Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
HuckleB
HuckleB's Journal
HuckleB's Journal
September 15, 2015
Pride, Prejudice, and the Provisions of Privilege: Margo Jefferson on Race, Depression, and ...
Pride, Prejudice, and the Provisions of Privilege: Margo Jefferson on Race, Depression, and How We Define Ourselves
http://www.brainpickings.org/2015/09/14/margo-jefferson-negroland-privilege/
"“You’ve got to tell the world how to treat you,” James Baldwin told Margaret Mead in their revelatory conversation on power and privilege. “If the world tells you how you are going to be treated, you are in trouble.” The many modes of telling and the many types of trouble are what trailblazing journalist, longtime New York Times theater critic, and Pulitzer winner Margo Jefferson (b. October 17, 1947) explores in Negroland: A Memoir (public library) — a masterwork of both form and substance.
Jefferson transforms her experience of growing up in an affluent black family into a lens on the broader perplexities of privilege and its provisional nature. Her piercing cultural insight unfolds in uncommonly beautiful writing, both honoring the essence of the memoir form — a vehicle for reaching the universal from the outpost of the personal — and defying its conventions through enlivening narrative experimentation.
Jefferson, who came of age in an era when the biological fallacies of racial difference still ran rampant, writes:
"I was taught to avoid showing off. I was taught to distinguish myself through presentation, not declaration, to excel through deeds and manners, not showing off. But isn’t all memoir a form of showing off?"
...
A good read that should lead to even more reading.
September 14, 2015
Anti-GMOer Benbrook's opinion piece DOES NOT represent the NEJM.
How do you fail to understand that a publication does not support everything that is published in it?
GMOs, Herbicides, and the New England Journal of Medicine
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/08/gmos-herbicides-and-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine/
The Dying Gasp Of Chuck Benbrook's Credibility
http://www.science20.com/science_20/the_dying_gasp_of_chuck_benbrooks_credibility-156906
Anti-GMO in the NEJM
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anti-gmo-in-the-nejm/
Why would you repeat a claim that is clearly not true?
September 13, 2015
"Medical students in Toronto are fighting back against quackery being taught at their prestigious university.
For two years, the University of Toronto had been offering an undergraduate course in the anthropology department called "Alternative Health: Practice and Theory."
The teacher, Beth Landau-Halpern, is a devotee of homeopathy, a practice that defies the basic laws of science and has no good evidence of efficacy. The readings in her course include anti-vaccine materials and an article glorifying Andrew Wakefield, the discredited physician-researcher who used fraudulent research to fabricate a link between measles vaccines and autism.
Landau-Halpern also promotes the views that quantum physics "offers clear explanations as to why homeopathic remedies with seemingly no chemical trace of the original substance are able to resolve chronic diseases" and that cancer is actually a "survival mechanism."
..."
Ugh. Did I say, "UGH!"?
Medical students protest the University of Toronto's anti-vaccine course
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/16/8977583/toronto-protest-anti-vaccine-course"Medical students in Toronto are fighting back against quackery being taught at their prestigious university.
For two years, the University of Toronto had been offering an undergraduate course in the anthropology department called "Alternative Health: Practice and Theory."
The teacher, Beth Landau-Halpern, is a devotee of homeopathy, a practice that defies the basic laws of science and has no good evidence of efficacy. The readings in her course include anti-vaccine materials and an article glorifying Andrew Wakefield, the discredited physician-researcher who used fraudulent research to fabricate a link between measles vaccines and autism.
Landau-Halpern also promotes the views that quantum physics "offers clear explanations as to why homeopathic remedies with seemingly no chemical trace of the original substance are able to resolve chronic diseases" and that cancer is actually a "survival mechanism."
..."
Ugh. Did I say, "UGH!"?
September 12, 2015
"Honey has an aura of purity and naturalness. Fresh air, birdsong, forests and meadows.
High-fructose corn sweetener? Not so much.
