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 3, 2015
"Imagine a California where polio becomes a threat to children’s health as it was before the 1950s, when first the Salk vaccine and later the even more effective Sabin formula threw this dreaded and crippling disease and all its iron lungs into dormancy.
Or a California where dozens of kids die every year from pertussis, better known as whooping cough for the gasping whoop children often make after their deep coughing. And more, like measles, mumps and rubella, to name a few.
This was the threat that faced California after Gov. Jerry Brown in 2012 attached a one-sentence signing message to a law that aimed to make it tougher for parents to evade getting their kids vaccinated.
Now a proposed referendum being circulated by anti-vaccination activists threatens to thrust the state back into those Dark Ages-style dangers.
..."
Why? That's all I can even say/ask. Why?
Anti-vaxxers threaten freedoms of others
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20150831/anti-vaxxers-threaten-freedoms-of-others-thomas-elias"Imagine a California where polio becomes a threat to children’s health as it was before the 1950s, when first the Salk vaccine and later the even more effective Sabin formula threw this dreaded and crippling disease and all its iron lungs into dormancy.
Or a California where dozens of kids die every year from pertussis, better known as whooping cough for the gasping whoop children often make after their deep coughing. And more, like measles, mumps and rubella, to name a few.
This was the threat that faced California after Gov. Jerry Brown in 2012 attached a one-sentence signing message to a law that aimed to make it tougher for parents to evade getting their kids vaccinated.
Now a proposed referendum being circulated by anti-vaccination activists threatens to thrust the state back into those Dark Ages-style dangers.
..."
Why? That's all I can even say/ask. Why?
September 2, 2015
"You don't often hear about people transitioning from alternative healing to science-based medicine or vice versa. That's what makes someone like Dr. Oz — a highly credentialed surgeon who also believes in "energy healing" — so interesting. It's also why, when I stumbled across Britt Hermes's blog — Confessions of a Naturopathic Doctor — I was immediately hooked.
Hermes studied naturopathy, a type of alternative medicine focused on "natural" treatments like herbs and homeopathy, at Bastyr University in Kenmore, Washington. She then practiced for three years in Washington and Arizona — all while becoming increasingly disillusioned with her chosen profession.
"Naturopathic medicine is not what I was led to believe," she wrote on her blog. "I discovered that the profession functions as a system of indoctrination based on discredited ideas about health and medicine, full of anti-science rhetoric with many ineffective and dangerous practices."
Last year, Hermes left naturopathy behind and enrolled in a Master of Science program in Germany. On her blog, she's been myth-busting alternative medicine, and writing about everything from the gaps in regulation to what it's like to find cancer in a patient as a young ND.
..."
--------------------------------------------------
A good interview, indeed. This ought to concern us all. This is just not a tenable situation.
Why one naturopath quit after watching her peers treat cancer patients
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9248713/britt-hermes"You don't often hear about people transitioning from alternative healing to science-based medicine or vice versa. That's what makes someone like Dr. Oz — a highly credentialed surgeon who also believes in "energy healing" — so interesting. It's also why, when I stumbled across Britt Hermes's blog — Confessions of a Naturopathic Doctor — I was immediately hooked.
Hermes studied naturopathy, a type of alternative medicine focused on "natural" treatments like herbs and homeopathy, at Bastyr University in Kenmore, Washington. She then practiced for three years in Washington and Arizona — all while becoming increasingly disillusioned with her chosen profession.
"Naturopathic medicine is not what I was led to believe," she wrote on her blog. "I discovered that the profession functions as a system of indoctrination based on discredited ideas about health and medicine, full of anti-science rhetoric with many ineffective and dangerous practices."
Last year, Hermes left naturopathy behind and enrolled in a Master of Science program in Germany. On her blog, she's been myth-busting alternative medicine, and writing about everything from the gaps in regulation to what it's like to find cancer in a patient as a young ND.
..."
--------------------------------------------------
A good interview, indeed. This ought to concern us all. This is just not a tenable situation.
September 2, 2015
"University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers.
The new study reports that not only are just 12% of Americans turning to newspaper and magazine websites for science news, but when they do they may be influenced as much by the comments at the end of the story as they are by the report itself.
