Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Health Skepticism: Part 1 - Introduction

I'm no expert about general health, including the sub-topics of diet, exercise, and medical knowledge, but I don't need to be to notice that expert advice in those areas has changed wildly over the decades of my life. Things like dietary cholesterol, low fat diets, trans-fats, the food pyramid, weight-training and muscle, supplements, screening for cancer, and on and on and on and...

While not an expert about general health, I am the world's expert regarding the care and feeding of Bret. Over the decades I've become much more knowledgeable about taking care of myself, mostly through trying to make sense of all the information out there, but also trying various approaches in the diet and exercise realm (consciously being my own lab rat), and being an unwitting lab rat due to external factors (trans-fats, for example).

What's fascinated me about the whole topic is how Americans have collectively made stunningly bad decisions about how to take care of ourselves and that will be the main focus of this series of posts - how interactions of people, groups, and scientific and medical knowledge (or distortions thereof) caused us to collectively make astoundingly stupid decisions about taking care of ourselves. How a country as rich and technologically advanced as we are ends up with a life expectancy ranked below those bastions of model societies such as Columbia and Cuba. How we managed to spend more than $1 trillion (that's $1,000,000,000,000) on our National Institute of Health over the last several decades yet aren't noticeably more healthy than Slovenia or even Mexico (in terms of life-expectancy).

The next post in this series will take a look at cholesterol and how we pretty much managed to completely confuse ourselves about cause and effect. It's a good introduction to this general topic in that it sheds light upon the problems of having large diversity in a population of very complex organisms and trying to figure out what sorts of things can help that population.

224 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 224 of 224
Clovis said...

Skipper,

----
Israel is surrounded by countries and groups whose explicit goal, backed up by as many actions as they can muster, to wipe Israel off the map. Iran is not.
----

I know you tried to give me a hand, but it ain't working.

Can Israel claim to ever been as drained by war as Iran was after Iran-Iraq war? (You know, that one back when Saddam was your guy.)

Also, I am not sure that Muslim anti-Semitism can be worse than Muslim anti-Muslism. Shia versus Sunni has been certainly bloodier by counting the number of corpses.

I am also wondering about that Iran backwards judicial system you mention. At least they give those stoned-to-death women a day in court, it is better than many bombed-to-death Palestinians get from Israel these days. To which I give you back the question: are you sure you picked up the right example of a violent Islamic country?


----
It depends on what their faith entails, doesn't it? A substantial number of Syrian Muslims have beliefs that are at odds with American society. I have a hard time
----
I wonder what's the share of Americans who would be graded as presenting beliefs that are at odds with American society either.

----
thinking it is OK to exclude Nazis and communists, but not OK to at least query Muslim immigrants about how their personal beliefs about Islam square with living in a pluralistic society.
----
Let me help you out and take all that weight from your shoulders. I am completely and absolutely OK with you guys rejecting every single Muslim getting to your shores.

While you are at that, please do the same to every other group your Party-in-Power of the moment would like to repeal.

Then we can be sure that you kick out Muslims and Mexicans (and all other Latinos too, please) when Trump is in power, and afterwards Christians, non-liberal Billionaires and Fox News when Clinton gets that position.

Soon I hope you'll get scary enough for anyone else ever to try a go for the USA.

Only then, by watching your complete inversion from the times persecuted faiths looked for your shores, we envious Latin Americans will be sure that you guys are finally in for your downfall, so we can commemorate like those millions and millions of Muslims in New Jersey after 9/11.

---
If you could find an instance of where I have done that, then I need correcting.
---
I did - the Jews-are-apes description you gave was as wrong as it could be.

Hey Skipper said...

[Bret:] In the past, I'm certain that only an insignificant fraction of Muslim immigrants were "sympathetic to fundamentalist Islam." After all, why would you come to an infidel country?


Your definition of insignificant fraction is significantly different than mine.

Your rhetorical question presumes an answer: they wouldn't. So, obviously, none of this is happening.

Nor are there any sharia police patrols in Germany. And I'm sure no-go zones in Europe are a myth, too.

Now, the argument seems to be that ISIS and other fanatic organizations are going to utilize the Muslim immigration wave to infiltrate our country and that by limiting immigration of Muslims we'll reduce an oncoming wave of terrorism.


No, the argument is that allowing refugees from Islamic countries must, absent pollyannish levels of wishful thinking, include some number of people who are hostile to American/Enlightenment values. Therefore, it is certainly a valid question as to whether that number is large enough to cause significant problems later.

I don't know the answer to that question, but it is neither racist nor Islamophobic to ask it, and it is foolish to ignore it.

Unless, of course, all those links above are just figments of fevered imaginations.

What we need is for our existing Muslim population to prove Hey Skipper wrong; to vocally enlighten us as to their actual beliefs and to show us how those beliefs aren't antithetical to being an american; to loudly and consistently condemn Islamic terrorism; and to work against such terrorists by not providing a safe haven and by working with police to thwart such activities.

I'm sorry, but I can't fathom where the heck you got that idea. If someone is running for president, than in order to get my vote, they have to assure me that their values aren't inconsistent with the oath of office.

Clearly, it would be nice if Muslims provided strong, Islamicaly based arguments against fundamentalist Islam, but I suspect the reason they don't is because it is every bit as difficult as I have suggested.

Trump and Hey Skipper show the writing on the wall; Muslims are gonna hafta show that they're "with us" or too many of us are gonna conclude that they're "against us." …

Can you quote Trump, never mind me, to that affect?

P.S. Watching Hey Skipper defend Christianity is really funny. Perhaps my memory is bad, but my recollection is that his views of religion more aligned with Harry a decade or two ago.

I guess I fail to see where the humor is. I have presented an inductive argument that the nature of Christianity has made it much more amenable to adaptation than Islam. The facts speak for themselves.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] I take the last 60 years of History in regard to Israel and Iran, and somehow I can't get to the conclusion that Iran is the violent one in comparison. Can you give me a hand here?

[Hey Skipper:] Israel is surrounded by countries and groups whose explicit goal, backed up by as many actions as they can muster, to wipe Israel off the map. Iran is not.
----

[Clovis:] I know you tried to give me a hand, but it ain't working.


How many times has Iran been invaded by other countries? How many countries have a declared goal of wiping Iran from the map? How many of its citizens does Israel persecute to anywhere near the degree they are in Iran?

I am also wondering about that Iran backwards judicial system you mention. At least they give those stoned-to-death women a day in court, it is better than many bombed-to-death Palestinians get from Israel these days. To which I give you back the question: are you sure you picked up the right example of a violent Islamic country?

I am sure the stoned to death, or the hung, luxuriated in the Iranian legal system, and felt their executions perfectly justified.

Just as I am sure that the bombed-to-death Palestinians are an effect without a cause.

[Hey Skipper:] It depends on what their faith entails, doesn't it? A substantial number of Syrian Muslims have beliefs that are at odds with American society.
----
I wonder what's the share of Americans who would be graded as presenting beliefs that are at odds with American society either
.

Regardless of the answer, the question is irrelevant. Syrians are not Americans, and have absolutely constitutional rights, including any right to be admitted to the US.

Let me help you out and take all that weight from your shoulders. I am completely and absolutely OK with you guys rejecting every single Muslim getting to your shores.

While you are at that, please do the same to every other group your Party-in-Power of the moment would like to repeal.

Then we can be sure that you kick out Muslims and Mexicans (and all other Latinos too, please) when Trump is in power, and afterwards Christians, non-liberal Billionaires and Fox News when Clinton gets that position
.

Oh, come now, not only is that completely hysterical, it puts you in a ridiculous position. You are, in effect, demanding that the US, and Europe by extension, admit every Muslim who wishes to come here.

Really?

As for the rest, it doesn't deserve a reply.

[Hey Skipper:] If you could find an instance of where I have done that, then I need correcting.
---
[Clovis:] I did - the Jews-are-apes description you gave was as wrong as it could be
.

I guess I missed where you showed me wrong.

Islamic anti-Judaism, derived from both the Quran and hadith, is hard to hide.

Hey Skipper said...

Harry, how about retrieving some of your pronunciamentos from the memhole?

Bret said...

Hey Skipper wrote: "Your definition of insignificant fraction is significantly different than mine."

I was writing about Muslims in the US, not western Europe. Your 1st link is for western europe and your second one is some sort of google search - I don't find either of those relevant. Immigration to western europe has different motivators than to the US (for example, colonial relationships).

Hey Skipper wrote: "the argument is that allowing refugees from Islamic countries must, absent pollyannish levels of wishful thinking, include some number of people who are hostile to American/Enlightenment values."

So? I find that huge numbers of non-refugee american citizens hold values I find hostile, including most progressives. For me personally, I expect the refugees to actually align the overall population better with constitutional values, including Muslim ones. That's my experience from living in a border town.

Hey Skipper wrote: "it is neither racist nor Islamophobic to ask it, and it is foolish to ignore it."

I was not stating any of those things.

Hey Skipper asks: "Can you quote Trump, never mind me, to that affect?"

Huh? I have no idea how else to interpret what you wrote and what Trump says - my interpretation is that y'all clearly think Muslims are definitely not "with us" and that overall they are a definite negative.

"The curse of authorship is that the meaning received by the reader is not necessarily what the writer intended to convey."

I don't need exact quotes to interpret.

Hey Skipper wrote: "I guess I fail to see where the humor is."

LOL! (Sorry, it's funny to me).

Hey Skipper said...

[Bret:] I was writing about Muslims in the US, not western Europe.

This is what I love about quoting directly. Here is exactly what you said:

[Bret:] In the past, I'm certain that only an insignificant fraction of Muslim immigrants were "sympathetic to fundamentalist Islam." After all, why would you come to an infidel country?

I remember clearly the conversation we had last year at this time. I demanded that you quintuple my salary in return for me becoming TGG's embedded Euro reporter.

You were livid: "No way am I paying you six times as much to eat schnitzel and drink croissants."

Shaken for a moment, I came right back: "Okay, let's compromise. Four times my salary."

Now you are getting your money's worth. I am living in an infidel country with ten times as many Muslims per capita as in the US. I routinely see women in abiyah. There are such things as shariah police. In France, where I also rove, there are places where it isn't safe for Jews to go. (BTW, there are no places where it is unsafe for Muslims to go.)

As I type, Iraqi forces are making significant inroads in Ramadi. Let's say that those defending Ramadi decide that they rather prefer being refugees to being fertilizer. How many should the US take?

So? I find that huge numbers of non-refugee american citizens hold values I find hostile, including most progressives. For me personally, I expect the refugees to actually align the overall population better with constitutional values, including Muslim ones. That's my experience from living in a border town.

As far as the constitution goes, your opinion of US citizens' values is fodder for discussion, and nothing else. As for non-citizens, the calculus is utilitarian. We tolerate Latin American illegal immigrants for secular utilitarian reasons: generally speaking, that immigration benefits the US more than it hurts. But that does not there aren't significant localized costs, particularly in border towns and states.

As for Muslims, I suggest you have little idea what you are talking about. European countries with Muslim immigrants reaching 10% of the population have serious problems. NB: in the US, the Hispanic portion of the population is 17%. I agree with you that 17% Hispanic has created no serious, or insoluble problems. (YMMV, particularly if you think Hispanic immigrants given goodies are a lock for the Democrats.)

Which leaves me completely mystified as to how you can equate immigrants with a background scarcely once removed from the Protestant/Enlightenment of the US with those that share practically nothing with that tradition.

[Hey Skipper:] it is neither racist nor Islamophobic to ask it, and it is foolish to ignore it.

[Bret:] I was not stating any of those things.


No, but that is the immediate bien pensant reaction.

[Hey Skipper:] Can you quote Trump, never mind me, to that affect?

[Bret:] I have no idea how else to interpret what you wrote and what Trump says - my interpretation is that y'all clearly think Muslims are definitely not "with us" and that overall they are a definite negative.


How about putting the shoe on the other foot. Instead of me telling you what Muslims say Islam entails, and why that can lead to problems, how about you telling me what Muslims say Islam entails, and why that isn't a problem.

