|
I used to be Facebook friends with a guy who was big into anti-vaxxerism, 9/11 trutherism, using baking soda to cure cancer, and all sorts of other bizarre poo poo. He once posted a link that he titled "Definitive and undeniable proof that vaccines cause harm!" His link was a blog post describing how a recent study had shown that vaccinated children are more than twice as likely to develop fever or cold-like symptoms than unvaccinated children, ergo unvaccinated children are generally healthier than vaccinated children and you should stop using vaccines. That blog post had a single citation: an anti-vaccine site had posted an internet poll asking people whether their unvaccinated children were more healthy or less healthy than vaccinated children. When I pointed out to him that an internet poll does not constitute "definitive" or "undeniable" proof of anything, he started ranting about autism and how the aluminum in vaccines is way over FDA regulations and causes all sorts of poo poo to go wrong with you, and harm-causing vaccines are sold by Big Pharma in order to make us dumb and stupid so that we'll shell out more money for vaccines and so that the government could control us and keep us docile. It was like watching a tea kettle boil over with idiocy. I eventually de-friended him after we had a week-long "debate" where he claimed that baking soda taken orally cures cancer. My strategy was to repeatedly ask him for non-anecdotal evidence while directly pointing out his logical fallacies, while his strategy was to spam links to testimonials on Youtube while claiming that I had to find the non-anecdotal evidence for myself because I wouldn't be convinced if he found the real evidence for me. At one point he cited a University of Arizona study, saying "see, even universities are looking at using this treatment, it's legit." I showed him an actual copy of that research group's findings: they fed baking soda to rats with tumors and found that the tumors didn't shrink the tumors at all. At this point he accused them of being in bed with Big Pharma and that they were screwing up the treatment somehow. I'm waiting for my Big Pharma payments but they haven't arrived yet 
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I don't know about you guys but if a doctor gave me an option between "your child will be at increased risk of developing autism" and "your child will have a high likelihood of dying of a horrifying disease" I'd take the autism. I've seen this idea posted several times in this thread, and I wish you people would stop. This arguments gives some credence, however slight, to the fraudulent idea that vaccines cause autism. I know that you're trying to play devil's advocate so that you can point out how a parent would logically choose vaccines anyway, but a logical argument is not going to work against the kind of person who discounts scientific evidence and who believes in homeopathic remedies, so your argument fails on multiple fronts and is only going to gain traction among people who are already pro-vaccine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
fade5 posted:So what was this rear end in a top hat's plan if people turned out to be loving morons and linked all vaccines with Autism? (You know, exactly what ended up happening.) I really hope he privately feels at least a little horrified at what he caused. He was already making obscene amounts of money, he was being paid by a lawyer to find any sort of negative effects from the MMR vaccines. The same lawyer would likely pay him to be an expert witness in any class action lawsuits that he brought against MMR vaccine manufacturers. Making money off of his own patented MMR vaccine that totally doesn't cause autism like those other vaccines was just one more layer of making profit off of the misery of others.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I've heard "kinks in our armor" many times before, so it's part of our lexicon even if it's technically wrong
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
harper is bisexual posted:Sometimes rules can have exceptions I suppose. Yes, reasonable exceptions such as "don't give vaccinations to kids who have deficient immune systems" is fine. "I don't want my child to have vaccines because I don't understand them, I don't care what the doctors say" is not an exception that should be respected
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:B: Smallpox DNA has been completely sequenced, and the technology to manufacture viruses from their DNA exists. Even after the destruction of smallpox stocks, a well-equipped laboratory would be more than capable of synthesizing their own smallpox virus from scratch. These processes are error-prone, and there's no guarantee that what you get out is actually smallpox. And if there's suddenly an urgent need for a smallpox sample, do you really want to spend a bunch of time synthesizing a new one that might actually wind up being a bit different from the original due to imperfect viral synthesis processes? Follow-up question: are you an infectious disease biologist?