Oh, myyyy! George Takei falls for a Zika virus conspiracy theory
Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 04:13 PM - Edit history (1)
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/15/say-it-aint-so-george-george-takei-falls-for-a-zika-virus-conspiracy-theory/"...
Each case is different, though; so lets take a look at this particular claim. First off, what is Pyriproxyfen? Basically, its a pesticide that is effective against a wide variety of arthropoda (insects). Specifically, its a a juvenile hormone analog that prevents insect larvae from developing into adulthood and thus renders them unable to reproduce. It was introduced into the US in 1996 to protect crops against the whitefly.
Now heres the thing. Its not as though pyriproxyfen hasnt been well studied. The WHO even has a web page with its guidelines for pyriproxifen in drinking water. A great deal is known about its physiochemical properties, toxicology, and safe levels. Specifically, the WHO recommends that the dosage of pyriproxyfen in potable water in containers should not exceed 0.01 mg/L under the WHO Pesticides Evaluation Scheme. More specifically:
...
I would also add that Brazil would have to have been using truly massive doses to exceed the acceptable daily intake, not to mention that humans do not make or use sesquiterpenoid hormones (a.k.a. insect juvenile hormones), which is what pyriproxifen targets. Finally, one cant help but notice that Doctors in the Crop-Sprayed Towns is anything but an objective group. Its been around at least since 2010, and its message has always been the same dating back to 2010: That pesticides cause spontaneous abortions, infertility, congenital malformations, and a wide variety of disorders. In other words, this is a biased report from a biased group presenting no evidence to back up its conclusions. Its all speculation based on a fear of pesticides.
...
There are lots of conspiracy theories out there. Theres lots of pseudoscience out there. Whenever something like the Zika virus makes it into the news, you can be absolutely sure that conspiracy theories based on pseudoscience will inevitably follow. Thats why its so critical to do a little research before sharing something like this. When you have such an enormous social media platform, you owe it to your fans not to use it to spread misinformation like this."
------------------------------------------------------
And the product is made by Sumitomo, not Monsanto. ...
-------------------------------------------------------
Other pieces on this claim:
Australian scientists respond:
https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-is-a-pesticide-not-zika-virus-causing-microcephaly
Experts debunk claim blaming larvicide, not Zika, for microcephaly
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-experts-dismiss-claims-larvicide-linked-to-microcephaly/
A Viral Story Links The Zika Crisis To Monsanto. Don't Believe It.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/zika-monsanto-pyriproxyfen-microcephaly_us_56c2712de4b0b40245c79f7c
No, Monsanto Isnt Responsible for Zika, Microcephaly or the Apocalypse.
https://groundedparents.com/2016/02/17/no-monsanto-isnt-responsible-for-zika-microcephaly-or-the-apocalypse/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/16/a_pesticide_in_brazil_s_drinking_water_is_not_behind_microcephaly.html
A bogus theory connecting Zika virus to Monsanto could give mosquitoes a boost
http://grist.org/science/a-bogus-theory-connecting-zika-virus-to-monsanto-could-give-mosquitoes-a-boost/
Is Monsanto Behind Cases of Microcephaly in Brazil?
http://thescientificparent.org/is-monsanto-behind-cases-of-microcephaly-in-brazil/
----------------------------------------------------------------
To clarify, no one is defending Monsanto. However, the spread of misinformation is not something that is helpful to our fellow humans.
Igel
(35,362 posts)It's something worth looking at. No more, no less.
Or we can all run around screaming "Terra! Terra!"
"Terra" is something I'm firmly not in favor of shouting. Perhaps plowing, perhaps standing on, and firm terra, or at least terra firma, is worth noticing if you live in a swamp. But for most of the country, nah.
This, BTW, is a kick.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I guess some of us need demons to be as big as possible, no matter how imaginary some of the demons' deeds may be.
forest444
(5,902 posts)And at length and very vigorously, I might add.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)FFS!
What ludicrous, completely baseless attack.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's messed up.
No, GM Mosquitoes Didnt Start The Zika Outbreak.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/science-sushi/2016/01/31/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-didnt-start-zika-ourbreak/#.Vsd5yvkrIdU
The Zika conspiracies have begun
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2016/02/03/the-zika-conspiracies-have-begun/
Here Are the 5 Craziest Zika Virus Conspiracy Theories
https://www.inverse.com/article/11547-here-are-the-5-craziest-zika-virus-conspiracy-theories
cprise
(8,445 posts)But suggesting a product may be defective is not a conspiracy theory. So lumping sites who are raising questions in with others who think zika a plot by the Rockefellers is passing judgment based on logical fallacy.
Tut-tut indeed.
Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)
And you go even further down the conspiracy hole.
Try again: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Thanks for the kick!
cprise
(8,445 posts)The original articles that pointed out some correlations did not mention or even suggest that people were conspiring to do harm.
You and the bloggers you link to are trying to smear people who raise uncomfortable questions, instead of just attempting to answer them.
But I'm glad you brought up rationalwiki...
Really, "JAQing Off" is a term for rational discourse? Please. These are establishment fundamentalists who know just enough about logic and philosophy to attack others in rather ironic ways. Rationalwiki even prominently labels environmentalists as "tree huggers" and suggests that a threshold for exists for damage from radiation exposure (thoroughly debunked) along with other numerous factual errors. Their description of ecology is just a footnote under "biology" (ecology is thoroughly interdisciplinary), though they have extensive screeds on what they see as wrong with environmentalism.
IOW, they are extremely biased and their embrace of AGW does little to make up for the resulting cognitive dissonance.
Yeah! Wow!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 23, 2016, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)
And now you're just falling for the con of the propagandists who pushed those aricles. Wow! Read the posts of the poster who made that OP at the link. The poster is clearly working to blame these mosquitoes. The clear innuendo worked on those vulnerable to it. And you fully well what that article was trying to do.
Your baseless personal attacks on honest people don't change reality. You are on the wrong side of history, honesty, science, and ethics here. Just admit that to yourself, and do the right thing.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Sorry, but practitioners that are working to influence the environment (note, we're not talking about scientific research) are going to create unflattering correlations that automatically beg for questions. That comes with the territory, even more so with industry that lobbies for self-regulation and regulatory capture.
They should work harder on honestly explaining the situations that arise instead of painting people with a very broad brush to prevent difficult ethical questions from hanging over their industries. 'Rational' people who push logical fallacies while claiming to point them out should especially be disregarded.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You're just tossing meaningless vague statements out when your claims have been shown to be baseless. When you're wrong, admit it. That's how adults act. BTW, these things are explained quite well, but conspiracy lovers work very hard to get to people to ignore those explanations, and to doubt them. If you're actually worried about real ethics, your posts here are rather problematic.
cprise
(8,445 posts)...and the lovely stuff from 'rationalwiki', looking down their noses at...
"bunch of tree-huggers" and people "JAQing off"
Gotta love it!
I don't think you've demonstrated anything about this issue except how to muddy the waters and apply double-standards.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You're the one trying to muddy the waters with unethical, anti-science propaganda. You have no idea how to discuss any of this, so you prove my point about emotion-based attacks with a silly "juxtaposition" of out-of-context quotes as a meaningless response to having been repeatedly shown to be off base.
Now that's funny.