A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not begrudging them making money, I am saying that there is a conflict of interest in this case. The person doing the study/report had a financial incentive for the results and conclusions to read a certain way.

The only difference is that there is much greater potential harm that can occur from a patentable drug (which has shareholders) versus a natural product that cannot be patented. Yes, there are always exceptions and some people can be hurt by a natural product like ephedra, but for the most part you don't see tens of thousands of people injured or killed by fish oil or spirulina.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There's more to that story, that was one man's take on the topic. I don't know how authoritative it is. I will read up on the topic and his report further later on.

There's a lot of information on this cover up by the CDC if you Google it. It's quite alarming if you ask me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How would you know, for sure, if a dog recognized his master on Skype?

The same way we saw how the dog recognized his master coming home from the war in real life. The dog loved his master very much (which is why he would be a good test subject) and would show recognition on a video or a picture the same way, especially after not seeing his master in many months.

[ceptimus]

It might be useful to plot a graph showing the number of people that believe in Lessans' 'discoveries' vs time. I guess this would show a total of one person (Lessans himself) for a number of years, increasing to two with peacegirl and then falling back to one when Lessans died.

If the numbers are ever to take off as peacegirl hopes then the numbers ought to be rising exponentially during the early stages - but it seems we are still in the pre-early stage, despite the book having existed for many years already.

It reminds me of this:

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have never had any doctor tell me that any treatment, medication or vaccination is risk free. Not once in 43 years. They've never said that any treatments or medications prescribed for my son are risk free.

What has happened, is that they have gone over my history and family history and tried to find the best medication for me.

Just this week I had a severe allergic reaction to insect bites. I had never had any such reaction like that at all before. The urgent care doctor carefully went over all meds I had taken in the past and asked about any reactions and side effects, and went over all my medical history, then gave me a couple of options before we agreed, together, on the treatment I was most comfortable with. This was a walk in clinic, not my regular doctor.

So who exactly are these doctors you think just prescribe things without any thought whatsoever and lie to their patients about their risks? I have never met these horrible people practicing medicine that you seem to think are rampant.

I didn't say they prescribe drugs without any thought, but doctors will go immediately to the prescription pad because that's what the patient expects. This is their training: disease management. I am not talking about an emergency where you have an allergic reaction. Obviously, you need immediate treatment. The only difference between the old world and the new world is that doctors will not prescribe any drug but rather will give the patient information about the drug and what it can do, but he will not take the responsibility of prescribing it. In the new world, people will be able to buy any drug they want in the drugstore if there is a demand.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that there is much greater potential harm that can occur from a patentable drug (which has shareholders) versus a natural product that cannot be patented. Yes, there are always exceptions and some people can be hurt by a natural product like ephedra, but for the most part you don't see tens of thousands of people injured or killed by fish oil or spirulina.

And what about the tens of thousands of people who have not died of diseases because of effective medicines? Why are they not a factor in your thought process?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you read the actual studies and analyze the numbers and factors? I have. There is an increased risk of cardiovascular problems in some people, yes. But that's a far cry from "it causes heart attacks" which is way too large a brush to paint that increased risk with. As I already said, most drugs on the market are safely taken by many times more people than are harmed by the same drug. This is true of Celebrex and even Vioxx which was removed.

Additionally nobody ever has said that Celebrex or any drug is completely safe and risk free for all people.

That's why these drugs will be available in the drugstore, but no doctor in the new world will take responsibility for you possibly getting injured by a drug that affects individuals differently, and he would never pretend to know. What you ingest will be your sole responsibility.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same way we saw how the dog recognized his master coming home from the war in real life. The dog loved his master very much (which is why he would be a good test subject) and would show recognition on a video or a picture the same way, especially after not seeing his master in many months.

That's a huge assumption! As has been pointed out, if dogs can tell that the master on the Skype or photograph isn't really their master in the flesh, but a representation, why would they react to it as if he/she is actually there? Do you hug and kiss your computer screen when you Skype, even if you miss the person, LOL?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay, that was from 2005. The entire study that the thimerosol/autism link was based on was retracted completely in 2010 because Andrew Wakefield was found to have been an unethical researcher. The CDC and other authorities had instituted reduction measures as a precaution, even without corroborating research. So, they didn't fail in their tracking, there was no actual correlation ever found, except in the one very flawed study.

We had a thread on this that has many links to research done after 2005
This Just in! Vaccines STILL Do Not Cause Autism - Freethought Forum

I'll read it later. This isn't even the issue. No researcher or doctor in the new world will tell a parent what is the best option. The researcher will share the results of his study (he will have no reason to skew the results where in this world he has a financial incentive) to help parents make a decision as to whether the benefits outweigh the risks. Doctors will have no choice but to be honest with themselves because they will not be able to shift their responsibility for recommending a medicine or vaccine, if something should go wrong which would put the full weight of responsibility on their shoulders. Why should they do that when their income is guaranteed never to go down. There will be no mandatory vaccinations because of the fear that someone could be harmed by the doctor's recommendations (and there will be no reason for him to take this risk when his standard of living is guaranteed), therefore the choice as to whether a parent gives his child a vaccination will be his sole responsibility, not the doctor's or the APA's.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's a huge assumption! As has been pointed out, if dogs can tell that the master on the Skype or photograph isn't really their master in the flesh, but a representation, why would they react to it as if he/she is actually there? Do you hug and kiss your computer screen when you Skype, even if you miss the person, LOL?

That is ridiculous! If the eyes are a sense organ those photons should allow the dog to recognize his master from sight alone whether it's from a picture or a video. You're right that it's a representation, but that doesn't change the fact that the photons from the picture or video would be impinging on the dog's retina, and being interpreted by the brain according to the afferent account of vision. The variables that would influence his reaction are his love for his master and the fact that he misses him, which was displayed in his reunion with his master. Also, it can be tested in the flesh, but the variables have to be carefully controlled.

[LadyShea]

Most American parents can get a religious or philosophical vaccine exemption (only Mississippi lacks these), so it's much like that already.

[thedoc]

[QUOTE=peacegirl;1133409]
The only difference is that there is much greater potential harm that can occur from a patentable drug (which has shareholders) versus a natural product that cannot be patented. Yes, there are always exceptions and some people can be hurt by a natural product like ephedra, but for the most part you don't see tens of thousands of people injured or killed by fish oil or spirulina.
[QUOTE]


How do you guage that a patented drug is more dangerous that fish oil or peanut oil that someone may be alergic to. When I see a medical professional I am always asked about alergies to medications, that is a standard question to avoid risk from medications or substances that might cause harm. And yet there are many cases each year to people comeing into contact with and having a reaction to different substances that are know to cause a reaction in some people. All this stems from Lessans paranoia about Doctors and resentment of the schooling necessary to become a doctor.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is ridiculous! If the eyes are a sense organ those photons should allow the dog to recognize his master from sight alone whether it's from a picture or a video. You're right that it's a representation, but that doesn't change the fact that the photons from the picture or video would be impinging on the dog's retina, and being interpreted by the brain according to the afferent account of vision.

No, If the eyes are a sense organ those photons should allow the dog to see his master it's from a picture or a video. Dogs can see photographs and Skype. Seeing is the sensory process.

This addition of recognition as some kind of criteria for the standard model vision is completely made up and baseless. Recognition is not a sensory process, it is a cognitive process.

The variables that would influence his reaction are his love for his master and the fact that he misses him, which was displayed in his reunion with his master.

I was asking how you, as a human, would definitively ascertain whether recognition is happening. There is no conclusive way to do that, because we can't read dog's minds. You seem to feel interpreting body language is a good way, and I think there are glaring problems with that. Specifically because there is no reason to think dogs will react behaviorally to a picture or computer screen the same way they react to the person in the flesh.

Humans don't treat photographs and Skype images the same way they treat people in person, why would dogs?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why these drugs will be available in the drugstore, but no doctor in the new world will take responsibility for you possibly getting injured by a drug that affects individuals differently, and he would never pretend to know. What you ingest will be your sole responsibility.

This should end well, since drug stores are targets for those making street drugs, so in the new age anyone can access any drug they want and there will be a meth lab on every street.

[Vivisectus]

The only difference is that there is much greater potential harm that can occur from a patentable drug (which has shareholders) versus a natural product that cannot be patented

You also get 0 bad side effects if you prescribe someone a glass of water to cure their cancer, so I don't think that is a very strong argument. I have absolutely no objections to natural products, as long as they are proven to work. The problem is that the same objections would apply to natural products if they actually have an effect: it is very hard to predict all possible reactions in all possible people and with all possible other chemicals (natural or otherwise).

And a profit motive is just as strong for people who sell one as for people who sell the other, so there is not much difference there.

The only time when this very same problem (the difficulty of predicting how they work in all people and with all other substances people take) does not apply is if the products have no effect whatever.

So perhaps it is better to encourage a better system for monitoring drug interactions and side-effects - natural or otherwise. This is difficult as the rate at which new drugs are produced is much higher than they can be tested on the kind of scale required for the very, VERY high safety levels that we require.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same way we saw how the dog recognized his master coming home from the war in real life. The dog loved his master very much (which is why he would be a good test subject) and would show recognition on a video or a picture the same way, especially after not seeing his master in many months.

Excellent example of the standard of evidence that is used to judge evidence which you feel supports your point of view.

The idea behind a good scientific test is that you remove as many ambiguities as possible. This is the exact opposite of that: no controlled environment, no isolation of variables, a single test subject, a false comparison...

It is moments like these when I think back about the "research into safety" and I really, REALLY wonder about the quality of that research. You seem unable to grasp even the basics. Surely someone with a bachelor in "special education" would understand at least that much?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

It might be useful to plot a graph showing the number of people that believe in Lessans' 'discoveries' vs time. I guess this would show a total of one person (Lessans himself) for a number of years, increasing to two with peacegirl and then falling back to one when Lessans died.

If the numbers are ever to take off as peacegirl hopes then the numbers ought to be rising exponentially during the early stages - but it seems we are still in the pre-early stage, despite the book having existed for many years already.

It reminds me of this:

You're estimate based on a timeline is not even close to being accurate because there are biases that you have not accounted for in this survey.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Excellent example of the standard of evidence that is used to judge evidence which you feel supports your point of view.

The idea behind a good scientific test is that you remove as many ambiguities as possible. This is the exact opposite of that: no controlled environment, no isolation of variables, a single test subject, a false comparison...

You're wrong. Observation is often a better indicator of what's going on than a test that trains a dog to push a lever. You really don't know what you're talking about. I said that this observation can be replicated over and over again. Does this not count for anything? Of course not because then you would have to admit that you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is moments like these when I think back about the "research into safety" and I really, REALLY wonder about the quality of that research. You seem unable to grasp even the basics. Surely someone with a bachelor in "special education" would understand at least that much?

My research was based on statistics and improving those statistics with my program. How can you compare that to Lessans' observation that dogs are incapable of recognizing their beloved owner from a picture or video? You're grasping at straws Vivisectus. Face it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You also get 0 bad side effects if you prescribe someone a glass of water to cure their cancer, so I don't think that is a very strong argument. I have absolutely no objections to natural products, as long as they are proven to work. The problem is that the same objections would apply to natural products if they actually have an effect: it is very hard to predict all possible reactions in all possible people and with all possible other chemicals (natural or otherwise).

And a profit motive is just as strong for people who sell one as for people who sell the other, so there is not much difference there.

I agreed that profit is a motive in any industry; the only difference is that in the pharmaceutical industry there is tons of money to be made from the exclusive right to patents, which can create more corruption.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The only time when this very same problem (the difficulty of predicting how they work in all people and with all other substances people take) does not apply is if the products have no effect whatever.

That's not the point at all Vivisectus. We're talking safety here, not effectiveness. There is no way a doctor in the new world could prescribe a drug not knowing if it could cause serious complications. He can give the statistics that say the drug is relatively safe, but he cannot tell his patient that there will be no side-effects. That is why he would be compelled to leave it up to the patient whether he wants to ingest the medicine.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So perhaps it is better to encourage a better system for monitoring drug interactions and side-effects - natural or otherwise. This is difficult as the rate at which new drugs are produced is much higher than they can be tested on the kind of scale required for the very, VERY high safety levels that we require.

Even if we sped up the process, which would definitely be informative, there is no way someone can assure a patient that he will be fine when taken a certain drug. Even if it's one in a million that the patient would die, the doctor has no reason to shoulder this kind of responsibility when his standard of living is guaranteed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is ridiculous! If the eyes are a sense organ those photons should allow the dog to recognize his master from sight alone whether it's from a picture or a video. You're right that it's a representation, but that doesn't change the fact that the photons from the picture or video would be impinging on the dog's retina, and being interpreted by the brain according to the afferent account of vision. The variables that would influence his reaction are his love for his master and the fact that he misses him, which was displayed in his reunion with his master.

If vision were efferent there is no reason to believe that a dog's ability to recognize it's master would be any different than with afferent vision, in both the dog is preceiving the image of it's master.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong. Observation is often a better indicator of what's going on than a test that trains a dog to push a lever. You really don't know what you're talking about. I said that this observation can be replicated over and over again. Does this not count for anything? Of course not because then you would have to admit that you're wrong.

My research was based on statistics and improving those statistics with my program. How can you compare that to Lessans' observation that dogs are incapable of recognizing their beloved owner from a picture or video? You're grasping at straws Vivisectus. Face it.

Statistics is a wonderful tool, give a good stastician the raw data and he can prove anything you want, or use a program to manipulate the data and you san skew it any way you want. A good part of my stastics course was spent discussing how data could be selected or rejected to make the data produce the desired results. This gives even more reason to think the 'Safety' might be questionable. Who wrote the reviews for the book? I haven't hade the time or interest to look into it, were they real people or made up like in Lessans book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is ridiculous! If the eyes are a sense organ those photons should allow the dog to recognize his master from sight alone whether it's from a picture or a video. You're right that it's a representation, but that doesn't change the fact that the photons from the picture or video would be impinging on the dog's retina, and being interpreted by the brain according to the afferent account of vision.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, If the eyes are a sense organ those photons should allow the dog to see his master if it's from a picture or a video. Dogs can see photographs and Skype. Seeing is the sensory process.

This addition of recognition as some kind of criteria for the standard model vision is completely made up and baseless. Recognition is not a sensory process, it is a cognitive process.

What's the point of having a sense without being able to interpret the incoming information? If something is hot, the dog interprets this feeling as pain and will back off. If a dog hears his master whistling for him, his brain interprets that as a call to come home. If a dog smells something, his brain interprets what the smell is which involves cognition. The same goes for taste. Why wouldn't he be able to use his cognition to recognize his master from a picture or video? Why is your criteria changing?

The variables that would influence his reaction are his love for his master and the fact that he misses him, which was displayed in his reunion with his master.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was asking how you, as a human, would definitively ascertain whether recognition is happening. There is no conclusive way to do that, because we can't read dog's minds. You seem to feel interpreting body language is a good way, and I think there are glaring problems with that. Specifically because there is no reason to think dogs will react behaviorally to a picture or computer screen the same way they react to the person in the flesh.

You're changing the goalposts. If all the other senses involve cognition, why should the eyes be any different? You can't answer that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Humans don't treat photographs and Skype images the same way they treat people in person, why would dogs?

Humans can recognize a loved one on Skype, so according to that observation, a dog should also if the eyes are a sense organ. But a dog can't, yet he can interpret smell, sound, taste and touch. It doesn't add up.

[The Lone Ranger]

You don't question that smell is a sense, for some reason. Yet, dogs can easily recognize individual humans by their unique smells.

Despite this, a dog doesn't react to the smell of its master as if it were his master. You can easily demonstrate this for yourself.

Thus, the nose is not a sense organ either. Q.E.D.

[Vivisectus]

I agreed that profit is a motive in any industry; the only difference is that in the pharmaceutical industry there is tons of money to be made from the exclusive right to patents, which can create more corruption.

How much exactly is a ton? Would you like me to tell you how much your friend Mike charges for his banner ads per week? How expensive his supplements are, and how gigantic his margins since they cost next to nothing to produce?

And with that comes no obligation for licensing, testing, development, research... there is no need to prove your product does anything and you are free to make any claim about it that you like. All you need to do is adhere to basic food safety.

That's not the point at all Vivisectus. We're talking safety here, not effectiveness. There is no way a doctor in the new world could prescribe a drug not knowing if it could cause serious complications. He can give the statistics that say the drug is relatively safe, but he cannot tell his patient that there will be no side-effects. That is why he would be compelled to leave it up to the patient whether he wants to ingest the medicine.

Really? No drugs will ever be subscribed in the new world? Or will doctors magically find out every potential side-effect? Truly it becomes a more amazing place every day.

Even if we sped up the process, which would definitely be informative, there is no way someone can assure a patient that he will be fine when taken a certain drug. Even if it's one in a million that the patient would die, the doctor has no reason to shoulder this kind of responsibility when his standard of living is guaranteed.

Yes, we have established that in the new world Doctors will prescribe nothing but placebos.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You don't question that smell is a sense, for some reason. Yet, dogs can easily recognize individual humans by their unique smells.

Despite this, a dog doesn't react to the smell of its master as if it were his master. You can easily demonstrate this for yourself.

Thus, the nose is not a sense organ either. Q.E.D.

Come to think of that, the ears are probably not a sense organ either.