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:In what situation could we possibly have an "urgent need" for a smallpox sample which has to be exactly 100% the same as 1980s smallpox? I am not a biologist, but I am a scientist, and I defer to other scientists when it comes to discussing a field in which I am not involved. If CDC scientists ultimately reach a consensus and say that we should wipe out the remaining smallpox because we don't need it anymore, then I say go for it. But this research scientist says that we should keep it, and he outlines the reasons why: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/4/10-1865_article e: To make my point more clear, I'd like to hear from more epidemiologists. There are going to be guys on both sides of the debate, but Dr. Weinstein makes some pretty convincing points for keeping it around, chiefly that smallpox is an interesting bug that could be the key to unlocking major medical advances QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But it's science. Why are you guys so dumb at science? Surely only someone who doesn't know or else hates science would disagree with me. Anti-scientific viewpoints like the ones expressed in this post are what I'd expect from someone who's also anti-vaccine. Are you anti-vaccine? It'd be interesting to actually have one to talk to in the thread, since everyone in this thread seems to be pro-vaccine, basically
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Of course I'm not an anti-vaccine crazy. I bet you'd like it if I was though. Sorry to disappoint. Oh, how did you guess? Which part of my post tipped you off, was it the part where I explicitly stated that I'd like it if you were an actual anti-vaxxer? You're a sharp one, no one can deny you that But since we're on the topic, and since you distrust scientists, why do you trust vaccine data? Or is it that you don't mistrust scientists, just these scientists because they disagree with your viewpoints? And if that's the case, isn't that exactly the sort of reasoning used by anti-vaxxers? quote:Tell me, is your position really that scientific research is always justified even if no clear purpose can be discerned I am in support of scientific research even when the purpose is vague. "Let's study smallpox" is a good enough reason to study smallpox. "Let's keep some smallpox in a safe place so that it can be studied in the future, when we have better tools" is a good enough reason to keep it around. Science doesn't work like it does in Civilization, where you tell your scientists to go figure out how to make computers. Invaluable scientific discoveries most often start with simple questions that lack purpose, such as "how does smallpox behave when I do X to it?" In addition to this, a scientific study with a specific purpose that requires smallpox could come along in the future. Eliminating future potential avenues of research just so that we can eliminate some well-secured virus samples in case of an incredibly improbable outbreak is a pretty stupid idea simply because we don't know what kind of mind-blowing advances that their continued existence could lead to. And besides, it's significantly more likely that nature will create a new disease as bad as smallpox or worse than it is that we'll have an outbreak from these samples. If you're going to worry about improbable events like these then you may as well wear a full rubber suit at all times in case you get hit by lightning. quote:and there is a chance of great harm? When the chance of any harm being caused is essentially 0, then yes, absolutely. Especially when the "great harm" is greatly mitigated by the existence of a vaccine against that harm. quote:Don't reply "but there is a purpose the CDC says so!" because that's been dealt with. Okay, I didn't do that. But now I will. CDC scientists do believe that there is a purpose in keeping smallpox, and you never actually dealt with that point. And a bunch of WHO doctors believe that there is a purpose in keeping smallpox, too, and you never dealt with them, either. Saying "they're full of poo poo, here are some people at WHO who disagree" doesn't discredit any of those groups, it just shows that some people share your shortsighted and fear-fueled viewpoint. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 12:24 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Both of which are policy instruments of their respective governments. You're being willfully disingenuous, and it's sentences like the one that you wrote that lead to people becoming anti-vaxxers. The CDC is just an arm of BIG GOVERNMENT trying to interfere with my life, my kids don't need no loving measles vaccine! You may as well throw away all of those studies showing that vaccines don't cause autism, they were funding by government research dollars and are therefore tainted
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But the continued existence of smallpox actually has the same reasoning. The people who hold the reins don't give a poo poo about science, they just want to keep their toy because the Russians have it too. Except that there are a lot of scientists who don't give a poo poo about policy and who want to keep smallpox around for future potential research applications. You don't actually have a counterargument to this, so you keep implying that the argument is invalid because you have a poor understanding of some literature that you've probably never even read. I think that you might be the densest person on Earth. You could hold the key to all sorts of amazing neurological breakthroughs!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:You guys are idiots. I'm going to get Yeah, gently caress physics research, we should just burn all of the textbooks that deal with matters beyond a 19th century understanding of the universe. Anyone researching the properties of the nucleus might accidentally discover that you can make a really big bomb, round up everyone with a degree in nuclear physics or high energy physics and put them in death camps. gently caress anything that was invented as a result of nuclear physics, quantum physics, or high energy physics research, my tiny brain is scared And actually, basic Newtonian physics led to horrible inventions like the crossbow and the trebuchet, so we'd probably be better off just taking our whole society back to the dark ages. We wouldn't want any research to accidentally lead to discoveries that could be used to build weapons. Gather together all of the engineers and physicists, it's for the greater good. e: Oh but wait, science is also responsible for the kinds of metallurgy that allowed us to make swords and poo poo, gently caress, well it's the stone ages for us, then! Burn all of the books and kill all of the smart people QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 20:28
|
|
again for this but this is the same kind of reasoning that lead to the creation of the hydrogen bomb. No doubt you people would probably support that too because 
it lead to some useful technologies
|
mdemone posted:Like a cardboard box in an unlocked storage room kept at above-freezing temperatures? In a discussion about whether we should destroy all of the remaining smallpox samples, we obviously can't destroy the samples that we don't know about. e: Do you have a reason for supporting the destruction of the samples besides the fear of an incredibly improbable outbreak for which we already have a cure?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No. People were literally saying that wanting to do a risk-reward comparison made me anti-science. That's loving retarded. For the record, you were described as anti-science when you kept slamming on basic scientific research as "science fetishism", as though mankind's eternal search for knowledge is somehow a bad thing. And insisting that all scientific research should only be subject to risk/reward analysis where you need to figure out all of the benefits right now, before the research can be done just illustrates that you don't know much about the history of scientific breakthroughs and think that it's like a big game of Civilization Ogmius815 posted:I'll concede that I don't know enough about that research to say whether or not it's of any benefit. Because I'm a reasonable person, I'll even agree that if a reasonable expectation of benefit exists, then we should keep the samples. However, if that research can at all be conducted with other viruses or if that research is actually worthless for some reason, I stand by my previous position. We all thank you for conceding that some smallpox samples should be kept around.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Ogmius were you also one of those guys arguing that we shouldn't turn on the LHC because there was a small (miscalculated) chance that it would turn everyone into taffy or whatever the gently caress those idiot people were saying?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:We certainly require scientific research to be "useful" (novel, informative, etc) before it occurs. Especially when it involves risk to human life. That's a basic feature of all ethical research protocols. You don't need to prove that research has immediate discernible benefits before conducting it, from a scientific perspective. You can always guess at what benefits an endeavor may provide, but many cutting-edge research efforts are performed for the sake of seeking knowledge itself, without a priori knowledge of any tangible benefits. This is called "basic research". You have to have goals, obviously, but those goals don't need to have a tangible benefit, which is the crux of Ogimus' argument. If we had held all scientific research efforts to a cost-benefit analysis where the benefits must be stated before the research may be done, as Ogmius suggests should be done, then we'd have missed out on countless amazing discoveries. "What happens when I move this magnet into a coil of wire?" is a basic research question with no obvious tangible benefit, yet it's an experiment that gave us Faraday's Law as well as the electric generator and the electric motor. But at the time of the experiment, there was no way to know that this experiment would later lead to so many tangible benefits. People like Ogimus argue that basic research, research that has no obvious tangible benefit, should not be conducted because it lacks obvious tangible benefits. People with this viewpoint are shortsighted and are unaware of the history of scientific research. If we could somehow predict the future, then they'd be onto something. Oh, you want to talk about credentials? I have a PhD in Physics. Unlike many PhD physicists, I actually get to do postdoc-level research for a living. What do you do?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The difference there, of course, is that the LHC is testing stuff that can't be tested in any other, potentially less risky fashion, whereas we can perform Poxvirus research just fine using far less risky surrogates such as Cowpox. Oh, I see what the problem is, you just haven't been reading the thread. The epidemiologists who actually perform virology research argue that there are potentially beneficial research avenues that require smallpox specifically, not other Poxviruses. Links to these arguments have been posted throughout the thread. quote:Again this is where you cross the line from making a different call on the risk-benefit analysis into just spouting bullshit about how great science is as an abstract concept. We do particle physics research, therefore the risks of all pathogenic research is absolutely zero! That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you and Ogmius are misinformed people that have a misunderstanding of the actual risks of smallpox research, and that you believe that they are far greater than they actually are, just as misinformed people had a misunderstanding of the risks of turning on the LHC. And also just as misinformed people have a misunderstanding of the risks of vaccinating their children
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
I find bagpipes offensive. Most music doesn't use bagpipes, therefore none of the musicians would mind if we destroyed all of the bagpipes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Until there arises up a new generation over America, who will not have known Measles, and so will think that Vaccines are Not Necessary and also cause Leprosy or something, Despite the best Evidence. Selah. So it goes Did you know that you can heal your body with a magic wand? It only costs $60! I've purchased 10 for the discount and so that I can put them all over the house like they recommend (keeps food fresh!) quote:HOW TO USE THE NANO ENERGY WAND:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:After a certain point in life, you see enough of this poo poo to wonder why you weren't smart enough to come up with a scam like that yourself. As long as you craft the language as vague as possible so that you're not really claiming it does anything I guess you can make bank off of stupid people. Because deep down you'd know that you're a lovely person. It'd be easy to come up with some fake herbal supplement product and claim X, Y, and Z for a quick buck, but most people don't because most people have a conscience. lovely people willing to scam the gullible create groups like anti-vaxxers Killer-of-Lawyers posted:That clip is right. This will only stop once enough people die from preventable diseases. Then it will be back again in the future. The only other solution is enforcing vaccinations. Kind of like how we try to enforce air quality controls on industry. But then it becomes BIG GOVERNMENT and causes a bunch of nutcase libertarians to believe that it's a conspiracy to sterilize conservatives or some other stupid loving thing. There's no way to win here except through really, really good science education.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Considering how incredibly stupid and gullible people are, I really don't feel bad about it at all as long as it's a simple transaction where I sell my magic wand to a moron and they give me money for it. But that is what they're going to do. You're convincing a dumb person to give you money for a magic wand (which is already pretty terrible) and then they're going to use this product to cure themselves of... whatever happens to ail them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
I had to look up Carniosacral TherapyWikipedia posted:Craniosacral therapy (CST), or cranial-sacral therapy, is a form of bodywork or alternative therapy focused primarily on the concept of "primary respiration" and regulating the flow of cerebrospinal fluid by using therapeutic touch to manipulate the synarthrodial joints of the cranium. To do this, a practitioner will apply light touches to a patient's skull, face, spine and pelvis.[1] Craniosacral therapy was developed by John Upledger, D.O. in the 1970s, and is loosely based on osteopathy in the cranial field (OCF), which was developed in the 1930s by William Garner Sutherland.[1][2] So a guy noted that the cranial sutures look kind of like gills, and then some nutcases took that to mean that you could heal cancer with a relaxing scalp massage
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
torpedan posted:Right, there is a major difference between ethylmercury and methylmercury, but the scientific community did a poor job if conveying that it is safe Why do you say that? I thought that the scientific community did a great job of studying the effects and proving that Thiomersal is safe. The anti-vaccine movement shrank considerably as more studies proving the safety of this substance came to light, and it shrank again when it was discovered that the autism link was fraudulent. But the true believers can't be dissuaded with evidence The real issue here is the same one that drives irrational causes like anti-GMO, anti-vaccine, and conspiracy theories: people who are inclined to believe specific things ("all natural" homeopathy for instance) are not going to change their mind simply because you've provided evidence that they're wrong. Making this worse is a horde of hucksters who are happy to sell books and fraudulent products that take advantage of the people who are inclined to turn away from fact-based reasoning.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:Do you have any solid evidence that the anti-vaccination shrank, and then shrank again? Of the small number of anti-vaxxers I personally know, a grand total of exactly zero have modified their stance, despite the things you mentioned. My observation is anecdotal, just like yours. The evidence is convincing enough to switch a rational person's mind, but not a true believer. I know people who had their opinions changed, and people who didn't
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
I shudder to think about what a biology student who is anti-vaccine (or anti-GMO) has to say about nuclear energy
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:It's full of chemicals. Very bad for your body. I'd at least agree that ingesting nuclear material would be very bad for your body
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
copper rose petal posted:Ok guys, I need some help. Why did he marry an anti-vaxxer? Actually this is even worse, she's like an anti-medicine person or something. Even anti-vaxxers will take antibiotics when they're very ill
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
I'd like to point out that a doctor published this paper and received over 120 citations. The objective of the paper is "to develop a mathematical model for the determination of total areas under curves from various metabolic studies." The results: "In Tai's Model, the total area under a curve is computed by dividing the area under the curve between two designated values on the X-axis (abscissas) into small segments (rectangles and triangles) whose areas can be accurately calculated from their respective geometrical formulas." 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:Please, please tell me that's a joke site. Or the author was trolling them or something . No. It's a completely for-real paper, published in a real and peer-reviewed diabetes journal. You can find the paper on google scholar and pubmed. Some of the citations are great, with titles such as "Tai's formula is the trapezoidal rule", which presumably just mocks the original paper.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
I suppose it is novel in a sense, since she's using a combination of rectangles and triangles instead of trapezoids for some stupid reason (therefore it's totally not the trapezoidal rule, guys)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Are doctors really particularly bad at evaluating scientific papers? There's plenty of biologists and other scientists who don't believe in vaccines and/or evolution, and I vaguely recall that even some Nobel Prize winners have succumbed to woo-woo bullshit. The problem here isn't education quality or specific education type, it's the more general fact that people won't let education or science get in the way of them believing whatever the gently caress they want. Being a research scientist doesn't make you immune or even resistant to the grasp of pseudoscience, and doctors seem no worse than any other highly educated person in that regard. Well that's the thing; a Nobel Prize winning physicist who believes in the healing power of crystals probably hasn't even read any scientific papers on the topic; that poo poo costs money and who has the time to read papers outside of your field that you're probably going to have difficulty understanding anyway? But I would expect a doctor who believes in the healing power of crystals to not only have access to those papers, but to also read them, because he's a loving doctor. But in this context, we're not really talking about woo. We're talking about MDs seeing a paper that describes the trapezoidal rule, a basic element of calculus, and then either allowing that paper to be published or citing that paper. Literally everyone who enters med school has seen the trapezoidal rule, and possibly even used it. Integration is a major part of any field involving statistics, which includes medicine. This is why several doctors piped up and said "you fuckwits, this is the trapezoidal rule, how can you embarrass yourselves like this?" QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Nov 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Spalec posted:
Why did measles incidences increase the following year, huh?! Clearly that's proof that the vaccine actually caused more people to get measles and then people just stopped getting measles for some other reason *feeds infant some botulism-containing raw milk*
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Except that vaccination rates are increasing in the US: That's just the national average; what's really important is the local vaccination rate. If you're immunocompromised and living in a doctor-mommy neighborhood that gets most of its medical advice from naturalnews.com, the national vaccination rate might not be very comforting
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Part of the difficulty in treating the anti-vaccination movement is that followers of the anti-vaccination movement don't trust authority figures unless they're some sort of big celebrity personality. While it's true that Wakefield is the source of a lot of the anti-vaccination hysteria, it didn't really catch on in the US until Jenny McCarthy latched onto it. Retracting the Wakefield study and revoking Wakefield's medical license might have slowed down the anti-vaccination movement, but a lot of wackos still cite those studies as evidence that vaccines are dangerous. The fact that vaccines are made by corporations and endorsed by the government is enough proof that they're probably bad for you. Any scientific studies proving their safety or effectiveness have suspect motives, in the eyes of these people; they think that anyone who publishes something that helps Big Pharma must be in Big Pharma's pocket. You see the same effect in the anti-GMO movement; even if the scientists conducting a GMO safety study have no relation to anyone in any large agricultural corporation, as soon as that study leans in favor of GMOs suddenly those scientists are obviously paid shills in the pocket of Monsanto. So how do you influence people who honestly believe that bullshit anecdotal stories are superior to credible scientific evidence and who happily espouse logical fallacies at the drop of a hat? Discrediting the source of their stories doesn't work. Providing more scientific evidence doesn't work. Maybe people who are pro-vaccination need to provide a few anecdotal stories of their own
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus, fishmech (aka nintendo kid) understands that the legal definition of punishment is something specific, but he doesn't give a poo poo and wants to have a slap-fight with you. Just go back to talking about vaccines instead of the definitions of various legal terms, and ignore fishmech, and then the thread will stop being lovely Frankly, I find this entire situation frustrating because there's seemingly nothing that can be done to completely eliminate the anti-vaccination movement. Evidence and well-thought-out arguments don't work. So instead of going for a 100% effective vaccination rate (effective meaning "everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated"), I think that we should just try to hit as many edge cases as possible. 1) Make vaccinations free for anyone under age 18. 2) Create a national vaccination database to keep track of who has and hasn't been vaccinated. I believe that this is effectively happening under Obamacare with the digitization of medical records. 3) Make vaccination mandatory for public schools, as is already done, but get rid of "moral" and religious exceptions. This should include public universities and community colleges. Keep medical exceptions 4) Make it so that you can only claim your kid as a dependent on income taxes if you've gotten them the recommended course of vaccinations for their age, or if they have a medical exception This won't guarantee that all children are vaccinated, but it should keep vaccination rates pretty high.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I would add to that aggressive prosecution for docs who falsify research and non-doctors giving medical advise or physicians giving advise outside their area of certification. This would have to be done delicately, as there's fear in the research community of people using decertification as a means of silencing "unpopular" research, but I'd look into what could be done there. Yeah, I definitely think that delicensing is not a harsh enough punishment for someone like Wakefield who intentionally falsifies evidence. That kind of poo poo deserves some jail time and a stiff fine, at the very least. But you'd have to actually be able to prove that the evidence was falsified, as was done in the Wakefield case anyway
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
In my experience, if the treatment has "naturo" or "nature" in the name it's almost guaranteed to be 100% bullshit. I'd put even odds on it having something to do with ingesting apple cider vinegar, baking soda, or both.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:that's not libertarian...that's idiot. Those are synonyms
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:Did it say anything else, or was that it? If it's really a homeopathic remedy, there should be a bunch of "ingredient whatever 10X/5X/1C" stuff listed as well. A sugar pill is as effective as a homeopathic remedy, so I don't see the point in trying to figure out whether it was *really* homeopathic or not
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:My parents buy these zinc immune-boosters for colds that they swear by, and when they offered me one over Christmas holiday when I had a cold, I flipped over the bottle and saw the 1X bullshit insteand of a real amount of active ingredient. It was weird, normally they're really against any type of woo or hippy-dippy bullshit in medicine, but it turned out they just hadn't read the back and had never heard of homeopathy and didn't know what that meant. Actual medicine is sold right next to homeopathic poo poo all the time, sold by the same companies and often in the same kind of packaging. A year ago I was looking for some cough drops, the active ingredient of which is often pectin. Several of the packages were labeled "homeopathic" with no active ingredient listed at all; compared to actual cough drop medicines, the front packaging differed only in the flavor of the cough drop. Companies have figured out that they can make money off of sugar pills that are branded as medicine, and so long as "homeopathic" appears somewhere on the packaging then everything is totally legal. Most people won't bother checking and they'll just grab whatever flavor sounds good. It's hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 08:30
|
|