Ongoing Skeptic Thread

[EldrickOnIce]

Not sure that GMO's belong on that list just yet.
There is still reasonable debate on the topic and science is the process of determining, not a body of 'truth'.

*never read the article, just looking at cover

[Knut]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Not sure that GMO's belong on that list just yet.
There is still reasonable debate on the topic and science is the process of determining, not a body of 'truth'.

*never read the article, just looking at cover

It certainly isn't evil, even if the science is inconclusive (which it isnt).

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Hesla

It certainly isn't evil, even if the science is inconclusive (which it isnt).

That's quite a bold statement with an topic where the overwhelming issue with the science is reliable sources and lack of clarity.

Climate change and evolution, for example, aren't assailable because of absolute transparency and third party research. Industries that do their own studies, or selectively offer data can't really be defined as simply science.

GMO's may very well be harmless. But we will never be allowed to be sure, except in very specific cases, where a company desires affirmation, and these never seem to include the largest producers, which clouds the waters and really harms the rest of the industry.

There is another thread here somewhere with a CPuser who has worked with a GMO product for decades and offered more clarity than some companies have offered in the entirety of their operation. As long as companies like Monsanto keep operating like the KGB, this industry is always going to have issues with people needing more information.

[Ashartus]

I think the reason GMO belongs on the list is that a lot of people are calling it bad based on ideological grounds rather than actual evidence (as well as lumping all GMO together without looking at specific products).

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

That's quite a bold statement with an topic where the overwhelming issue with the science is reliable sources and lack of clarity.

Climate change and evolution, for example, aren't assailable because of absolute transparency and third party research. Industries that do their own studies, or selectively offer data can't really be defined as simply science.

GMO's may very well be harmless. But we will never be allowed to be sure, except in very specific cases, where a company desires affirmation, and these never seem to include the largest producers, which clouds the waters and really harms the rest of the industry.

There is another thread here somewhere with a CPuser who has worked with a GMO product for decades and offered more clarity than some companies have offered in the entirety of their operation. As long as companies like Monsanto keep operating like the KGB, this industry is always going to have issues with people needing more information.

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I think the reason GMO belongs on the list is that a lot of people are calling it bad based on ideological grounds rather than actual evidence (as well as lumping all GMO together without looking at specific products).

Correct. Monsanto =/= GMOs. Are mortgages evil because of Bank of America?

GMOs are the best way to solve many of the world's food problems

[Harry Lime]

GMOs are a distant fourth to education, birth control and a large asteroid/earth collision.

[troutman]

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...o-controversy/

There are many big seed producing companies, the top three being Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta. For some reason Monsanto has become the poster boy for big agro corporate evil. The common claims made against Monsanto that you will find on the internet are largely not true.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

GMOs are the best way to solve many of the world's food problems

I had someone tell me the other day that the 7 billion + people on earth could be feasibly fed using organic farming methods.

I unfortunately had to bite my tongue because they are an employee.

[heep223]

Sometimes I feel skeptical about this whole gluten free movement. I mean for people with celiac disease obviously it's different but c'mon, we've been eating bread and drinking beer for thousands of years. All of the sudden we've decided it's just horrible for us?

[Thor]

The diets have changed so much in the last 100 years, those relying on high carb diets back then did so because little else was an option, its cheap, high in calories and energy for a time when people struggled and worked very hard to meet daily life.

Now that proteins and fats are an easy source, that high carb diet means obesity, add in all the sugars now available to people you have a recipe for disaster.

[troutman]

6 Crazy Things Revealed In HBO's Explosive New Scientology Documentary 'Going Clear'

http://www.businessinsider.com/going...bshells-2015-1

New term for Trolls - "Potential Trouble Source" (PTS)

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I had someone tell me the other day that the 7 billion + people on earth could be feasibly fed using organic farming methods.

I unfortunately had to bite my tongue because they are an employee.

They deserve to be an ex-employee.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

They deserve to be an ex-employee.

Would likely be the kind of thing picked up by NaturalNews or WORLDTRUTH.TV.

"Woman Fired For Standing Up Against Big Agra"

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Correct. Monsanto =/= GMOs. Are mortgages evil because of Bank of America?

GMOs are the best way to solve many of the world's food problems

Street Pharma!

[Vulcan]

Anybody who tries to sell what should be free, is taking people down the garden path.

in reference to Scientology.

[troutman]

Naturopathic Diaries: Confessions of a Former Naturopath

I have a hard time pinpointing exactly when I stopped believing in naturopathic medicine. It was a slow process. Doubt crept in insidiously when I first encountered minor issues with the profession. Initially, I saw only small medical risks from minor clinical transgressions. But, as is the case with all sins, I began to witness serious and dangerous naturopathic practices. Even though I had spent 7 years studying and a quarter of a million dollars in student loans, I knew I needed to drop my faith. I intentionally use the word “belief” to describe my experiences with naturopathic medicine. Naturopathic medicine is a philosophy, a worldview, and even a lifestyle. It is not a real and distinct medical system. Not everyone has heard of naturopathic medicine, but its principals can be found in any alternative medicine doctrine. In fact, it’s as if naturopathic medicine includes any and all tropes counter to science and borrows loosely from medicine when convenient. For naturopaths, it does not matter if science refutes the traditional ways of healing. Because for naturopathic believers, what matters is not about what science says, but about beliefs in an alternative, magical healing force. Naturopathic medical beliefs include pseudoscientific ideas like vaccines cause more harm than good, any disease can be successfully treated with homeopathy, alternative cancer therapies are safe and effective, and nutrition can cure mental illness. These beliefs are dangerous and their promotion is unethical.

http://www.naturopathicdiaries.com/

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...hic-delusions/

Naturopathy is pseudoscience from top to bottom. They may throw in some basic nutrition and lifestyle advice, hardly something you need a special practitioner for, but what makes up the core of naturopathy is pure nonsense. The whole “natural” vibe is just the candy coating.

What is most scary about all of this, and why we have been focusing so much attention on naturopaths, is that they are aggressively seeking licensure in the states that do not already have it, and to expand the scope of their practice. What they want, and what they are increasingly getting, is the right to function as primary care doctors. This would be an utter disaster for health care.

[Charcot]

Why Health Canada approval of a natural health care product should not reduce your skepticism.

CBC gets a health care product approved for safety and efficacy based on photocopies of a homeopathic text book from the turn of last century.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/health...says-1.2992414

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Charcot

Why Health Canada approval of a natural health care product should not reduce your skepticism.

CBC gets a health care product approved for safety and efficacy based on photocopies of a homeopathic text book from the turn of last century.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/health...says-1.2992414

Excellent bit of journalism.

[troutman]

http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/03/the-...ation-is-over/

Fish oil is now the third most widely used dietary supplement in the United States, after vitamins and minerals, according to a recent report from the National Institutes of Health. At least 10 percent of Americans take fish oil regularly, most believing that the omega-3 fatty acids in the supplements will protect their cardiovascular health.

But there is one big problem: The vast majority of clinical trials involving fish oil have found no evidence that it lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke.

From 2005 to 2012, at least two dozen rigorous studies of fish oil were published in leading medical journals, most of which looked at whether fish oil could prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk populations. These were people who had a history of heart disease or strong risk factors for it, like high cholesterol, hypertension or Type 2 diabetes.

All but two of these studies found that compared with a placebo, fish oil showed no benefit.

[troutman]

The Collapse of Food Babe: Or, How Not to Manage a Crisis

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/colla...-morgan-fisher