Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Two vast and trunkless legs of stone => Topic started by: hooplala on June 22, 2009, 08:07:12 PM

Title: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: hooplala on June 22, 2009, 08:07:12 PM
Speaks for itself: http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html)
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Cain on June 22, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
Anyone who calls themselves an "Indigo" anything is hereby disqualified from being taken seriously ever again.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: LMNO on June 22, 2009, 08:13:39 PM
Cf: Mangrove's "Indigo Pets".
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: hooplala on June 22, 2009, 08:15:53 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 22, 2009, 08:10:49 PM
Anyone who calls themselves an "Indigo" anything is hereby disqualified from being taken seriously ever again.

Quite true

HOOPLA
-Scarlet Asshole
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Cain on June 22, 2009, 08:27:39 PM
lol, hypocritical humour (look left)
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: hooplala on June 22, 2009, 08:33:03 PM
 :lulz:
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 02:31:30 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 22, 2009, 08:07:12 PM
Speaks for itself: http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html)

WTF is a "Chrystal Child" and an "Indigo Mom"?

:lulz:
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 02:32:21 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 02:31:30 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 22, 2009, 08:07:12 PM
Speaks for itself: http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html)

WTF is a "Chrystal Child" and an "Indigo Mom"?

:lulz:

Oh.

http://www.starchild.co.za/what.html

:lulz:  :lulz:  :lulz:
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Fredfredly ⊂(◉‿◉)つ on June 23, 2009, 02:36:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 02:32:21 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 02:31:30 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on June 22, 2009, 08:07:12 PM
Speaks for itself: http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html)

WTF is a "Chrystal Child" and an "Indigo Mom"?

:lulz:

WHAAAAAAAA?????  :?

Oh.

http://www.starchild.co.za/what.html

:lulz:  :lulz:  :lulz:
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:16:01 AM
Its basically a delusion where you start to believe that your child is not, in fact, mentally ill, but possesses special traits and abilities, many of them New Age-y in origin, and a belief that they have a divine or preordained mission to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.

That at one point the article for Indigo Children on Wikipedia also linked to the pages for Autism, Aspergers and Magical Thinking tells you quite a lot.

As of now, the Wiki article definitely links to ADHD, which is another one which seems to bring out the "no, mah child is specialz" crowd.

I really detest these people.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:18:47 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:16:01 AM
Its basically a delusion where you start to believe that your child is not, in fact, mentally ill, but possesses special traits and abilities, many of them New Age-y in origin, and a belief that they have a divine or preordained mission to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.

That at one point the article for Indigo Children on Wikipedia also linked to the pages for Autism, Aspergers and Magical Thinking tells you quite a lot.

As of now, the Wiki article definitely links to ADHD, which is another one which seems to bring out the "no, mah child is specialz" crowd.

I really detest these people.
:argh!:  just  :argh!:
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:20:07 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:16:01 AM


I really detest these people.

Edited for agreement.  If it ain't this mushy-headed shit, it's some other equally obnoxious bullshit.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 04:25:11 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:16:01 AM
Its basically a delusion where you start to believe that your child is not, in fact, mentally ill, but possesses special traits and abilities, many of them New Age-y in origin, and a belief that they have a divine or preordained mission to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.

That at one point the article for Indigo Children on Wikipedia also linked to the pages for Autism, Aspergers and Magical Thinking tells you quite a lot.

As of now, the Wiki article definitely links to ADHD, which is another one which seems to bring out the "no, mah child is specialz" crowd.

I really detest these people.

their new site
http://www.starchildascension.org/

there's also videos and private sessions (some costing $200 for 45 minutes)

yah... can you say your surprised?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:28:38 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 04:25:11 AM

their new site
http://www.starchildascension.org/

there's also videos and private sessions (some costing $200 for 45 minutes)

yah... can you say your surprised?
QuoteVideo on the Cetacean Consciousness created By KAI for the June 21st Meditation
say it aint so
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:29:51 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 04:25:11 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:16:01 AM
Its basically a delusion where you start to believe that your child is not, in fact, mentally ill, but possesses special traits and abilities, many of them New Age-y in origin, and a belief that they have a divine or preordained mission to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.

That at one point the article for Indigo Children on Wikipedia also linked to the pages for Autism, Aspergers and Magical Thinking tells you quite a lot.

As of now, the Wiki article definitely links to ADHD, which is another one which seems to bring out the "no, mah child is specialz" crowd.

I really detest these people.

their new site
http://www.starchildascension.org/

there's also videos and private sessions (some costing $200 for 45 minutes)

yah... can you say your surprised?

From the site:

QuoteVideo on the Cetacean Consciousness created By KAI for the June 21st Meditation

Now, as pissed as I am at the little fucker, something really MUST be done about that.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:31:24 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:20:07 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:16:01 AM


I really detest these people.

Edited for agreement.  If it ain't this mushy-headed shit, it's some other equally obnoxious bullshit.

I basically had to suffer a toned down version of this during most of my childhood.  Not the New Age aspects, thank God, or else I probably would've killed someone by now, but because I scored highly on some standardised tests above my supposed skill level, the first several years of my life were devoted to minimizing my fun and maximising my "potential".  And by potential, I of course mean my parent's social standing, since they could show me off as their child genius.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:37:15 AM
i tried to watch it something about living in harmony/love with fishes in sound pictures around and oh hell i gave up to much exposure to this crap my tolerance is shot...
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:37:32 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:31:24 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:20:07 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:16:01 AM


I really detest these people.

Edited for agreement.  If it ain't this mushy-headed shit, it's some other equally obnoxious bullshit.

I basically had to suffer a toned down version of this during most of my childhood.  Not the New Age aspects, thank God, or else I probably would've killed someone by now, but because I scored highly on some standardised tests above my supposed skill level, the first several years of my life were devoted to minimizing my fun and maximising my "potential".  And by potential, I of course mean my parent's social standing, since they could show me off as their child genius.

Jesus.  I almost went down that road, but then both parents had to spend a lot of time on a research ship for the Canadian Fisheries Department, and I spent 3 years living with my no-nonsense, unimpressed grandparents, who had been around long enough to tell a reasonably smart kid from a GENIUS.

As a result, I was tragically hauled out of the land of "potential" and into the land of "go fishing, hunting, and get your damn schoolwork done before losing an eye playing street hockey".

There were more chores, too, but it was a small price to pay.,
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:38:17 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:37:15 AM
i tried to watch it something about living in harmony/love with fishes in sound pictures around and oh hell i gave up to much exposure to this crap my tolerance is shot...

Yeah, it was basically a montage of boring ass home movie shit all lashed together.

Like I said...I'm not wild about Kai, but this cannot stand.  Something must be done.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:40:59 AM
Yeah.  But as you can imagine, I have little truck with people who use children as their personal ego-crutches, especially if its doing them more damage than good in the process.  If your child has ADHD or autism, get them to a specialist, don't retreat into some fantasy world where you can imagine they are some sort of Chosen One.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:43:04 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:40:59 AM
Yeah.  But as you can imagine, I have little truck with people who use children as their personal ego-crutches, especially if its doing them more damage than good in the process.  If your child has ADHD or autism, get them to a specialist, don't retreat into some fantasy world where you can imagine they are some sort of Chosen One.

Unless you LIKE giving money to this Celia Fenn creep who makes a ton of money off of your misery, of course.

Fucking quacks.  There has to be some way of trolling the shit out of these people.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:44:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:38:17 AM


Yeah, it was basically a montage of boring ass home movie shit all lashed together.

