DDT & Lyme disease

[smstonypoint]

Quotes are from post #58 unless noted otherwise.

IF YOU say so, it must be TRUTH, huh?!
And, NOT necessarily - Lyme is where it was named Lyme. Plum Island is where biological experiments were taking place and ticks were what became 'weaponized', for what purpose I don't know, nor do I care why it came about. It just happened, for all the wrong reasons, and it escaped its boundaries; now it's rampant... You do the arithmetic.

YOU say it's more evident elsewhere, NOW, but not when it was discovered and named.
You also say the Ice Man has it/had it - Lyme. Show proof he has/had it.
Aliens from outer space probably have it now too, but I'm not saying they do or don't, just that they might.

So, based on a conversation with an individual who has apparently read the Carroll book, it is an accepted fact that "ticks were what became 'weaponized', for what purpose I don't know, nor do I care why it came about. It just happened, for all the wrong reasons, and it escaped its boundaries; now it's rampant."

Have you ever noticed that authors who write for the mass market often make sensational claims that don't stand up to scrutiny?

Have you ever heard the expression "Correlation does not imply causality"?

The fact that the disease was first identified in Lyme doesn't imply that it originated there.

Here's the link to the Ice Man study: New insights into the Tyrolean Iceman's origin and phenotype as inferred by whole-genome sequencing | Nature Communications.

I'm not sure whether you will accept the results from a peer-reviewed article, seeing as how the topic didn't come up in your conversation with the individual who you perceive as being very knowledgeable about Lyme disease.

I don't 'judge' my friends, nor do I need to justify their credibility.

If I struck up a conversation with an individual and the Alchian-Allen theorem came up, I am confident that I would be be able to assess whether he/she is blowing smoke. On the other hand, if string theory came up, I wouldn't have a clue as to his/her credibility. I certainly wouldn't accept his/her comments as being factual. Before spouting off in public about string theory, I would try to do my own research in order to assess the credibility of the individual.

Not everything one knows can be easily proven to be the case, but that doesn't make it false.

In my opinion, an ambitious trial lawyer would be beating a path to the nearest Federal Court to submit a class action lawsuit for those afflicted by Lyme disease if there was any credible evidence that the Federal Government "weaponized" ticks that later escaped from Plum Island.

Have there been any such lawsuits? If not, the conspiracy theory doesn't pass the smell test in my book.

Have Representatives and/or Senators from Connecticut requested an investigation based on the "fact" that "ticks were what became 'weaponized', for what purpose I don't know, nor do I care why it came about. It just happened, for all the wrong reasons, and it escaped its boundaries; now it's rampant."

Not real scientific from where I sit. It's a study, not fact just because researchers did research. Depending on who is the money behind studies, the outcome is often tainted or pointed in the direction the 'buyers' want to see a particular conclusion for their own agendas.

So, you have problems with the study's findings. Here a link to the full study: MLST of housekeeping genes captures geographic population structure and suggests a European origin of Borrelia burgdorferi.

Publication in a scientific journal is a "trial by fire" for the authors' ideas. Here's a golden opportunity for you. You can obtain the researchers' data, conduct your own analysis, and then submit a comment to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in which you document the flaws in the study.

This is not an article providing a proof in a math journal. Statistical inference is used, and so Type I and Type II errors are in play. Authors use terms like "suggest" and "appear" in recognition that those errors can occur.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust (a UK-based biomedical charity) and the NIH. Do you have any evidence that either organization tries to "buy" research outcomes?

Personally I'm not interested in conspiracy theories, and I don't have the time nor interest in drilling down through all the studies, evidence or un or scientific findings to come up with the Holy Grail of where Lyme came from, how it got there, etc. I have relied on those who know more than I because they have lived it, where it is most frequently believed by the largest number of people to have originated and how/why, etc.
It's good enough for me, and it's not some wild azzed throw out a question about DDT and Lyme hoping someone will bite on it, like the Op posted about at the thread opening.

So, conclusions as to the origin of Lyme disease should be based on public opinion rather than scientific evidence? How do you square that statement with your statement that "o, science is based on facts, not wishful thinking or creationism and other devoid of facts nonsense"? What other scientific questions should be addressed by public opinion?


BTW, here are some examples of public opinion according to 25 Unbelievable Things Americans Believe.


"More than half of Americans suspect that a secretive global elite is trying to create a New World Order."

"More than three quarters of Americans believe there are indisputable evidences that aliens have already visited our planet."

Steve

 

[fishheadbob]

You guys have to lighten up.
The supposition that Lyme disease is an escaped experiment from a biological weapons facility is a far fetched,very remote possibility; but maybe there really are little green bodies in a hangar in New Mexico, too. Certainly unlikely, but just possible enough. The only certainty to any of these arguments is that we will never know the absolute, unshakeable truth. There is no solid empirical evidence to back any of the more outlandish claims.
I'd love to follow this post more but Ancient Aliens is on the tube.

 

[Coyote machine]

Quotes are from post #58 unless noted otherwise.



So, based on a conversation with an individual who has apparently read the Carroll book, it is an accepted fact that "ticks were what became 'weaponized', for what purpose I don't know, nor do I care why it came about. It just happened, for all the wrong reasons, and it escaped its boundaries; now it's rampant."

Wow, so you are Karnac the magnificent, eh?! You KNOW that my friend read a certain book from as far away as S. Carolina? Are pigs flying through the pasture gates yet down there?

Have you ever noticed that authors who write for the mass market often make sensational claims that don't stand up to scrutiny?

I'm tossing out a wild azzed guess here; you must know this, right?

Have you ever heard the expression "Correlation does not imply causality"?

Since I've had prior 'conversations/debates with you, which you may or may not recall since you first addressed me as the 'poster' in you opening statement about my original post in this thread, I'd have to guess you threw out the above 'gem' as part of your rebuttal at some point...

The fact that the disease was first identified in Lyme doesn't imply that it originated there.

Doesn't necessarily imply that it did not originate there either. And I am and have been referring to Plum Island as the location where tick experimentation got loose and spread what is commonly referred to as Lyme disease in the general nomenclature.

Here's the link to the Ice Man study: New insights into the Tyrolean Iceman's origin and phenotype as inferred by whole-genome sequencing | Nature Communications.

I'm not sure whether you will accept the results from a peer-reviewed article, seeing as how the topic didn't come up in your conversation with the individual who you perceive as being very knowledgeable about Lyme disease.

So you were there for my conversation? You know the content and what we discussed? Why not tell me more about what went on. What did I have for lunch? Who else was present?



If I struck up a conversation with an individual and the Alchian-Allen theorem came up, I am confident that I would be be able to assess whether he/she is blowing smoke. On the other hand, if string theory came up, I wouldn't have a clue as to his/her credibility. I certainly wouldn't accept his/her comments as being factual. Before spouting off in public about string theory, I would try to do my own research in order to assess the credibility of the individual.

You sure seem hung up about who might be or might not be 'blowing smoke', as you put it. I suspect you run into people blowing smoke at you quite often having been in academia, no? I am not and did not 'spout off in public'; your terminology, and once again, I'm NOT you, and don't have to follow your methods, for instance, 'doing more research' prior to discussing what someone I know and trust told me during a conversation about Lyme disease, resulting from me asking a question about someone who is currently suffering from it's ravages of his body. The person I spoke with at length, told me what they know about it's origins and so on. They did not discuss books read, though some people involved in what went on and where, were mentioned. I don't recall being familiar with the names of those mentioned. So sue me, if you don't like my recollection of the event, and the complete details of the conversation. If I'd known there would have been an upcoming quiz I would have studied harder.



In my opinion, an ambitious trial lawyer would be beating a path to the nearest Federal Court to submit a class action lawsuit for those afflicted by Lyme disease if there was any credible evidence that the Federal Government "weaponized" ticks that later escaped from Plum Island.

Who knows, possibly what was the experiment went wrong and that is why they were released from the island in the first place. Any number of possibilities exist and I don't have the answers as to how things went down. It was discussed in my original conversation that turning ticks into a weapon might be a not so well thought out idea in the first place, and maybe they couldn't make ticks a weapon in the end. So infected ticks, that never became weaponized, were released and all they were carrying was Lyme, which originated in space and was dropped on Ice Man as a cruel Alien joke on us poor humans?! Then later identified and named Lyme, etc.
Maybe some hotshot lawyer can make his bones chasing after the Plum Island 'smoking gun'; I used that term since I know you like things that blow smoke...

Have there been any such lawsuits? If not, the conspiracy theory doesn't pass the smell test in my book.

So now because as far as you know no trial lawyer has beaten a path to court to sue about Plum Island your sense of smell is off put?

Have Representatives and/or Senators from Connecticut requested an investigation based on the "fact" that "ticks were what became 'weaponized', for what purpose I don't know, nor do I care why it came about. It just happened, for all the wrong reasons, and it escaped its boundaries; now it's rampant."

Don't know - CT is not my home State, and I don't follow everything that does or doesn't happen in their State legislature. I do know in their infinite wisdom they are going to reinstitute highway tolls to increase revenue, since so many are leaving CT and other N. England States in droves, partly due to high taxes.




So, you have problems with the study's findings. Here a link to the full study: MLST of housekeeping genes captures geographic population structure and suggests a European origin of Borrelia burgdorferi.

Publication in a scientific journal is a "trial by fire" for the authors' ideas. Here's a golden opportunity for you. You can obtain the researchers' data, conduct your own analysis, and then submit a comment to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in which you document the flaws in the study.

This is not an article providing a proof in a math journal. Statistical inference is used, and so Type I and Type II errors are in play. Authors use terms like "suggest" and "appear" in recognition that those errors can occur.

You forget we've already exchanged credentials, so I'll remind you - my background in both undergraduate and graduate education was in the scientific arena, so scientific journals and how publications are written and so forth is nothing new to me. My point was and is that errors allow for those doing journal work for peer review and similar publications allows for not just errors, but also for being completely WRONG. Not always, but not outside the realm of possibility either. 'Trial by fire' means sometimes people will get burned.

Two very important things learned in graduate work, and known previous to it, were to look at where the money comes from whenever looking at any study, etc. And look at what was known to be 'truth' at any point in time and then go out ten or twenty years into the future and see if what was previously considered to be 'Gospel' is still so. You know question authority; subvert the dominant paradigm, etc.

For instance, look at the dieting 'industry'. What it said years ago is now completely discounted. And yet look at the American public as a bullet proof example as to how well dieting and other methods of staying healthy have worked in the US. NOT at all - rampant obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Study after study, in medical journals and elsewhere are mostly all full of *****. They tell us how to do what is needed to lose weight, then they turn to another method, count calories, eat lean foods, fat free foods, then Fatkins diet, etc. All in it for the money, and for their own self-promotion/agendas.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust (a UK-based biomedical charity) and the NIH. Do you have any evidence that either organization tries to "buy" research outcomes?

The very nature of paid for research implies potential for biased outcomes. I'm not saying the study in question is biased, just that the possibility exists and ought to be taken into account when reading any study/research, paper, etc. To do otherwise would allow one to have smoke blown at them on a fairly regular basis. Example: Nine out of ten dentists recommend 'Pest' to their patients who want to get rid of bugs in their teeth... or similar paid for outcomes from those who want to push a certain result or finding by a bunch of so called experts in about every field of endeavor known to man.

Speaking of smoke; remember the tobacco guys who swore up and down that their findings were completely devoid of any connection to Cancer(s)?! Nobody thought big tobacco could be brought down, nobody. I did believe they were in for a big surprise, and no one would listen, and all told me I was full of it. Boy were they ALL wrong on that one. To me it was too painfully obvious that the stuff was going to hit the fan. I'm NOT saying that makes me smarter than everyone else; maybe just tuned in, and definately smarter than a third grader!:laughing:



So, conclusions as to the origin of Lyme disease should be based on public opinion rather than scientific evidence? How do you square that statement with your statement that "o, science is based on facts, not wishful thinking or creationism and other devoid of facts nonsense"? What other scientific questions should be addressed by public opinion?

No. I don't mistake my opinion for fact. Nor do I believe public opinion is the answer to tough questions for which there are no easy answers. There are different beliefs as to where Lyme originated. No question. For some that means a way to make a living off the 'controversy' of what the exact origin is/was. I don't have the absolute answers, but I do know this: the gibberish that started this thread about the OP 'thinking' his 'reading' of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring is 'junk science' is so ridiculous it amazes me. There is someone who believes their opinion IS fact. And clearly someone who has no clue to what has gone on regarding things like DDT or Lyme on any level. Thinking that continued use of DDT would have killed all the ticks or ridded us of Lyme is preposterous.


BTW, here are some examples of public opinion according to 25 Unbelievable Things Americans Believe.


"More than half of Americans suspect that a secretive global elite is trying to create a New World Order."

Yeah, mostly Republicans...

"More than three quarters of Americans believe there are indisputable evidences that aliens have already visited our planet."

Area 51 baby!:laughing:

View attachment 518535

Steve

Phew, it's now past my bedtime. Thanks to those who read these posts, they're meant to be useful to some...

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, in all the excitement, did I fire six shots or seven? No, that's not the right reference. Oh I remember now- hey Steve, did you learned yourself how to draw those big circles all by youzself of did you axe for help with those?!:dance1:

 

[smstonypoint]

Quotes are from Post #64 unless specified otherwise.

You sure seem hung up about who might be or might not be 'blowing smoke', as you put it. I suspect you run into people blowing smoke at you quite often having been in academia, no? I am not and did not 'spout off in public'; your terminology, and once again, I'm NOT you, and don't have to follow your methods, for instance, 'doing more research' prior to discussing what someone I know and trust told me during a conversation about Lyme disease, resulting from me asking a question about someone who is currently suffering from it's ravages of his body. The person I spoke with at length, told me what they know about it's origins and so on. They did not discuss books read, though some people involved in what went on and where, were mentioned. I don't recall being familiar with the names of those mentioned. So sue me, if you don't like my recollection of the event, and the complete details of the conversation. If I'd known there would have been an upcoming quiz I would have studied harder.