So you might think that honey is better for you. But a study published this month compared the health effects of honey and the processed sweetener and found no significant differences.
“The effects were essentially the same,” said Susan K. Raatz, a research nutritionist at the USDA who conducted the study with two colleagues.
..."
Interesting. Very interesting.
Study: (Perhaps) Honey isn’t as healthy as we think
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/11/honey-seemed-like-a-healthier-choice-then-scientists-tested-it-against-high-fructose-corn-syrup/"Honey has an aura of purity and naturalness. Fresh air, birdsong, forests and meadows.
High-fructose corn sweetener? Not so much.
So you might think that honey is better for you. But a study published this month compared the health effects of honey and the processed sweetener and found no significant differences.
“The effects were essentially the same,” said Susan K. Raatz, a research nutritionist at the USDA who conducted the study with two colleagues.
..."
Interesting. Very interesting.
September 11, 2015
"I have long held that one of the best ways to gauge the intellectual integrity of an individual or a group is to note how they deal with bad information or a bad argument that seems to support their position. You get points for rejecting an unsound argument or unreliable data even when it could be used to defend your side.
The flip side of this is acknowledging valid points that are on the other side of the argument. I will sometimes present what I feel is a rock-solid point for one side to an opponent, just to see how they will deal with it.
Of course it is far easier to point such behavior out in others, more difficult to police it in yourself. This is why constant reminders to value process, integrity, and fairness over any particular position is critical to skeptical inquiry.
Further, there is a range of bad responses to invalid points that can be exploited to support your position. In extreme cases ideologues will take the bad argument as total vindication. They will do a virtual victory dance, spike their fact in the end-zone, and turn up their self-righteousness to 11. Then you know you are dealing with someone with effectively zero intellectual integrity.
..."
Novella's coverage of this really gets to the heart of what is so disturbing about the anti-science posters at DU. The astounding lack of ethics and honesty piles itself into a snowball that just won't quit steamrolling.
Most of those who can see through the white out won't bother to explain what they see. The trouble they get in return is not worth it.
Yeah, I know. Blah. Blah. Blah.
How To Attack a Public Scientist
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-to-attack-a-public-scientist/"I have long held that one of the best ways to gauge the intellectual integrity of an individual or a group is to note how they deal with bad information or a bad argument that seems to support their position. You get points for rejecting an unsound argument or unreliable data even when it could be used to defend your side.
The flip side of this is acknowledging valid points that are on the other side of the argument. I will sometimes present what I feel is a rock-solid point for one side to an opponent, just to see how they will deal with it.
Of course it is far easier to point such behavior out in others, more difficult to police it in yourself. This is why constant reminders to value process, integrity, and fairness over any particular position is critical to skeptical inquiry.
Further, there is a range of bad responses to invalid points that can be exploited to support your position. In extreme cases ideologues will take the bad argument as total vindication. They will do a virtual victory dance, spike their fact in the end-zone, and turn up their self-righteousness to 11. Then you know you are dealing with someone with effectively zero intellectual integrity.
..."
Novella's coverage of this really gets to the heart of what is so disturbing about the anti-science posters at DU. The astounding lack of ethics and honesty piles itself into a snowball that just won't quit steamrolling.
Most of those who can see through the white out won't bother to explain what they see. The trouble they get in return is not worth it.
Yeah, I know. Blah. Blah. Blah.
September 10, 2015
"Here are some of chemists’ pet peeves about discussion on social media and the internet in general. The list is from the article 5 simple chemistry facts that everyone should understand before talking about science posted on the blog The Logic of Science.
Everyone who has attempted to discuss issues like vaccination or fluoridation with opponents will have come across these arguments which the author describes as “based on a lack of knowledge about high school level chemistry.” This ignorance doesn’t seem to prevent the perpetrators of these arguments presenting with extreme confidence and fervour. When challenged they often question the scientific credibility of their critics and urge them to “do some research!”
...
“I often encounter people who will claim to agree with everything that I have said thus far, but they still insist that “artificial” chemicals (a.k.a. chemicals that simply are not found in nature) are bad for you and shouldn’t be consumed, injected, etc. There are several critical problems here. First, remember again that all chemicals are dangerous at a high enough doses and safe at a low enough dose. That is just as true for artificial chemicals as it is for natural chemicals. Second, this claim is nothing more than an appeal to nature fallacy. Nature is full of chemicals such as cyanide and arsenic that are dangerous at anything but a very low dose, so there is no reason to think that the “naturalness” of a chemical is an indicator of its healthiness.
Further, remember that chemicals are nothing more than arrangements of elements. There is absolutely no reason to think that nature has produced all of the best arrangements or that we are incapable of making an arrangement that is safe or even better than what nature produced. I constantly hear people say that we cannot improve on nature, but that is an utterly ludicrous and unsupportable claim, and I would challenge anyone to give me a logical syllogism that backs it up. Really think about this for a minute, if you are of the opinion that artificial chemicals should be avoided, try to defend that position. Ask yourself why you think that. Can you give me any reason to think that they are bad other than simply that they aren’t natural (which we have just established is a fallacy)?”
..."
The piece should be read as a whole.
Why the Internet annoys chemists
http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2015/09/10/why-the-internet-annoys-chemists/"Here are some of chemists’ pet peeves about discussion on social media and the internet in general. The list is from the article 5 simple chemistry facts that everyone should understand before talking about science posted on the blog The Logic of Science.
Everyone who has attempted to discuss issues like vaccination or fluoridation with opponents will have come across these arguments which the author describes as “based on a lack of knowledge about high school level chemistry.” This ignorance doesn’t seem to prevent the perpetrators of these arguments presenting with extreme confidence and fervour. When challenged they often question the scientific credibility of their critics and urge them to “do some research!”
...
“I often encounter people who will claim to agree with everything that I have said thus far, but they still insist that “artificial” chemicals (a.k.a. chemicals that simply are not found in nature) are bad for you and shouldn’t be consumed, injected, etc. There are several critical problems here. First, remember again that all chemicals are dangerous at a high enough doses and safe at a low enough dose. That is just as true for artificial chemicals as it is for natural chemicals. Second, this claim is nothing more than an appeal to nature fallacy. Nature is full of chemicals such as cyanide and arsenic that are dangerous at anything but a very low dose, so there is no reason to think that the “naturalness” of a chemical is an indicator of its healthiness.
Further, remember that chemicals are nothing more than arrangements of elements. There is absolutely no reason to think that nature has produced all of the best arrangements or that we are incapable of making an arrangement that is safe or even better than what nature produced. I constantly hear people say that we cannot improve on nature, but that is an utterly ludicrous and unsupportable claim, and I would challenge anyone to give me a logical syllogism that backs it up. Really think about this for a minute, if you are of the opinion that artificial chemicals should be avoided, try to defend that position. Ask yourself why you think that. Can you give me any reason to think that they are bad other than simply that they aren’t natural (which we have just established is a fallacy)?”
..."
The piece should be read as a whole.
September 10, 2015
"Local pediatrician Dr. Andrew Furey was upset with the number of hours he worked for the lowest salary of any specialization, pediatrics. He decided to forgo all his medical knowledge and training and opened a new detox clinic specializing in vaccines, GMOs and chemtrails. And business is booming.
“I can’t believe it to be honest with you,” said Dr. Furey. “Within a week of opening I had made more money selling detox kits and consultations than I had in 3 months as a pediatrician.”
The clinic, Dr. Furey’s Green Detox Clinic, is located in an affluent neighborhood of Los Angeles and has been booked solid since it opened.
“Dr. Furey is an incredible doctor and man,” said one patron. “He got rid of all the built up toxins in my body from years of exposure to GMOs and chemtrails. It only cost me $599 too.”
..."
Yes, The Spudd is parody.
Doctor says fuck it and opens vaccine, GMO and chemtrail detox center; makes millions
http://thespudd.com/doctor-says-fuck-it-and-opens-vaccine-gmo-and-chemtrail-detox-center-makes-millions/"Local pediatrician Dr. Andrew Furey was upset with the number of hours he worked for the lowest salary of any specialization, pediatrics. He decided to forgo all his medical knowledge and training and opened a new detox clinic specializing in vaccines, GMOs and chemtrails. And business is booming.
“I can’t believe it to be honest with you,” said Dr. Furey. “Within a week of opening I had made more money selling detox kits and consultations than I had in 3 months as a pediatrician.”
The clinic, Dr. Furey’s Green Detox Clinic, is located in an affluent neighborhood of Los Angeles and has been booked solid since it opened.
“Dr. Furey is an incredible doctor and man,” said one patron. “He got rid of all the built up toxins in my body from years of exposure to GMOs and chemtrails. It only cost me $599 too.”
..."
Yes, The Spudd is parody.
September 10, 2015
"Many prominent foodies now say that you shouldn't eat anything with ingredients a third grader can't pronounce. Matt Teegarden and his friends really, really want you to reconsider that stance:
Teegarden, a PhD candidate in food science at Ohio State University, thinks that folks in his field have been getting a bad rap in recent conversations about food safety. While 88 percent of scientists conclude that foods produced using genetic modification techniques are safe to eat, for example, only 37 percent of the general public surveyed by Pew felt the same way.
And instead of a balanced conversation about scientific consensus and reasonable expectations for safety, many food safety advocates make scientists the enemy. Lately, it seems that all too many restaurant chains are willing to capitalize on that fear by cutting out GMOs and "unnatural" ingredients.
"They’re promoting what they’re doing, these food chains, as a way to follow the consumer desire, which is fine," Teegarden told The Post. "But they’re doing it at the cost of sound science."
..."
These friendly food scientists want to make you feel good about eating chemicals
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/04/these-friendly-food-scientists-want-to-make-you-feel-good-about-eating-chemicals/"Many prominent foodies now say that you shouldn't eat anything with ingredients a third grader can't pronounce. Matt Teegarden and his friends really, really want you to reconsider that stance:
Teegarden, a PhD candidate in food science at Ohio State University, thinks that folks in his field have been getting a bad rap in recent conversations about food safety. While 88 percent of scientists conclude that foods produced using genetic modification techniques are safe to eat, for example, only 37 percent of the general public surveyed by Pew felt the same way.
And instead of a balanced conversation about scientific consensus and reasonable expectations for safety, many food safety advocates make scientists the enemy. Lately, it seems that all too many restaurant chains are willing to capitalize on that fear by cutting out GMOs and "unnatural" ingredients.
"They’re promoting what they’re doing, these food chains, as a way to follow the consumer desire, which is fine," Teegarden told The Post. "But they’re doing it at the cost of sound science."
..."
September 10, 2015
A great piece on Fresh Air, and I can't wait to read the book either.
This is worth the time it takes to read and to listen.
A Physician Asks: Is Being Black Bad For Your Health?
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/09/09/438823854/a-physician-asks-is-being-black-bad-for-your-healthA great piece on Fresh Air, and I can't wait to read the book either.
This is worth the time it takes to read and to listen.
September 10, 2015
and a second that shows the same thing...
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/09/09/another-study-on-the-gluten-freecasein-free-diet-and-autism-this-time-focusing-on-kids-with-a-sign-of-leaky-gut/
Gluten Free/Casein Free diet and autism studied…and no sign of a benefit
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/09/09/gluten-freecasein-free-diet-and-autism-studied-and-no-sign-of-a-benefit/and a second that shows the same thing...
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/09/09/another-study-on-the-gluten-freecasein-free-diet-and-autism-this-time-focusing-on-kids-with-a-sign-of-leaky-gut/
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 35,773
