survey finds 49% of Americans believe in a medical conspiracy

An online survey found that 49% of Americans believe in at least one medical conspiracy theory from a choice of 6 with 18% believing at least 3!

So how many do you believe and do you think there is any genuine evidence to support these theories?

It's a zero for me.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/19/health-conspiracy-theories/6602775/

*Could a mod edit the title to say 49 % please.

degrassinoel

done

galljga1

Survey finds 49% of Americans are idiots.

degrassinoel

degrassinoel wrote: »

done

Thanks, could you fix my link too don't think it is working?

weisses

An online survey conducted which had roughly 675 people believe this CT and somehow that represents half of the US population ? rubbish survey


http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm CT1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327 This one we discussed earlier

weisses

weisses wrote: »

An online survey conducted which had roughly 675 people believe this CT and somehow that represents half of the US population ? rubbish survey


http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm CT1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327 This one we discussed earlier

Straight forward enough of the 6 would you be in agreement with any?

Don't take it so personal it is only meant to generate a bit of a discussion

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Straight forward enough of the 6 would you be in agreement with any?

Don't take it so personal it is only meant to generate a bit of a discussion

Ohh I dont take it personal I do however have my reservations with this survey

Specially because there are actual medical conspiracies out there

There is so much money and various interests involved in medicine it would be vey naive to think there are no conspiracies going on ...

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Ohh I dont take it personal I do however have my reservations with this survey

Specially because there are actual medical conspiracies out there

There is so much money and various interests involved in medicine it would be vey naive to think there are no conspiracies going on ...

But it is the 6 referenced CT's that make it interesting. Nobody should believe these yet they do.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But it is the 6 referenced CT's that make it interesting. Nobody should believe these yet they do.

I dont like the wording of the questions ... You know my stance on fluoride .. But even I don't believe this one.. same goes for GM

I wonder is there a hidden agenda with the wording of these questions

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I dont like the wording of the questions ... You know my stance on fluoride .. But even I don't believe this one.. same goes for GM

I wonder is there a hidden agenda with the wording of these questions

Well if there were reasonable theories it wouldn't be interesting that a high % believe in them.

What about cancer cures and the fda or vaccines? Would you subscribe to any of the 6?

Torakx

the Food and Drug Administration is keeping "natural cures for cancer and other diseases" away from the public because of "pressure from drug companies.

I think this has at least a grain of truth. It is fairly well known I believe that the drug corporations have been attempting to synthesize cannabinoids or THC to use for various treatments and have failed in many cases to effectively recreate the natural medicine.

I vaguely remember reading about one and that the test subjects experienced depression and similar negative effects.
Maybe they are making some headway, as it is slowly being legalized.

Now they have discovered in tests that cannabis can help corrupted cells die safely and has been shown to stoptumors growing and in some cases reduce them.
theyhave successfully injected it directly into brain tumors and observed the tumors reduce or ..whatever the word is for stagnate or stop growing.. Its late lol

I think this has been suspected for a long time and probably known for a long time. I mean people have been using it for epilepsy many years now... These incedibly rich corporations and governments are certainly not so ignorant that theycouldn't figure out what many people have known for years and maybe decades.

With regards to the rest of those theories I am either not taking a side or I lean in the direction of being cautious.
I remember seeing years ago a doctor thatwas interviewed whokept his mobile in his shirt pocket at his chest. He appeared tohave developed a tumor at that place and put it down to the phone.
I have a friend working with MRI who says that magnetic frequencies will not cause cells to be damaged.
It lines up the atoms polarizing them. But at the same time I don't believe that science has everything figured out yet either.
The MRI relies on hydrated cells IIRC. what if a person is very dehydrated? Just thought of that now though.
Again it's late and i haven't slept in a while, could be remembering the MRI stuff all wrong..

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-marijuana-as-the-new-herbalism-part-1-the-politics-of-weed-versus-science/

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-marijuana-as-the-new-herbalism-part-2-cannabis-does-not-cure-cancer/

Like all herbs it will never provide a cure in its natural state but will provide future customers to big pharma due to increased risks of cancer / psychosis .

A study on breast cancer found that the amount of cannabis needed to give a significant anti-proliferative effect was equivalent to smoking 1000 joints a day!

weisses

Interesting piece on Broccoli as a super food on Channel 4 ... suggested to him by his doctor and now his tumor is gone

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Interesting piece on Broccoli as a super food on Channel 4 ... suggested to him by his doctor and now his tumor is gone

Meant to watch it and then forget, turned it on just as they finished up on broccoli.

Was there any scientific evidence to support this mentioned on the show?

The naturopath was some chancer, 80 quid! How do people get taken in by such nonsense.