Like I said...I'm not wild about Kai, but this cannot stand.  Something must be done.
i am game, there is nothing so stupid that wont be mistaken for the real thing so parody is out .. do they have a forum to troll..
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:47:50 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:43:04 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:40:59 AM
Yeah.  But as you can imagine, I have little truck with people who use children as their personal ego-crutches, especially if its doing them more damage than good in the process.  If your child has ADHD or autism, get them to a specialist, don't retreat into some fantasy world where you can imagine they are some sort of Chosen One.

Unless you LIKE giving money to this Celia Fenn creep who makes a ton of money off of your misery, of course.

Fucking quacks.  There has to be some way of trolling the shit out of these people.

Most really good con-artists tend to delude themselves into believing their own bullshit.

IOW, they're really gullible when it comes to their own belief system.  Something which seeks to flatter and give credibility to their cause would be a great in.  Say, if a fake scientific think tank was set up, and representatives from this think-tank had some research which seemed to indicate Indigo Child-ish things...put in sufficiently scientific language of course.  But to do a larger and more authoritative paper on the issue, the think tank would require outside funding...

8)
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:48:08 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:44:28 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:38:17 AM


Yeah, it was basically a montage of boring ass home movie shit all lashed together.

Like I said...I'm not wild about Kai, but this cannot stand.  Something must be done.
i am game, there is nothing so stupid that wont be mistaken for the real thing so parody is out .. do they have a forum to troll..

GAH!  I was looking for one, and clicked on "Private Channels".  Take a look...apparently the Archangel Michael wants his $170-$200/email, and he wants it in South African Rands.



Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:52:13 AM
based on personal experience most of these new age guru fucks are leading screwed up personal lives, and would be easily led if you can get into their life and become their guru, its a bit up close and personal con artist style,  but i bet it would work if you didn't start to feel sorry for how screwed up they really are..
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:53:43 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:52:13 AM
based on personal experience most of these new age guru fucks are leading screwed up personal lives, and would be easily led if you can get into their life and become their guru, its a bit up close and personal con artist style,  but i bet it would work if you didn't start to feel sorry for how screwed up they really are..

This "Celia" is a piece of work.  $170-$200 for an email reply?   :lulz:
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:58:37 AM
it was 60 bucks an hour to get mentally ass raped by these frauds back in the day.. must be inflation in the bullshit market to..
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:58:59 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:52:13 AM
based on personal experience most of these new age guru fucks are leading screwed up personal lives, and would be easily led if you can get into their life and become their guru, its a bit up close and personal con artist style,  but i bet it would work if you didn't start to feel sorry for how screwed up they really are..

I think I've established I would have little problem with conning con artists.  Its like stealing from crooks.  Well, it is, essentially.  And yeah, unless they are the deeply cynical, dangerous sort who really went into it knowing they'd be doing it purely for money, they usually are full of insecurities which they have (usually only partially) resolved through their frentic hodge-podge of New Age treatments and courses.  I think even they know, deep down, they are frauds, but they have to deny it.  And that unresolvable tension makes them eminently vulnerable...
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:02:17 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:58:37 AM
it was 60 bucks an hour to get mentally ass raped by these frauds back in the day.. must be inflation in the bullshit market to..

It's like EST with email (and lots and lots and lots of pics of "Celia Fenn").
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 05:02:31 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:53:43 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:52:13 AM
based on personal experience most of these new age guru fucks are leading screwed up personal lives, and would be easily led if you can get into their life and become their guru, its a bit up close and personal con artist style,  but i bet it would work if you didn't start to feel sorry for how screwed up they really are..

This "Celia" is a piece of work.  $170-$200 for an email reply?   :lulz:

well of course...

let me ask you this
are your emails crafted from "the Unconditional Love and uplifting energy of Archangel Michael and the New Earth"?


Ya
I didn't think so
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 05:03:38 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:58:59 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:52:13 AM
based on personal experience most of these new age guru fucks are leading screwed up personal lives, and would be easily led if you can get into their life and become their guru, its a bit up close and personal con artist style,  but i bet it would work if you didn't start to feel sorry for how screwed up they really are..

I think I've established I would have little problem with conning con artists.  Its like stealing from crooks.  Well, it is, essentially.  And yeah, unless they are the deeply cynical, dangerous sort who really went into it knowing they'd be doing it purely for money, they usually are full of insecurities which they have (usually only partially) resolved through their frentic hodge-podge of New Age treatments and courses.  I think even they know, deep down, they are frauds, but they have to deny it.  And that unresolvable tension makes them eminently vulnerable...
i guarantee they are confused and seeking answers as much as the marks they are ripping off, i you can be their go to guy for answers (basic human insight and 101 psychiatry) they will be yours..
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:03:52 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 05:02:31 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:53:43 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:52:13 AM
based on personal experience most of these new age guru fucks are leading screwed up personal lives, and would be easily led if you can get into their life and become their guru, its a bit up close and personal con artist style,  but i bet it would work if you didn't start to feel sorry for how screwed up they really are..

This "Celia" is a piece of work.  $170-$200 for an email reply?   :lulz:

well of course...

let me ask you this
are your emails crafted from "the Unconditional Love and uplifting energy of Archangel Michael and the New Earth"?


Ya
I thought so

No.  Mine are 169% pure Rain God hate, bile, and poop.

That will be $300, please.  I accept paypal.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 05:05:46 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 05:02:31 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:53:43 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:52:13 AM
based on personal experience most of these new age guru fucks are leading screwed up personal lives, and would be easily led if you can get into their life and become their guru, its a bit up close and personal con artist style,  but i bet it would work if you didn't start to feel sorry for how screwed up they really are..

This "Celia" is a piece of work.  $170-$200 for an email reply?   :lulz:

well of course...

let me ask you this
are your emails crafted from "the Unconditional Love and uplifting energy of Archangel Michael and the New Earth"?


Ya
I didn't think so
send me 170  / 200 bucks and my emails  will be - every bit as much as hers are  :lulz:
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:06:36 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 05:05:46 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 05:02:31 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 04:53:43 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 04:52:13 AM
based on personal experience most of these new age guru fucks are leading screwed up personal lives, and would be easily led if you can get into their life and become their guru, its a bit up close and personal con artist style,  but i bet it would work if you didn't start to feel sorry for how screwed up they really are..

This "Celia" is a piece of work.  $170-$200 for an email reply?   :lulz:

well of course...

let me ask you this
are your emails crafted from "the Unconditional Love and uplifting energy of Archangel Michael and the New Earth"?


Ya
I didn't think so
send me 170  / 200 bucks and my emails  will be - every bit as much as hers are  :lulz:

Back off my gig, Mister.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 05:08:15 AM
plenty to go around "one born every minute."
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:18:59 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 05:08:15 AM
plenty to go around "one born every minute."

Go get your own.  I have dibs on America, Canada, and those little islands in the Atlantic, you know, the Eyesores.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 05:27:54 AM
was in Sedona AZ during the harmonic convergence at the height of the new age and survived..  I'm a veteran, i have been to the new age equivalent of the Nam
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:30:49 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 05:27:54 AM
was in Sedona AZ during the harmonic convergence at the height of the new age and survived..  I'm a veteran, i have been to the new age equivalent of the Nam

Yeah, well, I was in Casa Grande when the Grand Conjunction happened.  I was lucky to get out alive.  I was only saved by being possessed by Poops-Like-A-Buffalo, a spirit who now guides all the advice I sell dispense to suckers seekers of Truth.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 05:38:34 AM
well I dated a new ager, wiccan, psychic, spiritualist and self proclaimed medium for 8 years

I'm the equivalent of New Ager God status!
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:40:31 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 05:38:34 AM
well I dated a new ager, wiccan, psychic, spiritualist and self proclaimed medium for 8 years

I'm the equivalent of New Ager God status!

