Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Okami_No_Heishi, Oct 16, 2016.
Tree dwelling anteaters are cute, and we need more of them.
No offense, but debate is kinda an important element of discussion. Thus, such a belief that going onto a forum, which by definition is a site that's specifically for (semi-)open discussion, and expecting not to find any kind of debating is both fallacious AND flawed in nature...
I am very surprised by the frequency of comments deriding modern medicine and blaming all ills on genetically modified foodstuffs.
Those comments aren't very responsible, because you may inadvertently motivate somebody to stop taking medicine that they need.
People who allege that modern medicine is all about conning victims into buying drugs should at the very least be aware that many countries support health care and scientific research into new medicines by taxation, so making people ill would actually deplete the amount of money they collect, rather than increase it.
Of course there genuinely are many things in our environment which do make us ill that are widely commercialised , such as alcohol, nicotine, carbon particulates, vehicular magnetite particles, NOx and so on.
It's kind of depressing that people are actually more worried about imaginary threats from genetically modified cabbages than they are about addressing what we can do about real threats from commercial activity, such as the cancer causing pollution that is associated with fossil fuel use.
What amazes me is how truly blind people are to what's going on. And it's not even your fault because the health care companies and government have trained you from birth to believe that everything they say is true. I've done my research on both sides, and I wish so badly that I could show everyone the truth. But it would be no use because people would just call me a science hater, a quacker, someone who has no idea what the hell he's talking about.
If you believe I am 'truly blind' do you possess any evidence to show any of this true?
Currently most territories in the world require GM food to be labeled, even though repeated studies by the FDA, WHO and pretty much every other health body have shown them to be innocuous.
(all green territories require labeling)
So, if anything, governments are tacitly (and perhaps unintentionally) encouraging people to perceive GM as threatening, by requiring GM stuffs to be labeled as if there is something wrong with them, when the available scientific evidence shows that there is not.
Ah, you put trust in the FDA. Have you ever heard of the lawsuit against the FDA that happened in the late 1990s? Probably not. Because of the lawsuit, the FDA was forced to release documents which revealed that many of their own scientists agreed that GMOs are dangerous and unpredictable. These scientists were silenced, harassed, even fired. And the FDA ignored these studies. And for your information, the FDA is head by a former Monsanto attorney. Of course he's going to say GMOs are safe.
Tanja Askani has some of the most cute animal photography, ever!
I would love to meet her some day, she must me some kind of witch, the way she brings so many odd species together!
Those pictures are wonderful <3
So unless, you actually have those studies and post them here, or post the press release (say an article from the BBC) how can I tell that you're not just making all of this up?
I could say that 'did you know eating popcorn contains chemical agents that make people more susceptible to advertising? Popcorn producing companies were forced to disclose this information following a freedom of information request in 2009, revealing that most cinema industries were encouraging people to consume popcorn so that the adverts they screened were more effective,'.
Of course, I made all of that up just now. Sounds scary right though?
Also, one more point. Many of the health bodies around the world are no better than the FDA. Take the TGA (Australia's FDA basically). A while back, a cream called Curaderm BEC5 was discovered and sold by a man over the counter for dirt cheap. This cream was made of phytochemicals extracted from eggplant. 70,000 people cured their skin cancer with this stuff, and eventually the Australian government took notice. Long story short, the man was literally forced to sell his product to the TGA. But they never use it, and never prescribe it. And that's because it's cheap, and the government makes no money from it.
Its scary how much of the information present on many things has no backing but people will believe it. I remember back when the political debate was going on someone had a photo being tossed around that stated bernie sanders said something specifically....i was positive it was false, looked it up and, as assumed, it was 100% falsified...but people were sharing it and believing it like crazy!! I've seen this from everything from GMO's to claims that a specific type of salt is better than another...
So are you going to post any evidence?
How can we tell your conspiracy apart from my popcorn cinema conspiracy? Do you understand why I'm reluctant to believe things unless evidence is presented to justify them?
One that I found very concerning was a clip of an American general that was circulated before the American election claiming that a no fly zone over Syria would result in a war with Russia.
One of my friends actually voted for Trump because he believed this 30 second youtube clip, which could easily be shown to be a quotation taken out of context from a longer discussion.
I still can't believe all it took was 30 seconds of youtube footage to make his mind up on such an important issue. *shrug*.
Search on Google "FDA ignored own scientists warnings about GM foods." Just copy, paste, and search. Happy reading.
Those who deride the findings of modern science should be denied any benefits gained from them.
I can provide some insight on the eggplant issue. The cream you're talking about does show potential for being a beneficial aid to specific skin cancers...that is true...but he was not forced to sell his product to the TGA, according to the article i posted...in fact he came to them and wanted them to make it be an "OTC" medication with their response being they will get back to him....the medical world follows VERY SPECIFIC rules and regulations..they are not responsible for funding products and finding cures..that is up the the inventor or company...it would have been up to that said individual to provide research supporting his product...it then takes YEARS for a product to reach shelf....in fact if im not mistaken and w/o checking my medical book it takes 7 years for a product to go into sale in the US ( im not from Australia and therefore i do not know their specific regulations..but i'd assume they would be similar or more strict than the US).
I'll release 2 items supporting my claim. the first is scienceblogs.com: Eggplant mania for cancer
which is a basic science blog with links in each highlighted portion and the next is an actual study file.scirp.org: Intralesion and Curaderm<sup>BEC5</sup> Topical Combination Therapies of Solasodine Rhamnosyl Glycosides Derived from the Eggplant or Devil’s Apple Result in Rapid Removal of Large Skin Cancers. Methods of Treatment Compared that shows the specific component does show potential but that more studies are needed...
It takes multiple studies to back up a product...it also takes money and time. hope that provides any type of insight.
Believing whatever you read on the internet isn't research, Belatucadros.
I could set up a website about my popcorn conspiracy theory and then people would start reading that online and believing it.
You need to be selective about which sources you believe; if somebody has just independently published something online then nobody will have fact checked it; trust should be invested in results published in scientific journals and reputable news websites, rather than just 'whatever I find on google'.
Oh I dunno. The near-eradication of measles, a 70-year-and-counting life expectancy, transformative innovations that made things like my cancer-preventing surgery possible, pain killers that made said surgeries bearable, etc.
Just so people are clear, I think denying the benefits of modern science to people perceived as 'anti science' is a really bad idea.
That's not going to convince anybody and it would also be a humanitarian catastrophe.
you're not Australian are you? our country does not work that way... it can't work that way... Australia is not a Plutocracy its semi pure transparent democracy we gave you things like the secret ballot
any way for starters the TGA is not the FDA its more holistic medicines the FDA would just be The Department of Health
first off holistic medicines have been semi banned here after a number of small children died when hippy's thought drinking raw milk was healthy this medicine is definitely holistic and the guy is weird he just says "i have studies that say it works" but wont show them we're expected to just take his word for it
as for BEC5 its fake dude... it's essentially snake oil
it supposedly targets squamous cell carcinoma which is not deadly its benign but should be removed because after 10 years it has the chance to develop cancer
the guy who made BEC5 lies through his teeth you yourself can contact the international hospitals where he did "Studies" they will tell you themselves that they never did any such test
so how does it work? it does the same thing surgery does it eats away at the skin until the "cancer" is gone
i can't find any reputable or actual studies done about this cream both domestic and international and only a few scam warnings and a handful of reviews
it really looks like the Government is ignoring him he's still selling it
I was curious about this and so looked it up, though I found this:
scienceblogs.com: Eggplant mania for cancer
In the article it goes over how the finder of this medicine didn't publish much of his results of his research nor did he allow it to be peer reviewed by other experts. Instead, testimonials and his own books, that he sold for money, were his evidence of its apparent benefits.
Sounds like a scam to me.
and checking out google scholar yields very few amounts of viable research...i posted one and it was done back in 2012 and stated more testing needed to be done...
Am guessing most of the 'evidence' is actually a viral marketing campaign on the internet orchestrated by the company attempting to sell their unapproved drug.
We are even. You guys are getting your information from biased sources, as am I perhaps. Websites that support modern medicine and pharmaceuticals are obviously going to shun anything that suggests otherwise. Just like sources that support more natural things will shun modern medicine. It seems that I'm outnumbered, so I'm done discussing this. If you are truly interested in my side of the argument, just keep an open mind and do some unbiased research.
I respect your opinions, so perhaps supply me with some evidence on your side?
Separate names with a comma.