max2u

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

Apparently Covid denial is highest among Orthodox jews in Israel, with weddings and other social events going ahead with numerous guests, no masks.

Hasidim wherever found have somewhat greater incidence of anti-vax proclivities than the population at large (as do uber-orthodoxim  of the other Abrahamic faiths, though excepting 'closed' communities, 'tis a minority . . of a minority...

20 minutes ago, max2u said:

 

 

As the virus is decidedly lethal for immuno-copromised and other major organ-compromised individuals, and ICU facilities are limited even in wealthy metropolitan hubs, and the incidence of 'a-shock'  for the Moderna we received has been 2.5 cases per *million* injections, well, 'more is more better ????

 

15 minutes ago, Dart12 said:

not at all.  This is been fast tracked.  This was "emergency" green lighted, and the pharmaceutical companies get a free pass as they cannot be held legally responsible for any conditions that arise.

It is experimental and lacks long-term safety data, as is the case with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines against COVID-19. The FDA authorized the two vaccines for widespread emergency use based on just two months of clinical data.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/types-applications/investigational-new-drug-ind-application#Introduction

Are you going to argue against it getting 'emergency use' ok without the typical protocol required of vaccines? 
 

I'm at a loss how you might think I'd argue against ANY usage, as side effects in all clinical trials have been to a great extent modest, at worse (i.e., some fevers) or mild (injection site pain, swelling) and only very *rarely* needing epinephrine and recommendation of holding off the 2nd injection)

On 11/4/2020 at 12:48 PM, onebir said:

There is some fairly credible research suggesting that the herd immunity threshold for Covid could be as low as 20% of the population (due to variations in the probability of exposure & susceptibility). As for the US CFR, it's shockingly high for one of the richest countries in the world. But that's the average over the whole period: I'd hope it's come down a lot for recent case (eg because treatment is improving &/ more testing is being done).

 

Antibody data from a very specific group (eg dialysis patients, who presumably have been trying their best to avoid exposure) may not be very representative.

 

(This isn't intended as a justification for a 'let it rip' herd immunity approach, but there's a lack of nuance in the media.)

Depends on what media.

5 minutes ago, Dart12 said:

they used to actually PAY guinea pigs.  

Better marketing now a days I guess?

False equivalency or trollery..or both.

On 11/1/2020 at 7:51 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm willing to die if that's what you are getting at. That's no secret as I've said it a few times on TVF. I'd rather die a free man than hiding in my room and wearing a mask everytime I go outside.

 

Sweden rocks.

'thaibeachlovers' --Actually you're willing to be that bipedal vector that brings disease and death to OTHERS--and unlike a malaria mosquito, itself no more than a brainless bloodsucking insect, able to pass along disease while sucking up blood to make countless more of its pestilent presence, in rain pools as small as footprints, or broad as any klong, YOU (likely? ???? ) walk around in the body of a naked ape, a hominid, with no more care for humanity at risk for Covid, than some damnable traitorous sociopath of a U.S. 'ex-President'  .  . .

With the greatest number of Covid deaths of all Nations, we 'muricans' recently 86-ed another creature with no more regard for human lives than some bug or  bugged-out doper with a snout full of yaba, and its accompanying delusions of grandeur.

Donald T aimed to be a king. failed. Hey, but YOU can get greater traction than 'T' for your deviant ways by touting trumpian ambitions, in the LOS, ---and even be rewarded with LONG term room and board , if you're a lucky f****r--which is what other, *actual* humans would be if YOU are NOT out in the soi, all mask-less, full of yourself on a soused walkabout. Chok dee, eh? ????

On 10/15/2020 at 6:07 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Not like a regular flu at all. They want masks and distancing to be permanent. None of that happened for regular flu or any other diseases, far as I know.

I'm happy to go back to life as pre corona and take my chances, even though I'm over 70 and not particularly healthy.

As there are a sizable fraction of covid-infected people who are asymptomatic, one of whom may be *you* , sooner or later, you are willing to take other people's lives as part of your chances?  

