interesting is how Typh00n, in looking for an article that supports his point, seems to have found an article he believes is credible... Only as far as it's agreeing with him. The actual reccomendation of the article goes 100% against what he believes.
In science, it usually pays to evaluate the conclusions on the evidence. Not evaluate the evidence on your conclusions.
Just as an aside, science generally involves making an educated guess (hypothesis) at why something is occurring and then seeing if observable data matches up with this theory. When it doesn't comport, that is when we need to reevaluate the theory. But I don't know many scientific processes that do not start with a theory, as it would naturally be difficult then to actually start the exploration process without knowing what kind of data to look for.
This doesn't go against what I'm saying. Emphasis added.
Also, if an article contains reference to a bunch of evidence and then makes conclusions about that evidence, Typhoon is not obgligated to accept that conclusion. There can be parallel theories that disagree with each other but are supportable on the same evidence. So referencing the article to establish the evidence, but disagreeing with the conclusion, is not unreasonable.
Sure. But that's not how this article worked. I'll quote it in a spoiler.
More use of vaccines would reduce the need to use antibiotics and help fight the rise of drug-resistant superbug infections, according to a British government-commissioned review of the threat.
In the latest report on so-called antimicrobial resistance, published on Thursday, the head of the review, British treasury minister Jim O'Neill, said more focus should be put on using existing vaccines and developing new ones.
Vaccines can combat drug resistance because they reduce cases of infection and lessen the need for antibiotics. Any use of antibiotics promotes the development and spread of multi-drug-resistant infections, or superbugs, he said.
"There are vaccines available now that could have a massive impact on antibiotic use and resistance, as well as saving many lives if used more widely," O'Neill's report said.
As an example, he said shots that protect against a bug that causes pneumonia, Streptococcus pneumonia - which kills more than 800,000 children a year - should be given worldwide.
"Universal coverage with a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, something that is already used in many parts of the world, could largely prevent the 800,000 yearly deaths of children under five caused by Streptococcus pneumonia," O'Neill said.
"It could also prevent over 11 million days of antibiotic use in these children, reducing the chance of resistance developing."
Drugmakers Pfizer and GSK both make vaccines designed to protect babies, children and adults against Streptococcus pneumonia.
In O'Neill's first report, he estimated antibiotic and microbial resistance could kill an extra 10 million people a year and cost up to $100 trillion by 2050 if it is not brought under control.
O'Neill, asked in 2014 by British Prime Minister David Cameron to review the problem and suggest ways to combat it, will make final recommendations in May, setting out action plans to tackle drug-resistant infections globally.
In this latest report, O'Neill, a former Goldman Sachs chief economist, noted that vaccines are also a vital way of protecting livestock and fish from infections, and reducing the need for antibiotics in farming - a major part of the problem.
The European Commission said on Thursday its policy-makers are reviewing strategy to fight superbugs after EU research found growing levels of drug resistance in bacteria that cause food poisoning, such as Salmonella and Campylobacter.
The article is entirely about how vaccines help reduce the development and dangers of superbugs as opposed to other methods of medicine. It doesn't provide any evidence that superbugs are a problem more than a blanket statement, which is what it's also making (though with much more detail) about how much vaccines are helping compared to other options.
Nope, that was your twisted claim. Reference plz...
Sweet mother of meat, you're still doubling down on that? Okay, whatever. Here is your reference, but I'm not going to continue that fight here.
So I said that Afghanistan had oil... It does, just cause its not the main export doesn't mean they don't have any... But you like to twist things. Lets stop this argument.
Humans with weak immune systems will propagate and the weakness will spread through the human race, then we will need stronger and stronger vaccines, and we will become weaker. Vaccines do not fix the genes, they must be naturally selected out of the race. Vaccines are going against evolution.
What's so great about evolution? It's a natural phenomenon with no normative value. You might as well complain about airplanes because they "go against gravity". Our moral interest is not in evolution -- it's in saving lives. If vaccines save lives where evolution lets people die of disease, then vaccines are better than evolution.
It made us humans... It has a competitive value, survival of the fittest...
Airplanes use gravity (can we stop using dumb analogies). Your argument is like: We have the nuclear weapon, we should nuke everything... I'm like just because we have it doesn't mean its good to use, it will cause other damage.)
Well if you want the world to be overpopulated with weak zombies I guess that is moral and saving lives. With my views the weak will die off, and that is sad.
It made us humans... It has a competitive value, survival of the fittest...
fittest in this case means "best fit to the environment", in case that changes anything, and again, evolution is a description of ***** that happened/happens, not a moral structure.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
It made us humans... It has a competitive value, survival of the fittest...
fittest in this case means "best fit to the environment", in case that changes anything, and again, evolution is a description of ***** that happened/happens, not a moral structure.
It made us humans... It has a competitive value, survival of the fittest...
fittest in this case means "best fit to the environment", in case that changes anything, and again, evolution is a description of ***** that happened/happens, not a moral structure.
I'm not arguing that evolution is moral.
Weren't you just saying "don't vaccinate, let the weak die because then the most fit will survive"? That's a moral pronouncement. It's kind of a dick move (and we've got like two pages of discussion as to why it's not a good argument...), but whatever.
Look, "survival of the fittest" is a pretty loaded [phrase and isn't really used that much by biologists. A more modern writing of the concept could be something more like this:
Species and individuals with traits which aid their successful reproduction will pass on heritable traits to their offspring, therefore influencing the future genetic makeup of the species in question and the wider ecology they live as part of.
This isn't as pithy as the original phrase because the world is very complicated and also I'm typing this in between rounds of League of Legends.
Weren't you just saying "don't vaccinate, let the weak die because then the most fit will survive"? That's a moral pronouncement. It's kind of a dick move (and we've got like two pages of discussion as to why it's not a good argument...), but whatever.
If it's a 'dick' move then it must have some substance as an argument. It just doesn't fit with the morals of 'save everyone'. And I don't have a problem with that, lots of things die. I guess it's between having a strong race, or have an over populated race.
If it's a 'dick' move then it must have some substance as an argument. It just doesn't fit with the morals of 'save everyone'. And I don't have a problem with that, lots of things die. I guess it's between having a strong race, or have an over populated race.
If death isn't bad, what's the value of having a "strong race"?
Weren't you just saying "don't vaccinate, let the weak die because then the most fit will survive"? That's a moral pronouncement. It's kind of a dick move (and we've got like two pages of discussion as to why it's not a good argument...), but whatever.
If it's a 'dick' move then it must have some substance as an argument. It just doesn't fit with the morals of 'save everyone'. And I don't have a problem with that, lots of things die. I guess it's between having a strong race, or have an over populated race.
Humans use their intelligence and science to protect themselves from disease. That seems like fitness for survival to me.
(Besides which, what if the genes that provide improved immune response to disease are negatively correlated with the genes for some other positive trait?)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
If it's a 'dick' move then it must have some substance as an argument. It just doesn't fit with the morals of 'save everyone'. And I don't have a problem with that, lots of things die. I guess it's between having a strong race, or have an over populated race.
If death isn't bad, what's the value of having a "strong race"?
Death is natural so it's not good or bad. A stronger race will be able to achieve more.
For example? And I want you to think about this one. What virus, specifically, has had a higher death toll than smallpox?
GOVERNMENTS!!!!!!!!!!
Are you worried that fewer people dying of diseases is going to increase the rise of the government-superbug? If not, I'm not sure how this particular scream is relevant. This is what you do to yourself Typh00n. Your arguments don't seem to follow a coherent line of reasoning in the threads we've engaged in. You're just spouting off random emotional fireworks as far as I can tell.
Death is natural so it's not good or bad. A stronger race will be able to achieve more.
Achieve more how? By not dying to disease? Sounds like you're saying avoiding death might be a good thing after all.
By not having to look after the weak with diseases, (opportunity cost). Avoiding death is a good thing if you want to live. If they weak didn't propagate then they wouldn't have to die.
By not having to look after the weak with diseases, (opportunity cost). Avoiding death is a good thing if you want to live. If they weak didn't propagate then they wouldn't have to die.
So death is natural, and therefore not good or bad. Disease is also natural, but disease is bad? We have to make our species stronger so that people won't have disease, and to do that we have to stop vaccinations that prevent people from having disease.
Weren't you just saying "don't vaccinate, let the weak die because then the most fit will survive"? That's a moral pronouncement. It's kind of a dick move (and we've got like two pages of discussion as to why it's not a good argument...), but whatever.
If it's a 'dick' move then it must have some substance as an argument. It just doesn't fit with the morals of 'save everyone'. And I don't have a problem with that, lots of things die. I guess it's between having a strong race, or have an over populated race.
Man, "punch babies because they're weak" is also a dick move. Not a good long term strategy tho.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
If it's a 'dick' move then it must have some substance as an argument.
Did you just give us full license to make whatever 'dick moves' we feel like to you, given that you've granted this means it MUST have some substance as an argument?
By not having to look after the weak with diseases, (opportunity cost). Avoiding death is a good thing if you want to live. If they weak didn't propagate then they wouldn't have to die.
So death is natural, and therefore not good or bad. Disease is also natural, but disease is bad? We have to make our species stronger so that people won't have disease, and to do that we have to stop vaccinations that prevent people from having disease.
I can really see you've thought this all through.
No that's you twisting what I have said to make your own meaning again. :S
"but disease is bad?" -this is your assumption in a question form. You are implying that it is bad. It is bad to us, but they are not bad in themselves.
"won't have disease" -we will always have diseases, and a stronger race will fight them off easier.
"prevent people" -some of them are born with it, then gets passed down cause they survived with vaccines. Their offspring will continue that disease through the gene pool, then stronger vaccines will need to be developed, and the cycle continues.
Death is natural so it's not good or bad. A stronger race will be able to achieve more.
Sounds like you are advocating eugenics.
Is there something wrong with that? Is it a bad thing to try and improve humans?
By not having to look after the weak with diseases, (opportunity cost).
Is there something wrong with eugenics? Are you serious with that??
Also people who die of these vaccinable epidemics typically do so very soon after contracting it, So you really can not stand on opportunity cost when attempting to rationalize your detestable stance that we should not help fellow human beings. Its that kind of talk that lead the English to bar food aid to the Irish during the potato famine. People said then had outgrown their means and needed to come back into natural equilibrium with their environment, when in reality there was plenty of food to stop the famine.
Weren't you just saying "don't vaccinate, let the weak die because then the most fit will survive"? That's a moral pronouncement. It's kind of a dick move (and we've got like two pages of discussion as to why it's not a good argument...), but whatever.
If it's a 'dick' move then it must have some substance as an argument. It just doesn't fit with the morals of 'save everyone'. And I don't have a problem with that, lots of things die. I guess it's between having a strong race, or have an over populated race.
Man, "punch babies because they're weak" is also a dick move. Not a good long term strategy tho.
Not the kind of weakness I am taking about, but whatever you's love going off on tangents and twisting words.
Also people who die of these vaccinable epidemics typically do so very soon after contracting it, So you really can not stand on opportunity cost when attempting to rationalize your detestable stance that we should not help fellow human beings. Its that kind of talk that lead the English to bar food aid to the Irish during the potato famine. People said then had outgrown their means and needed to come back into natural equilibrium with their environment, when in reality there was plenty of food to stop the famine.
"prevent people" -some of them are born with it, then gets passed down cause they survived with vaccines. Their offspring will continue that disease through the gene pool, then stronger vaccines will need to be developed, and the cycle continues.
For the second time this is not how vaccines work. Please go do some reading on the subject before spreading additional misinformation.
No that's you twisting what I have said to make your own meaning again. :S
"but disease is bad?" -this is your assumption in a question form. You are implying that it is bad. It is bad to us, but they are not bad in themselves.
"won't have disease" -we will always have diseases, and a stronger race will fight them off easier.
"prevent people" -some of them are born with it, then gets passed down cause they survived with vaccines. Their offspring will continue that disease through the gene pool, then stronger vaccines will need to be developed, and the cycle continues.
So diseases are "bad to us", is death also "bad to us"? You're very dismissive of the cost of death, but you don't seem so quick to dismiss the effects of disease. You want to trade a great amount of death for a future gain in disease resistance.
Of course, all of this is predicated on your complete and utter lack of understanding of the mechanisms of disease and vaccination, so I suppose it's all a bit of a moot point anyway.
So I was going to stay out of this, but I have to comment here because this is absurd.
1) Evolution doesn't necessarily make anything 'stronger' it selects for survival traits. Natural selection from disease especially doesn't make anything 'stronger'.
2) Not all disease kill. If they don't kill, they don't help evolution anyway. Not even Ebola is completely fatal.
3) We're essentially self-evolving with vaccines. All the advantages, none of the deaths. There is no difference between natural disease resistance and that conferred by a vaccine.
Vaccines also don't help breed superbugs. That's antibiotics.
Death is natural so it's not good or bad. A stronger race will be able to achieve more.
Sounds like you are advocating eugenics.
Is there something wrong with that? Is it a bad thing to try and improve humans?
You know how purebred dogs tend to be pretty good at whatever they were bred for but have a litany of health problems? How often food crops have good yield but are weak to parasites? Genetics is complicated, and selection for one trait tends to have side effects.
Select for whatever trait you want, there'll be unforeseen consequences.
One of those consequences is probably the environment changes and suddenly your perfect organisms can't deal with the climate shift.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
So I was going to stay out of this, but I have to comment here because this is absurd.
