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.
Well, if any natural medicine proponent can tell me how to cure the heart tumor cancer on my 9 year old beagle, who I am going to have to put down soon, you will have a convert.
I don't see how or why this has to be an either or scenario. All that the op's link said was that a lot of scientific research is wrong due to bias, money, control and other issues. This shouldn't be a surprise for people. It doesn't mean all scientific research is wrong nor does it mean all alternative therapies are right. I tend to find good in both western and alternative medicine. All this means is that we should not always take studies at face value and that we should be looking at the bigger picture instead of saying things like, "the science is settled" or making appeals to authority or telling people that they "don't understand science" when they question certain studies or lack of studies. Politics, money, power and control all can and are used to manipulate information, including skewing the results of studies. Why would this surprise any adult? I would hope that most people are capable of critical thinking and are able to dig deeper when they have questions. That's my take away from what the op posted.
I don't see how or why this has to be an either or scenario. All that the op's link said was that a lot of scientific research is wrong due to bias, money, control and other issues. This shouldn't be a surprise for people. It doesn't mean all scientific research is wrong nor does it mean all alternative therapies are right. I tend to find good in both western and alternative medicine. All this means is that we should not always take studies at face value and that we should be looking at the bigger picture instead of saying things like, "the science is settled" or making appeals to authority or telling people that they "don't understand science" when they question certain studies or lack of studies. Politics, money, power and control all can and are used to manipulate information, including skewing the results of studies. Why would this surprise any adult? I would hope that most people are capable of critical thinking and are able to dig deeper when they have questions. That's my take away from what the op posted.
No, that's not "all" her link says. It starts out with this: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
It gives no data to prove that figure. In fact, no examples are given for any of the rather inflammatory statements, such as "In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data."
We're just supposed to believe the editor of the rag that published Wakefield's study. Maybe they're feeling a little remorse for the monster that created.
No, that's not "all" her link says. It starts out with this: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
It gives no data to prove that figure. In fact, no examples are given for any of the rather inflammatory statements, such as "In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data."
We're just supposed to believe the editor of the rag that published Wakefield's study. Maybe they're feeling a little remorse for the monster that created.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I said. You don't have the believe that scientific data could be biased, manipulated and influenced by money and power but I personally find that to be a naïve stance. It seems pretty obvious to me that there is a lot of room for corruption in any field and that would include the field of science.
Apparently people don't recognize that "natural health" is a business too.
Of course lot's of things in "science" are wrong. We work with the knowledge we have and we don't have it all. Nothing "natural" has it all either and I think we are all grateful for science even if it is only science and not MAGIC.
Natural immunity never does. And contracting childhood illnesses, which confer subsequent natural immunity, while young is relatively benign--unlike contracting them when older.
The implications are clear: The only people who logically should be receiving one of the vaccines, if administration is an imperative at all, are older individuals who never acquired the childhood disease during the primary years.
Read the average life expectancy number----37. That was where we were at after using traditional natural medicine for thousands of years.
Life expectancy is such an dull point. Its about quality of life over quantity. We live longer less productive lives these days...probably due in part to the lethargic pharmaceuticals we intake and the lifestyle we live today.
Needless to say, all the thousands of veterans walking around with Gulf War Syndrome that never saw any action is proof enough vaccines are more harmful than beneficial and that all the "science" that proved those vaccines were supposedly safe were wrong.
USAF Captain Joyce Riley speaks in detail on her own observational experiences with mandatory (and often mysterious, and experimental) vaccines and Gulf War Syndrome. She also relates receiving "10 shots in one day." What doctors described as a demyelinating illness followed in 1991. She was never exposed to the theater. She has stage 4 cancer now:
the esteemed UK medical journal "The Lancet" ......
Sorry, the rest of your post was pretty much nullified with this sentence. It isn't esteemed, it has a history of sensationalism and in fact of downright lying which it has admitted too.
The British, General Medical Council and British Medical Association in conjunction even have an advisory for their members to seek external verification on the Lancet's articles as they are frankly, not to be trusted.
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.
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.
