Open Mike 27/05/2017

101 comments on “Open Mike 27/05/2017 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. AsleepWhileWalking 1

   27 May 2017 at 8:23 am

   George Webb explaining the confusing mess behind the global Clinton web.
   It’s like Iran-Contra but instead of going North to South, it’s going East to West

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=337&v=Em8qrgj1vYM
2. dv 2

   27 May 2017 at 8:53 am

   Sort of bizarre.

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11864132

   Funding to reduce rheumatic fever in New Zealand has been halved in this week’s Budget.

   That is despite the Government’s failure to reach a target of reducing hospitalisations for the serious illness, which is one of its top 10 priorities for the public sector.

   The Budget shows funding for rheumatic fever has fallen from $10 million a year to $5 million a year.
3. Glenn 3

   27 May 2017 at 9:59 am

   “the polls have narrowed, with the latest from YouGov showing just a five point Conservative lead (less than the margin in 2015). It may be an outlier but it is not that much of an outlier; another poll on the same day showed an eight-point lead. If the YouGov poll were translated into seats, the Conservatives would have an overall majority of just two seats. And the poll was taken after the Manchester bombing, an event that people thought would boost Mrs May’s appeal.”

   http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2017/05/markets-and-british-election-0?cid1=cust/ddnew/n/n/n/20170526n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/ap/Daily_Dispatch/email&etear=dailydispatch
4. Glenn 4

   27 May 2017 at 10:13 am

   There is an interesting report from the London School of Economics that recently came out.
   .
   “The results of this study show that Jeremy Corbyn was represented unfairly by the British press through a process of vilification that went well beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy. Corbyn was often denied his own voice in the reporting on him and sources that were antiCorbyn tended to outweigh those that support him and his positions. He was also systematically treated with scorn and ridicule in both the broadsheet and tabloid press in a way that no other political leader is or has been. Even more problematic, the British press has repeatedly associated Corbyn with terrorism and positioned him as a friend of the enemies of the UK. The result has been a failure to give the newspaper reading public a fair opportunity to form their own judgements about the leader of the country’s main opposition.”
   .
   http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FI…
   .
   • greywarshark 4.1

     27 May 2017 at 10:27 am

     Glenn
     Thanks for the info.
5. greywarshark 5

   27 May 2017 at 10:18 am

   Someone on radionz telling about himself in USA. He just said that some people don’t listen to facts or reason with any change of perceptions, because they NEED their beliefs to be right. His father said that it wasn’t enough to be right but to be able to present your thinking in a way that gets heard. He is a scientist interested in space. I thought his thoughts about dealing with science-twisters interesting.

   Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator. He’s a best-selling author, Emmy Award winner, recipient of 19 honorary doctorates, and a man who was once named “Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive”.

   Since 1996, he has been the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York City. The centre is part of the American Museum of Natural History, where Tyson founded the Department of Astrophysics in 1997 and has been a research associate in the department since 2003.

   From 1995 to 2005, Tyson wrote monthly essays in the ‘Universe’ column for Natural History magazine, some of which were published in his book Death by Black Hole (2007); a second book, Astrophysics For People in a Hurry, has just been released. He will be in New Zealand for the first time in early June to present his show, A Cosmic Perspective, at both Christchurch’s Horncastle Arena and the Spark Arena in Auckland.
   • greywarshark 5.1

     27 May 2017 at 1:38 pm

     linky – http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/201845400/neil-degrasse-tyson-a-cosmic-perspective
6. weka 6

   27 May 2017 at 10:39 am

   TripeMarketingBoard‏ @TripeUK

   BREAKING: Stocks of dead cats ‘perilously low’ says dead cat trade body, as Tory Party HQ are accused of hoarding supplies.
   

   https://twitter.com/TripeUK/status/868011128676286465
7. greywarshark 7

   27 May 2017 at 10:51 am

   I put up a comment referring to Radionz interview with scientist.
   Here is the link –
   http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/201845400/neil-degrasse-tyson-a-cosmic-perspective
8. greywarshark 8

   27 May 2017 at 10:54 am

   Here is a principled man who reflects on himself and the world bravely and sometimes painfully. This will resonate with some of the people who comment here, who choose the path least trod.

   10:20 Prof Michael Jackson – The wherewithal of life

   Professor Michael D Jackson is a New-Zealand-born anthropologist and creative writer. He has published 30 books of poetry, fiction, ethnography and memoir, and is internationally known for his vast body of work. Most notably, he has helped define the field of ‘existential anthropology’ – looking at how groups of humans make meaning of their lives in the face of adversity.

   In New Zealand, Jackson is best known for his poetry and creative non-fiction (Latitudes of Exile was awarded the Commonwealth Poetry Prize in 1976, and Wall won the New Zealand Book Award for Poetry in 1981). Since 1969 he has conducted extensive fieldwork among the Kuranko of Sierra Leone, the Warlpiri and Kuku-Yalanji of Australia, and African migrants in Europe. Jackson is currently Distinguished Professor of World Religions at Harvard Divinity School.
   • greywarshark 8.1

     27 May 2017 at 1:40 pm

     Link also for Prof Jackson –
     http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/201845402/prof-michael-jackson-the-wherewithal-of-life
9. saveNZ 9

   27 May 2017 at 11:16 am

   Accused of underpaying women, Google says it’s too expensive to get wage data

   https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/26/google-gender-discrimination-case-salary-records
   • greywarshark 9.1

     27 May 2017 at 1:33 pm

     Data that is easily stored and retrievable is supposed to be one of the great pluses of the modern technological era that we live in, bringing knowledge and facts so that we can solve complex problems! And all that hyperbole.
10. Morrissey 10

    27 May 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Cowards of Our Time
    No. 1: RICHARD HORTON

    http://normanfinkelstein.com/2017/05/25/in-the-annals-of-sacks-of-shit-it-cannot-be-doubted-that-richard-horton-will-forever-occupy-a-place-of-honor/
11. MJH 11

    27 May 2017 at 12:41 pm

    Follow the link below for a interesting and, I think, largely on target, analysis of the US political situation by Paul Street. He considers the reasons behind the failure of the Democratic party and liberals (I know “liberal” is a label in dispute, but read the article to see what the author means by it) — their failure to get why so many working class Americans voted Trump and their consequent failure to re-think their own approach.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/26/its-not-gonna-be-okay-the-nauseating-nothingness-of-neoliberal-capitalist-and-professional-class-politics/
12. The Chairman 12

    27 May 2017 at 1:01 pm

    Does the Northland doctor who became enraged and invaded the stage at the Kaitaia screening of Vaxxed earnestly believe people will take his criticism seriously considering he hasn’t even viewed the film?

    IMO, he exposed his bias, thus weaken his credibility, bringing into question those who supported his outburst.

    He would have had far more credibility if he had actually viewed the film and directly addressed its assertions.
    • greywarshark 12.1

      27 May 2017 at 2:27 pm

      Poor Dr Lance O’Sullivan can’t lance a boil from school sores.

      He is sore because he devotes his life trying to bring better health to poor people who have not the health education to understand how important it is to try and protect yourself against the might of the mites that are viruses etc.

      And then the causality thing, the percentages thing is used to galvanise the populace against taking protective measures. One thing goes wrong, is done wrong and suddenly no thing must be done despite the foreseeable results of damaging sickness and community infection spread, which the so-called carers will then present to the doctor for hopeful healing.

      We live with causality all the time, can’t people understand it. We don’t always wash our hands even, we allow our children and ourselves to suffer from tooth decay spreading germs throughout the body. The atmosphere is full of spores of fungus, dead skin has been said to swirl around us with bacteria riding on it like surfboarders.

      There are problems lining up for us whether viruses or car ‘accidents’ from deliberate acts or actually real accidents, such as children being run over by cars in driveways, by enraged, maddened or drugged people, by those affected by traumatic breakdown of heart attacks. We don’t ban cars, we have to go to the lav, we can’t continue using germicide hand washes at home because the growth in their use affects the processes dealing with sewage to stop it putrefying etc., the inability to control meningitis, tuberculosis that is untreatable is looming, and we have wails mostly from women, that they can’t take the risk of vaccination.
      It would be the stuff of fiction one would think, but no. (And I haven’t mentioned those who have taken bible readings to mean that they shouldn’t allow their children to have blood transfusions and instead watch them die rather than enable them so they can have a full life as an independent human.)

      Dr Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865) died through trying to help woman to have safer childbirth. He should be a woman’s hero known by all.

      Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands.

      Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist’s research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success.

      In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 of pyaemia, after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

      Also Oliver Wendell Holmes, Senior was forthright and was attacked by the medical profession because of his efforts to help prevent disease and death in the general public.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Sr.

      In 1843, Holmes published “The Contagiousness of puerperal fever” in the short-lived publication New England Quarterly Journal of Medicine and Surgery. The essay argued—contrary to popular belief at the time, which predated germ theory of disease—that the cause of puerperal fever, a deadly infection contracted by women during or shortly after childbirth, stems from patient to patient contact via their physicians.[61] Holmes gathered a large collection of evidence for this theory, including stories of doctors who had become ill and died after performing autopsies on patients who had likewise been infected.[62] In concluding his case, he insisted that a physician in whose practice even one case of puerperal fever had occurred, had a moral obligation to purify his instruments, burn the clothing he had worn while assisting in the fatal delivery, and cease obstetric practice for a period of at least six months.[63]

      A few years later, Ignaz Semmelweis would reach similar conclusions in Vienna, where his introduction of prophylaxis (handwashing in chlorine solution before assisting at delivery) would considerably lower the puerperal mortality rate.

      Though it largely escaped notice when first published, Holmes eventually came under attack by two distinguished professors of obstetrics—Hugh L. Hodge and Charles D. Meigs—who adamantly denied his theory of contagion.[64] In 1855, Holmes chose to republish the essay in the form of a pamphlet under the new title Puerperal Fever as a Private Pestilence.

      In a new introduction, in which Holmes directly addressed his opponents, he wrote: “I had rather rescue one mother from being poisoned by her attendant, than claim to have saved forty out of fifty patients to whom I had carried the disease.”[65] He added, “I beg to be heard in behalf of the women whose lives are at stake, until some stronger voice shall plead for them.”[66] The then controversial work is now considered a landmark in germ theory of disease.[28]

      People who propose a blanket refusal to vaccinate are totally irresponsible.
      There have been cases where the vaccination has been unsatisfactory, has had toxic elements, and when if the person receiving it is not in good health with good immune response, they can contract the disease, this perhaps when there has been a live though weakened sample given. So there is a necessity to ensure that the procedures be followed carefully. Saying no to all will get the response from caring medicos that they despair as they try and save suffering children who are presented by these mothers from utopia who won’t take responsibility for guarding their children against serious disease.
      • The Chairman 12.1.1

        27 May 2017 at 2:55 pm

        Organisers of the New Zealand screenings, WavesNZ, say: “If Dr. O’Sullivan had watched it he would know it’s not anti-vaccine, rather pro safe-vaccine.

        http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/health/2017/05/new-zealander-of-the-year-dr-lance-o-sullivan-storms-stage-at-anti-vaccine-film-screening.html?ref=ves-nextauto

        Here’s an interview with the film’s producer
        https://youtu.be/tvcdh7KlgPI?t=1m38s
        • McFlock 12.1.1.1

          27 May 2017 at 8:11 pm

          “pro safe vaccine”.

          piss off. That suggests that vaccines aren’t about the safest medical treatment there is – can you name a safer one? Vaccines make panadol or aspirin look like arsenic, and their benefits save millions – provided as many people as possible use them.
    • weka 12.2

      27 May 2017 at 2:44 pm

      I also thought he lessened his credibility by arguing from his emotion and his authority and his ideology. Calling the people who organised the film to come here ‘vile’ said heaps. Interesting to see so many people support O’Sullivan from such emotive places instead of using logical arguments. The dishonesty about ideology is a problem.

      I think the people who brought the film here did a massive disservice to the people who want to retain the choice to not vaccinate. Afaik there is no connection between MMR and autism. But there are other good reasons for some people to choose not using that vaccine. The anti-vaxxers are further polarising the whole thing by using false science and that’s going to lose in the end.

      The pro-vaxxers are also polarising the situation, which shows them to be just as irrational. I want to bang their heads together (both groups).
      • The Chairman 12.2.1

        27 May 2017 at 3:27 pm

        Indeed, he let his emotion get the better of him.

        And yes, it was interesting to see so many people support O’Sullivan from such emotive places instead of using logical arguments. Unfortunately, it tends to be an emotive topic.

        Have you seen the film?
        • weka 12.2.1.1

          27 May 2017 at 3:41 pm

          no. I’m mildly curious so that I can critique it and have a better argument against the MMR causes autism thing, but I suspect I won’t bother, too many other more interesting things to look at 🙂
          • The Chairman 12.2.1.1.1

            27 May 2017 at 5:53 pm

            The Doctor’s outburst has inspired me to view it.
        • David Mac 12.2.1.2

          27 May 2017 at 3:55 pm

          Dr Lance is there at the bottom of the cliff doing the best he can to clean up the mess left by those that did not vaccinate. Far North poor Maori represent a hot-spot. Dr Lance, New Zealander of the year, could do whatever medical job he wishes. He chooses to bring his skills to impoverished Far North Maori.

          Day in, day out he is helping parents and treating children that didn’t need to have lifetimes of carrying the ailments that vaccination would of stopped dead. I suspect he has met a couple of people that have had unfortunate side-effects as a result of vaccination. He points to his 100’s of patient files.

          He doesn’t need to see the movie. If it’s bringing any message to the Far North that isn’t ‘Give your baby the jab.’ Up here, it’s dangerous propaganda, it is his enemy, mine too. Most of us with the ability to make an educated choice can watch the movie anytime we wish online.

          Thanks for standing up Doc, you rock.
          • The Chairman 12.2.1.2.1

            27 May 2017 at 4:15 pm

            “He doesn’t need to see the movie.”

            He does if he wants people to take his criticism of it seriously.

            Thus one can’t claim it’s dangerous propaganda when one doesn’t actually know what the film has asserted.
            • ianmac 12.2.1.2.1.1

              27 May 2017 at 4:28 pm

              If you know that the basis of the movie is that very discredited debarred ex doctor who started the whole anti vaccination process based on thoroughly discredited data, you would have to be a fool to accept the basic premise. Some would argue that climate change is a myth but you shouldn’t say so unless you have looked at the films produced by the Deniers.
              Go Dr O’Sullivan. A good man.
              • weka …

                27 May 2017 at 5:01 pm

                ” very discredited debarred ex doctor who started the whole anti vaccination process based on thoroughly discredited data”

                That’s the MMR vaccine debate. It’s not the vaccine debate in general, which predates that issue by many years.
              • The Chairman …

                27 May 2017 at 5:45 pm

                “If you know that the basis of the movie is that very discredited debarred ex doctor who started the whole anti vaccination process based on thoroughly discredited data, you would have to be a fool to accept the basic premise.”

                From my understanding that is not the basis of the film.
                • weka …

                  27 May 2017 at 6:21 pm

                  Yeah, it is,

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaxxed
            • weka 12.2.1.2.1.2

              27 May 2017 at 5:00 pm

              “Thus one can’t claim it’s dangerous propaganda when one doesn’t actually know what the film has asserted.”

              In this case, one can. The MMR vaccine/autism connection is based on really bad science. There comes a time when one doesn’t need to see that rehashed in order to have an opinion about it.

              I haven’t seen Cowspiracy. But I know enough about the issues and I’ve read enough reviews of the film to know that it’s vegan propaganda.
              • The Chairman …

                27 May 2017 at 5:41 pm

                “In this case, one can.”

                But as we have both yet to see the film how can we be sure that this is what the film is totally based upon?
                • weka …

                  27 May 2017 at 6:18 pm

                  I’d be surprised if the medical people were outright lying about that, but it could be true.
                  • weka …

                    27 May 2017 at 6:20 pm

                    The film is directed by Andrew Wakefield, the guy who did the bad science on the MMR vaccine. And it’s clearly about that,

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaxxed
                    • The Chairman …

                      27 May 2017 at 6:37 pm

                      This says otherwise.

                      https://youtu.be/_KrpK0rbl9w?t=12m45s
                    • weka …

                      27 May 2017 at 7:23 pm

                      Wakefield *did direct the film and it *is about the MMR/autism link. That video says it’s not about Wakefield, which is fine. I was talking about the whole issue. The film isn’t for instance about vaccines in general.

                      The big problem there is that even if there are issues with the CDC and new research, the fact that it’s Wakefield that has made the film means that there is zero chance of scientifically literate people taking it seriously. Seriously bad own goal, and it fucks me off because now it’s almost impossible to talk about real issues that exist with vaccines.
                    • One Two []

                      28 May 2017 at 9:49 am

                      http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/88323

                      ‘Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court – Now What?’
                    • The Chairman …

                      27 May 2017 at 8:17 pm

                      “Seriously bad own goal.”

                      Indeed.
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      28 May 2017 at 10:08 am

                      Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court – Now What?

                      Now what? Corrupt ghouls will sell more books and movie screenings to dupes, and more children will die of preventable diseases. That’s what.
            • Sacha 12.2.1.2.1.3

              27 May 2017 at 6:57 pm

              “one can’t claim it’s dangerous propaganda when one doesn’t actually know what the film has asserted.”

              Ridiculous. Enough people and organisations who I trust have responded by now. I only need to be able to read.

              The guy was struck off for breaching ethical standards, not for being a lovable misunderstood radical.

              His position harms the public’s understanding about autistic people. I won’t tolerate that, and I do not need to sit through his little movie to come to that position any more than I need to read Atlas Shrugged to detest libertarians or Mein Kampf to grasp that Adolf wasn’t a nice chap.
              • The Chairman …

                27 May 2017 at 7:08 pm

                “The guy was struck off…”

                What guy?
                • Sacha …

                  27 May 2017 at 7:11 pm

                  The film’s director, Andrew Wakefield.
                  • The Chairman …

                    27 May 2017 at 7:15 pm

                    But apparently he’s not the topic of the film.
                    https://youtu.be/_KrpK0rbl9w?t=12m45s
                    • Sacha …

                      27 May 2017 at 7:18 pm

                      Please read any of the many legit articles describing what the film is about – it’s Wakefield trying to defend his position that vaccines cause autism (which they do not). You’re wasting our time here. Surely you have something better to be defending?
                  • Ethica …

                    27 May 2017 at 7:41 pm

                    Andrew Wakefield is also a good mate of Trump’s. This is not surprising as they are both unethical and dangerous people .
                  • The Chairman …

                    27 May 2017 at 8:11 pm

                    My understanding is it’s about a CDC whistle-blower exposing a cover-up within the CDC, highlighting the conflict of interest the CDC has in their core role of promoting vaccines while also overseeing there safety.

                    I’ll judge it myself when I get round to viewing it.

                    I wasn’t defending it. I was highlighting the NZ Doctor’s outburst and how he failed to address the film directly, which IMO hurt his credibility on the matter.
                    • weka …

                      27 May 2017 at 8:17 pm

                      Yes, but it’s not any vaccine. It’s the MMR one, and the supposed coverup is about a link with autism. That’s the problem.
                    • McFlock …

                      27 May 2017 at 8:19 pm

                      That’s not a conflict of interest.
                    • weka …

                      27 May 2017 at 8:27 pm

                      It might be. Look at the Fat Hypothesis issue. It is possible for health authorities to get things very wrong, and that’s not always innocent mistakes but can be pinned on the culture and how the various processes work (or don’t work). I’m not arguing that the film is right, just the principle that there are no conflicts of interest in how public health gets developed.

                      For instance, I’d like to see a better reporting system for vaccine reactions (think we’ve had this conversation before), and IMO the reason we haven’t had that historically is because of the pro-vaccine bias didn’t want to look at the problems that closely (and probably some patronising stance about parents not knowing what they’re talking about).
                    • McFlock …

                      27 May 2017 at 8:45 pm

                      There’s a difference between coming to a wrong conclusion and failing to declare and accommodate for a conflict of interest. One is being human, the other is Wakefield-level corruption.
    • McFlock 12.3

      27 May 2017 at 8:16 pm

      Anyone who doesn’t have a “bias” about dead babies is fucked in the head.
      • The Chairman 12.3.1

        27 May 2017 at 8:23 pm

        I was referring to his bias against the film.
        • McFlock 12.3.1.1

          27 May 2017 at 8:33 pm

          As he put it, that film will contribute to more dead children.
          • The Chairman 12.3.1.1.1

            27 May 2017 at 8:37 pm

            Yet, he wouldn’t really know as he hasn’t viewed it. But the comment did expose his bias.

            For all he knows the film may lead to better oversight, hence safer vaccines, thus improve their uptake.
            • McFlock 12.3.1.1.1.1

              27 May 2017 at 8:43 pm

              Even if he hadn’t so much as checked wikipedia or a review of it, even just the title and the director is leading enough.

              Seriously, you don’t need to lick a turd to come to a conclusion about its taste.
            • Sacha 12.3.1.1.1.2

              27 May 2017 at 8:47 pm

              “he wouldn’t really know as he hasn’t viewed it”

              You do not need to endure a publication to know where you stand on it. That’s what reviews and so on are for.
              • The Chairman …

                28 May 2017 at 12:23 pm

                A review is largely based on the opinion of the reviewer and can potentially be presented in an unbalanced manner. Therefore, it’s no substitute to the full publication. Especially when one publicly challenges the publication and wants to be taken seriously.
          • One Two 12.3.1.1.2

            28 May 2017 at 9:55 am

            Which is why his credibility, is at zero!

            Those who comment on the film without having seen it, are a symptom of wider societal issues!
            • One Anonymous Bloke 12.3.1.1.2.1

              28 May 2017 at 10:12 am

              Can someone with zero credibility, credibly assess the credibility of others?

              No, you can’t. Oh dear, how sad. Never mind.
              • weka …

                28 May 2017 at 10:24 am

                That one is getting borderline OAB. It’s been great having so many people commenting on the weekends again, can you please try and not make things unpleasant.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  28 May 2017 at 10:31 am

                  One Two’s pointless personal attack on Dr. O’Sullivan already made things unpleasant long before I arrived.

                  I made a movie that denies climate change. You have to watch it or you’re a symptom of wider societal issues. Pretty sure that’s a ‘pwned’ argument, eh.

                  Raise the double standard.
                  • One Two …

                    28 May 2017 at 10:49 am

                    The pointless personal attack was seemingly from O’Sullivan against the makers of the documentary, those who are showing it, and those who are watching it…

                    My comment was that if an MD make such irrational, emotive and one sided comments, that his credibility is zero..was not a personal attack…

                    Making comments (general statement) or taking a position on the documentary, when not having seen it..ridiculous…

                    Surely you understand that..

                    Perhaps not…why not?

                    Is it deliberate?
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      28 May 2017 at 10:52 am

                      His attacks on them have a point: that more children will die or be harmed as a result of their actions.

                      His credibility is bolstered by his being able to point to the facts of the matter, which support his position. That, and the fact of his personal and professional commitments, and the oath he took.

                      Which of us is the one having comprehension problems?
                    • greywarshark …

                      28 May 2017 at 12:01 pm

                      Cripes you critics!!
                      While you criticise someone for caring too much about something and shouting about a film that encourages doubt and denial which isn’t justified by science, though it appears to be scientific, it cuts into the credibility of a rare person trying to do well in a bad world.