Claiming that Lyme disease is due to "weaponized" ticks from Plum Island based on hearsay (and in the absence of any credible evidence) is "spouting off" in my book.

I have a proposal. For our mutual edification, you and I should prepare a list of questions that you could submit to your knowledgeable friend if his health permits. You could take notes of his responses if you don't trust your memory.

Here are my questions. (I may think of others later on.)

1. What evidence does he have of ticks being "weaponized" at Plum Island?

2. How were the ticks "weaponized"? By genetic engineering of the bacteria responsible for Lyme disease? By isolation and "selective reproduction" of "potent" strains of the bacteria responsible for Lyme disease? Some other method?

3. How does he square the "weaponized" tick theory with the evidence from New insights into the Tyrolean Iceman's origin and phenotype as inferred by whole-genome sequencing | Nature Communications and MLST of housekeeping genes captures geographic population structure and suggests a European origin of Borrelia burgdorferi that indicates the bacteria have been around for millennia?


Speaking of squaring evidence, you wrote in Post # 58 in reference to the second study listed above that:

Not real scientific from where I sit. It's a study, not fact just because researchers did research. Depending on who is the money behind studies, the outcome is often tainted or pointed in the direction the 'buyers' want to see a particular conclusion for their own agendas.

In Post #49 you wrote:

It's junk if it doesn't fit you personal agenda and belief system.

Do you think your appraisal of the study was colored by the fact that it doesn't square with the "weaponized" tick theory?

I don't have the absolute answers, but I do know this: the gibberish that started this thread about the OP 'thinking' his 'reading' of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring is 'junk science' is so ridiculous it amazes me. There is someone who believes their opinion IS fact. And clearly someone who has no clue to what has gone on regarding things like DDT or Lyme on any level. Thinking that continued use of DDT would have killed all the ticks or ridded us of Lyme is preposterous.

And thinking that Lyme disease originated from ticks that were "weaponized" at Plum Island is no less preposterous.

hey Steve, did you learned yourself how to draw those big circles all by youzself of did you axe for help with those?

I channeled Mark Perry, Master of the Venn Diagram.

Steve

 

[TomSeller]

Claiming that Lyme disease is due to "weaponized" ticks from Plum Island based on hearsay (and in the absence of any credible evidence) is "spouting off" in my book.

I think you are naive in regards to war time tactics.

 

[Coyote machine]

Quotes are from Post #64 unless specified otherwise.




Claiming that Lyme disease is due to "weaponized" ticks from Plum Island based on hearsay (and in the absence of any credible evidence) is "spouting off" in my book.

I have a proposal. For our mutual edification, you and I should prepare a list of questions that you could submit to your knowledgeable friend if his health permits. You could take notes of his responses if you don't trust your memory.

My friend is not the person whom I referred to who is suffering from 'chronic' recurrence of Lyme disease. It is on his behalf, and my interest in his well being that led me to inquire further about Lyme. This led to the person who told me what I relayed here about plum Island when I asked a general question about Plum Island and any connection to Lyme(disease).
Anyway IF I happen to be back in the area and come across my friend to inquire further I'll be sure to take notes, will freehand work for you, or should I document with redundant methods, tape recorder/video, other witnesses to the conversation?
I forget, what was it I was supposed to remember?!

Here are my questions. (I may think of others later on.)

Well by all means, one stop shopping, come back soon. Is it because you can't remember what you wanted to ask?

1. What evidence does he have of ticks being "weaponized" at Plum Island?

2. How were the ticks "weaponized"? By genetic engineering of the bacteria responsible for Lyme disease? By isolation and "selective reproduction" of "potent" strains of the bacteria responsible for Lyme disease? Some other method?

3. How does he square the "weaponized" tick theory with the evidence from New insights into the Tyrolean Iceman's origin and phenotype as inferred by whole-genome sequencing | Nature Communications and MLST of housekeeping genes captures geographic population structure and suggests a European origin of Borrelia burgdorferi that indicates the bacteria have been around for millennia?


Speaking of squaring evidence, you wrote in Post # 58 in reference to the second study listed above that:

What did I write? I don't see anything you referred to?



In Post #49 you wrote:

Again, what are you saying I wrote? Are you using invisible ink?!:confused2:



Do you think your appraisal of the study was colored by the fact that it doesn't square with the "weaponized" tick theory?

I didn't appraise or read the study you cited, but I did note what you had cited, and queried about the things I commented on at that time. Therefore whether the study squared with weaponized ticks did not come into play since I did not consider anything except what I queried about when I wrote my response...



And thinking that Lyme disease originated from ticks that were "weaponized" at Plum Island is no less preposterous.

You're saying so doesn't make it a fact, just your opinion, sorry to say.



I channeled Mark Perry, Master of the Venn Diagram.

Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you are naive in regards to war time tactics.

Clearly.

I suggest asking him, (Steve) if he ever worked in a military laboratory, or government facility connected to wartime use of weapons/ biological agents and the like?!

Things like sugar, cigarettes, and fluoride use in drinking water are essentially 'weapons' against the best interests of all Americans, and others Worldwide, but they are so ubiquitous in our lives little notice is taken until things are completely out of control. Profits baby, it's ALL about profits at any cost to the public- you know us guinea pigs ripe for the picking by Corporate America, Madison Avenue slicksters and the like, who praise profit over all else. It's their God, and we all are subject to it and of it.

We have major companies like Samsung and Apple admitting that they, and the NSA are taping and listening in on EVERYTHING Americans do. Even when the TV or phone is turned OFF. Laptop cameras, TV's that can listen to 'ambient noise', even when turned OFF? It's been admitted to buy the big manufacturers, as being the norm now.

Our cars track, as do our phones everywhere we go, how long we're there and can pick up a tick on our back from way up in space. Ever tried Google Earth? That's just what they let us see. Do you think they can't get closer than the writing on the bedroom wall when/if they want to crank up the resolution and 'telephoto' lens on the satellite cameras? And weaponizing a tick for some purpose unknown to the general public is too much to believe? That's where we need to draw the line on unlikely and scream preposterous?! HA! I think NOT!

 

[RosieErickson]

My friend has also been diagnosed with the lyme disease once. Many parts of his body got red rashes and that was really pathetic to watch. Thanks to the doc who treated him in right time. From that moment, I started to hate ticks.

 

[smstonypoint]

Quotes are from Post #67 unless specified otherwise.

"Well by all means, one stop shopping, come back soon. Is it because you can't remember what you wanted to ask?"

I do have additional questions.

Looking at the history of Lyme disease as reported in Lyme disease - Wikipedia, I don't see any reference to Plum Island as the source of Lyme disease. Why doesn't your friend correct the record so that his "evidence" can become public knowledge?

Better yet, why doesn't he publish his research in a scientific journal so that it can be subjected to "trial by fire"?

Never mind, I know the answer to that question. By the way, The Journal of Irreproducible Results doesn't count.

What did I write? I don't see anything you referred to?

Do you not understand how TBN' handles quotes?

Here's a screenshot of the relevant discussion.

Here's a screenshot from Post #58. See the last paragraph.

Again, what are you saying I wrote? Are you using invisible ink?!

Here's a screenshot from Post #49. See the second sentence of the second paragraph.

I suggest asking him, (Steve) if he ever worked in a military laboratory, or government facility connected to wartime use of weapons/ biological agents and the like?!

Have you?

I have been deposed as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit involving sarin: Contractor settles chemical exposure lawsuit | Deseret News. My reports and testimony were on statistical issues, but I did learn a few things along the way.

And weaponizing a tick for some purpose unknown to the general public is too much to believe? That's where we need to draw the line on unlikely and scream preposterous?! HA! I think NOT!

You wrote the following in Post #58.

Personally I'm not interested in conspiracy theories, and I don't have the time nor interest in drilling down through all the studies, evidence or un or scientific findings to come up with the Holy Grail of where Lyme came from, how it got there, etc. I have relied on those who know more than I because they have lived it , where it is most frequently believed by the largest number of people to have originated and how/why, etc.

Here's a screenshot from Post #58 in case you still haven't figured out how TBN handles quotes. See the second paragraph.

By your own admission, you haven't even bothered to do a cursory examination of the scientific evidence on the origin of Lyme disease. If you want to ignore the available scientific evidence and rely on hearsay and "public opinion" regarding a "weaponized tick" conspiracy as the the source of Lyme disease, you are free to do so.

By the way, has there been a poll to determine the public's opinion on the origin of Lyme disease? How many people were interviewed? How were the participants selected? How were the questions phrased? What was the margin of error?

"Reasoning will never make a man correct an opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired." (Attributed to Jonathan Swift)

Steve

 

[smstonypoint]

Coyote machine:

This is for your edification as to how TBN handles quotes. Apparently you had neither the "time nor the interest" to figure this out for yourself. Jeez.

Here's a screenshot of Post #67.

Here's what I see when I select "Reply with Quote" for that message.

By including your responses within the quote, you have forced me to copy and paste when I reply. Turnabout is fair play.


Steve

 

[smstonypoint]

I think you are naive in regards to war time tactics.

I don't think so, especially when it comes to "weaponized" ticks. My understanding of wartime tactics is that you want to kill or immediately incapacitate the enemy -- not to "create a disease" that is nonfatal and that can be cured if caught soon enough.

Does your understanding of wartime tactics indicate that "weaponized" ticks" would be an effective weapon in our arsenal?

Let's consider two scenarios.

Scenario I from MLST of housekeeping genes captures geographic population structure and suggests a European origin of Borrelia burgdorferi

"...... the study suggests that B. burgdorferi originated in Europe but that this species has been prevalent in North America for a long time. It is likely that the surfacing of clinical cases of Lyme borreliosis in North America three decades ago represents the reemergence of this tick-borne pathogen out of refuges in which it has been persisting throughout the post-Columbian settlements and the industrial revolution."

Scenario II

Scientists on Plum Island "weaponize" ticks and create a nonfatal disease that can be cured if caught soon enough.

They have access to a time travel device that allows them to use their "weaponized" ticks on the Ice Man some 5,300 years ago. (New insights into the Tyrolean Iceman's origin and phenotype as inferred by whole-genome sequencing | Nature Communications)

The "weaponized" ticks are released or escape from Plum Island in the late 1960s-early 1970s and show up in Lyme, Connecticut.

Steve

 

[Coyote machine]

Quotes are from Post #67 unless specified otherwise.



I do have additional questions.

Looking at the history of Lyme disease as reported in Lyme disease - Wikipedia, I don't see any reference to Plum Island as the source of Lyme disease. Why doesn't your friend correct the record so that his "evidence" can become public knowledge?

I'm coming back to this group of questions posed by Steve to address his questions, in colored text, at this time in the Julian calendar: 8/17/17 10:39 PM EST, so it's clear to all who get easily confused as to who is speaking - CM
I'm doing this because it is easier to go line by line and address questions posed as they were presented in the original text(s). Additionally, blue text is me, CM speaking in rebuttal to Steve. Red text is text I have colored red to 'highlight' what I am then going to reply to specifically from Steve's original text(s).

Correct, you may not see any reference to Plum Island as the source of Lyme disease. I can't speak for my friend and I cannot say why he hasn't corrected the 'evidence' so as to make what he told me public knowledge. I suspect he has his reasons. Maybe some of his reasoning has to do with skepticism like yours, Steve, that he just doesn't want to deal with, but again, I can't speak for him, I can only offer my best guess as to his motivations.

Better yet, why doesn't he publish his research in a scientific journal so that it can be subjected to "trial by fire"?

Maybe you should ask him this and a million other questions you have for him, instead of throwing them at me. Oh, that's right, you CAN"T ask him since you don't have access to him to pester, like you are me.
I thought we were going to do some give and take experiment or similar- but it seems you want to continue with your berating me as the messenger; are you having fun yet doing it, because it's sure not motivating me to query him about more details regarding what he told me, and that seems counterproductive to your supposed motive(s).

Never mind, I know the answer to that question. By the way, The Journal of Irreproducible Results doesn't count.

Like Ha! Seems you like to think you know the answer to everything- NOT. You're the one familiar with the 'journal' you cite above; how much of your work does it contain?! Ha! Jest/jab.

Once again not getting you any closer to what you want from me, assuming for a moment what you say is what you actually want and not something else. Next few posts here will determine for me if you actually want to learn more or just like battling with me over something I posed early on in this thread, for which, one last time - I am merely the messenger of, NOT the party who claims Plum Island to be the source of Lyme disease.



Do you not understand how TBN' handles quotes?

Answered below earlier today when I wrote this original post, and then signed off to go do something else.

<Snip>

And now back to Steve's quote where I had suggested Tom Seller ask Steve if he's worked in a government lab, and so on...

Have you? (Worked in a government lab...)

I have been deposed as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit involving sarin: Contractor settles chemical exposure lawsuit | Deseret News. My reports and testimony were on statistical issues, but I did learn a few things along the way.


Good to know you still have the capacity to learn things; I thought maybe you'd already used up your gigantuan brain's full hard drive capacity! Ha! Joke/jest...


<Snip>


By your own admission, you haven't even bothered to do a cursory examination of the scientific evidence on the origin of Lyme disease. If you want to ignore the available scientific evidence and rely on hearsay and "public opinion" regarding a "weaponized tick" conspiracy as the the source of Lyme disease, you are free to do so.

It's not that I haven't even bothered to do what you say I haven't done; it's just not that high a priority in my life at this time- my entire original interest in the subject was seeking further clarification about Plum Island and Lyme disease infected ticks, and if there was any 'truth' to the rumors, etc. in the interest of a friend's spouse. It just so happened that I was in company with someone who had the information I was seeking when I posed a general question about Plum Island/Lyme...
Again, I'm not ignoring anything; I have numerous more pressing things going on in my life than becoming the World's foremost authority on Lyme and it's origins. It's called prioritizing...
Oh, and thanks for allowing me to chose free will as what drives what I do with my life/time...
I'm NOT ignoring 'available scientific evidence' or relying on public opinion or hearsay, exclusively - I am merely relaying information about a conversation I had with a person who, from my POV, is knowledgeable about Lyme and Plum Island. Hopefully, for the final time I'll say, if you don't like what I'm presenting, then don't read it, or chose to ignore it, or a number of other choices present themselves...you figure out what you want to do about what I stated.

By the way, has there been a poll to determine the public's opinion on the origin of Lyme disease? How many people were interviewed? How were the participants selected? How were the questions phrased? What was the margin of error?

I think you probably know the answer to the above questions- Is this more of the trial lawyer never asks a question to which he does not already know the answer?! Someone should have called to notify me I was going to be on trial...:confused3:


"Reasoning will never make a man correct an opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired." (Attributed to Jonathan Swift)

Steve

My Reply to the above comment:

“I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members.” ...Groucho Marx

CM. Out for now...

<snip>

 

[aczlan]

I suggest you lighten the F up dude on the I don't know how TBN handles quotes rant.

First off, you need to lighten up on the quotes (and the language), seconds BOTH of you are quopting improperly, but Steve is closer to quoting properly.

In most instances in which you've quoted some of my text you cut and paste it into a bubble instead of chosing, 'reply with quote' from the tabs available below any post. So when I try to reply to your unattributed to the author, me, 'quote' what you wrote doesn't show up in the text I quote. Oh Well, I made a joke about you using invisible ink. So sue me; doesn't mean I don't understand how quotes work, or how you manipulate them for your own purposes. That's the way YOU chose to do it, most likely because you don't like giving me the credit for what I wrote, who knows why, probably an ego thing...

FYI, your way of replying WITHIN someone else's quote in a different color text is really confusing.

If you take the time to check, you will find that I have started my responses to your posts with a comment that "Quotes are from Post #xx unless specified otherwise" or something similar. Here's an example.
View attachment 518909
Trust me on this, I want to make sure that you receive full credit for your comments.
You are missing the point of my "rant." When you make comments within a quote, your comments do not show up when I select "Reply with Quote." As a consequence, I have to copy and paste your comments. Have you read Post #70? Again, I would't want anyone else to be credited with those comments.

There is a better way to quote, it starts like Steve quoted, but if you look at the top of the quoted text after you click on "reply with quote" it has something like the following: [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516], that says "this is quoting Steve from post 4846516 (4846516 being the unique post number). You can paste that " [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516]" at the beginning of each quoted section and if you quote like that (I often break up a quote into multiple sections as I have in this one), every quoted section has a link back to the original post (with this icon:

)if someone wants to make sure you didn't misquote them.

It would avoid confusion if you would add a smiley face after the jests that you make in "good faith and to lighten up the diatribe."

Yes, including emoticons to indicate when one is speaking in jest is recommended to make sure you are not misunderstood.

Aaron Z

 

[TomSeller]

I don't think so, especially when it comes to "weaponized" ticks. My understanding of wartime tactics is that you want to kill or immediately incapacitate the enemy -- not to "create a disease" that is nonfatal and that can be cured if caught soon enough.

You appear to be implying Lyme disease was treatable in wartime and able to be identified outside of military operations so I can't take your posts seriously. Ask the American indian if disease had an impact to their population. Horrible, horrible number of deaths.

 

[Coyote machine]

First off, you need to lighten up on the quotes (and the language), seconds BOTH of you are quopting improperly, but Steve is closer to quoting properly.

OK, I believe you're a mod here on TBN, and I'll take your comments, what I can understand of them, what with the misspellings and such, as they are likely meant to be construed...
I'm doing my usual SOP by writing my text in reply to the poster, in this case you, in the body of the text you wrote, because for me, especially in this instance I have to deal not just with what you quoted that I said, but also what what's his name, oh yeah, Steve, said, and was quoted by you too.

I get it that smiley faces or similar make clearer what one is trying to convey to the reader(s). However, I'm not always trying to be clear as much as trying to be UNclear and to create confusion in some people's minds - essentially playing double entendres and other word play to create innuendo and similar effects. Basically to throw some off guard, or to create havoc or confusion, because it can be fun, and it cuts down on the boredom of long posts/ long threads, etc.
And fun is allowed here on TBN, last I checked, no?!



FYI, your way of replying WITHIN someone else's quote in a different color text is really confusing.

I suppose it might be for some- but since your and Steve's recent comments I've tried to make things clearer while maintaining my preferred method of quoting, even if it doesn't fall specifically into the 100% correct way of quoting text at TBN. Not meaning to be obstinate- it's just how I do it and it's also become habitual, like most things familiar.



There is a better way to quote, it starts like Steve quoted, but if you look at the top of the quoted text after you click on "reply with quote" it has something like the following: [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516], that says "this is quoting Steve from post 4846516 (4846516 being the unique post number). You can paste that " [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516]" at the beginning of each quoted section and if you quote like that (I often break up a quote into multiple sections as I have in this one), every quoted section has a link back to the original post (with this icon:

)if someone wants to make sure you didn't misquote them.

Now to me that's confusing! I get that it gives the backcheck arrow to verify accuracy, but how does one get the: 'that says "this is quoting Steve from post 48465xxx' part sequence started? I get that each quote comes from a particular post reference # but what is one doing to get the 'look' you refer to with the back arrow being included?:confused3::confused2:



Yes, including emoticons to indicate when one is speaking in jest is recommended to make sure you are not misunderstood.

I guess I feel sometimes I want ambiguity and don't always like having to make crystl clear what my meaning might be...

Aaron Z

:laughing: See above imbedded blue text for complete clarity.

Thanks,

CM

 

[smstonypoint]

Steve,
Wouldn't it be easier to just select 'reply with quote?' than what you do, which I've seen you use numerous times in this and other threads?
It's not like I don't READ the posts you write; I may chose to not select every link you throw in, but the text body I read in each case; just in case you were wondering/curious.
Now for ease of my replying to all your questions posed to me I'm going to blue text my replies to them in a quote of your above post, below....




[/FONT][/COLOR]It would avoid confusion if you would add a smiley face after the jests that you make in "good faith and to lighten up the diatribe."

Steve

Only if you tell me I must!:dance1:

CM out for now....[/QUOTE]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ *

I am using the "Reply with Quote" option to post $76.


Yes, it would be easier but you insist on making your comments within a quote. Because you choose to make your comments within a quote, I have to go back to post #76 and copy and paste your comments. In those other cases I was responding to comments that were not embedded within a quote.


How hard can it be to understand? Jeez.

Common courtesy suggests making comments outside a quote.

Steve


* Because there is a mismatched QUOTE in post 76, I have added the dashed line to demarcate my response.

 

[smstonypoint]

You appear to be implying Lyme disease was treatable in wartime and able to be identified outside of military operations so I can't take your posts seriously. Ask the American indian if disease had an impact to their population. Horrible, horrible number of deaths.

OK.

Let me rephrase my reply to your comment that I was being naive regarding wartime tactics.

My understanding of wartime tactics is that the objective is to deploy weapons that kill or immediately incapacitate the enemy. How does deploying "weaponizied" ticks that are supposed to "create a disease" that is nonfatal but debilitating over time (if not treated properly) fit into your understanding of wartime tactics?

I tried to do some research on the effects of untreated Lyme disease and found this at Chronic Lyme Disease | LymeDisease.org.

"If Lyme disease is not diagnosed and treated early, the spirochetes can spread and may go into hiding in different parts of the body. Weeks, months or even years later, patients may develop problems with the brain and nervous system, muscles and joints, heart and circulation, digestion, reproductive system, and skin. Symptoms may disappear even without treatment and different symptoms may appear at different times.

Untreated or undertreated Lyme can cause some people to develop severe symptoms that are hard to resolve. This condition may be referred to as post-treatment Lyme disease (PTLD) or chronic Lyme disease (CLD). We don't know exactly how many people who are diagnosed and treated remain ill. CDC estimates range from 10-20%. A recent study of early Lyme disease treated at EM rash reported 36% remain ill."

I am not trying to minimize the effects of Lyme disease, but if I was in a war, I would want to deploy weapons that kill or immediately incapacitate enemy troops rather than wait weeks, months, or years for the ill effects of Lyme disease created by "weaponized" ticks to take their toll on the enemy.



Steve

 

[smstonypoint]

First off, you need to lighten up on the quotes (and the language), seconds BOTH of you are quopting improperly, but Steve is closer to quoting properly.



FYI, your way of replying WITHIN someone else's quote in a different color text is really confusing.



There is a better way to quote, it starts like Steve quoted, but if you look at the top of the quoted text after you click on "reply with quote" it has something like the following: [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516], that says "this is quoting Steve from post 4846516 (4846516 being the unique post number). You can paste that " [QUOTE=smstonypoint;4846516]" at the beginning of each quoted section and if you quote like that (I often break up a quote into multiple sections as I have in this one), every quoted section has a link back to the original post (with this icon:

)if someone wants to make sure you didn't misquote them.



Yes, including emoticons to indicate when one is speaking in jest is recommended to make sure you are not misunderstood.

Aaron Z

Aaron,

In good faith, I am going to adopt your suggestion. Apparently Coyote machine is going to continue his practice. See Posts 76 and 77. If he persists, I may start using screen shots to make it less difficult to respond.

Steve