It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


When Myth Trumps Science

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:57 PM
No disrespect dudes... The OP doesn't want MY participation in his thread.

I will see if I can start a thread where we can continue this discussion...

Done ( )

[edit on 31-5-2009 by golemina]

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:05 PM
Well my own idea related to this article so to speak sense it was mentioned is that chemo-therapy doesn't work.

We see it pushed on us every day and every single person that I know who has gotten the treatment has died from cancer. I know 1 person I thought it helped but nope she's dieing now so no chemo for me.

Secondly evolution can be proven wrong easily but science has no better alternative short of saying creationism and sense it goes against everything they believe will stubbornly deny it and bring up Darwin who failed miserably in explaining things. It's just as ludicrous as creationism.

One of them may be right or both maybe wrong but until science can get out of it's barbaric stage of double negatives to make a positive I want nothing to do with it. After all there is no science to it just assumptions that have never been proven.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by soficrow

An excellent example is the transmission of cold and flu virii. Once, it was thought that exposure to low temperatures alone was suffucuent to cause the disease.

More recently, it was believed that seasonal crowding, such as in classrooms, created more and better opportunities for infection.

Most recently, it appears that seasonal crowding represents correlation more than anything else. Ironically, IU data was incorporated into the most recent studies "debunking" the myth.

Recall Joe Biden's warnings about train and air travel! Myths live on far beyond the assumptions that appeared to support them.

On a different tack, "pattern recognition" and an innate search for patterns no doubt account for such phenomena as 'miraculous' apparitions, 'faces' in rocks and sandwiches, ghosts, and "signs of life" on other planets.

We are so dependent on our genetics and senses, and so resultantly gullible, it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Deny ignorance.


[edit on 31-5-2009 by jdub297]

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 09:25 AM
reply to post by golemina

[Thanks scraze and jdub297 - reasoned and reasonable.


I established in my opening comments that I:

a. Considered the authors' analysis flawed, and questioned their premises and assumptions,

Where I think the study and article fall short is that neither considers the fact that data is manipulated, and people know it.


b. Questioned the validity of the referenced studies' "findings," described as 'new scientific information';

The study and article talk about how 'new scientific information' makes past ideas obsolete... (but) ...sometimes, agenda masquerades as science to try and trump a previous agenda.


c. Wanted to focus on a critique of the authors' premises and assumptions.

It's not always about myths trumping science. All too often, it's about people knowing their strings are being pulled, and digging their heels in.

So in my opinion, which I believe I made clear, "science" routinely is manipulated to serve political/economic agendas - people know it, and don't buy into it any more. In this light, I considered it a given that the so-called "findings" were invalid, therefor unimportant to the discussion (which was intended to focus on the premises and assumptions).

However, IF I had wanted to focus on the findings, I would have exposed the underbelly of a few "medical myths" to rip apart the authors' conclusions. I would have debunked the "debunkers." And I would have done it properly. For example:

1. "...Vreeman and Carroll debunked (the myth) that sugar causes hyperactivity in children (it doesn't). There's a slew of double-blinded, randomized trials that have shown no connection between sugar consumption and a child's increase in energy."

First, I would have found references showing that sugar is a highly processed and contaminated chemical compound without nutritional value, and linked the chemicals and contaminants to disease. I also would have shown that the processing causes glycosaccharides to misfold, and then linked such misfolded glycans to disease.

Second, I would have done the research needed to prove that 2 or 3 "double-blinded, randomized trials" were financed by the sugar industry and/or processed food conglomerates - and thus brought the entire body of their referenced research into question.

Finally, I would have concluded that industry manipulated science to create a "science myth" designed to protect profits and put profits before people.

But I didn't - because that was not the focus of my interest here, and because I've done it all too many times before.

2. "...the supposed link between vaccines and autism ...has not been validated by the research."

First, I would have pulled my file of transcripts from the FDA's prion meetings with their vaccine committee about Mad Cow prion contamination of vaccine stocks.

Second, I would have quoted the committee's conclusion, (paraphrased): vaccines are so contaminated with prions, and new strains appear all the time, so there is no point focusing on the Mad Cow prion; overall, it's too expensive to filter prions out of vaccines, and it is not cost-efficient.

Third, I would have documented the financial relationships between the FDA, the cattle industry and Big Pharma.

Then, I would have clarified the situation: vaccines are horribly contaminated with prions and misfolded proteins; the specific health effects of each different strain is unknown, but there is no doubt these agents are capable of causing disease. However, government has no alternative available to replace vaccines, and needs industry to invest heavily in vaccine production - so they're willing to sacrifice people's long term health to prevent short term panic.

Finally, I would have concluded that industry and government manipulated science to create a "science myth" designed to protect profits and put profits before people.

But I didn't - because that was not the focus of my interest here, and because I've done it all too many times before.

..If you had chosen to pursue your own agenda here in a responsible thoughtful manner, that would have been okay. But you attempted to goad me and force me into discussion on your terms, which frankly remain unclear. So again - your interests here are not mine. I clarified my focus from the get-go. Feel free to take whatever direction you want, but please, leave me out of it.


PS. I see you decided to stop derailing this thread and created your own. Thank you.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:12 PM
There are many good reasons why "myth" trumps "science," and here's a good example:

Everyone makes mistakes—it's how you handle them that matters.

(post by Widaly removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jun, 3 2019 @ 06:33 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in