OrgoneConclusion said:

What about natural cure nonsense? Echinacea for colds and gingko biloba for brain function are two examples pushed for decades by people like yourself because of mountains of anecdotes and the desire to return to nature. Fairly recent carefully done research shows no effect for either. None. Zero.

Big bad pharma strikes again!

In a published study of 200,000 people over a decade released a few months ago, vegetarians had a 1% reduction in cancers and other serious illness vs. omnivores. Significant, but nowhere near the 20+% number oft-touted by people promoting certain dietary lifestyles.

---

Quote:

I wouldn't think 109 years is an indefinite bulb

---

Rahz said:

Quote:

I wouldn't think 109 years is an indefinite bulb

---

It's still burning...

Anyway, there is evidence that longer bulb lifespan was discouraged. Check out The Light bulb Conspiracy.

If planned obsolesce is true, then some science is taboo for some.

---

Quote:

Yes, metal fatigue is a conspiracy.

Bend a spoon back and forth a few times and report back.

---

I never suggested that someone might create a spoon with infinite bendability. I would suggest that someone might play around with different materials to create a more bendable spoon. It's within the realm of possibility that a spoon could be made so bendy that after many lengthy bending sessions it's still bendable. Do we send it to market, or continue bending the spoon so we can say with some certainty that it lasts X number of times. Time is money. And if spoon bendability was considered a feature, these people might pause and consider that making the product too well would end up leaving them with fewer repeat customers.

It is a minor point in the argument anyway. The main point is that manufacturers restricted the life of light bulbs to sell more. If you had watched the video, you can see the various evidences of this being so. That made the science of long lasting light bulbs taboo in that industrial sector.

It is not difficult to see why the direction of science avoids more durable products in favor of larger profits.

AlphaFalfa said:

Here is an interesting commentary of a trucker who went on a raw food diet and wheatgrass; he healed cancer, diabetes and lost over 200 pounds.

---

Rahz said:

It is a minor point in the argument anyway. The main point is that manufacturers restricted the life of light bulbs to sell more. If you had watched the video, you can see the various evidences of this being so. That made the science of long lasting light bulbs taboo in that industrial sector.

It is not difficult to see why the direction of science avoids more durable products in favor of larger profits.

---

Quote:

The fact that they can even choose between the compromised or uncompromised filament is a testament to science and engineering.

---

Hardly a feat to restrict ones self to what has already been done. If you had watched the video, you would see that it wasn't a single company, but an agreement between manufacturers. There were bi-annual tests to insure no one was producing bulbs that were rated above the limit. It was taboo to produce light bulbs over the rated limits, therefore the science can be seen to be taboo as well. There may have been continued research, but that has nothing to do with whether something is considered taboo in certain sectors. It would be taboo to produce human/snake hybrids. That doesn't mean someone can't do it, but it does mean it will be frowned on by the majority.

As for the video comment, I presented the gist of my argument in text. If there is some doubt, the video is there. There is little more that I can do to make the case. If someone doubts what I have said, and are then unwilling to examine the evidence I present to back it up... their fault.

johnm214 said:

Could you point out where in this latest round of posts (or any of the others, for that matter) you address the point and back up your claim that science is harmed and rendered false or unusable, due to these biases you mention?  I don't see where you've ever even made an argument for this position, let alone demonstrated it to be true.  How can you be so sure there's some problem in science of the type you claim if you can't even explain how it manifests, let alone prove it?

You really don't know how to read.

For the umpteenth fucking time!

There is no science on the RAW FOOD DIET and its curative effects on cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

I never claimed that science is rendered unusable. I have no problem with the scientific method, but the many interests that influence how the method is utilized(what is being researched, where the funds for the research are being allocated and the reporting of the researching)

AlphaFalfa said:

Here is an interesting commentary of a trucker who went on a raw food diet and wheatgrass; he healed cancer, diabetes and lost over 200 pounds.

---

What's interesting?  If you eat grass or grain like a damn horse and you are morbidly obese, you probably will loose weight.  Anyone dropping 200 pounds will see a marked reduction in type II diabetic symptoms , and plenty of people 'heal cancer' all the time.o  None of this is unusual.

Marked reduction?? Apparently you don't know the full story. This man does not have diabetes anymore. He reversed it, which is contrary to the medical health establishment that classifies the disease as currently incurable.


Your still not getting this. Yes cancer is healed some times, but this guy healed it with not even 1% the cost!!! The raw food diet and wheatgrass is a relatively cheap diet that at most would cost an individual 10-20 dollars extra per week to utilize. It will however eliminate the need for all types of pain killers/cancer drugs/chemo/radiation and even surgery.

Maybe your to dense to realize why this may be 'INTERESTING' when our countries second largest tax absorber goes towards medical care.





You still can't see why it is interesting think that we could potentially cut medical costs on a federal level by over 60-70%????

Rahz said:

It is a minor point in the argument anyway. The main point is that manufacturers restricted the life of light bulbs to sell more. If you had watched the video, you can see the various evidences of this being so. That made the science of long lasting light bulbs taboo in that industrial sector.

It is not difficult to see why the direction of science avoids more durable products in favor of larger profits.

---

How does some manufacturer desiging products to have a lesser lifespan/usefulness than possible demonstrate some taboo in science?  Making lightbulbs isn't science, its an application of science, like everything else.  While I imagine its trivial to show their marketers lied about what the product there were selling was and so forth, I don't see how some company introducting a limited lifespan is some relefaction on science.  The fact that they can even choose between the compromised or uncompromised filament is a testament to science and engineering.

btw, I and many others won't watch videos because usually they are drawn out with very little factual density and with bare claims that aren't supported, hence no more authoritative than if the poster had claimed it themselves.  If you go to the conspicray forum, you can find people who swear up and down some two hour video demonstrates anything under the sun- invariably its bullshit claims backed by spooky music and completely worthless, as are most youtube videos cited to prove a point.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

What about natural cure nonsense? Echinacea for colds and gingko biloba for brain function are two examples pushed for decades by people like yourself because of mountains of anecdotes and the desire to return to nature. Fairly recent carefully done research shows no effect for either. None. Zero.

Big bad pharma strikes again!

In a published study of 200,000 people over a decade released a few months ago, vegetarians had a 1% reduction in cancers and other serious illness vs. omnivores. Significant, but nowhere near the 20+% number oft-touted by people promoting certain dietary lifestyles.

---