Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by hungarianelephant


501. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141167 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 6:27 am

So:

1. I don't know.
2. I don't know.
3. I don't know.
4. I don't know.
5. I don't know.
6. The milky way is God's ejaculate.
7. Black holes are God's masturbatory aid.
8. God killed all the other gods at an unspecified time.

Quetz, is that you toying with us?

502. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141127 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 5:07 am

Ho hum. Another day, another version of the random comment generator.

Tip: it can be switched off in IE by pressing Alt-F4.

503. 10 cc of atheism

Comment #141112 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 3:46 am

Oolon - Welcome.

When is the follow-up to your blockbusting trilogy coming out?

504. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141107 by hungarianelephant on March 10, 2008 at 3:29 am

Simple solution. Since, based on the evidence of this site, creationists can't spell or write grammatical sentences, simply deduct marks for that.

A lawyer's answer. You're welcome.

505. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140151 by hungarianelephant on March 7, 2008 at 2:32 am

wooter - Now I am trying to make you think while you are having fun.

Well you succeeded in that.

I am thinking that you are too stupid to understand even the simplest biological concepts.

506. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140139 by hungarianelephant on March 7, 2008 at 2:04 am

Brandy Spears - Now just to get rid of all the other god-ordained nonsense: queens, defenders of the faith, kings, princes, lords, baronesses etc....

Pedantry alert! Pedantry alert! Baronesses are always life peers, since women can't inherit titles. That means they're appointed by the temporally-ordained nonsense, not god-ordained nonsense. Baronets are hereditary, but not peers - effectively a courtesy title.

More seriously, while I cannot think of any logical reason why people should get to be legislators by appointment, rather than election, the fact is that the House of Lords does a pretty good job. The quality of its debates far surpasses anything in the Commons or the US Senate. The Lords have done sterling work in trying to tame the curtailment of civil liberties, including managing to kill off the abolition of the right to jury trial in "either way" cases, and limiting detention without charge.

And I'm now timing how long it takes people to come up with one particular counter-example.

507. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139606 by hungarianelephant on March 6, 2008 at 7:49 am

Heretic! It was Vic Reeves, and 88.2. Unless someone made it up or misattributed it. Which I'm sure never happens to important stories. Never.

508. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139596 by hungarianelephant on March 6, 2008 at 7:16 am

she thought that 20% of fairies exist

88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.

509. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139568 by hungarianelephant on March 6, 2008 at 5:19 am

To follow up on Comment #139277 by D'Arcy, the CofE's position on Iraq is well worth underlining.

Apparently it would be a "just war" if it were endorsed by the UN Security Council. Exactly when God delegated questions of morality to the UN Security Council is an open question.

510. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139567 by hungarianelephant on March 6, 2008 at 5:16 am

fides_et_ratio - And when he speaks on matters affecting inter-faith dialogue such as the ones mentioned in the programme, his views carry more weight than the president of the NUF?

That depends what the hell you mean by matters affecting inter-faith dialogue, if indeed you mean anything at all. We're not going to let you smuggle Iraq in under that heading.

Even if we did, you'd have to question the quality of advice you're getting. Given that the CofE can't hold a simple synod without someone threatening a schism, it's hardly likely that its leaders should be considered experts on talking to other faiths. The NFU probably have some better ideas. The Chief Executive of Tesco certainly would.

511. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139203 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 9:56 am

Mitchell Gilks - It was an Irish archbishop by the name of Ussher. And I think that if you take into account the 11 days in the Gregorian calendar switch, it was a Thursday afternoon.

I have no idea why I know that.

[Edit: See also Tyler Durden's comment below. Creation began on Sunday. Life began the following Thursday.]

512. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139201 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 9:51 am

steveroot - I finally realized that wooter is a computer program that takes text as input and returns gibberish. There's an algorithm in there somewhere, but I'll be dipped if I can see it. I do recognize some Shakespeare quotations there, cleverly inserted to give the impression that we're interacting with a person, not a machine. Do I get any points for spotting wooter as a Turing test project?

No you don't, sorry. Already spotted.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/jumptocomment.php?articleID=2089&commentID=109561&URLtitle=Could-there-be-a-Darwinian-Account-of-Human-Creativity&URLauthor=Daniel-Dennett

After extensive analysis, I can confirm that wooter is version 1.0.4, while wipeout is a version 2.0 beta, which has a slightly improved grammar engine.

Edit: I admit that this is not entirely consistent with my other hypothesis, that wooter is an incarnation of the Duracell bunny. Consistency, hobgoblins, etc.

513. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139146 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 8:04 am

Hang on, fides.

The CofE is not some kind of trade union for its members, and the Archbishop doesn't claim to represent them. He claims to represent God.

Even if he did claim to represent Anglicans, that would be spurious as the members of the CofE have no more say in the choice of the Archbish than they do in the choice of the Chief Executive of Tesco. If they don't like it, all they can do is take their business elsewhere.

Sorry, he's not a public representative, and his views carry no more weight than Joe Average.

Same goes for the scumbag imams who style themselves as "community leaders".

514. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #139130 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 7:13 am

I won't have this. Don't you know that Mayo is the ONLY county in Ireland where Our Lady has chosen to show herself to the faithful? A blow against Mayo is a blow against Our Lady.

Oh, wait ...

515. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #139074 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 5:21 am

SPS - Sorry, that's a cop out. Calling something a "necessity" does not make it so. Lots of people don't have cars, and manage to live productive lives. What you mean is that the alternatives to car ownership are unpalatable for many people in the context of the society we choose not to change, viz. the one with lots of cars in it.

Even if we do deem car ownership not a fit subject for discussion, you're still left with the problem of use. The majority of road deaths and serious injuries could be eliminated by the simple expedient of having a rigidly enforced, blanket 20mph speed limit, zero alcohol / drug limit and annual competence testing. This would doubtless have economic and personal consequences, but those consequences are secondary to the (irrational, or at least a-rational) immediate reaction that would bring down any government that tried to implement it.

To be clear, I am not advocating the abolition of the car. I am pointing out that people do not regard them rationally. As a less emotive example, an RAC survey found that UK drivers on average underestimate their expenditure on their car by nearly half. That is hard to explain in purely rational terms.

516. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #139008 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 2:55 am

Shaden - Finally, someone takes it on. Thank you.

By you stating you have to kill 20,000 people in order to do so, you sound like you're picking who you want and murdering them.

I didn't say that. They could just as easily be picked at random. That doesn't help the argument.

There is an inherent risk that every driver takes by getting behind the wheel, but it's a very low risk. Do a lot of people die every year from driving? Yes, but that doesn't stop people from choosing to do so. It's their choice.

That also makes at least one assumption - that the people who got killed voluntarily assumed the risk.

But road deaths actually break down into lots of different categories:
- people driving recklessly
- people attempting to drive carefully but doing so incompetently
- passengers who know their driver is reckless but get in anyway
- passengers who know their driver is incompetent
- passengers who have no idea that their driver is reckless or incompetent
- people driving carefully and passengers who are killed because another driver is reckless or incompetent
- pedestrians (a big category)
- people killed in accidents with no clear cause

It's a real stretch to suggest that everyone voluntarily assumes risk.

So suppose my scheme involves 20,000 deaths, most of which will happen to people who choose to be the prime beneficiaries of the scheme, but a significant minority of which will occur at random to other people. Where is the moral difference now?

The main point I was making is that most people won't even get that far. The concept of acceptable death levels has become largely taboo (contrast the building of the Hoover Dam, at a time when the number of expected deaths was calculated), and there is no way my proposal would be accepted. But try to apply the same logic to cars, and see what reaction you get.

517. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #138989 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 2:29 am

fides - Have you ever actually been to Manchester?

518. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138458 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 11:22 am

Sorry, al-rawandi, that's not right. Google United States v. Cruikshank (19th century but never overruled). The extension of the Constitution to the States in the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the Second Amendment. That's settled law, whatever the NRA think.

As a practical matter, states can control what kind of guns, and can control sale. But since interstate commerce can't be regulated by the states, you can always pop over the border.

519. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138453 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 11:12 am

For the benefit of the 2.5 non-Americans still reading this, it should also be pointed out that the US Supreme Court has consistently refused to apply the Second Amendment to the States. Viz. the right to bear arms is a right against federal government only, and states can therefore pass gun controls. That is subject to other constitutional provisions, especially that states cannot regulate interstate commerce.

520. Fleabytes

Comment #138384 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 8:55 am

Peacebeuponme - Yes, fair point. But I wouldn't even categorise the average churchgoer's belief as equivalent to my belief in what Steve says about black holes. These are (at least) three different categories. English is deficient in that respect, and unfortunately it gives some theists a fingernailhold - "you also have beliefs in things you don't know".

521. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138369 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 8:40 am

Guns are no more dangerous then a car

Therein lies part of the problem. You can't get people to be rational about cars either.

If I suggested that I could bring certain intangible benefits to the economy and people's lives, but I would have to kill 20,000 people a year in order to do so, you would probably think I was deranged.

What no one has yet managed to explain to me is how this is morally distinguishable from allowing people to have cars. Now, someone here might be able to enlighten me. In the rest of the world, the responses range from blank incomprehension to genuine physical rage.

People are emotionally attached to their cars and cannot generally see themselves as being in any way connected to road deaths. We all want to reduce road deaths, but won't actually do anything practical about them. Here in Ireland, it took until last year to introduce random breath testing, which statistically has saved several hundred lives. More ink has been expended on the same subject in the UK than on the (actual) partial abolition of habeas corpus in the form of the European arrest warrant. You would think that it was the gravest threat to civil liberties in all history.

522. Fleabytes

Comment #138357 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 8:27 am

Peacebeuponme - They believe because they have been told something by someone they have no reason to doubt (in the same way Steve you may tell me something about black-holes and I would accept it). This belief we cannot truly call 'faith' because it is not strongly counter to any other belief/experience they have had.

The difference, of course, being that we could ask Steve for support of an assertion about a black hole. And he could provide it, or not, and we could take the trouble to read the primary sources and try to understand it for ourselves. Or not.

Whereas on religious questions, what you get is biblical quotation, argument from hellfire, anecdote, mystery, evasion, counter-question, Alice in Wonderland wordplay, Pascal's wager, or the taking of offence, real or feigned.

I'm sure I don't need to point this out to anyone here. But just in case nice Mr Robertson or his acolytes are passing ...

523. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138348 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 8:15 am

Yeah, it's unwise to say that some bizarre Catholic practice no longer happens. You just know that it will still be going on somewhere. When will I learn?

Anyone care to bet that there won't be any more reports of moving statues before the end of the year?

Didn't think so.

524. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138344 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 8:10 am

And then you are faced with the question: what kind of proportional representation.

The Irish kind (multi-member constituencies, single transferable vote)? The party profile broadly represents the party first-line voting, but it still descends into clientelism, and all too often, corruption.

Party tickets with selection from a centralised list? Then you only get to choose the party, not the representative. If you don't like the representative, tough.

French system of first round and two-candidate run-off? May as well stick with the two party system, except that you occasionally get the choice of a fascist.

Or my favourite, the Northern Irish kind, where you have to categorise yourself as "Unionist" or "Nationalist" in advance, with equal numbers elected to the assembly regardless of actual votes cast?

I'm not convinced that any voting system is demonstrably better than the others, and the law of unintended consequences tends to apply.

That's not to say that the House of Representatives isn't a good place to try it. It may make sense to have a different voting system from the Senate, if only to create the possibility of something different; though it might also create a very conservative system (in the true meaning of the word - reluctant to change) as it becomes more difficult to get bills through. Besides, in my experience, turkeys seldom vote for Christmas.

I fully agree with you on the Second Amendment. It appears to be a matter of dogma. Guns are bad, nkay?

525. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138332 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 7:50 am

al-rawandi - Nah, they gave up the self-flagellation in the 14th century. Maybe in the Philippines.

[Edit - and of course replaced it with mental self-flagellation, which remains a key plank of faith to this day.]

526. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #138323 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 7:44 am

If I may weigh in on the US Constitution, one of the striking things about it is how much Americans argue over it. Not very often about what it should contain, but over what is meant. You don't get any serious public debate about the meaning of the Bill of Rights 1689 in England, or even much about the actual written constitution of Ireland. But the US Supreme Court has become the battleground of ideas, perhaps because it is so much more difficult to change the document.

Broadly, I think this is healthy. It shows that the Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, remains a living and relevant document, a focal point of the nation's sense of purpose. The downside, of course, is that it leaves an awful lot of power in nine people, and as a result the selection of those nine people has become an intensely political process.

That seems more of a theoretical concern than a practical one. The judges do seem to develop a habit of going native soon after they accept life tenure. Ask Al Gore what he thinks of Justice Kennedy if you're in any doubt. While there are a few cases in which they have simply made up an interpretation to suit their political preferences, they're worth remarking on because of their rarity.

As to the two-party system, be careful what you wish for. Ireland has its very own two-party system, the party you support depending on which side your great-grandad fought on during the general stupidity of 1921-23. The minor parties help make up various shades of coalition, and as one of their leaders remarked, it's the meat, not the bread, which gives flavour to the sandwich. Or to put it slightly less charitably, if you mix two ounces of dog shite with a pint of ice cream, the result will probably taste more like dog shite than ice cream.

527. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138312 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 7:29 am

I meant to post a serious comment on this topic. But it just doesn't merit one, does it? At least we can have a good giggle at this. Some of what the Catholic church has been up to is no laughing matter.

528. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138305 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 7:24 am

... and to have been able to tell people their sins before they confessed them to him

Let me guess. "Have you have been touching yourself? You know it is forbidden."

Dominatrices use that trick all the time. Apparently.

529. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138302 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 7:20 am

Quetz - At least, that was his explanation for why they found him wearing a pink spandex leotard.

With a satsuma in his mouth, and the door locked from the inside. Det. Supt. Ratzinger told the assembled press, "He fell down the stairs, guv."

530. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138248 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 5:22 am

Tycho the Dog - What I would say to you is that that is not my A, C, F, H (repeat ad nauseam)

531. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #138201 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 3:58 am

Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh
Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh
Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh
Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh Ruh-t-duh

Duracell bunny, I tell you.

532. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138167 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 2:51 am

Corylus - You are quite right as usual, and I am quite wrong. Chris Heard it was. Now that was the sort of theist I could relate to. Thanks.

533. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138155 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 2:15 am

Chris Hedges, a war correspondent and graduate of Harvard Divinity School, believes that evolution alone can't make us goodâ€"we need to believe in something. In I Don't Believe in Atheists (Free Press, Mar.), Hedges equates the new atheists to the fundamentalist believers they critique and suggests that they're just as dangerous. Dominick Anfuso, v-p and editorial director, says, "Hedges attacks the atheists as being as dogmatic, if not more so, than what they're criticizing. Based on his experience as a war correspondent, he takes on their worldview, the idea that we are capable of spiritual improvement. Hedges says we're clearly not progressing morally as a species."

Is this the same Chris Hedges who posted here on the leprechology thread, and was told by revcort that he was on the slippery slope to a worse hell than mere atheists?

Funny, I don't remember him arguing that here.

534. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #137682 by hungarianelephant on March 3, 2008 at 10:42 am

Jon_Sociologist - Generally I'd be sympathetic to that view, but trying to debate with wooter is about as productive as trying to debate with voicemail. Even if you can wade through the treacle which is his/her posting style, you never get an actual response, just more of the same stuff regurgitated. All the arguments come back to "I don't believe that complexity can arise without a designer, therefore God exists". Each branch of this has been comprehensively debunked several hundred times, as anyone who cares to check the posting history can see. S/he doesn't answer any of the questions put, but just repeats one of his/her own, often in block capitals.

I'm frankly amazed that anyone still has the patience to engage with wooter at all. Even for the purpose of abuse.

535. Fleabytes

Comment #137673 by hungarianelephant on March 3, 2008 at 10:32 am

What is going on here?

Nearly up to 3000 posts, and we still haven't seen Paula's new frock. Or even her nice polycotton tracksuit from Tesco. Oooh.

536. Survey shows Non-Religious Outnumber Those of Every Single Faith (But One)

Comment #137637 by hungarianelephant on March 3, 2008 at 9:29 am

Am I alone in thinking that the appropriate response to this article is "So What"?

537. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #137601 by hungarianelephant on March 3, 2008 at 8:39 am

Buckingham Palace? Buckingham Palace? What happened to Birmingham Palace? This argument looked much better when it was about a curry house rather than a dismal pile in London.

Ok, not "better", maybe, but more amusing.

538. A natural phenomenon

Comment #137499 by hungarianelephant on March 3, 2008 at 2:10 am

For those of you who haven't seen much of Sir David, here's one of his most famous, and poignant, clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y

It's probably not an exaggeration to say that he has done more for the understanding of the natural world than any other person. Here's looking forward to the Darwin series.

Side note: he appeared on Irish TV's Late Late Show on Friday. Asked if he believed in God, he dodged the question first time, then second time said he thought the creation story was nonsense but believed in spirituality.

I seem to remember a thread here a while ago about the deletion of his references to evolution in (some) exported versions of his documentaries.

539. Fleabytes

Comment #135884 by hungarianelephant on February 29, 2008 at 10:19 am

hello - ..but I doubt very much that it was lack of evidence that led you to choose atheism.

I can't speak for Paula, but for me it definitely was. Not, perhaps, the lack of hard physical evidence of creation. No, it was that despite looking and asking really hard for guidance about how to receive his infinite mercy, the lazy bastard never gave me any. Eventually it occurred to me that this might possibly be because he didn't exist.

Any more presuppositions? Atheists tenets that you'd like to share with us?

540. Fleabytes

Comment #135873 by hungarianelephant on February 29, 2008 at 10:10 am

Bonzai - We might be experiencing a raid by Robertson's minions.

And these are the best he can find?

Oh, that's right. We're talking about Wee Frees here.

541. Fleabytes

Comment #135544 by hungarianelephant on February 29, 2008 at 4:41 am

This feeling of discouragement, darkness and depression really hit home one Saturday afternoon at Dens Park, the home of Dundee FC.

Well that's understandable. Perhaps our Reverend is human after all?
I was enjoying the game when the thought hit me, what would it be like if the atheist worldview was true? The thought of a life without Christ was for me an overwhelming one. It shattered me.

Oh. Never mind.

542. Fleabytes

Comment #135534 by hungarianelephant on February 29, 2008 at 4:30 am

The phrase "bald men fighting over a comb" springs to mind.

Oh, and the Charge of the Light Brigade was actually a successful military operation. Albeit somewhat less successful for the protagonists.

543. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #135527 by hungarianelephant on February 29, 2008 at 4:17 am

Just a minor observation - there's actually less testing of drugs in animals than you might think.

Animals are almost exclusively used for very early stage testing - basic safety (for new compounds) and indicative bioavailability (for reformulations). There's not a lot of point doing extensive studies on animals once you establish that they don't drop dead or become obviously very ill. Because we haven't yet been able to engineer a mouse which is able to say "Ow, my head hurts. I don't like this."

The big studies are done in humans, so you can do a proper evaluation of what the drug does. What is does in a monkey is a better indicator than what it does in a pig, which is better than a dog, which is better than a mouse (generally speaking). But none of them are really reliable. You have to put it into adult volunteers to try it properly.

544. Fleabytes

Comment #135524 by hungarianelephant on February 29, 2008 at 4:07 am

epeeist - Wilmslow? A village? Did the estate agent see you coming?

I spent my teenage years in Prestbury. Parents still live there. Before you get too excited, I should point out that they bought in the 1980s, before prices got really crazy. It's a much nicer place than I think it appears. Though it must account for at least half the country's sales of H2O2.

My sister was at school with Alan Garner's daughter. He had writers' block for over 20 years. Odd chap. Still, if I'd written the Weirdstone books, not sure how I would have followed up either. It captures the feeling of the Edge sublimely, at least during weekdays when it's not the playground of two million golden retrievers.

545. Fleabytes

Comment #135489 by hungarianelephant on February 29, 2008 at 3:20 am

epeeist - Handforth, Mottram or Prestbury?

546. Taking evidence seriously

Comment #135438 by hungarianelephant on February 29, 2008 at 1:13 am

Frankus1122 - Why, why, why has this [double-blind study of homeopathy] not been done already?

Because the nature of homeopathy's claims mean that a sensible study design would mean a huge study, and a huge study would be unbelievably expensive.

And because the whole thing would point out the idiocy of a system in which patients are given an average of 8 minutes and one prescription per visit. While Whitehall mandarins don't mind spending money, they do not like their system looking stupid.

Also what Teratornis said (21 / 135250).

And I'm not going to be drawn on Iraq. I'm not.

547. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134828 by hungarianelephant on February 28, 2008 at 8:41 am

anna - That's a new one on me. What terms are you searching?

I know a lot of animal vaccines use formaldehyde, which is associated with all kinds of unpleasant reactions. I wasn't aware anyone seriously thought the concept of vaccination was Fido's problem.

548. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134812 by hungarianelephant on February 28, 2008 at 8:25 am

I have my doubts about whether most people's objections to vaccines are religious in nature. I commented on this in another thread, if anyone is interested:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/jumptocomment.php?articleID=1992&commentID=96843&URLtitle=This-deadly-religious-resistance-to-vaccinations&URLauthor=Johann-Hari

annabanana - Isn't there a hypothesis that vaccines cause over-stimulation of the immune system which results in autoimmune disorders such as allergies and asthma?

I've also heard that. It appears to have its origin in what our dear Veronique would call "wankery" - pseudoscience. A moment's contemplation of what Jenner got up to should dispel that notion.

steveroot - That was a wise choice. My parents made a comparable one - not to allow my sister to be injected with HGH (human growth hormone). A number of the people who were given it around that time subsequently died very unpleasant deaths from CJD, the human form of mad cow disease. The HGH in question had been retrieved from the pituitary glands of corpses, which were then put into a sort of communal mincer before being preserved in acetone.

Scepticism about scientific advance is sometimes healthy.

549. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #134759 by hungarianelephant on February 28, 2008 at 7:22 am

Obviously I can't let a pharma controversy pass ...

The big problem with vaccines is that they have to be put into huge patient populations. It isn't feasible to test in huge patient populations prior to commercial launch. The disparity between trial population and patient population means you're more likely to miss an adverse reaction which affects only a small proportion, but the small proportion can multiply out into a relatively large number.

This was part of the problem with Vioxx and the other Cox-2's. The cardiac issue was known, but it wasn't until millions of people started taking it that you could say with any certainty whether it was caused by the drug or by the absence of NSAIDs which it replaced; NSAIDs are known to reduce cardiac problems. (It turned out to be both.)

The industry tends to find it quite difficult to get insurance to cover vaccines as a result of this.

But that said, within those limits the HPV vaccine (actually I think there is a second) was shown to be safe and effective in trials. A quick Google says 11,000 patients, which is a pretty decent sample.

550. Fleabytes

Comment #134742 by hungarianelephant on February 28, 2008 at 6:53 am

I genuinely believe that the answers are to be found in Jesus

Speaking of emotional reactions, I have a visceral reaction to this. "Genuine belief", in the mind of a genuine believer, appears to trump all other considerations. Y'know, like evidence, or practicality, or what other people "genuinely believe".

We have been here before. Tony Blair, anyone? I genuinely believed that Saddam had WMD, even though I knew that the "evidence" presented to the public was fabricated.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | Next