Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"Beware of Amateur Scientists"
Options
Comments
-
jackiebaron wrote: »Stupid statement.
Regret that now.
What I consider a CT is probably different to what you do. The whole David Icke/aliens on the moon or mars/chemtrails/elvis are all a bit outlandish and not to be taken seriously.
Goverments up to no good i would call just modern politics
My pet hate is the alternative medicine vs big pharma thing on here. They are both industries run by shareholders. Just because something is natural doesn't make it good. As the article in the op says, the natural pesticides in plants are equally as toxic as the synthetic and in a higher conc. The pharma industry is extremely regulated wih only 1 in 5000 drugs making it from r&d to market so where the conspiracy? If they are bribing left right and centre they are not getting much in return. When they have been caught stepping out of line the fines have been massive. When St John Wort was taken off the market were any of the natural remedy companies fined for not testing their product before putting it on the market?0 -
Regret that now.
What I consider a CT is probably different to what you do. The whole David Icke/aliens on the moon or mars/chemtrails/elvis are all a bit outlandish and not to be taken seriously.
Very few threads on any of those topics from what I can see. Going to extremes to try and prove a point doesn't look too good.Goverments up to no good i would call just modern politics
I think this is the basis of your problems. For me, Governments up to no good is not acceptable on any level. They cover up/hide what their at but doesn't mean they should be allowed to do as they wish and any wrongdoing should be uncovered if possible.My pet hate is the alternative medicine vs big pharma thing on here. They are both industries run by shareholders. Just because something is natural doesn't make it good. As the article in the op says, the natural pesticides in plants are equally as toxic as the synthetic and in a higher conc. The pharma industry is extremely regulated wih only 1 in 5000 drugs making it from r&d to market so where the conspiracy? If they are bribing left right and centre they are not getting much in return. When they have been caught stepping out of line the fines have been massive. When St John Wort was taken off the market were any of the natural remedy companies fined for not testing their product before putting it on the market?
Their getting pleny of return. Lets look at the overall Big Pharma spend on lobbyists and then Johnson and Johnson.From Wiki:The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats.[1] According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying.[2] The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. [3]
That's some amount of brown envelopes.
J&J: Turnover: 62 Billion
R+D: 7 Billion
Net Profit: 12 Billion
Just one Pharma company getting plenty in return from conering the market and destroying competition i.e natural remedies etc.0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »the article was a bit Skewed alright
A bit???:)
Monsanto themselves couldn't have written a more skewed piece of garbage.
He's basically intoning that that all "amateur" criticism or enquiry is null and void unless you have a science degree. His side-swipes at his percieved media championing of the amateur opinion over "expert analysis" is a thinly veiled advocating of some form of censorship on these matters.
Oh yeah so these amateurs have to bow down before their learned masters unless they can satisfy the door policy for credentials before daring to utter any opinions or criticisms?
This scientific person then then puts forth the completely biased and one-sided views that GM food is so fantastic, it has virtually single-handedly saved mankind from starvation, and provided "food security"
Pass me the sick bag...0 -
The term amateur scientist in the original article refers to people spouting scientific information without actually having any sort of sciene education. How can you have strong opinions on something that you couldn't possible understand?
You are either a scientist or your not
Pure and utter tosh old chap.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
espinolman wrote: »Yes . Definitely . The way it used to be .
ah i remember when it was like this...get a dock leaf for a nettle sting etc etc.
some diseases/illnesses need solving by throwing fuk loads of money and research at them.while there is no doubt it involves making money for the people that do it,they have the resources and know how(and by know how i dont mean an internet connection;))to do it.As a whole we all benefit.
ignoring the financial side of things,we live longer,procreate longer because people/companies put cash up front to fix us.
We live in a first world country,who was the last person you knew that died of TB?Syphilis?Leprosy?
Even AIDS isnt the death sentence it was...
leave it to amatuers me hole.......0 -
Well, look at the medical advances for the last 150 years, and compare with the previous 200,000 years. Which system seems to work better?espinolman wrote: »Yes . Definitely . The way it used to be .
By the way, sorry to cross threads, but did you ever explain why nobody has ever discussed or even phographed the 'vitrified buildings' of the Aran Islands?0 -
Monty Burnz wrote: »Well, look at the medical advances for the last 150 years, and compare with the previous 200,000 years. Which system seems to work better?
Organic foods and herbs do work for cancer , what the conventional crowd do be at , does'nt , because so many people die , i know more than a few people who have died in their hands , whom had cancer
When i had cancer , i sorted it out with herbs and organic foods , of course the fffing EU is banning all that now , herbs and vitamins , because they want more people to die , what the codex thing is about , population reduction .
l0 -
[QUOTE=espinolman;73215097]Organic foods and herbs do work for cancer , what the conventional crowd do be at , does'nt , because so many people die , i know more than a few people who have died in their hands , whom had cancer
When i had cancer , i sorted it out with herbs and organic foods , of course the fffing EU is banning all that now , herbs and vitamins , because they want more people to die , what the codex thing is about , population reduction .
l[/QUOTE]
Sorry to be so predictable, but, source?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Care to explain how you figured it out and how you know it works?espinolman wrote: »The source is myself , i figured out how to sort cancer out years ago , before the internet was around .
Or are you selfishly hogging the cure for cancer like those evil corporations?0 -
Care to explain how you figured it out and how you know it works?
Or are you selfishly hogging the cure for cancer like those evil corporations?
In japan there was very little cancer and heart disease compared to other countries , so i figured out it must be because of their diet , so then i had to find out what is missing from our diet here in ireland . Its trace elements and minerals and other things . So i had to experiment with different foods , i was so ill that my stomach would not accept mineral rich foods , i could not stomach them , so to handle that i found out certain herbs can help to increase the absorbtion of the stomach , so i got a lot of them herbs and took them everyday , while eating mineral rich foods and organic foods .
I soon recovered my health .
Today , all these years later , i just do the same thing if the tumours come back , and it works , they just go away .0 -
espinolman wrote: »In japan there was very little cancer and heart disease compared to other countries , so i figured out it must be because of their diet , so then i had to find out what is missing from our diet here in ireland . Its trace elements and minerals and other things . So i had to experiment with different foods , i was so ill that my stomach would not accept mineral rich foods , i could not stomach them , so to handle that i found out certain herbs can help to increase the absorbtion of the stomach , so i got a lot of them herbs and took them everyday , while eating mineral rich foods and organic foods .
I soon recovered my health .
Today , all these years later , i just do the same thing if the tumours come back , and it works , they just go away .
And any chance you can back any of this up with anything resembling evidence?
Maybe name the herbs and the minerals you think are involved?
Because if you genuinely believe you've discovered the cure for cancer (regardless of whether or not it works in reality) then by not publishing you work and getting the information out there in as much detail as possible, then how are you any different to all those evil companies?0 -
Because if you genuinely believe you've discovered the cure for cancer (regardless of whether or not it works in reality) then by not publishing you work and getting the information out there in as much detail as possible, then how are you any different to all those evil companies?
Thats a very point there King Mob .0 -
espinolman wrote: »Thats a very point there King Mob .
So that's a no about actually backing up what you've claimed?
Why is that?0 -
espinolman wrote: »Yes . Definitely . The way it used to be .
When was it ever done for free? Would you work for free? Assuming you mean that the scientist worked for free how would they pay for the lab supplies and equipment and space? We are talking millions here where would this come from?
Give us an example of a scientist that worked for free without any support financially and what they achieved?0 -
espinolman wrote: »Organic foods and herbs do work for cancer , what the conventional crowd do be at , does'nt , because so many people die , i know more than a few people who have died in their hands , whom had cancer
When i had cancer , i sorted it out with herbs and organic foods , of course the fffing EU is banning all that now , herbs and vitamins , because they want more people to die , what the codex thing is about , population reduction .
l
Simple question, how? Diet is a risk factor in terms of developing cancer alright but to say it cures it is a big statement.
Why does it need to be organic? Whats the molecular target? What affect did it have on normal cell growth seeing as both normal and cancerous cells share pretty much the same cell biology?, this is where the difficulty lies when treating cancer.
The EU aren't banning vitamins or herbs, they just want proof of clinical benefits and safety before they go on sale. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Have to be careful with alternative medicines, anything could be present. Chinese remedies sometimes contain lead because it deposits in the eyes and gives a shiny appearance which is considered healthy in their culture.
Why would this bother the alternative medicine crowd, if it works they'll make a fortune even if it can't be patented , companies still make money from aspirin0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
The EU aren't banning vitamins or herbs, they just want proof of clinical benefits and safety before they go on sale.
Sorry jh79 need to get my oar in here again;)
IMO it's effectively a ban, because the cost of trials will be beyond small outlets. The fact these new laws demand clinical benefits is a ploy to me. With some of that toxic rubbish they're free to peddle? Feeding chemical rubbish to kids even (Ritalin etc). It's a ****ing disgrace.
Big Pharma is behind this 100% without a shadow of a doubt. They aim to eliminate competition pure and simple. The Eurocrats have fallen for it and/or been bought. Big Pharma CANNOT make money from herbs.
Herbal remedies have been around for millenia as am sure you know and this is condemning many to being criminals in the eyes of the law just because they choose herbs to ingest instead of paying the man for what they rightly or wrongly don't trust or want. Many of them locally grown.
The big 10 or so companies want all us sick folk to themselves. The more sickies the better for them. Typical corporate greed that's evident in the fact that they spend about twice as much on marketing and advertising than on research and development.
People should be free to choose how to medicate themselves should they not?Have to be careful with alternative medicines, anything could be present.
True, but it doesn't mean they should be effectively banned wholesale. Again, it's a persons right to choose.0 -
Sorry jh79 need to get my oar in here again;)
IMO it's effectively a ban, because the cost of trials will be beyond small outlets. The fact these new laws demand clinical benefits is a ploy to me. With some of that toxic rubbish they're free to peddle? Feeding chemical rubbish to kids even (Ritalin etc). It's a ****ing disgrace.
Big Pharma is behind this 100% without a shadow of a doubt. They aim to eliminate competition pure and simple. The Eurocrats have fallen for it and/or been bought. Big Pharma CANNOT make money from herbs.
Herbal remedies have been around for millenia as am sure you know and this is condemning many to being criminals in the eyes of the law just because they choose herbs to ingest instead of paying the man for what they rightly or wrongly don't trust or want. Many of them locally grown.
The big 10 or so companies want all us sick folk to themselves. The more sickies the better for them. Typical corporate greed that's evident in the fact that they spend about twice as much on marketing and advertising than on research and development.
People should be free to choose how to medicate themselves should they not?
True, but it doesn't mean they should be effectively banned wholesale. Again, it's a persons right to choose.
So can we take it that you similarly oppose restrictions placed on mainstream medicine, as people should be able to choose how to medicate themselves, regardless of safety or effectiveness?
If not, what distinguishes mainstream medicine from the good kind of medicine?0 -
So can we take it that you similarly oppose restrictions placed on mainstream medicine, as people should be able to choose how to medicate themselves, regardless of safety...
No you can not take it that i similarly oppose restrictions placed on mainstream medicine. Trials and tests should for me be even more stringent than they are currently due to the many known side effects that the vast majority of manufactured drugs have. I am of course not maintaining that all pharmaceuticals are "evil" as you like to phrase it sometimes.If not, what distinguishes mainstream medicine from the good kind of medicine?
What distinguishes mainstream medicine and herbal/alternative is not the crux of the matter. It's about personal choice. If something is proven to be harmful, then of course it should be banned. Again, may i remind you that i don't consider either good or bad as such in the context of the move towards limiting natural remedies and submitting them to trials for clinical benefits.0 -
So then what exactly is the issue with holding herbal medicine to the same standards as mainstream medicine?No you can not take it that i similarly oppose restrictions placed on mainstream medicine. Trials and tests should for me be even more stringent than they are currently due to the many known side effects that the vast majority of manufactured drugs have. I am of course not maintaining that all pharmaceuticals are "evil" as you like to phrase it sometimes.
What distinguishes mainstream medicine and herbal/alternative is not the crux of the matter. It's about personal choice. If something is proven to be harmful, then of course it should be banned. Again, may i remind you that i don't consider either good or bad as such in the context of the move towards limiting natural remedies and submitting them to trials for clinical benefits.
Should "not being able to afford it" be a valid excuse to bypass these standards?0 -
So then what exactly is the issue with holding herbal medicine to the same standards as mainstream medicine?
The issue for me would be that mainstream medicines manufactured chemical compositions are so complex that the standards and testing should be extremely high, higher than at present.
I take the point certainly that there should be some policing of the alternative sector. The thing that stands in it's favour is that these for the most part have been used relatively safely and for some sucessfuly for a far far longer time.
Now of course some herbs do have side-effects too and have been banned, but Chinese medicine for instance has been used by many millions. There are apparently masses of legitimate research and safety studies done already in Asian countries. For the most part, many would consider them far safer than convential medicines.Should "not being able to afford it" be a valid excuse to bypass these standards?
It all depends on the standards that will eventually come into force and how they'll be policed. If it's trials to ascertain clinical benefits as jh79 thinks will happen, then that for me is not right. The cost will be prohibitive for many smaller commodity herbs and choice will be denied.
If after an outcry, that just a more thorough approach is encouraged for the industry through as regards laballing, manufacturing, dosage etc, then would have no problem with that. They'll get it on the black market in the meantime. The alternative medicine industry is huge worldwide and will not be destroyed by this attempted corporate takeover i'd imagine.
So can you tell us do you approve of this yourself; the use of these clinical trials to test benefits before sale?
If so, why so?
Do you not approve of a persons right to choose a natural way to heal themselves with a herb that has been taken for thousands of years?0 -
So since you agree that safety testing in required and at the very very least should be as good as what you think conventional medicine undergoes, why do you oppose effectiveness testing?
Do you think that conventional medicine should similarly be excused from such testing, because of people's subjective opinions of safety and effectiveness and "the right to choose"?
Yes, because telling (or subtly imply to, but cleverly not saying) someone that something works when you can't actually show that it works is immoral.So can you tell us do you approve of this yourself; the use of these clinical trials to test benefits before sale?
If so, why so?
And you can't possibly be selling a medicine without claiming that on some level.
If you know another way for people and regulators to know whether something is effective or not, besides clinical trials, I'd love to hear it.
Well this small statement is choco-bloc of fallacies and newspeak.Do you not approve of a persons right to choose a natural way to heal themselves with a herb that has been taken for thousands of years?
First, if you're trying to frame this as a silly "right to choose" thing, then you have to apply the same arguments to conventional medicine. That is if you're being unbiased that is.
Second you're making the naturalistic fallacy. By pretending that herbs are somehow "more natural" and conventional medicine is "unnatural" is a non-argument.
By your own flawed logic, herbal medicine (i.e. preparing the herbs for consumption) itself must be "unnatural" because it's not seen in natural.
Third you're making the fallacy of tradition. Just because someone claims it's been around for thousands of years does not mean it actually works or has any merit.
Leeching for example.
It's both "natural" and had been used for thousands of years and it's even quite safe in most circumstances, but it clearly doesn't work for anything it was (and is still) claimed to.
Besides for bloodletting being used in a few very rare and specific diseases which the people who used leeching couldn't have known about, there's nothing value to leeching.
But by your argument people should be allowed to go get leeched, and for leechers to claim that leeching is effective because it's someone's personal choice.0 -
So since you agree that safety testing in required and at the very very least should be as good as what you think conventional medicine undergoes, why do you oppose effectiveness testing?
No i didn't agree that at all. Said nothing of the sort.Do you think that conventional medicine should similarly be excused from such testing, because of people's subjective opinions of safety and effectiveness and "the right to choose"?
I've already answered that above and stated a reason. No point in answering it twice.Well this small statement is choco-bloc of fallacies and newspeak.
First, if you're trying to frame this as a silly "right to choose" thing, then you have to apply the same arguments to conventional medicine. That is if you're being unbiased that is.
Of course apply it. People should have a right to choose either way. The right to choose is not silly. A herbal remedy should be available if it's safe, which the vast majority are known to be.Second you're making the naturalistic fallacy. By pretending that herbs are somehow "more natural" and conventional medicine is "unnatural" is a non-argument.
By your own flawed logic, herbal medicine (i.e. preparing the herbs for consumption) itself must be "unnatural" because it's not seen in natural.
Somehow more natural? Herbs ARE more natural and safer by-and-large than modern drugs so it's not a fallacy. It's a fact. Your logic is flawed not mine.Third you're making the fallacy of tradition. Just because someone claims it's been around for thousands of years does not mean it actually works or has any merit.
Leeching for example.
It's both "natural" and had been used for thousands of years and it's even quite safe in most circumstances, but it clearly doesn't work for anything it was (and is still) claimed to.
Besides for bloodletting being used in a few very rare and specific diseases which the people who used leeching couldn't have known about, there's nothing value to leeching.
But by your argument people should be allowed to go get leeched, and for leechers to claim that leeching is effective because it's someone's personal choice.
The fallacy of tradition or newspeak or whatever you call it was my remark that herbs have been used for thousands of years. In your rush observe all these fallacies and newspeak, you haven't answered the question, so do i take it you don't approve of a persons right to choose a natural way to heal themselves with a herb that has been taken for thousands of years unless they're clinically passed for benefits.0 -
So what you don't think that herbal medicine require testing to determine their effectiveness or safety?No i didn't agree that at all. Said nothing of the sort.
You really didn't.I've already answered that above and stated a reason. No point in answering it twice.
You explained a very very unreliable reason why they are excused from safety testing, but refused to explain why they should be excused from effectiveness testing, beyond of course the equally silly "it's too expensive" non-sense.
So as long as it's safe you can claim that the herb or drug can cure whatever you'd regardless of the evidence?Of course apply it. People should have a right to choose either way. The right to choose is not silly. A herbal remedy should be available if it's safe, which the vast majority are known to be.
When people are determining which to choose how are they to determine which stuff actually works without clinical trials?
It's a fallacy because the concept of "natural" is a nonsense buzz-word.Somehow more natural? Herbs ARE more natural and safer by-and-large than modern drugs so it's not a fallacy. It's a fact. Your logic is flawed not mine.
The herbs that do have an effect do so because of chemical and biological reactions, clinical drugs work in this exact same manor. They are simply more refined and controlled than the active substances in the herbs.
Natural doesn't mean something is better or safer. "Natural" childbirth (i.e. on the savanna where humans evolved) is a risky business. "Natural" water (i.e.un-purified) is full of filth and disease. Leeching is "natural".
In fact unless you're growing the herbs yourself in the manner in which they evolved, therefore not farmed or taken care of by fertilizers etc, then you eat the herb whole, it's not "natural".
it's a very well known fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy#Appeal_to_nature
And again, there's a ton of clearly nonsense treatments that have been claimed to be used for thousands of years, this has no impact on whether they are safe or effective.The fallacy of tradition or newspeak or whatever you call it was my remark that herbs have been used for thousands of years.
Hell trepanning is the oldest know medical procedure, therefore it must be a safe and effective treatment.... right?
I didn't answer the question because is was dishonestly phrased and contained fallacies which made the question irrelevant.In your rush observe all these fallacies and newspeak, you haven't answered the question, so do i take it you don't approve of a persons right to choose a natural way to heal themselves with a herb that has been taken for thousands of years unless they're clinically passed for benefits.
However, if the medicine has been tested to determine it was safe and the seller only made claims that were backed up by well controlled clinical trials, then there'd be no issue with anyone. Even if the medicine has been shown to not work and the seller is forthright about this, then there is no problem.
I do support the "right to choose" as long as there's adequate information to make an informed choice.
Relying on appeals to nature and tradition does not equate to informed.0 -
Sorry jh79 need to get my oar in here again;)
IMO it's effectively a ban, because the cost of trials will be beyond small outlets. The fact these new laws demand clinical benefits is a ploy to me. With some of that toxic rubbish they're free to peddle? Feeding chemical rubbish to kids even (Ritalin etc). It's a ****ing disgrace.
Big Pharma is behind this 100% without a shadow of a doubt. They aim to eliminate competition pure and simple. The Eurocrats have fallen for it and/or been bought. Big Pharma CANNOT make money from herbs.
Herbal remedies have been around for millenia as am sure you know and this is condemning many to being criminals in the eyes of the law just because they choose herbs to ingest instead of paying the man for what they rightly or wrongly don't trust or want. Many of them locally grown.
The big 10 or so companies want all us sick folk to themselves. The more sickies the better for them. Typical corporate greed that's evident in the fact that they spend about twice as much on marketing and advertising than on research and development.
People should be free to choose how to medicate themselves should they not?
True, but it doesn't mean they should be effectively banned wholesale. Again, it's a persons right to choose.
So you question everything that is part of mainstream medicine, but want the alternative companies to regulate themselves? I thought CT'er question everything? Ever cross your mind that they don't want this testing because they know their products will be shown to be useless in terms of acute illness and really are just something to be taken as part of a general healthy diet?
Is not just as bad for an alternative health practitioner to take money off a sick person when they have no evidence it will work as to give Ritalin to kids. How do you know Ritalin is toxic and at least its been tested for safety? Becasue its synthetic? Everything on this planet comes from the same elements so whether its natural or synthetic isn't important, you judge everything on its own merits. There are naturally occuring poisons too. Vitamin C is carcinogenic at high doses and its natural thats why we need regualtions. Herbs and the like are a big business and could absorb the cost pretty easily its the results of the trials they are worried about.
Chemistry of natural products is a big part of univeristy research in ireland and the rest of the world , france does alot on tropical diseases/plants as a by-prodcut of their colonial past. This is bad for the alt crowd because more and more of their old wives tale are proved to be false and that is why they don't want the regulations. Very hard to sell something when its been proved to have no clinical benefit.
As a CT'er do you not think that the people who benefit from the vitamin and herb industry might lobby agaisnt these trials for all the wrong reasons ie to protect their investment, why not put them under hte same scrutiny you do with big pharma? Boots admitted selling homeopathic remedies even though they knew they didn't work saying it was up to the consumer? But if something is in a chemist you naturally assume a level of quality / effectiveness?0 -
Advertisement
-
So you question everything that is part of mainstream medicine, but want the alternative companies to regulate themselves? I thought CT'er question everything? Ever cross your mind that they don't want this testing because they know their products will be shown to be useless in terms of acute illness and really are just something to be taken as part of a general healthy diet?
Is not just as bad for an alternative health practitioner to take money off a sick person when they have no evidence it will work as to give Ritalin to kids. How do you know Ritalin is toxic and at least its been tested for safety? Becasue its synthetic? Everything on this planet comes from the same elements so whether its natural or synthetic isn't important, you judge everything on its own merits. There are naturally occuring poisons too. Vitamin C is carcinogenic at high doses and its natural thats why we need regualtions. Herbs and the like are a big business and could absorb the cost pretty easily its the results of the trials they are worried about.
Chemistry of natural products is a big part of univeristy research in ireland and the rest of the world , france does alot on tropical diseases/plants as a by-prodcut of their colonial past. This is bad for the alt crowd because more and more of their old wives tale are proved to be false and that is why they don't want the regulations. Very hard to sell something when its been proved to have no clinical benefit.
As a CT'er do you not think that the people who benefit from the vitamin and herb industry might lobby agaisnt these trials for all the wrong reasons ie to protect their investment, why not put them under hte same scrutiny you do with big pharma? Boots admitted selling homeopathic remedies even though they knew they didn't work saying it was up to the consumer? But if something is in a chemist you naturally assume a level of quality / effectiveness?
I got to the second line of your post here and read "CTer". I won't be reading any more.0
Advertisement