Challenges to the "objective hard science crafting the common good" myth, especially prevalent in health issues, have mostly come from women during the second half of the 20th century. Be it Rachel Carson, Françoise d'Eaubonne, The Boston Women's Health Collective, Barbara Ehrenreich & Deirdre English, the midwives movement, breast-feeding supporters, Vandana Shiva, Arundhati Roy, Starhawk, Maude Barlow, Guylaine Lanctôt and countless others, these women have found themselves ignored, then sneered at by both the right-wing My Science Right or Wrong crowd, AND by Leftist opponents of what they dismissed as essentialist, "soft", manipulative politics - all feminine stereotypes - that was anything but evidence-based, even when these women tried to foreground their personal experiences with illnesses and healing.
So I do think a strain of misogyny is relevant in the reaction to these women and should be confronted when it surfaces in an allegedly progressive space.
Except that you don't find "my science right or wrong" types here.
I have questioned every health practitioner I've ever had. I even decided on a home birth with a midwife for my second child after doing my homework and weighing the pros and cons of my situation. I practice chi gong. I'm pretty open-minded, and so is every other pro-science poster on this board, so far as I can tell. Give us some evidence and we're happy to look at it and I daresay embrace it if it's credible.
In fact, what I'm seeing are poster who embrace the altmed worldview who dismiss the other side of the argument without addressing it, call into question the other posters motives and generally don't allow facts or evidence or anything other than their own biases and emotions and while these are understandable reactions to personal experience, it doesn't make them any shade of correct in their beliefs.
When it comes to my health and the health of my family, I'll have a listen. I want to know how you came to the conclusion you came to and if your personal experiences don't stand up to harsher scrutiny, then that's just not good enough. I won't be giving Suzanne Somers or any other woman more credence because of her sex - and I think it's pathetic that you're defending the destructive tripe this sorry excuse for a human being is purveying on the basis of her sex organs.
I think it's pathetic that you're defending the destructive tripe this sorry excuse for a human being is purveying on the basis of her sex organs.
I am not defending anything, I am flagging hatred against women when I see it. I don't think it's coincidence given that male purveyors of alt-med seem to escape such insults.
oh of course, Corporate irresponsiblity and pollution is the fault of science
omfg
I don't even know what to say - this is beyond ridiculous
I suppose you blame Einstein for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima
When I read stuff like this it makes me think human progess is a myth, we could slide into a dark age of myth and superstition as if the last thousand years never happened
I think it's pathetic that you're defending the destructive tripe this sorry excuse for a human being is purveying on the basis of her sex organs.
I am not defending anything, I am flagging hatred against women when I see it. I don't think it's coincidence given that male purveyors of alt-med seem to escape such insults.
They don't, actually. Start a thread on the male woo-fraudster of your choice and I'll be sure to react to them with the same disgust.
Speaking of women against science - you listed Barbara Ehrenreich, who studied physics as an undergrad and ended up with a PhD in cell biology.
In high school, I studied, chemistry, physics, algebra, biology; in uni, chemistry and more chemistry, calculus; lots of science. But all that science doesn't mean I have a more complete understanding of how the world works - it means I'm a lapdog of the patriarchy. Girl brains are different from boy brains - by studying science, I was denying my basic femininity.
I don't think it's coincidence given that male purveyors of alt-med seem to escape such insults.
That is true. I was once going to call Kevin Trudeau on his bullshit, but then I realized he had a penis just in time to stop myself. It was close though.
I think there are certain male posters who take a real delight in finding a woman they can so, in their opinon, justifiably trash, there is a certain mean glee in their posts, as an example I don't recall who but someone mentioned a link to Somers as a bimbo, is that really acceptable?
Actually, Tigana, I haven't said anything about Chinese herbs. Nor did I say anything about the efficacy of chi gong, only that I practice it. I've made mention of it only once to illustrate the falsity of the pro-pharma, closed-minded epithets flying about in these threads.
Now, if I started claiming that chi gong could cure cancer, or the common cold or anything else, you'd have me.
Personally, I rarely take medication and prefer exercise and good nutrition as an approach to maintaining health. I don't, as you have in another thread, make the claim that chemo is ineffective or that vitamin therapy (do I also recall a link about hemp oil curing cancer?) can cure cancer. You've stated that chemo killed your mother... It's horrible to lose a parent to cancer. I know, I was with my dad when he died of lung cancer a little over 13 years ago. You have a very strong emotional reason for holding your perspective. But looking at all the wacky altmed posts, the denial of conventional medicine, I'd have to say that my interpretation isn't all that far-out. I'm basing that interpretation on what you've posted in the last few days. Altmed is very much a worldview, almost a religion, and you've clearly embraced it. You claim to ask questions, but when pogge asked to you to actually think about what you were posting, you refused.
I don't see any evidence you're thinking independently. All I see is a regurgitation of somebody else's misinformation.
I think there are certain male posters who take a real delight in finding a woman they can so, in their opinon, justifiably trash, there is a certain mean glee in their posts, as an example I don't recall who but someone mentioned a link to Somers as a bimbo, is that really acceptable?
The only "bimbo" reference is in the National Post article referenced in the opening post. No one here called her a "bimbo", and if anyone did, that would be sexist and unacceptable IMO. She is, however, somewhat of a quack.
I think there are certain male posters who take a real delight in finding a woman they can so, in their opinon, justifiably trash, there is a certain mean glee in their posts, as an example I don't recall who but someone mentioned a link to Somers as a bimbo, is that really acceptable?
And Unionist I wasn't talking to you.
Can you give us an example from this thread, then? Because I'm not seeing it. If anything, Sineed and I have been pretty hard on Somers, and we're both female.
Speaking of women against science - you listed Barbara Ehrenreich, who studied physics as an undergrad and ended up with a PhD in cell biology.
In high school, I studied, chemistry, physics, algebra, biology; in uni, chemistry and more chemistry, calculus; lots of science. But all that science doesn't mean I have a more complete understanding of how the world works - it means I'm a lapdog of the patriarchy. Girl brains are different from boy brains - by studying science, I was denying my basic femininity.
This is what's really frustrating about having these conversations here. The automatic polarization into "for" or "against" (which, uncoincidentally, occurs in topics of porn or prostitution; suddenly, with a sweep of a brush, entire groups of babblers become "anti-sex" because they question pornography or prostitution).
Perhaps I simply haven't seen it, but I have not seen anyone here talk about being "against science" or about "women against science".
I applaud your science education. However, there are many, many people working in the sciences who have also provided very interesting, very compelling critiques of science. This does not make them "anti-science". I'm guessing many Babblers have also taken science courses at the university level. If some of you could just grasp that tiny little principle, these conversations might be a little less cantankerous.
I also take exception to your suggestion that because of your education in the sciences, you "have a more complete understanding of how the world works." No, you have a more scientific understanding of how the world works. Your error is in assuming that a scientific understanding = "more complete". Indeed, if your scientific education has trained you into rejecting other forms of knowledge because they're not quantifiable by a limited set of parameters, then in fact your understanding of the world may be that much more impoverished. You have no way of knowing how "complete" or incomplete your understanding of the world really is, and it's this arrogance and blind assumption of science as a culture that I am very anxious to expose every single time it pops up, particularly here.
wow, I was going o flag some personal attacks in this thread, and then I kept on reading, there a are way too many to flag, and that was after michelle's stepping in, so this post is just flagging the whole thread.
I feel like I walked in on a mob attack against 1 babbler
I think there are certain male posters who take a real delight in finding a woman they can so, in their opinon, justifiably trash, there is a certain mean glee in their posts, as an example I don't recall who but someone mentioned a link to Somers as a bimbo, is that really acceptable?
And Unionist I wasn't talking to you.
Can you give us an example from this thread, then? Because I'm not seeing it. If anything, Sineed and I have been pretty hard on Somers, and we're both female.
The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and perhaps you don't see it because you participate in it, I don't know if that is so, I would have to read through the thread and I am off to bed now, perhaps tomorrow.
My point, further, was how people who call themselves progressives could make such a gross error in their thinking, and in their understanding of how knowledge is created, is utterly dumbfounding.
"I also take exception to your suggestion that because of your education in the sciences, you "have a more complete understanding of how the world works." No, you have a more scientific understanding of how the world works. Your error is in assuming that a scientific understanding = "more complete". Indeed, if your scientific education has trained you into rejecting other forms of knowledge because they're not quantifiable by a limited set of parameters, then in fact your understanding of the world may be that much more impoverished. You have no way of knowing how "complete" or incomplete your understanding of the world really is, and it's this arrogance and blind assumption of science as a culture that I am very anxious to expose every single time it pops up, particularly here."
Jas, this is worthy material for an essay or perhaps a book.
Actually, Tigana, I haven't said anything about Chinese herbs. Nor did I say anything about the efficacy of chi gong, only that I practice it. I've made mention of it only once to illustrate the falsity of the pro-pharma, closed-minded epithets flying about in these threads.
Now, if I started claiming that chi gong could cure cancer, or the common cold or anything else, you'd have me.
Personally, I rarely take medication and prefer exercise and good nutrition as an approach to maintaining health. I don't, as you have in another thread, make the claim that chemo is ineffective or that vitamin therapy (do I also recall a link about hemp oil curing cancer?) can cure cancer. You've stated that chemo killed your mother... It's horrible to lose a parent to cancer. I know, I was with my dad when he died of lung cancer a little over 13 years ago. You have a very strong emotional reason for holding your perspective. But looking at all the wacky altmed posts, the denial of conventional medicine, I'd have to say that my interpretation isn't all that far-out. I'm basing that interpretation on what you've posted in the last few days. Altmed is very much a worldview, almost a religion, and you've clearly embraced it. You claim to ask questions, but when pogge asked to you to actually think about what you were posting, you refused.
I don't see any evidence you're thinking independently. All I see is a regurgitation of somebody else's misinformation.
I wish there were more independent thinking here.
I have offered you links and asked you to look and think. So have Fidel, Ennir, PollyB, ElizaQ, and others here.
Posters here have summoned up spectres of conspiracy theories, even GOD, to try and stop individuals from asking questions. There is a lot wrong with conventional Canadian medicine, and you just don't want to be reminded of it - to the point of losing all rationality.
Actually, Tigana, I haven't said anything about Chinese herbs. Nor did I say anything about the efficacy of chi gong, only that I practice it. I've made mention of it only once to illustrate the falsity of the pro-pharma, closed-minded epithets flying about in these threads.
Now, if I started claiming that chi gong could cure cancer, or the common cold or anything else, you'd have me.
Personally, I rarely take medication and prefer exercise and good nutrition as an approach to maintaining health. I don't, as you have in another thread, make the claim that chemo is ineffective or that vitamin therapy (do I also recall a link about hemp oil curing cancer?) can cure cancer. You've stated that chemo killed your mother... It's horrible to lose a parent to cancer. I know, I was with my dad when he died of lung cancer a little over 13 years ago. You have a very strong emotional reason for holding your perspective. But looking at all the wacky altmed posts, the denial of conventional medicine, I'd have to say that my interpretation isn't all that far-out. I'm basing that interpretation on what you've posted in the last few days. Altmed is very much a worldview, almost a religion, and you've clearly embraced it. You claim to ask questions, but when pogge asked to you to actually think about what you were posting, you refused.
I don't see any evidence you're thinking independently. All I see is a regurgitation of somebody else's misinformation.
I wish there were more independent thinking here.
I have offered you links and asked you to look and think. So have Fidel, Ennir, PollyB, ElizaQ, and others here.
Posters here have summoned up spectres of conspiracy theories, even GOD, to try and stop individuals from asking questions. There is a lot wrong with conventional Canadian medicine, and you just don't want to be reminded of it - to the point of losing all rationality.
I also take exception to your suggestion that because of your education in the sciences, you "have a more complete understanding of how the world works." No, you have a more scientific understanding of how the world works. Your error is in assuming that a scientific understanding = "more complete". Indeed, if your scientific education has trained you into rejecting other forms of knowledge because they're not quantifiable by a limited set of parameters, then in fact your understanding of the world may be that much more impoverished. You have no way of knowing how "complete" or incomplete your understanding of the world really is, and it's this arrogance and blind assumption of science as a culture that I am very anxious to expose every single time it pops up, particularly here.
jas, that is an unbelievable load of po-mo relativist bullshit.
Some things are not negotiable around "different kinds of knowing". A tumor is either there or it isn't. It's either growing or it isn't. Some kinds of tumors are malignant. Baking soda's going to fizz in contact with liquid. Gravity makes things fall down instead of up. No "different way of knowing" is going to change it. Science is like that. Understanding the why really does give us a more complete understanding of the world.
You want to get airy-fairy about something, go write a poem or do an interpretive dance and we can all explore different ways of knowing in our own interpretations of it. That sort of thinking has no place in science or medicine or hard reality.
Timebandit, I find jas's thinking to be rigorous and more factual that your own.
To repeat, I take a particular interest in nutrition. There is a difference between nutrition and altmed, but even universities can and do include altmed in their courses now. This has been pretty standard in Europe for years.
There is a lot wrong with conventional Canadian medicine, and you just don't want to be reminded of it - to the point of losing all rationality.
This from the queen of rationality, who actually believes that vaccines caused AIDS in North America!
The reason we don't want to be reminded of what's wrong with "conventional Canadian medicine" it is that it's off-topic in a thread about Hollywood celebrities promoting quackery.
Criticism of "conventional Canadian medicine" is worthwhile and could be a thread topic in itself. But instead it's used as a tactic to divert, derail, and shut down any (equally worthwhile) discussion about quackery and pseudoscience in alternative medicine. We have moderators, but unfortunately they never step in to keep these threads on topic, and so they are allowed to degenerate into arguments over anything but the actual thread topic.
You want to get airy-fairy about something, go write a poem or do an interpretive dance and we can all explore different ways of knowing in our own interpretations of it. That sort of thinking has no place in science or medicine or hard reality.
There is a lot wrong with conventional Canadian medicine, and you just don't want to be reminded of it - to the point of losing all rationality.
This from the queen of rationality, who actually believes that vaccines caused AIDS in North America!
Edward Shorter, a professor at the University of Toronto, made this tape. There is no reason to believe that Shorter faked it or that the Merck researcher lied.
There is a lot wrong with conventional Canadian medicine, and you just don't want to be reminded of it - to the point of losing all rationality.
This from the queen of rationality, who actually believes that vaccines caused AIDS in North America!
Edward Shorter, a professor at the University of Toronto, made this tape. There is no reason to believe that Shorter faked it or that the Merck researcher lied.
"In fact, what I'm seeing are poster who embrace the altmed worldview who dismiss the other side of the argument without addressing it, call into question the other posters motives and generally don't allow facts or evidence or anything other than their own biases and emotions and while these are understandable reactions to personal experience, it doesn't make them any shade of correct in their beliefs."
In fact, what you are doing is interpreting - wrong.
Altmed worldview?
Conspiracy theory? Nutrition is as Canadian as the Canada Food Rules. I know nutrition, a bit, and encourage everyone to learn as much about it and prevention as they can. I ask questions, read all I can have a bias against meds and a preference for nutrition. You will look in vain for comments by me about Qi Gong, homeopathy, Chinese medicine, herbs, - those claims were posted by you. You didn't even read my posts.
Anyone who is not blinded by prejudice can clearly see and hear on that tape that the comment about importing AIDS virus was a sarcastic joke that elicited peals of laughter from the people in the room before the conversation quickly moved on. Nobody has taken it seriously except the internet cottage industry of bloggers and pseudoscientific quacks with an axe to grind and a buck to be made from selling snake oil. If it were true, it would be all over the MSM; there would be books and documentary films and investigative reporting articles about it.
Hilleman himself refers to vaccines as "the bargain basement technology of the Twentieth Century" and outlines the cancer-causing ingredients in vaccines he has worked on. That in itself is pretty alarming. (Could it be that vaccines are "snake oil"?)
Hilleman himself refers to vaccines as "the bargain basement technology of the Twentieth Century" and outlines the cancer-causing ingredients in vaccines he has worked on. That in itself is pretty alarming. (Could it be that vaccines are "snake oil"?)
Cancer-causing ingredients? What does this have to do with AIDS?
This is your standard discussion tactic - change the subject when somebody points out you are full of shit.
What's the meaning and relevance of the "bargain basement" quote? You want us to believe Hilleman was one of your guys - the kind who sneer at vaccines and go around warning people to stay away from them. That's just plain disinformation.
Hilleman was in fact Mr. Vaccine: He invented over 40 vaccines, including mumps, measles, chickenpox, pneumonia, and meningitis, saving tens of millions of lives. He was a true medical hero, who applied the principles of scientific medicine to the fight against disease.
The final nail is in the coffin for the now largely refuted theory that the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) crossed into humans as a result of contamination of oral polio vaccine (OPV), according to a new study. In the April 22 [2004] Nature, Michael Worobey and colleagues report that the chimpanzees claimed to be the source of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIVcpz) that crossed over actually contain a SIVcpz unrelated to HIV-1.
Edward Shorter, a professor at the University of Toronto, made this tape. There is no reason to believe that Shorter faked it or that the Merck researcher lied.
Tigana wrote:
We can ask Edward Shorter why he was laughing. But I can tell you that he has gained a reputation amongst those who serve in the Armed Forces and with those who have MCS, FM and CFS patients as a mocker and denigrator.
So, one minute you're trading on the authority of Edward Shorter to give credence to your absurd assertions, and the next minute you're denouncing him as a mocker and denigrator.
Can we at least expect some kind of consistency in your rants?
Hilleman himself refers to vaccines as "the bargain basement technology of the Twentieth Century"
That is a good thing. He is referring to vaccines have the greatest benefits for the lowest cost. He is right.
Quote:
and outlines the cancer-causing ingredients in vaccines he has worked on. That in itself is pretty alarming.
That is the problem with watching a clip intentionally edited by the conspiracy theorist who really doesn't care (and would probably prefer) if the viewers are more ignorant after the watching the clip than they were before. Anything that suits the goal of the conspiracy theory is all that matters. It is also an issue when people don't have the basic knowledge of biology to know that almost all viruses are specific to a host species and have evolved that way so they are very unlikely infect other species. A tiny percentage of viruses infect humans. Even most of those viruses that do co-exist peacefully causing no harm. Our DNA is full of viruses that has merged into us thousands - millions of years ago. Many viruses are beneficial which infect and kill harmful bacteria. Yes, Hilleman wanted to ensure that his vaccines were free of viruses as a further failsafe, but he understood that the chances of these viruses in question being harmful were extremely small and that the viruses we were vaccinating against were extremely dangerous to humans. SV-40 does not cause cause cancer in humans. Chicken leukemia virus does not cause leukemia or anything in humans. If it did those of us who have ate eggs or chickens in our lifetimes would be in trouble. And, of course, african greens do not carry a HIV/SIV virus so they absolutely could not be the cause of HIV/AIDS in humans. All of this is well established by mountains of evidence.
Quote:
(Could it be that vaccines are "snake oil"?)
No. Vaccines are responsible for saving millions of lives (mostly children) each year. Responsible for eradicating smallpox. Vaccines are the opposite of snake oil.
That is the problem with watching a clip intentionally edited by the conspiracy theorist who really doesn't care (and would probably prefer) if the viewers are more ignorant after the watching the clip than they were before.
And the kicker is that this guy Leonard Horowitz, who made the video In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood & Bioterrorism from which that excerpt with Hilleman was taken, doesn't even agree with Tigana's theory that AIDS came to America from vaccines!
His particular conspiracy theory is the better-known one that [url=http://www.all-natural.com/horo-3.html]AIDS was created as a biological weapon[/url] by defence contractors working for the Pentagon and somehow got loose into the population.
Do you have knowledge of biology and science, Trevor, or is this just a nice outing on your hobby horse?
No. I pretty much just just make up a bunch of crap and post it on this forum for fun.
However, conspiracy theories are a hobby. I don't really find the conspiracies interesting, but instead the mindset that conspiracists develop. I have asked several conspiracy theorists that I know if their wacked out claims turn out to be false would that make them question their sources of information? Their methodology for assessing information? Their confidence in claims that have no evidence? Their responses to the question vary, however when their strongly held beliefs are shown to be completely wrong they never admit to the fact and they just hop to the next claim as if the last one was never made. Kind of like you do on these threads as has been pointed out by several people. I have a friend of many, many years who is the promoting "the shot is the pandemic" nonsense. When it turns out that the shot is not the pandemic you can be sure that his views will not change and in a day or two he will be sending me information on the next deeply held conspiracy.
If you don't mind...
Challenges to the "objective hard science crafting the common good" myth, especially prevalent in health issues, have mostly come from women during the second half of the 20th century. Be it Rachel Carson, Françoise d'Eaubonne, The Boston Women's Health Collective, Barbara Ehrenreich & Deirdre English, the midwives movement, breast-feeding supporters, Vandana Shiva, Arundhati Roy, Starhawk, Maude Barlow, Guylaine Lanctôt and countless others, these women have found themselves ignored, then sneered at by both the right-wing My Science Right or Wrong crowd, AND by Leftist opponents of what they dismissed as essentialist, "soft", manipulative politics - all feminine stereotypes - that was anything but evidence-based, even when these women tried to foreground their personal experiences with illnesses and healing.
So I do think a strain of misogyny is relevant in the reaction to these women and should be confronted when it surfaces in an allegedly progressive space.
Thanks Martin and I agree.
With the part about Maude Barlow and Arundhati Roy? Are they promoters of "alternative" medicine? What did he say and what are we agreeing with?
Except that you don't find "my science right or wrong" types here.
I have questioned every health practitioner I've ever had. I even decided on a home birth with a midwife for my second child after doing my homework and weighing the pros and cons of my situation. I practice chi gong. I'm pretty open-minded, and so is every other pro-science poster on this board, so far as I can tell. Give us some evidence and we're happy to look at it and I daresay embrace it if it's credible.
In fact, what I'm seeing are poster who embrace the altmed worldview who dismiss the other side of the argument without addressing it, call into question the other posters motives and generally don't allow facts or evidence or anything other than their own biases and emotions and while these are understandable reactions to personal experience, it doesn't make them any shade of correct in their beliefs.
When it comes to my health and the health of my family, I'll have a listen. I want to know how you came to the conclusion you came to and if your personal experiences don't stand up to harsher scrutiny, then that's just not good enough. I won't be giving Suzanne Somers or any other woman more credence because of her sex - and I think it's pathetic that you're defending the destructive tripe this sorry excuse for a human being is purveying on the basis of her sex organs.
They are tireless activists against Big Science and corporate unaccountability for human disasters such as Bhopal and water pollution.
What the fuck does that have to do with a rich white woman getting richer on dangerous lies?
I think it's pathetic that you're defending the destructive tripe this sorry excuse for a human being is purveying on the basis of her sex organs.