Torakx

What type of cancer was it?
I had an ulcer recently and juicing green cabbage made a massive difference, right from day one. It has a lot of glutamine apparently, which helps rebuild damaged tissue.
The regular medication for such a thing i think is medications to lower stomach acid (Nexium was what I was given years ago), which destroys the stomach and throat, known to cause cancer eventually.
I wonder if broccolli has the same effect.

weisses

It was prostate Cancer that kept returning

The compound of interest is sulforaphane. The doses required would exceed that found in broccoli but it does give possibilities for a supplement or synthetic alternative.

http://www.cancernetwork.com/prostate-cancer/asco-sulforaphane-prostate-cancer-found-worthy-further-investigation

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The compound of interest is sulforaphane. The doses required would exceed that found in broccoli but it does give possibilities for a supplement or synthetic alternative.

http://www.cancernetwork.com/prostate-cancer/asco-sulforaphane-prostate-cancer-found-worthy-further-investigation

He had Broccoli every day and the Tumor shrunk .. Other medication/treatment did only work for a while and then the tumor came back It was his specialist who suggested eating loads of Broccoli .... Seem to be beneficial

weisses

weisses wrote: »

He had Broccoli every day and the Tumor shrunk .. Other medication/treatment did only work for a while and then the tumor came back It was his specialist who suggested eating loads of Broccoli .... Seem to be beneficial

100% effective so!

Seriously though confirmation bias etc.

Did he continue with his normal treatment too?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

100% effective so!

Seriously though confirmation bias etc.

Did he continue with his normal treatment too?

Just watch the episode listen to the oncologist and form your opinion then

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Just watch the episode listen to the oncologist and form your opinion then

Will do, but it is anecdotal evidence right?There was no actual study?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Will do, but it is anecdotal evidence right?There was no actual study?

Ohh they need loads of research done to fully confirm this yes

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Ohh they need loads of research done to fully confirm this yes

Just watched it , years of radio and chemo followed by hormone based drugs and broccoli soup and the soup gets all the credit!

They finish the segment with a warning not to read too much into this!

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Just watched it , years of radio and chemo followed by hormone based drugs and broccoli soup and the soup gets all the credit!

They finish the segment with a warning not to read too much into this!

So the oncologist could have told him to get chicken soup instead ? ... Its a scam i tell you even the "professionals" are in on it

weisses

weisses wrote: »

So the oncologist could have told him to get chicken soup instead ? ... Its a scam i tell you even the "professionals" are in it

The patient suggested broccoli.

How can you tell it was the broccoli as opposed to the treatment regime already undertaken or the hormone based treatment he took at the same time as the broccoli?

Bottom line is it could just be a coincidence.

He also could of changed to a different brand of toothpaste around this time and this would be just as plausible an explanation.

The folly of this kind of reasoning was covered in one of the other thread about cancer cures i think. (Science Based Medicine )

These wacky treatments are always done out of desperation at the end of a grueling treatment regimes which by the time the patient decides to try something different the treatment has already worked . Now if they waited 6 months or more then it would be somewhat interesting.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

So the oncologist could have told him to get chicken soup instead ? ... Its a scam i tell you even the "professionals" are in on it

The oncologist said nothing controversial and they warned the viewer that this did not mean it cured cancer.

weisses

10 years ago he started chemo the 2 bursts of radio therapy but it kept coming back

the only thing he still used the Hormone therapy but Used by itself, hormone therapy won’t cure the cancer, but it can keep it under control, sometimes for several years.

And the ct scan showed the tumor to be gone

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The oncologist said nothing controversial and they warned the viewer that this did not mean it cured cancer.

of course he wouldn't ..World is full with disclaimers

weisses

weisses wrote: »

10 years ago he started chemo the 2 bursts of radio therapy but it kept coming back

the only thing he still used the Hormone therapy but Used by itself, hormone therapy won’t cure the cancer, but it can keep it under control, sometimes for several years.

And the ct scan showed the tumor to be gone

So prostate cancer is now cured?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So prostate cancer is now cured?

Tumor was gone with that patient ..as the CT showed

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Tumor was gone with that patient ..as the CT showed

100% success rate so!

On a more serious note the active compound is quite small for a naturally occurring chemical and it shouldn't be too difficult to produce a series of synthetic analogues that might lead to something useful.

seamus

To be fair, I can understand how the US public would be in general suspicious of healthcare providers given they're known for favouring profit over patient outcomes. Many groups within this industry in the US have been known to downplay or hide the results of some research in order to prevent a downturn in their own products.

This is likely to have a knock-on effect where some believe that they're deliberately hiding or misinforming the public about much larger health-related issues in the pursuit of profit.

The funny thing is the counter-balance side are just as bad. Those who deliberately overstate or falsify the effectiveness of "natural" remedies or "alternative" strategies, do so in order to generate profit for themselves.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, I can understand how the US public would be in general suspicious of healthcare providers given they're known for favouring profit over patient outcomes. Many groups within this industry in the US have been known to downplay or hide the results of some research in order to prevent a downturn in their own products.

This is likely to have a knock-on effect where some believe that they're deliberately hiding or misinforming the public about much larger health-related issues in the pursuit of profit.

The funny thing is the counter-balance side are just as bad. Those who deliberately overstate or falsify the effectiveness of "natural" remedies or "alternative" strategies, do so in order to generate profit for themselves.

But at least big pharma puts some effort into it, how people are taken in by the alt crowd i'll never understand.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But at least big pharma puts some effort into it, how people are taken in by the alt crowd i'll never understand.

effort in making huge profits ... you are quite right there

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

On a more serious note the active compound is quite small for a naturally occurring chemical and it shouldn't be too difficult to produce a series of synthetic analogues that might lead to something useful.

seems useful enough for that patient to me

It looks to me that anything that its not somehow syntheticy fabricated is rubbish to you ... as your posts indicate in almost every thread ... whats your real angle here JH? come on tell us

weisses

weisses wrote: »

effort in making huge profits ... you are quite right there

I meant when they mislead people it is understandable that people get taken in they hide flaws in studies well but the other crowd , well, there is no excuse.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I meant when they mislead people it is understandable that people get taken in they hide flaws in studies well

Like the fluoride studies from the past 4 decades ?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

seems useful enough for that patient to me

It looks to me that anything that its not somehow syntheticy fabricated is rubbish to you ... as your posts indicate in almost every thread ... whats your real angle here JH? come on tell us

I have studied in this area that's my "angle". History and research teaches us that herbs in their natural state are unlikely to be effective.

It is not an "angle" it is called an education.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Like the fluoride studies from the past 4 decades ?

The studies were fine integrity wise it was our interpretation of them that was the problem.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Like the fluoride studies from the past 4 decades ?

Here is another review form Cochrane this time on the much heralded antioxidants

http://www.cochrane.org/CD007176/LIVER_antioxidant-supplements-for-prevention-of-mortality-in-healthy-participants-and-patients-with-various-diseases

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The studies were fine integrity wise it was our interpretation of them that was the problem.

The interpretation of the people who based upon the studies decide fluoridation is beneficial or not you mean ?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I have studied in this area that's my "angle". History and research teaches us that herbs in their natural state are unlikely to be effective.

It is not an "angle" it is called an education.

Well clearly your education gave you that angle

weisses

weisses wrote: »

The interpretation of the people who based upon the studies decide fluoridation is beneficial or not you mean ?

Nobody was mislead is all i'm saying.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Well clearly your education gave you that angle

True but my angle towards herbs as medicine stands up to scrutiny yours doesn't.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Nobody was mislead is all i'm saying.

Informed incorrectly which resulted in policy being made based on flawed research

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

True but my angle towards herbs as medicine stands up to scrutiny yours doesn't.

Your angle in blind following the so called fluoride evidence states otherwise

And a lot of medicine come from herbs/plants but somehow the synthetic version for sale is the only proper one

enno99

“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.”

The above quote comes from Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1901-1994). He is considered one of the most important scientists in history. He is one of the founders of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, who was also a well known peace activist. He was invited to be in charge of the Chemistry division of the Manhattan Project, but refused. He has also done a lot of work on military applications, and has pretty much done and seen it all when it comes to the world of science. A quick Google search will suffice if you’d like to learn more about him.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/11/one-of-the-most-important-scientists-in-the-world-most-cancer-research-is-largely-a-fraud/


Seems the 49% have a few big hitters amongst their ranks

Overheal

less of the back and forth sniping

ScumLord

There is an argument there that big pharma companies could be withholding discoveries or medications that could help a lot of people. They are businesses and it is true they will look out for the best interests of the company and profit is the priority in any business.

The problem is there isn't just one pharma company, even if you did believe that the management of every pharma company were in league with each other so they could withhold treatments, it would be next to impossible to stop all these separate entities from competing with each other (even by accident), or stepping on each others toes, because they all exist in the same free market. It would be a nightmare to keep all these separate entities on a leash considering the thousands of educated professionals trying to fulfil their role as they've been trained and instructed to do. All these companies would have to have people sitting in offices and labs doing next to nothing to stop the companies from accidentally competing with each other.

Technology is also getting to the point that just about anyone can do their own experimenting. There are punk labs all over the us where people are doing amateur gene splicing. The genies out of the bottle in that regard, pharma companies aren't as mysterious or cutting edge as they used to be, our technology is leveling that playing field too. So pharma companies are not just competing with each other anymore, they're competing with anyone that takes the time to educate themselves. If they have some big fancy drugs in hiding they better get them to market rapidly or someone else will.