Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

StatsPlease

Subscribe to StatsPlease's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Friday, July 26, 2019

The US credit reporting agency Equifax settled earlier this week with the Federal Trade Commission over the massive 2017 data breach that exposed hundreds of millions of Americans' Social Security numbers and other sensitive data. read more


Comments

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly Note that it doesn't mater what party they belong to or what ideology they espouse? The rich will always serve themselves first. Do you think that Bill Gates is ever going to face an anti-trust suit for example? He is as guilty as sin running a monopoly, but he is above such trivial law.

#24 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-08-10 07:05 PM | Reply

Setting aside the facts that Bill Gates isn't running anything but a charity anymore and that merely being a monopoly isn't illegal, are you talking about an anti-trust suit like this one: United States v. Microsoft Corp.

Did you expect him to be held personally liable? Unfortunately, that's not the way it works in America - corporate officers are almost entirely shielded from the consequences of their decisions by the corporation even when those decisions were made in callous disregard for the very real, physical harm they could cause. We've taken "limited liability" to a whole new level here. If you don't like that, you should be advocating for a change to the laws.

Who cares? Do you have an alternate energy source ready for market?

Do you have oil-free tech to replace cars, trucks, busses, trains, ships, military, heating, manufacturing, plastics, etc, etc.

Are third world nations already on board, or are the Gore-DiCaprio crowd organizing another yacht and private jet junket?

#63 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-03 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are oil-free alternatives to most, if not, all of those things, including plastics. The military has long been working on replacing its dependence on drilled oil by working on biofuel technologies. Heat pumps are fantastic for both heating and cooling for most of country. There are electric versions of cars, trucks, busses, and trains that are in use now. Given more research emphasis, they would be even further along than they are. Even the shipping industry is trying to find a way to move away from diesel. Why are you such a staunch fighter against progress?

If people had listened to the scientists and actually put policy in place decades ago, the costs would have been amortized over a longer period, and the damage would have been significantly mitigated.

I hear a lot of "it will destroy the economy" statements, but no evidence to back it up. I also remember when mandatory airbags were going to destroy the auto industry, the clean water act was going to destroy the economy, banning smoking was going to destroy bars, and a myriad of other "sky is falling" nonsense from the so-called "conservatives". None of those things had the dire effects that were asserted. In fact, in most cases, they ended up being beneficial to the economy and even the industries they were supposedly going to destroy. Why should I believe the same people making the same unsupported assertions about combating climate change?

Once science is politicized, it's no longer science.

#55 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-03 09:17 AM | Reply

And who politicized that science? I'll give you a hint, it isn't the scientists who are "largely dependent on government funding". Maybe it's the same people who politicized the science on leaded gasoline?

This study found that 56% of the drop in violent crime in the US between 1992-2002 could be directly attributed to the banning of leaded gasoline. There are many other negative effects of TEL in gas as well, many of which people like you like to attribute to vaccines. From this wikipedia article:
"Chronic exposure to TEL can cause long-term negative effects such as memory loss, delayed reflexes, neurological problems, insomnia, tremors, psychosis, loss of attention, and an overall decrease in IQ and cognitive function.[63]

The carcinogenity of tetraethyllead is up for debate; however, it is believed to harm the male reproductive system and cause birth defects.[64] "

The EPA also notes: "Even low levels of lead in the blood of children can result in: Behavior and learning problems; Lower IQ and Hyperactivity; Slowed growth; Hearing Problems; Anemia"

It can also cause cardiovascular disease and hypertension as well as birth defects.

You are so fond of finding the monetary motivation to attack science, but you ignore the industry that has a history of ignoring the long-term health effects of its products to increase its profits. Why is that?

On top of that, AfricanAmericans are > 50% of the offenders of homicides when they account for 13-14% of the population.

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-07-25 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even if this is true, which I still can't find a reliable source for, it would be a terrible abuse of statistics.

1. The race of the offender would have to be based on convictions, and we already know black persons are more likely to be arrested, and when arrested, convicted for crimes (see this article for a few sources). This will significantly skew that statistic away from whatever the true number is.

2. As noted in the report I linked earlier: "law enforcement could not identify an offender in 36% of murders." No identified offender means no offender race could possibly be determined.

3. The missing data on offender race was not balanced across victim races: "For example, the demographic characteristics of the homicide offender were more likely to be missing in the SHR data when the homicide victims were male (36%) compared to female (16%), black (40%) compared to white (23%), older juveniles ages 12 to 17 (34%) compared to younger juveniles age 11 or younger (9%), and adults ages 18 to 34 (37%) compared to adults age 35 or older (24%).

All of this adds up to a simple statement: Anyone making a definitive statement on the race of homicide offenders is having to make assumptions or guesses. They can't be "facts" without the appropriate caveats - like the ones I noted above.

On top of that, AfricanAmericans are > 50% of the offenders of homicides when they account for 13-14% of the population.

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-07-25 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where are you getting your data from? I'm unable to find any reliable source that has data that supports your statement.

I did find these statistics from this study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which shows a plurality, 43.8%, of violent crime is committed by whites:
(some caution - the race of the offender was based on victim perception)

Total violent victimizations
5,833,800
100% Race/Hispanic origin of offender
43.8% White
22.7% Black
14.4% Hispanic
2.2% Other
6.0% Single offenders of two or more races
2.8% Multiple offenders of various races
8.0% Unknown race or number of offenders

stevengoddard.wordpress.com

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-07-21 01:40 PM | Reply

I would take anything you find on that blog with a gigantic grain of salt. "Stephen Goddard", actually named Tony Heller, has been found to have manipulated his own data and graphs to support his position multiple times in the past. His "data analysis" techniques are downright fraudulent. For example, he posted these two graphs on separate topics of the same data set:
No scatter

High scatter

The fact that these supposed graphs of the same data are so different proves he is manipulating the graphs to meet the point he is trying to make instead of honestly presenting the data. I haven'e looked at his supposed sea level data, but I wouldn't trust anything coming from such an individual.

The man believed it snows CO2 in Antarctica just because it falls below the freezing point of CO2 on occasion there. If you don't understand why that's a poor understanding of how that process works, you might want to do a lot of learning before you try to pass judgment on what is or isn't good science.

Lyme disease has been documented for at least a couple of hundred years, and has existed for probably thousands. The time-traveling capabilities of the US Military must be amazing.

Read the History section here to get a idea where to start looking for primary sources. There are actual descriptions of the disease and its vector written down in the 18th and 19th centuries. DNA tests showed Ötzi the Iceman had lyme disease more than 5 thousand years ago.

There is plenty of evidence that Lyme existed in Europe more than 100 years ago as well. The first case documented in the US was only discovered because the doctor remember a description of the disease from some European medical papers. Please, the idea that this was somehow new and could have been an "escaped" bio-weapon is farcical.

What activates those triggers so suddenly and just after vaccination? It's such a mystery..

#115 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT AT 2019-07-11 10:09 PM | REPLY |

Autism signs can be seen quite early, but most won't notice until much later.

National Autism Center

NIH

Note that the earliest signs can be seen by 6 months. I've also seen studies that have found potential brain structure markers in 6-month-old infants as well, but I haven't seen how well replicated those studies are.

In all, the reality is that the reason people link Autism to vaccines because the signs become apparent around the same time that vaccines are given. Correlation, however, is not causation, and in this case, there are obvious signals that are often missed prior to any vaccine being administered. Let's think through this logically: How would you notice a behavior symptom of Autism before 2-4 months, when DTAP is administered? Vaccines are given every few months through early childhood, so it would be very easy to correlate one with just about anything that begins showing up in very early childhood.

And that's just one of the obvious problems with your comments about vaccines. Without proper scientific protocols in place, anecdotal evidence is prone to these kinds of false connections.

Also, I grew up surrounded by dairy farms - whole milk is one thing, but unpasteurized is dangerous. The farmers would only drink it raw the same day they milked it because it became increasingly more likely to make you sick if you kept it longer than that, even if refrigerated. I believe what most people really want is un-homogenized, whole milk. That's the taste difference they are noticing.

As a piece of history, pasteurization of milk was originally aimed at reducing transmission of TB through the milk back in the 1920s and 30s - and it worked astoundingly well.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable