1. https://www.facebook.com/TheThriftyCouple/photos/a.401673339550.174572.241379544550/10152718610889551/?type=1&relevant_count=1

    and this comment is really great: Suzy Maupin Well for one ~ I know that if no one had cancer of any kind the medical field would have tons of LESS money. Eating right, is the answer to most ailments; you are what you eat. This juice WON’T HARM YOU and therefore worth the try.

    my family is very woo~ so this stuff is on my feed every day

    Ladies, gentleman, other participating parties, gather right round, you’re in for a ride of health woo bingo! Let us begin:

    - alleged celebrity endorsement (one Mr.Seto, no idk who that is): CHECK

    - allegedly from some place commonly refered to as ‘exotic’ (here: China): CHECK

    - kills cancer: Very CHECK.

    - simple ingredient list lending tiself to home application without ~evil medicine~: CHECK

    - types of cancer it’s effective against never specified: CHECK

    - magical additional curing abilities for a host of very different organs: CHECK (actually checks twice three four five times)

    - WHY the Mircale Cure (TM) is effective is never explained: CHECK

    - Detoxification: CHECK

    - pain killer abilities: CHECK

    - no side effects: CHECK

    - Free field: effective weightloss! :CHECK

    - not a single scientific citation in sight: CHECK

    … i think we checked the entire goddamn bingo card and then some. WHY. For suck’s sake

    Add: bonus bingo field: ‘big pharma is keeping this down’ In the comments: CHECK

  2. 21:11

    Notes: 12

    Tags: Anonasksanimal testing

    Anonymous said: Speaking of doing a study on animals, I had someone yell at me on Facebook yesterday about the ALS ice bucket challenge, saying that the ALSA tests on monkeys (injecting chemicals into their spines, was what she told me). I mean, that doesn't exactly surprise me, but is it really as bad as she says, or is it necessary to test on animals in order to get results for people suffering from ALS? Is she overreacting, or are they unnecessarily cruel to animals?

    She’s overreacting. (i assume she meant this, or something similar)

    There are very strict rules on when and how animal testing can be performed. Fact is, every new medication has been tested on animals first, it’s a fundamental part of how the clinical testing process works. We literally cannot do without because we can’t stick electrodes into human brains, throw experimental treatment that may or may not be entirely useless or worse, toxic, at people and then pray that a miracle happens.

    The compromise being made here is the animal model. For human neurological diseases, this is often the monkey model because they’re the closest to us in brain structure and reaction. 

    Next, the impact on the animals is made as small as possible. If the monkeys were injected with something, they were anesthetized first, not jsut to minimize stress but also to get the ideal result. The article mentions that mice had holes drilled in the skull. These animals are ALWAYS under narcosis when this happen because not just is it otherwise nearly impossible to hit the necessary brain area with an electrode (think of how small mouse brain ARE) but it’s legally forbidden to hurt the animal more than absolute necessary during trials. There are ethic commissions in place for this shit to ensure that the animal is raised, tested on, and euthanized as stress free as possible. 

    As for the ‘omg stop animal testing’ people are already working on alternative approaches (especially in silica, meaning computer models) but the problem is, we don’t know enough about brains to do that. We need the in vivo model and for that we have two choices: Humans or animals. Experimenting on live humans with experimental drugs, or even doing basic research on them with invasive methods is so many kinds of un-ethical and dangerous I can’t even tell you.

    Your friend can yell all she likes, but fact is, medical animal testing is a necessity. Nobody is hugely happy about it because scientists are, contrary to popular belief, not evil sociopaths in white coats but the literal only other option we have is using humans and I’d like to see your friend argue for human experimentation and see how far she gets. People who say that all medical animal testing should be abandoned on the spot might mean well, but they’re delusional. We don’t yet have the means to replace all animal models. 

  3. freetoflythecrimsonsky said: I just meant that it ISN'T a personal choice, it's one for the good of other people.

    Oh. Yeah yeah it absolutely is. But somehow people from that particular corner of the internet seem to be amazingly resistant to that point. 

  4. biologyweeps:




    http://www.rawfed.com/myths/index.html this isnt about it directly, but if you read thru it, they reference vaccines and wormers…

    I’m 100% unsurprised this comes from the Mercola corner of the internet. After all, that’s where the human antivaxxers hang out, too. 

    For a proper study I would take four groups of dogs of the same breed. One group would be the control and would be the raw feed group without vaccinations or de-worming. One group would be raw feed, no vaccs but de-worming. One group with raw feed, no deworming but all the vaccinations as the standard schedule runs. The final group would be raw feed, deworming and vaccinations.

    Note that I would pick animals of the same breed and raised under lab conditions to minimize background noise (for example if we used a different breed, that’s more susceptible to autoimmune diseases to start with, and put them in the deworm/vaxx group it might look like we got a correlation when in fact we only discovered the breed susceptibility). Laboratory raised would ensure that all dogs have the same conditions to start with, further reducing background noise.

