“Except that there is no such continent as 'America'. There is North America - of which the USA (shorthand 'America') is a part, Central America which is a geo-political region generally understood as encompassing the states straddling the ithmus connecting the North American continent to the South American continent. In the global parlance, this part of the world is sometimes referred to as 'the Americas', but never as simply 'America'. When non-Americans refer to a group as 'Americans', they are referring exclusively to those residents of the United States of America.
TL;DR: You're wrong, but it can be corrected with an encyclopedia or an atlas.”
ZWTARocks on Nov 25, 2011 at 16:18:12
“Well well well...there may be some dispute as to what constitutes a continent and thus continental boundaries...for a long time South America was indeed considered part on an American Continent...more recent geographers have put forth a different view...as someone familiar with Plate Tectonics I tend to lean towards the earlier view...one only has to view a map of the continental plates showing the mid Atlantic ridge to see that North America and South America are on the same continental plate...thus, while there are those who agree with you there are others who take my view and I think this view is supported by the alignment of the mid Atlantic ridge and the fact North Americaand South America are a part of the same continental plate...I find it curious that none of this was revealed in your research...it is as if you only reported what would support your position...that is a Fox News viewer thing to do...Obama 2012...Anybody but a Republican 2012, 2016, 2020,...”
“They don't 'just go after Jesus'. It just so happens that if you live in the West, you also live in a predominantly Christian region. What sense would it make for American atheists to focus their efforts on countering the influence of Mithra or Uhura Mazda in their daily lives? Also, atheists don't have a 'belief in no higher being': many atheists simply lack belief. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. I don't believe there is no God; I simply lack a belief. If someone were to provide me with incontrovertible proof of a supernatural being fitting the description of the God they wish me to believe in, I would amend by beliefs accordingly. I might not worship said being, but I would believe in its existence.”
“So because there are Christians on every continent, atheists are anti-Christian? How asinine is that statement? There are representatives of every major religion on every single continent - Christians are hardly unique in that respect. Atheists tend to 'be against' most (if not all) forms of organized religion. Get down off of your cross. You're not being persecuted by atheists. I don't care what brand of religion you follow; if you believe that your particular collection of myths and moral imperatives ought to dominate everyone else's however, then I stand in opposition.”
“If Americans ever look up from their internal squabbles and wonder why more and more international observers seem to be laughing at their nation, this sort of thing is partly the reason. The 'Birther' issue is, without doubt, one of the most ridiculous, asinine, thinly-velied racist conspiracy theories I have ever heard - and I've heard ones about magical aliens who live at the center of the earth.”
“You talk about the 'scientific way' in the same post that you state your belief in 'water imprints'? Then you confuse personal anecdotes with evidence, and then claim that those anecdotes provide evidence that homeopathy can cure radiation sickness - a condition that you most likely have never had? Know how I know that you have no idea what the 'scientific way' actually is? 'Trying it yourself' isn't science; finding a neutral third party who will conduct large-scale, double-blinded studies in a controlled environment, then sending the results (and the parameters of the experiment) out to be tested and re-tested by other scientists with expertise in the field, in order to validate and replicate your initial results is the 'scientific way'.
Here's what an actual scientist has to say about this particular story. I'd encourage you to read it, but I'm sure you'll just accuse the expert of being a paid shill or something. I'll just post the link for people who are actually concerned about knowing how things actually work.
“Yeah, how are plant stem cells supposed to do anything for human cells? Do people no longer take biology in high-school? How is it that people keep falling for this garbage?”
onionboy on Mar 19, 2011 at 03:51:39
“They couldn't even pick mouse or bugs or c. elegans (very very small worms). No, they had to pick something in a completely different Kingdom! There's no higher division among living things.”
reasonnotfaith on Mar 19, 2011 at 02:58:03
“This type of j.u.n.k. is a staple of Huff Post's health section. Apparently they think people with progressive politics don't know how to think critically, which is downright scary. I always thought we progressives were the smart ones.”
“"This golden bee nectar is spectacular at stimulating wound healing. Application of honey to open wounds stimulates the release of powerful chemicals called "cytokines" that speed the migration of cells across the defect to bring quicker repair. Since honey is antibacterial it also makes the environment for healing more favorable and keeps bacteria from colonizing the area. This reduces scarring and infection rates and what is very exciting is that bacteria don't seem to develop resistance to honey so its effectiveness should last well into the future. This is very important as medical professionals in human and veterinary medicine work to find solutions that don't involve the use of antibiotics."
Absolutely! I've heard of how effective honey is in treating wounds - I always think of this amazing story about Russell Jenkins from the UK who used honey to treat his wound, rather than poison himself with antibiotics. I mean sure his leg became infected and he died, but at least it was natural!
hp blogger Dr. Richard Palmquist on Mar 20, 2011 at 22:01:42
“People do die from incorrect, misapplied or unsupervised therapies. They die when everything is done correctly, too.
Vancomycin, an antibiotic commonly used to save people's lives when they have resistant bacterial infections causes kidney problems in 7-10 percent of patients. Some die. Some die from the infection and some die from the treatment. I would never consider withholding the option from a patient with a life threatening Staph infection. If I could avoid it I would but that is a choice for patients and doctors to make together. I have no campaign to eliminate antibiotics or conventional medicine whatsoever. I do favor using choices that reduce our use of antibiotics when they are safe and useful. Human would care specialists use honey and it is being researched and developed for just these reasons.
Proper treatment of topical wounds can prevent the need for systemic antibiotics. That does not preclude proper medical management of infections with antibiotics (topical or systemic), herbs, essential oils or any other treatment that might help. Integrative medicine is about using ALL options for best results and safety. It's about giving people, their pets and their doctors more tools to consider when addressing their healthcare needs. :-)”
Ramus on Mar 20, 2011 at 20:56:30
“thanks for the link...”
eva07 on Mar 20, 2011 at 07:13:35
“The guy got gangrene and got infected, antibiotics might or might not have helped him. There is a 6-7% chance of death anyway if they are lucky and don't get sepsis. The main difference is that if somebody using alternative medicine dies it makes the news, the thousands of cases in hospitals don't.
"Patients with dry gangrene usually do well as long as they do not become infected. These patients lose some local function due to tissue loss and, if they have an ongoing disease like diabetes, may develop dry gangrene again. In general, patients recover with minimal residual problems if the tissue loss is small. Patients with wet gangrene usually have a poorer prognosis than those with dry gangrene. Statistics for the U.S. suggest that the mortality (death) rate is about 6%-7% in patients hospitalized with gangrene. The mortality (death rate) increases to about 20%-25% if the patient becomes septic. If treatment is initiated early, only about 15%-20% of patients need some form of amputation (digits, limbs). Although the death rate has remained steady, the number of cases of gangrene has been increasing in the United States in recent years, possibly due to the increasing numbers of patients with diabetes and other diseases that affect the vascular system, but the data is not complete." http://www.medicinenet.com/gangrene/page5.htm”
1. Some food is cheaper than others.
2. The cheapest food is generally the least healthy (fast food, snacks, microwave meals, etc)
So it follows that the cheapest food will usually be the food purchased by people with the least amount of money.
Why do obesity rates and poverty correlate? Possibly because poverty forces people to consume the cheapest and hence unhealthiest foods.
It's not simply a question of how much food a person consumes when determining why some are fatter than others, but also the quality of the food they are eating.
Counter-intuitively, it seems as though the poor aren't getting fat because they are buying and eating more food, but rather that they are getting fat from eating unhealthy, poor-quality food.”
lawyerfan on Mar 17, 2011 at 20:58:05
“The problem with your analysis is that fast food is not cheaper than buying food at the grocery store and cooking it at home. Fast food is not bought by people with the least amount of money but by the people with the least amount of time. That may be someone who works a second job or someone whose workaholic tendencies keep them from taking the time to eat a decent meal.”
“short answer...because it is run by the pharmaceutical companies, thus its integrity is blown...money is a powerful persuader. The truth comes from within, not from the government, (i.e. corporations/power elite).”
“Maybe you should have spent more than five minutes searching?”
Vingraham on Mar 14, 2011 at 21:15:53
“Thanks cubedweller. You are right i should have spent more time. I simply did a 5 (lol maybe 2-3,min) search on pubmed. Next time i will check the links, or not comment if i don't have sufficient time to do proper research! I wasnt pitting anything against the author though, I was simply trying to illustrate (poorly!) that there is evidence that BPA is an endocrine disruptor...”
