Derek McGowan

Self Quarantine

Recommended Posts

Ebola got me thinking...

But lets take this to a sci-fi extreme shall we :)

Suppose you contracted a radically contagious, 100% kill rate, rapid death (5 days) alien infection while on your daily duty patrolling the kuiper belt. Knowing it is the end of your life, you would love to spend it with your loved ones back on Earth. But then you also know that if you return to Earth the disease would rapidly spread to 90% or more of the worlds population.

Are you being altruistic (evil) if you decide to not go back to Earth, depriving yourself of your loved ones company in your final days for the sake of strangers? Or maybe you are being patriotic (however that may fit into Objectivist philosophy)? Remember that while the philosophy is based on rational selfishness, the rational part only prevents people from doing what they like because of the consequences to oneself. There are no consequences to oneself if you are going to die anyway in 5 days. And what does you dead self care if everyone else dies after you, because of you? If Objectivism had a religious/after-life/eternity in hell component then there would indeed be consequences and it wouldn't be rational to infect others, but it doesn't..... and the selfish part is satisfied with you being able to see those you love in your final days.

Allow me to state for the record that I personally do not believe in altruism at all. To me, all behavior is selfish at its core, whether the act makes you feel good or it prevents you from feeling guilt/bad.

ps. this is a thought experiment, let's not have any technicalities brought up like "how would the disease reach 90% of the population," or "how would one get back to Earth from the Kuiper belt in 5 days," or "how would one even know that this infection is highly contagious or that there is no cure if this is the first time anyone has contracted it" I don't want to hear any of that sh....

carry on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would collect all of the information I possibly could about the disease and the circumstances and location where I contracted it, write my goodbyes to my loved ones, transmit this information and then crash at as high a velocity as possible onto the largest rock I could find.

No consequences? How could a person live with themselves for five seconds knowing they've caused the extermination of the human race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite so, Mike.

Man's life as the standard of value ("That which is required for the survival of man qua man").

His own life as the ethical purpose ("The purpose of living a life proper to a rational being" for every individual).

Five seconds to live, or five days, that rational egoist doesn't and cannot desert his lifelong principle (recalls an atheist making a death bed conversion to religion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We heard that before. Bird flu, swine flu, now ebola. All hoaxes.

You do not believe that viruses can cause human disease, Jerry, nor that diseases can mutate and adapt to infecting across species?

Are you wanting us to accept your idea that Ebola virus (one of several hemorrhagic fevers) is a complete hoax, or are you suggesting that alarmism about the dangers of Ebola transmission is akin to a hoax?

If you weren't probably serious, I would have a laugh at your expense. Knowing how much nonsense you already believe, all I can say is that you have no cognitive filters to help you discern nonsense. Which is sad.

Why you hang around an Objectivish, reason-centred forum is another mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We heard that before. Bird flu, swine flu, now ebola. All hoaxes.

You do not believe that viruses can cause human disease, Jerry, nor that diseases can mutate and adapt to infecting across species?

How many people died of H1N1? It was so mild that most people who got that disease didn't know they were sick. The vaccine did not prevent the disease and was worse than the disease. Most of the people who got the disease were vaccinated against the disease prior to getting it.

Viruses can have a role in causing diseases but are over rated.

Even if you believe in vaccines, are you going to take a vaccine for every virus? Every year? (Because lifetime immunity is a myth.) And for every mutation? Every time you take a vaccine, you are more poisoned.

There is a much simpler and more effective way. Keep your immune system strong. Then you are protected against all viruses and all mutations.

By the way, what is the source of your information? Government? Government is not a trustworthy source of information. This goes for all the government agencies, FDA etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

Here is Dr. Russell Blaylock's info about H1N1, most of it.

--- [ begin quote ] ---

shapeimage_1.jpg

The Truth about the Flu Shot!

"By 1853, Parliament began passing laws to make the untested vaccine compulsory

throughout the British Empire. Other countries of Europe followed suit. Once the

economic implications of compulsory vaccinations were realized, few dared to

disagree. Then, as now, the media were controlled by the vaccine manufacturers

and the government, who stood to make huge money from the sale of these spurious

vaccines."... Tim O'Shea, D.C.

1. What’s in the regular flu shot?

Egg proteins: including avian contaminant viruses

Gelatin: known to cause allergic reactions and anaphylaxis are usually

associated with sensitivity to egg or gelatin

Polysorbate 80 (Tween80™): can cause severe allergic reactions,

including anaphylaxis

Formaldehyde: known carcinogen

Triton X100: a strong detergent

Sucrose: table sugar

Resin: known to cause allergic reactions

Gentamycin: an antibiotic

Thimerosal: mercury is still in multidose vials

2. Do flu shots work?

Not in babies: In a review of more than 51 studies involving more than

294,000 children it was found there was “no evidence that injecting

children 6-24 months of age with a flu shot was any more effective than

placebo. In children over 2 yrs, it was only effective 33% of the time in

preventing the flu. Reference: Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy

children." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2 (2008).

Not in children with asthma: A study 800 children with asthma,

where one half were vaccinated and the other half did not receive the

influenza vaccine. The two groups were compared with respect to

clinic visits, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations

for asthma. CONCLUSION: This study failed to provide evidence that

the influenza vaccine prevents pediatric asthma exacerbations.

Reference: “Effectiveness of influenza vaccine for the prevention of asthma

exacerbations.” Christly, C. et al. Arch Dis Child. 2004 Aug;89(8):734-5.

Not in children with asthma (2): “The inactivated flu vaccine,

Flumist, does not prevent influenza-related hospitalizations in

children, especially the ones with asthma…In fact, children who get

the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than children who

do not get the vaccine.” Reference: The American Thoracic Society’s 105th

International Conference, May 15-20, 2009, San Diego.

Not in adults: In a review of 48 reports including more than 66,000

adults, “Vaccination of healthy adults only reduced risk of influenza

by 6% and reduced the number of missed work days by less than one

day (0.16) days. It did not change the number of people needing to go

to hospital or take time off work.” Reference: “Vaccines for preventing

influenza in healthy adults." The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

1(2006).

Not in the Elderly: In a review of 64 studies in 98 flu seasons, for

elderly living in nursing homes, flu shots were non-significant for

preventing the flu. For elderly living in the community, vaccines were

not (significantly) effective against influenza, ILI or pneumonia.

Reference: “Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly.” The Cochrane

Database of Systematic Reviews. 3(2006).

3. What about the new Swine Flu shot?

A new report from a WHO advisory group predicts that global

production of vaccine for the novel H1N1 influenza virus could be as

much as 4.9 billon doses a year, far higher than previous estimates.

The report says that vaccine makers are expected to produce

about 780 million doses of seasonal flu vaccine for the northern

hemisphere's 2008-09 flu season for the

June 12 Announcement:

The new H1N1 (swine flu) vaccine is going to be made by

Novartis. It will probably be made in PER.C6 cells (human

retina cells) and contain MF59, a potentially debilitating

adjuvant.

MF-59 is an oil-based adjuvant primarily composed of

squalene, Tween 80 and Span85.

All oil adjuvants injected into rats were found toxic. All rats

developed an MS-like disease that left them crippled, dragging

their paralyzed hindquarters across their cages.

Squalene caused severe arthritis (3 on scale of 4). Squalene in

humans at 10-20 ppb (parts per billion) lead to severe immune

responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus.

Reference: Kenney, RT. Edleman, R. "Survey of human-use adjuvants."

Expert Review of Vaccines. 2 (2003) p171.

Reference: Matsumoto, Gary. Vaccine A: The Covert Government

Experiment That’s Killing Our Soldiers and Why GI’s Are Only the First

Victims of this Vaccine. New York: Basic Books. p54.

Federal health officials will probably recommend that most

Americans get three flu shots this fall: one regular flu shot and

two doses of any vaccine made against the new swine flu strain.

Reference: Washington Post, Wednesday, May 6, 2009

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is talking to school

superintendents around the country, urging them to spend the

summer planning what to do if the government decides it needs

their buildings for mass vaccinations and vaccinating kids first.

Reference: CBS News, June 12, 2009.

4. Is Mandatory Vaccination Possible?

1946: US Public Health Service was established and EO 9708 (Executive

Order) was signed, listing the communicable diseases where quarantines

could be used. 1946 and 2003, cholera, diphtheria, TB, typhoid,

smallpox, yellow fever, & viral hemorrhagic fevers were added.

April 4, 2003: EO 13295 added SARS to the list.

April 1, 2005: EO 13295 added “Influenza caused by novel or re-emergent

influenza viruses that are causing, or have the potential to cause, a pandemic.”

EO 13295 also:

The president gave the Sec. of HHS the power to quarantine, his or

her discretion.

Sec of HHS has the power to arrange for the “apprehension and

examination of persons reasonably thought to be infected.” A cough

or a fever could put a person at risk for being quarantined for an

extended period of time without recourse.

January 28, 2003: Project BioShield was introduced during Bush’s State of the

Union Address. This created permanent and indefinite funding authority to

develop “medical countermeasures.”

The NIH was given authority to speed approval of drugs and vaccines.

Emergency approval of a “fast tracked” drug and vaccine can be

given without the regular course of safety testing.

December 17, 2006: Division E: The Public Readiness and Emergency

Preparedness Act was added as an addendum to Defense Appropriations Bill

HR 2863 at 11:20p on Saturday night, long after House Committee members

had signed off on the bill and gone home for the holidays. Section (b)(1)

states:

The Sec of HHS can make a determination that a “disease, health

condition or threat” constitutes a public health emergency. He or she

may then recommend “the manufacture, testing, development,

administration, or use of one or more covered counter measures…”

A covered countermeasure defined as a “pandemic product, vaccine

or drug.”

Division E also provides complete liability protection for all drugs,

vaccines or biological products deemed a “covered countermeasure”

and used for an outbreak of any kind.

Complete liability protection has been given to drug companies for

any product used for any public health emergency declared by Sec of

HHS.

Pharma is now protected from all accountability, unless “criminal

intent to do harm” can be proven by the injured party. They are

protected from liability even if they know the drug will be harmful.

5. What can I do? These are just a few suggestions; please come up

with more of your own! Add to this list and spread the word.

Give this information to everyone you know and love.

Contact local first responders (EMTs, Paramedics, Fireman, etc). Tell

them what is will be in the flu shots and that “they” will be the first

ones to get it.

Contact local police and discuss concerns about mandatory

vaccination. You go to church and to the grocery store with these

folks and their kids play with your kids. They are not "scary" people.

Take them coffee and a treat to get in the door... !

Contact local city council members about your liberties. You need

their support to maintain your right to refuse.

Write a small article for LOCAL, community newspapers. Watch for

samples on www.DrTenpenny.com

Have at least 3 weeks of food and water at your house and be

prepared to voluntarily self-quarantine of given no other options.

Stock up on Vitamin D3 (3000IU per person), Mixed carotenoids, Vitamin

C (buffered), etc and beta-1,3/1,6-glucan (an immune stimulant that targets cellular immunity, the most effective against flu virus)

See attached as to what to do if you are vaccinated

Check out www.oath-keepers.org . A pdf of their oath for easy

printing will be on www.DrTenpenny.com I am sharing this with

local military recruitment office, reservists and retired military people

we know.

Connect with other activist organizations – those who support 2nd

amendment issues, the environmental and animal rights. Help spread

the word about their passion and get them involved with yours.