3 hours ago, grumbleweed said:

A few creative recipes and before you know it they'd be on the endangered species list

Good to know.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151207-the-countries-where-rats-are-on-the-menu

Oh, Gk, the hacklawyer in perfection. Knowing all, but understand nothing. Distorting every fact in a way

(high intelligence, I agree) that some people follow you . You was student of Mr. Amsterdam?

Squareface's amply-enriched mouthpiece publishes articulate reams of apologetics, and avoidances of accountability, for the would-be 'great leader who is above the law'

The 'student' scribes a shadow of Bob A's thaksinite twaddle.

While reaching to rationalize criminal assaults on a monk, he provides a lesson that propaganda is best left to the professionals

Max2u

<ad hominisms axed>

Please everybody don't eat or drink from plastics... It might not be so important but why take a risk?

'shed some light' is some rather self-congatulatory spin to attribute to your shedding some sh*te

Thanks, anyway, for allowing me the favour of some ad hominem kee ngu--flattered I am to be treated akin to such illustrious scientific company as you blithely wish to impugn

Power Weasel ---> Max2u aka http://www.thaivisa..../61914-orang37/

Good Heavens--to call me my favorite of the apes is further unintended flattery. Thanks Again

Max2u

Why don't you log in as your usual username so we know it's a pedantic troll.

I was responding to a previous poster who was confused by some contradictory studies. I was trying to shed some light on how study types vary in application.

I am not interested in getting into a contrived argument because of your petty personality.

Please everybody don't eat or drink from plastics... It might not be so important but why take a risk?

'shed some light' is some rather self-congatulatory spin to attribute to your shedding some sh*te

Thanks, anyway, for allowing me the favour of some ad hominem kee ngu--flattered I am to be treated akin to such illustrious scientific company as you blithely wish to impugn

HANG ON A MINUTE...

"Although there are no definitive studies of the long-term effect of styrene and other chemicals...." and "Statistically, a person who eats at least one meal daily from Styrofoam containers for 10 years will increase his cancer risk 6 times above normal, he said. Other studies suggest similar risks from the plastic bags also used for takeout foods."

So - which is it - there HAVE been long term studies - as the second statement implies - or the HAVE NOT been studies, as indicated in the first statement?

Which?????

These are either epidemiological studies or animal experiments. Each have weaknesses such as reporting error and confounding influences or in the case of animal studies results often don't translate to humans because the doses are much smaller.

When someone points to a study then that is just the beginning of the analysis.

Very well, then (and as my earlier posts cited studies WRT postulated estrogenic or other steroidal analogue FX and garnered no substantive response, citation for this post will treat with cancer--hey, plenty old falangs I've seen have larger mammaries than Thai women, styrofoam or no styrofoam

. . and as the Kingdom has thoughtfully provided grotesque gore panels on every pack of ciggies, let's give that polystyrene devil its due !

. . .oh, BTW, smokers have more styrenes in 'em than do non-smokers . .though neither have a tiny fraction of styrene industrial workers' exposure (unless they are also such workers, of course

1. Epidemiological studies.

Khun CSN, your declaration that these studies have confounding and/or reporting errors is both unsupported and unfounded.

If anything, since the only suspected effects of styrenes upon humans have been found among industrial workers (and possibly those unfortunates who dwell near the efflux of chemical plants), who may also be exposed to other chemicals (and even these folks show a low incidence of increased risk above general population baseline), these confounds are more likely to increase, rather than decrease toxicity effects found to be associated along with styrenes--HOWEVER, to at least partly control for these putative effects (while synergy is a more difficult proposition), epidemiological studies are done of industrial workers who are exposed to the two major chemicals styrene workers inhale/ingest--but absent styrenes. (as in rubber plant workers re: butadienes, e.g.)

Furthermore, the levels of chronic exposure of workers in chemical and fabrication industries are SO much higher than the public at large as to be reported in parts per million for workers vs parts per billion for the public. So, "dose dependency" must not be ignored.

