Gallileo Weeps: The Death of Science

9 years ago

Originally Posted by joe golfer

Only forty percent of Americans believe our planet is getting warmer due to changes in the atmosphere from carbon dioxide emissions. Measles is making a comeback due to people keeping their kids from being vaccinated.

What happened to our belief in science?

Anti-science movement hurts America - Business Insider

The folks who want to maintain the status quo are powerful indeed and are not going down without one hell of a fight.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9915898].message }}

tagiscom 9 years ago

It is also because gaping holes in science, are making people doubt textbook science!

If the powers that be, gave more information, that had little to no contradictory evidence that it was flawed then it would be a different story.

I couldn't comment on vaccinations, but health and space exploration do have dodgy data, that current scientists don't adequately explain!
- Thanks
- 2 replies
Signature
Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9915958].message }}
- Joe Mobley 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by tagiscom
  
  It is also because gaping holes in science,
  
  Nope! Big gaping holes in understanding maybe, but that's what makes discovery so wonderful.
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917259].message }}
  
  tagiscom 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Joe Mobley
  
  Nope! Big gaping holes in understanding maybe, but that's what makes discovery so wonderful.
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  True, but l have seen, serious stupidity and grossly inadequate answers to simple problems.
  
  Seems more likely they are trying to cover their A***!
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917300].message }}
  
  Joe Mobley 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by tagiscom
  
  True, but l have seen, serious stupidity and grossly inadequate answers to simple problems.
  
  Seems more likely they are trying to cover their A***!
  
  Yea, some of those are known as politicians.
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919307].message }}
- Joe Mobley 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by tagiscom
  
  If the powers that be, gave more information, that had little to no contradictory evidence that it was flawed then it would be a different story.
  
  We probably shouldn't discuss the bible here.
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917297].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by joe golfer

What happened to our belief in science?

Nothing from where I sit. My belief and trust in science is as strong and steadfast as it has been my entire life. I doubt that will ever change.

Cheers. - Frank

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9915948].message }}

whateverpedia

9 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Nothing from where I sit. My belief and trust in science is as strong and steadfast as it has been my entire life. I doubt that will ever change.

Cheers. - Frank

Seconded..

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916066].message }}

Kay King

9 years ago

I agree - nothing has happened.

Science has always had skeptics - and scientific achievement is not based on public approval but on factual research.

For skeptics, beliefs are not based on science at all - but on bad facts or wishful thinking....and then there is the money motive....

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916090].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

"Death of Science" is melodramatic.

But every day, I talk to people who have "Magical thoughts". I see a correlation between science illiteracy, and religious belief. but I can't put that in a historical context.

But changing people's minds, isn't how we progress. As the science illiterate pass away, they are replaced by better educated people. At least, that's my hope.

I'm only talking about the US. Most other countries don't have this huge "anti-science" demographic.

Thanks
4 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916110].message }}

BigFrank Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I see a correlation between science illiteracy, and religious belief. but I can't put that in a historical context.

I can - "It's as old as time itself."

I'm happy to have been able to clear that up for you. :-)

Cheers. - Frank
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916116].message }}

MissTerraK

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

"Death of Science" is melodramatic.

But every day, I talk to people who have "Magical thoughts". I see a correlation between science illiteracy, and religious belief. but I can't put that in a historical context.

But changing people's minds, isn't how we progress. As the science illiterate pass away, they are replaced by better educated people. At least, that's my hope.

I'm only talking about the US. Most other countries don't have this huge "anti-science" demographic.

Claude,

Are you suggesting that people of faith are science illiterate? That's what it sounds like to me, so I'm very sorry, because I love science, so therefore, your hypothesis and theory are incorrect. That's flawed science, for sure.

Terra

P.S. You need to get with the times. List of Christian Thinkers in Science-Wikipedia, as your personal bias is shining through.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916129].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

Claude,

Are you suggesting that people of faith are science illiterate? That's what it sounds like to me, so I'm very sorry, because I love science, so therefore, your hypothesis and theory are incorrect. That's flawed science, for sure.

Terra

Hmmm, remember Terra that Claude lives in a bible belt, so he might be talking about individuals who say Jesus in every sentence, and would burn him at the stake if the word "Atheist was used"?

But as you are implying that it is a more broad statement, (well for US members) and all individuals who believe in God, (the real one not the Antichrist one on this forum) are naive, then this thread will go down the, how many noted scientist changed our world examples!

Pretty sure Henry Ford was religious, so that is one!

Rockefeller was deeply religious, especially after almost dying in a train crash, so that is two!

Probably be a lot of this, in this thread!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916146].message }}

WalkingCarpet

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Hmmm, remember Terra that Claude lives in a bible belt, so he might be talking about individuals who say Jesus in every sentence, and would burn him at the stake if the word "Atheist was used"?

But as you are implying that it is a more broad statement, (well for US members) and all individuals who believe in God, (the real one not the Antichrist one on this forum) are naive, then this thread will go down the, how many noted scientist changed our world examples!

Pretty sure Henry Ford was religious, so that is one!

Rockefeller was deeply religious, especially after almost dying in a train crash, so that is two!

Probably be a lot of this, in this thread!

Man ur driving me nuts- I WANT A KITTY NOW!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916559].message }}

MissTerraK 9 years ago

Originally Posted by WalkingCarpet

Man ur driving me nuts- I WANT A KITTY NOW!

Here ya go...

Terra
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916578].message }}
- WalkingCarpet Banned 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by MissTerraK
  
  Here ya go...
  
  Terra
  
  Thats kitty hell.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916714].message }}

lanfear63 9 years ago

On Saturday we had a cheese, wine and chocolate, dinner party. It was an interesting discussion on the porch. A learned ex college female professor, my professional psychic friend and Tom, a lovable idiot.

The Professor was a devout Chief Deity supporter. She was an excellent orator and proceed to explain the relationship between father, son and holy spirit and all the rest of that stuff in great detail. It was one of the best scientific sounding explanations of something completely intangible I have heard in a long time.

Of course it was not really scientific at all, just a total understanding of a premise based on faith. She certainly had it down.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916150].message }}

whateverpedia 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Most other countries don't have this huge "anti-science" demographic.

I wish that were true Claude, I really do. Sadly, we have a bunch of them running the country (AU) at the moment.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
So that blind people can hate them as well.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916698].message }}

discrat

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

"Death of Science" is melodramatic.

But every day, I talk to people who have "Magical thoughts". I see a correlation between science illiteracy, and religious belief. but I can't put that in a historical context.

But changing people's minds, isn't how we progress. As the religious believers pass away, they are replaced by better educated people. At least, that's my hope.

I'm only talking about the US. Most other countries don't have this huge "anti-science" demographic.

Fixed that for you
Is this also your hope as well as many others here in OT

Kind of like the Greeks with Zeus many years ago ( and now there gone with their silly notions), and so will be the same destiny of the masses today who believe in Allah and Jesus

I know for some this is something to ponder

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918689].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Is this also your hope as well as many others here in OT

Kind of like the Greeks with Zeus many years ago, and so will be the same destiny of the masses today who believe in Allah and Jesus

Just something to ponder

You changed my quote. You replaced "science illiterate" with "religious believers", and they are not exactly the same thing. But the Greeks and Romans killed the unbelievers. And there was no verbal segment of nonbelievers. Today there is. And they are not killed. At least, not in most areas.

So, there is progress.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918713].message }}

discrat

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

You changed my quote. But the Greeks and Romans killed the unbelievers. And there was no segment of nonbelievers. Today there is. And they are not killed. And science was at it's infancy.

So, there is progress.

Claude by me bolding it I thought it was understood that I changed your quote.

Sorry.

I did not mean to infer that that was your quote

P.S. I put fixed that for you so it is hopefully understood.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918716].message }}

Claude Whitacre 9 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Claude by me bolding it I thought it was understood that I changed your quote.

Sorry.

I did not mean to infer that that was your quote

I know. I just wanted to point it out, so nobody would get that idea.

Love is never having to say you're sorry.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918720].message }}
- discrat 9 years ago
  
  Are you saying I love you? Well, maybe a little.
  
  I admit WC make me jealous sometimes
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918725].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Nothing from where I sit. My belief and trust in science is as strong and steadfast as it has been my entire life. I doubt that will ever change.

Cheers. - Frank

Good quote, of course the OT official version is..

"My belief and trust in Conspiracy Theories is as strong and steadfast as it has been my entire life. I doubt that will ever change."

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916099].message }}

MissTerraK 9 years ago

Oh no!

Not another (fill in the blank)_____________ is dead thread! Sort of.

Seriously, science will never die as long as mankind is alive and thriving. We are just too enquisitive. Period.

Just because someone (or the majority of someones) disagrees with your scientific theory doesn't mean you have to become another Chicken Little overdramatizing things and shouting doomsday messages like the sky is falling.

Terra
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916113].message }}
ThomM 9 years ago

It's not a lack of believing science, it's being skeptic of science that is motivated by politics or profits.
Look at climate change for example. Everyone agrees that man contributes to climate change. But unless you put the full blame on fossil fuels you're called a denier. Unless you say the way to end it is to stop burning fossil fuels, you're called a denier. Yet science tells us that commercial agriculture is one of the major contributors to climate change. Science tells us that healthy soils and healthy forests can remove the excess carbon and other climate contaminates produced by burning fossil fuels, neutralizing them. But that's not politically correct or does it further the political agendas of those in power.
Pharmaceutical companies will only finance what they can make a profit off of. If a university or research scientist wants to investigate, say a new drug for cancer treatment they need funding. The companies that provide that funding will only do so if it has the potential to create profits for them.

I think the bigger problem is people believing in the science that is for profit or political agendas simply because that is what they are told to believe. They have been told that anyone who doesn't buy into it is anti-science and because they are clueless and do what they are told, that's what they say.
- [ 8 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916151].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

9 years ago

Just to be different...

Belief in science and belief in agenda-driven science can be two different things.

Have a nice discussion.

[ 8 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916147].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Just to be different...

Belief in science and belief in agenda-driven science can be two different things.

Have a nice discussion.

Agenda driven science...isn't science. Science is a way of thinking to separate the real from the imaginary.
If someone is paying a lab to prove a specific point of view, that isn't science. They may be trained in science...but they aren't doing science.

Science...as a process.... has no agenda, besides learning.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916161].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Agenda driven science...isn't science. Science is a way of thinking to separate the real from the imaginary.
If someone is paying a lab to prove a specific point of view, that isn't science. They may be trained in science...but they aren't doing science.

Science...as a process.... has no agenda, besides learning.

Yet it's the agenda driven science that is promoted and what most people here believe in.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916188].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Agenda driven science...isn't science. Science is a way of thinking to separate the real from the imaginary.
If someone is paying a lab to prove a specific point of view, that isn't science. They may be trained in science...but they aren't doing science.

Science...as a process.... has no agenda, besides learning.

I knew someone would make that point. It's semantics, as far as this discussion is concerned. If something is put forth as science, and comes from a scientist or (so-called) scientific organization, and if it sounds like science . . . the average person doesn't have the time or desire, not to mention the skills and knowledge, necessary to sort much of pseudoscience from real science.

And hence, while "the death of science" may be factually incorrect, in practical terms, science "is as good as dead" to many who choose belief in authority figures over personal knowledge.

Seems to be a lot that in the OT. Of course, that's an anecdotal conclusion on my part, not a scientific one.

[ 6 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916197].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

I knew someone would make that point. It's semantics, as far as this discussion is concerned. If something is put forth as science, and comes from a scientist or (so-called) scientific organization, and if it sounds like science . . . the average person doesn't have the time or desire, not to mention the skills and knowledge, necessary to sort much of pseudoscience from real science.

Of course. And that's where rational thinking comes in. Many people (probably most) cannot discern between pseudoscience...and real science. To most, they appear the same. But seeing how the conclusion was arrived at, usually reveals whether is was really science...or agenda driven..or actual fraud.

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

And hence, while "the death of science" may be factually incorrect, in practical terms, science "is as good as dead" to many who choose belief in authority figures over personal knowledge.

Seems to be a lot that in the OT. Of course, that's an anecdotal conclusion on my part, not a scientific one.

Authority figures, or agreeing with a group.

In fact, peer pressure and positioning yourself as an authority, are two of the best ways to sell an idea.

When I was a kid, my parents thought they were teaching me scientific fact, when it was just a stream of old wive's tales. But it was what they were taught....

My Mom, went to her grave...thinking that Mr. Spock (on Star Trek) was Dr. Benjamin Spock, the baby doctor....and that the white pulpy material under orange peels...was poisonous. And of course, the troll dolls (popular in the 60s) were demonically possessed.

I wonder what I'll believe, for the rest of my life, that's utter nonsense?

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916247].message }}

Dennis Gaskill 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I wonder what I'll believe, for the rest of my life, that's utter nonsense?

Wow, what an opening! I could think of several slightly funny answers, but I'll just sit back and wait for the pros to fill the opening.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916291].message }}
- BigFrank Banned 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill
  
  Wow, what an opening! I could think of several slightly funny answers, but I'll just sit back and wait for the pros to fill the opening.
  
  I'd tell you what I'd like to fill his opening with, but I don't need a vacation from the forum.
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916298].message }}
  
  Claude Whitacre 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by BigFrank
  
  I'd tell you what I'd like to fill his opening with, but I don't need a vacation from the forum.
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  I hope it isn't that pulpy white matter between the orange peel and the orange segments...because that's poisonous.
  
  Thanks
  
  2 replies
  
  Signature
  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr
  
  What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916302].message }}
  
  BigFrank Banned 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
  
  I hope it isn't that pulpy white matter between the orange peel and the orange segments...because that's poisonous.
  
  That's a load of BS. That stuff cures cancer. Everyone knows that.
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916320].message }}
  
  MissTerraK 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by BigFrank
  
  That's a load of BS. That stuff cures cancer. Everyone knows that.
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  Not cure, Frank, but can help repair. Get your scientific facts straight, would ya?
  
  Terra
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916362].message }}
  
  BigFrank Banned 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by MissTerraK
  
  Not cure, Frank, but can help repair. Get your scientific facts straight, would ya? Terra
  
  I was close enough for a layman. :-)
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916372].message }}
  
  Dennis Gaskill 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by BigFrank
  
  I was close enough for a layman. :-)
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  I thought you were a doctor?
  
  Dr. Frank N. Stein
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  2 replies
  
  Signature
  
  Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916382].message }}
  
  BigFrank Banned 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill
  
  I thought you were a doctor?
  Dr. Frank N. Stein
  
  No - but I do play one on the radio. Dr. Frank N. Sence. - the world's best smelling MD.
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916389].message }}
  
  MissTerraK 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill
  
  I thought you were a doctor?
  
  Dr. Frank N. Stein
  
  Thanks for the belly laugh, Dennis.
  
  Terra
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916392].message }}
  
  MissTerraK 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
  
  I hope it isn't that pulpy white matter between the orange peel and the orange segments...because that's poisonous.
  
  You're so gullible Claude.
  
  Recent research has uncovered new health benefits from various citrus flavonoids. Yes in the citrus itself, but they are actually found in the highest concentrations in the peel portion of the fruit. So the best way to get the most beneficial full effect of the antioxidant, free radical scavenger, anti-inflammatory, carbohydrate metabolism promoter, and immune system modulator is to eat a bit of the sourish flesh on the inside of the peel. Yes, the white part.
  
  The most promising of these flavenoids is naringenin that is found in all citrus peels and in the tomato peel too. These studies have shown naringenin along with other citrus flavenoids can repair the damaged DNA that leads to cancer and other studies have discovered that this phytonutrient can also stimulate the liver to burn excess fat restoring obese mice to a normal weight.
  
  That there pulpy white matter between the orange peel and the orange segments is medicine right there in your food so don't throw it away. Eat it and benefit from Mother Nature's offerings.
  
  Terra
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916358].message }}

MissTerraK 9 years ago

As I said, I love science and learning. I think the difference between opinions on the outcomes of scientific discoveries actually varies due to the interpretation of the results of any given scientific finding.

The wonderful thing is that we all have been given a gift of freedom of choice to believe whatsoever we want to. It is our right. We all equally have it.

I never put down people whose belief systems are different than mine and just ask that I be given the same courtesy is all. Is that too much to ask here?

Anyway, faith vs. idiocy of faith discussions will never be ironed out here or anywhere else this side of eternity.

I don't want to see this thread disappear in a ball of flames, so can we just stick to science as marvelous discoveries on its own merit and leave faith out of it?

I think that would be the mature thing to do. No?

Terra
- [ 2 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916217].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Arguing against something you don't understand is easier then proving something is true to people who don't understand... The perception of science is complicated information so people with the simplest incorrect answer persuades the masses!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916428].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

The perception of science is complicated information so people with the simplest incorrect answer persuades the masses!

I'm not sure I agree. It may not be the simplest answer. It may be an answer that an authority figure says, and is just accepted. It could be a intuitive answer, that just happens to be wrong. It may be based on sound logic, with faulty premises. (I see that a lot) It may be something more easily accepted, because the truth is unacceptable ("I'm going to die", type of thing)

It may be that real scientific answers may be in conflict with your culture, or the beliefs of your group.

A good deal of my time pondering my own science understanding, is trying to guarantee that I'm not accepting an answer because of one of these reasons.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916495].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I'm not sure I agree. It may not be the simplest answer. It may be an answer that an authority figure says, and is just accepted. It could be a intuitive answer, that just happens to be wrong. It may be based on sound logic, with faulty premises. (I see that a lot) It may be something more easily accepted, because the truth is unacceptable ("I'm going to die", type of thing)

It may be that real scientific answers may be in conflict with your culture, or the beliefs of your group.

A good deal of my time pondering my own science understanding, is trying to guarantee that I'm not accepting an answer because of one of these reasons.

Don't get me wrong I agree but for the masses the science has to go through the media. As soon as it gets into main stream media it is dumbed down for the masses to understand, during that, information is lost and the article looses what the original paper said. An example would be the media titles something like, cancer curing gene found... The reality is, a gene in a molecular pathway effects something which prevents something from doing something bad in 1 type of cancer. The media will praise it as a curing gene but in reality multiples things need to be effected at the same time.

That's why I say, miss information which is simplest to understand!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916503].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Don't get me wrong I agree but for the masses the science has to go through the media. As soon as it gets into main stream media it is dumbed down for the masses to understand, during that, information is lost and the article looses what the original paper said. An example would be the media titles something like, cancer curing gene found... The reality is, a gene in a molecular pathway effects something which prevents something from doing something bad in 1 type of cancer. The media will praise it as a curing gene but in reality multiples things need to be effected at the same time.

That's why I say, miss information which is simplest to understand!

If it even makes it that far. When it comes to the media for the most part people are only told what the powers want then the hear.
I think Claude is on to something also.
People tend to use filters based on their beliefs.
Look how some here responded to Franks thread about the engineered HIV cells and cancer.
Yet you show those same people any evidence of cannabinoids doing the same thing and it's either ridiculed or ignored.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916539].message }}

butters 9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I think Claude is on to something also.
People tend to use filters based on their beliefs.

This is massively true
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916562].message }}
- ThomM 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by butters
  
  This is massively true
  
  And we all do it, myself included. That's not to say it's always a bad thing.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916635].message }}
  
  butters 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  And we all do it, myself included. That's not to say it's always a bad thing.
  
  I know I do it, it's built into to us I think!
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  2 replies
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916639].message }}
  
  ThomM 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by butters
  
  I know I do it, it's built into to us I think!
  
  Yeah but some people find it easier to just listen and except.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916647].message }}
  
  MissTerraK 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by butters
  
  I know I do it, it's built into to us I think!
  
  I don't know if "it" is built into us, but I think we all have made decisions on certain topics based on what we have been taught coupled with what we have discovered/learned/experienced ourselves over time. Once that decision has been made and engrained in our brains, it now becomes a mindset and it is this mindset that we have constructed in our own minds, by our own selves and our own decision making, that filters everything through it.
  
  It's the mindset that filters everything. That much is true.
  
  Mindsets can however be built up and torn down based on new discoveries, that is, if we'll be honest with ourselves and allow it. And that is never easy. I don't care who you are. Just as Rome wasn't built in a day, neither were our mindsets. But both can be toppled in a day with the right circumstances.
  
  Terra
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916682].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Look how some here responded to Franks thread about the engineered HIV cells and cancer.
Yet you show those same people any evidence of cannabinoids doing the same thing and it's either ridiculed or ignored.

Thom; I can only speak for myself.

I do have a prejudice. If I heard of a scientific discovery on FOX news, or on a religious or political website..I'd ignore it. That isn't logical, but we consider the source.

For me, I want to hear about clinical trials....test results on lots of people. Not preliminary evidence based on a small sample. Anecdotal evidence isn't convincing to me. Even my own experience isn't convincing. There are so many other factors that are at play.

If a university has extensive test results on the benefits of cannabis......I'm all there. Before and after photos, PET scans, extensive documents tests on mice...all of that.....that's what convinces me.

And people trying to sell an idea, use different language from the people with real documented evidence. Listen to people argue about a subject, that you have no interest in...you'll see the difference in language very clearly.

Originally Posted by butters

Don't get me wrong I agree but for the masses the science has to go through the media. As soon as it gets into main stream media it is dumbed down for the masses to understand, during that, information is lost and the article looses what the original paper said. !

I get that. And I agree.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916604].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Thom; I can only speak for myself.

I do have a prejudice. If I heard of a scientific discovery on FOX news, or on a religious or political website..I'd ignore it. That isn't logical, but we consider the source.

For me, I want to hear about clinical trials....test results on lots of people. Not preliminary evidence based on a small sample. Anecdotal evidence isn't convincing to me. Even my own experience isn't convincing. There are so many other factors that are at play.

If a university has extensive test results on the benefits of cannabis......I'm all there. Before and after photos, PET scans, extensive documents tests on mice...all of that.....that's what convinces me.

And people trying to sell an idea, use different language from the people with real documented evidence. Listen to people argue about a subject, that you have no interest in...you'll see the difference in language very clearly.

I get that. And I agree.

Myself I look for other more "reliable" sources instead of just dismissing it.
The thing is Claude with this

If a university has extensive test results on the benefits of cannabis......I'm all there. Before and after photos, PET scans, extensive documents tests on mice...all of that.....that's what convinces me.

and I'm not saying you do this, but with many you can show them all the evidence in the world and they still won't except it. For example they'll read this

One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors.[3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]
Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis.[9-12] Two reviews summarize the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents.[13,14] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. For example, these compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats, while they protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[9]
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) - National Cancer Institute

and dismiss it because in one sentence it says "may cause" or "appears to" yet there is also statements in there like "was found to inhibit the growth of" and "have been shown to induce".
A lot of what it comes down to is people not understanding what science actually is. They think if it comes from nature it's anti-science but if it comes from a lab, science.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916664].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Myself I look for other more "reliable" sources instead of just dismissing it.
The thing is Claude with thisand I'm not saying you do this, but with many you can show them all the evidence in the world and they still won't except it. For example they'll read this and dismiss it because in one sentence it says "may cause" or "appears to" yet there is also statements in there like "was found to inhibit the growth of" and "have been shown to induce".
A lot of what it comes down to is people not understanding what science actually is. They think if it comes from nature it's anti-science but if it comes from a lab, science.

I don't agree with the "It comes from nature, therefore it's anti science". Meaning I don't agree it's true, and I don't agree that's why people dismiss it.
Vitamin C prevents scurvy. Calcium builds bones. Anti-Oxidants help slow degradation of the telomeres of our chromosomes. These things all occur in nature, and are tested and proven.

Yes, "May cause", "appears to"...are words that I equate with inadequate testing. I want to see the test results. The test parameters. Real testing gives that information. Of course, maybe that testing has already been done. But don't hide it in the appendices , at the end of an article.

Do you know what does not persuade me? Testimonials. Patient claims. It's too easy to believe that an effect was caused by what you are testing. It's why test subjects are in large numbers....to dilute the variables that affect test results.

Originally Posted by butters

I know I do it, it's built into to us I think!

Of course. Why would you ever ask yourself to prove something you believe? The thought would never occur to you.

I don't mean to you personally, I mean humans, as a species.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916809].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I don't agree with the "It comes from nature, therefore it's anti science". Meaning I don't agree it's true, and I don't agree that's why people dismiss it.
Vitamin C prevents scurvy. Calcium builds bones. Anti-Oxidants help slow degradation of the telomeres of our chromosomes. These things all occur in nature, and are tested and proven.

Yes, "May cause", "appears to"...are words that I equate with inadequate testing. I want to see the test results. The test parameters. Real testing gives that information. Of course, maybe that testing has already been done. But don't hide it in the appendices , at the end of an article.

Do you know what does not persuade me? Testimonials. Patient claims. It's too easy to believe that an effect was caused by what you are testing. It's why test subjects are in large numbers....to dilute the variables that affect test results.

Many do though Claude.
You use the appendices to list the sources of an article. If it wasn't there you could use the excuse that they didn't list their sources so there's no validity to the article.
Test subjects are also usually tested under clinical settings that don't exist outside in the real world.
Rick Simpson discovered that if he rubbed cannabis oil on his skin cancer that it killed the cancer. Other tried cannabis oils for other cancers and it also worked. That link I posted from the national cancer institute shows that the research has been and is being done that points to cannabis oil being able to kill different cancers. By the way cannabis oil is an extraction of the THC, CDB's, etc. that the cancer institute is talking about.
So you have people in the real world, in real world situations proving something that science explains, working. . I tend to believe that despite there being no human studies in a laboratory setting.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916842].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Many do though Claude.
You use the appendices to list the sources of an article. If it wasn't there you could use the excuse that they didn't list their sources so there's no validity to the article.
Test subjects are also usually tested under clinical settings that don't exist outside in the real world.
Rick Simpson discovered that if he rubbed cannabis oil on his skin cancer that it killed the cancer. Other tried cannabis oils for other cancers and it also worked. That link I posted from the national cancer institute shows that the research has been and is being done that points to cannabis oil being able to kill different cancers. By the way cannabis oil is an extraction of the THC, CDB's, etc. that the cancer institute is talking about.
So you have people in the real world, in real world situations proving something that science explains, working. . I tend to believe that despite there being no human studies in a laboratory setting.

I call that "soft evidence". Meaning that it deserves a look, but isn't conclusive enough to call it a fact. That doesn't mean it isn't true...but I wouldn't use that treatment to the exclusion of everything else.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916849].message }}

whateverpedia

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I call that "soft evidence". Meaning that it deserves a look, but isn't conclusive enough to call it a fact. That doesn't mean it isn't true...but I wouldn't use that treatment to the exclusion of everything else.

I think there's enough "soft evidence" to warrant a full scale scientific study into it. Unfortunately because of the stigma attached to cannabis, it may never get off the ground. which is very sad indeed.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916857].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

I think there's enough "soft evidence" to warrant a full scale scientific study into it. Unfortunately because of the stigma attached to cannabis, it may never get off the ground. which is very sad indeed.

There are quite a few studies right now looking at specific compounds within marijuana, until research from these compounds proves conclusive, then your start to see next phase studies.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916889].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I call that "soft evidence". Meaning that it deserves a look, but isn't conclusive enough to call it a fact. That doesn't mean it isn't true...but I wouldn't use that treatment to the exclusion of everything else.

I can understand that. If I ever have to make that decision, I would use it but it would only be one tool in the arsenal.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916868].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Many do though Claude.
You use the appendices to list the sources of an article. If it wasn't there you could use the excuse that they didn't list their sources so there's no validity to the article.

Thats wrong, thats your references, the appendices are usually reserved for big sets of data, maps, sample data such as diseases before beginning a trial etc... That's the sort of stuff which goes in the appendices.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916885].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Thats wrong, thats your references, the appendices are usually reserved for big sets of data, maps, sample data such as diseases before beginning a trial etc... That's the sort of stuff which goes in the appendices.

Maybe I meant references, then.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916886].message }}

butters 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Maybe I meant references, then.

Im just being picky
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916892].message }}
- ThomM 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by butters
  
  Im just being picky
  
  Yes you are
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916900].message }}
  
  butters 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  Yes you are
  
  Doesn't sound like me one bit :p
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916908].message }}
  
  lanfear63 9 years ago
  
  Been skimming this thread, looking at all the back and forth viewpoints. Reached some conclusions.
  
  Take the medical stuff for example..
  
  Not everything is researched extensively. Not ALL approaches are followed up on.
  
  When a broad cure or life extending way is found like radiation for cancer it is adopted. Why, despite it having side effects it works. Consensus, acceptance and proof that it is better to have it than not prevails. The research is well funded that led them to do lots of clinical trials to back it up.
  
  If a small portion of the populous, non medically trained in the traditional sense apply's themselves to research food and herb (or whatever) combinations and finds that it also works, but of course, on a smaller scale of application and testing, their is is very little chance of getting it out there world wide and accepted.
  
  It needs to be funded and taken up big time to have any chance and of course their is the factor of profit, if you could go down to your local food store and buy this stuff cheaply, there is no profit.
  
  That is sad. It means pure research for the sake of it is now blinkered,selective, geared for a quick fix and profit. Not for the general benefit of mankind. Q-Dos to Sal and people like her to keep chipping away and looking for alternative angles. We need these people in this day and age because of the huge monster industries that have been built up in this field.
  
  [ 4 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917110].message }}

thunderbird

9 years ago

Global warming is a scientifically established fact irrespective of Koch. bros successful fact-denying propaganda campaign against it. Now a scientific question has mutated into a political and ideological one.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916633].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Global warming is a scientifically established fact irrespective of Koch. bros successful fact-denying propaganda campaign against it. Now a scientific question has mutated into a political and ideological one.

Actually it's not. What is fact is man contributes to climate change. Scientist are still divided about global warming, there is evidence of a global cooling.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916641].message }}

whateverpedia

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Actually it's not.

Actually it is.

Global warming causes cooling in some areas and warming in others. Which is why climate change is a more accurate term. What we will experience is more severe climatic events - increased droughts, bushfires, blizzards, snow, rain, you name it.

As I've mentioned many times before whenever this topic comes up, the insurance industry (about as far away from a leftie-pinko-tree hugging industry as you can get, in fact it's one of the cornerstones of the capitalist system) firmly believes in it and has done for a lot longer than Al Gore. The insurance industry was making in-house documentaries on the subject long before Mr Gore even had the idea for "An Inconvenient Truth".

So all that snow you guys are getting might be just as much a result of "global warming" as heatwaves Down Under. If it's a once only event, no problems (maybe). If however, you get severe snow year after year, it's "global warming", or more accurately climate change.

Incidentally, one of the great pieces of disinformation about this topic is people pointing to more ice in the seas surrounding the Arctic and Antarctic circles. Even a bozo like me can see that that means the land based ice is melting away to "create" this increase in sea ice.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916744].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Which is why climate change is a more accurate term.

Exactly. It's also accurate to say man contributes to it.
Just the idea of arguing over calling it global warming or global cooling is ridiculous and a distraction from determining man's contributions and how they can be changed to a beneficial contribution.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916760].message }}

HeySal

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Exactly. It's also accurate to say man contributes to it.
Just the idea of arguing over calling it global warming or global cooling is ridiculous and a distraction from determining man's contributions and how they can be changed to a beneficial contribution.

Words of a man who actually KNOWS something about some of those sciences and has looked at both sides of the scientific debate.

What I find wrong with science is the amount of people who are yapping about it when they have no clues outside of mainstream media and the political tax push about anything to do with the science. To me they are mindless deniers. Sorry, but that's how it goes.

BTW - looks like that measles "epidemic" turned out just about how the ebola "epidemic" did. Oh well, huh?

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916796].message }}

whateverpedia

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Exactly. It's also accurate to say man contributes to it.

Most definitely. The sooner we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, particularly coal, the better off we'll all be.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916812].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Most definitely. The sooner we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, particularly coal, the better off we'll all be.

That's part of it, but not the whole solution.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916814].message }}

whateverpedia

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

That's part of it, but not the whole solution.

Once again, agreed. It's all part of treating the environment with respect. Living with nature rather than using and abusing it.

They say "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", watch Mother Nature throw a tantrum to see a fury like no other.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916836].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Once again, agreed. It's all part of treating the environment with respect. Living with nature rather than using and abusing it.

They say "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", watch Mother Nature throw a tantrum to see a fury like no other.

I've always said the the earth and nature will adapt and survive no matter what we do. But if we want to survive we have to make some serious changes.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916877].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Once again, agreed. It's all part of treating the environment with respect. Living with nature rather than using and abusing it.

They say "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", watch Mother Nature throw a tantrum to see a fury like no other.

Here's something you might find interesting.
This Natural Food Could Finally Put an End to Harmful Pesticides | Natural Society
https://www.google.com/patents/US200...ed=0CE4Q6AEwBw

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916904].message }}

seasoned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Most definitely. The sooner we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, particularly coal, the better off we'll all be.

For the record, I have been ALL FOR THAT, VOCALLY, since the 70s! I almost wrote a letter to Jimmy carter telling him how we had the technology THEN, etc... But I figured he doesn't care AT ALL, won't even read it, so WHY BOTHER!

Steve
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916858].message }}

Joe Mobley 9 years ago

Let me respectfully disagree.

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Which is why climate change is a more accurate term.

The reason there is such a push to use the term "climate change" is because the "global warming" fanatics were freezing there butts off.

Joe Mobley
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917290].message }}

thunderbird

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Actually it's not. What is fact is man contributes to climate change. Scientist are still divided about global warming, there is evidence of a global cooling.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and caused by humanity. Scientists are not divided about it.

Richard Muller: I Was Wrong on Climate Change -...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917791].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and caused by humanity. Scientists are not divided about it.
Richard Muller: I Was Wrong on Climate Change - YouTube

You mean the guy who believes fracking is safe and those that disagree are making a tragic mistake? One person does not make a consensus
Like I said to Whatever arguing over what to call the climate change (warming or cooling) is a waste of time that can be better spent figuring out how to turn man's negative contributions to the environment into positive ones.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918304].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

My main consolation is the knowledge that every 100 years, the world is populated by entirely new people. And that is how we accept new realities.

Ignorant people don't change their mind, they just eventually die. And they are replaced by a better educated person.

It's that thought that keeps me warm at night.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918590].message }}

BigFrank Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Ignorant people don't change their mind, they just eventually die.

But they take too damn long to do it. I'm all for doing whatever we can to speed up the process.

Cheers. - Frank
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918602].message }}

Frank Donovan

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

My main consolation is the knowledge that every 100 years, the world is populated by entirely new people. And that is how we accept new realities.

Ignorant people don't change their mind, they just eventually die. And they are replaced by a better educated person.

It's that thought that keeps me warm at night.

Claude, far be it from me to deny you consolation (or warm nights), but it's not a question of education. People aren't going to be any more rational in 100 years.

.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918614].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

Claude, far be it from me to deny you consolation (or warm nights), but it's not a question of education. People aren't going to be any more rational in 100 years.

.

Frank; First, you are a beacon of light, in a sea of crap.

Second, of course, you are right. But we don't have to be more rational. I don't think intelligence or rational thinking is going to improve, any time soon. There is no evolutionary drive for us to be more intelligent. The geniuses aren't having the most babies.

But when an ignorant person dies, that new person is educated with newer...better..information. And I think that's why it takes so long for real progress in the way we think.

Ignorant people today, still think more sane thoughts than they did 100 years ago.

Even on this forum, nobody is yelling about the dangers of driving a car faster than a horse can gallop. And nobody is proclaiming the benefits of bleeding people as a way to "balance their humors". So, there is progress. But it's slow.

And the reason it's so slow (in my opinion) is because our thinking process doesn't improve with time. But we eventually die, and the new person isn't hampered by a fixed world view, that is as wrong as the previous generation.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918653].message }}

Frank Donovan

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Frank; First, you are a beacon of light, in a sea of crap.

Spooky. That was my nickname in the Navy.

Ignorant people today, still think more sane thoughts than they did 100 years ago.

Really? And you know this how? I think you're underestimating the power of ignorance to transcend generations.

You may call some of the thoughts people used to have insane - but most people today don't know the principles involved in medical science or high-speed transportation - it's just an acceptance based on experience, observation or hearsay. And while education can help us understand many scientific processes that were a mystery to our ancestors, the development of science and technology can also make us lazy thinkers (who needs mental arithmetic?) or, worse, unquestioning consumers.

No doubt there will continue to be many exciting and groundbreaking developments in science in the coming years. That is clearly to be welcomed. But as long as people remain the same, it's rash to talk of progress.

.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918747].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

Spooky. That was my nickname in the Navy.

Really? And you know this how? I think you're underestimating the power of ignorance to transcend generations.

You may call some of the thoughts people used to have insane - but most people today don't know the principles involved in medical science or high-speed transportation - it's just an acceptance based on experience, observation or hearsay.

You and I are in agreement. What I am saying is just another way of seeing the same idea.
Yeah, the principles involved in science may never be common knowledge. But bad ideas eventually die, from lack of repeating them across generations.

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

And while education can help us understand many scientific processes that were a mystery to our ancestors, the development of science and technology can also make us lazy thinkers (who needs mental arithmetic?) or, worse, unquestioning consumers.

A thought that I have never considered. Now, that's depressing.

Anyway, there are always bright thinking people. And there are always people that will rage against the dying of the light. And then there is Big Frank, who will rage against anything.

With Frank, when death comes, it better be when he's sleeping. Because if Frank's awake....there is going to be a fight.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9918767].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

And then there is Big Frank, who will rage against anything.

Yes, I will rage against anything that I feel deserves to be raged against, but that requires a reading of at least a 7 on my Rageometer. That number tends to go up a few tenths, with each passing year.

With Frank, when death comes, it better be when he's sleeping. Because if Frank's awake....there is going to be a fight.

Well, I have given this 'death' thing some serious consideration over the past few years and I have come to the conclusion that for me, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by accepting the concept. There won't be a fight as I have already informed that powers that be in the universe that I simply refuse to participate.

Should my decision not be accepted, well, yes - they can expect one helluva fight that there is absolutely no doubt that I shall win.

Cheers. - Frank

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919023].message }}

discrat

9 years ago

Wow, it seems some are getting a little touchy around here. Just got a PM and threatened to be Banned, yes my Account Banned, by the Moderators because of my negative attitude and insulting tone.

And I asked what about. They replied back to me this :" We reviewed the thread which was reported, you weren't really insulting any of the users. It's just some of the users find it insulting when you quote other users then change what they said then say that you have corrected them. No need to worry about it."

This is a first for me. I thought you guys were a little more thick skinned around here in OT than that

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919163].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Wow, it seems some are getting a little touchy around here. Just got a PM and threatened to be Banned, yes my Account Banned, by the Moderators because of my negative attitude and insulting tone.

And I asked what about. They replied back to me this :" We reviewed the thread which was reported, you weren't really insulting any of the users. It's just some of the users find it insulting when you quote other users then change what they said then say that you have corrected them. No need to worry about it."

This is a first for me. I thought you guys were a little more thick skinned around here in OT than that

It wasn't me, I swear.

To the Mods; He changed what I said in a quote. It was harmless. I knew what he meant. It was a harmless joke on his part, and it wasn't offensive to me at all.

As the "Injured party", I grant Robert absolution.

And when Riffle and I change a quote, and say "Fixed that for you", it's always a joke, among friends.

Except when Kurt does it. Kurt has no friends.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919173].message }}

discrat

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

It wasn't me, I swear.

To the Mods; He changed what I said in a quote. It was harmless. I knew what he meant. It was a harmless joke on his part, and it wasn't offensive to me at all.

As the "Injured party", I grant Robert absolution.

And when Riffle and I change a quote, and say "Fixed that for you", it's always a joke, among friends.

Except when Kurt does it. Kurt has no friends.

Claude,
Don't worry I know it wasn't you

Really its no biggie, whoever it was. Just kind of humorous that we are so hypersensitive down here anymore in the OT

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919186].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

I'm sorry - but I will do whatever is necessary to get everyone to abide by my example of forum decorum.

I'm watching all of you.

Cheers. - Frank

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919199].message }}

discrat

9 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

I'm sorry - but I will do whatever is necessary to get everyone to abide by my example of forum decorum.

I'm watching all of you.

Cheers. - Frank

I think forum decorum would be having the ability to closely read the whole context in the interaction between two members here at WF, instead of being hasty to run off and have a long time member get unnecessary and unwarranted Ban threats from Moderators

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919256].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

I think forum decorum would be having the ability to closely read the whole context in the interaction between two members here at WF, instead of being hasty to run off and have a long time member get unnecessary and unwarranted Ban threats from Moderators

Am I to assume that you think my post was an actual admission of responsibility for what took place?

Are you new here, or sumpin'? Even with the crap I take from people, I'm still the last person that would ever report a post - which I have done only once on this forum.

Cheers. - Frank

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919278].message }}

discrat

9 years ago

My sincere Apology, Frank.

It didn't sound like you but what you wrote in previous post I thought you were admitting it in that balllsy "I don't give a sh@t attitude what people think of me" attitude of yours that we all have come to luv

Once again my bad

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919287].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

My sincere Apology, Frank.

It didn't sound like you but what you wrote in previous post I thought you were admitting it in that balllsy "I don't give a sh@t attitude what people think of me" attitude of yours that we all have come to luv

Once again my bad

Ok, I'm going to come clean. I have to admit it, it was Kurt.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919408].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

Ok, I'm going to come clean. I have to admit it, it was Kurt.

Kurt...the Father of all lies...the root of all evil.....the ruiner of everything.

But it probably wasn't him. He's too imaginative for that. It would take someone dull witted, lonely, unattractive, universally reviled, petty, anal retentive........wait.....

Maybe it was me.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919516].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Kurt...the Father of all lies...the root of all evil.....the ruiner of everything.

But it probably wasn't him. He's too imaginative for that. It would take someone dull witted, lonely, unattractive, universally reviled, petty, anal retentive........wait.....

Maybe it was me.

Don't flatter yourself

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919522].message }}

Joe Mobley 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

It would take someone dull witted, lonely, unattractive, universally reviled, petty, anal retentive........wait.....

As I read this, it wasn't your name that came to mind.

Joe Mobley
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920369].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

My sincere Apology, Frank.

No problem, at all.

It didn't sound like you but what you wrote in previous post I thought you were admitting it in that balllsy "I don't give a sh@t attitude what people think of me" attitude of yours that we all have come to luv

Yes - I'm nothing if not loved by all. lol

Once again my bad

Next time I'll use my smiley face. :-)

Cheers. - Frank

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919418].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

Claude, far be it from me to deny you consolation (or warm nights), but it's not a question of education. People aren't going to be any more rational in 100 years.

.

But, l thought that in 100 years most of us would be dead?

Well, by then the MMGW alarmists will be saying that the warm water trapped in the deepest oceans is losing that energy at a much slower rate because it is closer to the centre of the Earth, and so, has a much slower time rate?

Thanks

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919451].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

I'm sorry - but I will do whatever is necessary to get everyone to abide by my example of forum decorum.

I'm watching all of you.

Cheers. - Frank

Frank; Stop talking with your mouth full.

Originally Posted by tagiscom

But, l thought that in 100 years most of us would be dead?

Shane; Um............there will be different people on the Earth. we all just don't die, and then that's it....we have children.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919503].message }}

BigFrank

Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Frank; Stop talking with your mouth full.

Not possible. My mouth is filled with an endless supply of prose.

Cheers. - frank

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920278].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by BigFrank

Not possible. My mouth is filled with an endless supply of hose.

Cheers. - frank

Fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by tagiscom

By what MMGW alarmists are saying that if we don't take dramatic action, then 97% of us will pelish by 2100!

No Shane. No human has ever said that until you, just now.

[ 2 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920441].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Interesting book coming out today. (bold is mine)

In an acclaimed new book being launched Wednesday in London, American public interest attorney Steven Druker reveals how the US government and leading scientific institutions have systematically misrepresented the facts about GMOs and the scientific research that casts doubt on their safety

With a forward by Dame Jane Goodall

The book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, features a foreword by the renowned primatologist Dame Jane Goodall, hailing it as "without doubt one of the most important books of the last 50 years".

A little about what it reveals.(bold is their's)

Many well-placed scientists have repeatedly issued misleading statements about GM foods, and so have leading scientific institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the UK's Royal Society.

A couple of comments about the book.

"A fascinating book: highly informative, eminently readable, and most enjoyable. It's a real page-turner and an eye-opener." Richard C. Jennings, PhD Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge
"This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it's a pleasure to read - and a must-read. Through its masterful marshaling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don't entail abnormal risk." David Schubert, PhD molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies
"A great book. The evidence is comprehensive, clear, and compelling. No one has documented other cases of irresponsible behavior by government regulators and the scientific establishment nearly as well as Druker documents this one. His book should be widely read and thoroughly heeded." John Ikerd, PhD Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri
"Steven Druker's meticulously documented, well-crafted, and spellbinding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us. In particular, his chapter detailing the deadly epidemic of 1989-90 that was linked with a genetically engineered food supplement is especially significant. . . . Overall his discussion of this tragic event, as well as its ominous implications, is the most comprehensive, evenly-balanced and accurate account that I have read." Stephen Naylor, PhD Professor of Biochemistry, Mayo Clinic (1991-2001)
"A landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course." Joseph Cummins, PhD Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, Ontario

So folks keep on trusting those scientific institutes that you think are beyond reproach because of course it's science and scientist never have an agenda or alterer motive.Jane Goodall and Steven Druker Expose US Government Fraud over GMOs - Sustainable Pulse

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920517].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Interesting book coming out today. (bold is mine)
With a forward by Dame Jane Goodall

Probably a great book with solid evidence.

Here is the author description;

Steven M. Druker is a public interest attorney who, as executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit that forced the FDA to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods. This revealed that politically appointed administrators had covered up the warnings of their own scientists about the unusual risks of these foods and then allowed them to be marketed illegally. In organizing the suit, he assembled an unprecedented coalition of eminent scientists and religious leaders to stand with his organization as co-plaintiffs - the first time scientists had sued a federal administrative agency on the grounds that one of its policies is scientifically unsound.

So, it's written by an attorney with a lawsuit. Everything in the book may be factual. But this guy has an agenda, just like most authors.

Originally Posted by ThomM

Interesting book coming out today. (bold is mine)
With a forward by Dame Jane Goodall
A little about what it reveals.(bold is their's)
A couple of comments about the book.
So folks keep on trusting those scientific institutes that you think are beyond reproach because of course it's science and scientist never have an agenda or ulterior motive.]

Manufacturers paying scientists to arrive at a specific result, have ulterior motives. But there is a lot of pure science being done, that does not.

And the attorney that wrote the book, is trying to win a lawsuit. Isn't that an "ulterior motive" as well?

It sounds like I'm against the book, and the ideas in it. I'm not. I'm pro-clear thinking.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920618].message }}

MissTerraK

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Probably a great book with solid evidence.

Here is the author description;

Steven M. Druker is a public interest attorney who, as executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit that forced the FDA to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods. This revealed that politically appointed administrators had covered up the warnings of their own scientists about the unusual risks of these foods and then allowed them to be marketed illegally. In organizing the suit, he assembled an unprecedented coalition of eminent scientists and religious leaders to stand with his organization as co-plaintiffs - the first time scientists had sued a federal administrative agency on the grounds that one of its policies is scientifically unsound.

So, it's written by an attorney with a lawsuit. Everything in the book may be factual. But this guy has an agenda, just like most authors.

Can you name me one book that has been written without an agenda?

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920629].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

Can you name me one book that has been written without an agenda?

Terra

Terra; I didn't ignore your post. I just couldn't figure out why you asked the question, or what point you were trying to make.

Every author has an agenda, to get their book published.

But there are lots of books published that have no political or commercial agenda, other than educating. Textbooks, non-fiction "How To"s, Biographies.

The agenda I was talking about is where the author is pushing a point of view, for a purpose, other than education or entertainment.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922769].message }}

MissTerraK

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Terra; I didn't ignore your post. I just couldn't figure out why you asked the question, or what point you were trying to make.

Every author has an agenda, to get their book published.

But there are lots of books published that have no political or commercial agenda, other than educating. Textbooks, non-fiction "How To"s, Biographies.

The agenda I was talking about is where the author is pushing a point of view, for a purpose, other than education or entertainment.

Yep, he's paying attention.

Every author has an agenda, to get their book published.

Well my dearest Claude, that was my point.

You said earlier:

So, it's written by an attorney with a lawsuit. Everything in the book may be factual. But this guy has an agenda, just like most authors.

I just felt you needed a stronger argument is all.

Terra

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923013].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Probably a great book with solid evidence.

Here is the author description;

Steven M. Druker is a public interest attorney who, as executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit that forced the FDA to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods. This revealed that politically appointed administrators had covered up the warnings of their own scientists about the unusual risks of these foods and then allowed them to be marketed illegally. In organizing the suit, he assembled an unprecedented coalition of eminent scientists and religious leaders to stand with his organization as co-plaintiffs - the first time scientists had sued a federal administrative agency on the grounds that one of its policies is scientifically unsound.

So, it's written by an attorney with a lawsuit. Everything in the book may be factual. But this guy has an agenda, just like most authors.

Manufacturers paying scientists to arrive at a specific result, have ulterior motives. But there is a lot of pure science being done, that does not.

And the attorney that wrote the book, is trying to win a lawsuit. Isn't that an "ulterior motive" as well?

It sounds like I'm against the book, and the ideas in it. I'm not. I'm pro-clear thinking.

No it sounds like you're looking for an excuse to discredit the author and book. Look at some of the reviewers, not one attorney or do they have pending lawsuits.

"A fascinating book: highly informative, eminently readable, and most enjoyable. It's a real page-turner and an eye-opener." Richard C. Jennings, PhD Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge
"This incisive and insightful book is truly outstanding. Not only is it well-reasoned and scientifically solid, it's a pleasure to read - and a must-read. Through its masterful marshaling of facts, it dispels the cloud of disinformation that has misled people into believing that GE foods have been adequately tested and don't entail abnormal risk." David Schubert, PhD molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies
"A great book. The evidence is comprehensive, clear, and compelling. No one has documented other cases of irresponsible behavior by government regulators and the scientific establishment nearly as well as Druker documents this one. His book should be widely read and thoroughly heeded." John Ikerd, PhD Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri
"Steven Druker's meticulously documented, well-crafted, and spellbinding narrative should serve as a clarion call to all of us. In particular, his chapter detailing the deadly epidemic of 1989-90 that was linked with a genetically engineered food supplement is especially significant. . . . Overall his discussion of this tragic event, as well as its ominous implications, is the most comprehensive, evenly-balanced and accurate account that I have read." Stephen Naylor, PhD Professor of Biochemistry, Mayo Clinic (1991-2001)
"A landmark. It should be required reading in every university biology course." Joseph Cummins, PhD Professor Emeritus of Genetics, Western University, Ontario

I'm seeing people with PhD's in Genetics, Biochemistry, Agricultural Economics, and molecular biologist and Head of Cellular Neurobiology, Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920680].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

No it sounds like you're looking for an excuse to discredit the author and book.

Then you are wrong. And you are arguing points I did not make.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920685].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Then you are wrong.

Maybe, maybe not. It's interesting that you are using one of the same arguments that the pro gmo folks are using to try and discredit the author and the book.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920701].message }}

butters 9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Maybe, maybe not. It's interesting that you are using one of the same arguments that the pro gmo folks are using to try and discredit the author and the book.

That's how everyone wins an arguement :p
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920704].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Maybe, maybe not. It's interesting that you are using one of the same arguments that the pro gmo folks are using to try and discredit the author and the book.

I said the author had an agenda, a motive. And he does. I did not say that the contents of the book are false, or that any argument in the book is wrong. In fact, I said " Probably a great book with solid evidence."

I didn't say the reviewers had an agenda. I didn't say that Jane Goodall had an agenda. I said that the author was in the midst of a lawsuit, which certainly is an agenda.

I have no interest in GMOs pro or com. But the Amazon sales page gave the information I posted.

And when you said, "So folks keep on trusting those scientific institutes that you think are beyond reproach because of course it's science and scientist never have an agenda or ulterior motive" it struck me as odd that you don't trust some scientists, but ones that agree with you are above reproach. Maybe not odd, but funny.

Anyway, that's what I said and meant. Again, it's probably a great book, and I'll probably buy it and read it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920811].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I said the author had anagenda, a motive. And he does. I did not say that the contents of the book are false, or that any argument in the book is wrong. In fact, I said " Probably a great book with solid evidence."

I didn't say the reviewers had an agenda. I didn't say that Jane Goodall had an agenda. I said that the author was in the midst of a lawsuit, which certainly is an agenda.

I have no interest in GMOs pro or com. But the Amazon sales page gave the information I posted.

And when you said, "So folks keep on trusting those scientific institutes that you think are beyond reproach because of course it's science and scientist never have an agenda or ulterior motive" it struck me as odd that you don't trust some scientists, but ones that agree with you are above reproach. Maybe not odd, but funny.

Anyway, that's what I said and meant. Again, it's probably a great book, and I'll probably buy it and read it.

I'm not saying they are beyond approach, and I don't agree with them because I'm anti-science. I agree with them because I've spent close to 20 years researching and studying g.m.o.'s as they pertain to agriculture and they have come to the same conclusions as I have through that research and study.
Yes I also have an agenda. It's against faulty science being taken as truth. It's against poisoning the soils that give us life and against foods that could be detrimental to our health. So yes I tend to agree with scientists that support my agenda as long as they have done the research honestly.
So how is it odd that I trust some scientists and don't trust others?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920841].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

So how is it odd that I trust some scientists and don't trust others?

It's not odd. It's human nature. I just find human nature funny.

My agenda is the truth as well. And I don't doubt your motive. But if the book were written by a scientist, instead of a lawyer, (with a lawsuit) I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

And again, the content may be completely accurate and objective. But the author is not.
Anyway, I'll read the book.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920860].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

It's not odd. It's human nature. I just find human nature funny.

My agenda is the truth as well. And I don't doubt your motive. But if the book were written by a scientist, instead of a lawyer, (with a lawsuit) I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

And again, the content may be completely accurate and objective. But the author is not.
Anyway, I'll read the book.

I wasn't really trying to pick on you there Claude. But I found it kind of funny that the pro-gmo crowd is using the exact same argument to discredit the book. I plan on buying and reading it myself. I'm sure it will lead to me doing more research on the contents.
I have just as big of a problem with scientists that manipulate their findings against g.m.o.'s as I do with those doing the same that are for them.
That's why I don't except something just because a scientist says so.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920923].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

That's why I don't except something just because a scientist says so.

That's wise.

What I will tend to accept is when thousands of scientists, employed by hundreds of different companies, and institutions...come up with the same results. Then it's unlikely that they are all following the same directives.

I didn't feel picked on. (I don't think I can feel picked on)
And you are far more knowledgeable about the subject than I am. And it's obvious that you are passionate about it as well.

I'll let you in on a secret; I had no idea that there was a pro-GMO crowd. I don't read about the subject. My observations were my own.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920963].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

That's wise.

What I will tend to accept is when thousands of scientists, employed by hundreds of different companies, and institutions...come up with the same results. Then it's unlikely that they are all following the same directives.

I didn't feel picked on. (I don't think I can feel picked on)
And you are far more knowledgeable about the subject than I am. And it's obvious that you are passionate about it as well.

I'll let you in on a secret; I had no idea that there was a pro-GMO crowd. I don't read about the subject. My observations were my own.

Yep there is and they are just as vocal as the anti-gmo crowd, lol. One of their tactics is to say if you're against g.m.o.'s you're anti-science. Then they'll give examples of genetic engineering that has nothing to do with inserting genes from say a bacteria into a plant as an example of how great it is.
They are the same type of people that think just because a scientist did it in a lab and it worked then it should be excepted without question. They tend to ignore the science that shows why it's a bad idea that should never be released in the world.
Like I've said before I think the science of genetic engineering is fascinating. I can see where it can be a benefit. But when it's used in a way that denies the laws of nature and contributes to the destruction of our environment and climate, then I can't support it just because it's science.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9921010].message }}

BigFrank Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Fixed that for you.

Well, even if it's an endless supply, I'm sure you had nothing to contribute.

Cheers. - Frank
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920578].message }}
- MissTerraK 9 years ago
  
  Thanks, Thom!
  
  I've per-ordered it!
  
  Terra
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920590].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Fixed that for you.

No Shane. No human has ever said that until you, just now.

Hmmm, this guy looks human to me!

Fenner said that climate change is only at its beginning, but is likely to be the cause of our extinction. "We'll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island," he said. More people means fewer resources, and Fenner predicts "there will be a lot more wars over food.

Humans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientist

He made this claim with others, based on 100 years, or 2115!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9921621].message }}

whateverpedia

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Hmmm, this guy looks human to me!

Humans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientist

He made this claim with others, based on 100 years, or 2115!

You conveniently left out the bit where he said "overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change" would cause this extinction.

All three combined actually might cause extinction, however you only quoted the bit that suits your own agenda ie climate change.

That is the very point that everybody on both sides of the equation have been saying in this thread, i.e. that those with an agenda "cherry pick" data to suit that agenda.

In fact, just overpopulation and environmental damage will do the job even without throwing climate change into the equation.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9921698].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

You conveniently left out the bit where he said "overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change" would cause this extinction.

All three combined actually might cause extinction, however you only quoted the bit that suits your own agenda ie climate change.

That is the very point that everybody on both sides of the equation have been saying in this thread, i.e. that those with an agenda "cherry pick" data to suit that agenda.

In fact, just overpopulation and environmental damage will do the job even withut throwing climate change into the equation.

You are right based on this, he should have kept his mouth shut!

How it will end

Sounds like the media l heard this from has gotten it out of context.

According to the official reports above, we have a slim chance of perishing from GM, by itself.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922250].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

You are right based on this, he should have kept his mouth shut!

How it will end

Sounds like the media l heard this from has gotten it out of context.

According to the official reports above, we have a slim chance of perishing from GM, by itself.

Such a long read!!

Basically we got a 5% chance of dying by 2100 if the temperature goes up 6.4c.

I ain't living to 125 so it's ok

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922412].message }}

BigFrank Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

In fact, just overpopulation and environmental damage will do the job even without throwing climate change into the equation.

That's encouraging. Now, can we stop arguing the point and simply get on with it? There's nothing worse than empty promises that raise someone's hope but never deliver.

Cheers. - Frank
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922482].message }}
- MissTerraK 9 years ago
  
  Sometimes, it is really nice to be ignored, lol!
  I just take it that my counter point was too good to disagree with.
  
  Terra
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922491].message }}

tagiscom

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Frank; Stop talking with your mouth full.

Shane; Um............there will be different people on the Earth. we all just don't die, and then that's it....we have children.

By what MMGW alarmists are saying that if we don't take dramatic action, then 97% of us will pelish by 2100!

Age doesn't matter, nor does how many of us grow corn, blah, blah,....yeah, l don't buy it either, but that is the current, B,....scientific information!

Thanks

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920440].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Wow, it seems some are getting a little touchy around here. Just got a PM and threatened to be Banned, yes my Account Banned, by the Moderators because of my negative attitude and insulting tone.

And I asked what about. They replied back to me this :" We reviewed the thread which was reported, you weren't really insulting any of the users. It's just some of the users find it insulting when you quote other users then change what they said then say that you have corrected them. No need to worry about it."

This is a first for me. I thought you guys were a little more thick skinned around here in OT than that

Wasn't me but couldn't resist

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9919183].message }}

thunderbird 9 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917792].message }}
- Cam Connor 9 years ago
  
  There are REAL scientists, and then there're government, grant-funded, "Scientism" priests who are only allowed to say certain things without being completed ostracized from the scientific community.
  
  Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment?
  
  Well, reality's still objective you see, and exists outside of consciousness... "things just work different at the quantum level" that's all.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917817].message }}

HeySal

9 years ago

Originally Posted by joe golfer

Only forty percent of Americans believe our planet is getting warmer due to changes in the atmosphere from carbon dioxide emissions. Measles is making a comeback due to people keeping their kids from being vaccinated.

What happened to our belief in science?

Anti-science movement hurts America - Business Insider

Science is still there. Media is not science. Believe what ya want to.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916779].message }}

seasoned

9 years ago

Originally Posted by joe golfer

Only forty percent of Americans believe our planet is getting warmer due to changes in the atmosphere from carbon dioxide emissions. Measles is making a comeback due to people keeping their kids from being vaccinated.

What happened to our belief in science?

Anti-science movement hurts America - Business Insider

WHAT? It's getting WARMER!?!?!?!?!? WHY should I believe a group that says it is getting GLOBALLY WARMER, when globally it seems to be doing almost NOTHING, and they earlier said that it was getting COLDER!? And It HAS been cold here! As for measles, if the vaccine were the sole cause for it leaving, how did it come back? Oh SURE, you can speak of far off people that had it and WEREN'T vaccinated, etc... But HEY, WE were laughed at when we said such things would happen. I keep bringing up LISTER because it is just SUCH a good example! When I was a kid, I was......HECK, I AM, what many would call a GERMOPHOBE! I was HARASSED because I was offering to buy cheapskates drinks and food! WHY? OH, because I was considered a JERK for not letting them touch MY food. I once poured buttered popcorn on a guys head, because he was ASKING for it! He reached in, grabbed some popcorn, and I simply said, HERE IS THE REST!

YEAH RIGHT, they call ME a germophobe, and then come back and say I don't believe in science because I don't trust the government or the corporations. Want to spot me in a store? I'M the one reading the labels on candy and shampoo!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9916853].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Not sure why everyone thinks that the only scientific work which is accepted is funded by big organisations. There are tons of research being funded by charitable orginisations, scientific awarding bodies, the lottery, the governent (usually public interest research), the list goes on...

The real reason why this alternative stuff doesn't get researched is because most of the studies which don't cstch on make huge assumptions. They miss out key questions which they never answer so there whole paper is thrown out because of it.

Not all science is for profit, there is a lot being funded by institutions etc... Which fall outside the realm of business.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917150].message }}

tagiscom 9 years ago

Originally Posted by WalkingCarpet

Man ur driving me nuts- I WANT A KITTY NOW!

This should rub it in, mmmaaaaaggghhhh!

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

I wish that were true Claude, I really do. Sadly, we have a bunch of them running the country (AU) at the moment.
- Thanks
Signature
Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917206].message }}

lanfear63

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Not sure why everyone thinks that the only scientific work which is accepted is funded by big organisations. There are tons of research being funded by charitable orginisations, scientific awarding bodies, the lottery, the governent (usually public interest research), the list goes on...

The real reason why this alternative stuff doesn't get researched is because most of the studies which don't cstch on make huge assumptions. They miss out key questions which they never answer so there whole paper is thrown out because of it.

Not all science is for profit, there is a lot being funded by institutions etc... Which fall outside the realm of business.

What percentage of the research you are pointing to is it compared with the research funded by big corps? How much of it gets to mainstream acceptance and implementation (if applicable) to benefit us. Are their restrictions in what will be funded. These questions I ask.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917322].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by lanfear63

What percentage of the research you are pointing to is it compared with the research funded by big corps? How much of it gets to mainstream acceptance and implementation (if applicable) to benefit us. Are their restrictions in what will be funded. These questions I ask.

I'm not going to give a percentage because one doesn't exist but does it become main stream, sure. In the UK anyway most university lecturers are performing some form of research project which if the science is correct can easily become main stream. I'll give an example of an institution here in cambridge called the Sanga Centre, they essnentially study the genome. They are an institution out side of big business but if they publish a paper it has a lot of authority behind it. There are thousands of these institutes around the world. I'll mention clinical trials run by hospitals to because its foolish to think that every doctor is in the pocket of some corporation. What about university funded projects? Take cambridge for example, they raised a billion pounds a year or two back. Ok not all will go to science but you can bet if cambridge university or Oxford (or any other major university) publish a paper it has authority behind it. Then there are charities, look at cancer research UK, not many would dispute their work if they published.

This is just in the field of medicine, I got no idea about physics etc but I assume the particle accelerator doesn't produce anything relevant to big business today. Science is a massive topic and there is a lot of independant research which becomes main streamed. There work when published is peer reviewed so other experts assess their work to make sure it's sound. There are also a lot of peer reviewed alternative medicunes from the 90s which are now used in mainstream. Only because the plant isn't used, that doesn't nean a synthesised compound of that plant isn't in use.

Your find this with alternative medicines a lot... It's not doubled blinded and randomised; small sample size; there is selection bias; they don't address key questions, such as, the bioavailability of the drug, toxicity, half life (don't think radioactive) etc...; A lot of studies try mimic an immune response in the lab (very complicated) this doesn't show what really happens in the body; if they do use a clinical trial they struggle to pinpoint it to one thing and usually say it does loads. This is where they go wrong and I'm sure there are many more reasons.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917945].message }}

Cam Connor

9 years ago

Originally Posted by joe golfer

Only forty percent of Americans believe our planet is getting warmer due to changes in the atmosphere from carbon dioxide emissions. Measles is making a comeback due to people keeping their kids from being vaccinated.

What happened to our belief in science?

Anti-science movement hurts America - Business Insider

The Earth's been cooling for quite some time now, so I think we should be concerned about Global Cooling... also, feel free to shoot yourself up with whatever they put into those vaccines... I'm going to pass on that.

P.S: What sound does a sheep make?

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917426].message }}

SteveJohnson

9 years ago

Originally Posted by joe golfer

Only forty percent of Americans believe our planet is getting warmer due to changes in the atmosphere from carbon dioxide emissions. Measles is making a comeback due to people keeping their kids from being vaccinated.

What happened to our belief in science?

Anti-science movement hurts America - Business Insider

Maybe because the 60% aren't as gullible as the 40% and recognize Chicken Little when they hear him crying, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"?

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, we were bombarded with "global warming", and that the unequivocal cause for this warming was human activity. Computer models predicted catastrophe, and Al Gore burned hundreds of thousands of gallons of jet fuel spewing tons (or tonnes, for you across the pond folks) of CO2 flying around telling us the end was nigh.

Except it wasn't. We know two things today: according to highly accurate temperature data there has been an 18 year hiatus in the global warming trend, and that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 18 years ago.

Now, that tells us this: that the scientists who hypothesized that there is a direct link of temperature to CO2 levels were wrong, and the computer models that were developed based on those faulty hypotheses were also wrong.

Dr. Carl Mears, Vice President and Senior Research Scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a primary provider of ocean temperature data to the scientific community, says this:

Also, a philosophical comment -- often, we are predisposed to the position that a given effect is due to a single cause. Part of the reason for this is probably human nature. We like to distill complex things into simple stories or parables. The other part is that for most of the science courses we take in school, simple experiments are presented that demonstrate the fundamental ideas in the topic under study. Single causes are often the case in laboratory experiments -- these experiments are usually designed to isolate a single causative effect. In "real-world" science, such as the study of Earth's climate, things are very unlikely to be as clear cut. Instead, each observed "effect" will be due to the combination of numerous causes. My point is that I do not expect the disagreement between models and observations over the past 15 years to be due to a single cause. It is much more likely to be due to some combination of the possible causes listed below.
Source: The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems

Those of you on the Chicken Little bandwagon enjoy calling anyone who doesn't want to ride on your wagon a 'denier'. You don't question anything - it was in the news, so that's that, and anyone who doesn't believe is in denial.

Is the climate changing? Of course - it always has, always will. Does human activity have an effect on the climate? Probably, even likely. Is human activity the sole driver of climate change? Obviously not, and that is where we disagree and why you call me a 'denier'.

That you equate skepticism with denial suggests that your name-calling is driven more by ideology than intelligence.

What is never reported in the media is the amount of dissension in the scientific community in the climate change field, from the accuracy of temperature statistics and data extrapolation to the validity of computer modelling that drives the 'sky is falling' predictions.

Then there is news like this that is only the latest in exposing data manipulation: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

Maybe there is a valid reason for adjusting the temperature data. Maybe not.

###

Now, on to vaccinations. When my oldest son was born in 1992, my wife and I knew personally of two children who had violent reactions to their first vaccinations. When we brought this up to the pediatrician we had lined up to be our son's doctor, she pooh-poohed our concerns and said that even if the stories were true (were we lying?) there was such a slight chance of a reaction that it was basically non-existent. Being new parents, we didn't know who else to trust, and dutifully took our 2-month old son in for his vaccinations.

The reaction he had was horrific. Had the pediatrician's office been any further away from the hospital, he would have died. The pediatrician's only take was, "Sometimes these things happen. I'm sure his next round will go smoothly." Seriously?????

That was the only vaccination he ever received. His younger brother didn't receive any. Do you honestly think I would chance that again? Really?

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9917611].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Interesting preliminary results for MS patients, the papers are claiming cure but that's not accurate. Here's the study Association of nonmyeloablative hematop... - PubMed Mobile - NCBI

Here is a good, no media assessment of the study: Stem cells - hope for the future? | News | MS Trust - Information, education, research and support

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920688].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Interesting preliminary results for MS patients, the papers are claiming cure but that's not accurate. Here's the study Association of nonmyeloablative hematop... - PubMed Mobile - NCBI

Here is a good, no media assessment of the study: Stem cells - hope for the future? | News | MS Trust - Information, education, research and support

I think stem cells have an interesting potential.
Having said that, here's the type of things that have been used to discredit and dismiss results of other studies.

These results are very encouraging, but there are a number of limitations to the study which make it difficult to interpret the results.

This was an "open" study - in other words both the people with MS and their doctors knew what treatment they were receiving; this can bias the results.
The study did not include another group which received a different treatment for comparison so it is impossible to say how much better or worse the HSCT treatment is compared with an existing treatment, or doing nothing.
Many of the participants were treated with HSCT as they had not responded to other drug treatments and had continued to have relapses. It may be that the improvement in disability scores and reduced disease activity was a result of them continuing to recover from earlier relapses and not as a consequence of HSCT.
Only 27 participants were assessed at the five year point so long term effects of treatment were not really studied.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920712].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I think stem cells have an interesting potential.
Having said that, here's the type of things that have been used to discredit and dismiss results of other studies.

That's not discrediting... It's just saying that the study did not follow the full criteria which research projects are supposed to follow. Then they offer recommendations on how their findings could be more relevant. That's not discrediting, that's paving the way forward for new research and things to consider in the future.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920733].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

That's not discrediting... It's just saying that the study did not follow the full criteria which research projects are supposed to follow. Then they offer recommendations on how their findings could be more relevant. That's not discrediting, that's paving the way forward for new research and things to consider in the future.

I didn't say it was discrediting. I said that's the type of things that are used to discredit other studies. If that was about cannabis instead of stem cells people would be jumping all over it saying it's just antidotal evidence and doesn't prove anything.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920774].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I didn't say it was discrediting. I said that's the type of things that are used to discredit other studies. If that was about cannabis instead of stem cells people would be jumping all over it saying it's just antidotal evidence and doesn't prove anything.

No they wouldn't... Scientists would say that because that's the facts and that's what needs to be improved. People who have a bias against the drug would then say that to dismiss it. The reality is, real scientists would look at it and say, yeah, they may be onto something, now let's add in these recommendations.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920778].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

No they wouldn't... Scientists would say that because that's the facts and that's what needs to be improved. People who have a bias against the drug would then say that to dismiss it. The reality is, real scientists would look at it and say, yeah, they may be onto something, now let's add in these recommendations.

Except I was talking about people and not scientists.
You see it here on the forum all the time.
As for your reality, aren't the scientists in these groups "real scientists?

Many well-placed scientists have repeatedly issued misleading statements about GM foods, and so have leading scientific institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the UK's Royal Society.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9920855].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Except I was talking about people and not scientists.
You see it here on the forum all the time.
As for your reality, aren't the scientists in these groups "real scientists?

Fair enough then, then yeah they would use that to call the paper crap but they don't understand why they are saying that. They would never come to the conclusion by themselves and that view is put in their mind by someone commentating on it. It's sad that people don't look into the science themselves but will argue it based on what someone else said.

No they are not real scientists, science is about data, that may be good data which is ground breaking or crap which proves your theory wrong. People who want to fudge, misslead etc... They are not real scientists.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9921037].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Fair enough then, then yeah they would use that to call the paper crap but they don't understand why they are saying that. They would never come to the conclusion by themselves and that view is put in their mind by someone commentating on it. It's sad that people don't look into the science themselves but will argue it based on what someone else said.

No they are not real scientists, science is about data, that may be good data which is ground breaking or crap which proves your theory wrong. People who want to fudge, misslead etc... They are not real scientists.

But people will still buy into what they say simply because they call themselves scientist.
There's more to it then just looking into the science, there is also looking into how that science is applied. Like I said before genetic engineering is fascinating and has many useful applications. But that doesn't mean all of the ways it's applied are useful or good.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9921061].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

But people will still buy into what they say simply because they call themselves scientist.
There's more to it then just looking into the science, there is also looking into how that science is applied. Like I said before genetic engineering is fascinating and has many useful applications. But that doesn't mean all of the ways it's applied are useful or good.

It's not the "scientist" part that is most important. It's test results, measurements made. Large sampling. These things are harder to fudge in a chosen direction. Measurements have no bias, people do.

If you say "Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that the earth is 4.5 billion years old" it isn't nearly as convincing as "450 different archaeologists and geologists have taken rock core samples, and measured the decay in uranium into lead, at a universally uniform rate. And they all came to within 1% of each other,as to the age of the Earth." That would be convincing.

Or "Eating Kale cured cancer because my gerbil ate kale, and the cancer went into remission" is less convincing than. "856 people, age 45 to 52, with pancreatic cancer in it's final stages.... all had CAT scans of the tumor. They all had the same diet, and exercised the same. The only difference is, 428 of them ate one stalk of kale every day. Every 2 weeks, CAT scans were done, and at the end of 6 weeks...34% had no tumor, and 26% had a smaller tumor. 15 died during the test, of which 4 were the ones eating the kale"........

That would be a good scientific conversation.
Test results, from multiple, unassociated sources, on large numbers of test subjects. That's science. Measurements by 1,500 scientists in different countries, all saying the same exact result. That's science.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9921114].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

It's not the "scientist" part that is most important. It's test results, measurements made. Large sampling. These things are harder to fudge in a chosen direction. Measurements have no bias, people do.

If you say "Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that the earth is 4.5 billion years old" it isn't nearly as convincing as "450 different archaeologists and geologists have taken rock core samples, and measured the decay in uranium into lead, at a universally uniform rate. And they all came to within 1% of each other,as to the age of the Earth." That would be convincing.

Or "Eating Kale cured cancer because my gerbil ate kale, and the cancer went into remission" is less convincing than. "856 people, age 45 to 52, with pancreatic cancer in it's final stages.... all had CAT scans of the tumor. They all had the same diet, and exercised the same. The only difference is, 428 of them ate one stalk of kale every day. Every 2 weeks, CAT scans were done, and at the end of 6 weeks...34% had no tumor, and 26% had a smaller tumor. 15 died during the test, of which 4 were the ones eating the kale"........

That would be a good scientific conversation.
Test results, from multiple, unassociated sources, on large numbers of test subjects. That's science. Measurements by 1,500 scientists in different countries, all saying the same exact result. That's science.

Even that all can be tricky. I can show you hundreds of studies on the safety of gmo's. For example there's this.

In sharp contrast to public skepticism about GMOs, 89% of scientists believe genetically modified foods are safe. That overwhelming consensus exceeds the percentage of scientists, 88%, who believe global warming is the result of human activity. However, the public appears far more suspicious of scientific claims about GMO safety than they do about the consensus on climate change. Scientific consensus on GMO safety stronger than for global warming | Genetic Literacy Project

By reading that someone would think that gmo's are proven safe by scientists preforming the same experiments and getting the same results. Now try to find a study over 90 days long that proves them right. Try to find one study on human consumption of gmo's that proves they are safe. Science has just recently discovered that we have bacteria in our guts that play a very active roll in extracting nutrients from our foods. Find one clinical trial on how Bt. engineered foods effect those bacteria.

There are no human clinical trials of genetically engineered foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that genetic material inserted into GE soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. Even after we stop eating GE foods, we may still have the GE proteins produced continuously inside us.Genetically Engineered Food Alters Our Digestive Systems! | The Alliance for Natural Health USA

Seems to me that it's a little early for scientists to claim gmo's are safe to eat when there's not any real unbiased research to confirm that.
Of course there's not even a mention of what growing them does to the environment and the effects growing them have on climate change.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9921236].message }}

Claude Whitacre

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Even that all can be tricky. I can show you hundreds of studies on the safety of gmo's. For example there's this.

In sharp contrast to public skepticism about GMOs, 89% of scientists believe genetically modified foods are safe. That overwhelming consensus exceeds the percentage of scientists, 88%, who believe global warming is the result of human activity

That isn't science. It isn't a convincing argument to me. 89% of scientists can easily be wrong.
Now, if it was 89% of scientists who have tested GMO foods on large numbers of test subjects, over a long period of time...that would be different.

And remember, scientists are still human. They have strong political and religious views, just like all of us. So if a physicist tells me that he's convinced that GMOs are safe, it doesn't mean anything to me. It isn't his field of expertise, and he's only one guy.
But test results are immune to bias. Immune to politics. And that's why I trust them. And the more comprehensive, the better.

But he could convince me....all by himself..... if his logic as good enough, and the opinions and unsupported biases were kept to a minimum. And then, I would do research to make sure I wasn't making a mistake.

If a person has a real grasp of a scientific idea, hard critical questions should be welcome. Demands for proof, should be welcome. And a willingness to change their beloved world view, in a minute...is the mark of a real scientist.

On the other hand, it would take serious test results for me to accept the GMOs are harmful. No anecdotal stories, no surveys..... real comprehensive test results..... over a long period of time.

And, truth be told, I'm not interested enough to put forth the needed effort to become genuinely knowledgeable.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9921297].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

That isn't science. It isn't a convincing argument to me. 89% of scientists can easily be wrong.
Now, if it was 89% of scientists who have tested GMO foods on large numbers of test subjects, over a long period of time...that would be different.

And remember, scientists are still human. They have strong political and religious views, just like all of us. So if a physicist tells me that he's convinced that GMOs are safe, it doesn't mean anything to me. It isn't his field of expertise, and he's only one guy.
But test results are immune to bias. Immune to politics. And that's why I trust them. And the more comprehensive, the better.

But he could convince me....all by himself..... if his logic as good enough, and the opinions and unsupported biases were kept to a minimum. And then, I would do research to make sure I wasn't making a mistake.

If a person has a real grasp of a scientific idea, hard critical questions should be welcome. Demands for proof, should be welcome. And a willingness to change their beloved world view, in a minute...is the mark of a real scientist.

On the other hand, it would take serious test results for me to accept the GMOs are harmful. No anecdotal stories, no surveys..... real comprehensive test results..... over a long period of time.

And, truth be told, I'm not interested enough to put forth the needed effort to become genuinely knowledgeable.

For people (not scientist) all they need to hear is that a large consensus of scientists agree, they're not interested in doing the research themselves and in most cases can't or won't.

On the other hand, it would take serious test results for me to accept the GMOs are harmful. No anecdotal stories, no surveys..... real comprehensive test results..... over a long period of time.

Which would be fine if they weren't already in our food system. So what should we do continue to allow them in our foods until non biased scientists spend a long period of time testing them? Should we continue eating them because the long term tests haven't been done yet proving they are harmful? Should we continue to grow them in large amounts even with the evidence of them being harmful to the environment just because the studies aren't there on the impact they have on our health? Does it matter that growing them has a negative impact on the climate or is it just fossil fuels we should be concerned about because they're the political hot button of the day?
That's the problem I see with most scientist and people in general.
With gmo's they will look at one thing like human health and ignore the environment impact. With climate change they look at fossil fuels and ignore the other things that we do that effect the climate or that could be done to absorbe the carbon and contaminates from fossil fuels.
I'll be honest here Claude, I am less concerned about what mankind does to itself then I am over what we do to the environment including the climate. I'm flat out disgusted with the way climate change has turned into a political issue.
Sorry I went a little off topic there. Despite what some people here think (because I don't agree with their politics) I'm very passionate about the environment and about changing mankind's contributions to it from a negative into a positive.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9921366].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

But people will still buy into what they say simply because they call themselves scientist.
There's more to it then just looking into the science, there is also looking into how that science is applied. Like I said before genetic engineering is fascinating and has many useful applications. But that doesn't mean all of the ways it's applied are useful or good.

Of course they do, that why we have alternative medicine

I agree with the rest.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9921352].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Of course they do, that why we have alternative medicine

I agree with the rest.

Considering that we had natural remedies long before those produced in a lab and also considering that many of those produced in a lab are based on natural remedies, shouldn't that new stuff be called alternative and the natural stuff traditional?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922778].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Considering that we had natural remedies long before those produced in a lab and also considering that many of those produced in a lab are based on natural remedies, shouldn't that new stuff be called alternative and the natural stuff traditional?

No, because eating a plant 99/100 will do nothing to you in terms of curing a disease, they are more like garnish on a dinner more then medicine!!

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922823].message }}

BigFrank Banned 9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

No, because eating a plant 99/100 will do nothing to you in terms of curing a disease, they are more like garnish on a dinner more then medicine!!

Nominated for 'OT Post of the Year.'

Cheers. - Frank
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922828].message }}
- butters 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by BigFrank
  
  Nominated for 'OT Post of the Year.'
  
  Cheers. - Frank
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922831].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

No, because eating a plant 99/100 will do nothing to you in terms of curing a disease, they are more like garnish on a dinner more then medicine!!

Well you either eat for your health or go to the doctors for your sickness, or are you one of those who thinks nutrition doesn't matter.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922847].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Well you either eat for your health or go to the doctors for your sickness, or are you one of those who thinks nutrition doesn't matter.

Nutrition may be important but let's face it, it isn't curing diseases, yes it plays a role in managing them like diabetes or atherosclerosis. Shockingly healthy people get sick!! Nutrition is only a small factor in a huge amount of diseases!

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922861].message }}

discrat

9 years ago

I have to agree nutrtion is important but a person who gets cancer or blood diseases it doesn't matter if they eat this plant or that plant.

Just because you wish that something is true doesn't mean it is.

I would love to think if I ate all this organic stuff here and there that I would get an automatic clean bill of health .And that it would kill cancer ridden bodies

But I would also like to believe that there is a Santa Clause. But the fact is there is not !

However, I do think that exercising on a regular basis has a DIRECT impact in the amount of years you live. This has been proven time and time again.

But eating food is not easily measured in these terms Sure, heart disease, diabetes etc.. can be attributed to what you eat

But I am talking about Cancer and other related maladies. There is just NO hard evidence that if you eat that richly green high anti oxidant food your Cancer is going to go away.

O sure wish that to be the case

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922887].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

I have to agree nutrtion is important but a person who gets cancer or blood diseases it didn't matter if they ate this plant or that plant.

Just becuase you wish that something is true doesn't mean it is.

I would love to think if I ate all this orgsanic stuff here and there that I would get an automatic clean bill of health.

However, I do think that exercising on a regular baiss has a DIRECT impact in the amount of years you live. This has been proven time and time again.

But eating food is not easily measured in these terms Sure, heart disease, diabetes etc..

But I am talking about Cancer and other related maladies

You have just opened the can of worms by state specific diseases

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922889].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Nutrition may be important but let's face it, it isn't curing diseases, yes it plays a role in managing them like diabetes or atherosclerosis. Shockingly healthy people get sick!! Nutrition is only a small factor in a huge amount of diseases!

These findings suggest little overall benefit of the antioxidants in pill form. On the other hand, many studies show that people who consume higher levels of these antioxidants in food have a lower risk of many diseases.Vitamins & Minerals: Are You Getting What You Need?

It may not cure diseases (debatable) but it is important in preventing disease.
Saying nutrition is a small factor is flat out wrong. Nutrition plays a huge role in helping your body prevent and combat disease.
Why Is It Important? - President's Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition

A balanced diet is one that gives your body the nutrition it needs to function properly. In order to get truly balanced nutrition, you should obtain the majority of your daily calories from fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins. Balanced Diet: Overview, Importance & Requirements

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922890].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

It may not cure diseases (debatable) but it is important in preventing disease.
Saying nutrition is a small factor is flat out wrong. Nutrition plays a huge role in helping your body prevent and combat disease.
Why Is It Important? - President's Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition

I'm not taking away the importance of being healthy in the slightest, yes it does give your body a better chance in fighting disease etc... But... Let's take diseases such as ones based around genetixs (cancer etc...), they are caused by random mutations, out side the realm of nutrition. I'm not saying it isn't important or that it may help with the bodies physical state, I am saying it isn't curing many diseases.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9922897].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

I'm not taking away the importance of being healthy in the slightest, yes it does give your body a better chance in fighting disease etc... But... Let's take diseases such as ones based around genetixs (cancer etc...), they are caused by random mutations, out side the realm of nutrition. I'm not saying it isn't important or that it may help with the bodies physical state, I am saying it isn't curing many diseases.

What I'm getting at is it will help prevent some diseases, not all just some. In the grand scheme of things that's a good thing.
Sure with some diseases like cancer I think at best some foods may help lower your risk a little but I certainly wouldn't say they would prevent it.
I knew a guy a few years ago who was flat out anal about everything going into his body being organic and healthy. To look at him he was the poster boy for a healthy human being. But he still got prostrate cancer and died from it.
Treatments from modern day medicine doesn't always work and in some cases does nothing more then treat the symptoms. Eating healthy foods can help you avoid some of that.
Here's why I always laugh when people knock "natural" remedies.

Times have changed, but more than half of the world's population still relies entirely on plants for medicines, and plants supply the active ingredients of most traditional medical products. Plants have also served as the starting point for countless drugs on the market today. Researchers generally agree that natural products from plants and other organisms have been the most consistently successful source for ideas for new drugs, since nature is a master chemist. Drug discovery scientists often refer to these ideas as "leads," and chemicals that have desirable properties in lab tests are called lead compounds.Chapter 3: Drugs From Nature, Then and Now - Medicines By Design - Science Education - National Institute of General Medical Sciences

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923179].message }}

discrat

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I knew a guy a few years ago who was flat out anal about everything going into his body being organic and healthy. To look at him he was the poster boy for a healthy human being. But he still got prostrate cancer and died from it.

Thom,
Like you say, I think it is all about putting the probabilities in your favor. This guy ate great , lived great so if he didn't do this stuff he may have had a 20% more probability of getting Cancer.And maybe he would have gotten the Cancer at much earlier age.

By happenstance,he did get it.

But for many others who adopted his lifestyle they may have stacked the odds in their favor and NOT gotten cancer because of it.

Its all about numbers. So eating healthy is IMPT.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923221].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Thom,
Like you say, I think it is all about putting the probabilities in your favor. This guy ate great , lived great so if he didn't do this stuff he may have had a 20% more probability of getting Cancer.And maybe he would have gotten the Cancer at much earlier age.

By happenstance,he did get it.

But for many others who adopted his lifestyle they may have stacked the odds in their favor and NOT gotten cancer because of it.

Its all about numbers. So eating healthy is IMPT.

Plus there are other things that you may not have control of that can determine if you will get a disease or not. Environmental factors for one.
I've used natural remedies before that have worked great for me and not for others.
Arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis have been issues I dealt with for years. About 5 years ago The R.A. in my thumbs got so bad that I couldn't use my thumbs to do anything. To pick up a coffee cup I had to cup it in both hands. I started drinking apple cider vinegar in water with honey and it went away. I still drink the acv daily and the arthritis hasn't come back in my thumbs or anywhere else except in my left knee which is missing parts.
When my back acted up around 3 years ago (I had degenerative disk disease and spinal stenosis) Digesting 4 ounces of coconut oil daily did the trick and had me pain free in a couple of weeks. Turns out coconut oil enables your bones to easily absorbe the minerals they need to build bone strength. I also do a daily dose of coconut oil as an Alzheimer preventative because that disease seems to run in my family.
Naturally I try to keep my diet as healthy as possible, but I do have my weaknesses. You have to maintain a healthy diet (and lifestyle) so the body has the tools it needs to make the other stuff work. I'm not perfect at it by a long shot, but I also take responsibility for what I put in me.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923415].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

What I'm getting at is it will help prevent some diseases, not all just some. In the grand scheme of things that's a good thing.
Sure with some diseases like cancer I think at best some foods may help lower your risk a little but I certainly wouldn't say they would prevent it.
I knew a guy a few years ago who was flat out anal about everything going into his body being organic and healthy. To look at him he was the poster boy for a healthy human being. But he still got prostrate cancer and died from it.
Treatments from modern day medicine doesn't always work and in some cases does nothing more then treat the symptoms. Eating healthy foods can help you avoid some of that.
Here's why I always laugh when people knock "natural" remedies.

Sure, I don't disagree that nutrition is key and can improve patient state of mind which clearly plays a role in efficacy of treatment. That being said, when i say natural remedies I don't consider a good diet being one of them, you could easily argue that it is im sure. When I preceive natural remedies I assume things like turmeric tablets etc... That's what I class natural remedies

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923433].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Sure, I don't disagree that nutrition is key and can improve patient state of mind which clearly plays a role in efficacy of treatment. That being said, when i say natural remedies I don't consider a good diet being one of them, you could easily argue that it is im sure. When I preceive natural remedies I assume things like turmeric tablets etc... That's what I class natural remedies

Like the article I linked to already said.

Researchers generally agree that natural products from plants and other organisms have been the most consistently successful source for ideas for new drugs, since nature is a master chemist

I'm not saying that every natural remedy tried works, but how can you dismiss they all by saying natural remedies don't work when they have been the most consistent source for ideas for new drugs? If chewing willow bark didn't stop headaches do you think scientists would of looked for the compounds in it that gave us aspirin? Would they consider nature the master chemist if none of them worked?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923490].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Like the article I linked to already said.
I'm not saying that every natural remedy tried works, but how can you dismiss they all by saying natural remedies don't work when they have been the most consistent source for ideas for new drugs? If chewing willow bark didn't stop headaches do you think scientists would of looked for the compounds in it that gave us aspirin? Would they consider nature the master chemist if none of them worked?

Ideas being the key word... As I said earlier, eating a plant will do diddly squat to help you fight an infection etc... It's when a specific compound is extracted, modified, replicated into a larger dose, that's when you get a drug which works. I'm not saying that natural products don't work, heck, there are massive amounts of drugs based off specific compounds in nature. Please don't think I am saying that at all. What I am saying is that they need to be modified and refinded before they show any benefits!

This debate is getting split so many ways im losing it

it started on nutrition!!

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923511].message }}

Claude Whitacre 9 years ago

I just came across this

"One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions." ...... Wernher von Braun
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923533].message }}
- Cali16 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre
  
  I just came across this
  
  "One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions." ...... Wernher von Braun
  
  Revised version:
  
  "One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions - and several million non-expert opinions"....
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923588].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Ideas being the key word... As I said earlier, eating a plant will do diddly squat to help you fight an infection etc... It's when a specific compound is extracted, modified, replicated into a larger dose, that's when you get a drug which works. I'm not saying that natural products don't work, heck, there are massive amounts of drugs based off specific compounds in nature. Please don't think I am saying that at all. What I am saying is that they need to be modified and refunded before they show any benefits!

This debate is getting split so many ways im losing it

it started on nutrition!!

If that was the case scientists wouldn't have investigated the plant in the first place. What science does is study these plants, etc. to discover what compounds are in them that work. If they don't work in the plant form they aren't going to spend much time trying to make something that doesn't already work, work.
I'm sure you already understand that science is primarily about discovering how things in nature and the universe work, right?

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[2]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe.

In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So if something like Willow bark didn't work for headaches do you think scientists would of still investigated it? No they would not. Science may make the compounds stronger, but they do that because they already worked in their natural form.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923543].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

If that was the case scientists wouldn't have investigated the plant in the first place. What science does is study these plants, etc. to discover what compounds are in them that work. If they don't work in the plant form they aren't going to spend much time trying to make something that doesn't already work, work.
I'm sure you already understand that science is primarily about discovering how things in nature and the universe work, right?
So if something like Willow bark didn't work for headaches do you think scientists would of still investigated it? No they would not. Science may make the compounds stronger, but they do that because they already worked in their natural form.

I feel like we are going around in circles here...

I've already said that scientists take the natural things and modify them... I've also said this... Because a natural things showed signs of working in a lab, it doesn't mean that eating it will have the same effect... Take turmeric for an example, it's main compound is curcumin, it shows positive signs against a magnitude of diseases. That being said, if you eat it, it has poor bioavailability, relatively insoluae in aqueous solution and poor half life... Three MAJOR things which prevent it from being what it can potentially do. People sell curcumin tables and claim it does all this amazing stuff, in reality the mechanism of delivery is highly flawed. Now what scientists will look to do is increase its bioavailability so the body can up take it correctly and efficiently. Or they will infuse it with other immunitherapies to combat what ever.

Yes nature provides the blue print, that blue print is then highly modified, tinkered with, altered and everything under the sun before it becomes a drug.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923565].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

I feel like we are going around in circles here...

I've already said that scientists take the natural things and modify them... I've also said this... Because a natural things showed signs of working in a lab, it doesn't mean that eating it will have the same effect... Take turmeric for an example, it's main compound is curcumin, it shows positive signs against a magnitude of diseases. That being said, if you eat it, it has poor bioavailability, relatively insoluae in aqueous solution and poor half life... Three MAJOR things which prevent it from being what it can potentially do. People sell curcumin tables and claim it does all this amazing stuff, in reality the mechanism of delivery is highly flawed. Now what scientists will look to do is increase its bioavailability so the body can up take it correctly and efficiently. Or they will infuse it with other immunitherapies to combat what ever.

Yes nature provides the blue print, that blue print is then highly modified, tinkered with, altered and everything under the sun before it becomes a drug.

The reason scientist look into them in a lab in the first place is because they worked in their natural state. Sure they can tinker with them and alter them to make them better, but if they didn't work in the first place why would they?
That's where we seem to be going in circles. You are implying the stuff doesn't work until scientist alter it. But scientists wouldn't be altering it or even investigating it if it didn't already work to some extent in it's natural form.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923587].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

The reason scientist look into them in a lab in the first place is because they worked in their natural state. Sure they can tinker with them and alter them to make them better, but if they didn't work in the first place why would they?
That's where we seem to be going in circles.

Yes I was just about to post this. He is confusing studies done BEFORE a substance is made into a medicine with the results of the medicine itself, Some herbs for example have such real medicinal affects that you are cautioned not to use them with other drugs (eg blood thinners and blood pressure meds).

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923612].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

The reason scientist look into them in a lab in the first place is because they worked in their natural state. Sure they can tinker with them and alter them to make them better, but if they didn't work in the first place why would they?
That's where we seem to be going in circles. You are implying the stuff doesn't work until scientist alter it. But scientists wouldn't be altering it or even investigating it if it didn't already work to some extent in it's natural form.

Don't even see why we are debating it, I kinda think we are kinda saying the same thing, there may be a little discrepancy in the middle but I'll agree that I can live with that and move on :p.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923614].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Don't even see why we are debating it, I kinda think we are kinda saying the same thing, there may be a little discrepancy in the middle but I'll agree that I can live with that and move on :p.

Because we're both either a little bored or trying to avoid doing something else?

I think we're both pretty much on the same page, just reading it from different angles.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923634].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Because we're both either a little bored or trying to avoid doing something else?

I think we're both pretty much on the same page, just reading it from different angles.

I'm watching the walking dead :p so yeah probably that!

Yeah I think that to, I'm gonna look into nutrition more and diet while watching it!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923644].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

I'm watching the walking dead :p so yeah probably that!

Yeah I think that to, I'm gonna look into nutrition more and diet while watching it!

I'm trying to clean my cloning equipment (most boring job in existence). I want to do a little experiment this spring on cloning blueberry bushes. I normally would do woody plants in a misting table with a rooting hormone compound. This spring I'm going to try using my aeroponic cloning containers using the rooting hormone in one and a willow solution in the other.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923678].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

I'm trying to clean my cloning equipment (most boring job in existence). I want to do a little experiment this spring on cloning blueberry bushes. I normally would do woody plants in a misting table with a rooting hormone compound. This spring I'm going to try using my aeroponic cloning containers using the rooting hormone in one and a willow solution in the other.

I started reading thinking what, please don't make two of you

sounds quite cool, do you plan on writing up the results?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923683].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

I started reading thinking what, please don't make two of you

sounds quite cool, do you plan on writing up the results?

As any woman that has lived with me will attest, one of me is already to many, and I don't mean that in a good way

I probably won't write anything up. I will naturally be taking notes throughout though. I do know a few people that work or own nurseries that I'll probably tell the results to.
I mostly do these types of experiments for my enjoyment and to test out either new ideas I have or to test out different things I've read.
In the area of plant reproduction, I'd love to build a small clean room so I could get back into doing tissue cultures.
Everything I grow or do I try to do as organically as possible, right down to the rooting gel.
I even built a couple of indoor beds to experiment with different organic fertilizing methods against synthetic chemical fertilizers.
The beds are 3x4 ft by 15 inches deep with a two inch layer of stone in the bottom for drainage. With the chemical fertilizer bed the soil would last 6 months before it accumulated so much salt it would kill the plants and that's with flushing the bed once a month. The bed with the organic fertilizers is up to 4 years with the same soil and still growing strong healthy plants.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923720].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

As any woman that has lived with me will attest, one of me is already to many, and I don't mean that in a good way

I probably won't write anything up. I will naturally be taking notes throughout though. I do know a few people that work or own nurseries that I'll probably tell the results to.
I mostly do these types of experiments for my enjoyment and to test out either new ideas I have or to test out different things I've read.
In the area of plant reproduction, I'd love to build a small clean room so I could get back into doing tissue cultures.
Everything I grow or do I try to do as organically as possible, right down to the rooting gel.
I even built a couple of indoor beds to experiment with different organic fertilizing methods against synthetic chemical fertilizers.
The beds are 3x4 ft by 15 inches deep with a two inch layer of stone in the bottom for drainage. With the chemical fertilizer bed the soil would last 6 months before it accumulated so much salt it would kill the plants and that's with flushing the bed once a month. The bed with the organic fertilizers is up to 4 years with the same soil and still growing strong healthy plants.

Sounds like you really love your plants, always hated plant biology myself

Ooo tissue culturing can be a pain in the ass, a couple of my friends are culturing cells right now and they keep dying! I much prefer culturing bacteria, much easier

!!

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923734].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Sounds like you really love your plants, always hated plant biology myself

Ooo tissue culturing can be a pain in the ass, a couple of my friends are culturing cells right now and they keep dying! I much prefer culturing bacteria, much easier

!!

Yeah I find plants and nature in general pretty interesting. Soils are fascinating to me also. If you dig up a shovel full of healthy soil the amount of life on it is staggering. Millions of bacteria, fungi, protozoa and that's not counting the worms and insects.To put it another way, there is more living organisms in a handful of soil then there are people living on this earth. They all work together to supply the plants with what they need to grow and produce. So when you grow organically the idea is to feed them and let them feed the plants.
Plants are real interesting also. Scientist are discovering that they could actually have emotions and sense and react to things like pain. Naturally it's not emotions as we have them.
It's already pretty much common knowledge that plants react to light and dark in different ways. Some plants will open and close there flowers according to light or dark. Some plants will even follow the path of the sun (Heliotropism).

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923767].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

.. Let's take diseases such as ones based around genetixs (cancer etc...), they are caused by random mutations, out side the realm of nutrition.

Thats not true.

Several ingredients in foods have been found to be highly protective against cancer. One of those foods is tomatoes. Resveratrol found in Red grapes is another ingredient. Agree with you on cure but once the discussion turns to prevention saying diet plays no or only a small role is terrible inaccurate.

The one point anti established medicine have on doctors is their close connection to pharmaceutical companies coming up through their medical training. I give them that fact. I am not in agreement with much after the nutrition issue

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923231].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Thats not true.

Several ingredients in foods have been found to be highly protective against cancer. One of those foods is tomatoes. Resveratrol found in Red grapes is another ingredient. Agree with you on cure but once the discussion turns to prevention saying diet plays no or only a small role is terrible inaccurate.

The one point anti established medicine have on doctors is their close connection to pharmaceutical companies coming up through their medical training. I give them that fact. I am not in agreement with much after the nutrition issue

Highly protective? Curious, why does a tomatoe protect against cancer? I agree that diet plays a role when you have the disease, sure, but it's liniting on prevention.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923449].message }}

MissTerraK

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Highly protective? Curious, why does a tomatoe protect against cancer? I agree that diet plays a role when you have the disease, sure, but it's liniting on prevention.

I thought we went over this before...

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

Recent research has uncovered new health benefits from various citrus flavonoids. Yes in the citrus itself, but they are actually found in the highest concentrations in the peel portion of the fruit. So the best way to get the most beneficial full effect of the antioxidant, free radical scavenger, anti-inflammatory, carbohydrate metabolism promoter, and immune system modulator is to eat a bit of the sourish flesh on the inside of the peel. Yes, the white part.

The most promising of these flavenoids is naringenin that is found in all citrus peels and in the tomato peel too. These studies have shown naringenin along with other citrus flavenoids can repair the damaged DNA that leads to cancer and other studies have discovered that this phytonutrient can also stimulate the liver to burn excess fat restoring obese mice to a normal weight.

That there pulpy white matter between the orange peel and the orange segments is medicine right there in your food so don't throw it away. Eat it and benefit from Mother Nature's offerings.

Terra

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923487].message }}

butters 9 years ago

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

I thought we went over this before...

Interesting, do you have a link to the journal article?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923493].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

Highly protective? Curious, why does a tomatoe protect against cancer?

Why be curious when they have this thing called Google?

As to the general role of nutrition in cancer prevention perhaps it will go down easy if you hear it from the doctors themselves

American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention

I agree that diet plays a role when you have the disease, sure, but it's liniting on prevention.

You have it back ways. I Think you are doing something valuable though. You are demonstrating that even the opponents of the anti established medical crowd can stick their head in the sand when they are ready.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923578].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Why be curious when they have this thing called Google?

I assumed she had a study where she got here information from? Instead of me hunting round all of Google I assumed that it may just be easier to ask for the study which is being referred to.

American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention

I feel like I'm going round in circles again... Once again, I said that nutrition has a limited impact on disease prevention. There are a whole range of other things to consider and I am not just limiting this to cancer. Environmental factors, genetic factors, epigenetic factors, immunological factors, viral factors and the lists goes on. Yes, being health helps but the impact nutrition has on the prevention is limited. It would be great if we could all sit here and be health and not get a disease, the reality is, that isn't the case.

You have it back ways. I Think you are doing something valuable though. You are demonstrating that even the opponents of the anti established medical crowd can stick their head in the sand when they are ready.

Interesting... Tell me where I have gone wrong with what I have said and I will clarify it for you and demonstrate my reasoning on the subject...

Edit: messed up my quoting so bad

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923605].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Originally Posted by butters

. It would be great if we could all sit here and be health and not get a disease, the reality is, that isn't the case.

Sorry but you are hopelessly confused. To say something is effective in prevention is not to claim no one will get a disease. Its saying you cut your risk. By that strained logic wearing a mask isn't effective at preventing air borne disease spread because wearing one doesn't mean you definitely won't catch the disease.

Tell me where I have gone wrong with what I have said and I will clarify it for you and demonstrate my reasoning on the subject...

Already have but like I said you have your head firmly placed in the sand. So much so that you have been shown a major medical body admitting diet is a significant factor in prevention of cancer and yet you are still trying to wave it off.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923643].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Sorry but you are hopelessly confused. To say something is effective in prevention is not to claim no one will get a disease. Its saying you cut your risk. By that strained logic wearing a mask isn't effective at preventing air borne disease spread because wearing one doesn't mean you definitely won't catch the disease.

Already have but like I said you have your head firmly placed in the sand. So much so that you have been shown a major medical body admitting diet is a significant factor in prevention of cancer and yet you are still trying to wave it off.

My head isn't in the sand, I'm reading further into it now, I may be wrong, I'll find out soon enough. Understand this, I am more then open to being proven wrong and if I am I'll happily accept it, I'll even admit it. Now I just got to find the studies which compare nutrition, over exercise, over tobacco and all them other factors then Ill know.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923648].message }}

Mike Anthony

9 years ago

Fair enough. To me its all a matter of balance. nutrition when its called for and medicine when its not. people go extreme on both sides. Learned a lot from my dad on herbs but his conspiracy theory against the medical establishment led to a ton load of medical problems when he decided to come off some of his high blood pressure meds (and VERY unwisely not monitor it either).

We tend to put too much faith in our positions and our gurus be they authors, herbalists or even scientists.The thing about truth is that it doesn't have a side or align with any group. It will jump back and forth as it pleases.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923670].message }}

butters

9 years ago

Mike, I am already seeing that diet is to generic when dealing with the term cancer... Certain cancers are induced by viruses such as hep c, HIV, aids etc... Then you got cancers that are predominately genetic based, then you got cancers where obesity is a contributing factor to cancer such as breat cancer. So here is my head out the sand for you, yes some cancers are effected by nutrition, some have a high effect, some small, some none... It all depends on what one you want to talk about.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9923672].message }}

Gallileo Weeps: The Death of Science

Trending Topics

Should i Index Author pages?

best high quality crypto traffic.

Some interesting stats about brand comms

Fixing a massive traffic drop after rebranding

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?