I can’t help wondering what the Catholic Church’s stand is on the Zika virus. Will it continue it’s stance on birth control? Its ban on abortion of deformed fetuses? Continue to tell married woman they can’t say no? Of course, we know the church will be right there on the front lines to support families with babies with microcephally, just as it has for other devastating birth defects and illnesses. God will provide.
Casti Connubii - “It is absolutely required that any use whatsoever of marriage must retain its natural potential to procreate human life."
While bishops may oppose, the laity consider contraception and abortion being practical measures that do not interfere with retaining the natural potential to procreate human life. At the end of the day the bishops are not the Church. We all see similar developments in recognition of same-sex marriage and acceptance of euthanasia in some cases.
Casti Connubii - “It is absolutely required that any use whatsoever of marriage must retain its natural potential to procreate human life." While bishops may oppose, the laity consider contraception and abortion being practical measures that do not interfere with retaining the natural potential to procreate human life. At the end of the day the bishops are not the Church. We all see similar developments in recognition of same-sex marriage and acceptance of euthanasia in some cases.What we are actually seeing is human intelligence and rationality instead of blind obedience to a religion. LL
I can't help wondering what the Catholic Church's stand is on the Zika virus. Will it continue it's stance on birth control? Its ban on abortion of deformed fetuses? Continue to tell married woman they can't say no? Of course, we know the church will be right there on the front lines to support families with babies with microcephally, just as it has for other devastating birth defects and illnesses. God will provide.The one thing that holds science back and humanity in general is and has been religion. I often wonder how far we would be advanced without being shackled by religious ism's.
Anybody heard of these “alternate theories”? There’s this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won’t bother with that.
Anybody heard of these "alternate theories"? There's this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won't bother with that.Wht "alternate theories" are you referring to? That the Catholic Church is blind and deaf to human problems? Lois
Anybody heard of these "alternate theories"? There's this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won't bother with that.Wht "alternate theories" are you referring to? That the Catolic Church is blind and deaf to human problems? Lois I put a link, they are in blue text. I also said "this one" as a clue to click there.
Anybody heard of these "alternate theories"? There's this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won't bother with that.As I understand it, scientists do not, yet, have evidence to assert that the Zika virus itself causes microcepahaly. The Zika virus has been around for a long time (first discovered in 1947). In recent years it seems to have spread rapidly, suggesting a change in the virus has occurred. Also, the association with apparent increases in microcepahlic births, seems to be a relatively recent occurrence. Perhaps the Zika virus has mutated and is causing microcephalic births, but it could alternatively be something else that is also correspondingly associated with the Zika infection and microcephalic births, or it could be a combination of such corresponding factors, e.g., a combination of Zika infection along with other infections. I would certainly want to rule out the possibility that insecticide used to kill Zika bearing mosquitoes, is having the adverse effects.
Anybody heard of these "alternate theories"? There's this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won't bother with that.Wht "alternate theories" are you referring to? That the Catolic Church is blind and deaf to human problems? Lois I put a link, they are in blue text. I also said "this one" as a clue to click there. I await objective, repeatable, testable scientific evidence. Lois
Anybody heard of these "alternate theories"? There's this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won't bother with that.As I understand it, scientists do not, yet, have evidence to assert that the Zika virus itself causes microcepahaly. The Zika virus has been around for a long time (first discovered in 1947). In recent years it seems to have spread rapidly, suggesting a change in the virus has occurred. Also, the association with apparent increases in microcepahlic births, seems to be a relatively recent occurrence. Perhaps the Zika virus has mutated and is causing microcephalic births, but it could alternatively be something else that is also correspondingly associated with the Zika infection and microcephalic births, or it could be a combination of such corresponding factors, e.g., a combination of Zika infection along with other infections. I would certainly want to rule out the possibility that insecticide used to kill Zika bearing mosquitoes, is having the adverse effects. Just as miasmas spread the Black plague? And garlic prevented it?