As far as 'no long term studies,' this is simply not so, as mutliple industrial cohorts in stryrene industries who've had chronic exposure for periods up to greater than ten years have been surveyed.

2. Animal studies 'don't translate to humans because doses are smaller' is in fact an outright falsehood of the worse order, because the mg/kg doses given to animals (primarily mice and rats) are MUCH LARGER than the mcg/kg levels

(that's right--3 orders magnitude!) typically gotten by humans.

Oh, and it seems that even giving dose equivalents to rodents that are well-above those gotten by industrial workers impacts strongly on mice . .but not rats.

..they've been studied long-term, too (okay, for lab rodents, that's only about, hmm, the falang punter's equivalent of about 4 visa runs, but they dose the bejayzuz out of the poor devils

(relation of dosage over time, eh? . .ah, but there's a little fly* in that ointment

Now if you would care to 'begin the analysis,' I'm game, and here's some serious meat to chew on (no styrofoam container moto delivery included ) . .. but hey, everything I've written about here can be had in one pdf.

*. . and as for that 'fly' ? There's a not-so-little problem when trying to extrapolate the low increase of FX seen in chronically-exposed industrial workers, even to people who microwave foam containers day in and day out:

Styrenes aren't retained very well.

The biochemistry of this (solubility, half lives in circulation, metabolic paths, excretion . . .)and even the quantification of styrenes leached from microwaving several kinds of food container, and much more is there.

(pdf 2.9mb):

http://ntp.niehs.nih...-29-08)F[1].pdf

(erratum/addendum 100kb):

http://ntp.niehs.nih...tumAddendum.pdf

Chok dee khrap !

~replies inline:

I thought we are talking about human styrene exposure for Styrofoam type food containers.

~We are.

Your talking about styrene intake from smoking and mfg environments? Do you really think those are interchangeable?

~Most styrene ingested is from the environment. The styrene in an industrial environment is at a FAR higher level than in ordinary atmospheres--even that of when the blessed villagers are burning trash upwind--well, maybe not if your neighbour has a great smoking heap of takeout clamshells alight. Ack!

~The fact that even at the many times higher ingestions of styrene daily, AND over time, that is gotten by production and fabrication workers, only some cancers have slightly higher prevalence puts the burden of proof to show:

~1. That food containers transfer sufficiently large amounts of styrene into foods to have possible impacy--at very least, significantly higher than from 'normal' environments.

~2. That styrene accumulates in the body. (as lab mice needed levels thousands of times higher by relative mass than normal human exposure to show tumor development, we'd need a build-up effect to expect that even if humans were much more sensitive than mice, that there'd sufficient accumulation over time. Unfortunately for the 'styrene bad' hypothesis, styrene is rather soluble/metabolizable/excretable.

I don't have a dog in this fight but have yet to see any studies that try to measure styrene impact from food containers..

~Please type "microwave" into the search box of the pdf reader of the dociment I linked to, and you'll find info regarding amounts of styrene leached into food via microwaving containers. Nearby to that will be discussion of leaching into food when in storage.

~There will need to be some subsequent maths, and conversions between values seen in epidemiological quantifications, and in styrene>microwave>food assays, relating to amounts leached into foods microwaved, the fraction of such retained, for how long retained, and effectual amount in the body ongoing (given steady dosing, 3X daily, if not like the industrial worker's concentration level, then at least satisfying a constraint of 'long term').

~For the sake of the 'styro in foods makes you sick' argument, we can assume a person microwaves all their meals in styro containers, every day, and also use the highest leach values among container varieties.

~What became apparent when I did a 'top of the head' cursory crunch of the numbers was that humans not 'in the belly of the styrene industrial beast' did not get anywhere near to industrial levels of ingestion, even if they were to burst from gluttonous consumption of microwaved-in-containers foods . . unless they ate the containers, too.

Do you have any to share? I was simply saying it's not enough to just cite a study but then one needs to analyse the type of study and its relative merits and weaknesses.

~I know it's a great hulking document and a lot of 'scientese' (that I can 'translate' fairly well) but there are oodles of good studies there. Pick one or a few?

<presumption pruned>

i hope the overwhelming weight of evidence of the health concerns is all proved wrong, but it is still a huge problem in the environment.Like the island of plastic in the middle of the pacific. Hopefully when we become waterworld kevin costner can clean it up like he tried with the oil spill in the gulf of mexico.

Your ecology is as worthy as your epidemiology is not

( . . and thanks for the animated image--though it seems to have had a half-life less than circulating styrenes, alas

HANG ON A MINUTE...

"Although there are no definitive studies of the long-term effect of styrene and other chemicals...." and "Statistically, a person who eats at least one meal daily from Styrofoam containers for 10 years will increase his cancer risk 6 times above normal, he said. Other studies suggest similar risks from the plastic bags also used for takeout foods."

So - which is it - there HAVE been long term studies - as the second statement implies - or the HAVE NOT been studies, as indicated in the first statement?

Which?????

These are either epidemiological studies or animal experiments. Each have weaknesses such as reporting error and confounding influences or in the case of animal studies results often don't translate to humans because the doses are much smaller.

When someone points to a study then that is just the beginning of the analysis.

Very well, then (and as my earlier posts cited studies WRT postulated estrogenic or other steroidal analogue FX and garnered no substantive response, citation for this post will treat with cancer--hey, plenty old falangs I've seen have larger mammaries than Thai women, styrofoam or no styrofoam

. . and as the Kingdom has thoughtfully provided grotesque gore panels on every pack of ciggies, let's give that polystyrene devil its due !

. . .oh, BTW, smokers have more styrenes in 'em than do non-smokers . .though neither have a tiny fraction of styrene industrial workers' exposure (unless they are also such workers, of course

1. Epidemiological studies.

Khun CSN, your declaration that these studies have confounding and/or reporting errors is both unsupported and unfounded.

If anything, since the only suspected effects of styrenes upon humans have been found among industrial workers (and possibly those unfortunates who dwell near the efflux of chemical plants), who may also be exposed to other chemicals (and even these folks show a low incidence of increased risk above general population baseline), these confounds are more likely to increase, rather than decrease toxicity effects found to be associated along with styrenes--HOWEVER, to at least partly control for these putative effects (while synergy is a more difficult proposition), epidemiological studies are done of industrial workers who are exposed to the two major chemicals styrene workers inhale/ingest--but absent styrenes. (e.g., rubber plant workers re: butadienes)

Furthermore, the levels of chronic exposure of workers in chemical and fabrication industries are SO much higher than the public at large as to be reported in parts per million for workers vs parts per billion for the public. So, "dose dependency" must not be ignored.

As far as 'no long term studies,' this is simply not so, as mutliple industrial cohorts in stryrene industries who've had chronic exposure for periods up to greater than ten years have been surveyed.

2. Animal studies 'don't translate to humans because doses are smaller' is in fact a falsehood of the worst order, because the mg/kg doses given to animals (primarily mice and rats) are MUCH LARGER than the mcg/kg levels (that's right--3 orders magnitude larger!) typically gotten by humans.

Oh, and it seems that even giving dose equivalents to rodents that are well-above those gotten by industrial workers often impacts strongly on mice . .but not rats.

~they've been studied long-term, too..okay, for lab rodents, that's only about, hmm, the falang punter's equivalent of about 4 visa runs, but they dose the bejayzuz out of the poor devils

(relation of dosage over time, eh? . .ah, but there's a fly in that particular ointment *

Now if you would care to 'begin the analysis,' I'm game, and here's some serious meat to chew on (no styrofoam container moto delivery included ) . .. but hey, everything I've written about here can be had in one pdf.

*. . and as for that 'fly' ? There's a not-so-little problem when trying to extrapolate the low increase of FX seen in chronically-exposed industrial workers, even to people who microwave foam containers day in and day out: Styrenes aren't retained very well.

