Slaughterhouses

[Leeds Spur]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

 

[Dr Rosenrosen]

breath papa, breath

that article would certainyl be of interest - i wonder how much of it has to do with economic circumstances over the last few years?
i know that factor has certainly had an effect on my thinking - veg is cheaper and you can do more with it, whereas i know the less i spend on meat, the less "meat" i am actually buying

whats the theory behind stopping breeding for eating and reducing world hunger then?
(i will google it too - just thought i would be an interesting point to further discussion!)

Theory is that currently so much land, water and resources go towards growing crops to feed cattle, who then go to feed those people who can afford to eat meat. Could be better spent using that land, water and resources to grow crops to feed people directly.

Leaving meat out of the equation shortens and simplifies the food chain.

 

[Gifter]

Do they even use merury s an adjuvant anymore?

I looked into the MMR, (my daughter still has to have it done) and I don't have any concerns.

Andrew Wakefield was completely discredited.

No they don't (in terms of the MMR), except old stock which is still being bought (I believe) by UNICEF (and others) for it's 3rd world Vaccination programs, that might be outdated info though.

It is in the Flu jabs though. Plus alot of others still, plus the pesky name changing they have done with it.

The Case of Hannah Poling et al suggests Andrew Wakefield is not 'completely Discredited' http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1721109,00.html

This is Jenny McCarthy's site (Baywatch chick who goes out with Jim Carey, or did);
http://www.generationrescue.org/resources/vaccination/vaccine-related-court-cases/


There are also other claimants who have won damages, when they do not use the word Autism but instead their lawyers argue on the basis of brain/neural damage without using the term 'Autism' (Bailey Banks is one on that McCarthy link I believe).

I hope very much nobodies child suffers due to these things, Leeds it being your daughter she is 5x less likely to suffer ASD, if I recall correctly (whatever the cause, be it nature, nurture, drugs, environmental pollutants, or all these things).

 

[raboner]

we'll all just be eating stem-cell burgers soon.. so don't fret, we won't need to kill anymore animals for eatings anymore! yays!

 

[monkeybarry]

This is just like climate-change, except climate-change baffles me even more. Even if 1% of all articles published on climate change refute the claim, the jury is still somehow out on whether climate change is a hoax. I mostly blame the media for even entertaining this flimflam (that's how Fox News portrays it, at least... but they're fair and balanced, so you know they have to present both sides of a story even when one side is complete and utter horsetinkle). And that 1% of studies could have been funded by ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, et al.

Science is a slippery slope. Don't abuse it.

this is sarcasm right? (cant always tell on a forum)

studies by drug companies et al of course have to be taken in context and with political agenda attached, but where we are talking about top Uni's it is my understanding that impartiality is paramount and corporate sponsorship does not influence scientific study.
(i worked closely with PostDocs for a short while at a world leading research University and the above is either true and excellent propaganda)

 

[scaramanga]

Theory is that currently so much land, water and resources go towards growing crops to feed cattle, who then go to feed those people who can afford to eat meat. Could be better spent using that land, water and resources to grow crops to feed people directly.

Leaving meat out of the equation shortens and simplifies the food chain.

Sooo..... we just eat people from the 3rd world instead of animals? I don't get it. :~

 

[scaramanga]

Scara, Scara, wherefore art thou...

Thought I'd bump this in case you missed it...

Quite interested isn't it?

Sorry, haven't been in Random for a while.

Yes, it's interesting but it's also completely irrelevant.

If I hit someone over the head with a shovel, it will probably do some damage to their brain. Does that make it dangerous to dig holes with shovels?

 

[papaspur]

this is sarcasm right? (cant always tell on a forum)

studies by drug companies et al of course have to be taken in context and with political agenda attached, but where we are talking about top Uni's it is my understanding that impartiality is paramount and corporate sponsorship does not influence scientific study.
(i worked closely with PostDocs for a short while at a world leading research University and the above is either true and excellent propaganda)

Yeah, definitely sarcasm, which I tried to indicate by following it with the "utter horsetinkle" bit. The media in the US is a joke, but I generally trust the NYT, and get a lot of my news from the BBC.
Top universities are where they are for a reason. They don't produce flimflam, since publishing to top journals (such as Nature, Science) is incredibly competitive, as well as stringent. I was a research assistant at MIT, so I can tell you firsthand that if we get results that conflicted with our expectations, we of course would publish the results as we found them. When it comes to interpreting the results, there's a little room for twisting the narrative to fit your own agenda, but overall, people will call you out on BS versus taking an educated guess. These universities have massive reputations at stake and wouldn't want to have their clout diminished by publishing bogus studies.

Raboner mentioned in vitro meat and I wonder how long it will take before we can start getting our meat capsules, which obviously will come in different flavors and varieties.