In an experiment mentioned in the Science paper and soon to be published elsewhere in greater detail, about 2,000 people were asked to read a balanced news report about nanotechnology followed by a group of invented comments. All saw the same report but some read a group of comments that were uncivil, including name-calling. Others saw more civil comments.
"Disturbingly, readers' interpretations of potential risks associated with the technology described in the news article differed significantly depending only on the tone of the manipulated reader comments posted with the story," wrote authors Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele.
..."
Alas, this is not surprising.
(Yeah, I know it's a bit dated, but it's still valid information.)
Online comments hurt science understanding, study finds
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/online-comments-hurt-science-understanding-study-finds-ib88cor-185610641.html"University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers.
The new study reports that not only are just 12% of Americans turning to newspaper and magazine websites for science news, but when they do they may be influenced as much by the comments at the end of the story as they are by the report itself.
In an experiment mentioned in the Science paper and soon to be published elsewhere in greater detail, about 2,000 people were asked to read a balanced news report about nanotechnology followed by a group of invented comments. All saw the same report but some read a group of comments that were uncivil, including name-calling. Others saw more civil comments.
"Disturbingly, readers' interpretations of potential risks associated with the technology described in the news article differed significantly depending only on the tone of the manipulated reader comments posted with the story," wrote authors Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele.
..."
Alas, this is not surprising.
(Yeah, I know it's a bit dated, but it's still valid information.)
September 2, 2015
"The burned carcasses blend into the scorched landscape, just more black and ash among the haunting outline of trees. “There she is,” rancher Doug Grumbach says, pointing up the steep slope near his ranch. “It looks like she was trying to run and froze in that mode.”
The cow is now obvious: A perfectly shaped head, a body covered in skin that’s become cured leather – taut and solid like a drumhead. She’s upright, wedged between two burned trees, ribs exposed, a flurry of maggots working furiously. Her calf lies in a heap nearby.
Grumbach is silent. He rubs his jaw and points to another carcass farther up the hill on the grazing land in the Colville National Forest, just south of the Canadian border. The land recently burned in the Stickpin fire.
Grumbach, like cattle ranchers across fire-ravaged north-central Washington, isn’t sure of his total losses. The devastation includes not only body counts but hundreds of miles of fence, grazing land and water sources on his family’s fourth-generation ranch. So far, he knows of eight dead cows and four calves, a loss of about $35,000. Thirty more of his Angus herd is missing. In his corrals at home are a cow and several calves with burned hooves.
..."
Ranchers face loss of livestock, livelihoods in Washington fires
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/aug/30/ranchers-face-loss-of-livestock-livelihoods-in/"The burned carcasses blend into the scorched landscape, just more black and ash among the haunting outline of trees. “There she is,” rancher Doug Grumbach says, pointing up the steep slope near his ranch. “It looks like she was trying to run and froze in that mode.”
The cow is now obvious: A perfectly shaped head, a body covered in skin that’s become cured leather – taut and solid like a drumhead. She’s upright, wedged between two burned trees, ribs exposed, a flurry of maggots working furiously. Her calf lies in a heap nearby.
Grumbach is silent. He rubs his jaw and points to another carcass farther up the hill on the grazing land in the Colville National Forest, just south of the Canadian border. The land recently burned in the Stickpin fire.
Grumbach, like cattle ranchers across fire-ravaged north-central Washington, isn’t sure of his total losses. The devastation includes not only body counts but hundreds of miles of fence, grazing land and water sources on his family’s fourth-generation ranch. So far, he knows of eight dead cows and four calves, a loss of about $35,000. Thirty more of his Angus herd is missing. In his corrals at home are a cow and several calves with burned hooves.
..."
September 1, 2015
"A new obstacle to scientific literacy may be emerging, according to a paper in the journal Science by two University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers.
The new study reports that not only are just 12% of Americans turning to newspaper and magazine websites for science news, but when they do they may be influenced as much by the comments at the end of the story as they are by the report itself.
In an experiment mentioned in the Science paper and soon to be published elsewhere in greater detail, about 2,000 people were asked to read a balanced news report about nanotechnology followed by a group of invented comments. All saw the same report but some read a group of comments that were uncivil, including name-calling. Others saw more civil comments.
"Disturbingly, readers' interpretations of potential risks associated with the technology described in the news article differed significantly depending only on the tone of the manipulated reader comments posted with the story," wrote authors Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele.
..."
Well, this does explain a fair amount.
Online comments hurt science understanding, study finds
http://www.jsonline.com/news/health/online-comments-hurt-science-understanding-study-finds-ib88cor-185610641.html"A new obstacle to scientific literacy may be emerging, according to a paper in the journal Science by two University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers.
The new study reports that not only are just 12% of Americans turning to newspaper and magazine websites for science news, but when they do they may be influenced as much by the comments at the end of the story as they are by the report itself.
In an experiment mentioned in the Science paper and soon to be published elsewhere in greater detail, about 2,000 people were asked to read a balanced news report about nanotechnology followed by a group of invented comments. All saw the same report but some read a group of comments that were uncivil, including name-calling. Others saw more civil comments.
"Disturbingly, readers' interpretations of potential risks associated with the technology described in the news article differed significantly depending only on the tone of the manipulated reader comments posted with the story," wrote authors Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele.
..."
Well, this does explain a fair amount.
September 1, 2015
"When a baby is born, parents are often awed and alarmed to find themselves responsible for this tiny new person, and they desperately want to do their very best to keep their infant safe and healthy. New mothers worry about everything from SIDS to vaccines, from feeding practices to sleep hygiene, and they are bombarded with conflicting advice about caring for their babies. Myths and misinformation abound. Finally someone has written a truly science-based guide to the first year of life: The Science of Mom. The author, Alice Callahan, is a research scientist with a PhD in nutritional biology. When her first child was born, she had a lot of questions, and thanks to her background she knew how to look for reliable answers in the scientific literature. She started writing the Science of Mom blog and eventually turned her findings into a book.
Her first chapter covers the important concepts for understanding how to think about scientific studies: ... In subsequent chapters she delves into what science has to say about various topics. She finds that there is seldom a simple yes-or-no answer to these questions, and she presents the evidence on both sides fairly, adding a common-sense perspective.
...
This is science-based medicine writing at its best. Callahan doesn’t cherry-pick. She knows how to evaluate the entire body of research and put it into perspective along with practical parenting considerations. She enhances her message with a personal touch, including anecdotes about her own experiences as a new mother and about the experiences of her friends and family. If I had three thumbs, I would give this book a 3-thumbs-up recommendation. If every new parent could read this book, it would go a long way towards immunizing them against the misinformation they will inevitably encounter, misinformation that so often clouds their judgment and worries them unnecessarily."
-------------------
Good stuff!
The Science of Mom: A Science-Based Book about Baby Care
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-mom-a-science-based-book-about-baby-care/"When a baby is born, parents are often awed and alarmed to find themselves responsible for this tiny new person, and they desperately want to do their very best to keep their infant safe and healthy. New mothers worry about everything from SIDS to vaccines, from feeding practices to sleep hygiene, and they are bombarded with conflicting advice about caring for their babies. Myths and misinformation abound. Finally someone has written a truly science-based guide to the first year of life: The Science of Mom. The author, Alice Callahan, is a research scientist with a PhD in nutritional biology. When her first child was born, she had a lot of questions, and thanks to her background she knew how to look for reliable answers in the scientific literature. She started writing the Science of Mom blog and eventually turned her findings into a book.
Her first chapter covers the important concepts for understanding how to think about scientific studies: ... In subsequent chapters she delves into what science has to say about various topics. She finds that there is seldom a simple yes-or-no answer to these questions, and she presents the evidence on both sides fairly, adding a common-sense perspective.
...
This is science-based medicine writing at its best. Callahan doesn’t cherry-pick. She knows how to evaluate the entire body of research and put it into perspective along with practical parenting considerations. She enhances her message with a personal touch, including anecdotes about her own experiences as a new mother and about the experiences of her friends and family. If I had three thumbs, I would give this book a 3-thumbs-up recommendation. If every new parent could read this book, it would go a long way towards immunizing them against the misinformation they will inevitably encounter, misinformation that so often clouds their judgment and worries them unnecessarily."
-------------------
Good stuff!
September 1, 2015
"...
I don’t want to diminish the importance of a nutritious, fresh and delicious school lunch. The pilot school — Bayside MLK — is located in Marin City, where many residents live below the poverty line and 93% of students qualify for free and reduced government subsidized lunches. I applaud Conscious Kitchen for serving its students fresh seasonal meals.
Unfortunately, that food comes with a giant serving of false propaganda — that a healthy diet must be an organic, GMO-free one.
Conscious Kitchen’s agenda relies on fear and chemophobia. “Students everywhere are vulnerable to pesticide residues and unsafe environmental toxins,” argues Judi Shils, executive director of Conscious Kitchen’s parent organization Turning Green.
Actually, pesticide residues are present in both conventional and organic produce (at perfectly safe levels, by the way). Conscious Kitchen also questions the safety of GMO foods, even though the overwhelming evidence shows that these foods are safe.
..."
Marin School District Goes GMO-Free, Fails Basic Science
http://groundedparents.com/2015/08/24/marin-school-district-goes-gmo-free-fails-basic-science/"...
I don’t want to diminish the importance of a nutritious, fresh and delicious school lunch. The pilot school — Bayside MLK — is located in Marin City, where many residents live below the poverty line and 93% of students qualify for free and reduced government subsidized lunches. I applaud Conscious Kitchen for serving its students fresh seasonal meals.
Unfortunately, that food comes with a giant serving of false propaganda — that a healthy diet must be an organic, GMO-free one.
Conscious Kitchen’s agenda relies on fear and chemophobia. “Students everywhere are vulnerable to pesticide residues and unsafe environmental toxins,” argues Judi Shils, executive director of Conscious Kitchen’s parent organization Turning Green.
Actually, pesticide residues are present in both conventional and organic produce (at perfectly safe levels, by the way). Conscious Kitchen also questions the safety of GMO foods, even though the overwhelming evidence shows that these foods are safe.
..."
September 1, 2015
"...
Usually when Americans gets surveyed about science, we learn that they don’t know a lot about it — and then we proceed to lament how dumb they are. In fact, we did that just last week, when we learned that Americans want to label food containing DNA. (Har har.)
But in 2009, Pew and AAAS dared to treat the problem as two-sided. They surveyed scientists, not just citizens — members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, no less. And they found that, hey, it takes two to tango in the science-society relationship, and scientists might, if anything, be more down on the public than the public actually was on them!
I recall all this now because a long-awaited successor to this classic report has now come out. Same game plan, same structure. Except for one thing — the overall framing seems to have subtly shifted back toward the old “public doesn’t know stuff” presentation. Perhaps not intentionally, but that’s how I suspect the report is going to be interpreted (whether its authors intend it or not).
The reason is the prominence of figures like this, showing just how wrong people are about factual stuff:
(go to the link to see)..."
Science matters. We need to utilize it to be truly progressive.
Americans are still scientifically illiterate — and scientists still need a PR team
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/29/americans-are-still-scientifically-illiterate-and-scientists-still-need-a-pr-team/"...
Usually when Americans gets surveyed about science, we learn that they don’t know a lot about it — and then we proceed to lament how dumb they are. In fact, we did that just last week, when we learned that Americans want to label food containing DNA. (Har har.)
But in 2009, Pew and AAAS dared to treat the problem as two-sided. They surveyed scientists, not just citizens — members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, no less. And they found that, hey, it takes two to tango in the science-society relationship, and scientists might, if anything, be more down on the public than the public actually was on them!
I recall all this now because a long-awaited successor to this classic report has now come out. Same game plan, same structure. Except for one thing — the overall framing seems to have subtly shifted back toward the old “public doesn’t know stuff” presentation. Perhaps not intentionally, but that’s how I suspect the report is going to be interpreted (whether its authors intend it or not).
The reason is the prominence of figures like this, showing just how wrong people are about factual stuff:
(go to the link to see)..."
Science matters. We need to utilize it to be truly progressive.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 35,773
