U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-07-2010, 01:50 PM
 
4,994 posts, read 7,798,816 times
Reputation: 2889

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
With the huge amount of money available for research, the enormous capacity of computers to process information, why is there so much that we do not know?

For example, reading Wikipedia about "cough syrup", I find this remarkable line:
"While a number of plants and Chinese herbs have been purported to ease cold symptoms, including ginger, garlic, hyssop, mullein, and others, scientific studies have either not been done or have been found inconclusive."

Studies have not been done? On a simple, natural cure for the common cold widely thought to be effective? Why not?

Is there something Big Brother is not telling us?
There are plenty of remedies, including herbal remedies, that can help treat the common cold. Cough syrups (herbal or otherwise) are not a cure for the common cold, but they can help treat a symptom to provide some relief.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2010, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,666 posts, read 71,910,733 times
Reputation: 35913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sman View Post
Widely thought by who? Naturopaths and holistic quack meisters???

Colds are the result of viral infections, and there is no cure for those types of infections other than the bodies own immune system.
But there can be applications or methods to reduce the severity of the symptoms. That's the whole idea of, for example, cough suppressants.

Is your interpretation of "Scientific Method" to automatically dismiss any phenomenon that is described by someone who strikes you as a quack meister or otherwise conflicts with your pre-ordained orthodoxy? How papal.

All my adult life, I had a kidney stone about once every four years. the last one I had was in China, where a pharmacist in a mountain village gave me four different pills in an envelope. I took them, the symptoms subsided within a couple of hours, and I have now been kidney stone-free for 15 years. I'm sure glad there are people like you to obstruct the fruitless and unnecessary testing of pills that are "widely thought by quack-meisters" to relieve the kidney stones of a billion Chinese. My doctor here in America just shook his head, and said "I sure wish I knew what those pills were."

Last edited by jtur88; 07-07-2010 at 03:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 02:56 PM
 
13,140 posts, read 36,072,026 times
Reputation: 12082
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
With the huge amount of money available for research, the enormous capacity of computers to process information, why is there so much that we do not know?

For example, reading Wikipedia about "cough syrup", I find this remarkable line:
"While a number of plants and Chinese herbs have been purported to ease cold symptoms, including ginger, garlic, hyssop, mullein, and others, scientific studies have either not been done or have been found inconclusive."

Studies have not been done? On a simple, natural cure for the common cold widely thought to be effective? Why not?

Is there something Big Brother is not telling us?
Maybe so and then again maybe not as some diseases are just tough as hell to crack.

I was reading on an ALS/Lou Gehrigs disease forum reciently and one of the researchers was stating (i'm paraphrasing here) that the more they learn about the interworkings of that disease through years of research the more they realise how confused that they are in trying to solve the riddle of curing it.

Don't get me started on the theories of aging
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 02:59 PM
 
13,140 posts, read 36,072,026 times
Reputation: 12082
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
With the huge amount of money available for research, the enormous capacity of computers to process information, why is there so much that we do not know?

For example, reading Wikipedia about "cough syrup", I find this remarkable line:
"While a number of plants and Chinese herbs have been purported to ease cold symptoms, including ginger, garlic, hyssop, mullein, and others, scientific studies have either not been done or have been found inconclusive."

Studies have not been done? On a simple, natural cure for the common cold widely thought to be effective? Why not?

Is there something Big Brother is not telling us?
Maybe so and then again maybe not as some diseases are just tough as hell to crack.

I was reading on an ALS/Lou Gehrig's disease forum reciently and one of the researchers was stating (i'm paraphrasing here) that the more they learn about the interworkings of that disease through years of research the more they realise how confused that they are in trying to solve the riddle of curing it.

Don't get me started on the genetics of aging
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2010, 04:11 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,666 posts, read 71,910,733 times
Reputation: 35913
Using Dental Caries as an example. All that was required was to pay attention to dentists who reported very low incidence of cavities in certain localities, run a few scientific tests on environmental aspects, including the public water supply, identify the anti-caries agent, and find a simple way to distribute it.

But for how many decades was suspected fluoridated water classified as "not yet tested"? Because nobody got around to testing it? Or because nobody was poised to get rich by showing that fluoride protected against cavities? Or because fluoridation proponents were so easy to call quack meisters?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2010, 03:35 AM
 
Location: Interior Low Plateau
185 posts, read 358,354 times
Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post



Is your interpretation of "Scientific Method" to automatically dismiss any phenomenon that is described by someone who strikes you as a quack meister or otherwise conflicts with your pre-ordained orthodoxy? How papal.
Aaah... your have betrayed your agenda. Straw man arguments might fly with you and some of your acquaintances, but it won't fly with me. Where did I dismiss "any phenomenon"? I require evidence, and not some anecdote about some "pharmacist in a mountain village", but blind trials, with repeatable results. You see, that is how science is done.

And, what is it with alt-med peddlers and YECs to call rational thinkers dogmatists(papal)? You know, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post

I'm sure glad there are people like you to obstruct the fruitless and unnecessary testing of pills that are "widely thought by quack-meisters" to relieve the kidney stones of a billion Chinese.
Stop it with the straw man crap! It really shows the frustration inherent in an untenable argument.

This is a science/technology forum, not an alt-med woo forum.

Last edited by Sman; 07-08-2010 at 03:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2010, 03:59 AM
 
Location: Interior Low Plateau
185 posts, read 358,354 times
Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Using Dental Caries as an example. All that was required was to pay attention to dentists who reported very low incidence of cavities in certain localities, run a few scientific tests on environmental aspects, including the public water supply, identify the anti-caries agent, and find a simple way to distribute it.

But for how many decades was suspected fluoridated water classified as "not yet tested"? Because nobody got around to testing it? Or because nobody was poised to get rich by showing that fluoride protected against cavities? Or because fluoridation proponents were so easy to call quack meisters?
??? Huh??? from wiki. Check the notes, there.
Quote:
The relationship between fluoride and teeth has been studied since the early 19th century. By 1850, investigators had established that fluoride occurs with varying concentrations in teeth, bone, and drinking water. By 1900, they had speculated that fluoride would protect against tooth decay, proposed supplementing the diet with fluoride, and observed mottled tooth enamel (now called dental fluorosis) without knowing the cause.[98]
The history of water fluoridation can be divided into three periods. The first (c. 19011933) was research into the cause of a form of mottled tooth enamel called the Colorado brown stain. The second (c. 19331945) focused on the relationship between fluoride concentrations, fluorosis, and tooth decay, and established that moderate levels of fluoride prevent cavities. The third period, from 1945 on, focused on adding fluoride to community water supplies.[21]

flouridation of water - Google Scholar
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2010, 05:43 AM
 
Location: Sol System
1,493 posts, read 2,789,077 times
Reputation: 1022
Personally , I think humanity will never know everything there is to know about everything. If we survive the ensuing 10 , 100 , 1000+ years , we will gain knowledge , but it's just like maturity. There is no such thing as 'total' maturity due to the fact that our lifespan , individually and collectively , is finite. Maybe when a way to place consciousness into androids , we will see leaps in mental maturity commensurate with time , but nothing approaching what can be referred to as 'total' maturity or knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2010, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Orlando, Florida
43,858 posts, read 43,673,821 times
Reputation: 58604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sman View Post
Widely thought by who? Naturopaths and holistic quack meisters???

Colds are the result of viral infections, and there is no cure for those types of infections other than the bodies own immune system.
This is what was once assumed by a great number of diseases that are now treatable and preventable.

I think jtur88 was making a valid point in asking why more research hasn't been done in this area.

And yes....he posted it in the right forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2010, 08:41 PM
 
Location: Interior Low Plateau
185 posts, read 358,354 times
Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryB View Post
This is what was once assumed by a great number of diseases that are now treatable and preventable.

I think jtur88 was making a valid point in asking why more research hasn't been done in this area.

And yes....he posted it in the right forum.
1. There has never been a cure for viral infections-only vaccines.
2. Research cost money, and I agree that funding is inadequate.
3. Alt-med, ie, holistic, naturalopathy, and homeopathy are not science based.
I think that is what he was referencing. If I am wrong, my apologies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top