Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

[A380]

Never mind pigs, I'd like an organ* transplant from
a stallion!


* fnah fnah.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

I can't keep up with all the posts. I only managed to get up to page 57 I will have to catch up later sometime. Anyway it's all good stuff (even the bad posts) and it's nice to see the subject getting plenty of air time.

After your post I caught up with a few more of Kerry's videos, it's been a while since I last watched them and some of them are very good and a great antidote to watching the numpty lbj having yet another hissy fit and losing his shit. Here's a response to a vegetarian professor of religion and culture commenting on the so called "clean eating" puritanical (mythical?) phenomenon...



@ 4:00
"It's about setting that example so that other people can see it and do the same. If you're prevented from doing that from embarrassment then progress ends, because people are cowed into this amorphous submission.

Don't fear looking self righteous. Do what's right with a sense of duty, because society is built on peoples convictions. We wouldn't have Rosa Parks, we wouldn't have Ghandi, we wouldn't have Martin Luther King or the worlds great artists or scientists or thinkers if people were so concerned about looking hubristic that they abandoned their labours for a life of quiet acceptance.

This might only be about diet which doesn't seem a big deal, but the implications for the rest of the planet are so HUGE in terms of the environment, in terms of peoples health and of course in terms of animal cruelty that we as a very small minority have a duty to speak up LOUDLY about why this is important. This is what's going to change other peoples minds, we're like the last chance saloon, people aren't arriving at this decision of their own volition seemingly."

 

[Spymaster]

Except nobody actually said that. Strawman much?

Not really. The thrust of your argument is that if people lived different lifestyles then they could avoid getting diseases for which cures are being sought using vivisection.

It's bollocks.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Not really. The thrust of your argument is that if people lived different lifestyles then they could avoid getting diseases for which cures are being sought using vivisection.

It's bollocks.

Hmmm...so a couple of forum trolls say "it's bollocks" vs reputable sources say that chronic diseases are mostly preventable. I wonder who I should listen too.

Here's an example from our very own NHS...

The top five causes of premature death
Did you see that "completely preventable", which would mean no need to grow a human heart in a pig.
Here's another from the CDC...

https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/pdf/2009-power-of-prevention.pdf
Or how about the WHO...

Overview - Preventing chronic diseases: a vital investment

Across the board, I think we need to get much more preventative when it comes to public health. Why wait to give a person expensive gastric band surgery, insulin or radiotherapy when you could have nipped the problem in the bud years earlier at a fraction of the cost? We need to stop complaining about the end results and concentrate on tackling the root causes.
Tanni Grey-Thompson: Prevention’s better than cure if we want to save the NHS

Cardiovascular diseases, cancers, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases are the biggest threats to health globally, with similar burden as infectious diseases; their impact undermines social and economic development at the community, national and global levels. While the magnitude of these health challenges has been progressively rising across the globe during the last three decades, so have substantial improvements in knowledge and understanding about their prevention and control. As highlighted in previous chapters, current evidence unequivocally demonstrates that these diseases are largely preventable. Countries can reverse the advance of these diseases and achieve quick gains if appropriate action is taken.
http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report_full_en.pdf

Those are just a few of the many available reports, they're not that hard to find and contain nothing more than "uncommon" common sense. Although there is some ignorance around, a lot of people know what they should be doing but can't really be arsed.

So, as I said earlier, I would prioritise preventable measures well above the exotic headline grabbing "jam tomorrow", exotic, risky and very expensive procedures. I don't quite understand why me stating that as a preference should generate so much rage amongst some of the obligate omnivore trolls. I thought it was supposed to be the vegans that were the angry ones. What's up with that?

 

[Spymaster]

Hmmm...so a couple of forum trolls say "it's bollocks" vs reputable sources say that chronic diseases are mostly preventable. I wonder who I should listen too.

Here's an example from our very own NHS...
View attachment 113632
The top five causes of premature death
Did you see that "completely preventable", which would mean no need to grow a human heart in a pig.
Here's another from the CDC...
View attachment 113633
https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/pdf/2009-power-of-prevention.pdf
Or how about the WHO...
View attachment 113635
Overview - Preventing chronic diseases: a vital investment

Across the board, I think we need to get much more preventative when it comes to public health. Why wait to give a person expensive gastric band surgery, insulin or radiotherapy when you could have nipped the problem in the bud years earlier at a fraction of the cost? We need to stop complaining about the end results and concentrate on tackling the root causes.
Tanni Grey-Thompson: Prevention’s better than cure if we want to save the NHS

Cardiovascular diseases, cancers, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases are the biggest threats to health globally, with similar burden as infectious diseases; their impact undermines social and economic development at the community, national and global levels. While the magnitude of these health challenges has been progressively rising across the globe during the last three decades, so have substantial improvements in knowledge and understanding about their prevention and control. As highlighted in previous chapters, current evidence unequivocally demonstrates that these diseases are largely preventable. Countries can reverse the advance of these diseases and achieve quick gains if appropriate action is taken.
http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_report_full_en.pdf

Those are just a few of the many available reports, they're not that hard to find and contain nothing more than "uncommon" common sense. Although there is some ignorance around, a lot of people know what they should be doing but can't really be arsed.

So, as I said earlier, I would prioritise preventable measures well above the exotic headline grabbing "jam tomorrow", exotic, risky and very expensive procedures. I don't quite understand why me stating that as a preference should generate so much rage amongst some of the obligate omnivore trolls. I thought it was supposed to be the vegans that were the angry ones. What's up with that?

Way to miss the fucking point (to pretend to in your case).

Of course some chronic illnesses are preventable. Loads of others aren't and even if they were, people would still get them. There will be a need for heart/lung/kidney/liver/etc transplants for ever. Therefore vivisection in order to provide for those people is the issue.

 

[mrs quoad]

Preventable diseases and decontextualised individual responsibility are probably nothing st all to do with why rich privileged people live longer

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Way to miss the fucking point (to pretend to in your case).

Of course some chronic illnesses are preventable. Loads of others aren't and even if they were, people would still get them.

Er...not just some, most. "Loads of others aren't"? Really? Which ones are they then, and how many of those require a organ to be grown in a pig? If people are still getting preventable diseases then the focus should imo still be on prevention.

There will be a need for heart/lung/kidney/liver/etc transplants for ever. Therefore vivisection in order to provide for those people is the issue.

Well, it's up to you if that's what you believe and that's where your priorities lie. It is not something that keeps me awake at night.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Preventable diseases and decontextualised individual responsibility are probably nothing st all to do with why rich privileged people live longer

Poor people are lazy fuckers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Er...not just some, most. "Loads of others aren't"? Really? Which ones are they then, and how many of those require a organ to be grown in a pig? If people are still getting preventable diseases then the focus should imo still be on prevention..

Why is it either/or?

In any case, the economics of this are not quite what you seem to think they are. It costs more to keep someone with failing kidneys alive through dialysis than it does to keep them alive with a new kidney, a lot more (figures here if you're interested). And that's before you consider the enormous improvement in the quality of their life, no longer chained to a machine for hours every day. Potentially, pig-grown organs could save health services money, not cost it.

 

[bimble]

I can't believe this is still going with the semblance of a conversation .
Paolo Sanchez is happy to try " counting in pictures up to infinity" so there will be no end to this thread either .

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I can't believe this is still going with the semblance of a conversation .
Paolo Sanchez is happy to try " counting in pictures up to infinity" so there will be no end to this thread either .

The ethics of vivisection do interest me, fwiw. And it's something I have conflicting feelings over. PS isn't the person to have the conversation with about it, though, clearly.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Why is it either/or?

...and where exactly did I say it was "either/or"? Did you not see the word "prioritise"?

In any case, the economics of this are not quite what you seem to think they are. It costs more to keep someone with failing kidneys alive through dialysis than it does to keep them alive with a new kidney, a lot more (figures here if you're interested). And that's before you consider the enormous improvement in the quality of their life, no longer chained to a machine for hours every day. Potentially, pig-grown organs could save health services money, not cost it.

If I was in control of the health budget the priority would go to preventing kidney failure which imo save far more lives than untried exotic potential "solutions" of pig grown organs. This is a much less riskier and more effective use of resources especially given that nearly all of the health agencies agree that these are mostly preventable.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

I can't believe this is still going with the semblance of a conversation .
Paolo Sanchez is happy to try " counting in pictures up to infinity" so there will be no end to this thread either .