And, while you are at it, instead of channeling Harry, quote Trump actually said, and explain why it is wrong. And you do need the exact quote, because that way we can all be certain you are objecting to what he said, instead of what you imagined he said. Harry's track record in this regard is so bad it doesn't need imitating.

Now, I have no doubt that if you gave it the effort, you could find actual problems with what he actually said. But I'm betting your objections will bear no resemblance to what you wrote above.

Bret said...

Hey Skipper wrote: "Here is exactly what you said: ... 'an infidel country?'"

Um, yeah. However, the context of what you wrote that I was responding to was "A substantial number of Syrian Muslims have beliefs that are at odds with American society."

So the specific infidel country I was referring to was America.

Look. I rather forgot that we have at least three regular readers who live in foreign lands. I'll attempt to be less sloppy and make my writing a bit more internationally decipherable.

Bret said...

Hey Skipper: "...how about you telling me what Muslims say Islam entails..."

They say it's the religion of peace, of course. :-)

So let me ask you this. You say that the quran has entries about killing infidels and I agree that it does. So why is it, if a true Muslim strictly and devoutly follows the quran, are there not an enormous number of attempts to kill infidels every single day?

It seems to me that either they don't take the killing passages very seriously, they're not very good Muslims, or being Muslim means something different than you think.

Hey Skipper said...

From the Islamic point of view, European v. American is a distinction without difference. We are all infidels.

Hey Skipper said...

As to your question, I'll go with the first option.

Harry Eagar said...

Friend of Skipper's I presume:

Rosenthal is seriously worried that the presence of a Muslim deputy sheriff marks the beginning of “The Islamization of Broward County,” which he supports by noting that there are many violent verses in the Quran. Asked about similarly violent passages in the Old Testament, Rosenthal stated:

[I]t doesn’t apply to him because he is a Christian and doesn’t necessarily have to follow teachings from the Old Testament.

“Just because I believe in the Bible doesn’t mean I’m called to follow everything in Deuteronomy,” he said.

On the other hand, those Islamics, they’re all a danger because can’t you see the violent stuff in their book? A spokesperson for the American Center for the Study of Cognitive Dissonance told Yr Wonkette that the institute would be very interested in examining Rosenthal, and would ask him to donate his brain after he passes on, should that organ ever be located.

Read more at http://wonkette.com/597236/florida-patriots-issue-fatwa-against-sheriff-for-hiring-muslim-deputy#evtLQMwxiq2bDldf.99

Bret said...

Hey Skipper wrote: "I'll go with the first option."

Which is that Muslims apparently don't take the kill infidels part terribly serious. Which is to say, just like the vast majority of adherents to all religions in the modern world, they can pick and choose the bits of the old dogma that they follow. Which is to say that it's not inherently contradictory to be a Muslim and an American.

In my opinion, anyway.

Hey Skipper said...

Harry, how about retrieving some of your pronunciamentos from the memhole?

Hey Skipper said...

Asked about similarly violent passages in the Old Testament ...

Harry, how about giving us some examples of those violent passages?

Hey Skipper said...

Which is that Muslims apparently don't take the kill infidels part terribly serious.

I guess that's why Islam isn't causing any problems at all in Europe.

But you miss the points I'm trying to make: the nature of Islam makes it uniquely violent, resistant to adaptation, antagonistic towards Enlightenment influenced societies, and significant numbers of Muslims in Islamic countries do, indeed, take Islam seriously.

(the image captcha has gotten even more annoying over the last couple days)

Clovis said...

Skipper,


----
How many times has Iran been invaded by other countries? How many countries have a declared
----
Given the ancient nature of both Iran ans Israel, that's a number we'll never know. What we certainly know is that arguing Israel is defenseless compared to Iran is dishonest, to say the least.

----
goal of wiping Iran from the map? How many of its citizens does Israel persecute to anywhere near the degree they are in Iran?
----
How many countries declaring so actually can carry out that threat? Contrary to Israel, it is worth to mention.


As for persecution in both countries, I see it this way: for your past sins, you (Skipper) was sentenced to next reincarnate either as an Iranian or a Palestine. You are given the choice and need to answer right now. I advise you to choose wisely.