“Your links, in order:
1. Dead link (and I'm accessing it from a major university)
2. Dead link
3. Interesting abstract which notes that BPA served as an endocrine disruptor in mice, when mice were subjected to massive exposure of BPA - amounts which, if an analogous dosage were administered to humans, would amount to thousands of times the current exposure one can expect in a normal day - levels far above any recommended exposure levels.
4. If you look closely, you'll see that all you have done is linked to the same article as the one posted above, it's just being carried by a difference database.
5. Same link as above.
6. A cohort study of 218 men in regions of China where they were exposed to high levels of BPA - far beyond what anyone in North America could expect in their day to day. This study states that it is the first to show any correlation between semen count and BPA. Note: Correlation does not imply causation, and all this study does is show that further research is needed. This is not, in any way, an exhaustive study.
In Short: Of six links you've provided, 2 were dead, three linked to the same article, and one was to a preliminary, relatively short-term cohort study of individuals in a country known for terrible safety regulations, and which provided no causal evidence supporting your assertions. And you want to pit this against the sources of the article's author?”
“"He was a Senator from 1999 to 2011, where he became one of the more prominent conservative Democrats in the chamber." That's from the article - you know, the one you're supposedly commenting about?
So in your mind, 'Conservative Democrat' = 'Moderate Dem'.
Even if he were a 'moderate' - which he isn't - the addition of such a person to the Fox News line-up doesn't erase the Fox News Right-leaning bias; it's more like a form of tokenism. 'See? See? We have a guy with a 'D' after his name! We're totally not Conservative any more!'”
“You had no idea that when you tried to 're-do' the 10 Commandments that some people in a forum about religion might get a little 'intense' about it? You seem surprised that some people are 'angry' about your changes? Again; why are you at all surprised by this? Here are my criticisms:
1. I will not kill. What does this mean? How will I eat? Can I not defend myself from harm?
2. Tell the truth. Really? What if by telling the truth, I allow others to come to harm? Should your commandment to be honest trump the right of another to live?
3. take some time to thank the spirit that helped you through life. I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean a metaphorical spirit, or an actual, supernatural entity?
At their core, your 'commandments' suffer from the very same problems as the 'original'; poor wording and an absolutist philosophy. If there truly was a God who commanded these things in the first place, why couldn't he have done so in a way that was more articulate? Why not: Thou shalt not kill another human, unless your own life or the life of a loved one is threatened? That seems to make a bit more sense, doesn't it? Unless of course you believe that you are being moral by allowing someone to harm or kill you or a loved one with impunity.”
“You tell it! Every time I meet an anti-vaxxer who is my age (around 30), I listen to their denunciations patiently. Once they run out of breath or begin to repeat themselves, I ask them if any of their grand-parents are still alive. If they respond in the affirmative, I then ask them to go and talk to their elders about what it was like before the advent of mass immunization campaigns. I ask them to ask their grandparents what it was like to lose friends to polio, measles, whooping cough, and influenza. If they are still anti-vaxxers after that, then they aren't rational; they're ideologues and no different than any other conspiracy-driven extremist out there.”
Feb 11, 2011 at 03:00:51
“No they don't. Skeptics say that reason and evidence are the best ways to go about searching for truth. Science is certainly one way of getting there, but there are others; philosophy and logic, for example. At its core, skepticism merely asks people who make extraordinary claims about the universe to prove it. If you need your car fixed, and someone tells you that they can fix it by compelling the transmission daemons to act correctly, you'd ask them to prove it, wouldn't you? If someone tells me that they can see the future, or can read 'energy', or astrally project their consciousness, I ask them to prove it. If they can provide no evidence to support their assertions, then there is no good reason for me to believe them. If I claim that I saw a dragon run down my street during the night, would you believe me, or ask me for some kind of proof; if I was unable to provide any, would you still believe me? Have I given you any reason to?
A skeptic merely asks that you show your work, so to speak. You assert that ghosts are real? Prove it. You want to believe that there is life beyond death? Prove it. Provide evidence of your claim that could not come from any other source (like a mistake, illusion, fraud, or some natural phenomena), and a skeptic would be ready to accept your claims. If you think about it, you're probably a skeptic already.”