Yet another bitchy comment from a troll with no real interest in the subject. "I can't believe this thread is still going", while they bump it up with another post.

The ethics of vivisection do interest me, fwiw. And it's something I have conflicting feelings over.

Well if you are genuinely interested in vivisection talk then the perspective of Hans Reusch in his two books that I recommended earlier might be of interest to you.

PS isn't the person to have the conversation with about it, though, clearly.

So you say, yet you keep coming back for more, like a frikkin crack addict. I don't mind having a conversation with reasonably intelligent people who don't get butt hurt when somebody disagrees with them or has a different opinion. Those type of people appear to be in short supply.

 

[felixthecat]

Er...not just some, most. "Loads of others aren't"? Really? Which ones are they then, and how many of those require a organ to be grown in a pig? If people are still getting preventable diseases then the focus should imo still be on prevention.

Well, it's up to you if that's what you believe and that's where your priorities lie. It is not something that keeps me awake at night.

Most organ transplants arent because of preventable diseases. They are because of genetic conditions.

Tell sportsmen like Aries Merritt (athletics) Sean Elliott, Alonzo Mourning (both NBA basketball) and Andy Cole that their FSGS was preventable. Its the biggest cause of adult kidney failure and need for a transplant.

You clearly aren't aware of the criteria for organ transplant.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There's an easy thought test for this one to test how much you object to the idea. Your child is ill and on the transplant list. You are offered a potentially lifesaving pig-grown organ. Do you sign the consent form?

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Most organ transplants are because of preventable diseases. They are because of genetic conditions.

??? That didn't make sense.

Tell sportsmen like Aries Merritt (athletics) Sean Elliots, Alonzo Mourning (both NBA basketball) and Andy Cole that their FSGS was preventable. Its the biggest cause of adult kidney failure and need for a transplant.

You clearly aren't aware of the criteria for organ transplant.

Organ transplants are required when the persons organ can no longer function and they would die without a replacement organ. The overwhelming majority of organ failures are due to preventable causes. A small minority are due to genetics. If you have the data demonstrating otherwise then it would be interesting to see them and I'll stand corrected if it proves to be the other way around.

Anyway, regardless the money and resources we waste on dealing with preventable diseases could then be better targeted at looking at ways to deal with the minority of cases that are genetic and currently not preventable.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

There's an easy thought test for this one to test how much you object to the idea. Your child is ill and on the transplant list. You are offered a potentially lifesaving pig-grown organ. Do you sign the consent form?

This is yet another one of those far fetched hypotheticals that you seem to love, similar to this...

 

[veganomics]

I would also recommend two out of print books that discuss this topic in more depth by Hans Reusch.
The Slaughter Of The Innocent
The Naked Empress

Those books have been on my wishlist for a while, I've heard good things about them from friends.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is yet another one of those far fetched hypotheticals that you seem to love, similar to this...

Did you not read that New Scientist article? It's not far-fetched at all. It may be the reality within a few years. In the here and now, such choices already need to be made by some parents regarding treatments. Up to the 1980s, if you had a type 1 diabetic kid, you had to make exactly that choice - allow your kid to die or give them treatment that involves killing animals.

 

[veganomics]

Good intelligent stuff. I like the bit at the end...
"The vegan revolution is a cultural revolution, it's not something we're going to leave to politicians, educators and scientists. This is a battle we can fight and win in our own homes with our own knives and forks".

Most of Kerry's videos are excellent in my opinion, and indeed that was a nice quote. It is our choices that will eventually make the difference.

 

[Spymaster]

Those books have been on my wishlist for a while, I've heard good things about them from friends.

You really think that is any way relevant?

Pig and sheep grown organs routinely saving human lives is probably just a decade away. Did you read the piece?

Don't you think that's worth pursuing?

 

[veganomics]

After your post I caught up with a few more of Kerry's videos, it's been a while since I last watched them and some of them are very good and a great antidote to watching the numpty lbj having yet another hissy fit and losing his shit. Here's a response to a vegetarian professor of religion and culture commenting on the so called "clean eating" puritanical (mythical?) phenomenon...



@ 4:00
"It's about setting that example so that other people can see it and do the same. If you're prevented from doing that from embarrassment then progress ends, because people are cowed into this amorphous submission.

