Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by vze4p6c2, Jul 9, 2007.
Why is this thread not consigned to the pseudoscience subforum? :bugeye:
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It actually should be since it's so full of myths and misunderstanding. About all we can do is try to educate the OP and help him/her understand some of the real facts involved and dispel some of the nonsense.
Since you know so much as I see it, I'm surprised you commented only on one statement of mine. I am glad you have pointed out mumps and chicken pox.
Slaveholders didn't care whether you are healthy or not, or whether you suffered or not as long as you work as much as possible. That is why the Native Americans were replaced by slaves from Africa because slaves from hot climates were endowed with immunity.
Dr. Read-Only, I am not berating a cure, I'm all for it! When a symptom is cured causing adverse/fatal side effects, that is what I am trying to stress!
Lets take a step backwards; Everyone knows that the hydrogenated oils cause... well you know what, I presume. Yet, it is in virtually everything, without the buyer's consent. Don't you find it askance? Doesn't this bother you? You know that homogenation and pasteurization is adverse, yet it is found everywhere. Don't you think that if somebody actually cared, something would've been done? You probably know that you NEED water, yet you see coke and other drinks with tons of sugar and other stuff in it as predominant drink. Don't you know that every single apple you buy (unless you find some organic) is endowed with diverse chemicals, that poison you? Every piece you buy (again, unless you find some kosher meat) was raised using diverse chemicals to promote growth and development, fed with same thing over and over again, restricting fitful and adequate development. Please try it; eat kosher meat every day for a month, then try one of those ones you buy in store. You'll throw up, possibly get intoxicated.
I am sorry for going a bit off topic, but the same thing with drugs. I have a female cat, who has been giving birth three times now, yet not a single offspring died. I give them away to my neighbors with great pleasure, yet she never had to see a veterinarian for any reason. I, as a matter of fact, haven't heard of anyone whose offspring died.
As of your comment of my lack of knowledge - well, I'm not majoring at being a doctor. I see science as an opinion. It was once 'proven' that eggs were very bad for you, yet now it is 'proven' that it is one of the healthiest things you can eat. Everyone thinks that the cholesterol is the problem, yet few know that the scars in the arteries is the thing that cause the problems, creating clots. I recently have seen one advertisement, that McDonald, now is the healthiest thing you can eat, since they 'dramatically reduced amount of trans fats'; like its OK to have any trans fats at all.
Development of science is the thing I support at all cots, however only when the actual fact that really works, is applied to the society. When a drug killed thousands, drug companies are like, "Whoops, let us give you .1% of our total capital and leave us alone". Remember that the legal right for a corporation to do is to pay dividends to its shareholders, and as much as possible.
Again, I would only be for FDA and TFC if they actually found cures. I'm going to cheat this forum by adding space to post a link to an article that kills; Just remove all the spaces in the links. Lets add some truth to this forum.
ht tp://w ww.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/14/drug.reaction/
ht tp://w ww.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325874.700-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html
ht tp://w ww.newstarget.com/000480.html
ht tp://w ww.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/business/04drug.html?ex=1184212800&en=f0b9658bdbc6a072&ei=5070
ht tp://w ww.jesus-is-savior.com/Health_Concerns/when_legal_drugs_kill.htm
ht tp://w ww.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws99.htm
ht tp://w ww.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/injure.html
THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF ARTICLES.
Also check this book out:
ht tp://w ww.amazon.com/Water-Cures-Drugs-Incurable-Diseases/dp/0970245815
There's your problem.
Well you are omitting the facts. Do you have anything else to say? Thats it? That is the whole argument against me? That what makes me wrong?
Tell me Oli, how do you define science.
Columbus did not believe in science neither, yet later it came out that world actually ISN'T flat merely because he DIDN'T believe in modern (at that time) science.
Science is a process, a verifiable process.
If you believe it to be nothing more than "opinion" then you don't know much about it do you?
And you evidently know nothing about history either: the general view wasn't that the world was flat at the time.
It was well-known the world was round.
Facts - the links. Did you even read what I posted? You argue my quote about me concindering science as an opinion. Nothing else.
I honestly expected you to reply based on links, not on one single statement I made.
Oh yeah, history; "The common misconception that people before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat..." -- ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Everyone knows the Theory of Relativity, yet everyone forgets that it is a theory. You forgot that a Law is 99% true. The whole forum is not about whether I believe in science or not; Its about if FDA is killing or not, as far as I see it.
Because whatever facts you post your interpretation is skewed by your idea that science is "opinion".
Water cures ulcers?
So how come no-one else found this out before?
I've had an ulcer (incipient) I took more than two glasses of water during the course of the thing and it wasn't cured.
Which provides a good example of CHECKING sources and suppositions before posting the first woowoo link you come across.
Everyone may have heard of it, but haven't the first clue as to what it is or what it means.
And you evidently do not know what what the word "theory" means in science.
Laws of science?
"As you see it".
There you go again...
Oh Mr/Ms vze4p6c2, you'd be utterly hilarious if I weren't convinced that you actually believe what you say. But because you clearly do, you’re not hilarious at all but are merely a very sad internet crackpot.
I’ll point you towards one of the most classic posts ever to appear on SciForums. It is written with physics crackpots in mind but the takehome messages remain the same regardless…..
"The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it" -- Dale Carnegie.
You guys are stubborn who have nothing else to say but to berate; say I'm wrong. But that is OK :bravo: ; You cant teach an old dog new tricks; Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I won't respond to anything else you'll post so you may not just as well.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh yeah, that should have been on the "How to be a Crackpot" list as well:
declaration of non-response.
I think the "You cant teach an old dog new tricks" comment was covered though, dismissal of existing science as out-dated...
Are you sure? You try eating 200 apples and see if you'll be alive in an hour, I garuntee you wouldn't be, you'd die. Same thing with water, you can die from it. Anything in enough quantity kills...
Just going from the Beginning did Ben Franklin work in the depths of a Coal Mine, go about reaping fields of corn or sail the oceans searching for a fishing haul? The answers are pretty much "No" however other Average people did these things, each with their own risk from their environments.
Aristocracy in general has notoriety for distinguishing itself from "The Unwashed masses" since their worth and hierarchal positioning gave them an easy life in regards to those that had to labour. So yes there is a disparity with ages and this is reflected by more than just food consumption.
The problem with your statement on Prescription drugs is you just jump to a conclusion. This conclusion is obviously conspiracy and as such is an attempt to panic people through fear and the lack of understanding. If a problem occurs however it's the nature of science to identify the source of that problem before generating a solution, not just hypothesis the problem.
This requires time for testing and why on occasion you will find things removed from sale pending further investigation. Sometimes the problems are localised to a batch, sometimes the problems themselves aren't even due to such drugs but some other external factor that can't be factored in. However it all comes under observation by investigative science and misconstrued by the ever guessing journalists waiting by the wayside.
As for the "Need of Drugs", if you haven't noticed the worlds population is slightly larger than it use to be in the past. The reason for this isn't just because of the increase in people having families with each generation but those people dealing with their mortality.
Many epidemics have been well known to occur in the past and many well known Noble Prize winners have influence the lessening of the occurances of such epidemics. So much so that most civilised societies have managed to cut the cases if not complete irradicate of such epidemics.
This has been done mainly due to better structuring of medical facilities, training and availability of various drugs for "Immunization". albeit you will find studies made of past Immunization campaigns were side effects were present however they will have taken decades to make themselves present and on becoming present are not treated lightly.
Right. When caught with your hand in the cookie jar OR making false statements that you cannot substantiate, just run and hide. I suppose you think that's the mark of an intelligent and well-informed individual, eh? :bugeye:
Hey guys, at least he's giving us some evidence now...
Yes, I too see that holocaust comes in many forms, cigarettes, carbon monoxide, your family Dr.
Did you know more people die from prescription medication than from terrorists? (terrorism itself is another aspect of the on going modern-day holocaust)
Its pretty fucked up.
Maybe because there are more doctors/ sick people than terrorists?
When people can't work things out for themselves you mean?
And because there are more prescription med overdoses (intentional and accidental) than suicide bombers.
As many of you know, I am not a big fan of posting URLs. We all should have learned the skill of abstracting by now so we don't waste each other's time having to read an entire article instead of a nicely prepared abstract. Except this is a topic that I still don't understand well so I'm reluctant to try to excise the key points from this op-ed piece in the Washington Post.
The writer is a professor at Columbia's Graduate School of Business, a reasearch associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a researcher who has been funded by grants from the pharmaceutical industry itself. His credentials stifle any complaints that he's a woo-woo pseudoscientist. He's a member in good standing of the frelling establishment and his job is to find the greatest value for the optimum cost, not to promote pet theories.
I will adhere to my own standards and summarize what I think are some of his key points, but I urge you to read the original if you find any of this suspicious.
Incremental medical innovations, particularly the use of newer drugs, have played a major role in increasing American longevity in recent years.
Interstate variation in life expectancy correlates strongly with the availability of access to newer drugs. Between 1991 and 2004, the most progressive states in this regard had the greatest increase in life expectancy: DC 5.7 years, New York 4.3 years, California 3.4 years, New Jersey 3.3 years. The least progressive states had the lowest increase: Oklahoma 0.3 years, Tennessee 0.8 years, Utah 0.9 years. (The national average was nonetheless an astounding increase in life expectancy of 2.33 years during a thirteen-year period!)
His statistical analysis was thoroughly and properly done. Differences in obvious influences such as obesity rates, smoking and HIV were factored out.
Two thirds of the normalized "potential increase in longevity"--i.e. after factoring out these other influences-- can be attributed to the use of newer drugs.
Every one-year increase in average drug "vintage"--i.e. making them available one year sooner--correlates with a two-month gain in life expectancy.
The results of the study contradict the conventional wisdom that advances in medical technology automatically increase the overal cost of health care to Americans. In fact, use of newer medicines has a slight correlation with increased employee productivity, which may be due to fewer sick days.
His recommendation is that the best way to achieve sustained improvements in health, longevity and productivity is to support policies that encourage medical innovation.
The funny part is, the government spends more money on trying to stop terrorism than it ever did trying to stop mis-diagnosis. I believe presciption meds are made to kill more than they save. Just look at the "side effects" of all these prescription meds, "coughing, diarrhea, headaches, sore throats, sleepiness, insomnia, achy limbs, burning eyes, ulcers, ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC"
This should be obvious to you all.
Separate names with a comma.