1) There is an expectation that patients have for what you carry. If you don't carry many of these things, you won't see those patients.
2) Health is still a free choice for patients. While I'll advise them on current evidence and give honest answers, they're entitled to make their own choices for health
3) I have no/little day in what goes on my shelves. To be honest, if it was my choice and I had a smaller footprint I wouldn't carry it
This is very confusing, your criticising the blog for criticising anything that runs counter to traditional medicine, then present something originating from traditional medicine as an example of.. well what I'm not sure, it's confusing.
Listen, I'm not trying to defend the guy, I'm defending the idea. I think there should be a lot more research into the theory he presents. He may be nuts, but there is something to what he says, even if it is wrapped in a pretty strange package.
What I presented was something that was originally discounted as being bogus. The idea of using a virus to cure a disease was considered a little crazy. Sometimes revolutionary thinking is a little crazy.
Quote:
This quack didn't say that a virus tuned to replicate only in cancer cells may in the future after much research and science result in an effective treatment for cancer.
The quack says his magical "nemesis theory" (which is not a real theory and the opposite of scientific) of "every disease has an anti-disease organism" means his goat virus can and does prevent AIDS and Cancer and other diseases with no side effects, so buy now.
The quack is attacked not because it's non-traditional medicine, the quack is attacked because he's a quack and doesn't do anything resembling science. Everything on the blog about the quack is substantiated, it's not just a dismissal.
Boltzmann and Mendel were thought to be quacks in their day too. Don't be too quick to dismiss the work of someone because it doesn't follow the method you choose. I mean, who ever would have thought that first wonder drug would be found in moldy cheese? That's crazy!
Quote:
To compare the contents of the UofA link you posted to what this quack is talking about is absurd. EDIT: It's insulting to the intelligence and hard work those real scientists put into their work.
I disagree. There are some interesting parallels. Just one guy is viewed as a quack while the other is viewed as revolutionary, mostly because of method.
Quote:
The expectations of the establishment is to demonstrate efficacy, regardless of where it came from.
No, the expectations of the establishment is to follow the rules they set forth and #### anyone who dare to challenge them. This is why big pharma has such a grip on the American health care system and that grip is extending north of the border. When there is a buck to be made, the establishment will jump in full force and fire up the discredit machine for any new idea.
Quote:
The guy isn't a quack because he's looking in odd places for results, he's a quack because he doesn't care at all about research or results or science or ethics and jumps immediately to stating that what he has is the magic cure all.
Again, I'm not defending the guy, I'm defending the idea. I'd like to see a lot more research into the idea. All too often we see ideas buried because they fly in the face of reason. I mean, who would have thought that the concept of heliocentrism would ever catch on. Personally, I'm always willing to explore ideas, especially if they can lead to significant breakthroughs in solving big world problems. For example, I'm still a firm supporter of pursuing cold fusion technology, which is complete quackery to large swaths of a certain community. So that probably makes me a bad person. But then again, I am in the skeptic thread where big ideas are judged on conformity more than anything. Now, back to your little dog pile.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 02-05-2016 at 06:49 AM.
Listen, I'm not trying to defend the guy, I'm defending the idea. I think there should be a lot more research into the theory he presents. He may be nuts, but there is something to what he says, even if it is wrapped in a pretty strange package.
What, exactly is it to what he proposes that you find so compelling, and why? Again, this isn't a "theory" Chachoua has presented, it's more of a philosophic idea than anything.
Quote:
What I presented was something that was originally discounted as being bogus. The idea of using a virus to cure a disease was considered a little crazy. Sometimes revolutionary thinking is a little crazy.
The difference here is that the research taking place at U of A is SCIENTIFIC. This is the point that you seem to keep missing...
Quote:
Boltzmann and Mendel were thought to be quacks in their day too. Don't be too quick to dismiss the work of someone because it doesn't follow the method you choose. I mean, who ever would have thought that first wonder drug would be found in moldy cheese? That's crazy!
That would be the scientific method.
Quote:
I disagree. There are some interesting parallels. Just one guy is viewed as a quack while the other is viewed as revolutionary, mostly because of method.
Yes. Because—again—the scientific method works remarkably well. What is Chachoua's method?
Quote:
No, the expectations of the establishment is to follow the rules they set forth and #### anyone who dare to challenge them. This is why big pharma has such a grip on the American health care system and that grip is extending north of the border. When there is a buck to be made, the establishment will jump in full force and fire up the discredit machine for any new idea.
Those rules would be the terribly draconian stipulations of clinical testing, double-blind analysis, and peer review. What is your problem with the rules?
Quote:
Again, I'm not defending the guy, I'm defending the idea. I'd like to see a lot more research into the idea. All too often we see ideas buried because they fly in the face of reason.
What exactly is it that you find so compelling about Chachoua's unsubstantiated "nemesis theory"? And no, his idea is not being buried because it "flies in the face of reason." It is being buried because it is unscientific. Chachoua is welcome to do his own research, and to publish his findings, but unless he can support the "idea" with the methodological rigour that has proven to be irreproachably successful, then I think we are actually obligated to remain dubious.
Quote:
I mean, who would have thought that the concept of heliocentrism would ever catch on. Personally, I'm always willing to explore ideas, especially if they can lead to significant breakthroughs in solving big world problems. For example, I'm still a firm supporter of pursuing cold fusion technology, which is complete quackery to large swaths of a certain community. So that probably makes me a bad person. But then again, I am in the skeptic thread where big ideas are judged on conformity more than anything. Now, back to your little dog pile.
Yeah. Conformity to the scientific method.
So, after all that, we discover that your real problem is with the strictures of science, and not the unmitigated persecution of all those quacks who are so unfairly treated on the basis of their shoddy research and dubious motivations. Is that about right?
I am really curious about what an alternative "method" you keep going on about might look like. Any suggestions for how we ought to fix science?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
...I'm still a firm supporter of pursuing cold fusion technology, which is complete quackery to large swaths of a certain community. So that probably makes me a bad person...
No. If anything, this is what makes you a bad person:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Ah typical New Era. Lots of BS followed by lots of condescending equivocation.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Ah typical New Era. Lots of BS followed by lots of condescending equivocation.
Typical peter12 post. Nothing of substance.
@ textcritic - I was going to engage you further on this and expand on the idea, but your last post was a cheap shot. You can't fight city hall and you can't engage people in ways they deserve when they have high cover from the mods.
@ textcritic - I was going to engage you further on this and expand on the idea, but your last post was a cheap shot. You can't fight city hall and you can't engage people in ways they deserve when they have high cover from the mods.
I think the most glaring mistake you are making is comparing people like Mendel to this guy. Just because one out of a million absurd ideas end up being truthful it doesn't mean all ideas should be given equal weight. Mendel was also working in a time where little was understood about chemistry and biology. Our knowledge now is such that we can quickly discount bogus claims.
Also, once you mention "big pharma" your anti-medicine bias shines through.
This Mexican quack is free to perform peer reviewed research on his ideas, instead he finds a platform (celebrities) to quickly drum interest in his idea and to start making money hand over fist. Yet you do no not talk about big alternative medicine taking advantage of people.
@ textcritic - I was going to engage you further on this and expand on the idea, but your last post was a cheap shot. You can't fight city hall and you can't engage people in ways they deserve when they have high cover from the mods.
Yeah. That was a little below the belt. Sometimes the credulous desire to defend parochial approaches to science in the name of fair play and "innovation" just make me so ... pissy ...
My apologies for that.
It is unfortunate that you won't respond. I really am intrigued about your revisions to science that will help to accommodate "revolutionary ideas."
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
In my experience, any time you hear of some guy who has "the cure" for a major disease that thousands upon thousands of scientists have been working on for over 30 years, and that guy claims that he's being suppressed because the establishment "doesn't want to hear it"...well that guy is a quack 99.999999999999999999% of the time.
I allow for the 0.00000000000000001% because I have an open mind.
Anyone who has the slightest bit of respect for science and the process that goes into it will immediately take on any new evidence that is valid, and work with that in a new paradigm. I'm not saying that there aren't some scientists with political and economic interests that present inherent bias, but those are few and far between. If this was real, someone at Pfizer would have found a way to mass produce it, market it, and sell it at a 200% profit.
I love Bill Maher, but it really seemed like he didn't fact check that interview.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
In my experience, any time you hear of some guy who has "the cure" for a major disease that thousands upon thousands of scientists have been working on for over 30 years, and that guy claims that he's being suppressed because the establishment "doesn't want to hear it"...well that guy is a quack 99.999999999999999999% of the time.
I allow for the 0.00000000000000001% because I have an open mind.
Anyone who has the slightest bit of respect for science and the process that goes into it will immediately take on any new evidence that is valid, and work with that in a new paradigm. I'm not saying that there aren't some scientists with political and economic interests that present inherent bias, but those are few and far between. If this was real, someone at Pfizer would have found a way to mass produce it, market it, and sell it at a 200% profit.
I love Bill Maher, but it really seemed like he didn't fact check that interview.
I think he is actually sliding down the Quackery deep end right now.
The Following User Says Thank You to Knut For This Useful Post:
For example, I'm still a firm supporter of pursuing cold fusion technology, which is complete quackery to large swaths of a certain community. So that probably makes me a bad person. But then again, I am in the skeptic thread where big ideas are judged on conformity more than anything. Now, back to your little dog pile.
You criticise Textcritic and peter12, but you were the one who set the tone with this chunk of nonsense.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Yeah. That was a little below the belt. Sometimes the credulous desire to defend parochial approaches to science in the name of fair play and "innovation" just make me so ... pissy ...
My apologies for that.
It is unfortunate that you won't respond. I really am intrigued about your revisions to science that will help to accommodate "revolutionary ideas."
Apology accepted. I understand your desire and I agree with a similar stance.
I think we can agree that the scientific method is comprised of the following steps.
1. Question formation
2. Literature review
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Data analysis and interpretation
6. Draw conclusions
7. Publish results
(8. Profit!!!)
Time tested and the standard for many fields of scientific inquiry. But not the only form of scientific inquiry, historically or from a modern perspective. What I suggest is not even actually revision to science to accommodate revolutionary ideas. I think it is just accommodating ideas using other accepted methods of research. Examples:
Observation - This is still used extensively in the social sciences, ranging from psychology to sociology to the political sciences. This has been used for as long as our species has been around. Some of our greatest discoveries have been a result of using observation over testing. Darwinism is based on the observational method as is the vast majority of anthropological and sociological research.
Bioassay - This is kind of the opposite of what the quackmaster is doing. The bioassay attempts to describe a phenomena based on some outside agent or substance. He is suggesting the reason for the resistance to the disease is a result of this outside agent. You can see research like this in many "unscientific" approaches to explaining cancer clusters, poisoning because of environmental causes, etc.
Process flow - An iterative approach that has a structured component, but doesn't rely on the classical scientific method relying on data collection and analysis. Testing and retesting actually takes place
Pattern matching - A method that has been used extensively in the social sciences and is gaining a lot of traction in data analysis using computer processing and examining massive data sets.
Inquiry wheel - I'm not really familiar with this method but I had a student request the use of this method for developing their research questions and their capstone. From what I was told this is becoming a popular methodology in undergrad classes because it is taught in a lot of high schools. From what I have read it is a dumbing down of the scientific method and an integration with continuous improvement process.
Genetic screening - I think this is what the quackmaster is actually suggesting he followed to come to his conclusions. He selected a population and looked for mutations that would/could explain what he was observing. This is a fairly modern approach and has been used by scientists, some with scrupulous backgrounds or histories, to come to conclusions without doing modern sequencing.
I think that these can be the basis for valid research. That doesn't mean it is the end of research. I think that further research and testing can be done using a number of research methods. For validity you are going to have re-test using the same method, but it doesn't mean that all research has to follow a similar research method. I think that great ideas can be founded on one type of research and then furthered by another method.
In an interview with Global News, Zimmermann said homeopathy is based on the “similarity principle” — the idea that a substance that can cause symptoms in a healthy organism can also treat symptoms in a sick organism.
"Mr Johnson You've got radiation sickness, the only cure is to pump you full of more radiation."
"Mr Jackson, sadly you have cyanide poison, you need to take this cyanide pill, trust me I'm a doctor, this certificate that I got on line proves that"
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Did you know you could cure autism and celiac disease with bleach? I didn't.
Quote:
ome parents are are apparently feeding their children a dangerous bleach-like concoction in an effort to ‘cure’ autism. The concoction, misleadingly called miracle mineral solution or master mineral solution or MMS, has been around for many years, with proponents claiming it can cure multiple illnesses and medical conditions. It cannot. There is currently no cure for autism, just as there is currently no cure for celiac disease.