I am not defending anything, I am flagging hatred against women when I see it. I don't think it's coincidence given that male purveyors of alt-med seem to escape such insults.
You mention such heroes of people's struggle in the same breath as this Suzanne Somers fraud - because they're all women??
That's really over the top, way way over, martin. Please don't defend Suzanne Somers here, and please don't attack those who condemn her. Thank you.
oh of course, Corporate irresponsiblity and pollution is the fault of science
I don't even know what to say - this is beyond ridiculous
I suppose you blame Einstein for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima
When I read stuff like this it makes me think human progess is a myth, we could slide into a dark age of myth and superstition as if the last thousand years never happened
They don't, actually. Start a thread on the male woo-fraudster of your choice and I'll be sure to react to them with the same disgust.
Speaking of women against science - you listed Barbara Ehrenreich, who studied physics as an undergrad and ended up with a PhD in cell biology.
In high school, I studied, chemistry, physics, algebra, biology; in uni, chemistry and more chemistry, calculus; lots of science. But all that science doesn't mean I have a more complete understanding of how the world works - it means I'm a lapdog of the patriarchy. Girl brains are different from boy brains - by studying science, I was denying my basic femininity.
After all, REAL girls can't do math.
That is true. I was once going to call Kevin Trudeau on his bullshit, but then I realized he had a penis just in time to stop myself. It was close though.
I think there are certain male posters who take a real delight in finding a woman they can so, in their opinon, justifiably trash, there is a certain mean glee in their posts, as an example I don't recall who but someone mentioned a link to Somers as a bimbo, is that really acceptable?
And Unionist I wasn't talking to you.
I think I'll call in sick tomorrow, and instead seek out a sun-dappled glade, and dance with a wood nymph, a baby at each breast.
Tra la la.
tigana - you quoting(in fact using and abusing in my mind) Albert Einstein makes me wanna throw up
good night
Actually, Tigana, I haven't said anything about Chinese herbs. Nor did I say anything about the efficacy of chi gong, only that I practice it. I've made mention of it only once to illustrate the falsity of the pro-pharma, closed-minded epithets flying about in these threads.
Now, if I started claiming that chi gong could cure cancer, or the common cold or anything else, you'd have me.
Personally, I rarely take medication and prefer exercise and good nutrition as an approach to maintaining health. I don't, as you have in another thread, make the claim that chemo is ineffective or that vitamin therapy (do I also recall a link about hemp oil curing cancer?) can cure cancer. You've stated that chemo killed your mother... It's horrible to lose a parent to cancer. I know, I was with my dad when he died of lung cancer a little over 13 years ago. You have a very strong emotional reason for holding your perspective. But looking at all the wacky altmed posts, the denial of conventional medicine, I'd have to say that my interpretation isn't all that far-out. I'm basing that interpretation on what you've posted in the last few days. Altmed is very much a worldview, almost a religion, and you've clearly embraced it. You claim to ask questions, but when pogge asked to you to actually think about what you were posting, you refused.
I don't see any evidence you're thinking independently. All I see is a regurgitation of somebody else's misinformation.
The only "bimbo" reference is in the National Post article referenced in the opening post. No one here called her a "bimbo", and if anyone did, that would be sexist and unacceptable IMO. She is, however, somewhat of a quack.
You mean you still have breasts? All that science-y edumacation hasn't made them atrophy?
My femininity is in grave danger
Can you give us an example from this thread, then? Because I'm not seeing it. If anything, Sineed and I have been pretty hard on Somers, and we're both female.
This is what's really frustrating about having these conversations here. The automatic polarization into "for" or "against" (which, uncoincidentally, occurs in topics of porn or prostitution; suddenly, with a sweep of a brush, entire groups of babblers become "anti-sex" because they question pornography or prostitution).
Perhaps I simply haven't seen it, but I have not seen anyone here talk about being "against science" or about "women against science".
I applaud your science education. However, there are many, many people working in the sciences who have also provided very interesting, very compelling critiques of science. This does not make them "anti-science". I'm guessing many Babblers have also taken science courses at the university level. If some of you could just grasp that tiny little principle, these conversations might be a little less cantankerous.
I also take exception to your suggestion that because of your education in the sciences, you "have a more complete understanding of how the world works." No, you have a more scientific understanding of how the world works. Your error is in assuming that a scientific understanding = "more complete". Indeed, if your scientific education has trained you into rejecting other forms of knowledge because they're not quantifiable by a limited set of parameters, then in fact your understanding of the world may be that much more impoverished. You have no way of knowing how "complete" or incomplete your understanding of the world really is, and it's this arrogance and blind assumption of science as a culture that I am very anxious to expose every single time it pops up, particularly here.
wow, I was going o flag some personal attacks in this thread, and then I kept on reading, there a are way too many to flag, and that was after michelle's stepping in, so this post is just flagging the whole thread.
I feel like I walked in on a mob attack against 1 babbler
The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and perhaps you don't see it because you participate in it, I don't know if that is so, I would have to read through the thread and I am off to bed now, perhaps tomorrow.
Sorry - I leapfrogged over Ennir and Tigana.
My point, further, was how people who call themselves progressives could make such a gross error in their thinking, and in their understanding of how knowledge is created, is utterly dumbfounding.
Jas wrote,
"I also take exception to your suggestion that because of your education in the sciences, you "have a more complete understanding of how the world works." No, you have a more scientific understanding of how the world works. Your error is in assuming that a scientific understanding = "more complete". Indeed, if your scientific education has trained you into rejecting other forms of knowledge because they're not quantifiable by a limited set of parameters, then in fact your understanding of the world may be that much more impoverished. You have no way of knowing how "complete" or incomplete your understanding of the world really is, and it's this arrogance and blind assumption of science as a culture that I am very anxious to expose every single time it pops up, particularly here."
Jas, this is worthy material for an essay or perhaps a book.
I wish there were more independent thinking here.
I have offered you links and asked you to look and think. So have Fidel, Ennir, PollyB, ElizaQ, and others here.
Posters here have summoned up spectres of conspiracy theories, even GOD, to try and stop individuals from asking questions. There is a lot wrong with conventional Canadian medicine, and you just don't want to be reminded of it - to the point of losing all rationality.
See post #158
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/body-and-soul/canadian-h1n1-vaccine-will-hav...
You are seeing the enemy - and it is you.
That would be funny if you weren't so gosh-darned sincere.
Here's the link. And I hear that the National Post is not long for this world.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/29/...
oops again.
No worries, Jas, thrilled to read your work and hope there will be much more to come.
jas, that is an unbelievable load of po-mo relativist bullshit.
Some things are not negotiable around "different kinds of knowing". A tumor is either there or it isn't. It's either growing or it isn't. Some kinds of tumors are malignant. Baking soda's going to fizz in contact with liquid. Gravity makes things fall down instead of up. No "different way of knowing" is going to change it. Science is like that. Understanding the why really does give us a more complete understanding of the world.
You want to get airy-fairy about something, go write a poem or do an interpretive dance and we can all explore different ways of knowing in our own interpretations of it. That sort of thinking has no place in science or medicine or hard reality.
So all the altmed posts were just to throw us off then?
Right.
Sincere, yes. Alt med devotee, no.
Timebandit, I find jas's thinking to be rigorous and more factual that your own.
To repeat, I take a particular interest in nutrition. There is a difference between nutrition and altmed, but even universities can and do include altmed in their courses now. This has been pretty standard in Europe for years.
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/
This from the queen of rationality, who actually believes that vaccines caused AIDS in North America!
The reason we don't want to be reminded of what's wrong with "conventional Canadian medicine" it is that it's off-topic in a thread about Hollywood celebrities promoting quackery.
Criticism of "conventional Canadian medicine" is worthwhile and could be a thread topic in itself. But instead it's used as a tactic to divert, derail, and shut down any (equally worthwhile) discussion about quackery and pseudoscience in alternative medicine. We have moderators, but unfortunately they never step in to keep these threads on topic, and so they are allowed to degenerate into arguments over anything but the actual thread topic.
Case in point.
Confusion often happens when people start believing their own straw men.
Edward Shorter, a professor at the University of Toronto, made this tape. There is no reason to believe that Shorter faked it or that the Merck researcher lied.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=327_1195303011
I have seen is no evidence that it is not truthful and real.
You're only saying straw man because you hate straw women. Sexist!
That would be the problem. You won't see. That claim is delusional.
QUOTE:
"In fact, what I'm seeing are poster who embrace the altmed worldview who dismiss the other side of the argument without addressing it, call into question the other posters motives and generally don't allow facts or evidence or anything other than their own biases and emotions and while these are understandable reactions to personal experience, it doesn't make them any shade of correct in their beliefs."
In fact, what you are doing is interpreting - wrong.
Altmed worldview?
Conspiracy theory? Nutrition is as Canadian as the Canada Food Rules. I know nutrition, a bit, and encourage everyone to learn as much about it and prevention as they can. I ask questions, read all I can have a bias against meds and a preference for nutrition. You will look in vain for comments by me about Qi Gong, homeopathy, Chinese medicine, herbs, - those claims were posted by you. You didn't even read my posts.
All shadow-boxing, you see.
"Had I known, I would have become a watchmaker"
- Albert Einstein
Timebandit, if you have evidence that it it not true, we will be happy to see it. Go ahead - show us the evidence.
Anyone who is not blinded by prejudice can clearly see and hear on that tape that the comment about importing AIDS virus was a sarcastic joke that elicited peals of laughter from the people in the room before the conversation quickly moved on. Nobody has taken it seriously except the internet cottage industry of bloggers and pseudoscientific quacks with an axe to grind and a buck to be made from selling snake oil. If it were true, it would be all over the MSM; there would be books and documentary films and investigative reporting articles about it.
Hilleman himself refers to vaccines as "the bargain basement technology of the Twentieth Century" and outlines the cancer-causing ingredients in vaccines he has worked on. That in itself is pretty alarming. (Could it be that vaccines are "snake oil"?)
We can ask Edward Shorter why he was laughing. But I can tell you that he has gained a reputation amongst those who serve in the Armed Forces and with those who have MCS, FM and CFS patients as a mocker and denigrator.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/health-sante/ps/oh-so/mcssp-sspcd/mcssp-sspcd-07...
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Pm7tbYXHOT0C&pg=PT24&lpg=PT24&dq=edward+...
Cancer-causing ingredients? What does this have to do with AIDS?
This is your standard discussion tactic - change the subject when somebody points out you are full of shit.
What's the meaning and relevance of the "bargain basement" quote? You want us to believe Hilleman was one of your guys - the kind who sneer at vaccines and go around warning people to stay away from them. That's just plain disinformation.
Hilleman was in fact Mr. Vaccine: He invented over 40 vaccines, including mumps, measles, chickenpox, pneumonia, and meningitis, saving tens of millions of lives. He was a true medical hero, who applied the principles of scientific medicine to the fight against disease.
[url=http://www.scidev.net/en/news/contaminated-polio-vaccine-not-the-source-... polio vaccine 'not the source of AIDS'[/url]
[url=http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040421/02/]Polio vaccine-AIDS theory dead:[/url]
So, one minute you're trading on the authority of Edward Shorter to give credence to your absurd assertions, and the next minute you're denouncing him as a mocker and denigrator.
Can we at least expect some kind of consistency in your rants?
Thanks for posting that M Spector
That is a good thing. He is referring to vaccines have the greatest benefits for the lowest cost. He is right.
That is the problem with watching a clip intentionally edited by the conspiracy theorist who really doesn't care (and would probably prefer) if the viewers are more ignorant after the watching the clip than they were before. Anything that suits the goal of the conspiracy theory is all that matters. It is also an issue when people don't have the basic knowledge of biology to know that almost all viruses are specific to a host species and have evolved that way so they are very unlikely infect other species. A tiny percentage of viruses infect humans. Even most of those viruses that do co-exist peacefully causing no harm. Our DNA is full of viruses that has merged into us thousands - millions of years ago. Many viruses are beneficial which infect and kill harmful bacteria. Yes, Hilleman wanted to ensure that his vaccines were free of viruses as a further failsafe, but he understood that the chances of these viruses in question being harmful were extremely small and that the viruses we were vaccinating against were extremely dangerous to humans. SV-40 does not cause cause cancer in humans. Chicken leukemia virus does not cause leukemia or anything in humans. If it did those of us who have ate eggs or chickens in our lifetimes would be in trouble. And, of course, african greens do not carry a HIV/SIV virus so they absolutely could not be the cause of HIV/AIDS in humans. All of this is well established by mountains of evidence.
No. Vaccines are responsible for saving millions of lives (mostly children) each year. Responsible for eradicating smallpox. Vaccines are the opposite of snake oil.
And the kicker is that this guy Leonard Horowitz, who made the video In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood & Bioterrorism from which that excerpt with Hilleman was taken, doesn't even agree with Tigana's theory that AIDS came to America from vaccines!
His particular conspiracy theory is the better-known one that [url=http://www.all-natural.com/horo-3.html]AIDS was created as a biological weapon[/url] by defence contractors working for the Pentagon and somehow got loose into the population.
No. I pretty much just just make up a bunch of crap and post it on this forum for fun.
However, conspiracy theories are a hobby. I don't really find the conspiracies interesting, but instead the mindset that conspiracists develop. I have asked several conspiracy theorists that I know if their wacked out claims turn out to be false would that make them question their sources of information? Their methodology for assessing information? Their confidence in claims that have no evidence? Their responses to the question vary, however when their strongly held beliefs are shown to be completely wrong they never admit to the fact and they just hop to the next claim as if the last one was never made. Kind of like you do on these threads as has been pointed out by several people. I have a friend of many, many years who is the promoting "the shot is the pandemic" nonsense. When it turns out that the shot is not the pandemic you can be sure that his views will not change and in a day or two he will be sending me information on the next deeply held conspiracy.
Pages