How many graduate students are likely to turn in their Principal Investigator (PI) knowing that this would dash their hopes of earning a Ph.D.? How many post-docs would do the same, throwing away their chance for a faculty appointment? How many assistant professors would risk receiving tenure by outing a colleague? And how many PIs would be willing to wade into a controversy by bringing charges against the very same peers who review their publications and grant proposals?
Michael makes an excellent point. It's time to speak up about science denial & pseudoscience that plague our cultures. It's time to take the gloves off, and start public shaming of people who promote magic thinking & superstition in congress, the media, school and personal interaction. That might sound rude, but it's really a counter to the rudeness of dissing science. We should also lobby for teaching critical thinking & science in early grades of school. Call it The Enlightenment 2.0!
What an amazing TED Talk. Thank you Michael for taking a very important and much needed stance on this issue. This is something our entire country needs to hear.
nice to see how he forgets to mention herbicide use with GMO's, and this is what almost every GMO is for, growing and producing with poisonous application. I studied molecular biology into graduate school, so I understand the topic.
(cont 1) happening while individual scientists said it was. I've been educated as a physicist, yet I've listened to testimonials from a large number of parents specifically pinpointing changes in their children's behavior right after the child was vaccinated and this leaves me with questions I can't answer. Most parents I've talked to blame the mercury components in the vaccine. While I'm aware that while certain chemicals are harmful when separate (chlorine gas and sodium metal) (cont 2)
It's intriguing to consider how some people reject scientific advancements and discoveries. I do comprehend where mistrust regarding things like immunizations comes from. Many scientific concepts are very challenging to comprehend, especially without knowledge in such subjects. People then consult sources that offer clearer, but occasionally inaccurate, explanations. Even so, it doesn't excuse the spread of these false beliefs since, as Michael Specter in the film pointed out, science denial has detrimental effects on the general well-being of society. We owe it to ourselves and everyone around us to uphold the truthfulness and integrity of the principles we choose to support. I would like to just give an example how Ethics and Vaccine denials are connected. Because vaccine refusal can have significant ethical repercussions, ethics and refusal to get vaccinations are intimately intertwined. People who reject the scientific consensus on the safety and efficacy of vaccines do so because they are misinformed or hold unsupported ideas, which is known as vaccine denial. Numerous concerns, such as risks to the public's health, personal harm, and societal inequities, might result from this. First and foremost, refusing vaccinations might result in outbreaks of diseases that can be avoided, which can be especially dangerous for vulnerably disposed people including children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems. In addition to endangering individuals, this has wider repercussions for public health, including rising healthcare expenses and stress on healthcare institutions. Second, people who are refused access to vaccines that could save their lives because of false beliefs or inaccurate information may suffer harm. This may result in needless agony and even death. Third, vaccination denial can exacerbate social inequities by disproportionately impacting groups who are marginalized and underserved and may not have easy access to reliable information or resources for healthcare. On the other hand, advocating vaccination and respecting the scientific consensus on vaccinations can encourage moral judgment and behavior. This entails understanding the potential dangers and advantages of vaccines, making decisions based on data, and ensuring that everyone has fair access to vaccines. Therefore, it is crucial to encourage scientific literacy and critical thinking abilities in order to support people in making informed vaccine decisions and to combat the risks of vaccine denial. By doing this, we can encourage moral behavior that is advantageous to both individuals and society at large.
I really like how you mentioned the ethical repercussions that vaccine denial can be connected with. During the pandemic we saw a lot of people who said my body my choice in regards to refusing to get the covid vaccine, or those who argued for their "right" to not wear a mask during mandates and so forth, but it seemed that in all of those arguments what was missing was the right of our society as a whole to be protected, kept safe, and to have the health and goodness of us as a collective preserved as much as possible. I remember some of the viral things being shared on social media at the time and one that stays with me even today was a post basically asking what people did before masks, vaccinations etc. and one viral reply being that they died. You also brought up some interesting points about where mistrust of large scientific organizations may stem from and I thought that it was interesting to see the role you feel medical literacy (or illiteracy) may play in that. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
He says these are the best times in humanity because all other times are further in the past when science hadn't progressed as much. He's saying that fifty years from now we will likely be living in the best time period that humanity has ever witnessed.
It is a problem of biological absorption rate, when you take food supplement the absorption rate is usually below 10% whereas it is nearly 100% when absorbed in food. Moreover, nutriment malabsorption can cause multiple "uncomfortable" side-effects (diarrhea,...)
It makes a big difference to have good nutrition, but it doesn't make much of a difference when you're getting slightly more than you need of a specific nutrient. Taking a gram of any given vitamin on top of your required amount won't give you much effect, and if it does, it's going to be negative.
I agree that TED would do well to cite the sources mentioned in the videos. I have seen these studies and know that what he says is true, but having the list of them at our fingertips would be great.
Not sure about this but I think it has to do with how your body absorbs the nutrients: most of the vitamin A in a pill goes to waste because your body cannot process it fast enough, unlike what would happen with rice rich in vitamin A. Think about how fast one pill is processed in contrast to a whole meal. Again, do not take my word for it, but I think this makes sense.
The EU still hasn't banned GM food though, and that is the prime argument. If there were such 'convincing' dangers, there would be no doubt more of a controversy amongst bioengineers, but there isn't.
Well actually a study done found that increases on yield production over the last decade is due to improvements on traditional farming practices. Despite the biotech spending billions on research and public relations, genetically engineered crops have not been able to produce significantly more crops per acre of land.
Because the USA has much lower quality standards than the EU. Just because something gets banned doesn't mean it's forbidden. Most food, hell most "organic food" around here still has some GMO stuff in it. GMO stuff the EU accepts.
It’s interesting to think about the denial of scientific discoveries and advancements. I do understand the origin of skepticism towards things such vaccines. There are a lot of scientific principles that are really difficult to understand, especially without a college degree in those fields. So people turn to sources that have simpler, and sometimes incorrect, explanations. Even then, that doesn’t justify the propagation of these incorrect ideas, as Michael Specter mentioned in the video, there are serious societal health impacts from science denial. We really have a responsibility to not only ourselves, but to those around us to maintain truthful integrity of the ideas we decide to uphold. If we learn new information that proves an idea we hold to be wrong it is okay to change your perspective and admit your error. What’s ethically wrong is assuming your idea is always going to be right and refusing to even consider you might have been wrong.
