Thanks, Northern Man.

In reply to this comment by EndAll:
In reply to this comment by rougy:
Are there hucksters in homeopathy? No doubt!

Are there hucksters in the FDA & AMA approved modern drug makers?

You know the answer to that.

Excellent point.

I don't think it's all bullshit. I think a lot of it probably works.

That "Ice Man" they found in Swiss country many years ago had tattoos on the pressure points well known to accupuncturists. He had herbs in his belly that were very useful for a common sickness (something to do with worms, I think).

Are there hucksters in homeopathy? No doubt!

Are there hucksters in the FDA & AMA approved modern drug makers?

You know the answer to that.

Hmmm. I haven't thought about it that much, but I think that people like that are more useful to "the system" than people like me, liberals who understand that government control of the people is only possible because we now have corporate control of our government. The cons in general just don't understand that.

I really don't know what's going to happen to us, to our country. I do know that I want out of here as soon as possible.

Sometimes I see glimmers of hope, but for the most part I see one long, slow slide for the worst.

The year that I moved away from Denver was the year that the Broncos won their first Super Bowl. Maybe if I move to Europe or Canada a similar "dream come true" will happen for America as a whole.

I can just see myself finally getting ensconced into a cozy life in Amsterdam or Ottawa, and California will finally legalize pot and the USA will finally have a real health care plan for the people, and one that works despite the efforts of the AMA and all of the other greedy hucksters who use and pimp this country as if it were their private whore.

I'm glad Obama got elected instead of McCain, but I'm pretty disappointed with him on the whole, and have my doubts as to his effectiveness.

You? What do you think?

(P.S. - I freaking love your Flickr account)

In reply to this comment by EndAll:
Shaking my head.. straying a bit off topic here, but I've had a hunch for a little while now that the gun-toting Republicans in the South will be the first "threat" identified and subsequently removed.. then it will be cake for them (those in power) from there on. Agree/disagree?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Olbermann, Maher, Obama, AMA, lobby, caving, lobbyist, corporations' to 'Olbermann, Maher, Obama, AMA, lobby, health care, caving, lobbyist, corporations' - edited by kronosposeidon

ive been working in ER's for a long long time.
biggest problems i observe that could probably be fixed with available affordable services and some preventative education
1) an undereducated public
2) the ER docs never (yes, i said never) consider the cost effectiveness of their treatment
3) people do use the ER as their primary care and cant/dont/wont pay the bill

and i can see rural hospitals having more of a problem with this if there is no trauma center nearby. i dont know of any rural areas that dont have access to a life flight service. that doesnt mean they dont exist somewhere.

i dont know, i feel like things like this happen all the time in the states too. patients leave AMA all the time and refuse treatment.

>> ^rychan:
This interview is so full of weasel words and misrepresentation of our scientific community. Conspiracy theories galore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy
This lawyer speaks with such certainty, how does he rebut all of these large-scale studies which show that autism rates are unchanged (or actually increase a tiny amount) when Thiomersal isn't used?
This study from Denmark http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/13/1763 shows that 20,000 children who received no Thiomersal had the same autism risk. Increasing dosages of Thiomersal didn't cause increasing in autism rate.
What can this guy possibly say about that study? There was no nuance in what he was claiming -- he very much implied that Thiomersal was the exclusive source of autism. That autism hadn't even existed before it was used.
He's just a weasel. There's no way an objective person can review the literature and make the conclusions that he's made.


I tihnk there are other factors involved...but nobody can deny the odd coincidences with autism and vaccines. The fact that you dismiss an arguement based on an irrelevant wikki entry written by fellow american's and likely a proponent of pharmaceuticals is astounding. You should take someone's word who does the real studies and has done so for a long time. Maybe there is no direct correlation right now, but something is going on, and Judos to this guy for trying to figure it out. And Fuck you for your dismissive, ignorant, and lame ass excuses.

This interview is so full of weasel words and misrepresentation of our scientific community. Conspiracy theories galore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_controversy

This lawyer speaks with such certainty, how does he rebut all of these large-scale studies which show that autism rates are unchanged (or actually increase a tiny amount) when Thiomersal isn't used?

This study from Denmark http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/290/13/1763 shows that 20,000 children who received no Thiomersal had the same autism risk. Increasing dosages of Thiomersal didn't cause increasing in autism rate.

What can this guy possibly say about that study? There was no nuance in what he was claiming -- he very much implied that Thiomersal was the exclusive source of autism. That autism hadn't even existed before it was used.

He's just a weasel. There's no way an objective person can review the literature and make the conclusions that he's made.

IAOMT is showing a wealth of scientific studies that have appeared in peer reviewed journals that back their claims. So once again I'm showing that there is solid science behind these claims and that the issue is not black and white as you seem to think.

I thought you should know that yes, this is the same Stephen Barret that you've linked to.
Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases (2006)
http://www.whale.to/a/quck.html
1. Barrett has claimed to be a medical expert, yet failed his medical board certification.
2. Barrett has claimed to be a legal expert, yet has not studied law.
3. Barrett has claimed to have no ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA), yet under oath he had conceded these ties.
4. Barrett has recently sued many times for libel and yet has never won a single case.

In addition, on April 22, 2003, A California Appeals Court, ruled against the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). The Court declared that Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) were found to be biased… and should be accorded little, if any, credibility.

one can read a copy of the Court document signed by Judge Fromholz, here
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm

but my personal favorite is this
Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials,
Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/

and if you want to talk about biased, you should seriously look up information on NCAHF as they are the posterchild for misinformation on health related issues.

*ban....
teeeehee
hey...All you Public Heath Care screamers?? What would be 100 times better than socialized-type medicine?
Policing the intake, of the poison that causes MOST of the things the current heath care system has been burdened with, since the beast began growing heads:

Stop poisoning yer bodies with food, and keep privatized health care.

Allow citizen-only access to the current pay-as-you-go method, and allow the "mostly" illegal members of the country (u.s) access to some in-country, not regulated by the AMA or other such entities, health-care provided by volunteers, drop-out med students who will work for food, or others who practice out of their vehicles or homes??

Funny thing is, you would be able to give everyone access, for free, if people were not ignorant of the evil they do their own systems, the disease and cancer, they bring upon themselves......The true culprits of disease, and the need for a re-vamping of a broken system, are advertisers, pharmaceutical interests, and fast-food empires, allowed to build more death-stands, every minute, of every day.....oh...forgot to mention the sad excuse for public education, and people's own, selfish desire.

It is valuable to question our beliefs. That usually comes about for most people when life throws stuff at them which renders certain beliefs outmoded.

It's an evolving process and everyone's at different stages. The tooth fairy may suit a 6 year old, but probably not a 10 year old. "The world is an ugly shithole" may be a belief that suits the person full of self-hate and fear, but not the person who's feeling the joy of being alive.

He makes the point that people never ask him "Is it a trick?" Aside from the very paranoid, most people take others at face value and accept that they're telling the truth and it's not like, say the medical profession, where you would need to ask to see one's qualifications, before you'd let them practise on you.

People need to feel connected, either with each other or something greater. The girl obviously wanted to connect with her family members somehow. I doubt from her conversion experience she's going to turn around and join any of her family member's religions, but it was comforting for her to admit that she could relate to the 'warm hug' of her grandmother.

He was very pushy when he questioned the group "Do you believe in God?". In group settings, where there's someone leading
others in such a persuasive way, it is common for them to be highly suggestible. Everyone has issues that affect their lives in a negative way. The promise of being able to heal these issues, by connecting with others, being a part of a community or support group can be very attractive, especially for the vulnerable.

There's nothing astounding about what he achieves with these people and I would suggest that aside from his initial endorsement, which admittedly came pretty easily,(again, we're not talking about the AMA 'tho, are we?) he would not be able to maintain his standing within those communities for too long, by faking it.

Just look at all the ministers who've come undone somehow or other, within mainstream and alternative religious communities.

The ministers aren't the enemy either. Everyone wants to feel needed, important, special. They wouldn't be the first to abuse positions of power to get these needs met.

Adults didn't make these laws to protect themselves though, they were lied into it. Politicians and business interests made them to serve themselves. The one doctor from the AMA who testified before committee said they didn't agree, committee lied to the full Congress when asked about it. It's in the records.

Refer madness, addicts in the streets, and so on. Turned out little of it was true, but they were sold the lie. Try offering them honest education and a real choice and you've got a point. Do it based on hysteria and lies and you don't.

We knew it was lies, New York Mayor's Committee on Marihuana established that. Same mayor as the airport is named after, widely seen as a hero of the era. He was against alcohol prohibition then when the Hearst and other newspapers started printing horror stories about pot some included New York. He looks around and can't find what they claim, it seemed invented, so asked for his own study. Years later we got the following. We've always known, we just pretended we didn't.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm

I posted this for you once before, I'll post it again and you can read it or not as your wish.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

That's a history which covers from pre-prohibition until fairly recently, written by a professor of law and delivered to the annual judges conference.

Here's some of the details they used to "convince" us of it since, a collection of some of the junk science which has been tried on us over the years. The playboy one I especially though was amusing, but all were interesting.

http://www.jackherer.com/chapter15.html

A quick example. They forced Rhesus monkeys into gas masks and fed massive quantities of smoke to them in a very short time then did it again, and again, and again, and when they were done they assumed all damage was pot and ignored things like a need for oxygen. It took a freedom of information act request to even get the Government to share the methodology behind their "proof", and when they did the world laughed. Oxygen deprivation and carbon monoxide poisoning, not pot did the damage.

Does that make pot harmless? Nope. Smoke all the time and you do suffer learning impairment, the cancer scare turns out to have had little to it but it can cause bronchitis with abuse and has some other drawbacks too. Some do seem prone to mental problems being aggravated even if not caused due to it, but that's some. Not all. Too many think it's harmless though, and we know why. With all the lies they have been fed about pot they tend to assume any warning is a lie, so much else has been.

That in a nutshell is the problem with the drug war. Use went up here through the 50's-70's in spite of laws that in places could and did could offer a sentence as heavy as life for a joint. Use went up some in the Netherlands with coffee shops. Use went up worldwide in that time period. Now look at who has problems with it, and who doesn't. With them use today is half of what it is here and the kids don't seem hung up on it so much as recognize it as recreation to be had in its place and time rather than all the time. Kind of like that glass of wine, beer, or whatever else we have with meals or in front of a game rather than all the time. It isn't safe either with abuse, but it isn't a problem with casual use at home.

Today we treat all drugs the same, pot is classed with heroin and we try to convince the kids they are somehow similar. So when we manage to convince them of half of it, that they are similar, then they find we've lied about pot, what do we expect them to think about the harder drugs? They don't believe us because of the lies. It's our own damned fault.

Real facts, real regulation that separates dangerous from mild risk. Not because no harm can come from drugs, but because so much can and it's got worse without them. What I expect is not free use, it's regulated and probably as tightly as we can. We need to allow users enough access to get rid of the street dealers, but not an inch more than we have to. Trial study and science, not scare tactics and moral requirements. At this point neither I nor anyone else knows what it'll look like when we're done if we let the results lead the way, we can just guess. We need to do the work and make sure. If it's a bad idea, it never gets out of trial study, small scale use in a limited area. If good, maybe we've got a way out of some of this damage. We'll never know until we look.

Edited to clarify the carbon monoxide poisoning point on pot.

Shermer views on acupuncture were. kind of funny ...im glad you admit that shemmer was belligerent. that was my maine point.
shemer thinks acupuncture is based on a quack theory. he thicks that he the can prove 2000 years of life energy theories from the fare east as wishful thinking, with junk the establishment (Harvard) taught him.

as for you saying i think science is vague. that i would say is a mater of semantics.
science is a vague word in that . to talk about this subject i wanted to distinguish between value of science and pitfalls of modern scientific method. particularly the gold standard of randomized controlled studies.

what are you views on the ama and its highjack scientific method. do you not agree that the ama has used its power to promote itself under the banner of " we are so smart and our rigorous double blind studies are to help man kind. " i think the ama is extremely belligerent this respect

science is important and useful and can be used like a good tool that it is . but
my problem is with scientism. shemer is one who contends that scientism is the way of the modern world. this is a extremist view. even the establishment acknowledges this.
i repeat
1 scientific method is not wrong or unjust in it self but that individuals often use scientific method to achieve fame (shemmer) wealth the (ama).
2. that it doubtfull that shimmer will prove theories acupuncture and life energy wrong.
3. that science is not something that began in the 19th century.
4. that good science is a tool not a bandwagon that trys to debunk rather then understand.

star trek was a metaphor to the way people are so busy looking for big answers to "Save" or understand mankind at the cost of failing to see simple natural truths with out the blockage of being tide down to needing to get down to the jest of everything.
and you pint out the scientest / humans have so many flaws. i dont buy that excuse. its the same excuse people use when the get busted riging their so called scientific studys so they get fame and money . you should slow dawn and not just dismiss bad moral character. that is at the root of my skepticism of mikey Shermer and his followers who preach intolerance and dogmatism. remember other key words money

establishment
moral character
champion

In reply to your comment:
“I was hoping for some examples and some lively debate. You gave no examples (c'mon... flawed and outdated views on acupuncture? Acupuncture?!?), and although we are all entitled our own opinions regarding others, I think your personal opinion of Shermer is baseless. As far as debate, I don't think it will be possible to meaningfully debate with someone who views "science" as vague, thinks the AMA is the second-biggest corporation ever, and invokes Star Trek in his/her argument.

Even if Shermer were belligerent, science is not, and that is something I don't think you understand. As Ann Druyan explained very beautifully here (coincidentally, Shermer is sitting in the audience), scientists are human and have bias's. They can be assholes. They can be dismissive, strident, condescending, intractable, and prejudice, just like every other human being. But scientific method ultimately wins the day as its' built-in checks and balances overcome these things.

Your comment was all over the place, bighead, but I think your pessimism towards science and scientific method is based in ignorance rather some anecdotal experience. Read more. Think critically, not paranoidally. Don't be afraid to expose yourself to things you "know" to be untrue. If nothing else, you may learn the minds of those you disagree with. This isn't meant to be condescending. Just friendly advice.”



Shermer views on acupuncture were. kind of funny ...im glad you admit that shemmer was belligerent. that was my maine point.
shemer thinks acupuncture is based on a quack theory. he thicks that he the can prove 2000 years of life energy theories from the fare east as wishful thinking, with junk the establishment (Harvard) taught him.

as for you saying i think science is vague. that i would say is a mater of semantics.
science is a vague word in that . to talk about this subject i wanted to distinguish between value of science and pitfalls of modern scientific method. particularly the gold standard of randomized controlled studies.

what are you views on the ama and its highjack scientific method. do you not agree that the ama has used its power to promote itself under the banner of " we are so smart and our rigorous double blind studies are to help man kind. " i think the ama is extremely belligerent this respect

science is important and useful and can be used like a good tool that it is . but
my problem is with scientism. shemer is one who contends that scientism is the way of the modern world. this is a extremist view. even the establishment acknowledges this.
i repeat
1 scientific method is not wrong or unjust in it self but that individuals often use scientific method to achieve fame (shemmer) wealth the (ama).
2. that it doubtfull that shimmer will prove theories acupuncture and life energy wrong.
3. that science is not something that began in the 19th century.
4. that good science is a tool not a bandwagon that trys to debunk rather then understand.

star trek was a metaphor to the way people are so busy looking for big answers to "Save" or understand mankind at the cost of failing to see simple natural truths with out the blockage of being tide down to needing to get down to the jest of everything.
and you pint out the scientest / humans have so many flaws. i dont buy that excuse. its the same excuse people use when the get busted riging their so called scientific studys so they get fame and money . you should slow dawn and not just dismiss bad moral character. that is at the root of my skepticism of mikey Shermer and his followers who preach intolerance and dogmatism. remember other key words money

establishment
moral character
champion

I was hoping for some examples and some lively debate. You gave no examples (c'mon... flawed and outdated views on acupuncture? Acupuncture?!?), and although we are all entitled our own opinions regarding others, I think your personal opinion of Shermer is baseless. As far as debate, I don't think it will be possible to meaningfully debate with someone who views "science" as vague, thinks the AMA is the second-biggest corporation ever, and invokes Star Trek in his/her argument.

Even if Shermer were belligerent, science is not, and that is something I don't think you understand. As Ann Druyan explained very beautifully here (coincidentally, Shermer is sitting in the audience), scientists are human and have bias's. They can be assholes. They can be dismissive, strident, condescending, intractable, and prejudice, just like every other human being. But scientific method ultimately wins the day as its' built-in checks and balances overcome these things.

Your comment was all over the place, bighead, but I think your pessimism towards science and scientific method is based in ignorance rather some anecdotal experience. Read more. Think critically, not paranoidally. Don't be afraid to expose yourself to things you "know" to be untrue. If nothing else, you may learn the minds of those you disagree with. This isn't meant to be condescending. Just friendly advice.

you are correct-and the in bed withs who save so many wonderful lives, speak from all sides of the mouth to keep up the good work.....Perry did it by decree, not putting it up to any scrutiny or vote, and doctors and soc-conserves are screaming about his balsy, unilateral move...not to mention his weak ass stand on border solutions, which only stands to benefit the citizens of the U.S., the legal ones.

Vaccines have a dubious rep, for both effectiveness, necessity of the battery they think we all need, and the toxic reaction that kills the lucky few....

So, it is the same as making flouride in public water systems, folks take it for granted that the benefits of flouride helping the teeth folks smother in sugar not to rot so fast, outweighs the toxic exposure of small amounts over an extended period of time....and mercury, etc....

the yeas and nays of basic common sense....ask a toxicologist about vaccinations, flouride, mercury-amalgum fillings, liver damage, etc........sing a tune perhaps to err to the side of natural selection.......or not poisoning oneself, just cause the FDA AMA XYZ's say go....