SARS a scam? (+ a note on pessimism)

Recent Read : SARS: A Great Global SCAM

The original website can be found here: SARScam

I realize this can be a very touchy article as Singapore was one of the most heavily hit area. However, as with all "conspiracy theory", this one is worth some consideration.

I agreed with some points the article raised, most notably the low death rates, and the fact that most viral disease has no medical cure nowadays. These facts would at least point to an over-hype situation. As for the rest of the conspiracy... well, I'll leave it to whoever read the article judges for himself. Personally I think the article is a bit of a hype as well. The Horowitz guy is obviously also using public fright as a marketing tool.

The only thing I know is that when we are forced to weight evil against evil, we have already lost the battle.

I did a check on the Principal Causes of Death in Singapore. It is interesting to know that none of the emerging disease in the pass like anthrax, SARS, BSE (A.K.A Mad Cow Disease), Avian Influenza (A.K.A Bird Flu), made it to the top 10. Yet these emerging disease has major impact on the regional and global economy. Considering the effect of lung cancer and heart disease on tobacco business, wouldn't you think that the economical impact of those "emerging disease" was a bit too dramatic in comparison to their actual health impact? (I can't help but to relate to the power of media propaganda at this point.) Note that Heart Disease, Cancer, Pneumonia and Injuries remain in the top 5 causes of death.

A global reference is the World Health Report published by WHO. HIV/AIDS has higher appearance there but otherwise the figures are similar, i.e. Heart Disease, Cancer and Injuries being the prominent causes of death.


Pessimistic vs Realistic

I am usually quite piqued when people call me a pessimist, while in fact I am just a realist. (In case you are wondering Molewall, you are not the only one.) If nothing else it holds a very negative connotation. Some people might argue that there is little difference between pessimism and realism. Well, I think there's quite a big difference. Here's how:

Pessimist: I have a chance of losing this bet, thus I should not take it.
Optimist: I have a chance of winning this bet, thus I should take it.
Realist: I have a 65% chance of winning this bet, but winning this bet will only gain me 100 dollars, while losing this bet will make me lost a job and 2 months' salary, thus I should not take it.

In short, a realist based their judgement on established facts and careful analysis of the situation. Granted, giving the information transparency this age, it's hard to account for the accury of the so-called established facts, however, this established the traits of a realist.

I highly respect and encourage different point of view on any subject, but I hate to be labelled based on my analysis, espeially if these analysis are based on unpleasant facts. I understand it is human nature to want to believe in pleasant things, but if unpleasant facts are reduced to pessimism and subsequently dismissed, the labelling has become not only irritating, but DANGEROUS. This is particularly true during one of my Oil Peak discussion with my friends. When I said it is unlikely that human will find a replacement energy source in time based on today's technology, one of my friends simply said, "you are too pessimistic lar". Well, that is EXACTLY why a serious albeit unpleasant issue such as Oil Peak was not well received. It is too pessimistic. We like optismistic stuff. Sometimes I even think that I have to be pessimistic just to counter some of the senseless optimism around me. It's suffocating me (Not the optimism part, the senseless part).