How did you get the smell of patchouli off of your dick?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 05:43:07 AM
same as the time I came home from work and there was seance in my living room - without my permission

I forced a smile

then locked myself in the bathroom with a cigar
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:44:18 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 05:43:07 AM
same as the time I came home from work and there was seance in my living room - without my permission

I forced a smile

then locked myself in the bathroom with a cigar

You're a better man than me.  I would have claimed to be the ghost of Christmas Presents, whipped it out, and peed on the Ouiji board.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 05:45:43 AM
 :lulz:


and that would have resulted in either no sex, or a hell of a lot more sex
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:47:28 AM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 23, 2009, 05:45:43 AM
:lulz:


and that would have resulted in either no sex, or a hell of a lot more sex

Grab the nearest female and go nuts.  Then claim their seance attracted the spirit of King Kull, and you had nothing to do with it.

When your GF bitched, you just ask "What, you mean this is all bullshit"?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 05:48:02 AM
my left eye twitches like commissioner Dreyfus every time i smell petulie
(http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsL/10506-15942.gif)
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: the last yatto on June 23, 2009, 06:17:53 AM
using indigo logic
memory problems = useless knowledge filter
:?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Dysnomia on June 23, 2009, 06:54:43 AM
Quote from: yαtto on June 23, 2009, 06:17:53 AM
using indigo logic
memory problems = useless knowledge filter
:?

that must be why I forget everything...quick, I should throw away my smartphone to rid myself of all the useless knowledge I'm trying to force myself to remember!
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: LMNO on June 23, 2009, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: http://www.starchild.co.za/what.htmlIn my book "The Care and Feeding of Indigo Children", I wrote that ADHD should stand for Attention Dialed into a Higher Dimension. This would more accurately describe that generation. In the same vein, Crystal Children don't warrant a label of autism. They aren't autistic! They're AWE-tistic!


:crankey:
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Golden Applesauce on June 23, 2009, 05:07:40 PM
AWE-tistic is definitely the best disorder on the Autism Spectrum.  The DSM-V should include a caveat that if the child can demonstrate magical or psychic abilities, the autism diagnosis can be waived.

I've been doing a fair bit of reading about Indigos/Crystals, and I think part of what makes the idea so appealing is that a lot of the advice given to parents is actually sound - "Treat your children with respect," "Don't use guilt, fear, or hate as a controlling tool," "Make time to play with your kids," and then once you start thinking that the authors might be reasonably intelligent after all, they throw stuff like pyschic training games (http://"http://www.metagifted.org/topics/metagifted/psychicTrainingGames/") to play with your child.  Then again, some of the good advice is for the wrong reason - "Don't lie to your crystal child / indigo, not because lying is wrong and leads to a breakdown of trust, but because they have PSYCHIC POWERZ and can smell it when you lie."
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: the last yatto on June 23, 2009, 06:34:11 PM
i was going to tell my offspring i was buddha but this sounds much more entertaining
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: the last yatto on June 23, 2009, 09:28:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO on June 23, 2009, 01:27:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:36:33 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 05:35:15 AM
i just learned from the new age web site that dolphins talk in sound pictures ...  i say if they didn't want me to eat them they should have learned English

Apparently, there's no "sound picture" word for "tuna net".


INDIGO DOLPHINS.
:lulz:
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Bruno on June 23, 2009, 10:11:24 PM
I think there has to be a balance between telling these kids either:

A.) There's something wrong with you, but don't worry, we'll make you better.

and

B.) You're an extra-special being with supernatural powers.

The Mr. Rodgers "You're special, just like everybody else." technique seems like the best option to me.

The growing popularity of option B is most likely an over-reaction against the more prevalent option A that the government / Educational Industrial Complex has been running with since basically forever.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Template on June 23, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on June 23, 2009, 10:11:24 PM
I think there has to be a balance between telling these kids either:

A.) There's something wrong with you, but don't worry, we'll make you better.

and

B.) You're an extra-special being with supernatural powers.

The Mr. Rodgers "You're special, just like everybody else." technique seems like the best option to me.

The growing popularity of option B is most likely an over-reaction against the more prevalent option A that the government / Educational Industrial Complex has been running with since basically forever.

"A" is the all-purpose, one-size-fits-all, nonconformity solution.  Or killing, when PR's really on its game.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Bruno on June 23, 2009, 11:42:08 PM
I'm in UR childrunz,
givin them Sooper Powurz!
             \
(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/Jerry_Frankster/Thimerosal.gif)
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Adios on June 24, 2009, 12:10:48 AM
YOUR KID IS A FUKIN BRAT, WHIP HIS ASS MORE!
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2011, 09:06:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on June 23, 2009, 05:30:49 AM
Quote from: fomenter on June 23, 2009, 05:27:54 AM
was in Sedona AZ during the harmonic convergence at the height of the new age and survived..  I'm a veteran, i have been to the new age equivalent of the Nam

Yeah, well, I was in Casa Grande when the Grand Conjunction happened.  I was lucky to get out alive.  I was only saved by being possessed by Poops-Like-A-Buffalo, a spirit who now guides all the advice I sell dispense to suckers seekers of Truth.

heeheehee
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Jasper on March 16, 2011, 09:36:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on June 23, 2009, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: http://www.starchild.co.za/what.htmlIn my book "The Care and Feeding of Indigo Children", I wrote that ADHD should stand for Attention Dialed into a Higher Dimension. This would more accurately describe that generation. In the same vein, Crystal Children don't warrant a label of autism. They aren't autistic! They're AWE-tistic!


:crankey:

...

(http://www.hiryuufansubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/RageFace.jpg)

Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2011, 09:38:22 PM
This is exactly the sort of thing that keeps me coming back.   :lulz:
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Phox on March 16, 2011, 09:53:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 16, 2011, 09:36:37 PM
...

(http://www.hiryuufansubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/RageFace.jpg)


Phox needs this to be an emote. It is the only thing  that has come close to expressing an accurate facsimile of her level of abject rage when confronted with such idiocy as the post that prompted it.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 16, 2011, 09:57:25 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on March 16, 2011, 09:53:55 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 16, 2011, 09:36:37 PM
...

(http://www.hiryuufansubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/RageFace.jpg)


Phox needs this to be an emote. It is the only thing  that has come close to expressing an accurate facsimile of her level of abject rage when confronted with such idiocy as the post that prompted it.

I'll resize it tonight.  :lol:

Right after I finish LMNO's shit and drop it in a mailer, along with something interesting.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Shatterbrain on March 17, 2011, 03:22:19 AM
I wrote an essay about this bullshit a few years ago. That Playboy whore fills me with rage. I'm not even sure how I managed to finish the paper having never used the phrase "Playboy whore."

EDIT: Btw, I heard the guy who wrote the original study linking Autism to vaccines was prosecuted for having falsified information or something. But what the hell do I know?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Cain on March 17, 2011, 07:52:01 AM
Quote from: Shatterbrain on March 17, 2011, 03:22:19 AM
I wrote an essay about this bullshit a few years ago. That Playboy whore fills me with rage. I'm not even sure how I managed to finish the paper having never used the phrase "Playboy whore."

EDIT: Btw, I heard the guy who wrote the original study linking Autism to vaccines was prosecuted for having falsified information or something. But what the hell do I know?

Oh ho ho!

Not cleaning the blood out of the carpet on this one.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: LMNO on March 17, 2011, 12:00:27 PM
I think I'll give Shatter a pass for now.

But keep in mind, the fact that she look(ed) fantastic naked and offered evidence to that many times has absolutely no bearing on her completely retarded conclusions regarding vaccination and autism.  Nor does it make you a whore.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Kai on March 17, 2011, 12:01:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:16:01 AM
Its basically a delusion where you start to believe that your child is not, in fact, mentally ill, but possesses special traits and abilities, many of them New Age-y in origin, and a belief that they have a divine or preordained mission to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.

That at one point the article for Indigo Children on Wikipedia also linked to the pages for Autism, Aspergers and Magical Thinking tells you quite a lot.

As of now, the Wiki article definitely links to ADHD, which is another one which seems to bring out the "no, mah child is specialz" crowd.

I really detest these people.

Theres a word for people who have magical thinking like the above. It's called "schizotypal".

As for the "case against Jenny McCarthy as a Scientist", it is simple: she's not a scientist. She's never conducted any scientific research, and she certainly doesn't use the scientific method or strong inference to solve problems. Not to mention, logical reasoning.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Shatterbrain on March 17, 2011, 04:46:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 17, 2011, 12:00:27 PMBut keep in mind, the fact that she look(ed) fantastic naked and offered evidence to that many times has absolutely no bearing on her completely retarded conclusions regarding vaccination and autism.  Nor does it make you a whore.

Granted, it seemed as good an insult as any at the time.

Does that strike a nerve with you or something?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: LMNO on March 17, 2011, 04:52:20 PM
You mean, do I have a problem with people calling attractive naked women whores?


Why yes, yes I do.  Not only is it inaccurate and not particularly clever, I happen to like looking at attractive naked women.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Shatterbrain on March 17, 2011, 05:03:54 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 17, 2011, 04:52:20 PM
You mean, do I have a problem with people calling attractive naked women whores?


Why yes, yes I do.  Not only is it inaccurate and not particularly clever, I happen to like looking at attractive naked women.

(http://runawayjuno.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/thumbs-up-low-res.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 17, 2011, 05:08:42 PM
Quote from: Shatterbrain on March 17, 2011, 04:46:28 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 17, 2011, 12:00:27 PMBut keep in mind, the fact that she look(ed) fantastic naked and offered evidence to that many times has absolutely no bearing on her completely retarded conclusions regarding vaccination and autism.  Nor does it make you a whore.

Granted, it seemed as good an insult as any at the time.

Does that strike a nerve with you or something?

Not really fond of women, are you?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 17, 2011, 05:09:18 PM
Quote from: Shatterbrain on March 17, 2011, 05:03:54 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 17, 2011, 04:52:20 PM
You mean, do I have a problem with people calling attractive naked women whores?


Why yes, yes I do.  Not only is it inaccurate and not particularly clever, I happen to like looking at attractive naked women.

(http://runawayjuno.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/thumbs-up-low-res.jpg)

Oh, never mind, I didn't realize you were retarded.  My bad.  Carry on.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: hooplala on March 17, 2011, 06:48:58 PM
Sounds like the guy who runs Porn Wikileaks.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on March 18, 2011, 12:04:42 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on March 17, 2011, 12:01:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:16:01 AM
Its basically a delusion where you start to believe that your child is not, in fact, mentally ill, but possesses special traits and abilities, many of them New Age-y in origin, and a belief that they have a divine or preordained mission to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.

That at one point the article for Indigo Children on Wikipedia also linked to the pages for Autism, Aspergers and Magical Thinking tells you quite a lot.

As of now, the Wiki article definitely links to ADHD, which is another one which seems to bring out the "no, mah child is specialz" crowd.

I really detest these people.

Theres a word for people who have magical thinking like the above. It's called "schizotypal".


There's also a word for people who use psychological terms they don't understand.

They're called, "armchair psychologists."
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Kai on March 18, 2011, 12:48:49 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on March 18, 2011, 12:04:42 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on March 17, 2011, 12:01:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:16:01 AM
Its basically a delusion where you start to believe that your child is not, in fact, mentally ill, but possesses special traits and abilities, many of them New Age-y in origin, and a belief that they have a divine or preordained mission to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.

That at one point the article for Indigo Children on Wikipedia also linked to the pages for Autism, Aspergers and Magical Thinking tells you quite a lot.

As of now, the Wiki article definitely links to ADHD, which is another one which seems to bring out the "no, mah child is specialz" crowd.

I really detest these people.

Theres a word for people who have magical thinking like the above. It's called "schizotypal".


There's also a word for people who use psychological terms they don't understand.

They're called, "armchair psychologists."

Theres another word, for people who turn jokes into semantics.

It's called "pedantry".
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Jenne on March 18, 2011, 02:27:36 AM
Jenny McCarthy's a cunt.

Fuck you, Jenny.  You're causing way too much fucking disease in the kids that go to schools like my neighborhoods.  Go make your money and peddle your shit more safely and less on the backs of little kids whose parents are too stupid to breathe.

Fuck you, asswipe.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 18, 2011, 02:39:58 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on March 18, 2011, 12:04:42 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on March 17, 2011, 12:01:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:16:01 AM
Its basically a delusion where you start to believe that your child is not, in fact, mentally ill, but possesses special traits and abilities, many of them New Age-y in origin, and a belief that they have a divine or preordained mission to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.

That at one point the article for Indigo Children on Wikipedia also linked to the pages for Autism, Aspergers and Magical Thinking tells you quite a lot.

As of now, the Wiki article definitely links to ADHD, which is another one which seems to bring out the "no, mah child is specialz" crowd.

I really detest these people.

Theres a word for people who have magical thinking like the above. It's called "schizotypal".


There's also a word for people who use psychological terms they don't understand.

They're called, "armchair psychologists."

There's also a word for people who worry about shit like that.

They're called "assholes".
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞ on March 18, 2011, 10:06:50 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/9Tpnt.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: LMNO on March 18, 2011, 12:18:39 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 18, 2011, 02:27:36 AM
Jenny McCarthy's a cunt.

Fuck you, Jenny.  You're causing way too much fucking disease in the kids that go to schools like my neighborhoods.  Go make your money and peddle your shit more safely and less on the backs of little kids whose parents are too stupid to breathe.

Fuck you, asswipe.

Dear Shatter:  Like that.  Up there.
                                                 (http://www.designofsignage.com/application/symbol/hands/image/600x600/hand-point-up-2.jpg)
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 18, 2011, 02:09:44 PM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on March 18, 2011, 10:06:50 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/9Tpnt.jpg)

A red X?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Jenne on March 18, 2011, 05:08:25 PM
Is a giraffe on a head of a dude, Rog.

Alphapance, glad I can assist.  :D

Man, I was juiced up last night.  I'd be embarrassed, but fuckit.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Luna on March 18, 2011, 05:09:48 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 18, 2011, 05:08:25 PM
Is a giraffe on a head of a dude, Rog.

Alphapance, glad I can assist.  :D

Man, I was juiced up last night.  I'd be embarrassed, but fuckit.

Was the night for it.

I'm still trying to figure out how I was walking straight by the end of the night.  I had no right to be vertical, much less self-propelled and capable of dealing with stairs without danger and carrying on a rational conversation.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Jenne on March 18, 2011, 05:10:44 PM
I get a reprisal this weekend if I choose.  To tell you the tr00f, I kinda did myself in last night so I *wouldn't* go all apeyshit this weekend.  Sigh.

/threadjack
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mangrove on March 22, 2011, 09:07:32 PM
Interesting new development:

Just started working with a new client and she works with 'kids with autism'.

(So, I just had to ask because I've witnessed about three examples of 'autistic' kids at work and only one of them I actually believe.)