Anybody heard of these "alternate theories"? There's this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won't bother with that.As I understand it, scientists do not, yet, have evidence to assert that the Zika virus itself causes microcepahaly. The Zika virus has been around for a long time (first discovered in 1947). In recent years it seems to have spread rapidly, suggesting a change in the virus has occurred. Also, the association with apparent increases in microcepahlic births, seems to be a relatively recent occurrence. Perhaps the Zika virus has mutated and is causing microcephalic births, but it could alternatively be something else that is also correspondingly associated with the Zika infection and microcephalic births, or it could be a combination of such corresponding factors, e.g., a combination of Zika infection along with other infections. I would certainly want to rule out the possibility that insecticide used to kill Zika bearing mosquitoes, is having the adverse effects. Just as miasmas spread the Black plague? And garlic prevented it? Lois, I understand you wanting to dismiss anything that has the word "alternative" in front of it. But there is really nothing wrong with examining alternative hypotheses, when all you have to begin with is a hypothesis. So far, as I understand it, it is only hypothetical that the Zika virus is the cause or sole cause of the seeming increase in microcepahlic births.
Anybody heard of these "alternate theories"? There's this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won't bother with that.Wht "alternate theories" are you referring to? That the Catolic Church is blind and deaf to human problems? Lois I put a link, they are in blue text. I also said "this one" as a clue to click there. I await objective, repeatable, testable scientific evidence. Lois Hmm. You don't seem to have awaited objective, repeatable, testable scientific evidence, to conclude that it definitely is the Zika virus that is the direct cause of the seeming increase in cases of microcephalic births. I'm no expert on the subject. So maybe you are correct. You can probably easily provide a link that shows your conclusion to be correct, replete with references to objective, repeatable, testable scientific evidence.
Anybody heard of these "alternate theories"? There's this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won't bother with that.enough beating around the bush:
... Brazilian doctors also suspect pyriproxyfen Pyriproxyfen is a relatively new introduction to the Brazilian environment; the microcephaly increase is a relatively new phenomenon. So the larvicide seems a plausible causative factor in microcephaly - far more so than GM mosquitos, which some have blamed for the Zika epidemic and thus for the birth defects. The PCST report, which also addresses the Dengue fever epidemic in Brazil, concurs with the findings of a separate report on the Zika outbreak by the Brazilian doctors' and public health researchers' organisation, Abrasco. [2] Abrasco also names Pyriproxyfen as a possible cause of the microcephaly. It condemns the strategy of chemical control of Zika-carrying mosquitoes, which it says is contaminating the environment as well as people and is not decreasing the numbers of mosquitoes. Instead Abrasco suggests that this strategy is in fact driven by the commercial interests of the chemical industry, which it says is deeply integrated into the Latin American ministries of health, as well as the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organisation. Abrasco names the British GM insect company Oxitec as part of the corporate lobby that is distorting the facts about Zika to suit its own profit-making agenda. Oxitec sells GM mosquitoes engineered for sterility and markets them as a disease-combatting product - a strategy condemned by the Argentine Physicians as "a total failure, except for the company supplying mosquitoes." Both the Brazilian and Argentine doctors' and researchers' associations agree that poverty is a key neglected factor in the Zika epidemic. Abrasco condemned the Brazilian government for its "deliberate concealment" of economic and social causes: "In Argentina and across America the poorest populations with the least access to sanitation and safe water suffer most from the outbreak." PCST agrees, stating, "The basis of the progress of the disease lies in inequality and poverty." Abrasco adds that the disease is closely linked to environmental degradation: floods caused by logging and the massive use of herbicides on (GM) herbicide-tolerant soy crops - in short, "the impacts of extractive industries." The notion that environmental degradation may a factor in the spread of Zika finds backing in the view of Dino Martins, PhD, a Kenyan entomologist. Martins said that "the explosion of mosquitoes in urban areas, which is driving the Zika crisis" is caused by "a lack of natural diversity that would otherwise keep mosquito populations under control, and the proliferation of waste and lack of disposal in some areas which provide artificial habitat for breeding mosquitoes." ...Seems worth further serious investigation.
Having grown up just 15 miles from Love Canal, this wouldn’t surprise me.
One thing’s for sure…it’ll come out if it’s true.
One way or another.
The anecdotal correlations are kinda funny though. But I am biased against the chemicals…
But I’m not going to jump to any conclusions myself.
