SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An amendment from Italy's anti-establishment government that removes mandatory vaccination for schoolchildren is sending shock waves through the country's scientific and medical community.
It suspends for a year a law that requires parents to provide proof of 10 routine vaccinations when enrolling their children in nurseries or preschools. The amendment was approved by Italy's upper house of parliament on Friday by 148 to 110 votes and still has to pass the lower house.
The law had originally been introduced by the Democratic Party in July 2017 amid an ongoing outbreak of measles that saw 5,004 cases reported in 2017 -- the second-highest figure in Europe after Romania -- according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Italy accounted for 34% of all measles cases reported by countries in the European Economic Area, the center said.
Italy's Five Star movement and its coalition partner, the far-right League, both voiced their opposition to compulsory vaccinations, claiming they discourage school inclusion.
English Language Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/health/italy-anti-vaccine-law-measles-intl/index.html
(Score: 4, Informative) by ilPapa on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:35PM (23 children)
Note to SG readers: link is to a drooling climate change denier blog, whose math is laughable. He wrote a paper, which he submitted for peer review and got laughed at, and now he's blaming all the bad peer reviews on a plot to silence him.
Anyone who's ever edited a scholarly journal is familiar with this type of crank. They usually turn out to be a danger to themselves. This is why scholarly journals don't generally keep physical offices. Because guys with taped-together glasses who smell like urine will often camp out on the doorstep with their stained and rubberbanded manuscript under their arm, muttering about Big Science being out to get him.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:42PM (19 children)
Yeah, see, I wanted math not ad-hom.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ilPapa on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:55PM (8 children)
Yeah, and people in Hell want gatorade. But in this life, you get what you deserve.
If you wanted a serious refutation of Screaming Lord Sutch's crazy climate change-denial paper, you can always just go to what his peer-reviewers said.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:06PM (5 children)
Oh, you mean the climatologists refuting physics math that've already been refuted? I'd trust a random AC here before I trusted anyone with a vested interested in the Church of AGW.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:25PM (4 children)
Frankly it sounds like you are the one with a vested interest.
What about the kooks vested interest. He is PAID to make those posts. Thats a vested interest. Or is it only vested interests you don't agree with that are the problem here?
Pick one, no weaseling. Are you against ALL vested interests, or just ones you don't like.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:54PM (3 children)
I absolutely have a vested interest. All my stuff is here.
Scientific questions require scientific answers.
Mathematical questions require mathematical answers.
The only place for faith-based answers is religion.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:58PM (2 children)
Weasel!
Answer the question. Do you have an issue with all vested interests, or just the ones you don't like?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 09 2018, @02:40AM (1 child)
Try some different input.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 09 2018, @03:58AM
So NOW you're pro trans-gender?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:24PM
The capital "C" matters because it's a trademark.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by ilPapa on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:53PM
Seriously, guys, no love for my Screaming Lord Sutch reference? What, are you a bunch of milliennials?
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:24PM (5 children)
"You must debate me!"
-- every conspiracy fantasizing chucklefuck ever
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:55PM (3 children)
Thank you for demonstrating your utter lack of qualification for this topic. Keep your religion out of math and science please.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @10:03PM (1 child)
That's rich coming from the guy who has made ayn rand his personal lord and savior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @11:03PM
Oooh, "lord", so she was a transgender that didn't realize it. No wonder she had so many problems.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 09 2018, @06:11PM
Thank you for demonstrating your utter lack of qualification for this topic
As an SN reader he's actually a leading expert on conspiracy fantasizing chucklefucks.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Thursday August 09 2018, @01:34PM
Ah, the classic "Hitler ate sugar" non-argument.
There are people like that for every idea supported by a sufficiently large quantity of people. There is nothing wrong with people willing to debate their ideas, if they are conspiracy theorists then prove them wrong.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:30PM (2 children)
Eh, the PDF with details seems a bit wonky. I would need to spend a few hours and have access to all the reference papers to make sense of it. Some of their statements seem weird, like referencing today's temperatures and solar activity when calculating the 1850 equilibrium. The idea that previous models didn't account for the solar energy seems to stupid to believe.
"It will be a small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial 1.17 K."
"Bottom line: global warming is not a problem after all. Enjoy the sunshine climatologists forgot about."
So the goalposts have moved from "warming isn't happening" to "its slower than we thought and thus not a problem, in fact it is GOOD!" I question their calculations and understanding of the topic, they use different terms when calculating 1850 vs 2011. Personally I'll wait and see what the actual climate scientists have to say about this but at the moment the empirical evidence of ice loss and record temperatures say these people are wrong to push the "don't worry about it" narrative.
TL:DR they don't pass the sniff test.
PS: TMB if you collect all the referenced articles I will spend the multiple hours going through and doing the math as you request.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:58PM (1 child)
THANK YOU!
Yeah, the journalist is a chucklehead. I just wondered if the math stood up. I'll see if I can find them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @04:58PM
Guess it was just hyperbole.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 09 2018, @11:59AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @08:43PM
Your zero-content mash of propaganda words is insulting everyone's intelligence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08 2018, @09:54PM (1 child)
Suppose he is correct. Would "a plot to silence him" actually exist?
Hell yeah! All of the normal peer reviewers have their career at stake. They are as biased as they could possibly be.
So, in the above situation, what exactly should he do? I guess you think he should just shut up and be silenced? It should be clear that "a drooling climate change denier blog" is the only place where he won't be unfairly rejected. He might even be unfairly accepted. :-) There is no possible way for him to get normal peer reviewers to give an unbiased look at his work.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 09 2018, @03:12PM
Yes, it's possible that the entire scientific community is involved in a massive conspiracy against him. (Or more plausibly in my mind, that a large portion of the scientific community has been paid off by monied interests to *say* that he's wrong. But generally that's for covering up environmental damage and dodging regulation so more of a Republican maneuver which in this context doesn't make sense)
The much simpler explanation is that he is just wrong.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"