Rand Paul is blaming the "loony left" for his problems concerning his views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But just who is the "loony left"? For Paul and probably most conservatives, any Democrat would be included in the loony left group. But there is no question that there does exist a "loony left".
For example, those people who do not "believe" in the protective capacity of vaccines. Or, believe that vaccines are responsible for autism. This group of people consist of those "new age" liberals that probably accept the evidence for global climate change but somehow can't accept the evidence for the usefulness of vaccines.
The Huffington Post is one place these new age loony leftists seem to get their information. Take for example this post by "integrative physician" Dr. Frank Lipman on the usefulness of the swine flu vaccine. Dr. Lipman questioned the swine flu vaccine's safety. Right off this indicates to me the good Doctor does not understand how flu vaccines are manufactured.
For some reason the loony left seems to be very suspicious of science based medicine. Many members of the loony left prefer to use "alternative medicine" such as homeopathy, naturopathy or hydrotherapy.
Another group of the loony left are those that want the right to get sick from drinking raw milk. Raw milk is regulated, as are many other food products, because there is a possibility of infecting yourself with some dangerous pathogens when drinking unpasteurized milk. The loony left is willing to take that chance however.
Then there is the hypocrit group of the loony left. These liberals want the US to be self sufficient in energy. But, not if it ruins the "view". Or, they combine the "view" criticism with health issues, as has been done by Dr. Nina Pierpont.
Now don't get me wrong. Show me convincing scientific evidence that raw milk is safe, that vaccines cause autism, that you can be healed with water and that wind turbine syndrome is an actual danger to health and I'll be the first to join the loony left.
4 comments:
There are reasons for this, such as the "revolving door" issue between regulators and regulated- take a look a what's happening in the Gulf. The same thing has happened with the FDA and certain drugs that should never have been put on the market. The only reason Bovine Growth Hormone made it on the market was the incestuous relationship between the FDA and Monsanto. The product was approved with a list of 21 specific negative side effects to the cow with no positive health effects- it was a production drug only. That type of product should never have made it to market but the corporate/regulator relationship overwhelmed the public interest. I've seen you try to defend BGH before, but I was real close to this issue and know the FDA didn't do their job. For example, Monsanto was promoting the stuff prior to approval and I and several others gathered information and the Inspector General forced them to stop.
Point is, it doesn't take a lot for the system to lose credibility, especially when the regulated begat the regulators.
Ok, I'm ready to re-evaluate my position on bovine somatotropin. Give me 3 or 4 peer reviewed scientific studies that show that milk from BST treated cattle is dangerous to humans. It does increase the incidence of mastitis in treated cattle by about 25%.
Human dwarfism has been treated with injections of BST with no effects. That's because BST is inactive in humans. BST just doesn't bind very well to the human growth hormone receptor.
Insulin-like growth factor-1 is identical in humans and bovines. Problem is two-fold. It doesn't appear that milk from cows treated with BST has significantly more IGF-1 than does non-treated milk. Doesn't really matter however because the amount of IGF-1 in 1.5 liters of BST treated milk is about 1% of that secreted by the human gastrointestinal tract. What about increased danger of breast or prostate cancer due to bovine IGF-1. Again, as far as I can tell there is no evidence.
I'm more than willing to change my mind but it will take scientific evidence to change it.
The point I made, if you'll read my post, is that there was enough eveidence that it was dangerous to the animals to keep it off the market.
Certainly, there are othere drugs with side effects, but these drugs treat specific ailments and have a conceivable healthh benefit to the animal. BGH is strictly about stressing the animal to cause more production with the corresponding health problems-21 side effects listed on the package and they turned out to be very real. This product should never have been allowed on the market.
I do notice that you avoid my point about the "revolving door". This is another reality that in the case of BGH helped push it onto the market and in other cases creates perceptions which cause doubts about the honest science we all hope for.
Sorry, I just think increased levels of mastitis and a possible slight increase in twinning are "dangerous".
Post a Comment