Diploid said:

I think that a moderator should know better than to insult someone

Insult you? Are you kidding me? What do you call several pages of off-topic crap completely ignoring the few on-topic posts I and others have made in this thread to one off-hand joke?

Because in my book, THAT'S what's insulting.

---

Maybe if the OP bothered to comment on my posts in an intelligent way it wouldn't have railed.

Most of my posts were highly relevant and my first posts were very relevant. So I can't see why its insulting. I really was just answering questions....still OP didn't even comment once so I can't see why it would be anyways. If people aren't given a response, then why should they respect another opinion, when clearly this is not the case.

And yes when you are mocking one of my beliefs and categorizing someones line of thinking into a 'crazy conspiracy' this is much more insulting than my behaviour.

And if you really have a problem with this you should have intervened before hand instead of using to defend a pretty ignorant and insulting post.

AlphaFalfa said:

johnm214 said:

More appeals to incredulity, but nowhere do I see you backing up your central claim that this source of bias is affecting scientific investigations and rendering them invalid.

---

Whatever.

I've benefited greatly from doing my own research and investigation.

I've been able to heal a diseases that doctors told my brother wouldn't subside and could only be controlled.

Now it's gone and its directly correlated with a different diet, particularly a large increase in fruit/nut/vegetable intake.

---

Icelander said:

I agree basically.  If there's no money in it there's no funding for sanctioned research.  Then all the doc has to do is say hey if it's so great where's the research?

---

johnm214 said:

It seems that once again you have not addressed the issue I took with your post nor defended your claims.  If you cannot defend your claims then it would be appreciated if you would stop making them or concede the point rather than posting about all these other matters of no apparent relevance

AlphaFalfa said:

johnm214 said:

More appeals to incredulity, but nowhere do I see you backing up your central claim that this source of bias is affecting scientific investigations and rendering them invalid.

---

Whatever.

I've benefited greatly from doing my own research and investigation.

I've been able to heal a diseases that doctors told my brother wouldn't subside and could only be controlled.

Now it's gone and its directly correlated with a different diet, particularly a large increase in fruit/nut/vegetable intake.

---

I see no relevance to any of this, nor have you alleged any.

Quote:

You have also not provided any proof to back up your claim that my claim is irrelevant.

---

This is also irrelevant and off point.  It is your burden to demonstrate the relevance of your observations the point discussed.

You've made a point that requires proof as well. How can you be so sure that scientific investigations surrounding health are not altered or intentionally neglected to the benefit of those who FUND it?  Why are you so sure and show me proof that there exists a mechanism that stops this from occuring.

How can the burden be on me only, if you are making a claim to this.

I do have some scientific evidence that the alteration of diets, supplements and even raw food diet seem to help/eliminate diseases that companies whom creating the drugs used to aid in controlling the effects of the diseases are not willing to investigate. I have experienced the effects of the diet through my own investigation and application. I am also not naive enough to believe that companies know nothing about these therapies because they are wealthy and powerful. Finally, I also highly suspect that they are trying to suppress this information due to the fact that these therapies cannot be patented and their spread controlled and profited from.

I am not naive enough to think that they would be willing to conduct scientific research that would eliminate any need for their products and bankrupt their own company.

The proof your prior personal remarks are irrelevant is the fact that you do not draw any relationship between it and the challenged issue.

Quote:

Show me studies that show that the raw food diet cannot reverse/change the quality of life from those that suffer from the serious degenerative illness like Fybromaialgia? I can show you a small study of people who have.

---

What does this have to do with anything?  Why are you picking these apparently-random points and challenging me to defend a given position you've selected for me? 

How could this possibly be relevant?

Isn't your point that companies are not intentionally suppressing the branching of research into these therapies?

Quote:

The truth of the matter is that there is no conclusive research that alternative therapies help people because there has been intention need to leave that part of the research unfunded.

---

You provide no evidence nor even an argument in support of this conclusion, and you fail to even state how its claimed to be of relevance. 

Quote:

Finally, do you honestly trust that industrial pharamceutical companies wouldn't intentionally ignore anecdotatal evidence that suggest further research needs to be done about a therapy that cannot be patented???

---

Again, what does this have to do with anything?  Address the point, please- stop equivocating or whatever all this can be called.

Quote:

Your wont understand why a therapies ability to be patented influences a companies decision to pursue research through funding. 

There is plenty of small studies that suggest the need to BEGIN research into the natural therapies field.

Do you have any research that shows otherwise????

---

Again, relevance?  If your not going to defend the challenged claims than just say so rather than making all these off topic discussions and so forth.  Nowhere in this post do you address any argument for what I challenged: that there is some problem with the science produced due to the factors you identified which renders the science incorrect or unusable

AlphaFalfa said:

Diploid said:

This oil companies are keeping the research down. Don't you people know anything?

---

They might, for they have a stake in it.

Pharamceuticals are largely derived from petro-chemicals.

Honestly though, you sound ridiculous and I think that a moderator should know better than to insult someone whom they haven't even bothered to respond to in a coherent manner.

---

Give me a break.  You've made appeals to incredulity constantly throughout this discussion in lieu of defending a claim you refuse to retract or substantiate with even a specific argument, yet have a problem when someone else makes an obviously farcicle appeal to incredulity?

---

johnm214 said:

Icelander said:

I agree basically.  If there's no money in it there's no funding for sanctioned research.  Then all the doc has to do is say hey if it's so great where's the research?

---

But do you agree with the point he made earlier: that whatever issues he's identified have resulted in some problem with the science that renders it incorrect or unusuable?
I said there hasn't been science on important health science therapies and that this is probably done intentionally.

  I disagree with this, and despite several posts, no explicit argument, let alone evidence, for how these mechanisms prejudice the science produced has been provided.

I would disagree with your claim that there is no funding for research not resulting in profit.  For one: Alfa is incorrect in his claim that drugs not patentable aren't researched, as the current contents of a pharmacy will attest to (plenty of generics) and the fact that legal monopolies on unpatentable drugs are granted all the time and have been available for a long time (there's not ban on exclusivity periods or patents on naturally-produced drugs either- that's just not true).

There are still mass producers of these drugs regardless of whether they are not patentable and most drugs that generate the largest amount of income for companies, is patentable. It is a hell of alot easier to make money off of chemical production than it is to make money off selling a book/documentary  containing diet/lifestyle therapies.

  For two: there are all sorts of sources of research on things that aren't profitable.

Of course there is. The majority of research concerning major diseases like cancer/heart disease/arthritis etc, is based on drugs and their administration which are patentable....

Plenty of people research things at their own expense that they are personally interested in.  Those that recieve funding likewise study these things: whether from buisness, non profits, or government grant. (like the sea cucumber example I used earlier- completely worthless yet government funded).  In fact, pretty much all the research done at universities is on things without financial prospects for the researcher or the grant-issuing institution.

Where is your proof?

The stuff I've done may have some commercial application at some point, but I'd never see a dime of it.

It's not the researchers that seem the 'dimes' its the companies!!!


  I like doing research on things that might be useful at some point, but there's no chance in hell I'd ever benefit, nor that the grant-issuers would.  In my case much of the funding comes from other research groups who want to analyze particular chemicals and I help get those chemicals to them.  The group analyzing them wouldn't even be doing anything patentable usually, and we just do it for the publishing abilities and the small profit we make (profit that doesn't even cover the exepnses of the operation)


As if your experiences are at all relevant. You will not and never represent a huge industry comprising of millions of individuals and dozens of government agencies. .

---

Quote:

Isn't your point that companies are not intentionally suppressing the branching of research into these therapies?

---

Quote:

You've made a point that requires proof as well. How can you be so sure that scientific investigations surrounding health are not altered or intentionally neglected to the benefit of those who FUND it?  Why are you so sure and show me proof that there exists a mechanism that stops this from occuring.

---

Quote:

I do have some scientific evidence that the alteration of diets, supplements and even raw food diet seem to help/eliminate diseases that companies whom creating the drugs used to aid in controlling the effects of the diseases are not willing to investigate. I have experienced the effects of the diet through my own investigation and application. I am also not naive enough to believe that companies know nothing about these therapies because they are wealthy and powerful. Finally, I also highly suspect that they are trying to suppress this information due to the fact that these therapies cannot be patented and their spread controlled and profited from.

---

Quote:

I am not naive enough to think that they would be willing to conduct scientific research that would eliminate any need for their products and bankrupt their own company.

---

Quote:

I said there hasn't been science on important health science therapies and that this is probably done intentionally.

---

Quote:

There are still mass producers of these drugs regardless of whether they are not patentable and most drugs that generate the largest amount of income for companies, is patentable. It is a hell of alot easier to make money off of chemical production than it is to make money off selling a book/documentary  containing diet/lifestyle therapies.

---

Quote:

Of course there is. The majority of research concerning major diseases like cancer/heart disease/arthritis etc, is based on drugs and their administration which are patentable....

---

Quote:

Where is your proof?

---

Quote:

As if your experiences are at all relevant. You will not and never represent a huge industry comprising of millions of individuals and dozens of government agencies. .

---

Source?  Argument?  Your claim about me is apparently a baseless insult () and what the criteria you proffer has to do with the relevance of my experience is not even alleged.  You say a lot of stuff without even claiming it has anything to do with anything- its difficult to understand what your point is in doing this kind of thing.

johnm214 said:

Once more you fail to answer the question nor withdraw your claim and instead speak of all sorts of extraneous things. What is it now, five times I've asked you to back up your claim that science is being harmed by the factors you claim and rendered incorrect/unreliable?  I guess its safe to say you don't even have an argument for this position, let alone any evidence it might be true.  That you fail to withdraw the claim or even address the point in good faith despite the many purported replies to these queries is annoying.

I am backing up my claim, I have research and rational inquiry. What kind of evidence do you need and what makes you think that this evidence is available, even if it exists? Do you want to see two men in black suits approach a researcher with a bag of money with dollar signs on it???



This is ridiculous. Do you think that if there was a suppression of research that such evidence would be available to anyone, let alone someone in with mine or your distinctions? The evidence that I would be able to provide is common sensical but you SIR, fail to address this and I will post it one more time.

Do you honestly think that companies would fund research that could potentially put an end to the profitability of their products, of which they have sole rights to? Do you think that the companies who mass produce treatments for cancer would fund research that could potentially eliminate almost all their profits? The answer to this question is relevant, highly relevant, because the road of the investigation we are undertaking is not paved with solid proof, such as a video or a document that shows a company intentionally suppressing research in the field that I am talking about. There has nonetheless, been cases where companies distort/suppress research in order to expedite the market availability of their drugs, which lends to the idea that it is highly likely that they would suppress such research and/or never fund any study that would be significant enough to draw conclusions from. 

Quote:

Isn't your point that companies are not intentionally suppressing the branching of research into these therapies?

---

No, that was your straw man, I never claimed that.

I never claimed many things you say I claim but I don't call it a straw man, I attempt to clear it up instead and I expect you to do the same.

Quote:

You've made a point that requires proof as well. How can you be so sure that scientific investigations surrounding health are not altered or intentionally neglected to the benefit of those who FUND it?  Why are you so sure and show me proof that there exists a mechanism that stops this from occuring.

---

"you too" is not a rebuttal.  That others are allegedly wrong on other matters has nothing to do with the sufficiency of your argument (or indeed, the failure of you to even provide one) on another point.

How can a counter-point and its proof have no relevance to the point being made originally. If say gravity does not exist and you say 'prove it', wouldn't it be faster to just show me why it does exist and end the argument. But again, I think you are simply ignoring the fact of the matter.

Secondly, I never said the things you ask me to prove, and I'm not inclined to discuss them since you appear to have refused many times to provide even an argument for the challenged point and I have no confidence you'll start.  In any case, unsupported/wrong data and conclusions are generally ignored if not published and greeted with caution if published in even a well-supported paper.

There IS NO DATA. HOLY FUCK. Thats what I am arguing largely, that the is no data and that I suspect that this is being done with intention.  Incorrect/unsupported claims will be rejected in the normal course of the work in the field through inconsistant results being produced by the next research on that topic or attempt to replicate claims of sufficient importance.

Finally. Now, you do know that companies have historically distorted/suppressed research with their monies in the past, right? This shows me that they have the potential to do it again and that your claim above is irrelevant, incredulous and misleading.

Quote:

I do have some scientific evidence that the alteration of diets, supplements and even raw food diet seem to help/eliminate diseases that companies whom creating the drugs used to aid in controlling the effects of the diseases are not willing to investigate. I have experienced the effects of the diet through my own investigation and application. I am also not naive enough to believe that companies know nothing about these therapies because they are wealthy and powerful. Finally, I also highly suspect that they are trying to suppress this information due to the fact that these therapies cannot be patented and their spread controlled and profited from.

---

I have no idea what the point of this is supposed to be.  This has nothing to do with what i took issue with and you've not even purported to tie this to anything of relevance to our discussion.

What do you think I am arguing then???

Quote:

I am not naive enough to think that they would be willing to conduct scientific research that would eliminate any need for their products and bankrupt their own company.

---

Again, so what?  Your beliefs aren't relevant.

My beliefs???



Wow, this has got to be one of the most naive things I have ever seen written by you. A company is concerned with one thing and one thing only, profits.

Quote:

I said there hasn't been science on important health science therapies and that this is probably done intentionally.

---

So what?  This is not what I took issue with nor what I asked, so I'm not sure what this fact is offered for.  Once again, you fail to even claim any relevance.

Quote:

There are still mass producers of these drugs regardless of whether they are not patentable and most drugs that generate the largest amount of income for companies, is patentable. It is a hell of alot easier to make money off of chemical production than it is to make money off selling a book/documentary  containing diet/lifestyle therapies.

---

I have no idea what the relevance of these statements are either, but you've not even provided any argument for these bare claims, let alone cited any authority.

Quote:

Of course there is. The majority of research concerning major diseases like cancer/heart disease/arthritis etc, is based on drugs and their administration which are patentable....

---

Source? Any evidence for this claim?

Common sense buddy; there are no 'GENERIC' cancer treatments and there are no 'GENERIC' hear medications. If they are not GENERIC, then they are patentable. Source?? Funny you make claims and you show no sources, but you ask for sources all the more?? Ridiculous.

With this one I can use my own common sense. You can't get cancer treatment without a prescription and prescription drugs are all patentable!!!

LEARN HOW TO CRITICALLY THINK!!!1

Quote:

Where is your proof?

---

The fact that universities generally own the federally-funded research patents, rather than the federal government granter or the researchers, See: Bahy-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. § 200-212

Funding can come in many different shapes and forms. It can come in the form of bribes, development grants for facilities to perform research and many other non-conventional ways. My university was given huge grants for research facilities and it just so happened that they company who gave the grants, would benefit from the research being done, as it was relevant to the product that they were trying to market.

Further, private research is generally owned by the buisness if federally-funded, Id., and essentially always owned by the buisness if privately funded per the employee's contract.

And? You've never heard of a corrupt politician???



WHERE IS PROOF, RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOUR GOING TO ASK?



LET ME JUST BRING UP THE VIDEO OF THE HEAD OF THE RESEARCH FUNDING TAKING A BRIBE FROM BAYER OR FIZER. HOLD ON A SEC, KTHXBYE.

What is the point in asking for proof?  Is this really disputed?

Quote:

As if your experiences are at all relevant. You will not and never represent a huge industry comprising of millions of individuals and dozens of government agencies. .

---

Source?  Argument?  Your claim about me is apparently a baseless insult () and what the criteria you proffer has to do with the relevance of my experience is not even alleged.  You say a lot of stuff without even claiming it has anything to do with anything- its difficult to understand what your point is in doing this kind of thing.

---

Quote:

I am backing up my claim, I have research and rational inquiry. What kind of evidence do you need and what makes you think that this evidence is available, even if it exists? Do you want to see two men in black suits approach a researcher with a bag of money with dollar signs on it???

---

Quote:

And? You've never heard of a corrupt politician???

---

Quote:

LET ME JUST BRING UP THE VIDEO OF THE HEAD OF THE RESEARCH FUNDING TAKING A BRIBE FROM BAYER OR FIZER. HOLD ON A SEC, KTHXBYE.

---

Quote:

It's people that are untrustworthy and it's up to the individual imo to find out how and act in their own self defense.

---

Icelander said:

But do you agree with the point he made earlier: that whatever issues he's identified have resulted in some problem with the science that renders it incorrect or unusuable? 

Nothing wrong with the scientific methods of research if applied without bias.  Or results reported without bias.  This is where the problem happens imo.  For an example I'm going to use the natural foods industry and their supplement claims.  Lets say they want to increase sales of a certain product.  It has an ingredient that has a tiny effect on heart health in general (as do most things) So they make this bold claim that this product "Supports  healthy heart function".  While this is technically true it is not practically true and anyone with a heart problem would be wasting their limited funds to use this product.

My personal opinion is that the modern medical profession is run like any other business with profit being the number one motivation and all promotion of interest in individual welfare is much like that label that says "supports healthy heart function"  It's a sales pitch designed to make you believe you need this product no matter if it's really the best way to deal with a problem or might cause more problems.  It's also my personal opinion that this profession uses their clout to defame  many alternatives to their treatments.  For instance I don't know how many times over my lifetime I've had a doctor tell me diet has very little to no influence on a condition that I then proved wrong by changing my diet with good results. When telling my doctor or challenging their expertise they usually get really angry at me.  I'm very selective with how I use the medical profession.  For instance I consider them generally good for physical trauma injuries. Again this is just an opinion.  I could care less what others believe on this issue as far as me trying to convince them. They'll find out for themselves. My parents both found out the hard way and some of my friends parents.

---

johnm214 said:

Quote:

I am backing up my claim, I have research and rational inquiry. What kind of evidence do you need and what makes you think that this evidence is available, even if it exists? Do you want to see two men in black suits approach a researcher with a bag of money with dollar signs on it???

---

Where did you back up your claim?

I haven't even seen an argument in support of it, let alone any support for such.

How can research and "inquiry" support an argument that you haven't even made?  All I've seen is your bare claim.

I see now, for the third time, you've brought out the money-to-researcher appeal to incredulity.  As i replied last time: I fail to see what this would prove, and you've not even alleged it would satisfy any particular portion of your non-existant argument.  Just another appeal to incredulity with dubious relevance.

Quote:

And? You've never heard of a corrupt politician???

---

Another straw man, fantastic.  I didn't say that and you haven't shown any relevance.  Just another fabricated position you ridicule without explanation.

Quote:

LET ME JUST BRING UP THE VIDEO OF THE HEAD OF THE RESEARCH FUNDING TAKING A BRIBE FROM BAYER OR FIZER. HOLD ON A SEC, KTHXBYE.

---

What would that have to do with anything?  Beyond this being more irrelevant bullshit you've apparently made up to mock, given that you've not even provided any argument in support of the disputed conclusion, it is difficult to see how this could be relevant.  Finally, you don't even allege this would have any affect on the science, so even if this fabrication were true, its hard to see why it would matter.


Instead of making up all these straw mans and going on with all these other fallacies, why don't you at least make an argument in support of your disputed fact if you still claim it to be true, and then worry about how to demonstrate the premise as true?

---

Quote:

What would you like to see to show you that medical corporations are corrupt to the bone and suppress information/intentionally deny researching something that would make them loose money???

---

Icelander said:

But do you agree with the point he made earlier: that whatever issues he's identified have resulted in some problem with the science that renders it incorrect or unusuable? 

Nothing wrong with the scientific methods of research if applied without bias.  Or results reported without bias.  This is where the problem happens imo.  For an example I'm going to use the natural foods industry and their supplement claims.  Lets say they want to increase sales of a certain product.  It has an ingredient that has a tiny effect on heart health in general (as do most things) So they make this bold claim that this product "Supports  healthy heart function".  While this is technically true it is not practically true and anyone with a heart problem would be wasting their limited funds to use this product.

My personal opinion is that the modern medical profession is run like any other business with profit being the number one motivation and all promotion of interest in individual welfare is much like that label that says "supports healthy heart function"  It's a sales pitch designed to make you believe you need this product no matter if it's really the best way to deal with a problem or might cause more problems.  It's also my personal opinion that this profession uses their clout to defame  many alternatives to their treatments.  For instance I don't know how many times over my lifetime I've had a doctor tell me diet has very little to no influence on a condition that I then proved wrong by changing my diet with good results. When telling my doctor or challenging their expertise they usually get really angry at me.  I'm very selective with how I use the medical profession.  For instance I consider them generally good for physical trauma injuries. Again this is just an opinion.  I could care less what others believe on this issue as far as me trying to convince them. They'll find out for themselves. My parents both found out the hard way and some of my friends parents.

---