Did you catch it ?

And now we have this:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asy...-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html

Not that I hold the WHO in especially high regard, but it does help illustrate why so many people are sick of the conflicting reports and all the damage that has been done to the economy and society based on conjecture and speculation.

I’m just wondering what the time sensitive emergency is now. Could we have our representative government back?

Let em vote and record what they’re doing for the record instead of one person being in charge.

We don’t do individuals in charge in America. Well we didn’t anyway.

Representative government was nice while it lasted, I guess.

Didn’t take much to destroy it.
 
I’m just wondering what the time sensitive emergency is now. Could we have our representative government back?

Let em vote and record what they’re doing for the record instead of one person being in charge.

We don’t do individuals in charge in America. Well we didn’t anyway.

Representative government was nice while it lasted, I guess.

Didn’t take much to destroy it.

The problem is that like literally everything else in our society nowadays, it's become politicized; so ultimately, regardless of science, health, the economy, the good of the people, the Constitution, or anything else, the course that politicians believe to be most favorable to their agendas will be what prevails.

The irony is that those who are silly enough to believe that the WHO is a neutral, apolitical, scientific organization face quite a dilemma now. They nominally based the draconian policies they insisted upon on WHO-issued information that the organization now seems to be walking back (that is, of course, assuming that WHO doesn't come up with some other contradictory and speculative bull**** this afternoon). Even their currently-active recommendations are contradictory at this point. It's become a circus.

So what do people who took WHO's word as gospel do? Either they have to walk back and modify the restrictions they insisted upon to conform them to WHO's latest speculation; or they have to essentially turn their backs on WHO, thus nudging themselves toward the ranks of those of us who believe WHO is an utterly useless organization that we should have defunded decades ago even if for no reason other than non-performance as a serious scientific organization.

For people like me, WHO's flip-flopping recommendations are basically irrelevant because I don't give a rat's ass what WHO believes one way or the other. Whatever they may have been once upon a time, they are now a left-wing globalist political organization, run by a politician who's a high-ranking member of Ethopia's Tigray People’s Liberation Front, and who is not even a physician, much less a scientist. Why anyone takes a word he says about medicine seriously is a mystery to me.

Rich
 
The problem is that like literally everything else in our society nowadays, it's become politicized; so ultimately, regardless of science, health, the economy, the good of the people, the Constitution, or anything else, the course that politicians believe to be most favorable to their agendas will be what prevails.

The irony is that those who are silly enough to believe that the WHO is a neutral, apolitical, scientific organization face quite a dilemma now. They nominally based the draconian policies they insisted upon on WHO-issued information that the organization now seems to be walking back (that is, of course, assuming that WHO doesn't come up with some other contradictory and speculative bull**** this afternoon). Even their currently-active recommendations are contradictory at this point. It's become a circus.

So what do people who took WHO's word as gospel do? Either they have to walk back and modify the restrictions they insisted upon to conform them to WHO's latest speculation; or they have to essentially turn their backs on WHO, thus nudging themselves toward the ranks of those of us who believe WHO is an utterly useless organization that we should have defunded decades ago even if for no reason other than non-performance as a serious scientific organization.

For people like me, WHO's flip-flopping recommendations are basically irrelevant because I don't give a rat's ass what WHO believes one way or the other. Whatever they may have been once upon a time, they are now a left-wing globalist political organization, run by a politician who's a high-ranking member of Ethopia's Tigray People’s Liberation Front, and who is not even a physician, much less a scientist. Why anyone takes a word he says about medicine seriously is a mystery to me.

Rich
I think it's a mistake to assume that changes in a public-health organization's guidance is evidence of something wrong. This is a new disease, with unusual characteristics. As new evidence comes in, scientists SHOULD change their thinking, and reflect that in their public statements. If they didn't, it would be propaganda, not science.

Unpacking the New WHO Controversy Over Asymptomatic COVID-19 Transmission
 
WHO has walked-back the earlier comment (which was not an "official" statement, in my understanding).

https://www.axios.com/who-asymptomatic-coronavirus-69c56ce3-41e0-4ea7-ab2a-de866713b4cf.html

I really don't get the push-back about wearing masks. We spend a few minutes before each flight checking for rather improbable issues with the plane (i.e., flight control jams, etc). I see wearing a mask when around others as no different - a simple thing I can do to protect against an unlikely but potentially high-consequence eventuality.

"But I don't have any COVID symptoms." Well, you don't, until you do. I've had times, like most of us, that I went to work feeling just fine, then during the day started to feel like crap when a bug hit me.
 
I think it's a mistake to assume that changes in a public-health organization's guidance is evidence of something wrong. This is a new disease, with unusual characteristics. As new evidence comes in, scientists SHOULD change their thinking, and reflect that in their public statements. If they didn't, it would be propaganda, not science.
Very well said. Every time I hear this 'they can't make up their minds' complaint I wonder if those who are complaining also complain because doctors used to recommend bloodletting for high blood pressure and now they want you to take a pill for it instead.
 
I think it's a mistake to assume that changes in a public-health organization's guidance is evidence of something wrong. This is a new disease, with unusual characteristics. As new evidence comes in, scientists SHOULD change their thinking, and reflect that in their public statements. If they didn't, it would be propaganda, not science.

Unpacking the New WHO Controversy Over Asymptomatic COVID-19 Transmission
I can understand not assuming but to not question the situation is very naive. Once you start the verify part of “trust but verify” WHO as it functions today is extraordinarily unreliable and political in nature.
 
When the WHO reported meat as carcinogenic I lost interested in anything they do.
Too damn bad. Grilled meat is full of heterocyclic amines that make adducts on DNA. Bad juju. Too damn bad if you don't like it. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. And if you don't like the messengers of bad news, well that's second level stupid right there.
 
Too damn bad. Grilled meat is full of heterocyclic amines that make adducts on DNA. Bad juju. Too damn bad if you don't like it. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. And if you don't like the messengers of bad news, well that's second level stupid right there.

How many thousands of years have our ancestors been cooking/burning/charring meat over an open flame?
 
Too damn bad. Grilled meat is full of heterocyclic amines that make adducts on DNA. Bad juju. Too damn bad if you don't like it. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. And if you don't like the messengers of bad news, well that's second level stupid right there.

That's what my vegan friends used to tell me... may they rest in peace...

Rich
 
I can understand not assuming but to not question the situation is very naive. Once you start the verify part of “trust but verify” WHO as it functions today is extraordinarily unreliable and political in nature.

Seriously. They've been wrong so many times and in such spectacular and lethal ways that we would have been better off reducing questions to binaries and flipping a coin.

Rich
 
Too damn bad. Grilled meat is full of heterocyclic amines that make adducts on DNA. Bad juju. Too damn bad if you don't like it. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. And if you don't like the messengers of bad news, well that's second level stupid right there.
The science is not settled. You don’t lik it that’s just tough.
 
How many thousands of years have our ancestors been cooking/burning/charring meat over an open flame?
Odds are our ancestors started out cooking grains and vegetables over an open flame. It's thought that the increased nutrients from previously inedible foods allowed our brains to grow large, which later allowed the social interactions that proved effective at hunting down food prey.
 
The hell it isn't. Detecting those compounds in grilled meat is high school level chemistry. The first level of stupid is not believing a fact just because you don't like it.
They are there ... sure. How much risk they pose is not so much an absolute. Well at least according to the guy I know that does early drug discovery research for oncology meds. I had him read your post. He found it amusing. He also took the time to explain this to me but frankly it’s so far outside of my wheel house I’ll look dumb even trying to repeat what he told me. But to paraphrase...

You speak in absolutes when it’s not warranted.

I’ll add this based on my past interactions with you on this site...

when you’re pretty confident your audience is not specialized in the topic and your inane ranting about how dumb we all are can’t be challenged you become very assertive and insulting. It’s unimpressive and childish.

edit:

to be blunt you are insulting. I don’t know how you manage to get by without being banned. I get the hammer for much less insulting and personally degrading comments. Your behavior is insulting to those who are educated. Rather than share your knowledge you throw around some vocabulary and insult us. I’m starting to think you are not really as smart as what you put on here.

your attitude and arrogance is well... it just runs against the grain.
 
Last edited:
Odds are our ancestors started out cooking grains and vegetables over an open flame.

I've been trying to word this in a way that doesn't come off as sarcasm or smart-assery. Here goes:

Do you have any archaeological evidence? Because I have to say, I've been interested in anthropology and archaeology since I was a kid, and I've never seen any cave drawings of people sitting around a campfire roasting grains and vegetables. Animals, yes. Also plenty of drawings of hunting scenes. But not of cavemen roasting grains and vegetables.

It's thought that the increased nutrients from previously inedible foods allowed our brains to grow large, which later allowed the social interactions that proved effective at hunting down food prey.

Thought by whom?

Rich
 
I've been trying to word this in a way that doesn't come off as sarcasm or smart-assery. Here goes:

Do you have any archaeological evidence? Because I have to say, I've been interested in anthropology and archaeology since I was a kid, and I've never seen any cave drawings of people sitting around a campfire roasting grains and vegetables. Animals, yes. Also plenty of drawings of hunting scenes. But not of cavemen roasting grains and vegetables.



Thought by whom?

Rich
This has links back to the original research:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...as-cooking-a-pivotal-step-in-human-evolution/
However, it isn't settled:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4842772/
 
The science is not settled. You don’t lik it that’s just tough.
Show the evidence that it isn't settled.
They are there ... sure. How much risk they pose is not so much an absolute. Well at least according to the guy I know that does early drug discovery research for oncology meds. I had him read your post. He found it amusing. He also took the time to explain this to me but frankly it’s so far outside of my wheel house I’ll look dumb even trying to repeat what he told me. But to paraphrase...

You speak in absolutes when it’s not warranted.

I’ll add this based on my past interactions with you on this site...

when you’re pretty confident your audience is not specialized in the topic and your inane ranting about how dumb we all are can’t be challenged you become very assertive and insulting. It’s unimpressive and childish.

edit:

to be blunt you are insulting. I don’t know how you manage to get by without being banned. I get the hammer for much less insulting and personally degrading comments. Your behavior is insulting to those who are educated. Rather than share your knowledge you throw around some vocabulary and insult us. I’m starting to think you are not really as smart as what you put on here.

your attitude and arrogance is well... it just runs against the grain.
Instead of simply saying "he's wrong", try giving some evidence. I've done, and still do work with people who do, early drug discovery. Depending on what s/he does, they may not have the expertise to answer this question well. Early drug discovery covers a wide range of disciplines including synthetic/medical chemistry, molecular modeling and structure-activity relationships, biochemistry, analytical chemistry, and others.

Here- I'll give you a hand- sort through these:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...nd+cancer&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
 
Show the evidence that it isn't settled.

Instead of simply saying "he's wrong", try giving some evidence. I've done, and still do work with people who do, early drug discovery. Depending on what s/he does, they may not have the expertise to answer this question well. Early drug discovery covers a wide range of disciplines including synthetic/medical chemistry, molecular modeling and structure-activity relationships, biochemistry, analytical chemistry, and others.

Here- I'll give you a hand- sort through these:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...nd+cancer&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart


I think it’s awesome you assumed I was to dumb to even understand what exactly the people I talked to do for a living and what their expertise qualifies them to have an opinion on.

bottom line I’m accustomed to educated people enjoying the process of sharing with others and discussing the things they are passionate about. Steingar likes to yell and call people stupid. That was my point. I have no desire whatsoever to discuss anything with him.

Then there is the bottom line to all this COVID B.S: science should guide our policies but at the end of the day how we conduct ourselves as a society is a matter of risk/cost management. That is immediately a political discussion and can’t be had here. At least it shouldn’t be according to the ROC.
 