1) Evolution doesn't necessarily make anything 'stronger' it selects for survival traits. Natural selection from disease especially doesn't make anything 'stronger'.
2) Not all disease kill. If they don't kill, they don't help evolution anyway. Not even Ebola is completely fatal.
3) We're essentially self-evolving with vaccines. All the advantages, none of the deaths. There is no difference between natural disease resistance and that conferred by a vaccine.
Vaccines also don't help breed superbugs. That's antibiotics.
You know how purebred dogs tend to be pretty good at whatever they were bred for but have a litany of health problems? How often food crops have good yield but are weak to parasites? Genetics is complicated, and selection for one trait tends to have side effects.
Select for whatever trait you want, there'll be unforeseen consequences.
One of those consequences is probably the environment changes and suddenly your perfect organisms can't deal with the climate shift.
Nobody will be perfect. The stronger ones will have a better chance of adapting to climate shift.
Let's stop the argument with vaccines. I am interested in the other points some people have brought up.
Namely the English stopping food to Ireland in the famine. This is a result of government action!
The government has many deaths under its name, innocent included. Is it moral to continue to support them? Or to continue to BELIEVE in them?!
This doesn't go against what I'm saying. Emphasis added.
Sure. But that's not how this article worked. I'll quote it in a spoiler.
In the latest report on so-called antimicrobial resistance, published on Thursday, the head of the review, British treasury minister Jim O'Neill, said more focus should be put on using existing vaccines and developing new ones.
Vaccines can combat drug resistance because they reduce cases of infection and lessen the need for antibiotics. Any use of antibiotics promotes the development and spread of multi-drug-resistant infections, or superbugs, he said.
"There are vaccines available now that could have a massive impact on antibiotic use and resistance, as well as saving many lives if used more widely," O'Neill's report said.
As an example, he said shots that protect against a bug that causes pneumonia, Streptococcus pneumonia - which kills more than 800,000 children a year - should be given worldwide.
"Universal coverage with a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, something that is already used in many parts of the world, could largely prevent the 800,000 yearly deaths of children under five caused by Streptococcus pneumonia," O'Neill said.
"It could also prevent over 11 million days of antibiotic use in these children, reducing the chance of resistance developing."
Drugmakers Pfizer and GSK both make vaccines designed to protect babies, children and adults against Streptococcus pneumonia.
In O'Neill's first report, he estimated antibiotic and microbial resistance could kill an extra 10 million people a year and cost up to $100 trillion by 2050 if it is not brought under control.
O'Neill, asked in 2014 by British Prime Minister David Cameron to review the problem and suggest ways to combat it, will make final recommendations in May, setting out action plans to tackle drug-resistant infections globally.
In this latest report, O'Neill, a former Goldman Sachs chief economist, noted that vaccines are also a vital way of protecting livestock and fish from infections, and reducing the need for antibiotics in farming - a major part of the problem.
The European Commission said on Thursday its policy-makers are reviewing strategy to fight superbugs after EU research found growing levels of drug resistance in bacteria that cause food poisoning, such as Salmonella and Campylobacter.
The article is entirely about how vaccines help reduce the development and dangers of superbugs as opposed to other methods of medicine. It doesn't provide any evidence that superbugs are a problem more than a blanket statement, which is what it's also making (though with much more detail) about how much vaccines are helping compared to other options.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
So I said that Afghanistan had oil... It does, just cause its not the main export doesn't mean they don't have any... But you like to twist things. Lets stop this argument.
And other have risen...
It made us humans... It has a competitive value, survival of the fittest...
Airplanes use gravity (can we stop using dumb analogies). Your argument is like: We have the nuclear weapon, we should nuke everything... I'm like just because we have it doesn't mean its good to use, it will cause other damage.)
Well if you want the world to be overpopulated with weak zombies I guess that is moral and saving lives. With my views the weak will die off, and that is sad.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
For what specifically? like help me out here this thread has gone in so many different directions I do not know what is going on anymore
For example? And I want you to think about this one. What virus, specifically, has had a higher death toll than smallpox?
Art is life itself.
It was that vaccines don't alter genes. But I agree, you don't need a reference for me.
GOVERNMENTS!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not arguing that evolution is moral.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Look, "survival of the fittest" is a pretty loaded [phrase and isn't really used that much by biologists. A more modern writing of the concept could be something more like this:
Species and individuals with traits which aid their successful reproduction will pass on heritable traits to their offspring, therefore influencing the future genetic makeup of the species in question and the wider ecology they live as part of.
