Your Moral And Intellectual Superiors

21 Replies to “Your Moral And Intellectual Superiors”

1. Message = Medium
   Where have I heard that before? They are selling verbal diarrhea. They are not selling truth.

2. The point is well taken that the New York Times is not a reliable source of news, however, the examples are all controversial topics with evidence on all sides. There have been many, many examples when things are considered safe . . . only to be discovered to be detrimental at a later point. I was particularly sorry to see Dr. Mercola being disparaged in the article. I think his views are worth considering — as part of the process of looking at all sides of an argument.

3. The point is well taken that the New York Times is not a reliable source of news, however, the examples are all controversial topics with evidence on all sides. There have been many, many examples when things are considered safe . . . only to be discovered to be detrimental at a later point. I was particularly sorry to see Dr. Mercola being disparaged in the article. I think his views are worth considering — as part of the process of looking at all sides of an argument.

4. I expected their articles on AGW or the “threat” of climate change to be mentioned. Isn’t Thomas Friedman one of their contributors?

5. In that link is a good short article about autism
   http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/09/28/macaque_experiment_shows_vaccine_schedule_not_linked_to_autism_109396.html

6. Good to know if the NYT quits writing about science I can always turn to the CBC.

7. For heavens sake, looking further into that link you’ll come to a rant about how a vote for Harper is a vote to destroy science. Good grief!

8. If cell phones caused cancer we would all be dead by now.

9. The author criticizing the NY Times for shoddy science reporting (which I do not challenge) is guilty of shoddy science. He concludes that non-ionized microwave radiation from cell phones cannot cause cancer (full stop) based on the genetic theory of cancer, which is turning out to be a failed scientific paradigm. The successes in cancer research lately has been achieved using the metabolic paradigm of cancer, caused by damage to mitochondria in the cell. The electron transport chain and proton gradient in the mitochondria do not require ionizing radiation to suffer damage that can lead to cancer. The damaging effect may or may not be huge, but there is evidence showing higher cancer rates with usage. I note hardly anyone from my daughter’s generation uses a smartphone as a phone that they hold up to their heads. I make maybe one call per month and am typical among the people I know. People have generally shifted to text over voice, so looking at general cancer rates may not be indicative of the risk. The controlled trials suggest there is indeed a link of some degree.

10. *non-ionizing

11. The NYT quit writing science articles? Bwhahahahahahaha. How do you quit doing something you never did????? The closest they ever came was the Titanic, and they even screwed that up!

12. That’s clever. You know correlation is not proof of causation so you put a disclaimer on your own belief.
    There is no evidence of increased mortality rates from brain cancers and since that link fails, it must be because people have quit putting the cell phones up to their heads.

13. murray, I uad smokers cancer, and I didn’t/don’t smoke. Try again, butt do sum research first

14. Why is this story from March a story today?

15. The only science the New York Slimes wants is the kind that tries to prove Global Warming and Evolution are real mostly from the politicly based Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS)the facts are that back in the late 60’s early 70’s we were suppost to be having a New Ice Age and Global Cooling SLIME Magazine even published this tommy-rot and noew they have turned around and are blabbering about Global Warming which is just a way for Al Gore to sell his fruadulent junk sience film A INCONVENT TRUTH to suckers sell his phonie books EARTH IN THE BALANCE and ASSUALT ON REASON. Gore is sucha bore him David Suzuki Robert Kennedy Jr and Hollywood twat Leonardo DeCaprio

16. If cell phone were safe, cell phone companies would not recommend young kids limit their use of it.
    Cancer does not happen instantly.
    Sunburns we got as kids may only cause skin cancer 20 or 40 years later.
    It may take 40 years of cigarette smoking before lung cancer appears.
    It is too early to say cell phones are safe.
    20 years ago people were not spending their whole day talking in cell phones or using ipads ( which emit even more than cell ) and sleeping with them inches from their head.
    Give it another 20 or 30 years. Then we will know.
    And for what it is worth,
    The World health organization says cell phones should be kept away from the body trough the use of earphones and young kids should never use them.
    Even the cell phone lobby ( or whatever it is called ) admits that after a few minutes of talking in a cell phone held against your head, that half of the brain’s temperature raises by about 1 or 2 degrees Celcius.
    The human brain was not made to be heated trough cell waves. How healthy can that be?

17. Your goal is to breed all the different dragons available edeeekfadcdfdddb

18. Very nice site! cheap goods http://apxoiey2.com/qovsrt/4.html

19. Do you agree with my statement that this post is awesome? effcedadcbdekecb

20. I’m curious to uncover out what weblog system youre employing? Im experiencing some small security problems with my latest weblog and Id like to locate something a lot more safeguarded. Do you have any recommendations? ddkdcbgedddbdeff

21. Wow, marvelous blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your website is great, as well as the content! gdddebkakfececdf