Dang.


In reply to this comment by radx:
Ben Goldacre has a fantastic article in the Guardian today about the major flaw of today's health care systems, and the role big pharma plays in it.

The doctors prescribing the drugs don't know they don't do what they're meant to. Nor do their patients. The manufacturers know full well, but they're not telling.

When I feel my mania creeping, I always consult Maryjane. She does wonders.

>> ^vaire2ube:

We can't treat bipolar and depression with great success because... Cannabis is illegal. Many conditions are well controlled with this free plant.

since it he was mentioned in comments here is a recent sift about ben goldacre
http://videosift.com/video/TED-Battling-Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre

We can't treat bipolar and depression with great success because... Cannabis is illegal. Many conditions are well controlled with this free plant.


since it he was mentioned in comments here is a recent sift about ben goldacre

http://videosift.com/video/TED-Battling-Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^grinter:
good stuff... but, and it's a big Butt:
"Cock Ring Group"???!! wtf?

Cochrane Group.


Yes, their meta-studies are extremely interesting to read as long as it is a subject one knows at least a little about.

>> ^grinter:

good stuff... but, and it's a big Butt:
"Cock Ring Group"???!! wtf?


Cochrane Group.

Your video, TED: "Battling Bad Science" - Ben Goldacre, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You keep saying 'human CO2' as though its a different variety than 'natural' CO2. CO2 is CO2, it doesn't matter if its belched out of a volcano, out of the tail pipe of a car or the tail pipe of a cow.

When we burn carbon traps like trees, oil, and coal, we release the carbon into the air in the form of CO2. While the proportion people release is smaller than that which is naturally released, it is enough to exceed what can naturally be absorbed in combination with what is naturally released. Thus we see an increase in overall atmospheric CO2.

What do you think happens to the excess CO2? Do you think because its 'human CO2' it some how doesn't contribute to overall atmospheric CO2?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.
There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.
But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.
"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"
But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.
So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.
The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

Aaaaand this is why Huntsman will not win the GOP nomination. He's an idiot who accepts the false premise that "99%" of all scientists agree that human CO2 is the cause of all climate change, and that tax & cap schemes have any prayer of doing anything about it. The real 'anti-science' camp here is not the GOP. They GOP loves science. They just hate BAD science, which is what all the AGW Flavor-Aid drinkers have on thier side.

There is a vast world of difference between what a typical Warmie is talking about when they say, "climate change" and what an actual scientist is talking about. "Climate change" is a generic term that only means the climate is changing. I'd say 100% of "all scientists" agree with this simple statement. The debate is NOT about whether or not Earth's climate has cycles.

But when the Warmies talk about "Climate change" they are not talking about the generic term. They pack so many other things into those two words that it becomes almost impossible to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion with them. But you can boil their intent down.

"100% of all scientists agree that 100% of all climate change is caused by human CO2. Also, 100% of all scientists agree that the way to address climate change is by massive taxation and other big government solutions. Earth will experience catastrophic world-wide destruction which would wipe out all humanity unless we ACT NOW!"

But this is not true. Not all scientists agree that CO2 is what is driving climate change. Not even a majority agree with that position. There is no solid evidence of it. There are only theories and projections - many of which have been proven to be based on bad data and falsehoods. To say "all science" agrees with the AGW theory is total bollocks.

So it is perfectly reasonable to say that scientists, economists, and regular folks everywhere can rationally debate the veracity and truth of "bad" science, while accepting the ACTUAL "100%" agreement in regards to overall climate changes. Climate changes. DUR. The argument is over whether (A) human CO2 has anything to do with it and (B) even IF (!!IF!!) human CO2 has anything to do with it, whether or not these massive cap & tax schemes would have any impact of value.

The GOP is not "anti-science". That is just a typical left-wing neolib pile of bologna. If anything, the GOP is more "pro-science" than any liberal is because they are less blinkered by bias and accept a variety of arguments as opposed to this lockstep groupthink neolibs try to use to shut down real analysis in the climate debate.

>> ^Kofi:

Seems to just say "believe science because we will get votes". I'm sure that is not what he believes but he did not say anything in support of science qua science.


That's one of the things he said. But in the process he said that evolution and human caused global warming are real, and attempting to deny them "puts us on the wrong side of science and therefor in a losing position. "

And that's the critical distinction. You will never hear any republican politician say "I don't believe in science". Rather they will say that evolution or global warming is bad science or unproven or disproven. As Rick Parry did.

@berticus Thank You for the link. I've read the article and it was very enlightening.

SUMMARY:
Reactions to claims of near-death experiences (NDE) range from the popular view that this must be evidence for life after death, to outright rejection of the experiences as, at best, drug induced hallucinations or, at worse, pure invention. Twenty years, and much research, later, it is clear that neither extreme is correct.

I think you are commenting on this part of mine,

"Science suggests it could be the result of a series of biological reactions that help the body cope." (1:42) Can you show me the studies that suggest this--No, there are none. That is an incorrect use of the word "science".

I was commenting on the part, "...that help the body to cope." This is the bad science I was referring to. There is no doubt that a series of biological reactions take place.

As the summary shows the article doesn't conclude that science proves that the near death experience is only the result of dying neurons.

I would like to hear your evaluation of the article and your thoughts on this subject.

Whoa!!!!!!

Hey, please don't confuse homophobia with sexual orientation!

We are socially conditioned (depending the society we grow up in) to be skeeved out by the thought of two people of the same gender touching each other sexually. If you approach it rationally, that is just silly -- it is skin. Some things stick out, some things don't. Why get all bent out of shape about it.

I've believed this since I was 19 and read this in A Stranger in a Strange Land: "There are two types of people in the world. Those who know they are bi-sexual and those who don't."

Having said that, women don't smell sexy to me, they don't feel sexy to me. They are missing hair in the places that men have hair (no offense to the naturally hairless, but really, Sean Connery and Alex Baldwin in their heydays without a shirt? Sex on a stick!) There is biology at work -- however intellectually I am bi-sexual, between my social conditioning to back away from same sex encounters and my personal pheromones, I am a practicing heterosexual.

But kids of 5-10 years old know who they like. Calling it social conditioning is bad science and bad religion.




>> ^rebuilder:

Well, this is so full of non sequiturs I'm not sure it pays to think much about what's being said here, but here goes:
As a male who finds gay sex simply alien, I think sexual orientation is largely a matter of social conditioning. I have no sexual interest in men, but I wouldn't mind feeling otherwise about it.
As for marriage, I'm leaning towards just getting the state out of that business altogether. If two or more people want to announce an intent to form a more or less permanent relationship between each other, that's a private matter. Society at large should have no say in that. I'm open to counterarguments, of course.

>> ^bareboards2:

Man, this vid raises so many questions... biggest one is -- is the bee getting attacked because she (?) is acting weird and they think she is ill, not drunk, and the guard bees are keeping disease out of the hive?
And if that is true, do we chastise these filmmakers for promoting bad science?


I would definitely guess you're right. Much like this behavior from ants: http://youtu.be/XuKjBIBBAL8?t=54s
(and ants and bees share a common ancestor -- wasps).

Man, this vid raises so many questions... biggest one is -- is the bee getting attacked because she (?) is acting weird and they think she is ill, not drunk, and the guard bees are keeping disease out of the hive?

And if that is true, do we chastise these filmmakers for promoting bad science?

Thats just abuse of Snuff calling. You have no information other than what your eyes tell you. Thats bad science.

BAD, NO !

Something to keep in mind when reading about coffee research is to check and see whether or not the "coffee" they refer to is a caffeine supplement or if it truly is coffee. It is found that coffee and synthetic caffeine supplements are very different with regards to how the body processes them and their effects. Pharmacists will tell you focusing on one chemical compound without researching how the other compounds and how they interact with each other is bad science. Which is way "coffee research" should focus on the over all product and not just one chemical compound.

Everything we put in our body has negative and positive consequences what we have to figure out when using an item for its benefit is whether or not the negatives are of bigger consequence then the positives.

i.e. which is worse, high blood pressure or not getting a boner? Thanks to Viagra old men everywhere now get to reconcile this decision regularly.