Mang: Soo....gotta ask. Just what is 'autism'.
Client: Well...[lol]....they don't really know.
Mang: Do you have clients who you truly believe in your heart of hearts has 'it'?
Client: Yes..absolutely. But there's plenty of....uh...
Mang: Misdiagnosis?
Client: Yes. We've got one 17 year old who is allegedly 'autistic' because he doesn't like cleaning his room and won't listen to his mother.
Mang: What are the typical signs?
Client: Deeply withdrawn, periodic outbursts, often there's elements of OCD, unable to read emotional/social cues etc.
Mang: And Aspergers? I keep hearing about 'high functioning'. In fact, they're so high-functioning that they're not actually sick.
Client: There's a call for the terms 'high & low' functioning to be removed from the diagnosis because it doesn't help at all. Low functioning means not being able to take care of your self at all.
Mang: How do I recognize it?
Client: Sheldon on 'Big Bang Theory' or 'House' would probably be Asperger's cases.

We talked some more about this and then she told me the HORRIBLE TROOF.

Sometimes, the diagnosis of 'Autism' or 'Aspergers' is not coming from Doctors but from Social Workers.

Sleep tight!
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Jenne on March 22, 2011, 09:30:41 PM
Yeah, docs have it more refined these days, and the spectrum's just really wide at the moment.  That's not to say that those in the broader parts of the spectrum might not get categorized as something else later on, down the road.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Thurnez Isa on March 22, 2011, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on March 22, 2011, 09:07:32 PM

Client: Well...[lol]....they don't really know.



It seems to be genetic. Which probably explains why so many parents are unwilling to accept the diagnosis


QuoteAutism has been documented to be caused by genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain. The inflammation could be
caused by a wide variety of environmental toxicants, infections, and co-morbidities in individuals genetically prone to the developmental disorder.
FULL PDF available to me if you want to PM me
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086

QuoteTwo previous epidemiological studies of autistic twins suggested that autism was predominantly genetically determined, although the findings with regard to a broader phenotype of cognitive, and possibly social, abnormalities were contradictory. Obstetric and perinatal hazards were also invoked as environmentally determined aetiological factors. The first British twin sample has been re-examined and a second total population sample of autistic twins recruited. In the combined sample 60% of monozygotic (MZ) pairs were concordant for autism versus no dizygotic (DZ) pairs; 92% of MZ pairs were concordant for a broader spectrum of related cognitive or social abnormalities versus 10% of DZ pairs. The findings indicate that autism is under a high degree of genetic control and suggest the involvement of multiple genetic loci. Obstetric hazards usually appear to be consequences of genetically influenced abnormal development, rather than independent aetiological factors. Few new cases had possible medical aetiologies, refuting claims that recognized disorders are common aetiological influences.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5025556

QuoteAutism spectrum disorders (ASDs) comprise a constellation of highly heritable neuropsychiatric disorders. Genome-wide studies of autistic individuals have implicated numerous minor risk alleles but few common variants, suggesting a complex genetic model with many contributing loci. To assess commonality of biological function among rare risk alleles, we compared functional knowledge of genes overlapping inherited structural variants in idiopathic ASD subjects relative to healthy controls. In this study we show that biological processes associated with synapse function and neurotransmission are significantly enriched, with replication, in ASD subjects versus controls. Analysis of phenotypes observed for mouse models of copy-variant genes established significant and replicated enrichment of observable phenotypes consistent with ASD behaviors. Most functional terms retained significance after excluding previously reported ASD loci. These results implicate several new variants that involve synaptic function and glutamatergic signaling processes as important contributors of ASD pathophysiology and suggest a sizable pool of additional potential ASD risk loci.
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201110a.html

QuoteThe results support a role for HOXA1 in susceptibility to autism, and add to the existing body of evidence implicating early brain stem injury in the etiology of ASDs
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1096-9926%28200012%2962:6%3C393::AID-TERA6%3E3.0.CO;2-V/abstract
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: pH on March 22, 2011, 09:36:16 PM
Dumbfucks like Jenny suffer from a wide assortment of delusions that can easily be disproved. Problem is, desperate parents decide they like "your child is a magical psychic next-generation super human thing" rather than "your child is average or below average, deal with it."

http://www.metagifted.org/topics/metagifted/psychicTrainingGames/
Everything here "works" based on physical responses (energy ball, sensing the energy) or simple statistical probability.
And almost every single one has some kind of disclaimer attached to it, saying stuff along the lines of "dont be discouraged when it doesnt work, just try again."

So they're training kids to gamble, because "I'm psychic and i know what card is next, its a sure thing!"
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 23, 2011, 02:30:25 AM
I am friends with two women who have autistic children. Both are highly intelligent and very high-functioning. Both are, at 12-13 years, less capable of taking care of themselves than my seven-year-old daughter, who may also, like her father and I, be somewhere on the autism spectrum. This is what happens when nerds breed.

People who "aren't sure" if their kid has Aspergers don't have a kid with Aspergers. I mean, this shit is fucking unmistakable if you actually see it. My kid isn't quite there, but I can guarantee you that if she breeds with another nerd she's going to have aspie kids.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 23, 2011, 02:32:07 AM
I'm kind of glad I had my first two kids with a douche, because those guys, while weird as fuck, seem to have mostly escaped the aspie nerd curse. The girl one is oddly socially astute, and the boy one is Mr. Charmpants.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Placid Dingo on March 23, 2011, 07:17:22 AM
Quote from: Mangrove on March 22, 2011, 09:07:32 PM
Interesting new development:

Just started working with a new client and she works with 'kids with autism'.

(So, I just had to ask because I've witnessed about three examples of 'autistic' kids at work and only one of them I actually believe.)

Mang: Soo....gotta ask. Just what is 'autism'.
Client: Well...[lol]....they don't really know.
Mang: Do you have clients who you truly believe in your heart of hearts has 'it'?
Client: Yes..absolutely. But there's plenty of....uh...
Mang: Misdiagnosis?
Client: Yes. We've got one 17 year old who is allegedly 'autistic' because he doesn't like cleaning his room and won't listen to his mother.
Mang: What are the typical signs?
Client: Deeply withdrawn, periodic outbursts, often there's elements of OCD, unable to read emotional/social cues etc.
Mang: And Aspergers? I keep hearing about 'high functioning'. In fact, they're so high-functioning that they're not actually sick.
Client: There's a call for the terms 'high & low' functioning to be removed from the diagnosis because it doesn't help at all. Low functioning means not being able to take care of your self at all.
Mang: How do I recognize it?
Client: Sheldon on 'Big Bang Theory' or 'House' would probably be Asperger's cases.

We talked some more about this and then she told me the HORRIBLE TROOF.

Sometimes, the diagnosis of 'Autism' or 'Aspergers' is not coming from Doctors but from Social Workers.

Sleep tight!

Just because you're high functioning doesn't mean you can disregard the diagnoses.

A guy I know has cerabal palsy in one leg. That's it. Doesn't mean he doesn't have it, just means a different type/degree of impact.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Dysfunctional Cunt on March 23, 2011, 01:13:46 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 23, 2011, 02:32:07 AM
I'm kind of glad I had my first two kids with a douche, because those guys, while weird as fuck, seem to have mostly escaped the aspie nerd curse. The girl one is oddly socially astute, and the boy one is Mr. Charmpants.

It's amazing isn't it Nigel, you cross a douche with a goddess and you get great kids!!!!  I have three of them and I don't regret for an instant my stud choice, just that I married him  :wink:

Quote from: Jenne on March 18, 2011, 02:27:36 AM
Jenny McCarthy's a cunt.

Fuck you, Jenny.  You're causing way too much fucking disease in the kids that go to schools like my neighborhoods.  Go make your money and peddle your shit more safely and less on the backs of little kids whose parents are too stupid to breathe.

Fuck you, asswipe.

ALSO THIS!!
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 23, 2011, 05:26:58 PM
Thank you, goddess!
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 23, 2011, 05:27:36 PM
And I hear ya about the marriage. I still believe in marriage, just not for me.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 23, 2011, 05:28:12 PM
And Jenny McCarthy is a fucking twit.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mangrove on March 23, 2011, 09:06:01 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on March 23, 2011, 07:17:22 AM
Quote from: Mangrove on March 22, 2011, 09:07:32 PM
Interesting new development:

Just started working with a new client and she works with 'kids with autism'.

(So, I just had to ask because I've witnessed about three examples of 'autistic' kids at work and only one of them I actually believe.)

Mang: Soo....gotta ask. Just what is 'autism'.
Client: Well...[lol]....they don't really know.
Mang: Do you have clients who you truly believe in your heart of hearts has 'it'?
Client: Yes..absolutely. But there's plenty of....uh...
Mang: Misdiagnosis?
Client: Yes. We've got one 17 year old who is allegedly 'autistic' because he doesn't like cleaning his room and won't listen to his mother.
Mang: What are the typical signs?
Client: Deeply withdrawn, periodic outbursts, often there's elements of OCD, unable to read emotional/social cues etc.
Mang: And Aspergers? I keep hearing about 'high functioning'. In fact, they're so high-functioning that they're not actually sick.
Client: There's a call for the terms 'high & low' functioning to be removed from the diagnosis because it doesn't help at all. Low functioning means not being able to take care of your self at all.
Mang: How do I recognize it?
Client: Sheldon on 'Big Bang Theory' or 'House' would probably be Asperger's cases.

We talked some more about this and then she told me the HORRIBLE TROOF.

Sometimes, the diagnosis of 'Autism' or 'Aspergers' is not coming from Doctors but from Social Workers.

Sleep tight!

Just because you're high functioning doesn't mean you can disregard the diagnoses.

A guy I know has cerabal palsy in one leg. That's it. Doesn't mean he doesn't have it, just means a different type/degree of impact.

I hear what you're saying. My complaint is that the degree/impact in some people may be so small as to not...well...really exist (eg: they've been misdiagnosed.)

The concern for me is that people are not aware of medical fads. Once upon a time in America, people were getting lobotomies left right & centre for ridiculous reasons and on the flimsiest of evidence. Then the air escaped out of that particular balloon and disappeared but not without cutting up the brains of many thousands of people. Meanwhile, the doctors of Europe got it right and said "uhh...not convinced" and, as such, considerably less of these surgeries were performed. Before the whole thing collapsed though there were plenty of physicians who thought they had 'the miracle cure!' (cf: other medical disasters: heroin, cocaine, Electro convulsive therapy etc).

I personally think the following things are similar fads: Autism, Aspergers, Bipolar Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, ADD, ADHD, Restless fucking leg syndrome, Fibromyalgia and so forth.

I do not think for a second that these conditions do not exist and do not cause all sorts of suffering & misery for the people concerned.  However, what's happening is that when these terms are used too loosely and are bandied about in public discourse, the clinical rigor they once had becomes diffused. Responsible & conscientious doctors are going to be careful before they start doling out these labels for people. Trouble is, we're awash with this shit. If I had a dollar for every person I've encountered with 'condition XYZ' and yet they display few or none of the classic indicators, naturally, I'm going to be skeptical.

A few decades from now, people will be worried about different conditions and much of what's obsessing us right now will be a distant memory. No one gets diagnosed with 'hysteria' and 'neuresthenia' anymore. But in the 19th century, these diagnoses were thrown out all over the place.

As I said, I'm not saying these don't happen, what I question is the ease, prevalence and frivolousness with which these labels are arrived at. People don't say 'man...I had a hard time concentrating at work today' (normal human experience). Instead they will say 'I must have ADD!'. If you catch your boss in a weird mood he no longer is having a bad or off day. No, he's gotta be bi-polar. You can't have a kid who is just a fucking brat because it's Aspergers.

There is way too much medical terminology floating about in popular discourse but without the necessary training or discrimination to back it up. It's bad enough when Joe Public engages in it (which is what the pharmaceutical companies want you to do when the carpet bomb you with TV ads) but it's worse when irresponsible, physicians indulge people with it.

We might have advancing medical technologies, but if we don't have advancing wisdom to go along with it then we'll have yet more fads where dubious diagnoses and dubious treatments will go on for years until someone pulls the plug, slaps people awake and says 'Knock it off!' Unfortunately, they usually won't do this until something dumb happens (cf: over prescription of anti-biotics and resistant infections).

I hope that someone does indeed find out more about these various disorders and discovers ways to treat them responsibly.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Pope Pixie Pickle on March 23, 2011, 10:36:37 PM
WAY TO GO MANG!
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 23, 2011, 10:50:28 PM
YES THANK YOU MANG!

I am feeling all kinds of this way about the recent food intolerance fad. Fuckers just have to feel SPECIAL. Mind you, I know people who actually have Celiac Disease, and their bodies will eat they fucking selves if they are exposed to wheat. That is not the shit I'm talking about. Interestingly, the people who will ACTUALLY DIE are not the people who make the biggest deal about it. It's fucking embarrassing to watch, too.

Hey, asshole; your kids are brats and doing poorly at school? It might be because you are a SHITTY MOTHER. But feel free to blame food if it makes you feel better.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 01:36:53 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 23, 2011, 10:50:28 PM

I am feeling all kinds of this way about the recent food intolerance fad. Fuckers just have to feel SPECIAL.

This is indeed annoying.  I mean, if you have to be "special", just be a fucking prick and get on with things.

TGRR,
Is considered "special" at work and at play.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 24, 2011, 01:50:05 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 01:36:53 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 23, 2011, 10:50:28 PM

I am feeling all kinds of this way about the recent food intolerance fad. Fuckers just have to feel SPECIAL.

This is indeed annoying.  I mean, if you have to be "special", just be a fucking prick and get on with things.

TGRR,
Is considered "special" at work and at play.

:mittens:

Fucking TGRR fan club, here.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Don Coyote on March 24, 2011, 07:23:08 AM
Why wouldn't you want to cram something in your mouth that might cause loud noises and smells later on?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
Joys of the modern world: Theres a special name, a pill, and an operation for everything.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: hooplala on March 24, 2011, 01:29:55 PM
Let's not forget that as recently as the late 1950s being homosexual was considered a medical condition.  Sometimes shit fucks up.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:35:41 PM
Generally people seem to like the idea of "If it doesnt fit in with my idea of 'normal' then it needs to be fixed because its a problem."

The biggest thing with autism, Aspergers, etc. is that by misdiagnosing brats and dumb people, you remove responsibility from the kid and the parent, so neither one of them tries to change what they have been doing, making their 'condition' get worse. Why should they change when its not their fault, its some medical thing out of their control, better get some special pills...
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
Joys of the modern world: Theres a special name, a pill, and an operation for everything.

Stay the fuck away from my pills.  I need those for professional reasons.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
Joys of the modern world: Theres a special name, a pill, and an operation for everything.

Stay the fuck away from my pills.  I need those for professional reasons.

The special little blue pills?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 02:12:31 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
Joys of the modern world: Theres a special name, a pill, and an operation for everything.

Stay the fuck away from my pills.  I need those for professional reasons.

The special little blue pills?

Nope.  The yellow ones.  They make me the kind-hearted, personable old man that I am.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: pH on March 24, 2011, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 02:12:31 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
Joys of the modern world: Theres a special name, a pill, and an operation for everything.

Stay the fuck away from my pills.  I need those for professional reasons.

The special little blue pills?

Nope.  The yellow ones.  They make me the kind-hearted, personable old man that I am.

Ooooh, those pills. I can see how effective they are. I'm impressed by modern medicine in that sense.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 02:12:31 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
Joys of the modern world: Theres a special name, a pill, and an operation for everything.

Stay the fuck away from my pills.  I need those for professional reasons.

The special little blue pills?

Nope.  The yellow ones.  They make me the kind-hearted, personable old man that I am.

Ooooh, those pills. I can see how effective they are. I'm impressed by modern medicine in that sense.

Oh, yeah.  I was a real dick before.

TGRR,
Knows that most things are relative.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: pH on March 24, 2011, 03:27:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 02:12:31 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
Joys of the modern world: Theres a special name, a pill, and an operation for everything.

Stay the fuck away from my pills.  I need those for professional reasons.

The special little blue pills?

Nope.  The yellow ones.  They make me the kind-hearted, personable old man that I am.

Ooooh, those pills. I can see how effective they are. I'm impressed by modern medicine in that sense.

Oh, yeah.  I was a real dick before.

TGRR,
Knows that most things are relative.
Come to think of it, is there anything that isnt relative?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 03:55:19 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 03:27:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 03:16:11 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 02:12:31 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:54:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 01:26:35 PM
Joys of the modern world: Theres a special name, a pill, and an operation for everything.

Stay the fuck away from my pills.  I need those for professional reasons.

The special little blue pills?

Nope.  The yellow ones.  They make me the kind-hearted, personable old man that I am.

Ooooh, those pills. I can see how effective they are. I'm impressed by modern medicine in that sense.

Oh, yeah.  I was a real dick before.

TGRR,
Knows that most things are relative.
Come to think of it, is there anything that isnt relative?

Yes.  HolinessTM.  You is or you isn't.

Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Jenne on March 24, 2011, 05:49:57 PM
Quote from: Teh Mang'We might have advancing medical technologies, but if we don't have advancing wisdom to go along with it then we'll have yet more fads where dubious diagnoses and dubious treatments will go on for years until someone pulls the plug, slaps people awake and says 'Knock it off!' Unfortunately, they usually won't do this until something dumb happens (cf: over prescription of anti-biotics and resistant infections).

I hope that someone does indeed find out more about these various disorders and discovers ways to treat them responsibly.

I think you hit at the crux of it.  It's not that the diseases, or the symptoms, or whatever CAUSED the patient to seek a diagnosis in the first place doesn't EXIST...it's more like now that what used to be arcane information is now in the hands of many, it's more likely to be overgeneralized and abused.  Like anything in the hands of the masses, as well as those of lazy or otherwise unknowing/unscrupulous physicians.

The fact that the medical community is broadening the umbrella for autism, meaning the spectrum widens, should not mean that it should be used indiscriminately.  And if you ask doctors like my husband, who makes these diagnoses every damned day, he'll tell you that there's a VERY specific set of criteria used to do this.  However, again, that doesn't mean it won't be abused.

What happened in the 19th and 20th century with lobotomies, etc. I see as misapplied emerging knowledge.  It still happens, to a large extent, as new Rx are discovered and as Rog says, you say "Doc, I can't sleep/eat/drink/fuck" and he says, "PILLS HERE!"  But that doesn't mean the science behind it is necessarily at fault, it's just that the culture is screaming for an answeranswerfixitnowanswerpleasegodmakeitSTOP! and the doctor complies (or doesn't, and the patient goes on to another who DOES).

I know they are working on it in the medical community--they have "continuing medical education" sections/workshops they are required to take, but it has to be taught to them starting in medical school first, I think.  And changing that particular rhetoric is a ponderous process.  Look how long it took the fuckers to change to electronic medical records--I think they are the last and largest American industry to do so.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mangrove on March 24, 2011, 07:02:18 PM
Jenne,

Thank you for the post. In the back of my mind as I was typing I was thinking "Jenne's husband is a doctor and if I don't phrase this right, she will kick my ass!"  :D

Yes, the typical patient goes to their doctor and says 'FIX ME NOW'. And it's true, a doctor with real knowledge, ethics and the balls to use both may be faced with ticking patients off and having them leave thinking they aren't any good.

Dr: Well Mrs Jones, little Jimmy is not autistic
MJ: Yes he is! I did an online survey!
Dr: No. No he is not. He has none of the medically established symptoms.
MJ: But he won't do his homework!
Dr: HE IS NOT SICK MORON, HE'S JUST TIRED OF LISTENING TO YOU! Come to think of it...so am I!

Medicine used to be arcane and now it's in the public domain and there's advantages and disadvantages to both situations. Keeping it arcane means keeping people in the dark and running the risk of it being a control mechanism (ie: like most theology) or you have 'a little learning is a dangerous thing' syndrome in which people latch onto little scraps of information and think that makes them 'experts'.

The 'dont vaccinate your kids movement' is just horrifying. Before I moved to the US there was a documentary on tv about the MMR jab = Autism guy and even then, they said that his research was sketchy and he was getting money from Autism advocacy groups. Recently I read a new report which said something to the effect of "We knew his research was bad....what we didn't realize is that he also MADE SHIT UP!". So, it turns out that the MMR = Autism thing was based on a faulty, fraudulent study that comprised of eight people. Eight! EIGHT!

The media deserve a huge amount blame because they fuel this problem. Every few weeks or so online, on tv or in the press there will be a headline that reads 'Scientists have discovered....' The headlines will nearly always be very shocking or provocative but the stories are almost always preliminary studies. We rarely ever hear about any follow up, nor is their anything like 'peer review'. You get 'lowest denominator' type reportage which implants unverified data into the public mind and boom, that becomes 'this has been proven'.

Way too much noise, not enough signal. There's undoubtedly some really good, important research being done but if it isn't something that can be included in a supermarket checkout magazine, it's unlikely we'll get to hear about it unless we go hunting for it on purpose.

[Side rant: Dear scientists. Please STOP doing research on smoking. It's well established that it's a really bad, unhealthy habit. We know. Move on. I don't need to hear about nicotine levels in people's toe nail clippings. I also don't need to know that passive smoke is bad for pregnant women. We already covered that 'don't smoke & gestate' thing and even took the added precaution of printing it on the fucking packets so KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF. SMOKING IS DANGEROUS. I KNOW!!!]

You see, the above is exactly the kind of 25 second bullshit that gets reported on my local news. The studies that were conducted to figure out that pregnant women shouldn't be around tobacco smoke probably cost millions of dollars. How about spending that money on something we need to actually learn more about?  Start with any disease you don't have a cure for.

Incidentally, while we've certainly seen progress in many diseases, there's been a shortage of outright eradication. I was informed that there hasn't been anything like a 'cure' since they took care of Polio & Smallpox some 50 odd years ago. So, come on scientists - buckle down and cure sicknesses like you used to back in the day  :wink:
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Luna on March 24, 2011, 07:12:29 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on March 24, 2011, 07:02:18 PM
Incidentally, while we've certainly seen progress in many diseases, there's been a shortage of outright eradication. I was informed that there hasn't been anything like a 'cure' since they took care of Polio & Smallpox some 50 odd years ago. So, come on scientists - buckle down and cure sicknesses like you used to back in the day  :wink:

There's no profit in a cure.

See, if you can keep people sick and coming back for the pillz that keep whatever it is from killing them, you have a captive audience for life.

I hate people.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Jenne on March 24, 2011, 07:25:53 PM
The whole "its the money, stupid" is a really tough one at this point with bioengineering firms and the chemical engineering guys who work for Merck et al.  I'm sure LMNO can actually answer this particular part of it, but I do know people out here in San Diego (which actually has one of the leading biochemical engineering industries in the country, IIRC) who work in that sector of the medical field.  And they are VERY MUCH tied to working on cures--but some parts of their research gets tied up in not only private funding but also STATE and FEDERAL regulations (I'm talking stem cell research, fetal research in general, etc.).