For more information go to

www.SayingNoToVaccines.com or www.DrTenpenny.com

The above information was prepared by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny and revised by Dr. Russell Blaylock

Analysis of material by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by Dr. Russell Blaylock. (September 5, 2009)

Critical Observations:

Doctor visits for flu are down from the level in April

Total flu hospitalizations are similar or lower than for seasonal flu (yearly flu)

The number of death secondary to flu and pneumonia is unchanged from yearly rate

Only two states are reporting widespread infections—Georgia and Alaska. Other states report only regional or sporadic activity, meaning it’s not very contagious.

There is no evidence that the virus has mutated at all anywhere in the world

The virus remains susceptible to the drugs Tamiflu and Relenza.

Only 43,771 cases have been reported in the United States. Because of poor reporting the CDC estimates that true numbers indicate that one million have been infected. Many people did not get sick enough to go to a doctor. Likewise, not all people are tested who go to a doctor.

Of these 5,011 have been hospitalized and 302 have died.

Death Rates From the H1N1 Flu

If we use the 43,771 figure and 302 deaths that means the death rate is 0.6%, an extremely low death rate for any flu.

The percentage of hospitalized patients who died was 6%, again a very low incidence of death.

Since the CDC estimates that one million have been infected, we must recalculate death rates. Using this more accurate figure, the death rate is in truth 0.03%, which means 99.97% will not die from this flu. Your chances of dying are incredibly low.

Age and Death Rates

We hear a lot about the unusual age distribution with this virus, especially as regards death rates, with the young being more affected than, as with seasonal flu, the elderly (90% of deaths are usually among those greater than 65 years old). The risks of becoming infected are as follows:

Ages 5 to 24 y/o--------26.7 per 100,000 (0.027%)

Ages 0 to 4 y/o ---------22.9 per 100,000 (0.023%)

Ages 25 to 49-----------6.97 per 100,000 (0.0069%)

Ages 50 to 64 y/o------3.9 per 100,000 (0.0039)

Over 65 y/o-------------1.3 per 1000,000 (0.00013%)

And the risk of needing to be hospitalized are:

Ages 0 to 4 y/o---------0.0045%

Ages 5 to 24 y/o--------0.0021%

Ages 25 to 45 y/o------0.0011%

Over 65 y/o-------------0.0017%

This indicates that for all age groups, the risk of being hospitalized are far less than 1% and well over 99% of people will not need hospitalization. This explains why this infection is being downplayed by the virologists themselves, the ones who know most about the dangers of viruses.

The distributions of death also vary considerably by age. Below is the distribution of deaths according to age.

Ages 25-49 y/o---------41%

Ages 50 to 64 y/o-----24%

Ages 5 to 24 y/o------16%

Over age 65 y/o------- 9%

Ages 0 to 4 y/o-------- 2%

So, we see that the greatest death rates in the extremely small fraction that die are between ages 25 to 49 and 65% are between ages 25 to 64. The least likely to die are babies up to age 4 years, yet they are targeted for vaccination and as we see from the above data, children below age 2 years get absolutely no protection from the flu vaccines.

Analysis of the New Government Projections to the Media

If we analyzed it according to the worst case scenario released by the government we see far lower figures than being projected:

They say 150 million Americans will be infected. That is 150 X as many now infected and represents a much larger figure than now estimated with a 6 to 6.5 % of a localized population. For the United States itself with a population slightly over 300 million, their figures indicate a 50% infection rate. There is nothing to indicate such a high infectivity rate from the past 7 months of analysis. It should also be appreciated that the infections will not occur all at once, but will slowly evolve, as we have seen thus far, meaning that at any one time a much smaller Americans will be infected—which also reduces the numbers who will require hospitalizations at any one time and who will need ICU care.

As far as the number that will need hospitalization, the Government now says there will be 1.8 million people hospitalized, of which 300,000 may need ICU treatment. If we use the existing data we see that the numbers are quite different. At the time the data was taken, 303 people out of one million infected died and 5,011 needed hospitalization. This means a projected hospitalization incidence of 750,000 and a death rate of 45,000 deaths. Remember, this is using their data applied to the outrageously high figure of 50% of the population being infected—that is, 150 million people.