This isn't as pithy as the original phrase because the world is very complicated and also I'm typing this in between rounds of League of Legends.
Art is life itself.
If it's a 'dick' move then it must have some substance as an argument. It just doesn't fit with the morals of 'save everyone'. And I don't have a problem with that, lots of things die. I guess it's between having a strong race, or have an over populated race.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
If death isn't bad, what's the value of having a "strong race"?
Humans use their intelligence and science to protect themselves from disease. That seems like fitness for survival to me.
(Besides which, what if the genes that provide improved immune response to disease are negatively correlated with the genes for some other positive trait?)
Death is natural so it's not good or bad. A stronger race will be able to achieve more.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Sounds like you are advocating eugenics.
Achieve more how? By not dying to disease? Sounds like you're saying avoiding death might be a good thing after all.
Are you worried that fewer people dying of diseases is going to increase the rise of the government-superbug? If not, I'm not sure how this particular scream is relevant. This is what you do to yourself Typh00n. Your arguments don't seem to follow a coherent line of reasoning in the threads we've engaged in. You're just spouting off random emotional fireworks as far as I can tell.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Is there something wrong with that? Is it a bad thing to try and improve humans?
By not having to look after the weak with diseases, (opportunity cost). Avoiding death is a good thing if you want to live. If they weak didn't propagate then they wouldn't have to die.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
So death is natural, and therefore not good or bad. Disease is also natural, but disease is bad? We have to make our species stronger so that people won't have disease, and to do that we have to stop vaccinations that prevent people from having disease.
I can really see you've thought this all through.
Art is life itself.
Did you just give us full license to make whatever 'dick moves' we feel like to you, given that you've granted this means it MUST have some substance as an argument?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
No that's you twisting what I have said to make your own meaning again. :S
"but disease is bad?" -this is your assumption in a question form. You are implying that it is bad. It is bad to us, but they are not bad in themselves.
"won't have disease" -we will always have diseases, and a stronger race will fight them off easier.
"prevent people" -some of them are born with it, then gets passed down cause they survived with vaccines. Their offspring will continue that disease through the gene pool, then stronger vaccines will need to be developed, and the cycle continues.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Is there something wrong with eugenics? Are you serious with that??
Also people who die of these vaccinable epidemics typically do so very soon after contracting it, So you really can not stand on opportunity cost when attempting to rationalize your detestable stance that we should not help fellow human beings. Its that kind of talk that lead the English to bar food aid to the Irish during the potato famine. People said then had outgrown their means and needed to come back into natural equilibrium with their environment, when in reality there was plenty of food to stop the famine.
Not the kind of weakness I am taking about, but whatever you's love going off on tangents and twisting words.
And the government done that right???!!!
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
For the second time this is not how vaccines work. Please go do some reading on the subject before spreading additional misinformation.
So diseases are "bad to us", is death also "bad to us"? You're very dismissive of the cost of death, but you don't seem so quick to dismiss the effects of disease. You want to trade a great amount of death for a future gain in disease resistance.
Of course, all of this is predicated on your complete and utter lack of understanding of the mechanisms of disease and vaccination, so I suppose it's all a bit of a moot point anyway.
1) Evolution doesn't necessarily make anything 'stronger' it selects for survival traits. Natural selection from disease especially doesn't make anything 'stronger'.
2) Not all disease kill. If they don't kill, they don't help evolution anyway. Not even Ebola is completely fatal.
3) We're essentially self-evolving with vaccines. All the advantages, none of the deaths. There is no difference between natural disease resistance and that conferred by a vaccine.
Vaccines also don't help breed superbugs. That's antibiotics.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Select for whatever trait you want, there'll be unforeseen consequences.
One of those consequences is probably the environment changes and suddenly your perfect organisms can't deal with the climate shift.
Art is life itself.
1) You are stronger against that disease.
2) If they don't kill and we survive, they will help us evolutionary because the ones that survived will have the stronger immune system.
3) There have been many negatives and deaths from vaccines, people do not want to acknowledge them.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/zero-u-s-measles-deaths-in-10-years-but-over-100-measles-vaccine-deaths-reported/
Go on discredit the source and ignore what it has to say.
Nobody will be perfect. The stronger ones will have a better chance of adapting to climate shift.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let's stop the argument with vaccines. I am interested in the other points some people have brought up.
Namely the English stopping food to Ireland in the famine. This is a result of government action!
The government has many deaths under its name, innocent included. Is it moral to continue to support them? Or to continue to BELIEVE in them?!
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru