|
Post by uscientist on May 22, 2009 17:18:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 20, 2009 23:27:56 GMT -5
Dug and I appear to be getting most of our posts on tonight, if the sheer volume of our posts that have made it on are at all representative. I've only had one not make it, where I suggested he was saying he was impotent from blogging too much. :-) mine went on straight away too
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 18, 2009 22:35:40 GMT -5
remember ladies and gentlemen, according to dannone and other our immunity is based in our gut
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 18, 2009 22:25:30 GMT -5
I was not an Obama supporter until he was the nominee - because I sensed in him, exactly what I am seeing now. He's way too eager to please and be bipartisan - and I'm currently in no mood. Don't get me wrong - I'm happy he's president and all - I just wonder if the ol' gal mighta been better. That's pretty much how I feel. I lost my interest in blogging about it a couple of weeks ago because of my disappointment. I haven't been posting much on the poli threads either because there seems to be little room to discuss the negatives. Ah, well. At least he is not McCain. And I would have supported almost anyone against Palin. Ye gods, that woman gives me nightmares. its good to hear folks of a similar opinion. i just wish huffpo wasnt such a cheerleader for anything other than bush. perhaps we can have a subforum for this on here? john cussak's post here today is interesting since on the whole huffpo has ignored the "flip-flop" on the latest photo scandal: www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/a-war-on-terror-by-any-ot_b_204887.html
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 18, 2009 12:10:26 GMT -5
i tried posting this a number of times tonight on huffpo, but it kept getting bounced. then i got banned after the 4th attempt. Nothing there is against what HuffPo claims are their terms of service. The moderators on the "science" threads are just as bad as FoxNews. in some respects they are worse. they've had this holier than though approach to politics etc against the bush era and now they're doing the same. if it doesnt fit their message they remove or dont write about it. like i said the other day when all the press was breaking the news on gitmo and obama, they had nothing on the site.
|
|
|
Banned
May 18, 2009 12:00:41 GMT -5
Post by uscientist on May 18, 2009 12:00:41 GMT -5
"someone with a pattern of abuse"
wow! thats me...
|
|
|
Banned
May 18, 2009 11:59:53 GMT -5
Post by uscientist on May 18, 2009 11:59:53 GMT -5
Q: Why am I blocked from commenting on Huff Post? A: There are a few scenarios in which a comment might be blocked:
1. A comment is extremely abusive, off-topic, uses excessive foul language, or includes an ad hominem attack 2. If a commenter has previously posted comments that are abusive, off-topic, used excessive foul language, or include ad hominem attacks, a Huff Post moderator may decide to ban the commenter's IP address. This means the abusive commenter is banned from commenting on the site in the future, even if the later comments are not abusive. We ban IPs because the sheer volume of comments makes it too time consuming to individually delete comments written by someone with a pattern of abuse.
|
|
|
Banned
May 17, 2009 22:52:24 GMT -5
Post by uscientist on May 17, 2009 22:52:24 GMT -5
Post a comment Sorry, but you have been banned from commenting I'm back as "JoeSP" (as in six pack)... my avatar on huffpo is the rubella virus, for those of you interested. ok, tried to post the idiot thing as JoeSP and immediately got banned. wow, the huffpo is really in to censorship
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 17, 2009 22:49:17 GMT -5
From: Autism Blog
possibly because they're also afraid of being sued when more people die with this nonsense A good thing, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 17, 2009 22:47:34 GMT -5
Well, that sums up the people we're standing counterpoint to. :-) i tried posting this a number of times tonight on huffpo, but it kept getting bounced. then i got banned after the 4th attempt.
|
|
|
Banned
May 17, 2009 22:45:32 GMT -5
Post by uscientist on May 17, 2009 22:45:32 GMT -5
Post a comment Sorry, but you have been banned from commenting I'm back as "JoeSP" (as in six pack)... my avatar on huffpo is the rubella virus, for those of you interested.
|
|
|
Banned
May 17, 2009 22:27:54 GMT -5
Post by uscientist on May 17, 2009 22:27:54 GMT -5
Post a comment
Sorry, but you have been banned from commenting
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 17, 2009 21:46:41 GMT -5
www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0207GREETINGSGreetings from Idiot America By Charles P. Pierce The rise of Idiot America is essentially a war on expertise. It's not so much antimodernism or the distrust of intellectual elites that Richard Hofstadter deftly teased out of the national DNA forty years ago. Both of those things are part of it. However, the rise of Idiot America today represents -- for profit mainly, but also, and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power -- the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a preacher, or a scientist, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert. The Gut is the basis for the Great Premises of Idiot America. We hold these truths to be self-evident: 1) Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units. 2) Anything can be true if somebody says it on television. 3) Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it.
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 15, 2009 19:48:05 GMT -5
References Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry. (2006). Public Health Statement Aluminum CAS # 7429-90-5.
Cherin, P. and J. Authier. (2001). Macrophagic Myofasciitis. Retrieved May 19, 2008 from Orphanet encyclopedia Web site.
Finn, T. M. and W. Egan. (2008). Vaccine Additives and Manufacturing Residuals in U.S.-Licensed Vaccines. In S. Plotkin, W. Orenstein, and P. Offit (Eds.), Vaccines, Fifth Edition (pp. 73-81). China: Saunders Elsevier.
Ganrot, P. O. (1986). Metabolism & Possible Health Effects of Aluminum. Env. Health Perspect. 65, 363-441.
Mineral Information Institute. Aluminum & Bauxite. Retrieved May 19, 2008, from Mineral Information Institute Web site.
Offit, P.A. and R. K. Jew. (2003). Addressing Parents Concerns: Do Vaccines Contain Harmful Preservatives, Adjuvants, Additives or Residuals? Pediatrics, 112(6), 1394-1401.
Sorenson, J. R. J., Campbell, I. R., et. al. (1974). Aluminum in the Environment and Human Health. Env. Health Perspect. 8, 3-95.
Vogel, F. R. and S. L. Hem. (2008). Immunologic Adjuvants In S. Plotkin, W. Orenstein, and P. Offit (Eds.), Vaccines, Fifth Edition (pp. 59-71). China: Saunders Elsevier.
World Health Organization. (1999). Macrophagic Myofasciitis and Aluminum-Containing Vaccines. Weekly Epidemiological Record.74, 338-340.
World Health Organization. (2002). Aluminum-Containing Vaccines and Macrophagic Myofasciitis. Weekly Epidemiological Record. 77, 392-393.
World Health Organization. (2004). Aluminum-Containing Vaccines and Macrophagic Myofasciitis. Weekly Epidemiological Record.79, 20.
|
|
|
Post by uscientist on May 15, 2009 19:47:39 GMT -5
not to mention that its not pure aluminium... however, this is interesting: The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the same period. www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=88655
|
|