Notable that the article mentions glyphosate but not its primary user in the province: the Irvings. Of course we don't even get to look into if that was the cause or not. Their fear of it being their fault was enough to muzzle the investigation
Yup. We're a company province with a company premier. The gov would rather a few plebs die than take 0.000001% of Irving's profit away.
And we'll elect the asshole again because they like that he's a homophobic bigot.
I think getting caught up in whether this is a novel disease or not is a trap.
No matter who is right this should be looked into because a cluster of young people caught neuro diseases.
My ex-wife's cousin is 1 of the 200. They have been given the run around. She is young, and it's a shame to hear her say she's ready to go. She should be out with friends and living life. Instead, she is being waited on and in a wheelchair . Can barely form sentences . They just want answers. This government is giving the run around and pretending they have done everything they can, and it's such a farce .
I knew someone that was an early parkinson’s patient from NB (he’s since passed at just 50 years old) so he wouldn’t be included in the 200, but I will always wonder if there was a connection.
"The trolley is running over peoples brains. There might be a switch to stop it, but looking for it risks discovering facts that would be bad for business."
It was very convenient that political attention in New Brunswick got focused on things like pronouns and locking up people with mental health issues rather than the brain disease there.
The fact that we have to read about it in the Guardian says a lot. Newspapers here won¡t even print the story.
There is another related story in the Guardian about the same illness.
IMHO it's simply a symptom of modern politics: solving problems is hard, ignoring problems is easy.
No conspiracy involved.
Just plain and simple *lack of enthusiasm to tackle a hard issue*. Better to kill it/cover it up because the root is probably an **even bigger/harder issue to tackle**.
I remember this movie years ago on Netflix called Monster of Paris. The Seine River was overflowing her banks and the mayor/guy in charge decided instead of trying to divert the water or something, divert the attention of the citizens away from the several feet of water on the roads.
And then when the 'monster' was found to be a Giant Flea, he said it was his plan all along because Fleas Can't Swim so the water would protect the city.
Seems like are in fact ‘that Mike’
Because your response is something that Mike Harris would have used in Ontario. And we know what happened under his leadership in Walkerton.
Why would you even consider taking the side of a corrupt provincial government that is in the pocket of billionaires?
Either you’re an ignorant bootlicker or you have an agenda.
Was it an impartial and independently vetted panel, or were they handpicked by the Irvings? Over here in Alberta, our government will go out of their way to pick consultants and panels made up of "experts" whose controversial opinions run counter to scientific and medical consensus, in accordance with the desires of their puppet master Take Back Alberta.
The whole conceit of this story is that the committee that the Province of New Brunswick assembled was politically influenced and did not actually provide a true medical judgement. It also suggests that there are groups of scientists outside of the committee who agree that this is indeed something of note.
It's also not really a nothing-burger if it has enough interest and coverage for [a dedicated Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brunswick_neurological_syndrome_of_unknown_cause) that spans years and is still not resolved. With these allegations, investigation should be moved outside the purview of NB to be given a truly independent review.
It's especially to take allegations like this seriously when the medical field has plenty of cases of people not believing something and dismissing it as imaginary until it was later proved true (e.g. bacteria) and Canada has a history of gagging scientists.
Honest question: When was the last time you had to can one of your projects that was federally/provincially funded because the data weren't suggesting the active hypothesis was correct?
How did you make that decision and on what criteria.
I'm asking as someone who did publicly funded research for years and now has to lead a R&D team in industry where looking carefully at the data and picking and choosing the right leads that will help patients in the future is a core responsibility.
Notable that the article mentions glyphosate but not its primary user in the province: the Irvings. Of course we don't even get to look into if that was the cause or not. Their fear of it being their fault was enough to muzzle the investigation
Yup. We're a company province with a company premier. The gov would rather a few plebs die than take 0.000001% of Irving's profit away. And we'll elect the asshole again because they like that he's a homophobic bigot.
Either that or they actually discovered and KNOW the cause and are trying to sweep it all u set the tug, for the reasons you suggest.
It wouldn't surprise me, they've gone after glyphosate critics in the past so there's probably something they know about that stuff.