Last edited:
Wow, how did we digress into meat/cancer causes with plenty of insults and absolute statements from who got sick?

Tim
 
Wow, how did we digress into meat/cancer causes with plenty of insults and absolute statements from who got sick?

Tim

thread drift and normal interweb ops. It can be interesting to observe how threads weave and wander, yes?
 
thread drift and normal interweb ops. It can be interesting to observe how threads weave and wander, yes?
Oh I get thread drift. I cause a lot of it :)
But I have never seen it go off the rails this fast before; it normally takes a couple pages. This went off the rails in a single page!

Tim
 
I have called no one stupid. What I said was ignoring facts because you don't agree with them is the first level of stupid. Getting mad at the messenger of uncomfortable facts is the second level of stupid. There are plenty more.

If you're such a snowflake that you find this utterly insulting, I have something for you to fill out:
t85n2.jpg
 
Show the evidence that it isn't settled.

Instead of simply saying "he's wrong", try giving some evidence. I've done, and still do work with people who do, early drug discovery. Depending on what s/he does, they may not have the expertise to answer this question well. Early drug discovery covers a wide range of disciplines including synthetic/medical chemistry, molecular modeling and structure-activity relationships, biochemistry, analytical chemistry, and others.

Here- I'll give you a hand- sort through these:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...nd+cancer&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart


No dog in this but a quick search out of curiosity found this https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet

"Population studies have not established a definitive link between HCA and PAH exposure from cooked meats and cancer in humans."

They confirm the presence of the concerning chemicals, indicate that dosages of these chemicals in lab rats well beyond what a human would normally encounter does seem to cause cancer, but then indicates they have not seen an actual study in humans proving they are an issue.

So I would vote "Not settled"....
 
My opinions on these matters are based on the early drug discover guy and another individual that manages human trials for oncology meds after working for a while as an FDA board physician that handled oncology med approval. That individual has a background in research medicine and specialized in oncology along with hematology.
What if, I, as an "early drug discovery guy", had a different point of view? Like I said, there are a lot of disciplines in early drug discovery. Hematology relates to blood, as you know, @steingar was discussing the biochemistry of these amines. Not all oncologists work at that level of cause/effect, many of them are looking to stop the growth of tumors after they started.

I think it’s awesome you assumed I was to dumb to even understand what exactly the people I talked to do for a living and what their expertise qualifies them to have an opinion on.
Perhaps it's comments like this that may cause someone to talk down to you? I certainly didn't assume you were dumb. I don't know much about you, and even less of your knowledge of drug discovery. Your statement didn't leave me with any impression of what that person does in early drug discovery, and I still have no information to be convinced that person knows biochemistry.

bottom line I’m accustomed to educated people enjoying the process of sharing with others and discussing the things they are passionate about. Steingar likes to yell and call people stupid. That was my point. I have no desire whatsoever to discuss anything with him.
There have been a few times Steingar and I had a difference of opinion, and he certainly didn't call me stupid. Perhaps try a different approach?

Then there is the bottom line to all this COVID B.S: science should guide our policies but at the end of the day how we conduct ourselves as a society is a matter of risk/cost management. That is immediately a political discussion and can’t be had here. At least it shouldn’t be according to the ROC.
Agreed, but the politics come in when people start bringing in their own "facts" as well as their opinions.
 
No dog in this but a quick search out of curiosity found this https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet

"Population studies have not established a definitive link between HCA and PAH exposure from cooked meats and cancer in humans."

They confirm the presence of the concerning chemicals, indicate that dosages of these chemicals in lab rats well beyond what a human would normally encounter does seem to cause cancer, but then indicates they have not seen an actual study in humans proving they are an issue.

So I would vote "Not settled"....
And that's how we have a good discussion, not telling someone "I know someone who does work that may, or may not be related to the topic, and he laughed"

FWIW, my opinion is that I'll probably die of something, like almost everybody else, and enjoying tasty food in moderation probably won't contribute to my death.
 