Don't fear looking self righteous. Do what's right with a sense of duty, because society is built on peoples convictions. We wouldn't have Rosa Parks, we wouldn't have Ghandi, we wouldn't have Martin Luther King or the worlds great artists or scientists or thinkers if people were so concerned about looking hubristic that they abandoned their labours for a life of quiet acceptance.

This might only be about diet which doesn't seem a big deal, but the implications for the rest of the planet are so HUGE in terms of the environment, in terms of peoples health and of course in terms of animal cruelty that we as a very small minority have a duty to speak up LOUDLY about why this is important. This is what's going to change other peoples minds, we're like the last chance saloon, people aren't arriving at this decision of their own volition seemingly."

Excellent. I've not watched that video but will get around to it after reading that quote.
Coming back to the OP question. I don't think it's supposed "angry vegans" that puts of potential vegans, it's the amount of grief and hassle you get from the majority that try to harrass and bully you into conformity. Most people would rather have a quiet life and would rather not be singled out as a weirdo. However I think Kerry is spot on with that, if you believe that what you're doing is the right thing to do, then you need strength of character to be able to live your truth and face the possible consequences and the possibility of strong opposition.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" - Ghandi.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Those books have been on my wishlist for a while, I've heard good things about them from friends.

I bought Naked Empress about 5 years ago and Slaughter of the Innocent 3 years ago and like you they were on my wanted list for a while. One of the things that was putting me off buying them was the price, I remember in the early 2000's I couldn't find any for less than £80. I eventually managed to eventually get both of them for under £20 imported from a bookshop in Australia, but if you look on Amazon now some of them are over £100.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Most of Kerry's videos are excellent in my opinion, and indeed that was a nice quote. It is our choices that will eventually make the difference.

I do like her videos. They can be a bit on the longish side, but her content is really good quality and very intelligent imo. Here's a comedy one that she did with her partner in response to the hater comments on her channel...

 

[felixthecat]

Organ transplants are required when the persons organ can no longer function and they would die without a replacement organ. The overwhelming majority of organ failures are due to preventable causes. A small minority are due to genetics. If you have the data demonstrating otherwise then it would be interesting to see them and I'll stand corrected if it proves to be the other way around.

Anyway, regardless the money and resources we waste on dealing with preventable diseases could then be better targeted at looking at ways to deal with the minority of cases that are genetic and currently not preventable.

I've done a bit of research. These are the commonest conditions that result in organ failure needing a transplant. Ive done the 4 biggies - heart, lung, kidneys and liver. It was dead interesting and occupied a ridiculously quiet afternoon at work.

Heart transplants:
Dilated cardiomyopathy (not a preventable disease)
Birth defects (not a preventable disease)
Severe coronary arteriosclerosis with damage to heart muscle (preventable disease)

Kidney transplants:
Diabetes (approximately 70% preventable - Type 1 {10-15% of all diabetes} isn't preventable and neither is genetically linked type 2 which accounts for 2 out of every 5 cases)
Hypertension (can be preventable - can't find any data giving direct correlation to anything really)
Glomerulonephritis (occasionally caused by preventable disease such as HIV but often due to immune system conditions such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis)
Polycystic kidney disease (not a preventable disease)
Severe defects of the urinary tract (not a preventable disease)

Lung transplants:
Cystic Fibrosis (not a preventable disease)
COPD ( preventable, smoking related, sometimes occupational)
Pulmonary hypertension (often associated with other lung and heart conditions so in some/most cases preventable?)
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ( who knows? No idea what causes it hence the 'idiopathic' bit)

Liver transplants:
Chronic alcohol misuse (100% preventable)
Hepatitis (hep B and C mainly, virus borne so preventable)
Liver Ca ( ? some cases preventable)
Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (not a preventable disease)
Primary Biliary Cirrhosis (not alcohol related, probably not preventable not really sure of the root cause)

That's a lot of stuff that either genetic, idiopathic or a birth defect and thats a lot of people who need transplants through no fault of their own. If it was my kid who needed an organ and one was available that was animal grown, damn right Id take it.

