8 ms·
I don’t understand why sharing an objective study with good news would be downvoted, someone please explain? I’m not saying you have to use it; it’s good news
by cbdevidal 4mo ago
I don’t understand why sharing an objective study with good news would be downvoted, someone please explain?
I’m not saying you have to use it; it’s good news for people who have concerns about other chemicals. It works—less effectively, but it works.
“Repellants containing (..) oil of lemon eucalyptus have also been found to be effective.”[1]
[1] Iowa Department of Health, “Controlling Spread of West Nile Virus“ https://hhs.iowa.gov/health-prevention/providers-professionals/center-acute-disease-epidemiology/epi-manual/reportable-diseases/west-nile-virus-1 https://hhs.iowa.gov/health-prevention/providers-professiona...
- OutOfHere 4mo agoI have seen the same behavior on this site. Insightful information gets downvoted to -2, and useless comments that merely "feel good" get upvoted to +8. I think the theory is that each post identifies with a certain topic, e.g. DEET, which identifies with a cultish subset of users surrounding that topic. There is no broad academic curiosity among the cult's members, and they suppress all competing topics as to them they represent other cults.
- OutOfHere 4mo agoTo continue, I produced a researched NotebookLM video to communicate what needs understanding: https://youtu.be/KW7CWgKbScA https://youtu.be/KW7CWgKbScA ⤷ The Responsibilities of a Free Mind: Cultivating Intellectual Independence
- cbdevidal 4mo agoExcellent