Storm

They have been teasing us with the release date on this for something on the order of 12 months, but it's finally out. If you are not scientifically inclined or do not like harsh language you will probably not enjoy this.

Lots of truth to the video. Except when science has agenda, like the mentioned alternative medicines. Im not going to relate all the stories I have, but I know more then one person who is alive and well and healthy, that SIMPLE well established alternative meds saved their life when they were told they were on their death beds. There are other stories as well, like the guy in texas who started healing cancer, he was getting 80 percent remissions from TERMINAL patients. did science turn on a dime as this video suggested? No, he was brought up on charges... he now practices in mexico last I heard..... Theres a few other glaring examples I could come up with as well. One of them being various drugs for depression. some studies a few back found a few of the more common ones, are actually less effective then a sugar pill!!! yet have side effects. they are still in use. for many depression is a lack of b vitamins, or they need more sun.... thats what the science shows us, not everyone of course.... but acting like our current mainstream medicine is unbiased is much more then a joke. Its the farthest thing from it. Pure agenda....At the beginning of modern medicine they actually cured things, this hasnt happened in decades.... Is curing things good for market share? One has to wonder, especially one who has seen multiple alternative, cheaper things cure folks on their supposed death beds.....

The problem with anecdotes is that confirmation bias can step in to make it look like there is simple and strong support for a position when really and truly it was other unrelated factors that caused the effect. There are many treatments that are purported to improve health, but when you study them you find that either they save no one, or they kill with the disease just as many people as they save from the disease.

    Study them? We could be so lucky. If science was science we would, of course then theres the simple fact many of the studies come from folks trying to prove THEIR answer.

    I always find it funny when people stand up our current model of science as unbiased and completely knowledge based. you dont find what you don't look for or directly ignore. I have to wonder if such people know terribly much about the field. Of course theres always indoctrination.

    Heres an example for you... a friend of my moms was scoring 14 on a heavy metals test where 15 many he lost his job. He does something with welding I think. He went to several doctors and was told theres nothing he can do. My mom gave him a simple detox. consisting of herbs used for exactly that for 1000s of years. she had some to target each organ and region of the body. He got a 3 on the same test 2 weeks later. Impossible according to several doctors of his. So he thought theyd appreciate knowing there IS an answer. all of him assured him it was a fluke. mmmm  perhaps, but is that science or agenda when its dismissed on principle?

    Heres another story... another friend goes to florida, ate lots of shellfish, came home sick. He heads to the hospital. they do 50k in tests over a few days, and tell him theres nothing he can do. hes got 2 weeks at best to live. 50k in tests. So my mom takes a stool sample of his to a kennel owner friend of hers. Its LOADED with parasites, including some known to be in raw seafood. that cause all the issues he has.... she then tried to give him, oil of oregano. He wanted nothing to do with it, his wife had stolen the stool sample. he thought his wife and my mother were nuts. his faith in "science" was supreme. So his wife snuck oil of oregano into his food at lunch. BAM by super he was sitting up. the next day he walked out of the hospital, and was back to work. It was indeed parasites, which are indeed safelt removed by oil of oregano. His doctors who told him they couldnt do anything, and didnt even know what he had after 50k in tests, told him herbs are dangerous dont play with fire....

    I also know two who healed cancer entirely different ways. and a few other stories, in most of those cases the doctors told them herbs were dangerous, or similar things. That is hardly the only examples, but I know these people myself.

There are many treatments that are purported to improve health, but when you study them you find that either they save no one, or they kill with the disease just as many people as they save from the disease.

   
I agree with this sentiment entirely... to bad science has to many agendas, or wed not have this issue. and yes many in alternative medicine are no better as far as agenda goes, especially those marketing things. Many cases of that, although they are far outshadowed by the larger industries manipulations.

Its funny, all my freinds who focus on preventative medicines and good diets... are rarely sick. all my friends who the science has lead to think processed foods are fine,and the pills are always the answer... well those ones are sick all the time. a few times a year. when the first set of friends are sick, it usually lasts 3-4 days tops.... my other friends with compromised immune systems, they stay sick 2 weeks atleast every other year Id guess....

In general Id agre with the premises laid out in the video, but when agenda gets in the way, as it clearly has in many cases (weve got the most expensive medical in the world yet slide farther and farther down the health curve) then its not different then religion. It becomes rather dangerous actually. Like the anti depressants, many shown to not even work are still on the market. science or agenda?

I might have my wife respond to this when shes back from teaching.... she knows many more examples, that she could link the thread to.... Its rather clear theres agenda the deeper you look. Youd have to be deeply indoctrinated not to admit it past a certain critical mass of data sets. the info is out there. the data is coming in fast actually from many other countries as well where the agendas of those calling the shots cant always reach..... give it a half a generation or maybe a full one.... its becoming clearer for those looking by the year.....

Based on your reply I get the impression that you are not very familiar with the scientific litterature on the subject. Might I suggest a small stroll through pubmed?

 

    Oh I was relating personal stories. I could of went into documented mainstream stuff just as easily. My wife can much more completely though, so perhaps I can get her on here....

    Ive encountered dozens of things that show without a doubt an agenda to the so called science of medicine. If you havent then I can only assume its not something you study. That or it went against your beliefs so you dismissed it at face value.

  Science is about repeatable data. Like I said, youll see it in time, more proof coming out all the time. Peoples beliefs cant stand that onslaught of facts forever.....

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/28/the-depressing-news-about-antidepressants.html

heres a semi recent example. Its been long enough youd think the truth of it would of been realized by the field at large though right? I mean its science isnt it?

at the same time studies showing lack of b vitamins or sunlight is a key factor for a large chunk of the depressed.... hmmm to bad you cant bottle the sun, or patent vitamins... I guess wed have science if there was better profit margins in it....

SILVERSEEDS wrote:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/28/the-depressing-news-about-antidepressants.html

heres a semi recent example. Its been long enough youd think the truth of it would of been realized by the field at large though right? I mean its science isnt it?

at the same time studies showing lack of b vitamins or sunlight is a key factor for a large chunk of the depressed.... hmmm to bad you cant bottle the sun, or patent vitamins... I guess wed have science if there was better profit margins in it....

for those not wanting to read the article. heres the bullet points.

-10 years ago studies showed anti depressants do not work more then as a placebo for the vast bulk of patients.

-usage of these drugs doubled since these studies came out. (including with kids which were never tested)

- he drew criticism for having only included certain drugs in his original papers. so they got access to a wider range of data for a wider range of drugs, and found when you include un published data, the numbers showed the drugs to be even worse.

-some folks even questioned the validity of the studies he used to draw these conclusions, despite these being the very studies that got the drugs approved to begin with!!!

- one of the drug makers said that depression is very individualized, and the studies didnt account for this. which is true, he dealt in raw numbers. So they indeed might be working very well for some folks. that kinda sums it up right there doesnt it?

wheres the science here? for the population at large these things are sugar pills yet usage doubled since it came out we knew this. the industry knew it from the start, the FDA as well. yet they became legal. the ONLY thing the industry had to say was that for some folks the MIGHT work, these raw numbers dont show it....

So it been a decade... I assure you many doctors still ignore this entirely. they dont seek individualized answers that the science suggests. Its a triumph of marketing over science.

this is but a single issue. there are others. Like alternative cheaper cures, with less side effects for various things, many very safely. Yes we SHOULD study them, to fuller verify whats happening, we may find its placebo often enough as well.... but theres tons of examples if you dig. This was just among the more blatant ones, that has had lots of info come out about. in mainstream sources.

i wonder why this hasnt gotten mor MSM attention? you think it all that valuable commercial time from those same drugs? again is this agenda? or unquestionable science? science with agenda is not science.

SILVERSEEDS wrote:
the ONLY thing the industry had to say was that for some folks the MIGHT work, these raw numbers dont show it....

Some antidepressants do seem to work somewhat for some people, when nothing else they have tried has worked.  (anecdotal evidence from my own family and friends)

H Ludi Tyler wrote:
Some antidepressants do seem to work somewhat for some people, when nothing else they have tried has worked.  (anecdotal evidence from my own family and friends)

certainly possible, but thats down to individuals. they do not use them that way. for the bulk it is clear its a placebo effect.

be careful though, as it is dominantly the placebo effect at work for most people using them. and these things apparently can be rather habit forming.

Beats being perpetually curled into a fetal position, I reckon.

You are confusing the politics with the science. That's like using the fact that the Soviets and the Afhgan's both used AK-47's to argue that the AK-47 isn't a gun.

Emerson White wrote:
You are confusing the politics with the science. That's like using the fact that the Soviets and the Afhgan's both used AK-47's to argue that the AK-47 isn't a gun.

I questioned the videos premise that science is irrefutable by saying sometimes it has an agenda.

you questioned whether i knew what i was talking about at all. so I gave a clear example when agenda trumped science that anyone can verify.

how does that relate to this strange example of yours? your literally ignoring solid facts, i showed you it does and can have agenda. which makes it not even be science. Unless your point is science is science, except were we can see agendas?

Where was that in the video?

H Ludi Tyler wrote:
Beats being perpetually curled into a fetal position, I reckon.

yeah great for your relative, but to bad for the vast bulk of everyone else who were lied to, more likely to kill themselves, and many of whom could of simply gotten more sun or b vitamins and other issues.

the stats speak for themselves. they just dont work for most people. am i saying that they dont work for anyone? not at all if someone thought they read that. though we dont have any actual conclusive proof to that effect, knda funny since the video mocked in proven alternative things...

Emerson White wrote:
Where was that in the video?

perhaps we watched a different video? I watched the one you linked here. then had a conversation with you about it.

http://podblack.com/2008/12/little-kitten-lyrics-to-tim-minchins-storm/ Take a look at the lyrics, can you quote me the line that you are talking about. I clearly misunderstood your position earlier, so now I'd like to go back and get clarification of said position.

Emerson White wrote:
http://podblack.com/2008/12/little-kitten-lyrics-to-tim-minchins-storm/ Take a look at the lyrics, can you quote me the line that you are talking about. I clearly misunderstood your position earlier, so now I'd like to go back and get clarification of said position.

Im not really into playing strange games. I made my point, you responded as if you understood me numerous times.... Science isnt science when it has agenda, and there are cases where its clear it does.

I either misunderstood you, or you changed your tune halfway through. It's not a game to ask you to clarify your point.

    It is when I made it clearly, and you reacted to it as if you understood me, over and over...

  i never changed my tune. I continued to back up the assertions I made in the first sentences of my post to this thread, and responded to what you wrote. every thing I said is still in the thread.

    Science isnt science when it has an agenda, though many still relate to it as science.

   

I was arguing against the assertion that not-science was as good as science. You seem to have been arguing against the position that science is infallable, we were arguing across purposes, but I don't see where anyone said that science was infallible.

Emerson White wrote:
I was arguing against the assertion that not-science was as good as science. You seem to have been arguing against the position that science is infallable, we were arguing across purposes, but I don't see where anyone said that science was infallible.

well i made the case it wasnt infallible,  you replied as if there wasnt backing to my claims, and of course ive got no proof, these were friends of my family. so i expanded into other facets of related topics, and you responded telling me I dont know what Im talking about. so I dug up info on one of the topics I had mentioned.

you answers to my posts seem strange in that context. you were making it clear you thought I was wrong, and yes I can read i know you never said science was infallible, but in this thread and another you sure seemed to imply it to the casual reader.

I agree totally science is better then not science. but in our current age not realizing that much science has extreme agenda is not to wise of a position. which is what I said from the first post. If you realize science often has agendas, why respond to me as you did? Im I to understand you didnt read my posts to the end but were responding to them? you seem well read, im guessing you came across as many instances of science with agenda as I have. Presuming you did i would of thought we agreed from the start???

fn brilliant!!!

One of the most cleverly brilliant pieces of BS I have ever watched/ listened to.