One need to set priority in this case here. The question isn't just about test tube food or not, it's about the quality of life vs. life itself. My priority is to life itself. If I have the option to feed millions of people for a very low price, why would I need to work against it? If someone doesn't want to eat test tube food, he can always have that option, but what I am against is looking at genetically altered food as if they are a disease that needs to be purged.
It is true that privately funded studies are more likely to be successful than non. However, as the number of studies looking at one particular topic increases, there arises an increase in correlation or a decrease. This is known as the decline effect and is what you see when companies fund acupuncture, supplement, paranormal etc studies, the effect size decreases. With GM the correlation has mostly increased. The french study you mentioned however is HEAVILY criticised, don't act so innocent.
Specter isn't looking at the problems of GM food that actually matter. Case in point: Google the NPR story "Cornstalks Everywhere But Nothing Else, Not Even A Bee". That's how "harmless" GM food is.
Sure. I disagree with the concept of calling critics “deniers”. It’s petty and anti-intellectual. Anybody can give an example where scientists were right and critics were wrong but there are also plenty of examples where scientists were wrong and they needed the criticism. Science needs critics. Those critics are crucial to the method both in the hypothesis forming step and in the repeatable results step. The movement to label science critics as “deniers” smells of politics. Get the politics out of science. Stop calling people who doubt or question or challenge scientific claims any putrid names. Instead call them wonderful sources for your next hypothesis.
Science-Denial is literally eroding Society like barely anything else. Not just in its most crystalized and clear form; Flat-Earthers; but just in general: This is all so problematic and damn-good Reason to support Science-TH-camrs, who right now try to fight back against Myths and Misinformation... and Bigfoot...
So saying pathogens and gravity don't exist is suddenly considered "criticism"? Buddy there's a stark difference between being critical/skeptical and outright ignoring hard evidence that has been repeated for centuries or even millennia.
people say there's a correlation between gmo and autism. And in some cases diabetes and obesity. but there's no evidence to show causation. I really havent looked into it, but from what i understand the "correlation" is not a definitive correlation, but i guess there's enough evidence for people to start studying and looking into it.
Because the level in the supplements is far lower and also, for what you buy, the price is extortionate. Putting vitamins in things like rice and potatoes is actually relatively cheap.
side note, i just remembered something funny. What i find interesting, in California (the state where i'm from) the leading gmo firm's employees choose to have organic food served to them for lunch (the firm i'm talking about is called monsanto).
Assuming you're not a toxicologist yourself, then you have no objection to drinking some yourself, right? I'm not making fun of you, I'm suggesting you have enough sense to know mercury is dangerous. These parents are no different. You don't need to be a toxicologist to know better, or even to ask if the material is questionable. And you're absolutely right. What I've said is anecdotal (biased if you prefer). I'm just suggesting that "maybe" Spector's answer might not help the issue.
Even if a correlation is found, correlation does not prove causation and that is what people need to learn, there is a difference. For example, if there is a correlation between an increase ice-cream sales and inncrease in shark attacks say, there is no causation between the two. Both increase in summer, as the weather gets hot more people eat ice cram and swim in the sea, that simple.
Did you see the comments on Bill Gates add about a vaccine development? It’s madness. People think they will be “chipped” or killed by it for pupulation control, then Illuminati will take over humanity with 5G technology and bring up the apocalypse.
You did not watch the entire video then because he said supplements are useless. 9 : 45 It is not without a reason that organic food tastes better, looks better and is better for you because it grows properly. I took supplements for my joints and they got better. I took supplements for my eyes and my sight improved. I took other supplements and my nose that I could not breath through for 30 years cleared up. So anyone that says supplements are useless, then wants to put them in food, has issues.
I don't know that a timed TED talk is the best place to offer up citations (although it would have been great it they'd been in the video description), but to be honest, all of these studies are out there and are well-accepted. It's just that people don't want to listen.
I think the reason he doesn't cite during the talk is that your method isn't helpful for the people in the audience. If he attempted to cite all his sources they would be able to see all the works cited, but he can't keep that slide up forever, and it's likely a long list that no one has the time to write down. I'd suggest a different format: perhaps it's handed out with the program (so people can take it home) or something similar. And def cite sources when it's posted on TH-cam.
Going back to my first point. We have to see who are the people that are 'heavily criticising' the study and look to see their politics. At any rate, it reinforces my initial premise that we can't take 'science' blindly on what people in white coats are telling us. We unfortunately have to delve deeper to see the integrity of those involved and devoting a talk to 'science denial' isn't doing the public service without addressing this point.
What I think he meant was with the words "All vitamin pills/other do is make your urine darker" I knew that before the beginning of the video that taking vitamin pills does nothing beneficial for you other then making your urine darker and he probably just expected everyone to have that knowledge too. Its miscommunication on his part not mine. He communicates very ineffectively in the video and with out prior knowledge you would be confused or misinterpret his meaning....and mine.
the world is neither flat nor round. It is an ellipse. But if you really want to break it down. It isn't even that, cos if you take a closer look you see mountains, valleys. So it can't be an ellipse. So what is it? Atoms? But then again... it's just letters we have agreed to give meaning to.
I think that the main problem with genetically modified plants is that it can be dangerous to introduce genes for pathogen/parasite resistance. These genes can flow into wild populations and decrease genetic diversity (since the genetically-modified individuals will out-compete all others). There are many reasons why it is important to preserve genetic diversity.
Incorrect, while it HAS been around, the frequency of occurrence is much greater today beyond the explanation of only now being diagnosed. And that's the question. Why? If malaria was suddenly breaking out all over the world again, wouldn't you think that increase would need to be understood? Or should we be content to say it's increasing because it's being diagnosed more? Your statement might have worked 10 years ago, not today. It oversimplifies the problem.
so the message this guy delivers is this: Don't live in the now, the present is not good enough. We need to progress more. We live in the best times of mankind but it's still not good enough. Don't eat vitamins they don't work. You can only be happy in the future.