 

[Spymaster]

I've done a bit of research. These are the commonest conditions that result in organ failure needing a transplant. Ive done the 4 biggies - heart, lung, kidneys and liver. It was dead interesting and occupied a ridiculously quiet afternoon at work.

Heart transplants:
Dilated cardiomyopathy (not a preventable disease)
Birth defects (not a preventable disease)
Severe coronary arteriosclerosis with damage to heart muscle (preventable disease)

Kidney transplants:
Diabetes (approximately 70% preventable - Type 1 {10-15% of all diabetes} isn't preventable and neither is genetically linked type 2 which accounts for 2 out of every 5 cases)
Hypertension (can be preventable - can't find any data giving direct correlation to anything really)
Glomerulonephritis (occasionally caused by preventable disease such as HIV but often due to immune system conditions such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis)
Polycystic kidney disease (not a preventable disease)
Severe defects of the urinary tract (not a preventable disease)

Lung transplants:
Cystic Fibrosis (not a preventable disease)
COPD ( preventable, smoking related, sometimes occupational)
Pulmonary hypertension (often associated with other lung and heart conditions so in some/most cases preventable?)
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ( who knows? No idea what causes it hence the 'idiopathic' bit)

Liver transplants:
Chronic alcohol misuse (100% preventable)
Hepatitis (hep B and C mainly, virus borne so preventable)
Liver Ca ( ? some cases preventable)
Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (not a preventable disease)
Primary Biliary Cirrhosis (not alcohol related, probably not preventable not really sure of the root cause)

That's a lot of stuff that either genetic, idiopathic or a birth defect and thats a lot of people who need transplants through no fault of their own. If it was my kid who needed an organ and one was available that was animal grown, damn right Id take it.

Nice work.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

I've done a bit of research. These are the commonest conditions that result in organ failure needing a transplant. Ive done the 4 biggies - heart, lung, kidneys and liver. It was dead interesting and occupied a ridiculously quiet afternoon at work.

Heart transplants:
Dilated cardiomyopathy (not a preventable disease)
Birth defects (not a preventable disease)
Severe coronary arteriosclerosis with damage to heart muscle (preventable disease)

Kidney transplants:
Diabetes (approximately 70% preventable - Type 1 {10-15% of all diabetes} isn't preventable and neither is genetically linked type 2 which accounts for 2 out of every 5 cases)
Hypertension (can be preventable - can't find any data giving direct correlation to anything really)
Glomerulonephritis (occasionally caused by preventable disease such as HIV but often due to immune system conditions such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis)
Polycystic kidney disease (not a preventable disease)
Severe defects of the urinary tract (not a preventable disease)

Lung transplants:
Cystic Fibrosis (not a preventable disease)
COPD ( preventable, smoking related, sometimes occupational)
Pulmonary hypertension (often associated with other lung and heart conditions so in some/most cases preventable?)
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ( who knows? No idea what causes it hence the 'idiopathic' bit)

Liver transplants:
Chronic alcohol misuse (100% preventable)
Hepatitis (hep B and C mainly, virus borne so preventable)
Liver Ca ( ? some cases preventable)
Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (not a preventable disease)
Primary Biliary Cirrhosis (not alcohol related, probably not preventable not really sure of the root cause)

That's a lot of stuff that either genetic, idiopathic or a birth defect and thats a lot of people who need transplants through no fault of their own.

So with careful word selection you've gone from "most organ transplants arent because of preventable diseases" to "a lot of people who need transplants".

I also noticed that you kind of glossed over any actual numbers for the number one killer and most preventable, heart disease. Advanced cherry picking? Or maybe you ran out of boring afternoon hours.

None of what you've posted there changes what I stated earlier, the overwhelming majority of organ failures are from preventable causes. Of course there are some that are genetic but they are a minority. As I said, I'll stand corrected if you have clear evidence to the contrary.

If it was my kid who needed an organ and one was available that was animal grown, damn right Id take it.

It's up to you what you do, it's not really any of my business. If you'd prefer to put your money and thought energy on the unknown and unproven then that's your call. My preference would still be to concentrate on the tangible and doable low hanging fruit that few can be arsed with and as a result is bankrupting countries with ever increasing and crippling "health" budgets.

