Alpha Gal- for the win?

[OXN939]

Who had "outright academic support for starting an epidemic" on their bingo card?

As tickborne illness involving red meat allergy becomes more prevalent, WMed professors offer intriguing argument on how to handle it | WMed

wmed.edu

I know we have some educators on here. Is it not pretty wild for two professors at a taxpayer funded institution to make this argument? Pretty shocking that these guys don't see all the ways this could go wrong. Like, the immunocompromised. Or a pilot who has a severe reaction in flight and kills people. Is tenure really bulletproof enough for these guys to survive advocating for something like this?

 

[BBob]

Straight to the gallows, I’d be happy to pull the lever!

 

[Wellsdw]

One of the dumbest discussions I have ever encountered......and I work at a firehouse

 

[TaperPin]

I’m embarrassed for them. They try to make a witty argument, that falls on its face for absurdity. I can’t imagine why this was written, let alone who decided it was worth publishing.

 

[RS_Non-Res]

The medical has demonstrated over the past few decades that it can't get ethics right.
They clearly need regulation from a higher power, not from themselves.

 

[Huntinmechanic]

WTF?!?!?!? Those are evil men!

 

[Mangata]

The medical has demonstrated over the past few decades that it can't get ethics right.
They clearly need regulation from a higher power, not from themselves.

Not sure that this qualifies as “The Medical” as the authors are PhD’s and thus don’t practice “The Medicine”.
These are the folks in “The University”…

 

[Huntinmechanic]

Looks like we're going to need a huge gallows or a we gift all of them p320's and hope for the wor... best.

“A key strength of our argument is that it appeals to consequentialists, rights theorists, and virtue ethicists alike: All three major ethical theories support promoting the spread of AGS,”

 

[displacedtexan]

I’m embarrassed for them. They try to make a witty argument, that falls on its face for absurdity. I can’t imagine why this was written, let alone who decided it was worth publishing.

I agree with this.

I've got a good friend, and we enjoy debating... We'll pick stuff to argue both sides of, and we wind up arguing some pretty ridiculous positions because of it.


But we have the sense to do it when we're having breakfast, and to not publish it!

 

[Q_Sertorius]

First, do no harm…


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[Huntinmechanic]

I'm of the opinion that these particular PhD's may not think this is absurd. Free will isn't valued like it used to be. Many academics think you and I can't make good decisions. If the government can step in and do it for us, we'll all be better off!

 

[mulveymo]

I see many of you are new to the idea of "conceptual academics." The paper is, by my read, purely a thought exercise based on the assumption that eating meat is unethical, and if you believe that, then logically you should also believe that this tick-bourne illness is a good thing. Which it clearly is not. Which kicks off a logic spiral about "what is ethics."

In any case, y'all are talking about it, so he's getting press time and publicity. Which was the goal. Say something absurd and use it to make money.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Who cares…go shoot and get ready for hunting season.

 

[jtevanMT]

Their entire argument is based on the premise that “eating meat is morally wrong”. This is a false premise so the entire remainder of the argument false. A waste of paper and time.

Even if you agree with their premise, the second part of their argument is still false since the spread of a food allergy (regardless of the type) could lead to other underlying health issues and is therefore morally wrong. Allergic diseases tend to bias the human immune system towards an allergic or Th2 type of immune response. This combined with trained immunity can lead to other unwanted allergic or autoimmune conditions.

Thus, both parts of their argument are false and they should be embarrassed to have their name or university associated with the article.

 

[dirtshooter]

Bill Gates has entered the chat.


There's already theories that ticks were a bio weapon, these guys are trying to make the theory a reality.

 

[BBob]

Bill Gates has entered the chat.


There's already theories that ticks were a bio weapon, these guys are trying to make the theory a reality.

Supposedly the idea that it escaped a .gov lab decades ago has been debunked but hey Covid couldn’t have come from one of those labs either, right??? Right???

 

[average]

I see many of you are new to the idea of "conceptual academics." The paper is, by my read, purely a thought exercise based on the assumption that eating meat is unethical, and if you believe that, then logically you should also believe that this tick-bourne illness is a good thing. Which it clearly is not. Which kicks off a logic spiral about "what is ethics."

In any case, y'all are talking about it, so he's getting press time and publicity. Which was the goal. Say something absurd and use it to make money.

Agreed. Everyone here can agree there's nothing wrong with eating meat. To someone who agrees with that idea it's not the outrageous idea we see it as. Knee jerk reactions to hypotheticals makes for a much more exciting thread tho

 

[North of 60]

Having worked with academics at the state (mostly) and national level in policy, in my experience it is disturbing how much influence academics are given in recommending or formulating policy.

And i agree with Mulveymo...some are concept pieces to simply get published or pad CVs. And then again, some concept pieces are what the authors truly believe, and/or meant to plant seeds to begin swaying public opinion and expand the liberal echo chamber of academics and the media.

I'll get off my soapbox now, lol.

 

[Huntinmechanic]

I see many of you are new to the idea of "conceptual academics." The paper is, by my read, purely a thought exercise based on the assumption that eating meat is unethical, and if you believe that, then logically you should also believe that this tick-bourne illness is a good thing. Which it clearly is not. Which kicks off a logic spiral about "what is ethics."

In any case, y'all are talking about it, so he's getting press time and publicity. Which was the goal. Say something absurd and use it to make money.

I agree that this publication is an exercise in conceptual academics. Both professors have Phd's in philosophy. After looking into their backgrounds, my opinion is that they would have no problem implementing the tactics in this publication. They each have many publications that are radical. Check out Dr. Crutchfield's article titled "Morality pills". It'll make you squirm. While you're at it, check out Dr. Hereth's "Teaching Statement" and overall body of work. He is a disabled queer radical anti-natalist animal rights activist.

 

[mulveymo]

I agree that this publication is an exercise in conceptual academics. Both professors have Phd's in philosophy. After looking into their backgrounds, my opinion is that they would have no problem implementing the tactics in this publication. They each have many publications that are radical. Check out Dr. Crutchfield's article titled "Morality pills". It'll make you squirm. While you're at it, check out Dr. Hereth's "Teaching Statement" and overall body of work. He is a disabled queer radical anti-natalist animal rights activist.

The caveat I didn't mention in my original comment was that whole this may be a logic exercise, that does not automatically mean the authors are good people lol. I agree, their personal philosophies make me very uncomfortable. Strange ass mo fos.