    And last but not least we need to start from the null hypothesis. Note how the people responding to that site would most likely be pre-selected for people who believe that de-worming/vaxx is bad for your dog, creating possible confirmation bias in the data (my dog got sick after having a shot! but ignores the three other dogs they had before that were perfectly fine). If you don’t want to fuck up correlation and causation you need to be more careful with your study parameters. 

  5. freetoflythecrimsonsky said: I saw the thing about dog vaccines you wrote, but the big thing you missed is that the Rabies vaccine is NOT about dog health. In other countries where dogs are not routinely vaccinated for Rabies they are one of, if not the biggest source of Rabies in humans. We in the US (and as far as I know, most "first world countries" that are not Rabies free) have other main Rabies carriers that are a little less likely to give Rabies to a human.

    Yeah but by vaccinating the dog you’re blocking the vector (and it’s absolutely still about dog health because dogs infected with rabies basically always die. Meaning that if the rabies go from the wild animal to the dog you still have the very same problem of ‘vector in close contact with humans’ making the maintenance of overarching herd immunity still an important factor in keeping rabies down (here from the WHO). 

    Also as sidneyia mentioned, there’s places where if your pet bites someone and is not vaccinated, your pet will be put down.

    Just vaccinate your pets please, for their good, for your good and for the good of every other animal they may come in contact with. 

  6. Anonymous said: dewormers and vaccines cause autoimmune disorders in dogs? i read this one a site about raw feeding dogs and now im confused :(




    Linky linky please. 

    (also while it’s possible to trigger autoimmune reactions with basically everything, this has to be considered the vast minority of cases and needs a predisposition towards autoimmune diseases to begin with.)

    I’m not sure exactly what link they’re referring to, but I do know a lot of raw feeding websites (and certain tumblr users) go around advising homeopathic methods and homeopathic veterinarians, and giving out websites that advise against both vaccinating your pets, and your children.

    healthypets.mercola.com is one website that leans fairly heavily on homeopathic veterinarians. you can find the vet that runs the site recommending homeopathy in many of her articles.

    rawfedcats.org also advises people against vaccinating, and only using raw feeding and certain veterinarians. they scare readers by using the typical anti-vaccine rhetoric that those against human vaccination use. not surprisingly, the bottom of that page advises humans to forgo vaccinations as well.

    rawlearning.com also gives little snippets about not vaccinating and avoiding de-worming. this one might be what anon meant.

    and rawfed.com, probably the site most people are directed to, at least in my experience with seeing what people teaching about raw feeding are using as source material. this one pisses me off because they actually tell people to “think twice” about the rabies vaccination. they, too, talk about vaccinations for humans being dangerous.

    and there’s a shit ton more doing this as well.

    many raw feeding sites talking about these things try to focus on animals that already are immunocompromised in some way, and likely that a veterinarian would already be aware of or talking with the owner about. but i am finding an uncomfortable amount of them suggesting horrifying things and i am personally getting sick of it. i get people yelling at me over these things when they find out i feed a raw diet to my cats, as if that means they don’t get their vaccinations.

    Imo, there is a difference between making intelligent choices regarding vaccinations and out and out saying that you don’t support them. There are alternate, veterinary recommended, vaccination schedules outside of the every two weeks 5in1 and the 3 month rabies; my boy is vaccinated, but was on a 6 week schedule for his 5in1 and just got his rabies a week shy of 6 months old. That is a vet recommended schedule especially for breeds prone to autoimmune issues. It doesn’t mean that I don’t vaccinate, just that I time it differently than a lot of regular vets would prefer.

    I’m speaking both as an immunocompromised person and as the owner of a dog from a breed with frequent immune system struggles- I don’t feel bad offering an alternate vaccination plan for certain vaccinations, or recommending that people not get/give their dogs certain vaccinations either depending on the circumstances. I personally refuse the flu and hpv shots and I’m not giving Creed bordetella or the rattle snake vaccinations. I didn’t get the swine flu shot and Creed won’t get the dog flu shot unless it’s a necessity.

    I do understand the frustration though and I’ve been irritated myself by this- raw is not a miracle drug and it didn’t fix everything. You can’t cute cancer with raw. You cannot prevent hip dysplasia with raw. There are raw fed dogs that still get heartworm, still get fleas and ticks, still due from bloat. These are dog issues and will remain dog issues until the end of time. I hate it when people recommend raw when really their animals just need to go to a vet. Western medicine has a lot of corruption, yes, but without it there’d still be dogs dying from parvo and distemper and rabies by the thousands.

    Anon has science come forward and showed me EXACTLY the sites from the first reblog. And no it’s really not an alternative schedule, which I could totally understand for all sorts of reasons, but it’s an all out ‘omg don’t vaccinate and de-worm your dog it will DIE or at least get SERIOUSLY SICK’ in the absolute identical tone than anti-vaxxers on the human side of the fence. And I’m just… I’m so sad about this. A human who doesn’t get the vaccinations as a child can still chose to have them later (even if it might not be as effective) but the animal will forever be dependent on that shitty choice you make like not getting it the rabies shot. 

  7. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TruthAboutVaccines/info



    http://www.rawfed.com/myths/index.html this isnt about it directly, but if you read thru it, they reference vaccines and wormers a LOT in conjunction with diet and health.

    mine hasnt been wormed and only has the common core vaccines but now people are saying “dont get ANY VACCINES THOSE TERRIBLE PEOPLE THAT WANT RABIES VACCINES ARE EVVIILLL” like what? o.O

    I would suggest treating them the same way you’d go about a human anti-vaxxers, really. Dogs should be vaccinated and get their fresh up shots regularly for the same reason than you give it to humans: the risk from the vaccine is lower than the risk from the disease.

    Cats react way worse to vaccines (vaccine-asscoiated sarcoma’s (VAS) been connected to rabies and feline leukemia virus, here but we’re not on the final yes/no there, either). But the difference is, you can keep cats indoors if you know what you’re doing (or build them a catio or similar that lets them outside with minimal cat-to-cat contact).

    You can’t do that for dog. You need to walk dogs outside, meaning you’re exposing them to germs, meaning they need to be immunized (in fact a lot of countries won’t let you enter if the dog doesn’t have certain vaccines for exactly that reason). So not vaccinating your dog is a goddamn stupid idea.

    As for de-worming, it should only be done if your dog has worms, but then it absolutely should be done because surprisingly parasites aren’t such a hot thing to have. The article linked above relies on human immune system research. This is bullshit. Just like you can’t extrapolate ideal dog diets from the ideal human diet, you can’t extrapolate immune system from one species to the other just like that. That’s not how biology works and the reason why after animal models we always do human tests if it’s ethically viable. The author’s idea of how to set up a study is also… that’s not how to make a animal study with minimal false positives. URGH. Additionally the amount of germ exposure in somewhat higher in a dog considering they don’t wash paws or anything or will eat literally everything if you let them (ours has to be regularly dewormed because she keeps eating mice. Mice are not very clean). 

    In conclusion: de-worm your dog if it has worms, give your dog the required vaccinations because they’re required for a reason. 

    The fact that the anti-vaxxer bullshit of ‘food can heal all ills’ has spread to pets is fucking killing me. 

  8. 18:31

    Notes: 17

    Tags: Anonasks

    Anonymous said: dewormers and vaccines cause autoimmune disorders in dogs? i read this one a site about raw feeding dogs and now im confused :(

    Linky linky please. 

    (also while it’s possible to trigger autoimmune reactions with basically everything, this has to be considered the vast minority of cases and needs a predisposition towards autoimmune diseases to begin with.)

  9. Anonymous said: (stereoblind anon) Thanks! Yeah it helps, and it's very interesting I was just wondering because my ophtalmoligist always said that I had points of reference in my environment to estimate distances (I can tell if something is near or far, just not precisely (non-standard stairs are hell)) but that my brain didn't put the images from the two eyes together, and since that's how 3D movies work I thought it was weird. I'll read that all more closely. Thank you!

    You’re welcome and good luck with your research^^ 

  10. 18:36

    Notes: 4

    Tags: Anonasks

    Anonymous said: Hello! When I was little (5 and 10yo) I had 2 surgeries to correct my (strong) strabismus. As a result, I'm now stereoblind (my ophtalmologist uses the term horror fusionis, which doesn't seem to be the same thing? But in French we don't have a word for "stereoblind"). I see very well that in everyday life I have a hard time estimating distances and stuff, I don't really see in 3D, and my dominant eye is the right eye. But I can see the 3D in some movies (not all of them). How is that possible?

    Yeah horror fusionis is 

    simultaneous projection into consciousness of retinal images so different that fusion is impossible.

    While stereoblindness is when you have limited depth perception. It doesn’t mean that there’s no depth perception at all, as I’m sure you’re aware but it’s also not full stereo vision. Now for the ‘why does it work in 3D movies’

    Part of it is because the movie is filmed (or converted) in such a way to make the 3D effects really pop. This includes cues like shading and relative size. Your natural environment might not always be so convenient, but in movies were most things can be chosen to be presented one way or the other, one can include these cues to enhance the 3D effect for sterovision viewers. On the side, stereoblind people might find that enough to let the brain create a 3D image. 

    Here is an interesting news article on the issue, here is an interesting publication about therapy for stereoblindness.  

    I hope that’s helped you some?