Anybody heard of these "alternate theories"? There's this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won't bother with that.As I understand it, scientists do not, yet, have evidence to assert that the Zika virus itself causes microcepahaly. The Zika virus has been around for a long time (first discovered in 1947). In recent years it seems to have spread rapidly, suggesting a change in the virus has occurred. Also, the association with apparent increases in microcepahlic births, seems to be a relatively recent occurrence. Perhaps the Zika virus has mutated and is causing microcephalic births, but it could alternatively be something else that is also correspondingly associated with the Zika infection and microcephalic births, or it could be a combination of such corresponding factors, e.g., a combination of Zika infection along with other infections. I would certainly want to rule out the possibility that insecticide used to kill Zika bearing mosquitoes, is having the adverse effects. Just as miasmas spread the Black plague? And garlic prevented it? Lois, I understand you wanting to dismiss anything that has the word "alternative" in front of it. But there is really nothing wrong with examining alternative hypotheses, when all you have to begin with is a hypothesis. So far, as I understand it, it is only hypothetical that the Zika virus is the cause or sole cause of the seeming increase in microcepahlic births. Huh. I found this quote: "Agencies investigating the Zika outbreaks are finding an increasing body of evidence about the link between Zika virus and microcephaly. However, more investigation is needed to better understand the relationship between microcephaly in babies and the Zika virus. Other potential causes are also being investigated." (italics mine) But this is from some organization called the World Health Organization. Who? Probably some agency living in the dark ages of miasmas and garlic cures.
Anybody heard of these "alternate theories"? There's this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won't bother with that.Wht "alternate theories" are you referring to? That the Catolic Church is blind and deaf to human problems? Lois I put a link, they are in blue text. I also said "this one" as a clue to click there. I await objective, repeatable, testable scientific evidence. Lois Hmm. You don't seem to have awaited objective, repeatable, testable scientific evidence, to conclude that it definitely is the Zika virus that is the direct cause of the seeming increase in cases of microcephalic births. i have made no conclusions. Medical scientists have made conclusions based on scientific evidence. I'm no expert on the subject. So maybe you are correct. You can probably easily provide a link that shows your conclusion to be correct, replete with references to objective, repeatable, testable scientific evidence. Try this: i'm no expert either but I trust the scientists working on this. What choice do we have? Voodoo? We've tried that. nytimes.com/interactive/2016/health/what-is-zika-virus.html
Anybody heard of these "alternate theories"? There's this one.] I heard a GMO one too, but I won't bother with that.As I understand it, scientists do not, yet, have evidence to assert that the Zika virus itself causes microcepahaly. The Zika virus has been around for a long time (first discovered in 1947). In recent years it seems to have spread rapidly, suggesting a change in the virus has occurred. Also, the association with apparent increases in microcepahlic births, seems to be a relatively recent occurrence. Perhaps the Zika virus has mutated and is causing microcephalic births, but it could alternatively be something else that is also correspondingly associated with the Zika infection and microcephalic births, or it could be a combination of such corresponding factors, e.g., a combination of Zika infection along with other infections. I would certainly want to rule out the possibility that insecticide used to kill Zika bearing mosquitoes, is having the adverse effects. Just as miasmas spread the Black plague? And garlic prevented it? Lois, I understand you wanting to dismiss anything that has the word "alternative" in front of it. But there is really nothing wrong with examining alternative hypotheses, when all you have to begin with is a hypothesis. So far, as I understand it, it is only hypothetical that the Zika virus is the cause or sole cause of the seeming increase in microcepahlic births. I have never suggested not examining alternative hypotheses. It's what scientists do. But so often in cases like this triage is necessary. Scientists have to follow the most likely scenarios and not go off on tangents. There is no alternative to testable science.
Well, there are reports that the Pope “opened the door” for the possibility of using contraceptives to prevent the conception of Zika virus babies. But what I read of what he actually said, was quite vague. He basically re-asserted that abortion is always an absolute no-no. But that adultery is a lesser sin. He did not specifically say, AFAIK, that it is okay for married couples to use contraceptives (though since that is not adultery, is it?) one could assume that it is okay. Even using contraceptives when committing adultery, one could assume, is not a problem, except for the act of adultery, itself, which is a big no-no, but not nearly as big a no-no as abortion.
Being a Catholic must be confusing.
Well, there are reports that the Pope "opened the door" for the possibility of using contraceptives to prevent the conception of Zika virus babies. But what I read of what he actually said, was quite vague. He basically re-asserted that abortion is always an absolute no-no. But that adultery is a lesser sin. He did not specifically say, AFAIK, that it is okay for married couples to use contraceptives (though since that is not adultery, is it?) one could assume that it is okay. Even using contraceptives when committing adultery, one could assume, is not a problem, except for the act of adultery, itself, which is a big no-no, but not nearly as big a no-no as abortion. Being a Catholic must be confusing.where's that puking emoticon when I need it. :zip: