It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Science Bullsh*t? John Oliver Explains The Corruption Behind Scientific Studies

page: 7
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

No I mean fabricating lab results so your product doesn't loose money. The product being medicine or anything else.

Holy water?

That doesn't even make sense.

But yes at that point it's the same exact thing.


Snake oil is a substance promised to treat all maladies but having no medicinal properties at all. Like other substances people use religiously.




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: boomstick88
As scientist, i can absolutely assure you that all research had been performed for "somebodys" money, oh well there are always agenda.....in todays world there are no place for Copernicus, Bruno and Tesla.......untill its not profitable of coarse. If you see a science paper published something about anything, agenda pushing.
Thank you


you have to pay people to do science so they can afford to do science.

To the point where the dignity is itching in the sphincter area.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

You can be cute all you want. I am an atheist. If you want to get technical a pandeist but for the purposes of religion I am an atheist.

My wife is a research professor herself.

I m talking about actual massive issues in research.

You have guys like this and all the other links I gave saying pills and the research behind them is up to 50 percent inaccurate and up to one third fabricated.
ethicalnag.org...



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Not really concerned with what you are or what you call yourself. The whole debate is irrelevant because we are still riding a dust granule in a cosmic tornado that will eventually rip itself apart and disappear.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
It seemed as though you were saying the only arguement is religious. When in fact editors of say the NEJM and studies done by the fda are showing fabricated studies.

Which means your dr is reading BS about treatments and even diagnosis in the case of psychology that is pure fabrication.

In fact about a third of a chance.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
It seemed as though you were saying the only arguement is religious. When in fact editors of say the NEJM and studies done by the fda are showing fabricated studies.

Which means your dr is reading BS about treatments and even diagnosis in the case of psychology that is pure fabrication.

In fact about a third of a chance.


I can't speculate on those incidents. But there does seem to be a fairly extensive track record of successful patents and flourishing services where those agencies are concerned.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
There's nothing really wrong with the Scientific Method, just its application. I read recently (I believe it was on Slashdot.org) that a very large percentage of published scientific studies, most of which have gone through peer review, are completely invalid. They are wrong. This isn't a matter of funding sources skewing results. It's just wrong research. Why isn't it being caught? Mostly because no one is checking the studies, thus the crucial step of replicability is simply not being done. Of course, this begs the question of whether these studies are doing anything useful, including influencing public policy, or if they simply serve to add to cv's of the authors, but still, that's a pretty hefty percentage of what amounts to invalid research.

And here's another problem: I can't prove this to you because I'm too far away from it now (like 50 years far away), but in symbolic logic, the kind taught in philosophy departments, with "A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C" kind of stuff, which can be quite complex, you can take one route to prove "A" and another route to prove "not-A." When you replace "A" and "B" with statements, this means you can "prove" opposites. It's a serious problem because it means "logic" as a tool can manipulate the answers. When I pointed this out to my philosophy professor with a nice solid example he kind of grimaced and told me I wasn't being fair and that doing such a thing was frowned upon.

A third problem is the obvious one of fraud. It happens. "Scientists" sometimes cook the data. Usually it doesn't matter, but when public policy is involved, it can be devastating. A good example comes from my favorite, climate change. Surely you remember "Hide the decline." Perhaps you laughed at it or considered it irrelevant and unimportant, but "Hide the decline" is a giant example of intentional fraud. It was exposed in the Climategate emails years ago. The problem was an "inconvenient truth" in the data used to justify and "prove" global warming. It seems the data was not cooperating with the conclusions of global warming, so the scientists involved decided to hide the problem and SAID SO in their emails. They were caught red-handed.

Here's what happened: Scientists used several measures to show global warming was real. They graphed these methods in a "multi-variate" graph, one with several lines that showed warming in several ways. They used very accurate modern thermometers for many of the graph lines, and they showed a clear increase in temperature. Of course there were no thermometers thousands of years ago, so scientists were forced to use "proxies" for thermometers. One way to do this is to use tree ring data. As you know, rings are thick or thin and these equate to climate, sort of. Hot (or wet) climates give you thick rings. Cold (or dry) climates give you thin rings. Winter gives you thin; summer gives you thick. So, to find out the temperature thousands of years ago, you "core sample" (or cut down) some very old trees and measure the rings. This way they could plot temperature increases over thousands of years.