Mike Rowe isnt a scientist either. But he has his own TEDxTalk where he challenges the government AND the people on the unemployment problem in the US and how our notions of what is right and wrong might be well... wrong
From what I understand is that there is little proper research on both topics. I see no reason why there should be any mercury in vaccines. I'll have to do some research on GMOs to see if there is any proper research on the subject.
Taking multivitamins mostly only darkens your urine (10:07), yet putting vitamin E into rice (12:55) prolongs people's lives? What part did I miss here?
When I have to expand a comment because "This comment has received too many negative votes" I wonder if it would be more beneficial to keep the comment visible by not down voting it, allowing a more unbiased discourse. Maybe the comments on youtube could be handled differently. I disagree with ignorance as much as the next reasonable person, but wish I didn't have to dig to find the context of a discussion. Thanks for your response by the way, cheers
They're meant to make my point. Biology is extremely complex, but in this case it is not too much simplified to say that nutrients are way better absorbed through food than with supplements.
Where do you think supplements get their beneficial properties from? There's no magic wand. Perhaps one is not better than the other. But would you prefer to get something you need from a pill? Or from the food you need to eat anyway? Which do you think the average person is more likely to consume on a regular basis? A food source? or a pill? If they fall on hard times, which of the two will be the first cut from the budget? Who besides drug addicts forgoes food to afford pills?
"Yes, yes let the hate flow trough you!" - Emperor Palpatine (Star Wars,ehm) Don't give in to your emotions so easily...and please be more direct in what you disagree with.
I don't think it was obvious but you should know that there is a difference from taking vitamins the body doesn't need to adding an ingredient to a food which already has a scarcity of healthy nutrients....
If you think that then try taking 1000mg and see what happens - or even 500mg for that matter. The idea that vitamins are just a placebo is beyond stupid and I am not what I would consider a health freak. I've seen the results. Vitamins and nutrition make a huge difference and anyone who doesn't think so doesn't know anything.
The future never seems to be here because it's the future. Your lifespan is such a small blip in the timeline; if you're trying to support the future, you probably won't see the fruit of your efforts. But you have to be open-minded and realize that it is helping. This IS the best time of man-kind. But because people who would never enjoy their own results worked to make it so.
I am not antiscience but I do question GMOs. I keep trying to get an answer to one question I've asked for years. "Monsanto engineered seeds to grow crops that when they spray Roundup to kill all the weed in the field, it does not kill the GMO plants from those GMO seeds. In other words, farmers can spray the entire field including the GMO plants and it will kill everything except the plants. Which means, that the deadly cancer causing chemicals such as Glyphosate is absorbed by the plant. Someone needs to explain to me why eating these plants are not harmful.
Actually, the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics makes a compelling argument that there is an inherent limit to which we can determine the precise position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. Also, my science is your science too, that is if you ever bother to educate yourself about it instead of spewing ignorance.
Yes, a reasonable response. I never said it's bad because of this but it warrants more investigation in contrast to the TED talk who basically makes out your in 'science denial' if you disagree.
@TylerMontana Nice try. However, the principle doesn't preclude applicable knowledge about what's going on. To be clear, the principle only refers to a matter of exact location. Probabilistic location has been sufficient enough so far to determine many laws regarding the nature of particle physics. Otherwise the technology which allows you and I to communicate over this thing we call the internet would be impossible because it relies on those same laws of quantum mechanics.
People fear the ingenuity gap. I hope we never run into this gap as it's the only thing that keeps me up at night. I know this is an inherit fear that people carry ever since science showed it's potential for greatness but also devastation. Luddites fear the future, I see one that has the potential to solve all the problems we currently have as well as any we will face. But the gap is scary and the idea of one that we cannot cross even more.
Care to share the names of the studies. I know for a fact there is no studies on some of the things he cites. Or at least no well done studies. Very flawed science.
(cont 2) their combination is beneficial (table salt), I'm simple have no idea if that's the same case with the mercury components. I've watched my classmates play with the mercury from a broken thermometer when I was a kid to the near panicked hazard response to a broken mercury thermometer at a science fair a few years back. And it makes me wonder. But the real issue I have is that while the experts are all coming out on the side of vaccine, I've seen (cont 3)
First: "difference BETWEEN taking vitamins" not "difference FROM taking vitamins". Second: Of course the body needs them, that's why they're called vitamins.You could argue that they're some vitamins that have unhealthy versions like one of the vitamin B's, but most vitamins are clinically proven to be beneficial, some of which have been featured in numerous TED talks. Third: He does not say 'some vitamins', he just says 'vitamins'. This includes vitamin D, E, A, and all other variants.
His argument for GM food is that it can be good. He fails to acknowledge that there has not been enough tests on it and that most of the GM food makes crops resistant to pesticides which must be continuously sprayed. He fails to acknowledge that after spraying the crops with so much pesticides, insects gradually become resistant to it. He fails to acknowledge that we need the foods that contain those pesticides. I can understand how GM food can be good, but when companies like Monsanto use the public as guinea pigs, it's unethical. When companies have been using GM foods for 20 years and it has only been recently discovered, it's unethical. Right now, we don't know how changing the genes within a plant will affect us when we consume it. He states however that we should support it nevertheless. He doesn't talk about the difference between engineering food with science and engineering food with soil. It's completely different. I just believe he's been so baffled by how much people are resistant to change that he doesn't even research why. He's talking about the idea of science. GM foods can be good in the near future. But he doesn't talk about the implementations of it. The lack of research. The unethical practices of companies that produce the food. The pesticide resistant foods that are bathed in pesticides. Don't confuse the idea and the implementation. GM foods are terrible. Don't eat that shit.
Science-Denial is literally eroding Society like barely anything else. Not just in its most crystalized and clear form; Flat-Earthers; but just in general: This is all so problematic and damn-good Reason to support Science-TH-camrs, who right now try to fight back against Myths and Misinformation... and Bigfoot... Please support them hard.
but the guy on the video said there was no correlation. i believe him. doesn't mean that i don't think rise in austim is important. maybe we are pathologisting weird.
There are many ways to deter pests besides genetically enhancing the organisms. There is nothing wrong with other genetic modifications, such as transferring genes that increase fruit size or vitamin production etc. I do support growing GMOs. But it is worthwhile to consider the detrimental factors. There is no need for you to make a rude comment.
I like this TEDTalk because its 'controversial', even though it really shouldn't be. He makes a lot of good points and I agree for the most part. I find it funny how half the audience didn't stand up at the end, simply because they probably took some sort of homeopathic medication that morning. Oh I'm sorry, are you guys offended? Well suck it up, because hes right.
Thats what he said "demand evidence, demand proof but learn to accept it when it's there" The issue is if you demand answers to 'all the questions' then you inevitably get into the realm of just being stubbornly pedantic because you can't accept what the scientist says. Plus, using evolution as an example, some theories have such wide reaching affects that humanity can not possibly answer all questions People should question but answering 'all questions' is not reasonable or feasible
Re-watching in late 2023, this seems eerily prophetic of what has played out over the last 4 yrs of pandemic + other issues. That's not to say anti vax people 10 yrs ago perfectly fit with anti vax people of today, but still a resemblance due to many similar lines of thought. This is a vid i come back to listen to periodically, when it came out, and since i had remembered it about a month ago.
It is said that the most dangerous lie is the one that is almost true. It becomes very difficult to identify the deception when it is disguised with facts taken out of context. So it is with this man's lecture. He says polio is eradicated thanks to the polio vaccine, but fails to mention that at the same time polio died out, North America stopped using DDT as a common household pesticide. Nor does he mention that before the chemical revolution, there was, in fact, very little polio.
I wish he would've mentioned something about getting the women of the poorer nations in the world off the animal cycle. So many of our problems are related to just too many people.
Increasing food production won't solve starvation. We've been increasing food production for decades and all we've got is an ever more quickly increasing population and more starving people than ever. Food research is important, but without a leveling of population growth (and a more equitable global economy) we won't ever have human hunger down to minimum feasible levels.
If GMO is good for us, LABEL it so we can SEE that the people who choose to use it thrive as well or better than others OR worse than others. If the producers were sure of the value, they'd be proud to label their products GMO.
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. - MACBETH
I think I might understand the point you're getting at. Perhaps, in the name of progress, we loose sight of the human experience and disregard quality of life in the name of quantity. Where I currently live, it is hard to find anything other than genetically modified tomatoes. It's not surprising, but they just don't taste as good. But still, I must side with Mr. Specter. Too much skepticism is paranoia, just as too little is naivety. Get vaccinated, but grow your own veggies.
It's unfortunate that opposition to scientific progress is such a hindrance to change. If someone actually wanted to "take their chances with polio" I would say let them, but this would endanger everyone else. In fact this dismissive attitude may be more dangerous than we think. I questioned genetically modified food and vaccines along with others when the theories were presented. Jenny McCarthy scared me for a minute. Then research followed and more questions were answered.
I completely agree about the vaccines but hygiene does not give us more disease or allergies than it prevents. The real problem is how hygiene is implemented, as you said, too much or too little is the problem and nearly all the so-called super bugs are the result of one or the other. Just wanted put that out there.
Did you mean "people who don't suffer from nutritional supplements"? Because if you do, then, unless you are the TED speaker, we can't be sure that's what he meant, right? And how does a poor person in Africa or anywhere benefit from vitamin E enriched rice and not from taking nutritional supplements?
99% of people on the planet TODAY struggle just to make ends meet ......there IS no expanded opportunity ..... and the usual razz ma tazz are for the very few fortunates ...... so don't tell me that THIS time in history is SO much better than the time of the Inquisition ..... because THATS making a come back BIG TIME as well.
So Mercury is good for you? also, I have not herd of any proper testing on GMOs and the few I have herd of do indicate that they are harmful yet they get suppressed. if we wanted a honest debate over this then we should allow the research.
Actually, I am talking about scientific papers and how easily one can be mislead by mindlessly following the recommendations of people in white coats. The example I gave was just one out of many across a broad range of topics. I could have gone through the quack science behind the sport drink industry for instance. Saying GM foods are the greatest development since selective breeding is such hyperbole it completely discredits what substance you had to say which you managed to get wrong too.
Really? You'd rather have Polio than have progress? Without us getting rid of things like Small Pox and Polio, we probably wouldn't be where we are today because we'd still be struggling to ensure that we have a living legacy, and many of the people making these progresses would likely be dead.
Man, ten years on, and he was right. Of course he was right then but now it’s eerily prophetic
How many graduate students are likely to turn in their Principal Investigator (PI) knowing that this would dash their hopes of earning a Ph.D.? How many post-docs would do the same, throwing away their chance for a faculty appointment? How many assistant professors would risk receiving tenure by outing a colleague? And how many PIs would be willing to wade into a controversy by bringing charges against the very same peers who review their publications and grant proposals?
DEEjayTOE +
Michael makes an excellent point. It's time to speak up about science denial & pseudoscience that plague our cultures. It's time to take the gloves off, and start public shaming of people who promote magic thinking & superstition in congress, the media, school and personal interaction. That might sound rude, but it's really a counter to the rudeness of dissing science. We should also lobby for teaching critical thinking & science in early grades of school. Call it The Enlightenment 2.0!
I agree, but I don't think we need to shame people for it. That's a little harsh!
It might be but it's really needed@@reemashuko
I agree so much with him and Ive always had the same issue where I feel like I am the only one who would ever time machine forward.
youu still here?
What an amazing TED Talk. Thank you Michael for taking a very important and much needed stance on this issue. This is something our entire country needs to hear.
nice to see how he forgets to mention herbicide use with GMO's, and this is what almost every GMO is for, growing and producing with poisonous application. I studied molecular biology into graduate school, so I understand the topic.
(cont 1) happening while individual scientists said it was. I've been educated as a physicist, yet I've listened to testimonials from a large number of parents specifically pinpointing changes in their children's behavior right after the child was vaccinated and this leaves me with questions I can't answer. Most parents I've talked to blame the mercury components in the vaccine. While I'm aware that while certain chemicals are harmful when separate (chlorine gas and sodium metal) (cont 2)
It's intriguing to consider how some people reject scientific advancements and discoveries. I do comprehend where mistrust regarding things like immunizations comes from. Many scientific concepts are very challenging to comprehend, especially without knowledge in such subjects. People then consult sources that offer clearer, but occasionally inaccurate, explanations. Even so, it doesn't excuse the spread of these false beliefs since, as Michael Specter in the film pointed out, science denial has detrimental effects on the general well-being of society. We owe it to ourselves and everyone around us to uphold the truthfulness and integrity of the principles we choose to support.
I would like to just give an example how Ethics and Vaccine denials are connected. Because vaccine refusal can have significant ethical repercussions, ethics and refusal to get vaccinations are intimately intertwined. People who reject the scientific consensus on the safety and efficacy of vaccines do so because they are misinformed or hold unsupported ideas, which is known as vaccine denial. Numerous concerns, such as risks to the public's health, personal harm, and societal inequities, might result from this.
First and foremost, refusing vaccinations might result in outbreaks of diseases that can be avoided, which can be especially dangerous for vulnerably disposed people including children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems. In addition to endangering individuals, this has wider repercussions for public health, including rising healthcare expenses and stress on healthcare institutions.
Second, people who are refused access to vaccines that could save their lives because of false beliefs or inaccurate information may suffer harm. This may result in needless agony and even death. Third, vaccination denial can exacerbate social inequities by disproportionately impacting groups who are marginalized and underserved and may not have easy access to reliable information or resources for healthcare.
On the other hand, advocating vaccination and respecting the scientific consensus on vaccinations can encourage moral judgment and behavior. This entails understanding the potential dangers and advantages of vaccines, making decisions based on data, and ensuring that everyone has fair access to vaccines.
Therefore, it is crucial to encourage scientific literacy and critical thinking abilities in order to support people in making informed vaccine decisions and to combat the risks of vaccine denial. By doing this, we can encourage moral behavior that is advantageous to both individuals and society at large.
I really like how you mentioned the ethical repercussions that vaccine denial can be connected with. During the pandemic we saw a lot of people who said my body my choice in regards to refusing to get the covid vaccine, or those who argued for their "right" to not wear a mask during mandates and so forth, but it seemed that in all of those arguments what was missing was the right of our society as a whole to be protected, kept safe, and to have the health and goodness of us as a collective preserved as much as possible. I remember some of the viral things being shared on social media at the time and one that stays with me even today was a post basically asking what people did before masks, vaccinations etc. and one viral reply being that they died. You also brought up some interesting points about where mistrust of large scientific organizations may stem from and I thought that it was interesting to see the role you feel medical literacy (or illiteracy) may play in that. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities?
He says these are the best times in humanity because all other times are further in the past when science hadn't progressed as much. He's saying that fifty years from now we will likely be living in the best time period that humanity has ever witnessed.
The truth delivered in an entertaining and comprehensible manner. Congratulations.
It is a problem of biological absorption rate, when you take food supplement the absorption rate is usually below 10% whereas it is nearly 100% when absorbed in food. Moreover, nutriment malabsorption can cause multiple "uncomfortable" side-effects (diarrhea,...)
It makes a big difference to have good nutrition, but it doesn't make much of a difference when you're getting slightly more than you need of a specific nutrient. Taking a gram of any given vitamin on top of your required amount won't give you much effect, and if it does, it's going to be negative.
I agree that TED would do well to cite the sources mentioned in the videos. I have seen these studies and know that what he says is true, but having the list of them at our fingertips would be great.
Not sure about this but I think it has to do with how your body absorbs the nutrients: most of the vitamin A in a pill goes to waste because your body cannot process it fast enough, unlike what would happen with rice rich in vitamin A. Think about how fast one pill is processed in contrast to a whole meal. Again, do not take my word for it, but I think this makes sense.
The EU still hasn't banned GM food though, and that is the prime argument. If there were such 'convincing' dangers, there would be no doubt more of a controversy amongst bioengineers, but there isn't.
He is saying that dietary supplements have been shown to have no real effect, not that vitamins don't work.
Well actually a study done found that increases on yield production over the last decade is due to improvements on traditional farming practices.
Despite the biotech spending billions on research and public relations, genetically engineered crops have not been able to produce significantly more crops per acre of land.
Because the USA has much lower quality standards than the EU. Just because something gets banned doesn't mean it's forbidden. Most food, hell most "organic food" around here still has some GMO stuff in it. GMO stuff the EU accepts.
"All vitamins do is make your urine darker"
"Putting vitamin A into rice"
This guy has never studied synergism, and decides not to mention herbicides and other inconvenient facts.
I am a science teacher, agree with many of his points, but he is so arrogant.
Yeah to give starving children and poor people some nutrients.. many Americans already get enough vitamin A..
It’s interesting to think about the denial of scientific discoveries and advancements. I do understand the origin of skepticism towards things such vaccines. There are a lot of scientific principles that are really difficult to understand, especially without a college degree in those fields. So people turn to sources that have simpler, and sometimes incorrect, explanations. Even then, that doesn’t justify the propagation of these incorrect ideas, as Michael Specter mentioned in the video, there are serious societal health impacts from science denial. We really have a responsibility to not only ourselves, but to those around us to maintain truthful integrity of the ideas we decide to uphold. If we learn new information that proves an idea we hold to be wrong it is okay to change your perspective and admit your error. What’s ethically wrong is assuming your idea is always going to be right and refusing to even consider you might have been wrong.
One need to set priority in this case here. The question isn't just about test tube food or not, it's about the quality of life vs. life itself.
My priority is to life itself. If I have the option to feed millions of people for a very low price, why would I need to work against it?
If someone doesn't want to eat test tube food, he can always have that option, but what I am against is looking at genetically altered food as if they are a disease that needs to be purged.
It is true that privately funded studies are more likely to be successful than non. However, as the number of studies looking at one particular topic increases, there arises an increase in correlation or a decrease. This is known as the decline effect and is what you see when companies fund acupuncture, supplement, paranormal etc studies, the effect size decreases. With GM the correlation has mostly increased. The french study you mentioned however is HEAVILY criticised, don't act so innocent.
Specter isn't looking at the problems of GM food that actually matter. Case in point: Google the NPR story "Cornstalks Everywhere But Nothing Else, Not Even A Bee". That's how "harmless" GM food is.
Sure. I disagree with the concept of calling critics “deniers”. It’s petty and anti-intellectual.
Anybody can give an example where scientists were right and critics were wrong but there are also plenty of examples where scientists were wrong and they needed the criticism.
Science needs critics. Those critics are crucial to the method both in the hypothesis forming step and in the repeatable results step. The movement to label science critics as “deniers” smells of politics. Get the politics out of science. Stop calling people who doubt or question or challenge scientific claims any putrid names. Instead call them wonderful sources for your next hypothesis.
Science-Denial is literally eroding Society like barely anything else.
Not just in its most crystalized and clear form; Flat-Earthers; but just in general:
This is all so problematic and damn-good Reason to support Science-TH-camrs,
who right now try to fight back against Myths and Misinformation... and Bigfoot...
So saying pathogens and gravity don't exist is suddenly considered "criticism"? Buddy there's a stark difference between being critical/skeptical and outright ignoring hard evidence that has been repeated for centuries or even millennia.
@@sithwolf8017 What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities?
@@loturzelrestaurant What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities?
people say there's a correlation between gmo and autism. And in some cases diabetes and obesity. but there's no evidence to show causation. I really havent looked into it, but from what i understand the "correlation" is not a definitive correlation, but i guess there's enough evidence for people to start studying and looking into it.
Because the level in the supplements is far lower and also, for what you buy, the price is extortionate. Putting vitamins in things like rice and potatoes is actually relatively cheap.
side note, i just remembered something funny. What i find interesting, in California (the state where i'm from) the leading gmo firm's employees choose to have organic food served to them for lunch (the firm i'm talking about is called monsanto).
Assuming you're not a toxicologist yourself, then you have no objection to drinking some yourself, right? I'm not making fun of you, I'm suggesting you have enough sense to know mercury is dangerous. These parents are no different. You don't need to be a toxicologist to know better, or even to ask if the material is questionable. And you're absolutely right. What I've said is anecdotal (biased if you prefer). I'm just suggesting that "maybe" Spector's answer might not help the issue.
what we dislike is the lack of transparency from the system.
Even if a correlation is found, correlation does not prove causation and that is what people need to learn, there is a difference. For example, if there is a correlation between an increase ice-cream sales and inncrease in shark attacks say, there is no causation between the two. Both increase in summer, as the weather gets hot more people eat ice cram and swim in the sea, that simple.
Wow, this video has never been more relevant than today with regards to the Corona Virus.
Did you see the comments on Bill Gates add about a vaccine development? It’s madness. People think they will be “chipped” or killed by it for pupulation control, then Illuminati will take over humanity with 5G technology and bring up the apocalypse.
What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities?
healthy skepticism - we need more of it
Food shortage? or people abundance?
You did not watch the entire video then because he said supplements are useless. 9 : 45
It is not without a reason that organic food tastes better, looks better and is better for you because it grows properly.
I took supplements for my joints and they got better.
I took supplements for my eyes and my sight improved.
I took other supplements and my nose that I could not breath through for 30 years cleared up.
So anyone that says supplements are useless, then wants to put them in food, has issues.
Actually, fish oil has shown to actually not do what they thought it did which is decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease.
I don't know that a timed TED talk is the best place to offer up citations (although it would have been great it they'd been in the video description), but to be honest, all of these studies are out there and are well-accepted. It's just that people don't want to listen.
I think the reason he doesn't cite during the talk is that your method isn't helpful for the people in the audience. If he attempted to cite all his sources they would be able to see all the works cited, but he can't keep that slide up forever, and it's likely a long list that no one has the time to write down. I'd suggest a different format: perhaps it's handed out with the program (so people can take it home) or something similar. And def cite sources when it's posted on TH-cam.
Going back to my first point. We have to see who are the people that are 'heavily criticising' the study and look to see their politics. At any rate, it reinforces my initial premise that we can't take 'science' blindly on what people in white coats are telling us. We unfortunately have to delve deeper to see the integrity of those involved and devoting a talk to 'science denial' isn't doing the public service without addressing this point.
What I think he meant was with the words "All vitamin pills/other do is make your urine darker"
I knew that before the beginning of the video that taking vitamin pills does nothing beneficial for you other then making your urine darker and he probably just expected everyone to have that knowledge too.
Its miscommunication on his part not mine.
He communicates very ineffectively in the video and with out prior knowledge you would be confused or misinterpret his meaning....and mine.
the world is neither flat nor round. It is an ellipse. But if you really want to break it down. It isn't even that, cos if you take a closer look you see mountains, valleys. So it can't be an ellipse. So what is it? Atoms? But then again... it's just letters we have agreed to give meaning to.
I think that the main problem with genetically modified plants is that it can be dangerous to introduce genes for pathogen/parasite resistance. These genes can flow into wild populations and decrease genetic diversity (since the genetically-modified individuals will out-compete all others). There are many reasons why it is important to preserve genetic diversity.
I don't fully agree with him, but yes, we shouldn't deny science we should question it until all the questions are answered.
Incorrect, while it HAS been around, the frequency of occurrence is much greater today beyond the explanation of only now being diagnosed. And that's the question. Why? If malaria was suddenly breaking out all over the world again, wouldn't you think that increase would need to be understood? Or should we be content to say it's increasing because it's being diagnosed more? Your statement might have worked 10 years ago, not today. It oversimplifies the problem.
so the message this guy delivers is this: Don't live in the now, the present is not good enough. We need to progress more. We live in the best times of mankind but it's still not good enough. Don't eat vitamins they don't work. You can only be happy in the future.
they're still working on that one. there is couple of reasons why it's getting more common and that is population size and diagnosis.
Delivery can help convince those who currently don't believe in what he's saying. Ethos has as much power as Logos. It's sad, but true.
Mike Rowe isnt a scientist either.
But he has his own TEDxTalk where he challenges the government AND the people on the unemployment problem in the US and how our notions of what is right and wrong might be well... wrong
From what I understand is that there is little proper research on both topics. I see no reason why there should be any mercury in vaccines. I'll have to do some research on GMOs to see if there is any proper research on the subject.
Taking multivitamins mostly only darkens your urine (10:07), yet putting vitamin E into rice (12:55) prolongs people's lives? What part did I miss here?
idk if it's just me but what's the difference between enriching rice with vitamin A and eating rice with a vitamin A supplement?
When I have to expand a comment because "This comment has received too many negative votes" I wonder if it would be more beneficial to keep the comment visible by not down voting it, allowing a more unbiased discourse. Maybe the comments on youtube could be handled differently. I disagree with ignorance as much as the next reasonable person, but wish I didn't have to dig to find the context of a discussion. Thanks for your response by the way, cheers
They're meant to make my point. Biology is extremely complex, but in this case it is not too much simplified to say that nutrients are way better absorbed through food than with supplements.
What he says about Gm foods - i've been saying that to my friends for ages. Everything we eat has been GM.
Where do you think supplements get their beneficial properties from? There's no magic wand. Perhaps one is not better than the other. But would you prefer to get something you need from a pill? Or from the food you need to eat anyway? Which do you think the average person is more likely to consume on a regular basis? A food source? or a pill? If they fall on hard times, which of the two will be the first cut from the budget?
Who besides drug addicts forgoes food to afford pills?
"Yes, yes let the hate flow trough you!" - Emperor Palpatine (Star Wars,ehm)
Don't give in to your emotions so easily...and please be more direct in what you disagree with.
I don't think it was obvious but you should know that there is a difference from taking vitamins the body doesn't need to adding an ingredient to a food which already has a scarcity of healthy nutrients....
If you think that then try taking 1000mg and see what happens - or even 500mg for that matter. The idea that vitamins are just a placebo is beyond stupid and I am not what I would consider a health freak. I've seen the results. Vitamins and nutrition make a huge difference and anyone who doesn't think so doesn't know anything.
I didn't take issue with most of what you said, just " X has to be changed first!"
As far as i know there are no studies that show that it's dangerous to consume gmo's.
The future never seems to be here because it's the future. Your lifespan is such a small blip in the timeline; if you're trying to support the future, you probably won't see the fruit of your efforts. But you have to be open-minded and realize that it is helping. This IS the best time of man-kind. But because people who would never enjoy their own results worked to make it so.
I am not antiscience but I do question GMOs. I keep trying to get an answer to one question I've asked for years. "Monsanto engineered seeds to grow crops that when they spray Roundup to kill all the weed in the field, it does not kill the GMO plants from those GMO seeds. In other words, farmers can spray the entire field including the GMO plants and it will kill everything except the plants. Which means, that the deadly cancer causing chemicals such as Glyphosate is absorbed by the plant. Someone needs to explain to me why eating these plants are not harmful.
5:54 7:00 11:44 6:20
Actually, the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics makes a compelling argument that there is an inherent limit to which we can determine the precise position and momentum of a particle simultaneously.
Also, my science is your science too, that is if you ever bother to educate yourself about it instead of spewing ignorance.
Yes, a reasonable response. I never said it's bad because of this but it warrants more investigation in contrast to the TED talk who basically makes out your in 'science denial' if you disagree.
There is a difference between vitamin A capsules and biosynthesis of beta-Carotene, the precursor to Vitamin A.
@TylerMontana Nice try. However, the principle doesn't preclude applicable knowledge about what's going on. To be clear, the principle only refers to a matter of exact location. Probabilistic location has been sufficient enough so far to determine many laws regarding the nature of particle physics. Otherwise the technology which allows you and I to communicate over this thing we call the internet would be impossible because it relies on those same laws of quantum mechanics.
People fear the ingenuity gap. I hope we never run into this gap as it's the only thing that keeps me up at night. I know this is an inherit fear that people carry ever since science showed it's potential for greatness but also devastation. Luddites fear the future, I see one that has the potential to solve all the problems we currently have as well as any we will face. But the gap is scary and the idea of one that we cannot cross even more.
Actually, he said vitamins DO work. He said we put them in our food and they give us nutrients, but I'm still doing research myself.
Care to share the names of the studies. I know for a fact there is no studies on some of the things he cites. Or at least no well done studies. Very flawed science.
The most important Ted Talk ever! I wish I could like it a thousand times.
(cont 2) their combination is beneficial (table salt), I'm simple have no idea if that's the same case with the mercury components. I've watched my classmates play with the mercury from a broken thermometer when I was a kid to the near panicked hazard response to a broken mercury thermometer at a science fair a few years back. And it makes me wonder. But the real issue I have is that while the experts are all coming out on the side of vaccine, I've seen (cont 3)
A voice of reason. Unfortunately, these people are becoming increasingly rare.
First: "difference BETWEEN taking vitamins" not "difference FROM taking vitamins".
Second: Of course the body needs them, that's why they're called vitamins.You could argue that they're some vitamins that have unhealthy versions like one of the vitamin B's, but most vitamins are clinically proven to be beneficial, some of which have been featured in numerous TED talks.
Third: He does not say 'some vitamins', he just says 'vitamins'. This includes vitamin D, E, A, and all other variants.
Monsanto doesn't own every other's countries version of FDA and they still use GM.
His argument for GM food is that it can be good. He fails to acknowledge that there has not been enough tests on it and that most of the GM food makes crops resistant to pesticides which must be continuously sprayed. He fails to acknowledge that after spraying the crops with so much pesticides, insects gradually become resistant to it. He fails to acknowledge that we need the foods that contain those pesticides. I can understand how GM food can be good, but when companies like Monsanto use the public as guinea pigs, it's unethical. When companies have been using GM foods for 20 years and it has only been recently discovered, it's unethical.
Right now, we don't know how changing the genes within a plant will affect us when we consume it. He states however that we should support it nevertheless. He doesn't talk about the difference between engineering food with science and engineering food with soil. It's completely different. I just believe he's been so baffled by how much people are resistant to change that he doesn't even research why. He's talking about the idea of science. GM foods can be good in the near future. But he doesn't talk about the implementations of it. The lack of research. The unethical practices of companies that produce the food. The pesticide resistant foods that are bathed in pesticides. Don't confuse the idea and the implementation. GM foods are terrible. Don't eat that shit.
Anthony Jiang +
The same logic applies to COVID-19 vaccines. Can people share this video to those anti-vaccine people out there? 🤓
Science-Denial is literally eroding Society like barely anything else.
Not just in its most crystalized and clear form; Flat-Earthers; but just in general:
This is all so problematic and damn-good Reason to support Science-TH-camrs,
who right now try to fight back against Myths and Misinformation... and Bigfoot...
Please support them hard.
@@loturzelrestaurant What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities?
but the guy on the video said there was no correlation. i believe him. doesn't mean that i don't think rise in austim is important. maybe we are pathologisting weird.
I like this guy. He knows facts good.
There are many ways to deter pests besides genetically enhancing the organisms. There is nothing wrong with other genetic modifications, such as transferring genes that increase fruit size or vitamin production etc. I do support growing GMOs. But it is worthwhile to consider the detrimental factors. There is no need for you to make a rude comment.
I like this TEDTalk because its 'controversial', even though it really shouldn't be. He makes a lot of good points and I agree for the most part. I find it funny how half the audience didn't stand up at the end, simply because they probably took some sort of homeopathic medication that morning. Oh I'm sorry, are you guys offended? Well suck it up, because hes right.
Thats what he said "demand evidence, demand proof but learn to accept it when it's there"
The issue is if you demand answers to 'all the questions' then you inevitably get into the realm of just being stubbornly pedantic because you can't accept what the scientist says. Plus, using evolution as an example, some theories have such wide reaching affects that humanity can not possibly answer all questions
People should question but answering 'all questions' is not reasonable or feasible
Re-watching in late 2023, this seems eerily prophetic of what has played out over the last 4 yrs of pandemic + other issues. That's not to say anti vax people 10 yrs ago perfectly fit with anti vax people of today, but still a resemblance due to many similar lines of thought.
This is a vid i come back to listen to periodically, when it came out, and since i had remembered it about a month ago.
It is said that the most dangerous lie is the one that is almost true. It becomes very difficult to identify the deception when it is disguised with facts taken out of context. So it is with this man's lecture. He says polio is eradicated thanks to the polio vaccine, but fails to mention that at the same time polio died out, North America stopped using DDT as a common household pesticide. Nor does he mention that before the chemical revolution, there was, in fact, very little polio.
I wish he would've mentioned something about getting the women of the poorer nations in the world off the animal cycle. So many of our problems are related to just too many people.
10:18 what? Fish oil is taken because studies shows that we're usually deficient and it has benefits. What the hell?
I actually had no idea there was a debate on this, I love TED
Increasing food production won't solve starvation. We've been increasing food production for decades and all we've got is an ever more quickly increasing population and more starving people than ever.
Food research is important, but without a leveling of population growth (and a more equitable global economy) we won't ever have human hunger down to minimum feasible levels.
If GMO is good for us, LABEL it so we can SEE that the people who choose to use it thrive as well or better than others OR worse than others.
If the producers were sure of the value, they'd be proud to label their products GMO.
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. - MACBETH
That's because the European Union is ignorant of the side effects and that scares them.
I think I might understand the point you're getting at. Perhaps, in the name of progress, we loose sight of the human experience and disregard quality of life in the name of quantity. Where I currently live, it is hard to find anything other than genetically modified tomatoes. It's not surprising, but they just don't taste as good. But still, I must side with Mr. Specter. Too much skepticism is paranoia, just as too little is naivety. Get vaccinated, but grow your own veggies.
It's unfortunate that opposition to scientific progress is such a hindrance to change. If someone actually wanted to "take their chances with polio" I would say let them, but this would endanger everyone else. In fact this dismissive attitude may be more dangerous than we think. I questioned genetically modified food and vaccines along with others when the theories were presented. Jenny McCarthy scared me for a minute. Then research followed and more questions were answered.
I completely agree about the vaccines but hygiene does not give us more disease or allergies than it prevents. The real problem is how hygiene is implemented, as you said, too much or too little is the problem and nearly all the so-called super bugs are the result of one or the other. Just wanted put that out there.
Did you mean "people who don't suffer from nutritional supplements"? Because if you do, then, unless you are the TED speaker, we can't be sure that's what he meant, right?
And how does a poor person in Africa or anywhere benefit from vitamin E enriched rice and not from taking nutritional supplements?
99% of people on the planet TODAY struggle just to make ends meet ......there IS no expanded opportunity ..... and the usual razz ma tazz are for the very few fortunates ...... so don't tell me that THIS time in history is SO much better than the time of the Inquisition ..... because THATS making a come back BIG TIME as well.
i believe he was referring to the neolithic agricultural revolution, seeing as that was about 10k years bp
So Mercury is good for you?
also, I have not herd of any proper testing on GMOs and the few I have herd of do indicate that they are harmful yet they get suppressed. if we wanted a honest debate over this then we should allow the research.
Actually, I am talking about scientific papers and how easily one can be mislead by mindlessly following the recommendations of people in white coats. The example I gave was just one out of many across a broad range of topics. I could have gone through the quack science behind the sport drink industry for instance.
Saying GM foods are the greatest development since selective breeding is such hyperbole it completely discredits what substance you had to say which you managed to get wrong too.
Not speculation; Extrapolation based on current trends.
Really? You'd rather have Polio than have progress?
Without us getting rid of things like Small Pox and Polio, we probably wouldn't be where we are today because we'd still be struggling to ensure that we have a living legacy, and many of the people making these progresses would likely be dead.