phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Which pregnant women should they have used for testing?the proper order
should have been:
science determines
thalidomide causes
birth defects.
ergo,
don't administer it
to humans.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which pregnant women should they have used for testing?the proper order
should have been:
science determines
thalidomide causes
birth defects.
ergo,
don't administer it
to humans.
You mean science, using the scientific method of evidence-based deduction, showed thalidomide was the cause of the problems?
Which pregnant women should they have used for testing?
i suppose
my point was
that anti-vaxers
aren't always
wrong.
blind acceptance
of scientific results
is at best, dubious.
Anti-vaxxers are always wrong, and trying to use this as evidence for them is bullshit.
The reason for the problem with Thalidomide was the company who made it told everyone it was safe. It did not undergo scientific (there's that word again) testing to determine any side effects.
https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-safety-and-regulation
Thalidomide first entered the German market in 1957 as an over-the-counter remedy, based on the maker’s safety claims. They advertised their product as “completely safe” for everyone, including mother and child, “even during pregnancy,” as its developers “could not find a dose high enough to kill a rat.” By 1960, thalidomide was marketed in 46 countries, with sales nearly matching those of aspirin.
. . .
In July of 1962, president John F. Kennedy and the American press began praising their heroine, FDA inspector Frances Kelsey, who prevented the drug’s approval within the United States despite pressure from the pharmaceutical company and FDA supervisors. Kelsey felt the application for thalidomide contained incomplete and insufficient data on its safety and effectiveness. Among her concerns was the lack of data indicating whether the drug could cross the placenta, which provides nourishment to a developing fetus.
. . .
Despite its harmful side effects, thalidomide is FDA-approved for two uses today—the treatment of inflammation associated with Hansen’s disease (leprosy) and as a chemotherapeutic agent for patients with multiple myeloma, purposes for which it was originally prescribed off-label. Because of its known adverse effects on fetal development, the dispensing of thalidomide is regulated by the System for Thalidomide Education and Prescribing Safety (S.T.E.P.S.) program. The S.T.E.P.S. program, designed by Celgene pharmaceuticals and carried out in pharmacies where thalidomide prescriptions are filled, educates all patients who receive thalidomide about potential risks associated with the drug.
So again, science was right.
...you mean scientists?
Why would science have morality
any more
than
math?
we expect it from
journalism.
why not science.
Sorry, you've lost me
So we're agreed that banning words, by which ever party is a massive political over-reach?
so you are saying
science has no
morality?
we expect it from
journalism.
why not science.
In codemonkey object-oriented-programming lingo, science is an object, containing a dataset (observations/data and models/theories), and rules for updating that dataset. The 'rules' are called the scientific method:Why would science have morality? It's a process.
In codemonkey object-oriented-programming lingo, science is an object, containing a dataset (observations/data and models/theories), and rules for updating that dataset. The 'rules' are called the scientific method:
1: Observe a problem.
2: Study it thoroughly, including prior studies.
3: Devise an explanatory model (theory).
4: Test the shit out of the model.
5: If the tests fail, gather more data and goto #3.
6: Add verified data and working theory to the database.
7: Goto #1.
A scientific law is an equation defining relations between objects and/or forces. P=VA, F=MV, etc. A theory is a working, testable model, likely containing laws, supported by the preponderance of verified data. When new, disturbing data is found, revise the theory and try again. A good theory makes predictions that can be tested and verified. If it ain't testable, it ain't a theory, just a wild-ass guess. Or a theological tenet.
Science is (eventually) self-correcting. Frauds are detected (sooner or, alas, later) when faked data doesn't match observed reality.
Scientific 'proof' does not exist. Science is about accuracy, not proof. Results are given as probabilities, not certainties. Some probabilities may be quite huge, or vanishingly small, but never 100% true or false. Proof is for distillers, printers, logicians, lawyers, and stamp and coin collectors.
AGW? Actual Gold Weight? Agnew Airport, Queensland, Australia (IATA code: AGW)? Access GateWay? Kahua language (ISO 639-3 code: agw)Well, well, there's hope for you after all. Can you apply that philosophy to AGW?
Next Trump will be changing STEM to mean, Stuff, Technology, Engineering and Math.In July of 1962, president John F. Kennedy and the American press began praising their heroine, FDA inspector Frances Kelsey, who prevented the drug’s approval within the United States despite pressure from the pharmaceutical company and FDA supervisors. Kelsey felt the application for thalidomide contained incomplete and insufficient data on its safety and effectiveness. Among her concerns was the lack of data indicating whether the drug could cross the placenta, which provides nourishment to a developing thing inside a woman.
Or as they now have to say:Next Trump will be changing STEM to mean, Stuff, Technology, Engineering and Math.
And since "Stuff" can encompass a lot, the Dept of Education under DeVoss can really start focusing on Creationism.
No we don't, we expect confirmation bias and hype because that's what sells.
And science doesn't give a shit about morality and owes none to anyone.
As pointed out it's just an information gathering process.
Why would science have morality? It's a process.
I don't like the whole, slippery slope argument but I have to say that this does worry me.
vulnerable
entitlement
diversity
transgender
fetus
evidence-based
science-based
What's next?
atom bombs sell.
therefore science
creates them.
but should they?
Bought any lately?atom bombs sell.
Engineers create them at the behest of their political and military masters. Takes mucho gov't dinero to build-em.therefore science
creates them.
Ask the politicians and generals, not us.but should they?