Unfortunately for their man-made global warming thesis, tree-ring data in modern times showed not an increase, but a DECREASE in temperatures. Because scientists had very accurate thermometers in recent times, it was obvious the tree ring data was inaccurate for modern temperatures. See the problem here? If tree ring data was false for modern temperatures, how could you use tree ring data as a proxy for ancient temperatures? If they are wrong today, wouldn't they also be wrong way back when?

If they put their graph out there with the tree ring line showing a decrease, they knew what would happen. Everyone would be asking, "Why is that one line going down when the others are all going up?" This was so inconvenient that they decided to "hide the decline" so they wouldn't have to explain it.

That, simply put, is scientific fraud. They cheated. they were caught cheating, yet the meme from our politicians is that we ought to prosecute people who point these kinds of things out. This is not a problem with the Scientific Method; it's a problem with the culture of science that puts tremendous pressure on scientists to achieve politically correct results.




edit on 6/16/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

They sure do sell well don't they.

It helps when you fake the results and patent entire research areas so people can't compete or in some cases get the material to reproduce your expirement and even test the results.

No my friend this is not just a natural news issue. This is science itself checking how well the method is being preserved and coming up short and getting worse.

Pharma is also a number one killer in the us as well as bringing the biggest drug epidemic since crack. It's funny how nobody questioned where all those pills were going.

Not much of a controlled substance.

It doesn't do science any good to pretend there aren' ethical issues as well as major research problems of corruption.

This is well past the few bad apples scenario.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
There's nothing really wrong with the Scientific Method, just its application. I read recently (I believe it was on Slashdot.org) that a very large percentage of published scientific studies, most of which have gone through peer review, are completely invalid. They are wrong. This isn't a matter of funding sources skewing results. It's just wrong research. Why isn't it being caught? Mostly because no one is checking the studies, thus the crucial step of replicability is simply not being done. Of course, this begs the question of whether these studies are doing anything useful, including influencing public policy, or if they simply serve to add to cv's of the authors, but still, that's a pretty hefty percentage of what amounts to invalid research.

And here's another problem: I can't prove this to you because I'm too far away from it now (like 50 years far away), but in symbolic logic, the kind taught in philosophy departments, with "A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C" kind of stuff, which can be quite complex, you can take one route to prove "A" and another route to prove "not-A." When you replace "A" and "B" with statements, this means you can "prove" opposites. It's a serious problem because it means "logic" as a tool can manipulate the answers. When I pointed this out to my philosophy professor with a nice solid example he kind of grimaced and told me I wasn't being fair and that doing such a thing was frowned upon.

A third problem is the obvious one of fraud. It happens. "Scientists" sometimes cook the data. Usually it doesn't matter, but when public policy is involved, it can be devastating. A good example comes from my favorite, climate change. Surely you remember "Hide the decline." Perhaps you laughed at it or considered it irrelevant and unimportant, but "Hide the decline" is a giant example of intentional fraud. It was exposed in the Climategate emails years ago. The problem was an "inconvenient truth" in the data used to justify and "prove" global warming. It seems the data was not cooperating with the conclusions of global warming, so the scientists involved decided to hide the problem and SAID SO in their emails. They were caught red-handed.

Here's what happened: Scientists used several measures to show global warming was real. They graphed these methods in a "multi-variate" graph, one with several lines that showed warming in several ways. They used very accurate modern thermometers for many of the graph lines, and they showed a clear increase in temperature. Of course there were no thermometers thousands of years ago, so scientists were forced to use "proxies" for thermometers. One way to do this is to use tree ring data. As you know, rings are thick or thin and these equate to climate, sort of. Hot (or wet) climates give you thick rings. Cold (or dry) climates give you thin rings. Winter gives you thin; summer gives you thick. So, to find out the temperature thousands of years ago, you "core sample" (or cut down) some very old trees and measure the rings. This way they could plot temperature increases over thousands of years.

Unfortunately for their man-made global warming thesis, tree-ring data in modern times showed not an increase, but a DECREASE in temperatures. Because scientists had very accurate thermometers in recent times, it was obvious the tree ring data was inaccurate for modern temperatures. See the problem here? If tree ring data was false for modern temperatures, how could you use tree ring data as a proxy for ancient temperatures? If they are wrong today, wouldn't they also be wrong way back when?

If they put their graph out there with the tree ring line showing a decrease, they knew what would happen. Everyone would be asking, "Why is that one line going down when the others are all going up?" This was so inconvenient that they decided to "hide the decline" so they wouldn't have to explain it.

That, simply put, is scientific fraud. They cheated. they were caught cheating, yet the meme from our politicians is that we ought to prosecute people who point these kinds of things out. This is not a problem with the Scientific Method; it's a problem with the culture of science that puts tremendous pressure on scientists to achieve politically correct results.

I'll add the graph if I can load it up.


How does that reflect on the studies that indicate there was no global flood, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the universe was born from a "big bang", that all species alive today are the product of modern evolutionary synthesis, that homosexuals are a natural phenomenon, that prayer is not a form of medicinal treatment, or that people who are dead for three days usually stay dead?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: schuyler
There's nothing really wrong with the Scientific Method, just its application. I read recently (I believe it was on Slashdot.org) that a very large percentage of published scientific studies, most of which have gone through peer review, are completely invalid. They are wrong. This isn't a matter of funding sources skewing results. It's just wrong research. Why isn't it being caught? Mostly because no one is checking the studies, thus the crucial step of replicability is simply not being done. Of course, this begs the question of whether these studies are doing anything useful, including influencing public policy, or if they simply serve to add to cv's of the authors, but still, that's a pretty hefty percentage of what amounts to invalid research.

And here's another problem: I can't prove this to you because I'm too far away from it now (like 50 years far away), but in symbolic logic, the kind taught in philosophy departments, with "A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C" kind of stuff, which can be quite complex, you can take one route to prove "A" and another route to prove "not-A." When you replace "A" and "B" with statements, this means you can "prove" opposites. It's a serious problem because it means "logic" as a tool can manipulate the answers. When I pointed this out to my philosophy professor with a nice solid example he kind of grimaced and told me I wasn't being fair and that doing such a thing was frowned upon.

A third problem is the obvious one of fraud. It happens. "Scientists" sometimes cook the data. Usually it doesn't matter, but when public policy is involved, it can be devastating. A good example comes from my favorite, climate change. Surely you remember "Hide the decline." Perhaps you laughed at it or considered it irrelevant and unimportant, but "Hide the decline" is a giant example of intentional fraud. It was exposed in the Climategate emails years ago. The problem was an "inconvenient truth" in the data used to justify and "prove" global warming. It seems the data was not cooperating with the conclusions of global warming, so the scientists involved decided to hide the problem and SAID SO in their emails. They were caught red-handed.

Here's what happened: Scientists used several measures to show global warming was real. They graphed these methods in a "multi-variate" graph, one with several lines that showed warming in several ways. They used very accurate modern thermometers for many of the graph lines, and they showed a clear increase in temperature. Of course there were no thermometers thousands of years ago, so scientists were forced to use "proxies" for thermometers. One way to do this is to use tree ring data. As you know, rings are thick or thin and these equate to climate, sort of. Hot (or wet) climates give you thick rings. Cold (or dry) climates give you thin rings. Winter gives you thin; summer gives you thick. So, to find out the temperature thousands of years ago, you "core sample" (or cut down) some very old trees and measure the rings. This way they could plot temperature increases over thousands of years.

Unfortunately for their man-made global warming thesis, tree-ring data in modern times showed not an increase, but a DECREASE in temperatures. Because scientists had very accurate thermometers in recent times, it was obvious the tree ring data was inaccurate for modern temperatures. See the problem here? If tree ring data was false for modern temperatures, how could you use tree ring data as a proxy for ancient temperatures? If they are wrong today, wouldn't they also be wrong way back when?

If they put their graph out there with the tree ring line showing a decrease, they knew what would happen. Everyone would be asking, "Why is that one line going down when the others are all going up?" This was so inconvenient that they decided to "hide the decline" so they wouldn't have to explain it.

That, simply put, is scientific fraud. They cheated. they were caught cheating, yet the meme from our politicians is that we ought to prosecute people who point these kinds of things out. This is not a problem with the Scientific Method; it's a problem with the culture of science that puts tremendous pressure on scientists to achieve politically correct results.

I'll add the graph if I can load it up.


How does that reflect on the studies that indicate there was no global flood, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the universe was born from a "big bang", that all species alive today are the product of modern evolutionary synthesis, that homosexuals are a natural phenomenon, that prayer is not a form of medicinal treatment, or that people who are dead for three days usually stay dead?


I have no idea what you mean here. There WAS a global flood. It wasn't "Biblical," but it happened about 12,000-14,000 years ago as the result of melting ice from the last glacial period which raised sea levels about 60 feet and is preserved in our mythology worldwide. "Science" doesn't like that idea any more than "science" approved of plate tectonics when it was first proposed. As far as I'm concerned, 4.5 billion years for the age of the Earth is about right. The Big Bang works for me. All species ARE the result of evolution. Homosexuals? Say what?? And prayer can work if you believe in it. Yup, people stay dead.

I never said ALL "studies" are invalid. I said that they are subject to the fallibility of researchers and are often wrong and subject to fraud, which is really important when it affects public policy, but otherwise merely irritating and self-serving. The Scientific Method itself is valid and it works. Statistics works. People, for various reasons both intentional and not, frequently screw it up. It makes no sense to reject the Scientific Method because it is frequently misused and it makes no sense to worship it as infallible when people who claim to use it have their own agendas.

So I don't get what you are trying to say here. Do you think you have proven something? Do we actually fundamentally disagree on something? I don't see it myself.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I would include medical science.

We are talking about fabricated clinical trials, fabricated diagnosis, fabricated treatment to a fabricated diagnosis etc.

When editors from the most respected medical journals are speaking out its a big problem.

For instance an example from a chief editor at the NEJM a fabricated study in early childhood bipolar disorder treatment. Not only was the powerful drug cocktail for treatment basically made up the diagnosis procedure was questionable. Yet 2 year olds started being diagnosed and treated by drs for bipolar disorder as directed by the studies and medical journals findings.


Science does persevere like I said thank atoms for the skeptics who comb over the data and try and reproduce results.

With the subversion techniques of big propaganda machines though it's a tough battle.
edit on 16-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: schuyler
There's nothing really wrong with the Scientific Method, just its application. I read recently (I believe it was on Slashdot.org) that a very large percentage of published scientific studies, most of which have gone through peer review, are completely invalid. They are wrong. This isn't a matter of funding sources skewing results. It's just wrong research. Why isn't it being caught? Mostly because no one is checking the studies, thus the crucial step of replicability is simply not being done. Of course, this begs the question of whether these studies are doing anything useful, including influencing public policy, or if they simply serve to add to cv's of the authors, but still, that's a pretty hefty percentage of what amounts to invalid research.

And here's another problem: I can't prove this to you because I'm too far away from it now (like 50 years far away), but in symbolic logic, the kind taught in philosophy departments, with "A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C" kind of stuff, which can be quite complex, you can take one route to prove "A" and another route to prove "not-A." When you replace "A" and "B" with statements, this means you can "prove" opposites. It's a serious problem because it means "logic" as a tool can manipulate the answers. When I pointed this out to my philosophy professor with a nice solid example he kind of grimaced and told me I wasn't being fair and that doing such a thing was frowned upon.

A third problem is the obvious one of fraud. It happens. "Scientists" sometimes cook the data. Usually it doesn't matter, but when public policy is involved, it can be devastating. A good example comes from my favorite, climate change. Surely you remember "Hide the decline." Perhaps you laughed at it or considered it irrelevant and unimportant, but "Hide the decline" is a giant example of intentional fraud. It was exposed in the Climategate emails years ago. The problem was an "inconvenient truth" in the data used to justify and "prove" global warming. It seems the data was not cooperating with the conclusions of global warming, so the scientists involved decided to hide the problem and SAID SO in their emails. They were caught red-handed.

Here's what happened: Scientists used several measures to show global warming was real. They graphed these methods in a "multi-variate" graph, one with several lines that showed warming in several ways. They used very accurate modern thermometers for many of the graph lines, and they showed a clear increase in temperature. Of course there were no thermometers thousands of years ago, so scientists were forced to use "proxies" for thermometers. One way to do this is to use tree ring data. As you know, rings are thick or thin and these equate to climate, sort of. Hot (or wet) climates give you thick rings. Cold (or dry) climates give you thin rings. Winter gives you thin; summer gives you thick. So, to find out the temperature thousands of years ago, you "core sample" (or cut down) some very old trees and measure the rings. This way they could plot temperature increases over thousands of years.

Unfortunately for their man-made global warming thesis, tree-ring data in modern times showed not an increase, but a DECREASE in temperatures. Because scientists had very accurate thermometers in recent times, it was obvious the tree ring data was inaccurate for modern temperatures. See the problem here? If tree ring data was false for modern temperatures, how could you use tree ring data as a proxy for ancient temperatures? If they are wrong today, wouldn't they also be wrong way back when?

If they put their graph out there with the tree ring line showing a decrease, they knew what would happen. Everyone would be asking, "Why is that one line going down when the others are all going up?" This was so inconvenient that they decided to "hide the decline" so they wouldn't have to explain it.

That, simply put, is scientific fraud. They cheated. they were caught cheating, yet the meme from our politicians is that we ought to prosecute people who point these kinds of things out. This is not a problem with the Scientific Method; it's a problem with the culture of science that puts tremendous pressure on scientists to achieve politically correct results.

I'll add the graph if I can load it up.


How does that reflect on the studies that indicate there was no global flood, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that the universe was born from a "big bang", that all species alive today are the product of modern evolutionary synthesis, that homosexuals are a natural phenomenon, that prayer is not a form of medicinal treatment, or that people who are dead for three days usually stay dead?


I have no idea what you mean here. There WAS a global flood. It wasn't "Biblical," but it happened about 12,000-14,000 years ago as the result of melting ice from the last glacial period which raised sea levels about 60 feet and is preserved in our mythology worldwide. "Science" doesn't like that idea any more than "science" approved of plate tectonics when it was first proposed. As far as I'm concerned, 4.5 billion years for the age of the Earth is about right. The Big Bang works for me. All species ARE the result of evolution. Homosexuals? Say what?? And prayer can work if you believe in it. Yup, people stay dead.

I never said ALL "studies" are invalid. I said that they are subject to the fallibility of researchers and are often wrong and subject to fraud, which is really important when it affects public policy, but otherwise merely irritating and self-serving. The Scientific Method itself is valid and it works. Statistics works. People, for various reasons both intentional and not, frequently screw it up. It makes no sense to reject the Scientific Method because it is frequently misused and it makes no sense to worship it as infallible when people who claim to use it have their own agendas.

So I don't get what you are trying to say here. Do you think you have proven something? Do we actually fundamentally disagree on something? I don't see it myself.


I was just pointing out some examples of good solid science, in case anyone was getting the impression that the scientific method is unreliable. Because that was the intent of this thread - to sow doubt, and thumb the virtual nose. Not all studies are bs, and science as an investigative tool has more than proven itself. Particularly in the examples I mentioned before.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Nevermind.

Post retracted due to sudden aversion to arguing pointlessly.
edit on 16-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

It is a rigged game of Statistics
and Peer Review.

Otherwise , you lose your funding and reputation.

SAVVY?

S&F



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

You made many excellent points.

Thanks tons.


originally posted by: schuyler
There's nothing really wrong with the Scientific Method, just its application. I read recently (I believe it was on Slashdot.org) that a very large percentage of published scientific studies, most of which have gone through peer review, are completely invalid. They are wrong. This isn't a matter of funding sources skewing results. It's just wrong research. Why isn't it being caught? Mostly because no one is checking the studies, thus the crucial step of replicability is simply not being done. Of course, this begs the question of whether these studies are doing anything useful, including influencing public policy, or if they simply serve to add to cv's of the authors, but still, that's a pretty hefty percentage of what amounts to invalid research.

And here's another problem: I can't prove this to you because I'm too far away from it now (like 50 years far away), but in symbolic logic, the kind taught in philosophy departments, with "A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C" kind of stuff, which can be quite complex, you can take one route to prove "A" and another route to prove "not-A." When you replace "A" and "B" with statements, this means you can "prove" opposites. It's a serious problem because it means "logic" as a tool can manipulate the answers. When I pointed this out to my philosophy professor with a nice solid example he kind of grimaced and told me I wasn't being fair and that doing such a thing was frowned upon.

A third problem is the obvious one of fraud. It happens. "Scientists" sometimes cook the data. Usually it doesn't matter, but when public policy is involved, it can be devastating. A good example comes from my favorite, climate change. Surely you remember "Hide the decline." Perhaps you laughed at it or considered it irrelevant and unimportant, but "Hide the decline" is a giant example of intentional fraud. It was exposed in the Climategate emails years ago. The problem was an "inconvenient truth" in the data used to justify and "prove" global warming. It seems the data was not cooperating with the conclusions of global warming, so the scientists involved decided to hide the problem and SAID SO in their emails. They were caught red-handed.

Here's what happened: Scientists used several measures to show global warming was real. They graphed these methods in a "multi-variate" graph, one with several lines that showed warming in several ways. They used very accurate modern thermometers for many of the graph lines, and they showed a clear increase in temperature. Of course there were no thermometers thousands of years ago, so scientists were forced to use "proxies" for thermometers. One way to do this is to use tree ring data. As you know, rings are thick or thin and these equate to climate, sort of. Hot (or wet) climates give you thick rings. Cold (or dry) climates give you thin rings. Winter gives you thin; summer gives you thick. So, to find out the temperature thousands of years ago, you "core sample" (or cut down) some very old trees and measure the rings. This way they could plot temperature increases over thousands of years.

Unfortunately for their man-made global warming thesis, tree-ring data in modern times showed not an increase, but a DECREASE in temperatures. Because scientists had very accurate thermometers in recent times, it was obvious the tree ring data was inaccurate for modern temperatures. See the problem here? If tree ring data was false for modern temperatures, how could you use tree ring data as a proxy for ancient temperatures? If they are wrong today, wouldn't they also be wrong way back when?

If they put their graph out there with the tree ring line showing a decrease, they knew what would happen. Everyone would be asking, "Why is that one line going down when the others are all going up?" This was so inconvenient that they decided to "hide the decline" so they wouldn't have to explain it.

That, simply put, is scientific fraud. They cheated. they were caught cheating, yet the meme from our politicians is that we ought to prosecute people who point these kinds of things out. This is not a problem with the Scientific Method; it's a problem with the culture of science that puts tremendous pressure on scientists to achieve politically correct results.





YUP--A PROBLEM WITH THE CULTURE OF SCIENCE with corrupt pressure demanding corrupted results.

edit on 16/6/2016 by BO XIAN because: added



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Your ignorance about me and my motives is showing brazenly.

Again.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Excellent points.

And very dangerous for those 2 year olds, imho.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.


originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

They sure do sell well don't they.

It helps when you fake the results and patent entire research areas so people can't compete or in some cases get the material to reproduce your expirement and even test the results.

No my friend this is not just a natural news issue. This is science itself checking how well the method is being preserved and coming up short and getting worse.

Pharma is also a number one killer in the us as well as bringing the biggest drug epidemic since crack. It's funny how nobody questioned where all those pills were going.

Not much of a controlled substance.

It doesn't do science any good to pretend there aren' ethical issues as well as major research problems of corruption.

This is well past the few bad apples scenario.





posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
ABSOLUTELY INDEED. WELL SAID.


originally posted by: luthier
It seemed as though you were saying the only arguement is religious. When in fact editors of say the NEJM and studies done by the fda are showing fabricated studies.

Which means your dr is reading BS about treatments and even diagnosis in the case of psychology that is pure fabrication.

In fact about a third of a chance
.


It amazes me that folks RELIGIOUS FERVOR about their idolized Religion of Scientism sooooooooooo incredibly blinds people to very basic and PROVEN facts e.g. those you articulate so well.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: BO XIAN

That fits so well with things my dad says decades ago! A scientific type himself, he had little patience for the political games so predominant in the scientific community.


He sounds like a wise man.

Congrats.

Thanks.




top topics



 
31
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join