----
Oh, come now, not only is that completely hysterical, it puts you in a ridiculous position. You are, in effect, demanding that the US, and Europe by extension, admit every Muslim who wishes to come here. Really?
----
Really not. And the logical fallacy you commit here is so glaringly obvious I'll ask you to give a second thought on this.


---
I guess I missed where you showed me wrong.
---
No problem, I can repeat the link.

And please don't be so disingenuous as to move the goal posts. You first argued the Quran equated Jews do monkeys. It clearly doesn't.

And if some passages of the Quran look to give a free pass for anti-Semitism (or anti-Christianity), it is quite clear other passages indicate due respect for Christians and Jews, too.

I believe some Muslism decide for the worse interpretation not guided by faith, but by political (and geopolitical) disputes. Wich you never show much of an interest in addressing. One wonder why someone championing the Elightenment and its contribution to American society refuses to address such a topic by reason, instead of by prejudices bordering the traits of blind faith.

erp said...

Gosh, I wish I had known about this film before TCM showed it, so you guys could have been alerted to get the definitive word about biblical times.

My roomie got bored with football and since I was already tucked into my favorite chair with my i-Pad, I actually sat through it all.

Hilarious! I don't know if George C. Scott, giving all he's got (h/t to Tom Lehrer) or John Huston intoning in those tones heavenly or perhaps Ava Gardner as the 90 year-old Sarah or Peter O'Toole who added his own intonations as The Three (3) angels win the over-the-top prize, but it certainly clarified the age-old Abrahamic question for me.

Bret said...

Hey Skipper wrote: "But you miss the points I'm trying to make..."

Not really. I get your points and concede that there's potentially a bit of validity to them. I've also read seemingly dozens of articles that make the same points so I suspect I get where you're coming from. Obviously, I haven't found them very convincing either.

My point is that as horrible and inflexible as y'all purport Islam to be, a body of old dogma and the individuals who are associated with it are two different and separate things and we should keep track of and exploit that fact.

Harry Eagar said...

'So how about giving us some examples of Christians claiming the Bible as God's word given directly and perfectly to man. While you are at it, find some examples showing Christian sects hate each other even more than they hate secularism.'

Done: http://wonkette.com/597288/bryan-fischer-knows-dinosaurs-are-really-just-ginormous-grandma-bible-lizards

And done: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/calvary2.html

Hey Skipper said...

Harry:

Yet more of hour shenanigans.

This is supposed to show how Christian sects hate each other more than they hate secularism.

Hate -- you are obviously unclear on the concept. The link contains many references to doctrinal disagreements, and not one mention of anything remotely approximating "hate".

I'm astonished you continue to link to Doktor Zoom, who is almost always hysterically wrong, he throws a steaming pile of loathsome in, as well. Add mystified to astonished. Here is what I wrote: So how about giving us some examples of Christians claiming the Bible as God's word given directly and perfectly to man. Leaving aside proving once again how hate-filled progressives are, that link isn't even glancingly related to your claim that Christians claim the Bible is God's word given directly and perfectly to men.

And we are still waiting to learn whether millions of Christians are planning for the apocalypse anywhere else other than in your mind.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] Given the ancient nature of both Iran and Israel, [how many times they have been invaded is] a number we'll never know. What we certainly know is that arguing Israel is defenseless compared to Iran is dishonest, to say the least.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer: I meant Israel's contemporary incarnation.

It is a stated goal of Iranian foreign policy to eliminate Israel, and Iran isn't alone. And I'm certainly not arguing Israel is defenseless, but rather pointing out your remark reeked of moral relativism, by failing to even mention how many times Israel had been attacked from the Gaza strip, or noting how Hamas embeds itself in civilian areas, or mentioning how much concrete had been diverted from civilian infrastructure to build tunnels into Israel.

As for persecution in both countries, I see it this way: for your past sins, you (Skipper) was sentenced to next reincarnate either as an Iranian or a Palestine. You are given the choice and need to answer right now. I advise you to choose wisely.

Given the religious lunacy prevailing in both, that is a Hobbes choice.

Hey Skipper said...

