Confirmation bias anyone?

[Leonardo]

Our past only shapes us as we let it. As self aware beings we can act as we choose to act and those choices are formed from intellect not biology. For example my father once had transient global amnesia and he forgot all his past for a time, but his mind worked fine and he could choose actions using a mind with no memories. The facts I push are facts established by branches of science But they are not popular among some humans especially those who do not wish to accept that each one of us is totally in control of our behaviour and thus responsible for every act of it Our minds are not an extension of our physical body, anymore than a computer programme is an extension of the computer when it reaches self awareness Our mind is an entire entity in itself, and can exist separated from the original organic host and mind which generated it. Just as an artificial intelligence can be stored, replicated, and transferred, so can a human intelligence. It is not physically connected to/inseparable from, its original brain/body, anymore than a computer programme is restricted to the computer on which it was written.

at a given time. Reflective analytical or imaginative thought allows you to make any decision at any time Nothing compels you to a certain choice.

I did not state that we could not act if we are disassociated from our past, I said our past influences how we act. The 'self-awareness' you tout is not free from your past experiences. It does not exist in some perpetual limbo of 'now', with no appreciation of and input from past experience.

Any change in behaviour is derived from this perspective of the past, how our past behaviour/actions has impacted on others and ourselves. The sort of "self-awareness existing only the moment" you are proposing simply does not exist - except, perhaps, as an illusion born of your particular brand of belief. A belief which is, in direct contradiction of your own statements, a result of your past.

[Mr Walker]

I did not state that we could not act if we are disassociated from our past, I said our past influences how we act. The 'self-awareness' you tout is not free from your past experiences. It does not exist in some perpetual limbo of 'now', with no appreciation of and input from past experience.

Any change in behaviour is derived from this perspective of the past, how our past behaviour/actions has impacted on others and ourselves. The sort of "self-awareness existing only the moment" you are proposing simply does not exist - except, perhaps, as an illusion born of your particular brand of belief. A belief which is, in direct contradiction of your own statements, a result of your past.

Ok close enough. Our past will influence our decisions if we let it. ie if we choose to let it; but that is a conscious choice we can make. No one HAS to make a decision based on the past experience or on biological/genetic drivers or impulses.. Thus there is a PHYSICAL disconnect between both biology and past experience and current mental process. Only current mental process decides our actions, and that is totally in the moment or the present. The mind can act from imagination or from mental process without reference to the past;. and as I stated, my father was able to act logically and rationally, in the moment, when he had no memory of the last 40 years of his life on which to base decisions ie it was impossible for his past to influence his present current decisions because a that time he HAD no past to refer to..Yet his mind operated effectively, clearly and logically, without any past reference points. It didn't need any of the past experience to operate or make decisions ie it was operating in a total disconnect from any past memories.

Transient global amnesia (TGA) is a neurological disorder whose key defining characteristic is a temporary but almost total disruption of short-term memory with a range of problems accessing older memories. A person in a state of TGA exhibits no other signs of impaired cognitive functioning but recalls only the last few moments of consciousness, as well as deeply encoded facts of the individual’s past, such as his or her own name.^[1][2]

^{In my father's case he was between 55 and 60 and forgot EVERYTHING in his past after his late teens. After about 24 hours he membered it all and forgot his episode of amnesia including his visit to the hospital but he functioned perfectly well cognitively. You do not need memory to operate logically and rationally in the moment and you can ignore memories as if you had forgotten them.}

Edited April 9, 2014 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

Ok close enough. Our past will influence our decisions if we let it. ie if we choose to let it; but that is a conscious choice we can make. No one HAS to make a decision based on the past experience or on biological/genetic drivers or impulses.. Thus there is a PHYSICAL disconnect between both biology and past experience and current mental process. Only current mental process decides our actions, and that is totally in the moment or the present. The mind can act from imagination or from mental process without reference to the past;. and as I stated, my father was able to act logically and rationally, in the moment, when he had no memory of the last 40 years of his life on which to base decisions ie it was impossible for his past to influence his present current decisions because a that time he HAD no past to refer to..Yet his mind operated effectively, clearly and logically, without any past reference points. It didn't need any of the past experience to operate or make decisions ie it was operating in a total disconnect from any past memories.

Transient global amnesia (TGA) is a neurological disorder whose key defining characteristic is a temporary but almost total disruption of short-term memory with a range of problems accessing older memories. A person in a state of TGA exhibits no other signs of impaired cognitive functioning but recalls only the last few moments of consciousness, as well as deeply encoded facts of the individual’s past, such as his or her own name.^[1][2]

^{In my father's case he was between 55 and 60 and forgot EVERYTHING in his past after his late teens. After about 24 hours he membered it all and forgot his episode of amnesia including his visit to the hospital but he functioned perfectly well cognitively. You do not need memory to operate logically and rationally in the moment and you can ignore memories as if you had forgotten them.}

All you are saying here is your dad lost his ability to use his episodic memory (ones personal history) and relied on his semantic memory, (decontextualized facts and info) both of these memories give rise to self awareness, and are biological in origin and application. The by product of self awareness is the ability to mentally simulate possible behavioral strategies to adapt to changing social and environmental variables. MW, (IMHO)what I observe here is that you do not have/or have forgotten a basic understanding of Biology.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Sherapy

[ChloeB]

Ok close enough. Our past will influence our decisions if we let it. ie if we choose to let it; but that is a conscious choice we can make. No one HAS to make a decision based on the past experience or on biological/genetic drivers or impulses.. Thus there is a PHYSICAL disconnect between both biology and past experience and current mental process. Only current mental process decides our actions, and that is totally in the moment or the present. The mind can act from imagination or from mental process without reference to the past;. and as I stated, my father was able to act logically and rationally, in the moment, when he had no memory of the last 40 years of his life on which to base decisions ie it was impossible for his past to influence his present current decisions because a that time he HAD no past to refer to..Yet his mind operated effectively, clearly and logically, without any past reference points. It didn't need any of the past experience to operate or make decisions ie it was operating in a total disconnect from any past memories.

Transient global amnesia (TGA) is a neurological disorder whose key defining characteristic is a temporary but almost total disruption of short-term memory with a range of problems accessing older memories. A person in a state of TGA exhibits no other signs of impaired cognitive functioning but recalls only the last few moments of consciousness, as well as deeply encoded facts of the individual’s past, such as his or her own name.^[1][2]

^{In my father's case he was between 55 and 60 and forgot EVERYTHING in his past after his late teens. After about 24 hours he membered it all and forgot his episode of amnesia including his visit to the hospital but he functioned perfectly well cognitively. You do not need memory to operate logically and rationally in the moment and you can ignore memories as if you had forgotten them.}

Mr Walker, my grandfather had TGA. It was really bizarre to witness. He couldn't remember how he got home or what he'd done that day, what he had for lunch so we took him to the hospital. He couldn't tell them who the president was, but his personality was just the same, and he was almost laughing at himself because he knew he should know these things and couldn't. It was almost like it was just barely out of his reach of his accessing these memories, if that makes any sense. But yes, he was still cognitively functioning, the proof of that being he was aware he need to know things he couldn't bring to the forefront of his consciousness. What was weird is when we were the ER, he could remember things about me as a little girl and was bringing that up. It was more his short-term memory very similar to your dad and same thing, it all came back within 24 hours, though this was a sign of a serious health issue after his bypass. But through it all, he remained himself as the character and personality I knew him, even though he had lost access to a huge chunk of his memories. However, I must disagree with you, I think subconsciously they were still there and shaping who he was even though he wasn't cognizant of those memories. Every time we make a decision or have a reaction, we don't run through all the memories of our past, but that doesn't mean they arent' still shaping us behind the scenes, they are. Your comments about about past will only influence our decisions if we let it or make a conscious choice to allow it......this is just simply not true. How many people are in a psychologist's office trying to figure out why they behave a certain way, have phobias, PTSD, or have reactions to certain situations and really don't know why and they are working through repressed or suppressed memories to get an explanation? There are lots and we all function that way, maybe not in the extremes as I described, but we all do. Things that happen shape who we are without us really even knowing it has and sometimes we have to dig hard to pull these deep things up to understand parts of ourselves.

Edited April 9, 2014 by ChloeB

[Mr Walker]

All you are saying here is your dad lost his ability to use his episodic memory (ones personal history) and relied on his semantic memory, (decontextualized facts and info) both of these memories give rise to self awareness, and are biological in origin and application. The by product of self awareness is the ability to mentally simulate possible behavioral strategies to adapt to changing social and environmental variables. MW, (IMHO)what I observe here is that you do not have/or have forgotten a basic understanding of Biology.

This was specific response to leonardos pov tha t we rely on experiential memory to make informed choices and that wha t we do now is dependent on, or influenced by, past memory.

I am very well aware of the effects of transient global amnesia. When my father had it there were very few cases known in the world, and so I read up a lot on it. I agree entirely with the bit I have bolded in your post.

This is the discontinuity I speak of. This is not a biological process, although it uses biological material to operate; but an intellectual product OF self awareness or an ability of the mind.

[Mr Walker]

Mr Walker, my grandfather had TGA. It was really bizarre to witness. He couldn't remember how he got home or what he'd done that day, what he had for lunch so we took him to the hospital. He couldn't tell them who the president was, but his personality was just the same, and he was almost laughing at himself because he knew he should know these things and couldn't. It was almost like it was just barely out of his reach of his accessing these memories, if that makes any sense. But yes, he was still cognitively functioning, the proof of that being he was aware he need to know things he couldn't bring to the forefront of his consciousness. What was weird is when we were the ER, he could remember things about me as a little girl and was bringing that up. It was more his short-term memory very similar to your dad and same thing, it all came back within 24 hours, though this was a sign of a serious health issue after his bypass. But through it all, he remained himself as the character and personality I knew him, even though he had lost access to a huge chunk of his memories. However, I must disagree with you, I think subconsciously they were still there and shaping who he was even though he wasn't cognizant of those memories. Every time we make a decision or have a reaction, we don't run through all the memories of our past, but that doesn't mean they arent' still shaping us behind the scenes, they are. Your comments about about past will only influence our decisions if we let it or make a conscious choice to allow it......this is just simply not true. How many people are in a psychologist's office trying to figure out why they behave a certain way, have phobias, PTSD, or have reactions to certain situations and really don't know why and they are working through repressed or suppressed memories to get an explanation? There are lots and we all function that way, maybe not in the extremes as I described, but we all do. Things that happen shape who we are without us really even knowing it has and sometimes we have to dig hard to pull these deep things up to understand parts of ourselves.

You do not need a psychologist to work these things out. However what you are speaking of is treating the causes of problems. A person can, using will and discipline, make a choice even if they do not know why their body is pushing them to another choice.

For example a person with a spider phobia is driving a car in busy traffic when a big hairy spider runs rig t over their hands on the steering whee.l That person must choose whether to react to the spider and die or not react and live. Of course they CAN choose to not react and live. It jus takes will and discipline.

A person can be driven by desire for an inappropriate other, eg a woman other than a man's wife, and yet chose to not respond to that desire, based on human constructs of morality or ethical principles. A person can be driven by anger to murder and yet choose not to murder, and so on.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

This was specific response to leonardos pov tha t we rely on experiential memory to make informed choices and that wha t we do now is dependent on, or influenced by, past memory.

I am very well aware of the effects of transient global amnesia. When my father had it there were very few cases known in the world, and so I read up a lot on it. I agree entirely with the bit I have bolded in your post.

This is the discontinuity I speak of. This is not a biological process, although it uses biological material to operate; but an intellectual product OF self awareness or an ability of the mind.

We are a product of our biology and our environment, (an interplay between the two) in some cases we do have a say in potential outcomes, based on choices you make. If that is what you mean, then sure there is some flexibility in affecting the outcomes. Our self awareness is connected to memory (episodic and semantic.)

I find the study of biology and human nature to be a interesting one. Thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Sherapy

[xYlvax]

There are ways to cure cancer.. in plants of course. But, the almighty gov't has shut up those that have found the natural treatments. They wouldn't want their meds to be outlawed and their money flow to stop.

[Emma_Acid]

There are ways to cure cancer.. in plants of course. But, the almighty gov't has shut up those that have found the natural treatments. They wouldn't want their meds to be outlawed and their money flow to stop.

Which makes no sense in the UK, as we have public healthcare, so things like cancer cost us huge amounts of money. Science doesn't work like that - you couldn't just get a "cure" being "silenced" by the government. What are they going to do, shut down every cancer research centre in the world??

Also your comment is quite ironic given how much natural health cranks charge for their "cures".

[+Paranoid Android]

My dad used natural remedies to cure cancers, and eventually became a supplier of said remedies. First hand experience says they work (not anecdotal evidence but empirical proof - apply a salve to non-cancerous skin, no effect; cancerous cell, it will react, and remove the cancer via a repeatable and predictable set of reactions). But because it's not something the pharmaceutical companies can patent, it's dismissed and even legally suppressed by said authorities. You're not allowed to claim it can cure cancer because no one has put money into it to ascertain whether it works or not.

But it doesn't change that it DID cure cancer.

Sorry, rant over, but it's something close to me. Though it's worth clarifying that not all cancers can be cured this way (it's mostly external cancers like skin cancer, inside the body is trickier to deal with).

With this said, if you feel you have cancer (or any serious illness) while natural medicines can be looked at, it should never replace the considered opinion of medical specialists.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Frank Merton]

There are a large number of Chinese drugs that have been culled over thousands of years, and I have no doubt many of them are better than western equivalents, but they can't be patented and governments put such restrictions against their use that no one can afford to produce the required tests. A rethinking is badly needed but with the political system in the US such as it is now this just ain't gonna happen: there are too many vested interests.

[Emma_Acid]

My dad used natural remedies to cure cancers, and eventually became a supplier of said remedies. First hand experience says they work (not anecdotal evidence but empirical proof - apply a salve to non-cancerous skin, no effect; cancerous cell, it will react, and remove the cancer via a repeatable and predictable set of reactions). But because it's not something the pharmaceutical companies can patent, it's dismissed and even legally suppressed by said authorities. You're not allowed to claim it can cure cancer because no one has put money into it to ascertain whether it works or not.

But it doesn't change that it DID cure cancer.

Sorry, rant over, but it's something close to me. Though it's worth clarifying that not all cancers can be cured this way (it's mostly external cancers like skin cancer, inside the body is trickier to deal with).

With this said, if you feel you have cancer (or any serious illness) while natural medicines can be looked at, it should never replace the considered opinion of medical specialists.

Its close to me too. Sorry, but this is anecdotal, and will remain so until you can repeat the events under lab conditions, several times.

I simply do not buy the "this is being kept under wraps by evil corporations" line. In the UK, the government has to shell out for cancer treatments. It costs the struggling health service a fortune.

And as I stated before: science doesn't work that way. There are thousands of research centres around the world working towards a cure for cancer - are you saying that the American and Australian governments are silencing all of them??

(Edit - and I couldn't agree more with your closing line)

Edited April 10, 2014 by Emma_Acid

[+Paranoid Android]

Ten people have diagnosed skin cancer. These ten people apply said salve to parts of the skin that are clinically diagnosed as cancer, and other parts of the skin that aren't diagnosed. In 100% of cases where skin cancer is diagnosed, a reaction occurs. In 100% of cases where skin is not diagnosed as cancerous, there is no reaction. After several days, the reacted (cancerous) skin follows predicted paths based on previous experience from dozens of others who have had the same. Once the skin heals, new scans reveal either no cancerous cells, or significantly reduced levels of cancerous cells, at which point those who aren't fully cured, treatment is reapplied and repeated with the same results.

It may not be a laboratory, but it's following every step of the scientific method. Except perhaps for not having a "control" group who are given a placebo salve instead. But under these test conditions, the obvious lack of reaction with cancerous cells makes such a control group irrelevant, no one is going to have a reaction to the salve unless the salve contains the right ingredients AND the cells are cancerous.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just that no pharmaceutical company will invest money into something that they can't make money on later. And no offense, but the government doesn't own pharmaceutical companies, so they don't get any say into where research goes - that's the prerogative of the pharmaceuticals to do so.

I'm not saying the information is being intentionally suppressed, but because there's no money in it for the companies they simply don't devote research grants to it and therefore are unable to officially endorse it.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Mr Walker]

Its close to me too. Sorry, but this is anecdotal, and will remain so until you can repeat the events under lab conditions, several times.

I simply do not buy the "this is being kept under wraps by evil corporations" line. In the UK, the government has to shell out for cancer treatments. It costs the struggling health service a fortune.

And as I stated before: science doesn't work that way. There are thousands of research centres around the world working towards a cure for cancer - are you saying that the American and Australian governments are silencing all of them??

(Edit - and I couldn't agree more with your closing line)

Drugs in Australia can only be made available after rigorous testing, not just of their efficacy but of their side effects and dangers This takes at least several years and often much longer. Thus many drugs are never allowed on the market because no one pays for this testing. Only large corporations, who will recoup the costs through sales, can afford the costs and time involved in this process. Also, in Australia, drugs approved by the authorities are subsidised to make them affordable to people. The govt restricts the number of drugs authorised, so as to reduce the amount of subsidies it has to pay out . This is not a conspiracy but public policy. However it does reduce the drugs available to Australians and many cancer sufferers go overseas to get alternate treatment not allowed or available in Australia. I don't know enough about British public health policies to speak about what happens there. You can get the best orthodox treatment for many things here, but unorthodox treatments are strongly discouraged, both by government policy and by medical professionals and their organisations. They even dispute the role of chiropractors and certainly oppose homeopathic medicines. Likewise they oppose home births and want it mandated that every birth occurs in a hospital. 9and not just any hospital but only major ones Women in my town, and many others, have to travel hundreds of miles, and be away from home for weeks to give birth, despite having an excellent hospital and trained obstetricians on hand.

[Emma_Acid]

Ten people have diagnosed skin cancer. These ten people apply said salve to parts of the skin that are clinically diagnosed as cancer, and other parts of the skin that aren't diagnosed. In 100% of cases where skin cancer is diagnosed, a reaction occurs. In 100% of cases where skin is not diagnosed as cancerous, there is no reaction. After several days, the reacted (cancerous) skin follows predicted paths based on previous experience from dozens of others who have had the same. Once the skin heals, new scans reveal either no cancerous cells, or significantly reduced levels of cancerous cells, at which point those who aren't fully cured, treatment is reapplied and repeated with the same results.

This is still anecdotal!

This doesn't even come close to being an empirical, scientific study. For this to be real (and medically accepted) you need to study thousands of people. I'm not saying a salve can't cure skin cancer. I'm saying that as a skeptic, I cannot be convinced by someone on the internet saying "10 people were cured of cancer by a salve". This is an anecdote.

Extraordinary claims, etc.

It may not be a laboratory, but it's following every step of the scientific method. Except perhaps for not having a "control" group who are given a placebo salve instead. But under these test conditions, the obvious lack of reaction with cancerous cells makes such a control group irrelevant, no one is going to have a reaction to the salve unless the salve contains the right ingredients AND the cells are cancerous.

Not really. I'm assuming nothing was recorded (and if it was, please share), and it hasn't been repeated by various other independent groups. And the lack of a control group is quite a major factor I'm afraid. Was this all double blinded and were the people taking and assessing the results scientific and medical professionals?

It's not a conspiracy, it's just that no pharmaceutical company will invest money into something that they can't make money on later. And no offense, but the government doesn't own pharmaceutical companies, so they don't get any say into where research goes - that's the prerogative of the pharmaceuticals to do so.

Again, this makes no sense. If a salve cured skin cancer, we would know about it. You would not have the vast amount of people in the UK and around the world working to cure cancer if such a simple one existed and was so easily testable. Also - you wouldn't need a very large investment if the cure was that simple! Investment is for R&D - but according to you this works 100% of the time.

I'll say it again - it doesn't matter if its the government or big pharma; cancer costs the economy money, and we'd all be better off if it were cured. You cannot suppress scientific progress in this way.

And lastly - what was the salve even made of?

For personal reasons I would give anything for there to be a cure for cancer. So it does rile me when people say have one but no one gives a s*** about it. I just don't buy it. And as a good little skeptic my answer is always: PROVE IT.

[Emma_Acid]

They even dispute the role of chiropractors and certainly oppose homeopathic medicines.

You say it like this is a problem??

The fight to cure cancer is a global scientific movement involving thousands, if not tens of thousands of people. And as I said - it costs the global economy a vast amount of money. I know that medicines have to be rigorously tested, of course they do. But simply saying "this isn't available because no one makes money out of it" is naive. What do you think the people involved in cancer research are actually doing? Do I now know more about curing cancer than a skin cancer specialist because I hang out on an internet forum??!

[+Liquid Gardens]

Ten people have diagnosed skin cancer. These ten people apply said salve to parts of the skin that are clinically diagnosed as cancer, and other parts of the skin that aren't diagnosed. In 100% of cases where skin cancer is diagnosed, a reaction occurs. In 100% of cases where skin is not diagnosed as cancerous, there is no reaction. After several days, the reacted (cancerous) skin follows predicted paths based on previous experience from dozens of others who have had the same. Once the skin heals, new scans reveal either no cancerous cells, or significantly reduced levels of cancerous cells, at which point those who aren't fully cured, treatment is reapplied and repeated with the same results.

It may not be a laboratory, but it's following every step of the scientific method. Except perhaps for not having a "control" group who are given a placebo salve instead. But under these test conditions, the obvious lack of reaction with cancerous cells makes such a control group irrelevant, no one is going to have a reaction to the salve unless the salve contains the right ingredients AND the cells are cancerous.

Is there some documentation of this study so that the methodology can be analyzed and studied by experts? If not, that's a very significant step to have skipped in the scientific method. I'm assuming there's more than one type of skin cancer, what specifically does this salve treat? It is curious that the efficacy of something so groundbreaking is such a secret.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just that no pharmaceutical company will invest money into something that they can't make money on later. And no offense, but the government doesn't own pharmaceutical companies, so they don't get any say into where research goes - that's the prerogative of the pharmaceuticals to do so.

I'm not saying the information is being intentionally suppressed, but because there's no money in it for the companies they simply don't devote research grants to it and therefore are unable to officially endorse it.

Research is not just done by pharmaceutical companies, it's done by governments also, and not just western democratic capitalistic governments. Why wouldn't more socialist/communist governments be interested in researching this, they have every incentive to have cheap cancer cures available as opposed to more expensive medications.

[+Liquid Gardens]

The only reference I can find quickly to a 'salve' 'curing' skin cancer is something called black salve, which originated as an Indian remedy apparently. It has been shown to cure some skin cancers but the problem it doesn't differentiate between healthy tissue and tumors; it cures cancerous skin tissue like a blowtorch or machete can cure cancerous skin tissue.

[SHaYap]

There is no such thing as a cure for 'cancer' other than early detection ~ and if 'modern' medicine claims otherwise then it is nothing 'modern' nor 'science' but lies ~

[White Crane Feather]

The problem is that some of you believe everything you hear that has a "scientific label". You assume that a doctor knows best because of his/her education. While there is some truth to this, doctors are just as susceptible to interference to the scientific process as anyone else. Particularly government and corporate influences. This is simply the way economics works. And if you always trust those more educated in the matter than why not trust an economist who will tell you at the end of the day incentives will rule the medical industry far more effectively than good science. To think otherwise is simply being nieve.

I can give a plethora of examples. I actually know people whose job it is to sell certain types of pharmaceuticals to doctors, convince them to prescribe the medications, then they receive royalties and even the doctors get kick backs!!!!!! They do quite well. These people are not doctors, pharmacists, some don't even have degrees. Their success rides in their charisma.

I'm not saying modern medicine is all bad. Really good doctors recognize these severe problems and attempt to navigate for you, but really good doctors are like anything else. They are rare and busy. Everyone else is average or substandard. It falls to you to be truly skeptical and simply skeptical of one side or mode if thinking. There are a plethora of things out there that are wonderful harmless medicines that doctors simply are not allowed to prescribe or even talk about. Many private practices are being formed by actual conscious doctors that recognize these things and step out of the system to help people. Cures or assistance for depression, some cancers, diabetes... Etc etc.

A few years back doctors in San Fran had to get emergency FDA aprooval to important from Germany a drug made from a chemical in milk thistle to save the lives of a couple of kids that ingested death cap mushrooms. They nearly died. It's not FDA approved because not enough people die of mushroom poisoning to warrant the expensive process.

Then you look more carefully, and you see that executives for drug and chemical companies are actually running the FDA. There is a revolving door. They work for cooperate then are appointed to the FDA for a time, then go back to work for the corp. Pfizer, Monsanto ..... Etc etc.

I'm often amazed at how those that claim to be "scientifically minded" and "skeptical" are often the biggest Sheepal of all of us.

Don't kid yourself, the business and economic mind will walk all over the scientific mind any day of the week. It's up to you to educate and think for yourself.

[+Liquid Gardens]

The problem is that some of you believe everything you hear that has a "scientific label".

Who is 'you' in the phrase 'some of you'? I haven't seen anyone say that they believe everything that has a 'scientific label', maybe I missed it.

You assume that a doctor knows best because of his/her education.

Well yes, that seems entirely logical, unless you don't value or think there is any evidence supporting the notion of expertise in a field. It doesn't mean that anything they prescribe or diagnose is perfect, nor do most reputable ones ever claim that, and it doesn't mean that people aren't aware that bad doctors exist. I'm sure you've probably heard the phrase when you get a significantly impactful diagnosis to 'get a second opinion'.

While there is some truth to this, doctors are just as susceptible to interference to the scientific process as anyone else. Particularly government and corporate influences. This is simply the way economics works. And if you always trust those more educated in the matter than why not trust an economist who will tell you at the end of the day incentives will rule the medical industry far more effectively than good science. To think otherwise is simply being nieve.

I don't know anyone, especially on this thread, who thinks otherwise. Economics is not that 'hard' of a science in relation to physics, chemistry, and medical treatments, which are all much more conducive to experiments and scientific studies.

There are a plethora of things out there that are wonderful harmless medicines that doctors simply are not allowed to prescribe or even talk about.

Are there scientific studies showing that they are wonderful and harmless? If not, how do we know they actually are?

Then you look more carefully, and you see that executives for drug and chemical companies are actually running the FDA.

The US is not the only country who is going to be interested in low-cost treatments, the FDA's jurisdiction has pretty restrictive borders.

[Mr Walker]

You say it like this is a problem??

The fight to cure cancer is a global scientific movement involving thousands, if not tens of thousands of people. And as I said - it costs the global economy a vast amount of money. I know that medicines have to be rigorously tested, of course they do. But simply saying "this isn't available because no one makes money out of it" is naive. What do you think the people involved in cancer research are actually doing? Do I now know more about curing cancer than a skin cancer specialist because I hang out on an internet forum??!

Did you read my post? That isn't what i said at all.

But; MANY useful products are never brought to fruition because the start up cost and time is prohibitive and entails too much commercial risk . Only those commercially attractive are funded by corporations. In Australia govts fund little, if any, of this research and have no participation in drug production or supply themselves, except for regulation. Govts and charities fund some research into the causes of cancer and means to prevent it by healthy living, but the drugs used to cure it or slow it down are entirely brought through clinical trials and into production by commercial ventures. Of COURSE they do not make things which will incur a loss, or even are cost neutral . Companies hold patents on drugs and will not even allow generic copies of them to be made cheaply so that they can be used in third world countries to save lives and end suffering. In other words they keep the price of their drugs artificially high and restrict supply, in order to keep prices and profits up.

And yes; medical dismissal of chiropractice is definitely a problem. I am not so sure about homeopathic medicine, but if it works it should be available.Medicine is not the exclusive preserve of doctors educated only in one form of medicine. As to pregnant women and where they are allowed to give birth, I know how local women feel on this issue and think they should have a say in where it is best for them to give birth .

Edited April 10, 2014 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

There is no such thing as a cure for 'cancer' other than early detection ~ and if 'modern' medicine claims otherwise then it is nothing 'modern' nor 'science' but lies ~

How about the vaccine for cervical cancer developed by Australian scientists and now given to all teenage girls in Australia? That actually prevents the development of cancer by inoculating against the human papillomavirus which causes cervical cancer.

[White Crane Feather]

Who is 'you' in the phrase 'some of you'? I haven't seen anyone say that they believe everything that has a 'scientific label', maybe I missed it.

Well yes, that seems entirely logical, unless you don't value or think there is any evidence supporting the notion of expertise in a field. It doesn't mean that anything they prescribe or diagnose is perfect, nor do most reputable ones ever claim that, and it doesn't mean that people aren't aware that bad doctors exist. I'm sure you've probably heard the phrase when you get a significantly impactful diagnosis to 'get a second opinion'.

I don't know anyone, especially on this thread, who thinks otherwise. Economics is not that 'hard' of a science in relation to physics, chemistry, and medical treatments, which are all much more conducive to experiments and scientific studies.

Are there scientific studies showing that they are wonderful and harmless? If not, how do we know they actually are?

The US is not the only country who is going to be interested in low-cost treatments, the FDA's jurisdiction has pretty restrictive borders.

A number of years debating with SOME of you.

I don't see much disagreement. I know the hard sciences are different than the social sciences, but that doesn't mean the are less thorough. Just as a scientific understanding might make people highly skeptical of certain claims, an economics education makes one highly skeptical, or rather educated about human motives, drivers, and how institutions and entities make decisions... Group or individual. If you trust logical thinking, and one can demonstrate that economic and self interested decision making are drivers in say something like the medical and pharmaceutical industries, shouldn't you also then be highly suspect of the science that they fund, assertions they make about things they can't patent, the drugs that they sell, the executives that find jobs in the FDA and other key areas if government, the money they spend on lobbying to thwart things like GMO labeling, then the doctors that support them with barely any decent knowledge of economics and a trained psychology and indoctrination to do what they are told to do by the institution?

Yes there are things that are probably in your back yard right now that have been repackaged manipulated and given a new name to be sold back to you as drugs. Many of which are just as effective in their natural form without all the other junk for preservation and coloring. I can make an effective pain killer from sow thistle and willow. That will work and is safer than anything from your doctor, is scientifically proven even used in pharm drugs, and is free. I know a safe highly effective sleep aid that is just as effective as sleeping pills without risk of addiction or abuse, and is stuff I feed my rabbits. And yes has plenty of data behind it.

Consider this when you do actual research and see that pharmacuticles rival the heading cause of Death in the US.

Consider this when you do actual research and discover that the scientific process is not allowed to be used in chemo or cancer drug research do to ethical concerns. Look at the OP I posted. Cancer is 1/3 of the medical industry. If I had a panacea for cancer tomorrow that could be proven without at doubt I probably would be assassinated.

[+Liquid Gardens]

If you trust logical thinking, and one can demonstrate that economic and self interested decision making are drivers in say something like the medical and pharmaceutical industries, shouldn't you also then be highly suspect of the science that they fund, assertions they make about things they can't patent, the drugs that they sell, the executives that find jobs in the FDA and other key areas if government, the money they spend on lobbying to thwart things like GMO labeling, then the doctors that support them with barely any decent knowledge of economics and a trained psychology and indoctrination to do what they are told to do by the institution?

Yes, you should always be suspect of people who have conflicts of interest, but how 'highly' we should suspect them is unknown; if you take this to its logical conclusion then you can trust almost nothing, any good or service you buy has some level of this corruption. But as I noted, in the case of medicine and science, we have to invoke a very far-reaching corruption that crosses nations, many of whom are not beholden to the US or the FDA.

I can make an effective pain killer from sow thistle and willow. That will work and is safer than anything from your doctor, is scientifically proven even used in pharm drugs, and is free. I know a safe highly effective sleep aid that is just as effective as sleeping pills without risk of addiction or abuse, and is stuff I feed my rabbits. And yes has plenty of data behind it.

How 'effective'? Does your painkiller work better than Advil, aspirin, morphine? How do you know? These sound very similar to claims made by homeopathy too, so, 'if you trust logical thinking', do you think I should just trust that you and homeopaths have better treatments? Based on what, the fact that what we call 'real' medicine may be corrupted by economic self-interest to some unknown extent? Shouldn't I first analyze all the self-interest/non-logical motivations you and homeopaths also have and once I find them, which I almost inevitably will, be also highly suspect of your claims as it likewise might be resulting in less-than-truthful claims?

Consider this when you do actual research and see that pharmacuticles rival the heading cause of Death in the US.

I'm sorry, but 'pharmaceuticals' is just way too general. If you're talking about fatal overdoses from narcotic painkillers, which is indeed very high in the US, that's not the fault of the 'pharmaceuticals', that's almost always the fault of people who are abusing these drugs or are ignoring the prescribed dosage. I don't think there are too many deaths caused by antibiotics which are also pharmaceuticals.

Consider this when you do actual research and discover that the scientific process is not allowed to be used in chemo or cancer drug research do to ethical concerns.

I don't know what you are talking about here, and I do kinda think that cancer research is actually following 'the scientific process', although you may not personally agree that is what they should be following.