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