According to the drug companies, they HAVE been working on cures for AIDS, etc., and their Rx work comes out of those endeavors.  And they also say they make the Rx profits to put BACK into cures.  *shrug*  I haven't had one of those conversations with them for years, so I'm not sure where they are on the picture anymore.  I do know their lobbyists keep their pimp hand STRONG and bitchslap Congress an awful lot...when it comes to their pocketbooks.  But I'm not sure I know enough nitty gritty to weigh in any further.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Thurnez Isa on March 24, 2011, 07:41:09 PM
Quote from: Luna on March 24, 2011, 07:12:29 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on March 24, 2011, 07:02:18 PM
Incidentally, while we've certainly seen progress in many diseases, there's been a shortage of outright eradication. I was informed that there hasn't been anything like a 'cure' since they took care of Polio & Smallpox some 50 odd years ago. So, come on scientists - buckle down and cure sicknesses like you used to back in the day  :wink:

There's no profit in a cure.

See, if you can keep people sick and coming back for the pillz that keep whatever it is from killing them, you have a captive audience for life.

I hate people.

of course there is profit. There's an invested interest in being the first on the market. Even if you don't accept private enterprise, a lot of resource is conducted overseas or out east with public money. Not to mention a lot of ambitious medical researchers who would just love to get the Nobel prize for what ever.
Also smallpox is making a comeback due to people not vaccinating their kids.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 08:42:19 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 24, 2011, 07:41:09 PM
Also smallpox is making a comeback due to people not vaccinating their kids.

No, it isn't.  Smallpox is one of the two diseases that we have eradicated.

I think you mean measles, mumps, and polio.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mangrove on March 24, 2011, 09:23:19 PM
Quote from: Luna on March 24, 2011, 07:12:29 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on March 24, 2011, 07:02:18 PM
Incidentally, while we've certainly seen progress in many diseases, there's been a shortage of outright eradication. I was informed that there hasn't been anything like a 'cure' since they took care of Polio & Smallpox some 50 odd years ago. So, come on scientists - buckle down and cure sicknesses like you used to back in the day  :wink:

There's no profit in a cure.

See, if you can keep people sick and coming back for the pillz that keep whatever it is from killing them, you have a captive audience for life.

I hate people.

This is the 'disease maintenance industry' vs 'healthcare industry' argument.

Not sure which side I fall on...think it depends on the day!
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Thurnez Isa on March 24, 2011, 09:28:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 08:42:19 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 24, 2011, 07:41:09 PM
Also smallpox is making a comeback due to people not vaccinating their kids.

No, it isn't.  Smallpox is one of the two diseases that we have eradicated.

I think you mean measles, mumps, and polio.

yes, sorry
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Requia ☣ on March 24, 2011, 09:35:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 08:42:19 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 24, 2011, 07:41:09 PM
Also smallpox is making a comeback due to people not vaccinating their kids.

No, it isn't.  Smallpox is one of the two diseases that we have eradicated.

I think you mean measles, mumps, and polio.

What's the other one?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Thurnez Isa on March 24, 2011, 09:40:37 PM
Rinderpest
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 09:56:07 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on March 24, 2011, 09:40:37 PM
Rinderpest

Which affects only cows and people from Manitoba.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: pH on March 24, 2011, 10:48:57 PM
I hate the media, they manage to 'get the story', then they prance around with their little tidbit, sway the opinions of idiots, and then suddenly it causes more problems, which the media then reports on, etc.

There is a lot of research going on in the background that we don't know about for assorted reasons that may or may not be incredibly good, but fixing people isn't as profitable as maintaining them. For example, the first thing that comes to mind is HIV. We already have a general idea of how to cure HIV, and there are some experimental vaccinations for it. However, consider the industry that sprung up around HIV and AIDS: shirts, bracelets, charity events, fundraisers, websites, organizations, and then add on to that the profits from treatments to slow it down, regular guaranteed hospital visits, all of it has been turned into a profitable industry. The problem is figuring out 1. where all that money actually goes, and 2. if the researchers are seriously working at a cure and its just tricky, or if they're rolling in cash.

Autism is just one more little profitable industry, but its done in such a way that the people who actually have autism may not get help, because the people who don't may screw up research, or make effective medicine look ineffective because they have nothing to fix.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 11:43:00 PM
Quote from: pH on March 24, 2011, 10:48:57 PM
I hate the media,

And I get mad when the sun rises!

GRRRRR!
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 25, 2011, 12:29:54 AM
Amusingly, I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was 19, and I am having EFO evaluated for it now that she is 13. We went to the neuropsychologist who specializes in teen development today, and we are going back for a two-hour evaluation in a week and a half. Something I realized while we were there: many behaviors I take for granted in the home are actually things some people consider "symptoms".

:lulz:

However, we are happy people, and if anything I see a diagnosis as being one of an arsenal of tools she will use to help her understand herself and navigate a challenging world. Along with an arsenal of actual weapons. :)

Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on March 25, 2011, 12:32:13 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 25, 2011, 12:29:54 AM
Amusingly, I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was 19, and I am having EFO evaluated for it now that she is 13. We went to the neuropsychologist who specializes in teen development today, and we are going back for a two-hour evaluation in a week and a half. Something I realized while we were there: many behaviors I take for granted in the home are actually things some people consider "symptoms".

:lulz:

However, we are happy people, and if anything I see a diagnosis as being one of an arsenal of tools she will use to help her understand herself and navigate a challenging world. Along with an arsenal of actual weapons. :)



Some quack tried to put me on Ritalin when I was 8, but I'd hide it behind my teeth and spit it out.

And I turned out just fine.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Jenne on March 25, 2011, 04:15:47 AM
Nigel, from what I know/have been told, the microbehaviors that are at times identified as outliers for any given diagnosis like autism (in its most "functionable" state, especially) can also be manageable through any means or left alone as the choice may be for any patient's parent(s). So really it depends on how the parent and the practitioner decide how they view the child's progress at home and school.

So usually it's a diagnosis not just made through one sole doctor's or nurse's observation and testing, but also upon the referral of a school or teacher, or the insistence of the parents.

I'm typing this all out on my damned phone so I'll stop there.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on March 25, 2011, 06:45:39 AM
Quote from: Jenne on March 25, 2011, 04:15:47 AM
Nigel, from what I know/have been told, the microbehaviors that are at times identified as outliers for any given diagnosis like autism (in its most "functionable" state, especially) can also be manageable through any means or left alone as the choice may be for any patient's parent(s). So really it depends on how the parent and the practitioner decide how they view the child's progress at home and school.

So usually it's a diagnosis not just made through one sole doctor's or nurse's observation and testing, but also upon the referral of a school or teacher, or the insistence of the parents.

I'm typing this all out on my damned phone so I'll stop there.

:? Was this in response to my post, or was it meant to be addressed to someone else? Or am I just being a nitwit tonight?
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Jenne on March 25, 2011, 01:12:50 PM
It was addressed to what you said about noticing the behavior you were used to at home was considered symptomatic.

That was my intent...and then I generalized it more towards the end.  But I was also exhausted and posting from my phone, so elegance of thought and speech sorta escape me at those points in time.  You can ignore at will, if you want.  No biggie.

ETA:  I should have added ADHD to Autism in that first line, because it's true for both.
Title: Re: ITT: The Case Against Jenny McCarthy As A Scientist
Post by: Doktor Howl on September 13, 2018, 06:11:42 AM
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2009, 04:40:59 AM
Yeah.  But as you can imagine, I have little truck with people who use children as their personal ego-crutches, especially if its doing them more damage than good in the process.  If your child has ADHD or autism, get them to a specialist, don't retreat into some fantasy world where you can imagine they are some sort of Chosen One.

This is still a thing, believe it or not.

http://www.starchildglobal.com/