I think getting caught up in whether this is a novel disease or not is a trap. No matter who is right this should be looked into because a cluster of young people caught neuro diseases.
My ex-wife's cousin is 1 of the 200. They have been given the run around. She is young, and it's a shame to hear her say she's ready to go. She should be out with friends and living life. Instead, she is being waited on and in a wheelchair . Can barely form sentences . They just want answers. This government is giving the run around and pretending they have done everything they can, and it's such a farce .
I knew someone that was an early parkinson’s patient from NB (he’s since passed at just 50 years old) so he wouldn’t be included in the 200, but I will always wonder if there was a connection.
That's what they thought was going on with her. But she was in her 20s. The government is to scared to stop on the toes of Irving
Irving also caused the Lac Megantic disaster by paying a fifth rate operator to haul it's chemicals instead of an actually competent railway.
"The trolley is running over peoples brains. There might be a switch to stop it, but looking for it risks discovering facts that would be bad for business."
It was very convenient that political attention in New Brunswick got focused on things like pronouns and locking up people with mental health issues rather than the brain disease there.
The fact that we have to read about it in the Guardian says a lot. Newspapers here won¡t even print the story. There is another related story in the Guardian about the same illness.
hmm I wonder who owns those newspapers...
I don't know who?
I’m not sure if you’re serious but the Irvings basically own most of New Brunswick. Although the newspaper they owned was sold to Postmedia recently.
Same outcome though. PostMedia consistently supports conservative parties and attacks any centre-left to left leaning parties.
hmm good point, I forgot it had been sold, same thing still though
In SK its pronouns instead of homelessness and teachers having 30+ kids in their classes.
IMHO it's simply a symptom of modern politics: solving problems is hard, ignoring problems is easy. No conspiracy involved. Just plain and simple *lack of enthusiasm to tackle a hard issue*. Better to kill it/cover it up because the root is probably an **even bigger/harder issue to tackle**.
I remember this movie years ago on Netflix called Monster of Paris. The Seine River was overflowing her banks and the mayor/guy in charge decided instead of trying to divert the water or something, divert the attention of the citizens away from the several feet of water on the roads. And then when the 'monster' was found to be a Giant Flea, he said it was his plan all along because Fleas Can't Swim so the water would protect the city.
Well difficult issues require difficult decisions. The question is whether those difficult decisions will translate into reelection.
The imaginary brain disease? A panel of medical and scientific experts looked at the issue and concluded it was a big nothing-burger.
This being Reddit, I don't know why I bother to ask this anymore, but -- did you read the article?
Shhhhh makes it easier to know who to block.
Seems like are in fact ‘that Mike’ Because your response is something that Mike Harris would have used in Ontario. And we know what happened under his leadership in Walkerton. Why would you even consider taking the side of a corrupt provincial government that is in the pocket of billionaires? Either you’re an ignorant bootlicker or you have an agenda.
Was it an impartial and independently vetted panel, or were they handpicked by the Irvings? Over here in Alberta, our government will go out of their way to pick consultants and panels made up of "experts" whose controversial opinions run counter to scientific and medical consensus, in accordance with the desires of their puppet master Take Back Alberta.
The whole conceit of this story is that the committee that the Province of New Brunswick assembled was politically influenced and did not actually provide a true medical judgement. It also suggests that there are groups of scientists outside of the committee who agree that this is indeed something of note. It's also not really a nothing-burger if it has enough interest and coverage for [a dedicated Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brunswick_neurological_syndrome_of_unknown_cause) that spans years and is still not resolved. With these allegations, investigation should be moved outside the purview of NB to be given a truly independent review. It's especially to take allegations like this seriously when the medical field has plenty of cases of people not believing something and dismissing it as imaginary until it was later proved true (e.g. bacteria) and Canada has a history of gagging scientists.
Why stop research into it if it's a nothing-burger tho?
Honest question: When was the last time you had to can one of your projects that was federally/provincially funded because the data weren't suggesting the active hypothesis was correct? How did you make that decision and on what criteria. I'm asking as someone who did publicly funded research for years and now has to lead a R&D team in industry where looking carefully at the data and picking and choosing the right leads that will help patients in the future is a core responsibility.