User Profile: PubliusPencilman


Member Since: August 31, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [4] January 30, 2015 at 6:35pm

    No independent testing of any vaccine?
    How much polio do you see nowadays?
    I’d say that’s a successful test.

  • January 30, 2015 at 6:34pm

    The founding fathers would have no problem with acting in a civic-minded manner. They believes that individuals MUST work for the public good, or the republic itself would collapse.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] January 30, 2015 at 6:32pm

    “You know what offers a 99.9% effective rate at preventing the spread of disease? Common sense.”

    And yet, we have never managed to eradicate the common cold. If “common sense” worked so well, we shouldn’t have a problem with colds, and thousands wouldn’t die of the flu every year, right?

  • January 30, 2015 at 6:31pm

    And how many people do you know who have been paralyzed by polio recently?

  • [4] January 30, 2015 at 6:23pm

    Far from a settled science? I guess the disappearance of several diseases that were once commonplace was just a coincidence, eh?

    Responses (1) +
  • January 30, 2015 at 6:21pm

    “in reality it is the vaccinated people that get sick the most.”

    Yeah, but getting a cold is different from being paralyzed by polio…

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] January 30, 2015 at 6:18pm

    To add to what frgough said, without vaccinations viruses have the chance to spread, and this increases the chances of the virus mutating into a form not counteracted by current vaccines.

  • [1] January 30, 2015 at 6:15pm


    Herd immunity is an “effect of vaccines,” it’s an effect of statistics.

  • [2] January 30, 2015 at 3:49pm

    “There is no vaccine against typhoid. Do you not wonder why we aren’t suffering epidemics?”

    I know why: antibiotics, smart guy. Vaccinations are only used against viruses because viruses can’t be killed with antibiotics. I really can’t believe that people have the nerve to trot out what they claim to be their common sense medical advice when they don’t even know the difference between a bacteria and a virus.

  • [15] January 30, 2015 at 12:17pm

    1) I don’t think I trust a “physician” who can’t spell hubris.
    2) How would it be hubris to say that training pharmaceutical researchers contributed to wiping out a disease, but it wouldn’t to say garbage men did?
    3) Who is being forced?

    In reply to Andrew's comment on the contribution Why Are 'Anti-Vaxxers' Even a Thing?

  • [15] January 30, 2015 at 12:10pm

    Go ahead and look up the difference between a bacteria and a virus. Vaccinations ARE the only “cures” for viruses.

    Responses (3) +
  • January 28, 2015 at 6:22pm

    I never said that anyone was perfect, but you seem to be implying that we cannot trust any kind of science.But sure:

    1) Weather forecasts work on probabilities, not certainties. There are a near infinite number of factors that contribute to weather patterns; science has never claimed to provide certain forecasts. That said, forecasting has become increasingly more accurate over the last several decades. So I’d say that’s a win for science.

    2) Broken out of the box? First of all, no amount of science can prevent something from breaking. Second of all, I’d say your problem is with the manufacturer, who likely makes their own calculations about reliability vs. cost.

    3) Really? a shuttle disaster from almost 30 years ago? Given the astounding risks involved in space flight, and the incredible scientific advances needed to land, say, a lunar module on an orbiting, spinning moon, the fact that you have to point back 30 years is a boon to just how sophisticated our technology is.

    I wonder that you are even willing to use the technology to log on and post your messages on the internet. Don’t you know that a space shuttle exploded 30 years ago!

  • January 28, 2015 at 3:05pm

    Yes, they are both extremes, but blizzards, hurricanes, cyclones, etc. all vary in intensity, the path they take, the season in which they develop, etc. That’s an obvious point.

    But to be clear, I was never suggesting that we should point to individual storms; I was simply saying that there is no inconsistency there with the climate science.

  • January 28, 2015 at 3:00pm

    Please provide a source for your 59% figure. I am interested in looking in to this.

  • January 28, 2015 at 2:58pm

    I would define climate norms as quantifiable aspects of long term weather trends: i.e. rainfall levels that sustain ecosystems, predictable snowfall levels, etc.

  • January 28, 2015 at 2:56pm

    You claim science is flawed, but I wonder how many scientific principles and technologies you rely upon every single day without actually thinking about it.

  • January 28, 2015 at 2:55pm

    You see, it seems a lot more assinine [sic] to assume that humans can pump trillions upon trillions of pounds of carbon into the atmosphere, all while continuing to destroy the plants that would normally process those gases, and that this would have no effect whatsoever.

  • January 28, 2015 at 2:52pm

    No one can say with certainly, but as any scientist will tell you, weather is different from climate. Climate involves long term trends that don’t always manifest themselves consistently in the daily weather.

  • January 28, 2015 at 2:51pm

    Of course we should be skeptical–but Walsh’s skepticism is highly inconsistent, as he linked to several articles that have been discredited. Nothing is beyond skepticism, but what Walsh does is willful ignorance.

    “It’s the concept that human beings produce too much plant food, and that plant food is going to destroy the world.”

    If you can’t seem to muster the mental energy to think of an idea any more complex than that, then I would say that you should leave the science to scientists…

  • [-1] January 28, 2015 at 2:48pm

    I wouldn’t call it cherry-picking when it’s a number of experts (including the organization that delivered the original report) all refuting the one infamous article that Walsh referred to.

123 To page: Go