Jan. 6th, 2011

catsittingstill: (Default)
The first study to suggest that childhood vaccination caused autism was published in the medical journal Lancet and had 13 authors. By now, 10 of them have renounced its conclusions, and Lancet has retracted it.  This morning I found this interesting article in the New York Times
The analysis, by British journalist Brian Deer, found that despite the claim in Wakefield's paper that the 12 children studied were normal until they had the MMR shot, five had previously documented developmental problems. Deer also found that all the cases were somehow misrepresented when he compared data from medical records and the children's parents.
The analysis was damning enough that apparently the accompanying editorial in the British Medical Journal called the study "an elaborate fraud."

Interesting.
[Later edit  Mdlbear brought to my attention that the original, flawed, study was apparently funded by a law firm intending to sue manufacturers of vaccines--this financial incentive coming to light was apparently what made a bunch of the co-authors withdraw their names from the paper.  CNN mentions it in this piece. as well as here.  I thank Mdlbear for the enlightening information.]

catsittingstill: (Default)
 As I type I am sitting in the Mac store, installing their copy of OS 10.4 on my old laptop.

I could put 10.5 on if I wanted, but it's slower, so I'm sticking with 10.4.  Which is theoretically a bonus because it installs faster too.

One of the Geniuses assures me that iTunes can suck my calendar and contacts from the iPod to the computer during pairing, unlike the music, which will theoretically all be erased (though the stuff from the Apple Store can be re-downloaded--which is nice, more for the handful of apps I paid money for than for the handful of albums, though I would be sad to lose Owl City.)  However I can get Senuti to handle it so I don't have to re-rip all my CDs anyway.

One thing I may have lost is my photos from the Quetico trip.  It's possible they're on an old backup somewhere.  I would be sad to have lost those.

The loading of the OS is done; I'm now using the store's wifi to download the updates for the software.


catsittingstill: (Default)
Scalia gave a talk in which he stated outright the 14th amendment does not protect the rights of women.

But the text of the amendment reads:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The only way this doesn't apply to women is if women can't be either citizens or people.

No surprise Scalia feels that way, I guess.

[Later edit:  On pocketnaomi's good counsel I am revising the lede as follows "Scalia Thinks Women Weren't Considered "People" In Nineteenth Century; Thus Term "People" In 14th Amendment Does Not Count."

Profile

catsittingstill: (Default)
catsittingstill

February 2024

S M T W T F S
    1 23
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 17th, 2025 06:58 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios