is the preservative then that is a moot point because vaccines can be obtained without them. In my opinion, you have to base your arguments on something other than the preservative.

PS. I disagree with jailing them too, but I think vaccines are a good idea. It should also be noted that Australia and some parts of Canada have similar practices.

If I'm with the libs on anything, it's this. GIVE US FREAKING MORE MONEY! We're freaking curing your diseases. You spend more money on guns than medicine. If you've ever taken an antibiotic, you owe biomedical science your life.

And though I'm a capitalist, I still love the idea of open access scientific journals... It is extraordinarily annoying to go after a paper you need and find you don't have access to it. I'm proud to say that the highest journal in my particular field is open access, that is the Journal of Virology. It kills me to say it however, that I think journals should have the right to choose whether they're open access or not. It's their business. It's their money. I think there should be incentives for them to choose open source. Tax incentives? maybe.

Anyway, does anyone know if this particular funding was attached to other funding in the bill? I expect it was part of a HUGE mess of stuff like most bills. Seeing the trends in congress lately I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of a bill that also would mean MANY other radical funding changes or changes in policy. That way when it gets vetoed, they can cry foul on not funding science. yeesh. Could they please just divide that crap up? It's so obviously political BS anymore. Biomedical science needs money. Make a freaking bill that says just that alone.

Anyway, the Scientist:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53858/

I will warn that if this thing passes, it will be a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR upset to non-opensource journals... as in possible colapse of several of them. I hope they are prepared.

FYI, America's "Science" and England's "Nature" are the 2 highest impact journals in the world by a landslide and they are NOT open source journals.

The president is allegedly not opposed to the open source bit, but of pork earmarks in the bill. Most bills have this sort of crap which should be in their own bills in the first place dang it. That sorta crap keeps money from where it should be.

I'm staying out of this argument this time since it never gets anywhere really, but I'd like to provide at least a little info on how science and research funding works since people seem to have been missinformed:

I'll use NIH as a model for us since most gov't funding agencies work like NIH.
First, Mr. Scientist writes his grant detailing his hypothesis, preliminary data, planned experiments, expected or possible results, and why the study is worth funding.
That grant is submitted and reviewed... NOT by some government bureaucrats, but by panels of experts in the field that pertains to the submitted grant. So if I submit a grant for funding for HIV research, the grant will be reviewed and scored by a group of retrovirus researchers at a meeting.
It makes me snicker when people say the Bush administration is controlling which grants get funded to control the science. This couldn't be farther from the truth. The scientists that select where the money goes are never in contact with any government stooges and make their decisions on scoring without considering any government opinion. In addition, a vast majority of scientists (this means most of the people giving out the money) are liberal democrats.

So your tax money is being doled out to scientists by scientists who are mostly liberals. Soooo, you don't need to be worried about the White House ever tampering with that research. Now on the other hand, research from places like the DoD and such is not quite as independent, so you can suspect that if you want. NIST research is very certainly not influenced by the administration in office. Scientists are far too self-important to allow themselves to be bullied by higher-ups. They'd in fact love it if it happened since they'd get a chance to tell everyone that they're being bullied. It'd make great headlines and they'd get famous in science in a snap.

Now, after the research is funded and done, it is not published by some government periodical that has been sifted by the administration. Scientific papers are submitted directly to private periodicals such as "Science" or "Nature" or "Journal of Virology" or whatever. The papers are reviewed by at least 2 other scientists who are experts in the field (this is done on a rotation so people don't get to many review requests). If the paper looks complete, it gets published. If not, it gets bounced back to Mr. Scientist with written reviews on what needs to be done to make it publish worthy. At no point does any government person see this paper. The magazines that publish the papers never interact with the government and are also run by mostly liberal democrats if you want to know.

So, funding agencies don't care what Bush thinks and disagree with him all the time: see global warming.
Scientists are mostly liberal democrats who don't give a crap what Bush thinks and disagree with him all the time without fear... with pride even.
No scientists are afraid to lose their jobs, cause they won't.
No scientists are worried about losing their funding because the government is not deciding who gets funded. The Scientists are.
Should I say most scientists are liberal democrats again?
And finally, periodicals are not influenced by government authority and would love to defy them given the opportunity.
Also, not all science is done in the US.

You can argue all day that the science is wrong and that the buildings were demolished, but don't try to tell me that the scientists are in Bush's pocket, because that is simply and completely untrue. Most scientists would love to stick it to Bush.

...unless of course you think that all of us scientists are in on it. <.< >.> <.< Dun. Dun. DUUUUUUHHHHH.