I'm not sure why my choice and opinion appears to be of so much concern to the obligate omnivores. If you're happy and content with your choices and decisions then get on with it. I will continue to base my choices and opinions on what makes sense to me, and if that irritates people who have a different opinion or need to have their sacred cow beliefs protected from possible alternatives, then that's just too bad.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Did you not read that New Scientist article? It's not far-fetched at all. It may be the reality within a few years.

I've learned over the years to treat these sorts of headlines with caution. (Don't believe the hype) The delivery/promise ratio is fairly low, and the headlines are often more to do with public relations and the associated funding than any genuine advances. Cancer cures have been "just around the corner" for at least 40 years since Nixon's promise. The completion of the genome project was supposed to herald in a whole bunch of advances...personalised medicine, designer drugs etc. The point is that there's a lot of hype surrounding scientific banner headlines which generates a lot of excitement. The advances are very often far more "pedestrian" and not that exciting. Prevention is one of those boring and mundane items which doesn't excite or generate headlines, however imo, would most likely be far more effective if people could be bothered.

In the here and now, such choices already need to be made by some parents regarding treatments. Up to the 1980s, if you had a type 1 diabetic kid, you had to make exactly that choice - allow your kid to die or give them treatment that involves killing animals.

Well as I said to felix in the previous post, whatever floats your boat. It is not something that I'm overly concerned about. Any area where I do have some influence is in prevention and that's where I choose to concentrate more of my time and energy and where I believe that I will get a MUCH BETTER return on investment.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You haven't grasped the purpose of the question. We're talking about society here - society-level collective effort, which is the only way we have any medical care at all. The question relates to what 'we' should do - should we cure or treat conditions using technology and knowledge acquired through killing animals?

I also note how you are still avoiding the question, so to avoid hypotheticals I'll present you with the exact position my parents were faced with:

You have a sick young child, and the only treatment that will stop that child from dying is insulin taken from pigs or cows, which need to be killed first. Do you save your child's life in the knowledge that you will be relying on killing animals to keep the child alive from now on?

It's a no-brainer for me, but I am interested in the opinions of those who oppose all vivisection.

 

[Spymaster]

So with careful word selection you've gone from "most organ transplants arent because of preventable diseases" to "a lot of people who need transplants".

I also noticed that you kind of glossed over any actual numbers for the number one killer and most preventable, heart disease. Advanced cherry picking? Or maybe you ran out of boring afternoon hours.

None of what you've posted there changes what I stated earlier, the overwhelming majority of organ failures are from preventable causes. Of course there are some that are genetic but they are a minority. As I said, I'll stand corrected if you have clear evidence to the contrary.

It's up to you what you do, it's not really any of my business. If you'd prefer to put your money and thought energy on the unknown and unproven then that's your call. My preference would still be to concentrate on the tangible and doable low hanging fruit that few can be arsed with and as a result is bankrupting countries with ever increasing and crippling "health" budgets.

I'm not sure why my choice and opinion appears to be of so much concern to the obligate omnivores. If you're happy and content with your choices and decisions then get on with it. I will continue to base my choices and opinions on what makes sense to me, and if that irritates people who have a different opinion or need to have their sacred cow beliefs protected from possible alternatives, then that's just too bad.

I've learned over the years to treat these sorts of headlines with caution. (Don't believe the hype) The delivery/promise ratio is fairly low, and the headlines are often more to do with public relations and the associated funding than any genuine advances. Cancer cures have been "just around the corner" for at least 40 years since Nixon's promise. The completion of the genome project was supposed to herald in a whole bunch of advances...personalised medicine, designer drugs etc. The point is that there's a lot of hype surrounding scientific banner headlines which generates a lot of excitement. The advances are very often far more "pedestrian" and not that exciting. Prevention is one of those boring and mundane items which doesn't excite or generate headlines, however imo, would most likely be far more effective if people could be bothered.


Well as I said to felix in the previous post, whatever floats your boat. It is not something that I'm overly concerned about. Any area where I do have some influence is in prevention and that's where I choose to concentrate more of my time and energy and where I believe that I will get a MUCH BETTER return on investment.

"But, but, but, ..." <post silly pictures> "but, but, but ..." <ignore point> "but, but, but ..." <boring YouTube clip> "but, but, but ..." <attack source> "but, but, but ..." <evade with irrelevancies> "but, but, but ..."



You wanker.