I have called no one stupid. What I said was ignoring facts because you don't agree with them is the first level of stupid. Getting mad at the messenger of uncomfortable facts is the second level of stupid. There are plenty more.

If you're such a snowflake that you find this utterly insulting, I have something for you to fill out:
t85n2.jpg
I’m about as polar opposite to a snowflake as possible.
 
How many thousands of years have our ancestors been cooking/burning/charring meat over an open flame?
Which proves that one can eat meat for around 30 years (the time to reach child bearing age + the time to raise offspring to child bearing age) without it killing them. I'm a fan of meat and I'm definitely not saying you can't go longer without it hurting you, but pointing out what people have done for thousands of years only proves that you can do it and live at least long enough to raise your young before it kills you. You can work with asbestos every day and still live long enough to raise your young but that doesn't mean I'd want to try it.
 
I have called no one stupid. What I said was ignoring facts because you don't agree with them is the first level of stupid.
Which is nothing more than a very lame way to call someone stupid without owning up to it. If you're going to insult someone, don't beat around the bush about it, just insult them.
 
Which proves that one can eat meat for around 30 years (the time to reach child bearing age + the time to raise offspring to child bearing age) without it killing them. I'm a fan of meat and I'm definitely not saying you can't go longer without it hurting you, but pointing out what people have done for thousands of years only proves that you can do it and live at least long enough to raise your young before it kills you. You can work with asbestos every day and still live long enough to raise your young but that doesn't mean I'd want to try it.
Well there is also the whole thing that the WHO research and other supporting evidence was addressing consumption of processed meats and specifically processed meats high in nitrates. Further it was not just eating some occasionally but rather a high rate of consumption over a long period of time.

details
 
Last edited:
I think it's a mistake to assume that changes in a public-health organization's guidance is evidence of something wrong. This is a new disease, with unusual characteristics. As new evidence comes in, scientists SHOULD change their thinking, and reflect that in their public statements. If they didn't, it would be propaganda, not science.

Unpacking the New WHO Controversy Over Asymptomatic COVID-19 Transmission

I think the flip-flopping is a sign that the evidence here is not particularly strong one way or another. Of course people like more certain answers, especially with high consequence problems, but sometimes that is not the way the world is.

My own view is that without high confidence evidence, it is best not to coerce other people to do things they don’t freely choose to do - in other words - err of the side of freedom.

That is of course not what many Governors chose to do.
 
I think it's a mistake to assume that changes in a public-health organization's guidance is evidence of something wrong. This is a new disease, with unusual characteristics. As new evidence comes in, scientists SHOULD change their thinking, and reflect that in their public statements. If they didn't, it would be propaganda, not science.

Unpacking the New WHO Controversy Over Asymptomatic COVID-19 Transmission

I agree in one sense that scientists changing their minds based on new evidence is a good, not a bad, sign.

The function of public health organizations however is perhaps to be a bit more conservative and not be flip-flopping so much. I think the WHO and Fauci and the CDC to a lesser extent have have damaged their credibility in the public’s eye by having issued guidance for strong measures early on in the Covid-19 crisis based on little data and a feeling of urgency. Their job is not necessarily to be on the bleeding edge of scientific controversies.
 
Study from England based on empirical measurement suggesting coercive lockdowns not needed - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf
I am no math expert, but that seems like finding a model to meet preconceived concepts.
Also, when you look up the author, he has a series of papers about how the data is so bad you cannot model COVID-19.
Last point, has the paper been peer reviewed yet?

Tim
 
I am no math expert, but that seems like finding a model to meet preconceived concepts.
Also, when you look up the author, he has a series of papers about how the data is so bad you cannot model COVID-19.
Last point, has the paper been peer reviewed yet?

No, not peer-reviewed, it's on a pre-print server.

I believe that in this paper he derives an estimate from the data. It appears there are two primary items that enter into this aside from the death data themselves. The assumed infection to death interval distribution, which he takes from other datasets, and a smoothing penalty. I don't believe he adjusted either to optimize a particular result.

But I will likely read this paper in detail by early next week.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top