I wonder how the Ebola doctor feels now that his humanitarian trip has cost a Christian charity much more than any services he rendered.
What was the point?
Whatever good Dr. Kent Brantly did in Liberia has now been overwhelmed by the more than $2 million already paid by the Christian charities Samaritan’s Purse and SIM USA just to fly him and his nurse home in separate Gulfstream jets, specially equipped with medical tents, and to care for them at one of America’s premier hospitals. (This trip may be the first real-world demonstration of the economics of Obamacare.)
There’s little danger of an Ebola plague breaking loose from the treatment of these two Americans at the Emory University Hospital. But why do we have to deal with this at all?
Why did Dr. Brantly have to go to Africa? The very first “risk factor” listed by the Mayo Clinic for Ebola — an incurable disease with a 90 percent fatality rate — is: “Travel to Africa.”
About 15,000 people are murdered in the U.S. every year. More than 38,000 die of drug overdoses, half of them from prescription drugs. More than 40 percent of babies are born out of wedlock. Despite the runaway success of “midnight basketball,” a healthy chunk of those children go on to murder other children, rape grandmothers, bury little girls alive — and then eat a sandwich. A power-mad president has thrown approximately 10 percent of all Americans off their health insurance — the rest of you to come! All our elite cultural institutions laugh at virginity and celebrate promiscuity.
Ann Coulter Column
Usually it’s a kind of population control method, rats are way smarter they just absorb fetuses in the womb in case of too high population pressure. More humane you might say.
Since the human race isn’t humane in any sense, it resorts to more violent methods of population reduction. War. Very effective, since it mostly takes out the youngest most virile men and women thus reducing not only the population by dying themselves but also by reducing re-population efficiency.
Personally i’d be more of the opinion rats have the most logical and harmless method, and the human race the most vicious and harmful method. It just doesn’t make any sense on any level.
What makes even less sense is the Geneva Convention.
It’s totally counterintuitive and inhumane. It’s beyond absurd to set up rules of war. It stems from ye olden days where people in direct man to man combat slaughtered each other in a time where honor was the moral guidance. Nowadays wars are fought to reach a goal, extermination of the opposing force. It’s done from a distance, people hardly see their targets or are thousands of miles far from the battleground.
Instituting ‘rules’ on how you can exterminate your opponent are silly. They’re even more silly if you fight an opponent who has never even heard of it and for sure doesn’t behave like it. Of course you have to descent to their level of fighting, of course you behave as they do. It’s their language, it’s what they understand. Behave otherwise and you’ll be laughed at, taken for a weakling.
You don’t take prisoners of war, why should you? They cost a fortune in upkeep and one day you’ll have to set them free after which they’ll merrily continue to do their thing, only now with the knowledge they don’t risk very much expect for a good meal, medical care and some leisure time to recuperate tot level even better then before and with an even greater disdain for you.
The Geneva Convention needs to be rewritten to take into account that only those who have signed it have the right to be treated according to it. Those who didn’t evidently don’t care so why should you?
By Ellis Riker Halford
We live in a world full of prejudices and inequality, where racist and sexist parties like Britain First can exist and where people will back these parties. In a world that has these many different types of prejudices, we call the people opposed to them ‘Egalitarians’ or ‘Feminists’ or ‘Humanitarians’, but do they actually fight for true equality?
While misogyny is an unbelievably huge problem, I would argue that misandry is a really big problem too, and one that is not recognised by many people. I was discussing this with a male feminist the other day and he stated “The only people who have a problem with misandry are either those who have experienced it, or those who don’t know it isn’t a problem.” Now, I don’t know about you, but I felt greatly offended by this statement. He first stated that some people are affected by this problem, only to then disregard it completely. I find his reasoning tantamount to claiming that Ebola isn’t a problem as it affects fewer people than cancer. This is a ludicrous statement, but this is just one person’s (foolish) opinion.
John P. A. Ioannidis
Currently, many published research findings are false or exaggerated, and an estimated 85% of research resources are wasted.
To make more published research true, practices that have improved credibility and efficiency in specific fields may be transplanted to others which would benefit from them—possibilities include the adoption of large-scale collaborative research; replication culture; registration; sharing; reproducibility practices; better statistical methods; standardization of definitions and analyses; more appropriate (usually more stringent) statistical thresholds; and improvement in study design standards, peer review, reporting and dissemination of research, and training of the scientific workforce.
Selection of interventions to improve research practices requires rigorous examination and experimental testing whenever feasible.
Optimal interventions need to understand and harness the motives of various stakeholders who operate in scientific research and who differ on the extent to which they are interested in promoting publishable, fundable, translatable, or profitable results.
Modifications need to be made in the reward system for science, affecting the exchange rates for currencies (e.g., publications and grants) and purchased academic goods (e.g., promotion and other academic or administrative power) and introducing currencies that are better aligned with translatable and reproducible research.
Continue full essay PLOS
An Outbreak of Epidemiological Hysteria
THERE HAVE been far fewer cases of, and deaths from, Ebola Virus Disease (hereinafter “Ebola”) during the period of the recent outbreak than from numerous other endemic diseases that primarily afflict Africans, such as malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and childhood diarrhea. Yet there is a widespread sense, in the media and among the public, that particularly urgent measures must be taken to combat Ebola. This is owed in large part to estimates of future cases produced by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Their representatives have accompanied the presentation of these estimates with powerful rhetoric, as have representatives of other public health organizations. Headlines predictably focus on the upper bound of the CDC estimate, rather than providing the range. Yet both the WHO and the CDC have arrived at their distressingly high figures by ignoring epidemiological principles successfully applied since the nineteenth century. These indicate that Ebola infections and even cases may have already peaked.
Continue at International Review of Science
U.S. Humanitarian Aid Going to ISIS
Not only are foodstuffs, medical supplies—even clinics—going to ISIS, the distribution networks are paying ISIS ‘taxes’ and putting ISIS people on their payrolls.
While U.S. warplanes strike at the militants of the so-called Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq, truckloads of U.S. and Western aid has been flowing into territory controlled by the jihadists, assisting them to build their terror-inspiring “Caliphate.”
The aid—mainly food and medical equipment—is meant for Syrians displaced from their hometowns, and for hungry civilians. It is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, European donors, and the United Nations. Whether it continues is now the subject of anguished debate among officials in Washington and European. The fear is that stopping aid would hurt innocent civilians and would be used for propaganda purposes by the militants, who would likely blame the West for added hardship.
What country conditions breed terrorism? Relative deprivation theory holds that instead of an absolute standard of deprivation, a gap between expected and achieved welfare leads men to political violence. My research examines whether levels of unemployment and higher education that reflect relative deprivation correspond with an increase in terrorist attacks. A recent surge in empirical studies of terrorism has shown that, contrary to popular belief, terrorists tend to be highly educated and from wealthier families than average. This study models relative deprivation by examining the effect of unemployment and tertiary education on levels of terrorism. I examine terrorist attacks from 1980-2008 across 56 countries to see whether the interaction effect of unemployment and higher education is positively correlated with an increase in the number of terrorist attacks. The results of my multivariate regression suggest that this interaction
may be somewhat significant in countries where there have been previous attacks. Additionally, while unemployment and population size are strongly correlated with increased instances of terrorism, higher education alone has no significant relationship with a nation’s levels of terrorism. I discuss possible reasons for the significance of these indicators and the policy implications of my findings.