09-02-2016, 07:08 AM
Hmmm ... strange how you claim scientific studies are showing that the threat of Zika has been greatly exaggerated at the same time as you say scientists are riding the wave of hysteria to obtain extra funding. In particular, you say the CDC has slashed away at the number of confirmed cases and that suggests they are a credible institution in your eyes. But the CDC is a very strong proponent of urgent funding of the fight against The Zika Virus. Maybe it's a Jeckyl and Hyde thing.
Seems to me you're fighting a rearguard action since your argument that there was no link between Zika and microcephaly bit the dust. But if you want an argument over the science, best you start another thread. This one is about the Presidential Election. It doesn't matter what the true position regarding Zika is. The question is how voters will react. Railing against the "carbon tax" might have been a nonsense in economic and scientific terms but it helped win Tony Abbott an election.
Seems to me you're fighting a rearguard action since your argument that there was no link between Zika and microcephaly bit the dust. But if you want an argument over the science, best you start another thread. This one is about the Presidential Election. It doesn't matter what the true position regarding Zika is. The question is how voters will react. Railing against the "carbon tax" might have been a nonsense in economic and scientific terms but it helped win Tony Abbott an election.