[Hey Skipper:] Oh, come now, not only is that completely hysterical, it puts you in a ridiculous position. You are, in effect, demanding that the US, and Europe by extension, admit every Muslim who wishes to come here. Really?

----

[Clovis:] Really not. And the logical fallacy you commit here is so glaringly obvious I'll ask you to give a second thought on this.


Turn about is fair play:

Let me help you out and take all that weight from your shoulders. I am completely and absolutely OK with you guys rejecting every single Muslim getting to your shores.

While you are at that, please do the same to every other group your Party-in-Power of the moment would like to repeal.

Then we can be sure that you kick out Muslims and Mexicans (and all other Latinos too, please) when Trump is in power, and afterwards Christians, non-liberal Billionaires and Fox News when Clinton gets that position.

Soon I hope you'll get scary enough for anyone else ever to try a go for the USA.


You greased the toboggan before hitting that slippery slope good and hard. If you are antagonistic towards the suggestion that perhaps, just perhaps, there might be some problems resulting from allowing a lot of refugees from a region full of devout Muslims, and that perhaps, just perhaps, we should think of a way to exclude the Islamists from the rest, then you must be advocating that Western countries accept all Muslim refugees.

Otherwise, you must agree with the proposition that you fallacied nearly beyond recognition.

I did - the Jews-are-apes description you gave was as wrong as it could be.

Apologies, I did read that. And you are right, my characterization was over egged.

As for whether my description more than just excessive, it was as wrong as it could be, your link certainly makes a case that the Quran doesn't really say Jews are apes and pigs. I don't think it particularly strong, in that he ignores historical commentary, never mind all the other verses in the Quran condemning Jews for their failure to convert to Islam.

In order for my description to be as wrong it could be, then this explanation has to be as wrong as it could be, too. It goes into much greater detail than does your link. Given the number of Muslims whose attitude towards Jews could scarcely be more toxic, I think "Loonwatch's" point of view isn't nearly so persuasive as you think it is.

It certainly hasn't persuaded this guy:

Saudi sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, imam and preacher at the Al-Haraam mosque – the most important mosque in Mecca – beseeched Allah to annihilate the Jews. He also urged the Arabs to give up peace initiatives with them because they are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."

Someone needs to tell him he is as wrong as he can be.

Harry Eagar said...

Once again, kipper, I provide links and when you refuse to acknowledge their content, you resort to name-calling. Bryan Fischer has some claim to be one of the met consequential theologians of our time. He is exactly the art of fundamentalist that you claim cannot exist.

And I was not asking you to endorse the views of Dok Zoom but to consider the preaching of Fischer. Calvary Chapel is certainly a hate group. The Adventists, who are in about the best position to judge, think so.

Hey Skipper said...

[harry:] Once again, Skipper, I provide links and when you refuse to acknowledge their content ...

Newsflash, Harry: links are not content. Your link required me to plow through links unending to figure out why the heck you had provided us the link in the first place. To reiterate: The link contains many references to doctrinal disagreements, and not one mention of anything remotely approximating "hate".

That isn't name calling, that is calling you out because you trafficked in yet another one of your pronunciamentos, and you can't be fussed to actually take the tiniest bit of effort to specifically back it up.

And I was not asking you to endorse the views of Dok Zoom but to consider the preaching of Fischer ...

Which I am sure is perfectly hateful, but yet another example of goal post shifting. Islam demands that the Quran, in the original Arabic, is the perfect, complete, word of Allah. I asserted that Christianity makes no such claim for the Bible. You insisted otherwise, and trot out Fischer. If I wanted an operational definition of "obfuscation", I could hardly do better than that.

As for Zoombag, it isn't his views, but rather his thoroughgoing nastiness, and powerful immune resistance to any fact that doesn't fit within his ideological blinders. But mostly his nastiness.

You say Calvary Chapel is a hate group? Prove it, with specifics.

Then, by all means finish the job: Prove that Christian sects (note the plural) hate each other more than secularism. With specifics.

I predict goal post shifting and memholing.

The Adventists, who are in about the best position to judge ...

A perfect example of your analytical deficiencies.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 224 of 224   Newer› Newest»