If the infection rate is 6%, as all the studies have shown thus far, we see much smaller numbers. Instead of 150 million infected we see 18 million infected. Using these more realistic figures we can estimate a hospitalization rate of 90,000 and a projected death incidence of 5436.

Again, it is important to keep in mind that the infections will be evolving and not all at once as both sets of figures seem to imply. If we spread this over several months and waves of the infection, we see that at any one time the hospitalizations will be a much smaller number, as will the deaths. Thus far, there have been nationwide 2000 hospitalizations a months and 99 deaths a month. Certainly the hospitals in the United States can handle the increase. In the United States we have 5,759 hospitals containing 955,000 beds and 70,000 ICU beds. Most hospitalized people will not require intensive care. Most are suffering from dehydration and only require IV fluid infusion.

It should also be appreciated that most pediatric deaths and elderly deaths will occur early in the epidemic because the chronically ill and immune suppressed will become infected early. Therefore one would expect the deaths to rise initially and then fall as the infection spreads as we see from this graph:

[ graphs here ]

Why do some die from such a mild virus?

As stated by the virologists, this virus is no more a danger than the seasonal virus that visits each year and seems to be much weaker. One may also note from the CDC’s own data, the previous nonsense about 36,000 dying from the seasonal flu every year is pure fiction. We have had a little over 400 deaths nationwide over the past 5 months, nowhere near the 36,000 figure screamed from the airwaves and our TV sets, yet the public is in a state of panic.

So, why are some dying from this virus? What is little understood by the general public is that the only reason people die from the flu is that they have either an immune suppressing chronic illness, such as diabetes, direct immune dysfunction, dietary deficiencies of critical immune-supporting nutrients, chronic pulmonary disease, heart disease or a cancer.

Smoking powerfully suppresses immunity as well as damages the lungs and we know that smokers are much more likely to suffer complications and die than non-smokers. Excess dietary omega-6 fats (corn, safflower, sunflower, soybean, peanut and canola oils) also severely weaken immunity. The EPA component of omega-3 oils also powerfully suppresses immunity.

A study by the CDC found that 32% of the children dying from H1N1 flu had asthma, when the incidence of asthma in the general population was 8 percent. Two thirds of the children who died had neurological disorders, such as seizures and cerebral palsy. So, the vast majority of children who are dying have one of a number of chronic health conditions, yet the media gives us the impression that perfectly healthy children are dying.

A recent study of why so many died during the 1918 flu pandemic found that most of the deaths were secondary to bacterial pneumonia and not the flu virus itself. In 1918 hospitals had little to offer a sick patient—there were no antibiotics, other than sulfur drugs, no IV fluids and no respirators—all they could offer was a warm bed and aspirin.

It was also disclosed that the number of flu-related deaths among children was lower this year than the previous two years.

What are the virologists saying?

Virologists are scientists who study viruses—their classification, their genetics, methods of spread and their ability to cause disease. No one knows more about this virus than the virologists. The British science magazine, The New Scientist, recently polled 60 virologists to get their opinion. These are the results of specific questions:

Will the virulent version of the virus appear?

Extremely likely-----------------none

Likely----------------------------5

A 50/50 chance----------------- 14

Possible-------------------------- 38

Not at all--------------------------3

What the virologists are doing personally

Stock Tamiflu or Relinza-----------------14

Stock above plus antibiotics------------- 6

Stock food, water and power source----5

Get pneumococcal vaccine---------------3

Nothing------------------------------------ 30

Hand washing, mask, etc--------------- 3

Notice there was no mention of taking the swine flu vaccine. Behind the push to vaccinate the entire population are the pharmaceutical makers of the vaccines, who are working in conjunction with the government to make the vaccine mandatory. Homeland security and FEMA are pushing for forced vaccinations and the medical experts, virologist and epidemiologist are calling for calm and resorting to voluntary vaccination only. The former have links with the vaccine manufacturers via political contacts. A great deal of money will be made by the manufacturers, should forced vaccinations be mandated.

Will this vaccine be tested?

According to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 5 tests are planned. It is not clear as to the use of the squalene adjuvants, ASO3 and MF-59. Because of concerns raised, the FDA is now hedging. Independent studies of squalene used as a vaccine adjuvant indicates that it is associated with a very high incidence of autoimmune diseases, such as an MS-like neurological syndrome, rheumatoid joint disease and especially Lupus.

The developer of MF-59 is Chiron pharmaceuticals, which was purchased by Novartis pharmaceutical company, who will be the main supplier of the swine flu vaccine for the world. According to Dr. Fauci, testing in both children and adults will be without this adjuvant and he admits that we have no data on the safety in children.(See Nature Vol 460/30 July 2009, p 562 for the interview.)

There are 5 tests scheduled for safety before mass vaccinations will resume. I looked up on clinicaltrials.gov the actual studies being done. It is instructive to note that the only studies actually being done do not contain any adjuvant (the immune booster) either for babies or adults. Yet, when the mass vaccinations begin, the vaccines will have adjuvant added, possibly squalene.

The real irony here is that this is the same bait and switch game they played in the 1976 swine flu vaccine disaster. They tested one vaccine and gave a different one during the mass vaccinations. Here we go again. Over 500 people were paralyzed with Guillain Barre disorder. The incidence was much higher, because it was not a reportable disease. And over 300 people died, which is also a very low figure.

Dr. Fauci admits that they have no idea what will happen when they mix the three viruses from the vaccines together or when they are given sequentially. When he was asked if the results of the studies would be reviewed by the health authorities, he answered, yes, except for those done by the Novartis company. He justified this secrecy by saying that Norvartis had a very advanced testing system, which was done “in-house”—that is, in secrecy.

It is also important to appreciate that this vaccine has been fast-tracked, meaning that many of the usual safety precautions used to prevent contamination of the vaccines will be overlooked by the regulatory agencies. According to a number of studies, vaccine contamination is widespread, with vaccines containing pestivirus, mycoplasma, viral fragments, DNA fragments and bacterial components, all of which can produce chronic systemic disorders, cancer, neurologic diseases and even slow brain degeneration.

--- [ end quote ] ---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So JTS, you didn't explicitly answer the question, is the virus itself a hoax or is just that all the alarm raised over them is unwarranted?

Also, what does this have to do with my initial post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We heard that before. Bird flu, swine flu, now ebola. All hoaxes.

You do not believe that viruses can cause human disease, Jerry, nor that diseases can mutate and adapt to infecting across species?

Viruses can have a role in causing diseases but are over rated.

Jerry, I am not interested in your yammering about vaccines -- you have shown yourself to be ignorant and uneducable.

On the topic of Ebola, you say (or appear to say) that Ebola is a 'hoax.' I am interested in why you think this, if you do. If you think that the dangers of this hemorrhagic fever is nil or has been sensationalized, there's a discussion to be had.

Perhaps, in your own words, you could explain how and to what extent Ebola (and the current epidemic) is a hoax.

As for your following copy-paste slug: can you summarize what its says about Ebola? If I wanted to read Dr Blaylock, and if I considered him some authority, I would search his wisdom down. As it is, he is not here, you are.

Dr Blaylock, for those who aren`t familiar with his stellar neuroscience career (he is now retired), is a believer in the Chemtrail Conspiracy.

That is right. Jerry's go-to guy on Ebola is a believer in chemtrails. This puts his beliefs about aspartame and vaccinology and dental amalgam using fish oil and supplements to beat influenza ... in the same zany pot, in my opinion.

Jerry, why is it that you prefer crackpot themes?

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek,

To answer your opening post, we are individual human beings, not individual blobs of uniqueness. We all belong to a species, the human species.

There is no way a good human being will destroy a large part of his or her species on purpose for any reason. None.

That is not specifically stated in the Objectivist literature, but I believe it is in between the cracks in the premises.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, why is it that you prefer crackpot themes?

As near as I can figure, one main difference between me and most people is most people look upon government and government agencies as near infallible sources of information. For example most people will guote FDA and expect that to be the end of rational discussion, because whatever FDA says is true. I look upon FDA as an organization that exists for the purpose of telling lies. I call FDA the Fraud and Deception Administration. So quoting FDA (as an authority) to me won't work.

FDA may have started half ass decent but it got corrupted, as anything connected with government tends to do over time.

BTW, you have a tendency to attribute things to me that are not true. For example I am not a fan of fish oil.

You also have a tendency to take my statements out of context. For example about trust. That comes up with government. Usually not too much otherwise. I hold to the theory that people are probably honest until they prove otherwise. FDA is definitely dishonest.

As for Blaylock being retired, he is retired from surgery, but he is still active. And what does retired have to do with anything?

About ebola. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We have seen this scare mongering tactic repeatedly at least as far back as the 1970s. It is nothing new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So JTS, you didn't explicitly answer the question, is the virus itself a hoax or is just that all the alarm raised over them is unwarranted?

Also, what does this have to do with my initial post?

So JTS, you didn't explicitly answer the question, is the virus itself a hoax or is just that all the alarm raised over them is unwarranted?

I don't care. In either case, I'm not concerned about viruses in the news.

Also, what does this have to do with my initial post?

Let's use a better example than ebola. Whatever. In Objectivism, you don't sacrifice yourself to others and you don't sacrifice others to self. Causing the death of 90% of the population might be considered sacrificing others to self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Ebola patient in Dallas just died..try telling him it is a hoax. It may even bee a weaponized version of the Zaire strain for all we know. The virus was first discovered 40 years ago and always flared up but then disappeared. Now if it gets a foothold in a major city this could get messsyyyyyy..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite so, Mike.

Man's life as the standard of value ("That which is required for the survival of man qua man").

His own life as the ethical purpose ("The purpose of living a life proper to a rational being" for every individual).

Five seconds to live, or five days, that rational egoist doesn't and cannot desert his lifelong principle (recalls an atheist making a death bed conversion to religion).

Thank you Tony. Without the context of humanity, culture, language, thousands of years of accumulated knowledge, transferred with care and difficulty from generation to generation with a future full of hope for ultimate understanding of ourselves and nature we are no more than super clever sewer rats. I hate the characterization of 'objectivists' as super rational sociopaths. Ayn Rand figuratively killed herself trying to write a novel and create a philosophy to save humanity from a path she perceived as leading to ruin.

I wish this discussion had gone it the direction suggested by your words. Though I think understand Jerry's pov. The information we get is a mix of outright lies motivated by politics, 'cover your ass' by bureaucrats, or journalistic overstatement. We mostly don't know the underlying facts. Ebola I understand can only be transmitted by contact with bodily fluids, like aids. I would guess a 'massive' ebola outbreak in the United States might result in the deaths of a few hundred people, mostly medical workers who come in contact with an infected person and the families of these people. It is unknown, as far as I know, the percentage of population susceptible to the disease though people who get it generally die from it. Not pleasant but won't kill but a tiny fraction of the people who die on our highways yearly. All of this is perhaps related to the topic but peripherally, and inserting it the way Jerry did amounts to trolling for insults. Mission accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the disease is 100% contagious and 100% fatal and I know that, then spending my last days with my beloved son is the same as murder. Even if there were any part of me that could be okay with that (which there isn't), that's quite an infringment on his rights and most definitely an initation of force. The rest of the human race is irrelevant to me in that scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did the ebola patient die of?

Ebola.

It is possible for a patient to have disease A and die of condition B not related to A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You look at causes of death a hundred (100) years ago were primarily "pneumonia," or:

Five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:

1. Pneumonia and influenza 2. Tuberculosis 3. Diarrhea 4. Heart disease 5. Stroke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't purposely bring about the death of my loved ones.

But I am blob enough and vain enough that the rest of 'my' species should know of my deed , I'd sleep better that fateful night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible for a patient to have disease A and die of condition B not related to A.

Bob,

Possible if a safe fell on his head or something like that, but not plausible with ebola.

I am sympathetic to bashing the mainstream press's fear mongering (often fed by press releases from governmental agencies, non-profits, etc., with agendas to push).

But common sense says if a guy has ebola and gets worse, then dies, he died of ebola. The fear-mongering will exaggerate the threat from this, but I doubt it will make the cause of death up to fool people. Come on...

Besides, imagine using this reasoning alone in the wilderness. I see a snake. It's possible the snake isn't poisonous, so I can let my guard down. I am heard from no more. :)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A desire not to violate the rights of other people or, more generally, a desire not to cause harm to innocent people, is not "altruism," at least not as Rand understood the term.

Ghs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We heard that before. Bird flu, swine flu, now ebola. All hoaxes.

You do not believe that viruses can cause human disease, Jerry, nor that diseases can mutate and adapt to infecting across species?

Viruses can have a role in causing diseases but are over rated.

On the topic of Ebola, you say (or appear to say) that Ebola is a 'hoax.' I am interested in why you think this, if you do. If you think that the dangers of this hemorrhagic fever is nil or has been sensationalized, there's a discussion to be had.

Perhaps, in your own words, you could explain how and to what extent Ebola (and the current epidemic) is a hoax.

As near as I can figure, one main difference between me and most people is most people look upon government and government agencies as near infallible sources of information. For example most people will guote FDA and expect that to be the end of rational discussion, because whatever FDA says is true.

I look upon FDA as an organization that exists for the purpose of telling lies. I call FDA the Fraud and Deception Administration. So quoting FDA (as an authority) to me won't work.

Okay. You reject out of hand anything from the US Food and Drug agency. This to me is a silly and unwarranted rejection. I mean, to examine critically according to the best principles of inquiry is one thing. To sweep all FDA work off the table, to put the entirety in the trash -- this is to me an error in thinking.

BTW, you have a tendency to attribute things to me that are not true. For example I am not a fan of fish oil.

It is Dr Blaylock who touts the cancer cures, and my reference was to the raft of nonsense he propounds. Since he is presently your go-to guy for Ebola (even though he hasn't written about Ebola to date), I brought forward some of his nonsense. I thought it might cause you to think ("Hmmm, Blaylock believes in the chemtrail conspiracy, and a Soviet plot to introduce viruses. So ... maybe he is not the best authority on Ebola, since he doesn't talk about Ebola. Oh, what the hell, let's just copy-paste a five thousand word plug of Blaylock that has nothing to do with Ebola. Then I will slag the FDA, all government, all health 'knowledge' except for Dr Gerson. And I am done.")

You also have a tendency to take my statements out of context. For example about trust. That comes up with government. Usually not too much otherwise. I hold to the theory that people are probably honest until they prove otherwise. FDA is definitely dishonest.

Under the B, Ebola, Under the I, Ebola. Ebola Gay. Ebola is the ISIS of viruses. Ebola is a Soviet plot. Ebola is not interesting. Ebola Beebola.

-- The FDA has FUCK ALL to do with Ebola.

As for Blaylock being retired, he is retired from surgery, but he is still active. And what does retired have to do with anything?

It means he no longer practices as an MD. He does not see patients.

About ebola. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We have seen this scare mongering tactic repeatedly at least as far back as the 1970s. It is nothing new.

Jerry, this is an unsatisfactory response.

You are on record claiming that Ebola is a hoax. You can't explain the reasoning that led you to this conclusion -- meaning you won't defend your particular beliefs about Ebola.

Weak reasoning. Weak argumentation. Shibboleths about the evul gummint. No rational framework to guide others to reject or accept particulars of your claims.

My tentative conclusion is that you know fuck all about Ebola, and that discussion with you is futile on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...