The biochemistry of this (solubility, half lives in circulation, metabolic paths, excretion . . .)and even the quantification of styrenes leached from microwaving several kinds of food container, and much more is there to be seen:

(pdf 2.9mb)

http://ntp.niehs.nih...-29-08)F[1].pdf

(erratum/addendum 100kb)

http://ntp.niehs.nih...tumAddendum.pdf

Chok dee khrap !

oh, sorry you couldn't find a scientific source.

http://ntp.niehs.nih...e_Monograph.pdf

HTH!

Ok keep on keeping on. It only talks about human reproduction and development and no mention of microwaveing plastics. They used to think smokeing was ok. up to you

Reproduction and development are highly sensitive outcome measures, when assaying exposure to compounds alleged to have steroidal-analogous effects (such as 'estrogenic').

The fact that major effects were NOT seen in humans who are regularly exposed to high levels of styrenes in their industrial workplaces, and that lab rats given dosages of 5-6 orders of magnitude higher per respective kg of body mass than humans ordinarily receive, and yet had no noticable effects, relates VERY well to a dosage level HIGHER than the postulated 'spike' of styrene ingestion gotten by those folks who microwave oily (<greater solubility of plastics) foods in polyfoam containers.

Eating that laad na out of a polyfoam clamshell box presents truly a negligible threat to the street food 'gourmet'

Oh, and as 'they used to think smoking was ok' before 'they' actually did any proper epidemiological studies, that's not much of an argument

your very defensive of the plastics industry. your argument presumes that science has now stopped advanceing

I don't care about the plastics industry. (nor about typings of "your" instead of the contraction of "you are"

. .while some claim that I presume science stopped advancing is absurd absent some showing of more recent studies than I've cited--and you present NONE.

I DO care about studies that examine humans who are chronically exposed to HIGH levels of styrenes, and studies that dose lab animals to levels of styrenes that EXCEED those that humans would receive if the humans ate the polyfoam containers along with the food contained within!

That these studies did not find the postulated bad effects? These you choose to ignore--so be it. Ignorance, whether passive or 'intentional' of the constraint of "dose dependency" upon any consideration of toxicity serves only irrationality.

Much more of a worry have I regarding the contents of polyfoam containers (whether of food preservatives or bacteria in the food!) than the minuscule amounts of hydrocarbon derivative molecules acquired in transit.

oh, sorry you couldn't find a scientific source.

http://ntp.niehs.nih...e_Monograph.pdf

HTH!

Ok keep on keeping on. It only talks about human reproduction and development and no mention of microwaveing plastics. They used to think smokeing was ok. up to you

Reproduction and development are highly sensitive outcome measures, when assaying exposure to compounds alleged to have steroidal-analogous effects (such as 'estrogenic').

The fact that major effects were NOT seen in humans who are regularly exposed to high levels of styrenes in their industrial workplaces, and that lab rats given dosages of 5-6 orders of magnitude higher per respective kg of body mass than humans ordinarily receive, and yet had no noticable effects, relates VERY well to a dosage level HIGHER than the postulated 'spike' of styrene ingestion gotten by those folks who microwave oily (<greater solubility of plastics) foods in polyfoam containers.

Eating that laad na out of a polyfoam clamshell box presents truly a negligible threat to the street food 'gourmet'

Oh, and as 'they used to think smoking was ok' before 'they' actually did any proper epidemiological studies, that's not much of an argument

yep dont eat the two minute noodles in the styrofoam cups .the noodles are also coated in a wax to keep them from sticking together which has also been proven to be very bad for the digestive system. it builds up in the body as it is not easily metabolised.

Bunk. http://www.snopes.co...ngs/noodles.asp

this snopes is a crock of s*** they quote no scientific source in support and try to debunk everything they can. styrofoam is a petroleum byproduct if your happy useing it. things that are toxic that have long been thought to be ok are regularly found.

oh, sorry you couldn't find a scientific source.

http://ntp.niehs.nih...e_Monograph.pdf

HTH!

Aggressive, violent and pathologically jealous men who can't handle an attractive girlfriend should stick to an ugly one.

Abusers find plenty of their own 'reasons' to cause harm, regardless of their targets' appearance.