                      Why such keenness to criticise good people in this post? Are there millions of people out there rising up to do the hard yakker of helping others and society and trying to set up systems that give vulnerable people better chances in life? Answer, no, numbers are far less than the uncaring, and struggling.

                      It’s so bloody middle class to be dissecting someone because they didn’t follow best practice or the regs in exactly the right way. They may have committed some offence against propriety or the law and they must be villified and exposed and cleansed before they are allowed to continue with their efforts to do good, a shamed figure with clay feet. The upper class, where the most money is, are less likely than the middle class to take any interest, so it tends to be the middle class that supplies the socially conscious and able to do the good works, but also the cutting critics and nitpickers.

                      Give it a rest – it’s like counting the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Better still get your own head so far down working to improve conditions in this rotten world that you don’t have time for this ridiculous and unseemly patter as you watch the passing parade from your superior positions.
                    • One Two []

                      28 May 2017 at 2:00 pm

                      Greywarshark, I respect and enjoy the thought you put into your comments here, but specifically around this, I am not in agreement with you (which is ok)

                      If O’Sillivan wished to make sincere and genuine difference, he would be encouraging open debate, not seeking to close it down pathways which are a necessary component, leading to wider more inclusive discussions..

                      It sounds like O’Sullivan was seeking to subvert the right of adults to take onboard information, which despite what yourself or others think, is critical to widening the thinking and awareness around vaccinations, and the gaping holes in the ‘science’

                      Such actions, in my opinion are not the actions/methods of a medical professional (or any rational human being) who seeks to deliver the most caring health service and advice possible. He made a big error of judgment, and in the process has exposed his true level and intent…not good enough, not not at all and he deserves all the criticism he gets (I’ve not criticized him, I’ve called out his actions and question them)

                      There is an abundance of medical and scientific literature, backed by wide sections of professionals across many specific fields, who are challenging the dogma of the ‘vaccine industry’, yet the pretence is that ‘evidence’ does not exist..

                      That is a lie of the most cynical nature, which fewer and fewer are believing..no you don’t need to be a ‘scientist’ or ‘doctor to identify the gaping holes in the ‘protocols’ or the curruption…most ‘doctors’ do not understand even fundamentals…

                      The challenge to orthodoxy includes detailing the degradation through revolving doors, conflict of interest ladened farce that are the FDA, Congress, and the worlds largest franchise of the ‘vaccine industry’, The CDC. All who hold patents, with profit generating vaccines in use, or in the pipeline

                      Researches and scientists are speaking out faster and in higher numbers which the establishment can’t keep the lid on, and people are now hearing the alarms, and taking control of their own well being and that of their family

                      In rapidly increasing numbers the awareness is spreading far and wide, that the toxins peddled by the chemical companies, have little of nothing to do with science or health. Nutrition and sanitation are the understood and clear leaders in overall general health improvements, the importance of clean food, water and air is clearly understood, and spreading rapidly

                      The poisons will not be going back in the needles, the current thinking is over, no matter how hysterical the largest lobby group on earth, with their advertising money dependent media outlets, paid for university departments, researches and controlled publishers yell, insult, abuse or call for the deaths of those who ‘speak out and speak up’…it’s over

                      The ‘irony’ is that ‘real science’ will be the end of the ‘vaccine industry’, as it is currently modeled…

                      The issues are much wider than the controlled narritive of vaccine/ASD…O’Sullivan needs to either talk about it honestly, or get out of the profession

                      5-10 years and that industry is over and done with
                    • greywarshark …

                      28 May 2017 at 3:28 pm

                      One Two
                      Thank you for your considered reply at 2 pm. Unfortunately I think you have become paranoid and I am sure that you have some good evidence of things that have gone wrong with vaccinations and people affected badly or even have died. But when it comes to mass treatment, which we need to build up barriers to the ‘germs’, there is a hopefully very small likelihood of someone’s system reacting even when everything is done well.
                      And when there are revelations that authorities and companies have been allowing second and third grade treatment it angers greatly.
                    • One Two []

                      28 May 2017 at 6:28 pm

                      Greywarshark…

                      This subject is clearly one which there is a gap between our levels of understanding. I don’t say that categorically, it is the sense I get. I would say the same to many others on this site..

                      It’s dismissive to use the word ‘paranoid’, not to mention disrespectful to the millions of families around the world whom have had direct and indirect experience with adverse reactions including death. If you had spent some time on this subject, you would likely be more considered in the word selection…many of them completely trusted the ‘industry’…

                      So vast are the numbers impacted, that the true paranoia exists, within the industry, which through its paranoia has managed to subvert co-opt and essentially monopolize law makers, regulatory bodies and indeed ‘vaccine science’..

                      If you had spent some time on this subject you would understand the deep conflicts inside the industry..these are mainstream understandings supported by studys from ivy league schools into the corruptive practices inside the industry which has subverted and co-opted regulatory bodies, turning them into corporate extensions..

                      This includes putting the legal liability onto an unsuspecting public, through ‘vaccine court’ under which the industry has no liability since 1986, and all costs are paid for by the taxpayers, and cases defended by the public servants..again funded by taxpayers…

                      Another mainstream aspect is the under-reporting of adverse reactions. Again this is a subject widely documented and easily ‘researched’ that at best it reporting is 1/10.

                      This alone makes the entire model in support of ‘safe & effective’ almost entirely useless, at best..it is 90% unknown what/who/where/why, at a minimum…

                      Still another mainstream issue, is the ‘industry’ lobby groups, which have ‘given’ more ‘donations’ to legislators between 1998-2012 than any other lobbying industry..by a wide margin

                      I don’t feel it’s nesessary to list the ‘settlements’ the industry has made over the decades of being outed peddling voodoo , which many believe in as ‘science’..

                      It’s nothing of the sort, and now even more millions, probably tens of millions around the world are growing in awareness about the industry practices, and what ‘health’ actually is for organic biological beings…

                      They can’t all be paranoid, and they can’t all be ‘wrong’

                      All the best, and please keep writing, because I’ll keep reading your comments
                  • One Two …

                    28 May 2017 at 11:01 am

                    Not only are you having comprehension difficulty, but logic, reasoning as well….

                    Then there the logical fallicies you make…alongside snide personal remarks, simultaneously deflecting and smearing, and offering justification of the ‘attacks’…so it is supporting vilification and bullying, as well..

                    What a model ‘professional’…must be in the oath to ‘attack, vilify and bully’

                    Your comment history is ‘laudible’…O’Sullivan is just as defunct, given his performance!
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      28 May 2017 at 11:38 am

                      No actual substantive argument then? Just a series of empty ad hominem assertions? I mustn’t hurt your feelings, so I’ll just refer you to the substance of my position, which you can find here.

                      [there’s no rule against hurting people’s feelings. There is a rule about getting away with rudeness so long as you make a political point. i.e. don’t do personal abuse alone (and don’t use politics to attack people personally). Can you please both stop the personal shit and argue the points. That applies to you too One Two. – weka]
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      28 May 2017 at 2:20 pm

                      Researches [sic] and scientists are speaking out faster and in higher numbers which the establishment can’t keep the lid on…

                      Ranty tanty aside, they certainly are.

                      And with good reason too.
                    • One Two []

                      28 May 2017 at 3:13 pm

                      Measles…

                      Nope, that does not qualify as “good reason”…

                      Except to those with an agenda!

                      As for the ‘polio’ hysteria..

                      Again…Nope, and the more it’s all pushed, the greater numbers who join and examine the discussion

                      The pushers/pushing is appreciated!
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      28 May 2017 at 2:44 pm

                      O’Sullivan was seeking to subvert the right of adults to take onboard information

                      Two lies in that sentence.

                      1. Dr. O’Sullivan did not try to prevent people watching the calculated fraud. He advised them that doing so would result in children dying, because that’s the truth.

                      2. Calculated fraud is not “information”.

                      Mr. Andrew Wakefield tells lies for money. Helping him makes you an accessory to fraud.

                      Stay classy.
                    • One Two []

                      28 May 2017 at 3:04 pm

                      On-site for the event, were you?

                      The desperstion you exhibit in your comments on this site, going back many years is remarkable in its consistency

                      That you keep focusing on Wakefield serves only to illustrate just how limited in value your contributions on the subject, actually are..

                      Argue all you like, throw insults and projection as if the ranting tantrum thrower is anyone other than yourself…

                      The industry is bunk, it’s a fraudulent mesh of corporate corruption..peddled on the back of voodoo ‘science’ and neurotoxins injected directly into the blood stream of baby’s and pregnant women and youngsters..

                      Believe what you want.it’s over, regardless of what you or I have to say!
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      28 May 2017 at 3:14 pm

                      Funny how Wakefield’s movie invites mention of Wakefield. Almost as though they’re connected in some way 🙄

                      Have you contacted the police with your story about neurotoxins? Why not try a private prosecution? At least then when you get costs awarded against you, you’ll be able to say you’ve actually risked something personal, as opposed to merely endangering others.

                      Or is it more a case of, you’re convinced they’re poisoning children and you’re too gutless to act?
                    • One Two []

                      28 May 2017 at 3:27 pm

                      Clearly you don’t have basic comprehension let alone critical thinking capabilities

                      There is a blockage somewhere, and that’s for you to work through

                      With all the bluster there is not a coherent ‘point of reference’ for which to have a meaningful discussion

                      But that’s your modus operandi, which has been outed by multiple others on this site, going back many years and until present time

                      I’ll leave you to it!
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      28 May 2017 at 5:37 pm

                      I’ve provided you with several coherent points of reference, from the foundations of Dr. O’Sullivan’s credibility, to the overwhelming messages from the medical community.

                      In response, you have advanced the idea that they are all corrupt or symptomatic of an undefined societal malaise, made vague and sinister allegations about neurotoxins, and declared victory, like George W Bush minus the aircraft carrier.

                      All smothered in snide bluster sauce.

                      What you’ve failed to do is advance a single substantive point of argument. And yes, I dine out on your rhetorical corpse. Boo hoo.
      • The Chairman 12.3.2

        27 May 2017 at 8:30 pm

        “That’s not a conflict of interest.”

        Clearly it is, but why don’t you believe so?
        • McFlock 12.3.2.1

          27 May 2017 at 8:40 pm

          “clearly it is”.

          No, it’s not. Promotion of public health is the task. Assessing the safety of different interventions and promoting those that are safe and highly beneficial are not contradictory functions relating to that task, therefore no conflict exists.

          If “big dead cat” paid the cdc to distribute massive quantities of dead cats and also paid the cdc to assess safety of dead cats, that would be a conflict. But that’s not the case.
          • The Chairman 12.3.2.1.1

            28 May 2017 at 2:07 pm

            The CDC see vaccines as one of our best defenses in promoting public health, therefore they promote their uptake. Thus, being critical of their safety risks discouraging their uptake, hence the potential conflict.
            • McFlock 12.3.2.1.1.1

              28 May 2017 at 2:32 pm

              No, it’s not a conflict. Because if there were any safety risks of note, promoting vaccination would be inconsistent with promoting health.

              That’s why people run a checklist for contraindications before vaccination (as with any drug intervention). The hazards of contraindicators mean that a particular vaccine (or anything) is not promoted in that case.
              • The Chairman …

                28 May 2017 at 3:40 pm

                It would also be inconsistent with the promotion of one of their main defenses in promoting good health.

                And while they do concede to some health concerns, thus don’t recommend certain people be vaccinated, or vaccination be delayed in certain cases, doesn’t mean there isn’t a potential conflict being weighed in their decision process.

                One agency charged with overseeing both is likely to have unfortunate consequences.

                If one test was manipulated, what’s to say there hasn’t been others?
                • McFlock …

                  28 May 2017 at 3:45 pm

                  I would suggest that the actual practise of discouraging vaccination in the case of evident contraindications means that your concern is more paranoid than rational.
13. greywarshark 13

    27 May 2017 at 1:37 pm

    Is this a good idea? It reminds me of book The Day of the Triffids where they were grown and developed for the valuable oil they produced and became a deadly pest when liberated by disaster.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thiswayup/audio/201845275/bugs-for-breakfast
    • weka 13.1

      27 May 2017 at 2:34 pm

      Campbell and Nigel Latter are about to do this whole NZ in 2037 interactive telly thing. One of the questions is whether you would give up eating beef and eat ‘bugs’ instead for the sake of the environment.

      It’s a nonsense question. I’ll eat local beef in small amounts ahead of imported, highly processed cricket flour. For environmental reasons.

      I’d eat the ones from the dude in Dunedin though! Eat local, the less processed the better, so many ecological benefits.

      ‘Bugs’ bugs me. In NZ we have insects. Bugs are what you get when you have the flu or a cold.
14. Tui 14

    27 May 2017 at 1:40 pm

    obviously you’ve never been a victim of stare rape!

    ~ tui

    http://themorningwood.co.uk/index.php/2017/03/19/feminists-call-for-action-against-man-who-committed-stare-rape/

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]
    

    [going by the fact that last time you raised this you ended up banned for flaming, posting offensively and refusing to back up claims. You also appeared incapable of adhering to the site’s Policy and ignored moderation. So you’re getting exactly one warning on this. If you do the same behaviour again, I will ban you until the end of the year. If you are unsure what that means, ask, but I suggest first you read the Policy esp the bit about wasting moderator time. – weka]
    • Draco T Bastard 14.1

      27 May 2017 at 5:07 pm

      So, I should have reported all the women who’ve looked at me over the last 30+ years?

      And, yes, women do look and they put quite a lot of emphasis simple physical attractiveness.
15. Andre 15

    27 May 2017 at 3:13 pm

    Drip drip drip drip. More Trump campaign/Russia stuff keep trickling out. And getting closer to Trump himself.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kushner-russia-contact_us_5928d740e4b0df57cbfbd7db?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
16. Tamati Tautuhi 16

    27 May 2017 at 3:35 pm

    Any word on the Waterview Tunnel which was meant to have opened in April, heard it was full of water and the pumps are not working as the Chinese electrics had failed?

    Ant truth to the rumour the NZ Press, Auckland Council, and commentators are deftly quiet over what is happening, another White Elephant perhaps?
    • Sacha 16.1

      27 May 2017 at 7:03 pm

      Didn’t Mr Joyce say something to media yesterday about it being a couple of weeks away? Can’t remember where I read it. NZTA have said it was the pumps and fans not being set up right to handle a vehicle fire rather than normal operations.

      There have been other rumours but can’t have been enough evidence uncovered to be publishable news. No incentive for the tunnel contractors or funders to talk or leak about it at this stage.
      • David Mac 16.1.1

        27 May 2017 at 7:49 pm

        I think they’re like a sports team playing the clock. I know little about traffic science but I’m guessing the opening of the tunnel will provide a temporary noticeable difference to Auckland’s congestion. National campaign gold, commuters hopping out of their cars and saying to a reporter: “Wow, I got to work in 20 minutes, I haven’t done that this millennium.” I reckon count back about four-five weeks from the election date for the tunnel opening.
        • Sacha 16.1.1.1

          27 May 2017 at 8:01 pm

          Heh. Given what the uncontrollable public have said since Welli’s new Kapiti expressway opened, I’m not sure Joyce would count on positive stories. Installing ramp lights and scrambling to add extra lanes at the last minute are hardly a vote of confidence.
17. Draco T Bastard 17

    27 May 2017 at 4:55 pm

    Liberalising NZ’s drug laws ‘inevitable’: Dunne

    Change to New Zealand’s drug laws is “inevitable” – and associate health minister Peter Dunne says he’s willing to lead the debate on it.

    Dunne envisions an Aotearoa where the drug trade is no longer controlled by gangs, but by the law – with licenced drug sellers able to cultivate and distribute tested and approved class C drugs such as cannabis.

    He cautions he is not calling for the legalisation and decriminalisation of cannabis and other class C drugs, but rather a change to the way they’re classified.

    Like any conservative he’s looking at a social change that he doesn’t actually like and is so working to slow it down. This is causing further damage as the gangs and other criminal organisations keep reaping super-profits from illegality of more or less harmless drugs.
    • weka 17.1

      27 May 2017 at 5:19 pm

      Methinks Dunne has had some focus groups done in an election year where he might lose his seat 😉
      • Draco T Bastard 17.1.1

        27 May 2017 at 5:36 pm

        That and the fact that he got seriously burned when he was supportive of artificial marijuana which turned out to be even more harmful. He seems to have an inbuilt bias against marijuana based upon it’s illegal therefore it must be bad and isn’t questioning why it became illegal in the first place.

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-influence/real-reasons-marijuana-is-banned_b_9210248.html
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_New_Zealand#History

        NZ never made marijuana illegal on our own but through the accordance with its international obligations under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, New Zealand passed the Narcotics Act in 1965, which banned a number of drugs, including cannabis which was, we can assume, fully driven by the US.
    • Sacha 17.2

      27 May 2017 at 5:43 pm

      Dunne is not the one slowing things down – try the Nat caucus.
      • weka 17.2.1

        27 May 2017 at 6:17 pm

        Really? What’s been all the drama about people like Helen Kelly getting permission for medical marijuana then?

        (and yes the Nats).
        • Sacha 17.2.1.1

          27 May 2017 at 6:47 pm

          Dunne doesn’t have the numbers to change the current law, but to his credit he has been learning about the evidence base supporting change. Ask Ross Bell from the Drug Foundation, for instance.
      • Draco T Bastard 17.2.2

        27 May 2017 at 7:38 pm

        You don’t think that telling people that it would take years when it should be done in months isn’t actively slowing things down?
      • Barfly 17.2.3

        27 May 2017 at 7:58 pm

        My last brother died from cancer 6 months ago. His son asked about medicinal cannabis products for pain relief about 6 weeks prior to his death. He was advised his father would be dead before an approval would be made. Fuck you Peter Dunne.
18. greywarshark 18

    27 May 2017 at 7:05 pm

    Things that are on the nose are being questioned.
    There is something called vaping which sounds like sniffing something.

    But below is a radio item on how much perfume is around us all the time, and now constitutes a hazard to more than the super-sensitive (I remember someone collapsing on an ocean-side walk from a sniff of patchouli in the past few years.
    She blocked the narrow path which was part of a well-known walk and people had to step over her, which upset her and them.)

    science health
    30 Jan 2017
    Should fragrance be regulated?
    From Nine To Noon, 9:30 am on 30 January 2017

    An Australian writer who discovered she was one of about 35 percent of people affected by perfumes argues there should be more conversation about regulating the industry. Award-winning author Kate Grenville told Nine to Noon that research for her latest book, The Case Against Fragrance, began after she realised perfumes were giving her headaches. Looking into the problem, she found it was very widespread.

    “One in three people have some sort of health problem from fragrance, either headaches or asthma, very common asthma trigger, nausea or various other symptoms.”
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201831283/should-fragrance-be-regulated
    Listen to the interview duration 8′ :34″

    Grenville says a study from Melbourne University suggested about 35 percent of people were affected by scents, with other possible effects including hormone disruption and cancer.

    The problem was to do with the chemicals created by companies to make their perfumed products, she said.
    “Essential oils cost about 1,000 times more than the comparable sythetics.

    “Even though many of these chemicals are well known scientifically to be irritants of various kinds and possibly worse, they don’t have to be tested before they’re put on the market, the ingredients do not have to be fully declared on the label.

    “Just the one word fragrance [or parfum] can cover up to a couple of hundred chemicals. And frighteningly… the only real regulation is by the fragrance industry itself.”
    She says much of the testing was performed by the industry itself, and while the industry freely admitted that the chemicals were known to be bad for humans they also claimed to have safe measures of the chemicals.

    “I don’t know where we go with it, but I wanted to start the conversation.”
    “There’s nothing therapeutic about the fragrances, and of course it’s well known in other industries beside fragrance that if you’ve put an enormous amount of time and money into researching something unique, a unique product, you should not be deprived of the benefit of that by listing the formula.”

    (I know someone who has canisters up near the ceiling in a corner that puff out some sort of fragrance every 5 minutes. It seems most unhealthy to me. It is unnerving too, like someone lurking with a breathing problem.)

    Also here is a story of a NZr making perfume. It would be good if it isn’t based on synthetics.
    technology science
    13 Dec 2016
    Making Perfume the New Zealand Way
    From Jesse Mulligan, 1–4pm, 1:21 pm on 13 December 2016
    Listen duration 11′ :28″
    Our guest is making perfume, in a decommissioned toilet block, complete with a urinal. Perfumer, Vanessa York, has just taken up a residency at Auckland Council community arts facility Studio One: Toi Tū. And her aim is to continue developing a New Zealand perfumery.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/201827527/making-perfume-the-new-zealand-way
    also
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/201831060/perfume-playground
    • weka 18.1

      27 May 2017 at 7:43 pm

      thanks! That’s very interesting (the first one). 35% is a pretty high rate, I hadn’t seen a figure put on it before.
      • greywarshark 18.1.1

        28 May 2017 at 11:41 am

        weka
        I saw you referring to people being affected by ‘vaping’ and thought about hearing this about perfume and chemicals a while ago on radionz but had not looked closely at it. It is interesting isn’t it and I also wonder about the health of people with these puffing ‘billies’ in houses and offices putting out their chemicals all the time.

        When it comes to perfume I remember visiting Grasse in France and the Fragonard perfume factory in the early 1970s. They had been making perfume from flowers for yonks there and growers of flowers were well established with their small intensive farms in that seemingly rocky region. Then I read that they were replacing flower use with chemical synthetics and that the flower growers had lost their place in the business enterprise world there. Very sad.

        And going further into it all, it is part of the chemical business advance which got such a boost around WW2 with, amongst other malpractices, making the chemicals sprinkled on the Jews in the charnel houses of the Nazis. We might well label the last 50 years the (Noxious) Chemical Demi-century.

        Perfumes and aromatic chemicals
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragrance_extraction

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898140X15354161

        https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530113-600-would-you-wear-yeast-perfume-microbes-used-to-brew-scent/

        http://mymerrymessylife.com/2013/04/homemade-all-natural-perfume.html

        DIY
        http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Chem_p083.shtml#materials
        and
        http://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/diy-chemical-free-perfume-and-cologne-alternatives/
        and
        http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Natural-Perfume

        Noxious or killing chemicals.
        USA
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Corps
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program
        http://ss.sites.mtu.edu/mhugl/2015/10/11/the-dow-chemical-company-midland-mi/

        Germany
        http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i41/Nazi-origins-deadly-nerve-gases.html
        (Third Reich chemists invented the devastating chemical weapons, but the Nazis didn’t deploy them against the Allies during World War II but did in the death camps)

        ZyklonB (hydrogen cyanide used in the death camps)
        (NB – Hydrogen cyanide had been used as a pesticide for agricultural purposes by California orange growers since the 1880s.)
        http://www.wollheim-memorial.de/en/zyklon_b_en_2

        Also:
        Ebook NZ$175 The Chemical Century: Molecular Manipulation and Its Impact on the 20th Century
        By Richard J. Sundberg

        and

        Lethal Mists: An Introduction to the Natural and Military Sciences of …
        By Eric R. Taylor (print book)

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS