Science Fraud

,    »  -   370 Comments
438
3.87
12345678910
Ratings: 3.87/10 from 127 users.

Storyline

Science Fraud

Most of what occurs in the practice of science goes on behind closed doors, beyond the prying eye of the public. Nevertheless science and the scientists who conduct its research seem to enjoy an almost religious-like reverence, having been granted a virtual hands-off policy by the public at large to advance and mold the future.

Against this backdrop however, science is increasingly accused of fraud in the pursuit of useful research findings, applications and profits. Scientists like the rest of us try to cut corners, get the papers published, have their ideas for research funded, compete with co-professionals, and vie for glory. It is alleged by many that science fraud is commonplace in a society driven by money and ambition. To be sure science is not a career for the faint of heart. On the contrary science is an aggressive, ruthless business.

Still the practitioners and institutions of science are accused of going beyond mere ambition in the eternal quest for knowledge. Our researchers pressured by the need to produce are venturing beyond the boundaries of honest science into the forbidden territory of science fraud. Despite this revered social standing, scientists are now more than ever motivated toward the falsification of research in pursuit of hefty corporate grants or public recognition. The scientific process has changed greatly over the years. For the scientist the pressure of obtaining funding, which often is tied to professional advancement, is coming both internally from the employer and externally from the grant giving bodies.

Modern science is a large-scale enterprise heavily funded and highly directed. Its dominant players are large corporations and the US government, both of whom have definite stakes in the outcome of any given research. In the mainstream media of today, tales of science fraud abound. Further complicating these financial challenges, season-scientists find themselves competing for finite funds in a glutted field, going up against much younger comparatively inexperienced practitioners. This competition for grants, status, position and money makes the temptation to veer away from the straight and narrow almost irresistible.

More great documentaries

370 Comments / User Reviews

  1. jack

    Haven't yet watched this film yet, but would like to point out when scientific papers are published for peer review, regardless of the motivations or funding behind the study, the study is now available for peer review. It can then be refuted or corroborated. That's the purpose behind publishing the study. Published results based in faith, desired outcome, fraud or real data can be tested by peers to validate or invalidate.

  2. Barton Tiper

    Hmmmmmm. Yes science for profit has the potential for fraud. And yes sometimes even when not for profit scientist will not accept their results as it conflicts with their expectations. However, it is not hidden from public or peer scrutiny. Fraud in science is mostly discovered quickly through published works and peer reviews. (Having the "public" review the science is pointless as the "public" does not have the capacity to contest. ie, they lack the education. Most don't care anyways unless it benefits them directly in some way.)

    This type of fraudulent activity for personal gain occurs in nearly every industry and society. At least with science results can be easily tested and confirmed. This process of testing the theory and experiment is what keeps science more honest than most other vocations. Its great that they point this out at the end of the doc. Kinda negates the whole doc though.

    A more interesting doc may be on the psychology of fraud in human society.

    Its also interesting that most of their examples occur in the corporate pharmaceutical industry.

  3. Dovidw

    Just seen it and unbelievable conclusion The scientists are OK!! They're clean, innocent, honest and upright citizens! And I bet you didn't know this one? The FDA are OK also. Wow, this synchronizes perfectly with the sativa haze I'm just enjoying! Have I arrived in the next world, I ask myself? So let's examine a few examples. The lientists from Philip Morris concealed, along with the other members of the tobacco industry the harmful effects of tobacco, which directly resulted in the untimely and often painful deaths of millions of people. The fact that nicotine was addictive and other chemical additives were included in the ingredients was done with absolutely no concern whatsoever as to the possible health risks involved. A whole slew of psychotropic drugs such as Paxil, Ritalin, Zoloft to name but a few of some 80 similar medicines. Since you like documentaries, check out Marketing Madness which takes the lid off the psychiatry industry 'cos that's what it is, an industry! All the "doctors" openly admit at the beginning of the video that their science is not proved at all and really they shouldn't be part of the medical profession either. But in a society where ONLY money talks, and the voices of bribery and corruption emanate from the very highest level from the very people who are making the Laws; this is the end of society. What really amazes me is the fact that people keep yelling "democracy" when democracy is the problem, not the solution!!

  4. Lady in Portland

    But who is selecting what peer review gets revealed.
    One can always lie with statistics.

  5. Lary9

    Exactly! This was just another cheap shot video screed by people with hidden agendas (anathema to science) and an ax to grind.

  6. Lary9

    This was just another sleazy video screed by people with a hidden agenda (a motivation which is anathema in science). Peer review quickly roots out frauds if they even dare to publish biased nonsense. Unfortunately, in a free society, even frauds must be allowed to 'bloviate' nonsense occasionally---at least for a limited time. It's both ridiculous and sad when these anti-science "shock-docs" exploit malleable minds with disinformation.
    It is born of a galling hubris that celebrates ignorance---a celebration that revels in the act of ignorance ignoring itself.

  7. Dovidw

    I'm intrigued. Maybe you can give us some examples to corroborate your observation? For my part, I just see another example (if one was needed) of the total degradation and corruption which is systemic in an American society whose spiritual roots are buried in the decimation of the North American Indian. One unbroken and totally consistent pattern of institutionalizing and sanitizing wholly immoral laws that only serve the elite at the expense of masses. But this global illusion, which is swallowed wholesale by the world's nations is only possible because well informed, well educated critical thinkers are not welcome in today's Brave New World. As Jeddu Krishnamurti famously said "Those who are sane in an insane world are, by definition, insane!"

  8. Dovidw

    Dovidw...you missed something after the "....80 similar medicines." Did you want to add something like....have caused ten of thousands of deaths in America including a disproportionate number of suicides by hanging, self inflicted gun shots and not infrequently, preceded by murder. Official figures state that over 100.000 deaths occur in the US every years from prescription drugs alone.And since these drugs are addictive, for the ones that survive, Big Bucks for Big Pharma!

  9. Lary9

    Wow! Now that's mouthful...or rather a commentarianatious post-full! What has that old reprobate J. Krishnamurti got to do with the price of pomegranates? Ramble on, Watson.

  10. HankM

    Problem is, peer reviewers do not have access to the raw data that the researchers did. They must have faith that the raw data is being used honestly. That is how fraudulent science gets past the peer review, and why the peer review is not the ultimate gatekeeper of honest science.

  11. Dovidw

    Is this deja vu or have you already posted a one liner stating the same spurious nonsense or maybe you think the deaths of millions due to smoking related diseases irrelevant? It's part of the public record that Information which "scientists" kept hidden for decades almost certainly would have lessened the attraction of a death dealing product Methinks the ignorance you seek to distance yourself from is far closer to your own essence than you think!

  12. yellowmattercustard

    Alright smartasses - replace science. You're alive by the graces of science. Everything about you is by science.

  13. Dovidw

    Obviously following a logical thread is beyond your limited mental capabilities. Suggest you read the post a few more times and try to make an intelligent response by first addressing the initial question. Noticed a bit of plagiarism with the "peer review" ramble!

  14. pwndecaf

    you can have my paxil when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

    I quit smoking about 15 years ago. paxil probably saved my life.

  15. yellowmattercustard

    Still taking Paxil?

  16. pwndecaf

    Yes - it is not a cure for anxiety. I can only keep it under control, as it has for about 12 years. This, after more years of suffering. Try 14 years of fight or flight - it is an easy choice.

  17. Jack1952

    I haven't watched this video yet, but the entire science for profit which motivates fraud doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. If a scientist used fraudulent data to support his claim of an new type of, let's say microwave, it wouldn't be long before everyone would see that the microwave doesn't work. If it doesn't work, who will buy and where's the profit. Even in the world of grants, whose going to keep giving money to someone who shows no results or isn't being verified by other scientists. Frauds may profit in the short term but in the long run they will be found out and that's when the proverbial "stuff" will hit the fan.

    I guess I'll watch it now and see if they can show me where I'm wrong.

  18. Imightberiding

    Thanks for the posts Sheldon.

  19. Jack1952

    Well, I've watched and have made an amazing discovery. Scientists are people, too. Who'd a thunk it?

  20. Guest

    You've just replaced the word "Jesus" with "Science" from a typical religious comment.

  21. Peace Bewithu

    Leave the ego and the paycheck at the door and make science transparent. We are all connected now. So many brilliant underachievers sitting at their computer with nothing to do.

  22. oQ

    Are you also talking about the science that concerns pharmaceutical medicine?

  23. oQ

    Open science wider, allow and encourage research on awareness. Science is not meant to research matter only, not free science.

  24. Harry Nutzack

    pretty lousy doc. the visuals are a hodge-podge of fairly generic "sciency" looking scenes that mostly appear to be lifted from decades old educational films. the commentary from experts appears to be cherry picked snippets of unrelated interviews. the narration comes across as the output of an accountant reading a script into a mic. as it carries a 2001 copyright, i can, of course, appreciate that much of what we expect in the "low budget" genre of self produced short doc today was unavailable then.

    if i ran a workshop on "video production for youtube", i would actually use this as a "don't let this happen to you" reel. not quite as bad as "my 68 chevy idling" vids, but a VERY close 2nd place

  25. Harry Nutzack

    having spent time in situations where anywhere from a few minutes to a couple of days were spent in a similar mindset (abject terror of perceived impending doom, lol), and seeing the results of those comparably short exposures on both mind and body, i can certainly see how such a choice is an OBVIOUS "no brainer". can't help but wonder if you tried "smeckler's powder" first, though (lol). glad you found relief, that's a sentence NOBODY deserves

  26. Harry Nutzack

    sorry, but as a 40 year habit smoker, i have to say such a POV is ridiculous at best. your first poke on a stick makes it OBVIOUS you are engaging in an activity your body strenuously objects to. only the lowest of imbeciles could possibly hold a mindset that allows "the deliberate concentration and inhalation of the smoke of ANY burning organic matter might not be poisonous". neither philip morris, nor their cadre of lab coat wearing "experts" are responsible for my inability to run up a flight of stairs. leave such alibi-ing to lawyers trying to get payoffs for surviving relatives. we smokers ALL know we commit slow suicide (and have since our first drag), yet choose to do so anyway.

  27. omaim

    Aren't you ever been in a science lap ? if happen to be one, do you think what ever you do in the science lap, will be re tested by another person ? please come out from your box.

  28. Harry Nutzack

    science can ONLY research that which is material. anybody who tells you otherwise is peeing on your leg, and telling you it's a warm spring rain shower

  29. Lary9

    You speak without knowledge. Not only do they have past "raw data" (is that the same as "data"?) but they create new data and then compare it to the data of record that they're reviewing to see if it correlates. That's is what the "peer review" process is. It's not just some guy at a desk thinking...'Hmm...does this make sense to me?'

  30. Lary9

    I honestly don't understand what you're driving at...but you do seem upset with me for something.
    BTW: What's this crap about 'plagiarism' with comments about peer review? I've been writing about science for a long time and have never plagiarized so much as a comma. I insert quotes often but always properly noted.

  31. Lary9

    There is no selection process. Peer review is 100% aggressively "open". I've never read so many allegedly knowledgeable statements that reveal a woeful lack of understanding. "Peer review" isn't like two persons at a coffee shop kicking-it back & forth over the latest rumor...or an episode of dueling Tweets or a Facebook war.

  32. Lary9

    There is no pre-selection process with peer review. Peer review is 100% free ranging. It is aggressively "open". I've never read so many allegedly knowledgeable statements that reveal a woeful lack of understanding. "Peer review" isn't like two persons at a coffee shop kicking-it back & forth over the latest rumor...or an episode of dueling Tweets or a Facebook war.

  33. Lary9

    Much of the early science that relates to what you refer was from pseudo-scientists employed by big tobacco companies. They were insiders and actually, they were part of the early science deniers. Independent studies were never compromised or covered up data. In fact, one insider biochemist that worked for corporate tobacco became a whistleblower and was made notable in the Russell Crowe film "The Insider". So I don't get your argument. Those insider corporate shills weren't anymore real scientists than corporate lawyers who litigate against the truth are real lawyers. It was science that brought down big tobacco.
    You ought to think more judiciously before you throw around terms like "ignorance" at people---an argument commonly known as "ad hominem".

  34. Harry Nutzack

    actually, though the phraseology is a bit flawed, the "meat' of the statement is entirely correct. ALL of our biological systems rely on electromagnetic phenomena. our physical universe in it's entirety is the observable "noise" of chemical (electromagnetic), gravitational, and quantum level interactions. those are the realm of "science", not "jesus". without those interactions, our universe would be a cloud of "quantum grit" loitering in a most boring manner.

  35. Lary9

    Because Big Pharma research is done by insiders, (scientists that work for pharmaceutical corporations), the real test doesn't start until the FDA 'green lights' a new drug after sequential testing (one phase level at a time). Other labs such as university research facilities can jump on board to participate in review as well. Please note that chemical technologies are commercial and, strictly speaking, their efforts don't always conform to "scientific method". My experiences and hence my comments tend to be more on pure science in an academic setting which only later morphs into practical applications. This is where the conflicting interests arise--over commercial profits, of course. Cover-ups and distorted data nearly always comes from this part of the curve re the life of an idea.
    These days, there is great deal of misdirected animosity toward these pure science practitioners, often teachers too, that labor long & hard---often with a devotion to their craft like monks.

  36. Harry Nutzack

    did you actually devote the half hour to watching the vid Lary? though it did so VERY poorly, the "final conclusion" was "science works, and pretty much effectively self-polices". my perception of the motivation of the doc was that it was attempting to debunk the idea of "science is a racket", and just did a poor job of doing it.

  37. benny

    They only allow treatment drugs not drugs that cure to be available, there's a cure for most diseases, viruses, illnesses etc. So don't be gullible and naive not to believe that this sorts of things don't happen at least more than 50% of the time, there is good well meaning scientists, but it's overshadowed and controlled by corrupt of ones who will of riches are greater than helping for the sake of humanity

  38. yellowmattercustard

    No, you replaced the word "Science" with "Jesus".

  39. yellowmattercustard

    If one wishes to research "awareness" I can think of nothing stopping him.

  40. 1concept1

    I haven't watched the doc yet. I will in a moment but an attack on science at large doesn't make sense. The attack on corrupt science does. Each case stands on its on merit?

  41. Lary9

    "you contend that Peer Reviews are infallible"

    Nowhere did I say such a siily thing. Trust me...I would never, ever say that. In fact, all ground breaking works in science must, by definition, be falsifiable or they aren't science.
    And please let's not go down the "scientific theories are only hunches" path...

  42. Lary9

    Don't they allow links to other sites anymore in TopDocumentaryFilms posts? If I can't get a comment posted with a relevant site URL, I won't waste my time embedding links anymore. Anybody know what's what?

  43. Lary9

    "Submitting identical papers to hundreds of journals would be asking for trouble. But the papers had to be similar enough that the outcomes between journals could be comparable. So I created a scientific version of Mad Libs."

    I read your linked article. It seems that it was a "set-up" with the intention of trapping people on peer review. Thing is (read the quote) no real error-ridden paper could stand the greater scrutiny that this trick paper avoided by it's narrowly selected audience. That's part of peer review's built-in fail safes---the variety & quantity of reviewers.

  44. 1concept1

    What you are posting benny sounds right knowing how corrupt people can be. But "at least more then 50% of the time"? Is that a figure you just snatched out of the gray matter, (heaven forbid i should post, "out of the air" instead of "out of the gray matter":-)

    Like that big tunnel they built over in Europe I mean now that they have found the "god" particle that should be the last particle, don't you think? I suppose now they will reconfigure the particles. Now that they have "god" in a box......(I don't suppose this post will last very long). Like that old song, "Does anybody really know what time it is does anyone really care" (or something like that)

  45. benny

    There's no doubt that the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt, how? It's not profitable to cure people. Why cure when you can treat and have a patient coming back spending thousands of dollors. It's an atheistic world and the agenda that comes with that is money over human life cause to them there's nothing wrong in that it's just a secret no one wants to share.

  46. benny

    Let's not dance around the topic, we all know industry is corrupt and another thing, why save people when you can kill them off to reduce the world population. One rock many birds

  47. Harry Nutzack

    the higgs was dubbed "the god particle" by the press. i believe that was inspired by a statement of it's primacy in interaction (no mass, no interaction). such a position in the 60s would undoubtedly lead less than sophisticated newsfolk to draw the parallel between primacy and deity. "potential heresy" was still quite a "man bites dog" a half century ago, lol

  48. ydnc9of9

    The fact that we have corporate controlled revolving door politicians, who run nearly all of our regulating agencies and our government offices, has been largely ignored in this movie. This documentary credits the scrutiny and credibility of such agencies as the FDA far too much in this regard.

  49. pwndecaf

    No Smeckler's, but every kind of alcohol in massive, continuous quantities.

    It took away the anxiety. Quit that just over 20 years ago, after coming way too close to dying on my couch too many times.

    Then I was back to anxiety. It is common for those that have anxiety problems to self-medicate.

  50. jaberwokky

    If I'm reading you right then you are drawing a well defined line between science and greed. Which is to be admired.

  51. jaberwokky

    I agree Harry ... but. .I actually had to think for a while after watching this doc to be certain the message I got was the same message they were espousing. I could certainly see if and where lary9 was having issues with it. Very poorly presented and muddled, the sinister music didn't help either.

  52. Harry Nutzack

    i think your history very nicely illustrates that the problem isn't what medications are available, but rather who they are given to. in your case, a "miracle drug" if ever one existed. in others, at best a band aid on a pneumo-thorax. why do so many choose to indict the chemical compound, rather than the professional that fails to employ it properly? once again, very glad you found a solution you can genuinely live with, and that gives you genuine relief. also thanks for sharing your story, as it gives us a first person perspective that is so often lacking

  53. Harry Nutzack

    it kind of reminds me of the 60 minutes reports done by john stossel around the time this doc was copyrighted. they were often initiated from a negative perspective of the subject, and slowly used to illustrate that perspective was ungrounded in reality. of course, the cbs use was much more polished, and to the point. i honestly think this doc seriously suffers from lack of talent in production, as well as "technical primitivism" related to when it was made. the last dozen years has made a huge difference in what can be done on a shoe string budget, just in availability of source material alone.

  54. 1concept1

    I quite when i was 27. And i'll say this, with the passing of time it gets like before you started.

  55. pwndecaf

    Thanks, I appreciate that very much.

    If there is anything I want to do it is to raise awareness. When I first started to experience it, I got every test known to doctors from every kind of doctor. I think it is much more understood now than it was then.

    I was lucky to find the right doctor at the right time, and I have not changed dosage once since the first few months of working on it. You are correct about the professional being a key element to the success. He is still my doctor and I just had my annual physical yesterday.

    I quit smoking and drinking all those years and what does he want me to do? Lose weight. Ha, I love that guy!

  56. Harry Nutzack

    i've beat a few addictions in my time, but tobacco seems to have a much tighter grip on me than anything else besides air. i did start incredibly young though (at age 11)

  57. jaberwokky

    I beat my horse 2 years ago thanks to electronic cigarettes. Keep trying man, that's the best we can do.

  58. Harry Nutzack

    doctors share a trait with nymphomaniacs: they are NEVER satisfied!! lol

  59. jaberwokky

    You are talking about redefining science beyond its narrow confines ... how dare you!ONE!. crazy person.

  60. jaberwokky

    I can think of nothing condoning it either.

  61. Lary9

    One man's corruption is another man's pragmatic corporate capitalism.

  62. 1concept1

    I would imagine that most people that chime in on TDF have read the "The Hundredth Monkey" or the ones that watch the same docs i do? But for those that haven't ill outline it, (paraphrasing);

    A group of scientist observed and studied these apes on an island for fifteen years. One day they noticed one of the apes took a hand full of sand to scrub clean a clam. The ape next to him followed suit and did the same thing. When it got to the "Hundredth Monkey" or perhaps critical mass they noticed that this same ape in other parts of the world, started doing the same thing.

    Is that not "scientific proof", consciousness is the collective state of being the primary foundation of all existence? The Field.

    "TIME" Perhaps our perception of time or its measurement has something to do with our avg. life span, say 75, years, (this is not easy),

    Lets say one is going to create a new automobile. The first thing that happens is one thinks about it the second thing is a drawing, the third thing is a clay model etc and so on until finally the automobile.

    Now lets say it took five years from the moment of cognition to the end result, the actual auto.

    Now divide 5, years, (the smaller number) by eternity, (the larger number) and you get instant creation.

    Again i believe our, perception, of time has something to do with how long we live in this form on avg.? (that is in the manifest world; the subatomic world, reality, pure consciousness. distilled quantum, is not measured in time).

    I am not text book savvy in this field just thoughts popping in and out.

  63. jaberwokky

    Yes. What's your point exactly?In a concise format please, prose are unnecessary here.

  64. Lary9

    Greed and good science are like oil and water.

  65. Lary9

    I quit at age 33-over 30 years ago now. I did it cold and with an angry sense of mission. I put a pack in a kitchen drawer with 6 cigarettes remaining. That was the key...I didn't 'finish' the pack so I could play the late-nite game of "oh well might as well drive to 7-11 and get a new pack"...I had cigarettes in the drawer so it was just me and them--no late undermining drives to store which had become a ritual commitment-breaker.

  66. 1concept1

    I quit four times Harry for a year each time and finally i got mad and insulted that that little pack of cig. had control on me. I went up to the store purchased a pack of Lucky's opened them up slammed them down on the dresser and said, "F--K You"!

  67. 1concept1

    I am not sure what you are making ref. to? The comment i posted above this one wasn't finished when yours appeared?

  68. 1concept1

    Dovidw I collect Jeddu Krishnamurti's hard back first additions. I have a hand made leather book, small and flexable, with a hand carved K, inclosed in a circle and a leather string/rope weaving in and out holding it together. A talk in 1934 in Oha Calif.

    One of my favorites is "Education And The Segnificantce of Life".

    Just a side note: At Va they told me I might be crazy, (they call it bipolar), I told them if i wasn't crazy i'd go insane.

  69. jaberwokky

    For sure my friend. As long as both sides of the camp keep it in mind eh?

  70. jaberwokky

    Re sentence 1: Likewise

    Re sentence 2: What? what! what?!?

    Edit: Not being funny but it's next to impossible to make sense of your run on statements.

  71. Lary9

    I can honesty say I never have & never would pimp lies as truth for anything...period. To that extent, for me science is absolutely sacred. (Please don't misconstrue what I'm saying---I don't view science as "my religion". It doesn't work that way.)

  72. 1concept1

    Thanks for the compliment, though i know it wasn't meant that way. I am not a scientist I am a visual Artist. I suppose i think and write like an Artist. (and I like to write, its fun:-).

    What part do you not understand? I will try to condense it?

    That last paragraph was a little out there? (not the last sentence).

    Why are prose unnecessary. Does it take away from something?

  73. 1concept1

    Science For Science Sake! well said and well written!

  74. 1concept1

    Lary define "pure science" for me

    I'm not a scientist

  75. a_no_n

    please provide one example of where that has happened.

  76. a_no_n

    this is a ridiculous assertion for more reasons than i can count. Chiefly though it's because there is profit in curing people.

    Chief amongst them being that sickness doesn't go away just because we've developed a cure, people still continue to get sick.

  77. a_no_n

    actually they just allow drugs that can prove they work to be used...Homeopathy and whatever form of quackery it is that your grinding your axe for can't prove they work and so are rightly ignored in favour of actual treatments that work.

    How about just being open with your Agenda rather than half veiling it?

  78. a_no_n

    i know what you mean. People don't seem to understand that something is only peer reviewed when another scientist takes the claim, and actually does the study again from scratch to try and replicate the results..

  79. 1concept1

    "exploit malleable minds" I like your use of "malleable" in this case. I have to admit when a post is well written i tend to forget what the "Avatr" is posting about and focus on the writing.

    Leather is very malleable.

  80. 1concept1

    I'll work on that, thank you. The statements were not meant to be run on. I was hopping the reader could take each comment or statement on its own merit and not run them on. It didn't work in your case. And perhaps that goes for most of the readers on this doc.

    I was trying to shove two pounds of information in a one pound bag. Sort of like haiku poetry. It just didn't work.

    A very good critique.

  81. jaberwokky

    "I was trying to shove two pounds of information in a one pound bag. Sort of like haiku poetry."

    Haha, I like that :)

  82. Guest

    I'll have to get back to you, my mind is on the blink right now :/

  83. jaberwokky

    I'll have to get back to you, my mind is on the blink right now, sorry :/

    Edit: The Hundredth Monkey effect is purported. In other words it's horsesh*t.

    Divide 5 years by infinity? Really??

    Prose are unnecessary because often times people hide a lack of knowledge behind flowery words.

  84. yellowmattercustard

    Doesn't have to have anything "condoning" it. Do the science. Present the evidence.

  85. yellowmattercustard

    What are these "narrow confines" of science?

  86. benny

    Theres always sick people and there's more profit in long term treatments (cancer patients) also. There has been many alternative treatments and drugs that have cured these patients quicker and cheaper with higher success rates while the common chemotherapy method is most common and thought of has the best way which costs thousands of pounds. Write cancer on the search section of this website and you will see plenty of examples. All I'm saying is there is corruption and there is a few agendas that are above the consideration of just wanting to help people.

  87. benny

    That sounds atheistic

  88. benny

    That don't work in a world full of people who live on the same planet.

  89. Jack1952

    First you assert that they keep sick people alive so they can treat them indefinitely to increase profits. Then you claim they are killing us to reduce population. Which one is it? Are they killing us or keeping us alive?

  90. yellowmattercustard

    They're only killing off the healthy ones. You need to keep up with the latest conspiracy theories.

  91. Jack1952

    Yikes. I guess I'd better feign an illness if I want to live. So this diet and exercise media blitz is just a trap? Yikes, again.

  92. yellowmattercustard

    With all this evil science trying to kill me off they sure are inept. They haven't even winged me yet.

  93. Jack1952

    Well, I ain't takin no chances. I spent the last hour practising a convincing coughing fit. I'll pay for the drugs to cure me until they want to cut me open. Then the drugs will cure me and I'll move onto the next disease. Better alive and sick then healthy and dead.

  94. CapnCanard

    Agreed. There are 'cures' for cancer, but the system wants a synthetic magic bullet--(a natural cure will always be avoided because profit cannot be made from good practices!),. The pharmacecutical magic bullet is far more sexy than something very practical like a good diet free from pollution/synthetics and the complete elimination of pesticides, plastics, and industrial wastes in the water supply and soil. My understanding is that cancer is the body's reaction to toxins. Remove the toxins and you remove the cause. But killing the cancer makes a lot of money though it is very likely to kill the patient.

    The documentary does a decent job of pointing out that the real problem is money.

  95. CapnCanard

    keep in mind that science makes far more mistakes than successes. But once a new theorem is accepted as "fact" then that idea has great power in the community of scientists. If a better theorem is presented, it takes a very long time to over turn the false or fraudulent theory. I like Max Planck's statement that a new idea isn't accepted until the older scientists kick the bucket!

  96. 1concept1

    I don't have the facts and figures you do?

  97. Lary9

    Atheistic? How do you feel about macro-economics generally? Do you normally expect to feel "in the Spirit" about it?

  98. Lary9

    What are "proses"?

  99. Lary9

    I thought that was "blivet" haiku.

  100. yellowmattercustard

    Then your understanding of cancer is incorrect. The number one cause of cancer is aging. Aging is rarely toxic but it is 100% fatal.

  101. yellowmattercustard

    Praise god and pass the marginal propensity to spend.

  102. CapnCanard

    Is that a question, or a statement? Perhaps an insult? Okay, in my view, science makes mistakes and mistakes are necessary to find a method, a technology it is all part of the process of trial and error, aka testing, testing, testing trying to replicate results, the idea being to eliminate mistakes.

  103. Lary9

    First off---I consider myself a caring humanist, ie; I love people generally. So please take this in the right spirit.
    In America today we have fallen so far behind the rest of the world in math & science proficiency that I expect 6 out of 10 people couldn't pass a grammar school science test (which is the continuously lowering level of the US Marines recruitment test standard) This is because we celebrate anti-science/anti-'intellectualism'---whatever that last term means. Who knows why? Perhaps it's fear of modernity, the future and the changes that follow on the heels of discovery. It's literally 'blaming the messenger'. But for whatever reason, lotsa people don't take science seriously. Many Americans fight it as being an affront to the 'Genesis' story of creation which covers almost everything from geology to biology. So...what's my point exactly? I almost forgot as I tend to ramble a bit on my favorite subjects. OK...I remember. When a human mind, especially a young one, has limited exposure to science and its particular methodology**, they are easily persuaded by a good sales pitch from any carnival barker selling junk science.
    BTW. I believe that this is on the short list of reasons why America is rapidly becoming a fading empire.

    **Succinctly stated scientific method is ideally:
    1-gather facts & evidence
    2- collate & analyze
    3-hypothesize & experiment
    4-restate thesis & conclude
    5-repeat & peer review
    6-then do it all again with rigorous honesty.

  104. Lary9

    In context, I mean it as shorthand for 'science' without some technological purpose in mind for commercial use.... the kind of science that pursues understanding of the unknown corners of the natural world just 'because'...and without ulterior motive or bias as to conclusions.

  105. Lary9

    Good, clear writing ought to do that...I mean submerge the author & the topic's preconceptions to focus on the ideas...which is in the writing.

  106. Lary9

    Sadly, this old curmudgeon agrees 100%.

  107. Lary9

    You're pretty witty for a 'super'*.
    *(theistic believer---derived from 'supernatural')

  108. jaberwokky

    You can relax, it was a joke. I'm not coming to your house to steal your science.

  109. yellowmattercustard

    The only thing I find supernatural in this entire universe is my ex-wife's ability to get into my wallet. Absolutely spooky.

  110. jaberwokky

    Yup, I agree. Sometimes I wonder though, especially when I think of the Higgs boson and gravity.

  111. Dovidw

    I'm not really well up on Krishnamurti, I just like that quote. I'm more a student of Erich Fromm and suggest you check up on the 1958 30 minute interview with Mike Wallace. The comments by Fromm are almost prescient. In that he accurately predicts the downfall of America due to the twin obsessions of production and consumption. Btw "bi-polar" which you probably already know is the sanitized version of the original and more precise diagnosis called manic- depressive; which is a universal part of the human condition. George Carlin at the National Pres Club gives an excellent and very clean lecture on the obfuscation of language.

  112. Lary9

    I regularly suffer similar demonic mysteries.

  113. jaberwokky

    Where is this atheistic world you keep mentioning? Tell me now so I can pack my bags and head there because I've had way more than my fill of this world's religious madness and sorely need a respite.

  114. jaberwokky

    It's a Schrodinger conspiracy, the patient is both alive and dead until the OP decides otherwise.

  115. benny

    People with terminal or major illnesses, their treatments are long term, expensive and have low success rates and most people can't afford that so survival with all those adds against you is minimal. They use subtle ways to kill people particularly in this industry which people have over estimated the power of greed reaching the medical profession and industry which should be there as a necessity rather than a business outlet, increasingly corrupting the natural urge and feeling to help people

  116. benny

    Sarcasm and wit, this involves you too, you are part of humanity too. So why would you noylt even consider that these sorts of things happen, if not to you but to someone else more vulnerable. With us it's more subtle with other third world countries its more visible but low key because cynical people like you think it's don't exist.

  117. Olivia LaRosa

    atheism is not immorality or lack of empathy, it is merely the lack of belief in a supernatural entity. most atheists I know are more "moral" than most religious people. I know that the only person who can forgive me and save me is ME.

  118. benny

    Atheists can have and do have morals but the limits and where it applies is based on the individual person who may not be bound by fear of God so therefore no consequences which let's be honest are part of the same package and take God out of the equation than where's the consequences.

  119. Harry Nutzack

    the "all knowing punisher" this atheist faces is called a "conscience". it's a side effect of something known as "empathy". i do "right" ONLY because i perceive it as such, and NOT because i'm worried about "sky daddy throwing me a whippin' ". if YOU need fear of reprisal to get you to act in a "moral" manner, you're a sociopath, and as such are hardly in a position to spew forth about what does, or doesn't constitute "moral" behavior of ANY kind.

  120. terrasodium

    so the thalidomide that your mother took in the 50's and 60's didn't affect you then? good thing she accepted the drug companies stance on the drugs safty in the face of the evidence, maybe we should thank the manufacturers, who know how large your grey matter might have reached.oh wait that's just a theory right?
    edit.good news for you,and for us all,thalidomide has been FDA approved and doctor administered in chemotherapy, must be safe now that we've had 50 years to flush the problems it caused down the memory hole.

  121. yellowmattercustard

    That's your argument? That's it?

  122. yellowmattercustard

    So what the hell is wrong with sarcasm and wit? Beats preaching any day.

  123. Gordon Giroux

    sorry this isnt my argument but they suck your accounts dry first then let you die pretty simple concept

  124. Gordon Giroux

    not that it matters humans will die off sooner or later then on to the next pile of meat

  125. yellowmattercustard

    Well humans ain't gonna die off while I'm alive

  126. Jack1952

    It amazes me that some people would suggest that if God wouldn't punish them for wrong doing, they'd be off doing whatever they pleased. It would seem they want to do these things but can't because they don't want to go to hell. They equate fear with morality. It sounds like selfishness to me. "I do good because I want a reward".

  127. Jack1952

    Cancer has been around for centuries. Hippocrates, in the fourth century B.C., described several forms of cancer.

  128. Jack1952

    At the time it was not known that thalidomide was dangerous to the unborn. That knowledge came later. Its use in chemo does not have a negative effect unless one is pregnant at the time and then only the child is at risk and not the mother. Mistakes happen. It doesn't always mean some kind of plot. Science is practised by people and errors will happen.

  129. Jack1952

    I've considered it and I can see that there is a possibility that some medical people are greedy and self serving. I cannot conclude from that they are all that way. My neighbour is a loud mouthed crook, therefore, all my neighbours are loud mouthed crooks. That is a conclusion that is illogical and close to paranoia. Medical science is not a unified field. It is millions of people practising their craft and each one has their own reason for doing so. Some benevolent and some not so.

  130. Harry Nutzack

    kind of makes me glad im not a "moral beacon". don't think i could live with myself if i had to sink to that level of inhumanity

  131. Harry Nutzack

    i think they hid it in that office obama shared with ayers in chicago, lolol

  132. terrasodium

    argument? no! an example only for the balancing of the dogmatic blind faith you hold in the institutions that , as in any human/homosapien affair, can be manipulated for a positive or negative outcome.
    If arguementation is your thing, It would be to your advantage to drop the stand up comic routine , and sit down and read any history book that would illustrate what happens to good intentioned ideology, after political and economic forces are applied.
    If not then go to, thats it? basic enough for you?

  133. Harry Nutzack

    in case you hadn't noticed, the human population on this planet is larger than ever. lifespans are longer than they have ever been. they really aren't running this "bleed them dry and let them die" scam very efficiently, it would seem.

  134. terrasodium

    Mistakes happen, great , should we forget and move on , business as normal? Are mistakes happening right now ? do we allow the potential for harm (with mens rea) to keep operating within our families and "treat us" with the same open lab experiment on the populations? Or should we all maintain our silent majority stance , and let the credentials dictate the coarse of everyday knowledge?
    Did you memorize all of the textbooks in public school? or did you study them?
    P.S. why the singularity avatar? do you enjoy science fiction? and have you heard of promissory materialism?

  135. Harry Nutzack

    last i heard, life is 100% fatal. there really should be a warning label or something....

  136. Jack1952

    I've had a taste of that "moral beacon" stuff. I'm the oldest of seven. Apparently, all my sibling's debauchery and immorality was due to a precedence and an example set by yours truly. So much responsibility in the hands of an immoral person.

  137. Harry Nutzack

    "awareness" is a conundrum for philosophers, not science. how would one quantify it? does a bacterial response to stimulus "make the cut"? how about the "jaws" of a venus fly trap closing on the unlucky fly? the swarming cockroach that flees when a light is snapped on in the middle of the night? unless it can genuinely be weighed, measured or counted, science really can't be used to research it. a plant reacts to a leaf being pruned (that CAN be quantified), but is that reaction evidence of "awareness"?

  138. Psych3d

    To be a person you are protraying here, you do not have to be an atheist, but more of a luciferian or satanist (depending on which definition you would like to go by) and therefor those people have a "beliefsystem". That said, whether it's a ghost, or god or science or conscience or whatever, people have morals and values that will apply IN SPITE OF religious beliefs...

  139. jaberwokky

    That just about encapsulates it perfectly really.

  140. Kansas Devil

    Exaggerations, half truths, dramatic music, it's all there except using the word 'conspiracy'. The way this documentary is fashioned, you'd think the whole scientific world is rampant with corruption. The producer was a bit dishonest with him/her self.

  141. Harry Nutzack

    i had the opposite experience, in a way. all my teen pals' parents LOVED me, because i usually had some book in my possession i was reading because i wanted to. they hung the "good influence" label on me, even though, at the time, i was actually much closer to the "evil genius" category (though sorely lacking in the "genius" dept, of course). HN, pulling the wool over eyes for 4 decades and counting, lol

  142. Sean

    That might be true. Most definitions of awareness, like thoughts for instance, can be tracked down to the neurons in our brains. Brains are surely material don't you agree? Therefore, science could in fact research this.

  143. bringmeredwine

    I like your sarcasm and wit.
    I look at science this way, on one hand we have things like aspartame and thalidomide. Some scientists argued they were harmful, but they were approved and allowed for use any way.
    Then on the other hand, we have marvellous discoveries like penicillin and insulin. Wonderful examples of what science can do for us.
    There's always going to be potential for harm, but to me, the good far out weighs the bad.

  144. bringmeredwine

    I should shut up because I haven't even watched the doc yet.

  145. a_no_n

    that's absolute tripe, and i'll tell you why.

    If we found a 'cure' for cancer, that would not instantly stop all cancer from ever happening. People would still develop cancer and other cell mutations. One in three of us will develop cancer at some point in our lives. That's not going to change just because we have a cure so this idea that a cure wouldn't make any money is badly thought through tin foil hattery.

    Secondly, cancer cannot be cured. It is a mutation in the cells and therefore by it's very nature every single cancer is unique and unpredictable, curing it is quite literally impossible.
    If someone's telling you they have a cure for cancer they are either lying or deluded.

    Thirdly, i suggest you research into people who claim to have the cure for cancer, and then try telling them there's no money in it. Quacks and charlatans make billions every year from desperate people.

  146. a_no_n

    so what do you propose we put in it's place?

  147. yellowmattercustard

    Since I don't subscribe to any dogma then that argument is out the window and if you agree that it is outside forces which misapply science then I can't see why you would want to use that argument.

    Per your request - That's it?

  148. yellowmattercustard

    "Open lab experiment on the populations"? Is that a new conspiracy or merely a subset of the killing us off/keeping us sick conspiracy?

  149. yellowmattercustard

    I agree. "Awareness" is subjective and science doesn't deal in subjectivity.

  150. oQ

    Awareness will remain subjective until we research it enough to understand it.
    Science should and must deal with
    e v e r y t h i n g.
    That's what science is suppose to be used for, to reach the understanding of all.

  151. yellowmattercustard

    What's amusing is that some people can't think beyond their next sentence. I find it funny. Do you really expect me to treat it seriously?

    You keep harping on science's mistakes without realizing the only way to be assured there can be no mistakes is to do nothing.

    Look that up in your history book.

  152. Jack1952

    We have no choice but to move on. Mistakes are as much a part of life as breathing, a heart beat and the digestive system. We can hope to mitigate our errors, but their elimination will, most likely, never be realized. The only other option would be to stop all activity, to live in a state of paralysis because of our fear of error. I can't see that as a viable option.

    It would be foolish of me to consult anyone who doesn't have the credentials when I need medical help. I wouldn't go to a barber to fix my computer. I go to those who have the experience, education and from that, the expertise to be able to help me. That doesn't mean I have to sit in awe of their abilities and never question anything they ever do. Like everyone else, they're human and prone to mistakes. It's a common sense approach, not fraught with anger and accusation or blind subservience.

    My avatar came about as a result of a suggestion by one of the commenters on TDF who felt that my comments were interesting (I was quite flattered) and an avatar would make my comments easier to spot. After just having an interesting conversation with someone else on TDF about the technological singularity, I thought that this would be as good an avatar as any. It represented, to me anyway, the curiosity of science, and a possibility of where it might lead. I like some works of science fiction but not necessarily the genre. I find it too full of space monsters, blood, gore and conflict and not enough of the more intellectual aspects that should be present when science blends with fiction.

    I think science and those who study it must have some sort of belief in the concept of promissory materialism. It may not be the idea that all knowledge will someday be obtainable through research but one where the problem at hand are solvable if the correct procedures of science and hard work are applied.

  153. yellowmattercustard

    Why should "we" research it? You are the one putting it forward. That makes it incumbent on you to do the research.

    I can put forward that matter was created by galactic spiders. I have just as much evidence for my spider theory as you do for your "awareness".

  154. terrasodium

    Mia culpa, I had hoped to be in communicatiion with a intelligent being , considering your vectoring of conversation topic is limited to two dimentional binary , I will end it here, be sure to follow the instructons on the back of your meds .

  155. terrasodium

    Lets pretend your a grown up mature individual , and answer the question for yourself.

  156. terrasodium

    binary much?

  157. yellowmattercustard

    And now you're down to personal insults. How clever.

  158. oQ

    Science is not mine, science development is for the benefit of all on the planet. When i write we, i include myself on the planet.

  159. yellowmattercustard

    So you think science should investigate my spider theory then?

  160. a_no_n

    was that really nessescary?

  161. yellowmattercustard

    Science isn't an institution. Science isn't a cabal. There isn't a "Great Hall of Science". Science is only a tool, a process whereby one gathers evidence. This is what is meant when one "does science". I can do science and you can do science. You can't go around complaining that science needs to do this or do that. If you want it done do it yourself. Nothing is standing in your way. You have no right to ask anybody to do your science for you.

  162. oQ

    Your spider theory might be addressed when science openly research awareness, in fact everything discovered thus far could be put back on the front burner depending on the results, since "awareness" has not been considered in the findings of mainstream science.
    Why oppose researching awareness? what have we got to lose?

  163. Vlatko

    By that logic we also have to research the Spaghetti Monster, alchemy, voodoo and some other utterly vague and laughable concepts. What have we got to lose... except time, money and other resources that could be channeled elsewhere.

  164. oQ

    Researching should start with understanding what awareness is. Is awareness "the mother of matter" or is it the other way around. Mainstream claims it's the other way around without having solved what awareness is.
    Spaghetti monster or spider theory are jokes you have picked up from science (as you have picked up anything else unless you are a scientist) trying to make fun of those who want to probe reality in a different ways.
    Don't be fooled, mainstream science is not stopping research into awareness although it keeps it from advancing at a needed pace in this time of craziness.
    My guess would be there is a bigger demand from the population of the world to understand awareness and the reality associated than to understand how to make bombs and drones.

  165. Neil Mcginnis

    You are actually incorrect. Do research into The Gerson Therapy and read his book where he cures 50 patients of terminal cancer. Then watch "A Beautiful Truth" where they explain why this treatment is not advocated by doctors, ignorance and money. People would still get cancer but if a food diet can cure the cancer then there is no need for the costly long term cancer care. The latest person saved was Robin Quivers who wrote a book about how real food saved her life.

  166. Neil Mcginnis

    Aging is not the number one cause of cancer. Get your facts straight please.

  167. hisxmark

    If a scientists was to get grants, he has to publish. That means his results are open to the public, and to other scientists. There have been cases of error and a few frauds in science, and it has nearly always been other scientists who have pointed them out.
    Science is probably the least corrupt of human endeavors, because science is the search for truth.

  168. terrasodium

    objects at rest tend to stay at rest until?

  169. terrasodium

    I do not know you personally,and unless your legal name is yellowmustardcustard,I could not insult a personea I have no knowledge of.

  170. John Defalque

    If most of our science wasn't wasted on how to blow up the world and kill us all, we could irrigate all the world's deserts, and eliminate world poverty. Monsanto is evil science for global corporate monopoly-they want complete control over all the world's food crops, it seems like they will get it. Science is used to propagate the cruelty of factory farming. The psycho-pharmaceutical industry is fraud.

  171. mike jarvis

    Thank you for the voice of reason. Yes it's called peer review. Those intent on fraud will be found out and exposed. What worse for those who intend to continue with a career in science?

  172. a_no_n

    Did he? did he really?
    So he cured 50 people but didn't bother to get his work peer reviewed so that it can be used by the public at large...oh look, it's incredibly expensive what a shocking co-incidence.

    How many people have Died because of Gerson theory? Do you know that?

    Fifty people is a tiny statistic, and it's quite probable that they got better by themselves. It happens.

    The national Cancer institute did a proper study (by that i mean one where the practitioner couldn't Cheat) and lo and beyhold they found that there was no benefit whatsoever from Gersons treatment.
    In fact every attempt by independent researchers to study Gerson theory have all come up with nothing.

    The idea that Coffee enemas can cure cancer is ridiculous to the extreme.

    I suggest you watch the (not so) beautiful (Un)truth. a documentary by an actual scientist that explains how many people have died chasing this quackery...you're going to be shocked.

  173. Neil Mcginnis

    Everything you just stated was addressed and properly refuted in The Beautiful Truth. They address the Mayo clinic directly and a prominent doctor that was fired for admitting this therapy worked and people are still using it to this day.
    How is it expensive? It's just a diet and enemas you weirdo. It's not about what you eat but rather what you don't eat.
    I get the feeling you have only heard one side of the argument and you are content with that and in being so entrenched in your own ideals. : )

  174. Neil Mcginnis

    Watch the movie. lol. It's worth your time even if you disagree. In the last year Robin Quivers from Howard Stern show accredits her diet for lack of side effects from chemo and radiation. In the beautiful truth documentary they address 400 patients cured of many diseases by the gerson therapy. It's FULL of testimonials from obviously REAL PEOPLE that had documented cases of terminal cancer, deemed to die by the Mayo Clinic, and they were cured by the Gerson Therapy. Half of the documentary is nothing but testimonials that are obviously not actors but real people shedding real tears and telling their story which you are acting like they are just bullshitting. You are either misinformed or heartless. How can you ignore so many people that were terminal and then still alive and testifying...???
    How can you die from the Gerson Therapy if it's only a diet plan and coffee enemas?? To my understanding it can be used in conjunction with chemo and radiation.

  175. mike jarvis

    Trying to hide the truth is a fool's errand.think about it...

  176. Memnos

    indeed, but truth may come out too late with a too weak voice

  177. Mistaron

    No mention about Pons & Fleischman, (cold fusion), being discredited with biased, fraudulent and incomplete science, when later independent research proved that observable, positive reactions could in fact be sporadically reproduced, thus confirming the original claims.

  178. hisxmark

    Can you provide citations? What research has supported those claims? What research discrediting cold fusion was fraudulent and how?

  179. a_no_n

    considering the video i mentioned was a reply to beautiful truth and made after it i very much doubt that...Did you even watch it?

    It is expensive, because a lot of people who go through it mysteriously end up going bankrupt...

    I suggest you visit "whats the harm . net" and see actual news stories of people who have had their lives ruined by quackery such as this.

    i really like the way that you deny there is any possibility of this being wrong, use blatant biased sources for your information and then accuse me of cherrypicking.

    I presume the irony of that is totally lost on you?

  180. cbjester24

    whoa...its not every day you scroll through the comments and see someone you know! Glad you found the site bro! Hail vlatko

  181. nonameonshore

    Unfortunately, the FDA collusion with Monsanto, and the highly probable certainty that genetically-modified foods are extremely dangerous to human populations, not to speak of the havoc wrought on the environment, gives a lie to this otherwise well-argued piece. The FDA is no longer to be trusted as an arbiter of what is safe, good and acceptable. And if Science wants to hold onto its good name, it had best figured out very quickly what to do about the FDA.

  182. a_no_n

    There's no evidence whatsoever to support a single word of what you've said.

    Please cite me a single example of any environment that has had "Havoc" wrought upon it by GM.

    The FDA is not sciences responsibility! Your insistance that it is lets the politicians who hold real responsibility off the hook!

  183. a_no_n

    if by truth you mean paranoid deluded nonsense.

  184. a_no_n

    so you criticize science for not solving world poverty, and then in your next sentence condemn them for their efforts to try and solve world poverty...dude, make your mind up!

    Monsanto is a business, not a science. It uses science, but it is not the institute of science. You blame science for the abuses of politics!

    Also, an industry cannot be Pseudo, unless it doesn't actually sell anything...again i feel you're mixing up business with science.

    If you don't like the abuses of corporations then you need to worry yourself with business regulation, not go off on some wierd unfounded crusade against science...

  185. a_no_n

    it's true, a scientist can make a name for himself by finding fraudulent practice in one of his peers...And on the other side of the coin a scientist can be ruined by being caught cheating.

    Much of the anti scientist rhetoric being vomited over this comment section seems to be fueled more by paranoia than reality

  186. a_no_n

    anecdotal evidence is not real evidence because it cannot be verified...she may very well think that the diet helped...good for her. It's called the Placebo effect.

    Every single independent peer review study on the subject found it ineffective, therefore it's just needless expence for people already going through an expensive procedure.

    How do you die from Gerson therapy? you don't...Unless you're taking it instead of chemo,...in which case you just die of cancer.

  187. John Defalque

    I don't think that science is a useless harmless myth like religion. There is good and bad science-good that tries to solve acidification of all the earth's water. Bad-the creation of the personal private car that has crated this problem in the first place. Technology is a double edged sword. How many times over can we annihilate the world with nuclear weapons?

  188. Harry Nutzack

    science didn't invent the "personal private car", industry did. just like the revolver, the breech loading rifle, the machine gun, and the outboard motor. science and industry are NOT homonyms

  189. oQ

    Science worked hard at creating the atomic bomb....or would you say industry created that?

  190. Roadrunner777

    Gerson badly embarrassed the medical community and for that he has been vilified since-- too much at stake profit-wise for Big Medicine and Big Pharma to lose. The last thing they want is a natural cure and they use flawed science in their attempts to discredit Gerson-- along with any other natural practitioner or therapy.

    Look up "Dr. Gerson's Suppressed 1946 Congressional Testimony" where he testified in the U.S. Senate bringing in 5 terminally ill cancer patients who he cured. Medical doctors testified as well, verifying that the patients did indeed have cancer and that conventional treatment failed to cure them.

    a_no_n, no disrespect intended, but I've heard the "science lingo" for years: proven research, proven data, proven effective treatment, peer reviewed studies, anecdotal, placebo effect, spontaneous remission, etc., suffice to say in my opinion that this science is just looking to discredit Gerson by any means possible. I strongly believe that the independent peer reviewed studies that you site finding the Gerson therapy ineffective, upon close inspection would reveal sources and funding not so independent.

    I've visited alternative clinics in Mexico including the Gerson Clinic, and natural healing works. GERSON CURES CANCER.

  191. Harry Nutzack

    politics worked hard at creating the a-bomb, and employed both science, and industry to that end. the decision to develop it was ENTIRELY made by politicians (in both germany, and the USA). the common narrative represents OUR decision to do so was "necessary to counter the possibility of hitler developing one first". is that the rhetoric of science, or politics? teller (a zealot with MANY axes to grind with the powers of europe) convinced einstein to champion the concept to roosevelt. there was NO work at development until the pols demanded it.
    contrast that with the development of atomic power in general, where the "impetus of creation" was ENTIRELY academic. there is a HUGE difference.

    edit: in teller's defense, i feel i should also add: this occurred immediately after all allied governments had put to academia, and the engineers of their countries, a demand for "new, improved, better" weapons systems, no matter how "hare brained" the idea. that call brought forward the a-bomb, but also "skip bombs", demining "tank flails", napalm, the "liberator" pistol, the m-3 submachinegun, the colt "woodsman"/maxim silencer combo "spy gun", and a list of technical improvements to existing mechanisms that would fill volumes. that governmental demand was put forth with patriotic fervor, and declarations of "duty to god and country" behind providing ideas. i have little doubt, even without his personal bias', teller would have put the idea forward in such a situation.

  192. oQ

    Thanks to nuclear power plant invention, we are living amidst the biggest catastrophe according to David Suzuki. It may not be with a bomb that we blow ourselves up.

  193. awful_truth

    @hisxmark: Funny you should ask. MIT doctored their results after reproducing Pons and Fleischman's experiment. They too found they were getting higher energy output then they were expecting. This has been verified and talked about on several scientific documentaries. (example NOVA) In reality, their attempt to discredit these 2 scientists backfired with each of them going to France and Japan with support towards hydrogen fuel cell technology. Don't take my word for it, research it yourself!

  194. awful_truth

    @Mistaron: You are absolutely correct regarding Pons and Fleischman, and I updated hisxmark on your behalf. Keep up the good work!

  195. awful_truth

    @Roadrunner777: You are right about Gerson, along with Harry Hoxsey, Royal Ray Rife, and Rene Eccaise. There has been multiple approaches that have had great success with cancer, but that makes them a threat to the establishment, and corporate profits. The idea that if chemotherapy (mustard gas) and radiation doesn't kill you, then you will be alright mindset is sickening. If you are going to die, spend your money enjoying yourself instead of reinforcing the status quo. Of course, that is just my opinion, but after watching what happened to my mother, I have no doubt she would have lasted 4 times longer if she would have stayed away the 'standard treatment'.
    P.S: even if these standard treatments do help, it doesn't create much confidence when you get reports that some company was watering down their chemo treatments to increase profits! (what a world we live in)

  196. awful_truth

    A documentary that does a good job of pointing out that 'money' is the all pervasive root of corruption. Note: one flaw that should be pointed out was the interviewee statements in regards to Pons and Fleischman.
    It has been proven without a doubt that MIT doctored their results when reproducing their experiment. These 2 gentlemen were on to something, and their treatment by the status quo exposed once again why you should believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see!

  197. over the edge

    please show me the "great success" that "Gerson, along with Harry Hoxsey, Royal Ray Rife, and Rene Eccaise" have had? do not give me unsubstantiated claims,personal testimonials or non independently repeatable claims as they carry no weight. also why woukd these treatments be immune to the standards and testing that mainstream treatments have?

  198. awful_truth

    @over the edge: The success is the many people who were cured by them, and have testfied accordingly. Since you are not interested in personal testimonials, and claims unsubstantiated by the corporations and politicians who have everything to lose by them, (money) what would be the point?(exercise in futility)
    If and when the time comes that you may have to face a similar situation, you can put all your 'faith' into the poison they offer you, and pay through the teeth for it. Others will try alternative treatments, and in the end, it won't change anything either way (everyone dies) except what you have in your bank account.
    Personally, I am more interested in living with the time I have, and dealing with things as I see fit, (choice) instead of putting all my eggs into one snake oil saleman or the other.
    I understand you may feel you are protecting the masses from the unsubstantiated. That effort would be better served informing them of what matters most while they still have some life left in them, instead of beating the same old drum that science is the answer to everything, and only those who control it can be trusted without question! (blind faith)

  199. awful_truth

    a_no_n: You can't be that naive.

  200. awful_truth

    @Jack1952: That is precisely why you can't put all your faith into science. They always discover after the fact the dangers, which is why the only medicines that are best trusted are the ones that have been around the longest. (excluding chemotherapy and radiation because they are a sludge hammer trying to kill a flea)

  201. a_no_n

    i see...so in your mind it's more plausible that the entire scientific community is involved in an international conspiracy theory than it is for Gerson to just be wrong?

    You may have heard all the lingo, but you've failed to understand it. Do you know what peer review actually is?

    Peer review is when a scientist takes a study, and copies it, word for word to try and get the same results claimed by the original.

    Everyone that has tried copying Gersons tests have found different results to his.

  202. a_no_n

    if by naive you mean i don't believe unfounded rumours and only accept what can be proven then yes.

  203. a_no_n

    Science may have created the car, but science didn't mass produce it and sell it at low low prices...why blame science for corporate greed?

  204. Roadrunner777

    All of these were persecuted by the system.

    Regarding Hoxley, the District Attorney, Al Templeton, representing the prosecution in the state of Texas and having arrested Hoxley over 100 times, quit his job and became Hoxley's defense attorney, after his own brother Mike came down with cancer, failed to be cured conventionally, but secretly went to the Hoxley Clinic and was cured.

    In addition, Hoxley sued the editor of JAMA, Morris Fishbein for libel and won. As a result, Fishbein was forced to resign his position with JAMA. (Interesting that there is no mention of this on the Wikipedia site for Fishbein. Apparently there is no shortage of shills willing to do the dirty work, just like here.)

    One last thing about Hoxley-- he treated 100% of the patients who came to his clinic, regardless of their ability to pay, or not.

  205. over the edge

    none of that is proof that the treatment works or answers any of my questions. do you have anything other than red herrings?

  206. John Defalque

    Sure, science isn't responsible for a lot of the world's problems and relying on crapitalism or the greedy fraudulent business hierarchy to solve world poverty is like the Aztecs sacrificing people because the corn won't grow.

  207. over the edge

    i never claimed that "science is the answer to everything,", but there are standards for treating illness and exempting alternative medicine from these standards is dangerous. why do these treatments not need to meet the same standards as mainstream medicine? also i am Canadian so do not worry that i will "pay through the teeth for it".

  208. Jack1952

    I remember the Polio epidemics of the early fifties and the vaccine that has eliminated this disease in the west. No more smallpox. In the seventies, a person who had gone through heart surgery was seen as one of the walking dead. Now bypass surgery is routine and patients live normal healthy lives long after their operations. I have a niece and a good friend who are living normal lives with transplanted kidneys, unheard of thirty five years ago. The discoveries of insulin, penicillin, childhood vaccines, the list goes on and on. All products of using the scientific method. If we are to rid ourselves of the maladies that are killing us prematurely, we have only one option. That is to study them in a scientific way and learn all we can about them in the hopes of defeating them. This is science. The answers are there. Unfortunately, it is up to us, the imperfect human race, to find them. We will make mistakes...a lot of them. That is not the fault of science but the inevitable result of flawed people trying to understand the complexity of life.

    Chemo is a radical treatment to treat cancer. At the moment, unfortunately, it is the best hope for those who face certain death without treatment. The most terrible aspect of chemo is that is doesn't always work. To die from the cancer, while suffering the negative effects of chemo, is an almost unthinkable way to end one's life. It is like gangrene. The only option is amputation, a terrible choice, but the only one that didn't include death. But it didn't always work. Amputees still died suffering from further infections. Death is the inevitable consequence of life. We fight it the best we know how and science gives us the best chance of success at living a long and healthy lives.

  209. Neil Mcginnis

    You have your head buried in the sand. The FDA doesn't even propose it's own studies, but rather analyzes the studies made by corporations with their own agendas. You call personal stories anecdotal when in reality they are eye witness accounts. Please stop responding to my messages because you are getting on my nerves. lol

  210. a_no_n

    i'm British, so i don't properly understand the FDA and can't comment.

    Anecdotes...Eye witnessing accounts, however you spin it they're both the same thing, and not admissible as evidence because they can be tampered with/corrupted/completly made up.

    Irritating ignorant people is what i do best.

  211. Neil Mcginnis

    No i think he meant the usual definition of naive.

  212. a_no_n

    Hence why i'm a socialist.
    private sector obsessed governments are too toothless to properly regulate corporate abuse.

  213. Neil Mcginnis

    You don't properly understand many things, that being the least of all. You may need to re-evaluate the definition of ignorant because you are claiming I have incorrect information, not lack of information, therefore the word is not applicable. Doctors are people that can be corrupted and tampered with too so your point is moot. At one point doctors supported cigarette smoking.. How do you think this happened Sherlock? Corruption... It's not that complicated. Maybe try watching some of these documentaries you are so adamant about discrediting. Dude if you had watched the documentary you would understand how the FDA works so you just showed your ignorance and you'll notice that I used the word in it's proper context. I suspect you are not trying to hide the truth but rather are misinformed yourself.

  214. Neil Mcginnis

    If you are British maybe you underestimate the level of corruption that Americans are capable of. lol
    The federal Drug administration outlawed cannabis which has never directly caused a single recorded death meanwhile alcohol and tobacco kill people daily and they are legal. There is a reason sir why it makes no sense, corruption. The mighty dollar determines all in this country. The only plausible explanation for all these policy inconsistencies is the influential nature of money.

  215. Harry Nutzack

    once again, you fail to see the distinction between strata. the "development" in atomic power that i refer to as "entirely academic" were the fermi piles, and other "pure research" academic apps. once GE got into the picture, it became a "product of industry". the cheap-skatery of profit based venture is what has plagued such efforts, and markedly decreased their potential safety. chernobyl suffered from a similar set of "bona fides", though from a political expedience (and sectarian indifference) standpoint, rather than profit.

    as an aside, allow me to point out fukishima will NEVER produce an atomic explosion, nor can it. even plutonium breeders have NO danger of such an outcome. they DO have the potential to render huge areas toxic to most life, however, so don't take this as "aww, c'mon oQ, they are safer than a coal plant", that is not in any way the point i am making. we certainly could poison ourselves out of existence with them, but will never "blow ourselves up" with those machines. if they were a danger of "a-bombing", they would actually be LESS environmentally dangerous in the long term, and, most likely, far less common.

  216. a_no_n

    Are you hoping that if you call me ignorant enough i'll forget that i just completly destroyed the point you were trying to make?

  217. a_no_n

    It's for a multitude of reasons, mostly because of plactic and paper, for which hemp is a competitor and probably a better alternative.
    Now it's because anti drug is a simple and effective standpoint for politicians who want to appear to be moal crusaders, but can't be bothered actually finding something worthwhile to fight for.
    I don't disagree that corruption is at the heart of prohibition, but it goes a lot deeper than money.

  218. Kazina

    how about the "environmental havoc" of all the Middle Eastern farmers committing suicide because of this awful company?
    undeniable.
    as is the abundance of other data supporting the reality that gmos and anything that messes with nature so much are bad

  219. a_no_n

    You mean all the middle eastern and African farmers who are trying to smuggle GM foods into their country because regular crops hardly yield anything in their Arid soil?
    Anyway what data? Please tell me what data you're using because to the best of my knowledge it doesn't exist.

  220. a_no_n

    who replicated the findings?

  221. a_no_n

    your say so doesn't really count as evidence

  222. a_no_n

    neither. war created that.

  223. a_no_n

    actually there is a lot of difference between nuclear fuel and nuclear weaponry.

    The process of refining the latter is long, expensive and precise, it's not just a case of sticking a rocket on a cooling tower

  224. a_no_n

    Dogmatic is the unwavering and stubborn belief in a position or ideology...Since science changes it's opinion with every new bit of information...how is that dogmatic?

  225. a_no_n

    the way i see it, Christians have absolutely no obligation to live moral lives, because they can just ask for forgiveness on their death beds and they believe that whatever they've done they'll go to Heaven.

  226. a_no_n

    thinking about it makes me reach for the spirits...does that count?

  227. Kazina

    omfg what is wrong with you lol.. nobody wants those s*upid seeds and they're not legally allowed to reuse them so it costs way more, and that is why they're killing themselves, because they can no longer make a living.. other people are being poisoned from working in gmo cotton fields and s*it.. dude you are sad

  228. a_no_n

    i asked you for evidence, not you're opinion...This might be hard for you to understand but there is a difference.

    also...not one word of what you said is actually true.

  229. Kazina

    well at least you're *trying* to use the word you're properly.. so close!
    it's not conjecture, it's now common sense and public knowledge. you're wasting my time when you haven't spent two minutes examining the reality of the whole devastating fiasco/conglomerate

  230. a_no_n

    I see...so you're going to point out a basic grammar error to try and dance around the fact you still haven't supplied a single jot of evidence to support your opinion.

    You say i haven't examined the evidence, so please furnish me with it...educate me...Unless you're talking out of your backside of course, in which case keep on dancing around the point.

    at the end of the day, Organic farming whilst fine for you and I in our temperate countries with rich soil and lush lands, for people in Africa and India and China, it's no good...I suggest you google Norman Borlaug and see what someone who actually went to these countries with the technology was able to accomplish.
    Also, i presume you don't eat Corn, because that's genetically modified as well...Carrots also used to be purple, but they were engineered to be orange instead...The Hysteria around GM food is ridiculous

  231. Kazina

    no you lose like usual dearie. that is why we are trying to get you off these gmos bro!

  232. awful_truth

    Jack1952: I respect, and agree with much of your position. My concern is not the value of the science, or exposing meaningless treatments for cancer. (a just cause) My concern is the corporations, and the government institutions they support, are ruled by greed. If there is a cheap, or viable alternative that may cure,or bring some people relief, they should not be summarily ruled as ineffective just because some agency said so. This idea of 100% unquestioned trust of our institutions is flawed and naive thinking, when placed in context of the driving force of western society.
    Only now is chiropractic treatments starting to be recognized by mainstream medicine, when anyone who has ever had a bad sublixation, (pinched nerve) knows very well it's benefit. I was told by a bone specialist I would be in a wheel chair at 17. I diagnosed myself, and after a year of debilitating pain, limped in, and walked out after 1 chiropractic treatment. (and never looked back) In other words, the medical profession does not take kindly to a threat to their establishment, nor the pharmaceutical drug companies that support their lifestyle. Jonas Salk (am I spelling that correct) never filed patents for a polio vaccine, and was just happy to be paid for doing a job he loved, and all the people he could help, cheaply, and effectively. Today, that thinking is unheard of.
    Thus, it is not about science, or it's ability to weed out snake oil treatments. It is influence of the global pyramid scheme , and it's effect on what is considered acceptable, or proven. (the point of the documentary - something for all of us to think about, and never forget) Take care, and best wishes Jack1952.

  233. awful_truth

    @a_no_n: Does that mean you are not willing to research it for yourself? How is that working for you?

  234. awful_truth

    @over the edge: I am Canadian also, and much of my mother's cancer treatments, and associated costs were not covered by medicare, or even Blue Cross for that matter.
    (ergo, live and learn)

  235. over the edge

    without details i cannot comment on the "associated cost" but as far as i know (please correct me if i am wrong) the only treatments that are not covered are either not approved or the cost/benefit is too high. i wish that all medically sounds treatments could be provided regardless of cost but that is unrealistic. i will ask a third time and hope you answer "why do these treatments not need to meet the same standards as mainstream medicine?:

  236. a_no_n

    how can i research conjecture?

  237. a_no_n

    still waiting for that evidence there's supposedly loads of.

    It's not me that loses...it's the billions of starving people across the world looking for a solution to hunger that lose.

  238. terrasodium

    As it appears you have an empirical bent, could you then explain why ,rationally, Goldblach's conjecture holds true. has yet to be proven rationally, true or false? if you recognize the related nature of Goldbach's conjecture to your question you may be on to something , if not then remain mindfully at rest and think no further then the official scripts you've no doubt commited to memory.
    edit, Goldbach.

  239. awful_truth

    @over the edge: To answer your question, I agree that all cures and remedies should be under scrutiny, and pass certain standards. My only concern is that greed is running the world, and has it's hand in everything, including the agencies that the general public trust to determine what is valid, and what is not.
    Thus, it is not about the science, it is about unconditionaling trusting those who are in charge of it, and have the most to lose.

  240. awful_truth

    @a_no_n: I gave you an example as a point of reference for verification. This is not conjecture. If you wish to disregard it out of hand, that is your choice based on your personal bias, which makes the point of this discussion meaningless.

  241. a_no_n

    it doesn't...if it did then others would be able to replicate his findings, but alas nobody can.

    I would comment further but to be honest between the crazy punctuation, and your odd use of language i have absolutely no idea what you're saying

  242. a_no_n

    but without any sort of evidence it is exactly conjecture, and until evidence is shown it can never be anything but conjecture...I get that you're desperate for me to go away and stop pointing out the obvious flaws in the theory, but i'm not going to i'm afraid. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...It's very ironic that you should start throwing the word bias around.

  243. awful_truth

    @a_no_n: I see. You are hung up on the term 'cold fusion', a phrase that was not coined by Pons and Fleischman, but from their detractors. With that said, your attempt to distract from what I said in my original blog @hisxmark to somehow discredit me is disappointing. (that their results of excess energy have been verified numeruous times, and that places like MIT doctored their results in an attempt to discredit them - speaking of irony)
    If you wish to debate the validity of the science behind what these 2 chemists discovered, (conjecture on your part) may I suggest you check out a documentary on this site called 'Cold Fusion: Fire from Water'. This, like the NOVA special I had refered to originally, will confirm what I had said was accurate.
    P.S: The only reason I responded to your last blog was out of respect for other intelligent comments I have read of yours on other discussions. If you wish to converse without insult, I will be more than happy to talk with you. If not, may I suggest you bicker with Robertallen1. He will be more than happy to mince words with you. Take care, and best wishes!

  244. a_no_n

    conjecture; the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

    there is NO proof that cold fusion is even possible.

    Your arguments from authority (2 chemists) doesn't really hold any water since it's a logical fallacy.
    the fact that they are chemists doesn't make them right...if anything it gives them a lot of scope to be wrong because they are quite far out of their field where cold fusion is concerned.

    You claim MIT doctored something to discredit them...that is a conspiracy theory, quite a ridiculous one too, which i presume you also have no evidence for...

  245. susan g

    Where is your proof that anything you have written is true?

    FDA in collusion with Monsanto? Proof please! While I may not agree with every decision the FDA makes at least one can say they are NOT made behind closed doors. Every decision is made openly and transparently. The public is encouraged to attend any and all meetings and secessions. If you are unable to do that they are all video taped and can be viewed on the FDA web site.

    The FDA is an enormous institution with the massive responsibility of maintaining the safety and the approval of all drugs for both humans and animals. They are also responsible for the safety and approval of everything from a tongue blade to the most technically advanced High beam radiation treatment device. In addition they are responsible for all food, alcohol, tobacco, cosmetics, vitamins and supplements, and the approval of all new drug protocols for cancer and the treatment of other diseases. Your claim that it is this conspiracy riddled organization is laughable. These kinds of claims are made all the time and yet not one single case has ever been proven.

    As for GMO crops the biggest human experiment has already and continues to take place. After decades and millions and millions of acres planted, harvested, and consumed by human and animal alike and not one single adverse effect on the health of anyone. In fact it can be said that GMO crops that are disease resistant reduce the need for pesticides thereby being of great benefit to the environment. Not to mention the few billions mouths that will be fed and therefore not starve to death.

  246. susan g

    Your example of corruption doctors supporting the smoking of cigarrets is incorrect. Many doctors themselves once smoked. They may have even endorsed the habit. But then it was discovered that the correlation between smoking and lung cancer was undeniable. It's called the advancement of scientific knowledge. Once the connection between cigarrets and lung cancer was made doctors spoke out against it, and in fact most doctors then quit smoking themselves. There was nothing sinister about their supporting smoking at one point in time, With new scientific evidence that quickly changed for the good of their paients.

  247. Neil Mcginnis

    That is not accurate. lol. Thousands of poisons, toxic metals and carcinogens are inside cigarettes and you are suggesting doctors did not realize this could be a health concern so not only did they not criticize it but they instead supported it. And you believe this to be true? Sounds extremely unlikely.
    Why would Doctors recommend smoking if not enough research was done to determine it's safety? The influence of money!! It's easy to see if you open your eyes. Doctors are people thus they can and will be corrupted by money. I guess I am saying they are corrupt and you are saying they are just stupid. lol

  248. Neil Mcginnis

    I think we realized that you are so entrenched in your own ideals that discussion with you proved pointless.

  249. Guest

    This is an excerpt from a government website explaining that the doctors were so stupid they were convinced by the tobacco companies they were safe with no real proof:

    "Tobacco company operatives appeared at medical conventions and in physicians’ private offices, providing physicians with free cigarettes and reprints of scientific articles on the subject. As a 1936 Fortune Magazine profile of Philip Morris & Company made clear:
    The object of all this propaganda is not only to make doctors smoke Philip Morris cigarettes, thus setting an example for impressionable patients, but also to implant the findings of Mulinos so strongly in the medical mind that the doctors will actually advise their coughing, rheumy, and fur-tongued patients to switch to Philip Morris on the ground that they are less irritating.15"

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/

  250. susan g

    You can't help that you are helping to spread an evil narrative. If you are interested in the TRUTH you can read about it at Discover Magazine.

    Here is an excerpt that explains how this awful untruth began. Please inform yourself of the truth.

    "The issue of farmer suicides first gained media attention in 1995 as the southern state of Maharashtra began reporting a significant rise in farmers killing themselves.

    Other states across the country began noticing an increase in farmer suicides as well.

    But it wasn’t until seven years later — in 2002 — that the U.S.-based agribusiness Monsanto began selling genetically modified cotton seeds, known as Bt cotton, to Indian farmers. The seeds produce insecticides and led to higher yields, but can be up to 10 times more expensive than regular cotton seeds.

    Within years, a narrative began to take shape that farmers were getting into debt to pay for the seed and when they couldn’t repay the money were killing themselves. Another version was that the GM crop failed, leading to debt, leading to suicide.

    It is a narrative that is hard to break.

    Finally, a reporter figured out the real story. What I love most about this article is that it’s written by a journalism student–Rubab Abid–interning at the National Post. She took the time to investigate a claim taken at face value by many other journalists, including the esteemed Bill Moyers. In doing so, Abid also provided essential context to the larger (and very real) tragic story of suicide in India, a story with complex and heartbreaking cultural and socio/political dynamics.

    Ironically, the documentary (Bitter Seeds) that perpetuates the GMO/Indian farmer suicide myth also indirectly captures those complex factors. I was actually quite moved by the film, which showed a side of the story that indicts Indian cultural mores and predatory lending practices way more than it indicts Monsanto. This is a side of the story that the Vandana Shiva’s of the world choose to ignore. But don’t take my word for it; watch the movie for yourself.

    The truth is that the real causes of farmer suicides in India cannot be pinned on Monsanto, however venal you may regard the company. To discuss those causes you have to wade into a very complex equation that includes institutional, social, and governmental factors in India. Doing this requires a cold objective eye and cultural sensitivity. I’m fairly certain that Vandana Shiva, in her heart, knows well why so many Indian farmers have taken their lives over the last several decades. Just as I’m sure that she knows all about India’s high rate of suicide and the reasons for it. After all, she is a student of inequality and social justice. That Shiva prefers to keep the conversation squarely and inaccurately focused on GMOs and Monsanto reveals to me that she cares more about advancing an ideological agenda than addressing the root causes of suicide in India. That she has succeeded in exploiting real tragedy and distracting conversation away from those true causes is something I find utterly offensive."

  251. nonameonshore

    Author’s note: If President Obama really wanted to apologize to the American people he would not be focused on the fact that some have been required to drop poor insurance plans, but would apologize for the ACA requiring them to buy poor insurance plans that leave them paying 30 percent to 40 percent of the cost of healthcare if they get the most common silver and bronze plans. He would be apologizing that the ACA is a symptom of his administration which is dominated by Wall Street and other big business interests like Monsanto serving as food czar, the outsourcer General Electric serving as jobs czar and the Attorney General coming from a corporate law firm that represents the big banks and other business interests. We are not holding our breath expecting President Obama to apologize for these actions, but hope that others will work with us to build a mass popular resistance that can change the direction of the government and the economy. Change has always come from the bottom up, so we are not waiting for the top to acknowledge their own corruption.

    From an article in Truthdig entitled "The Apology Obama Needs to Make…" I wonder what is meant by "Monsanto serving as 'food czar.'" ???

  252. nonameonshore

    Wow, you have a lot of explaining to do, don't you? And I wouldn't trust everything Discovery Magazine has to say.

  253. susan g

    That's your response, you wouldn't trust everything BTW it's Discover Magazine not Discovery Magazine has to say? The fact is the suicide rate was increasing in indian farmers SEVEN years BEFORE GMO seeds or Monsanto came into the country! There is no disputing that fact. So how can you claim Monsanto is fully to blame when they weren't even on the scene for 7 years later?

    The fact is with the exception of one single poorly designed French study there has been no evidence that GMO's are harmful to humans or animals. There is a mountain of evidence in fact decades of evidence and millions of acres of crops grown, harvested and eaten without one single adverse effect on anyone or anything.

  254. susan g

    I couldn't agree with you more. I'm reading a lot of paranoia and virtually no evidence to back any of it up.

    Ever notice how it's the same with the Alternative TO medicine crowd? They are big on conspiracies by the big bad medical establishment and pharma but have no evidence that prooves any of it. They also freely back and accept the claims of validity of alternative TO medicine treatments with no scientific evidence prooving they work.

    What if big pharma offered a treatment with the discription that no controled, blinded, peer reviewed clinical trials have ever been done on it, and the only evidence is what people have said happens when they use it but don't worry IT WORKS! I wonder if that would fly?

  255. susan g

    I too want to thank you for your voice of reason. I agree that science IS probably the least corrupt of human endeavors.

    The cheats, frauds, and liars are weeded out because the system is so open.

    These people who have nothing but criticism for science, should instead be showing gratitude and appreciation for all that science has accomplished. Not only have their lives been vastly improved but also greatly lengthened!

  256. nonameonshore

    “Most high-level FDA employees have a background in either medicine or law, but one of the largest private-sector sources is the Monsanto Company. Over the past decades, at least seven high-ranking employees in the FDA have an employment history with the Monsanto Company.” Michael Taylor serves alternately in executive positions with Monsanto when he isn’t ensconced in some regulatory agency in Washington DC where he can steer legislation that will benefit Monsanto. Check out the link at Monsanto and the FDA.

    Are you on the Monsanto payroll? Most people who come online and argue with such fact-devoid vehemence in Monsanto’s favor are doing so because Monsanto has lots of money and no morals, and there are plenty of people out there willing to hop on their bandwagon.

  257. nonameonshore

    OK: Discover. I don't read it. But methinks you protest too much. And so far as I know I haven't said a word about the Indian suicides...

  258. susan g

    The system wants what WORKS period.

    You think if a cure was found that was natural it would be avoided? REALLY?! Do you have any idea how many medications and treatments come directly from NATURE? One of the most successful cancer drugs Taxol comes from the Pacific Yew tree. Hundreds of drugs from anesthetics (poppies and cocaine morphine etc.) to antibiotics (bacteria) come from natural sources. So your theory is completely flawed.

    It's flawed along with your idea that there are cures for cancer but no one wants to use them because they aren't sexy? BTW you can't cure cancer with a diet. You can help prevent CERTAIN types of cancer like colon, but once you have cancer you ain't gonna cure it with juiceing, herbs and spices.

  259. susan g

    Gerson's book where he claims to cure 50 patients did not even come close to holding up to scrutiny. Many of the patients didn't even have medical documentation proving their diagnose to begin with. When follow up was done on the 50 patients they had all with the exception of a couple died of cancer. One that was still alive had bladder cancer.

    The movie "A Beautiful Truth" was nothing but an informercial and propaganda.

    Don't forget Max Gerson was incorrect in his belief that ALL cancer was caused by toxicity in the body. Of course these toxicities were never actually identified ....ever. And there isn't a single scrape of peer reviewed evidence proving any of his treatments cures cancer. There is however plenty DISPROVING it works and proving that it can in fact be dangerous and harmful such as coffee enemas three times a day!

  260. nonameonshore

    And something you need to know about those arid climates that are supposedly just crying for GMO interventions: Monsanto and GMO technologies are proving to be the worst prayer for areas of looming water shortage… Here in the United States, in Texas, as I recall: huge and worrisome problems with decreasing water tables. Do you really believe all this malarkey about GMO agriculture reducing water requirements? That's about as lacking in common sense as the one about Monsanto's GMO technologies reducing pesticide use.

  261. susan g

    Fact devoid? Sorry you have it reversed. YOU are the one coming on here making the claim "the FDA collusion with Monsanto and the highly probable certainty that genetically modified foods are extremely dangerous to human populations not to speak of the havoc wrought on the environment bla bla bla".

    Quite a mouthful of rubbish with nothing to back it up.

    I simply pointed out to you that people have been planting and eating GMO foods for decades. By your reckoning they should be dropping dead like flies and the environment should be a vast wasteland. Oh but wait! No one is dropping dead! And where are all these horrible effects on the environment?

    Most of the scientific community is of the opinion that GMO crops are safe. The proof of this is the fact that for decades they have been in use without any signs of harm.

    No I'm not on the Monsanto payroll. So you can take your insult and shove it. It's what you people always do when you have no evidence you insult.

  262. susan g

    Well I guess you haven't bothered to read the earlier part of the thread. Kazina was claiming that Indian farmers were committing suicide because of Monsanto! Then YOU jumped in the middle to make your comment to me. That was the whole point of the Discover article. It cleared up that farmer/suicide myth. Just one of many many myths and false information related to GMO that is spread around the Internet and repeated by the credulous like Kazina.

  263. nonameonshore

    It's so obvious what you and your friend a-no-n are up to. I've seen this before. How much does Monsanto pay you for your disruptive services? You're like a machine gun. You just load up and fire at any and everything that moves. Don't bother to get the facts straight or read what's been written. Just FIRE! This is hilarious if it weren't so sad -- and sick.

  264. over the edge

    please stop accusing those who disagree with you of being on the payroll of Monsanto if you cannot prove it

  265. nonameonshore

    Get serious! Monsanto wouldn't have a reputation for being the sleaziest company on the planet if they didn't know how to be sleazy in a million different ways. They run the best gestapo police force in the country… Check out their fascist stake-outs in the Midwest. It's a travesty what they've done to American farming communities. They wouldn't need to be doing any of that if they were an honest above-board company. But they're not. And one day the world will shut them down. You can depend on it.

  266. terrasodium

    Live happy watching the shadows in your platonic cave .I'd like to recommend the Fukushima fish as a dietary staple,omega 3's are important , and to be honest I find the Aenglalanders lingo as confused as their history, gonna go way out on a limb and peg you as a Tory , wasn't Charles I a great start?
    Yes ,yes DIEU ET MON DROIT, did I puntuate aite fer yah?

  267. awful_truth

    a_no_n: I have given you 2 different documentaries which you obviously refuse to watch. If you did, you would realize it is not a conspiracy theory, but factual and documented. (in other words, they acknowledge what happened. As to why, is subject to speculation)
    Which brings us to the point at hand. I responded to someone regarding whether there was fraudulent research to discredit Pons, and Fleischman. I have supplied the information, yet you injected yourself into the conversation regarding whether you believe in the idea of cold fusion. Since that was not what the discussion was about, there is no point in furthering this discussion if you are:
    1: unwilling to look at the facts.
    2) straying from the point of the original discussion.
    Good Day!

  268. susan g

    Thank you over the edge. It's interesting how they always accuse a person of being on the payroll of which ever entity one is in agreement with. If you question an Alternative TO medicine treatment you must be on the big pharma payroll and so on.

    They can't fathom the fact that maybe just maybe we are someone with a different opinion from theirs.

    But basically it's just a ploy they use to distract when they don't have any proof of their claims.

  269. susan g

    I'm not "up to anything". I was simply reading through the comments and responded to some of the ones that were making outrageous claims with absolutely no evidence to back them up.

    When I asked you to provide any proof at all you resorted to insults and accusing me of being on the payroll of Monsanto! That's how deluded you are. Your automatic reaction to someone who doesn't agree with you and asks you to provide even one scintilla of proof that what you are claiming is true is to accuse them of working for Monsanto! Do you see how stupid that kind of reasoning is?

  270. awful_truth

    @Neil McGinnis: After going through a different, but similiar discussion as you have with a_no_n, I completely understand your dilemna.
    You are absolutely right regarding the influence of money over everything. Ironic that even though the entire world is driven by greed, that many refuse to acknowledge this influence, like somehow the doctors, scientists, corporations, religions (everyone) are impervious to it's infiltration.
    I sometimes have to wonder if some of the people we are having discussions with are paid to discredit anyone who question the status quo, or better yet, they attempt to blur indesputable facts, hoping everyone will forget the truth. (makes you wonder)
    P.S: Perhaps I am giving them too much credit! (I now, bad humor)

  271. awful_truth

    @Kazina: Funny stuff Kazina!

  272. susan g

    You simply prove my point. Yes, doctors were that clueless about the actual cancerous effects of smoking. Neil Mcginnis is claiming that doctors knew the health effects of cigarets but because of corruption (paid off by tobacco co.?) went ahead and not only didn't inform the public of the dangers of smoking , but supported and encouraged it. Don't forget this was 60+ years ago. Cancer research was in it's infancy.

  273. terrasodium

    I would presume you are a scientist, and I would be interested in your proffesional observations, could molecular biological techniques be used to deliver contraceptives through a food supply?I would prefer to leave the elastic terms of ethics out of the dialogue.

  274. susan g

    You speak out of both sides of your mouth. First you list a bunch of alternative treatments that you claim have all had great success in treating cancer. Then you say if you are going to die you might as well spend your money enjoying yourself. Why wouldn't you just pick from one of the quack ah I mean alternative cancer treatments that you seem to think are so effective?

    Todays chemotherapy protocols are not made from mustard gas. That's a very uninformed and ignorant view. There are several kinds of chemotherapy that work in very different ways.

    Yes a doctor was caught water down chemotherapy drugs. Despicable! Fortunately it's not something that happens often, in fact I'd never heard of a case before or since thankfully.

  275. a_no_n

    documentaries do not equal evidence...not by any stretch of the imagination, because they can be doctored, edited etc. to say nothing about the financial bias of the people making them...

    I'm not unwilling to look at the facts you just haven't shown me any.

  276. a_no_n

    i don't disagree about Monsanto, but i draw a very clear distinction between them and the science.

    i do believe the "malarkey" because that's what they're aiming to produce...why do you not believe in it?

    Again the only kind of reasoning i'm seeing for your conclusions is a paranoia about the industy.

    At the end of the day, if people didn't kick off so hard about GMO's then other companies besides Monsanto might have a half a chance of getting a look in edgeways...as it stands you lot are basicly ensuring that Monsanto remain the monopoly holders for the forseeable future.

  277. susan g

    You say "he treated 100% of the patients who came to his clinic." That was part of the problem. Hoxsey was NOT a doctor and yet he repeatedly practiced medicine without license.

    Do you think the rules should have been bent for him and allowed him to play doctor without the proper training and edication?

  278. a_no_n

    what's your point?

  279. a_no_n

    actually i'm a socialist...although it's interesting that you label me as a tory, it tells me straight away that there's a lot more ideology than there is reasoning behind your conclusions...also, Fukushima was hit by an earthquake and a tidal wave before it went into melt down, so please don't pretend like it just happened on it's own, people died in that tragedy so let's not spit on their graves by politicising it to score petty points ok!
    grow up.

  280. awful_truth

    @susan g: Actually, there has been multiple reports and convictions of companies (not the doctors) who have been caught diluting chemotherapy to increase profits. The fact you haven't heard about this doesn't impress me.
    Secondly, any medicine that kills far more good cells than bad (all chemotherapy and radiation) means they all have the same approach. (not a good one)
    Last but not least, to acknowledge success from other forms of treatment, yet advise people to have fun before they find themselves with a cancer diagnosis to begin with, is not speaking out both sides of one's mouth. It simply means spend your money enjoying yourself, instead of spending it at the end of your life hoping to extend it. Having fun, and selling hope are completely different topics.
    These types of errors usually occur when someone is talking (defending bias) when they should be listening. Any questions?
    P.S: No need to respond; it is a rhetorical in nature!

  281. susan g

    I'm certainly not going to argue that there haven't been other instances where chemo drugs were diluted. You say multiple cases. Multiple as in more than one? Or multiple as in dozens? My point was it doesn't happen very often. I still think this is true.

    In the context of the conversation which was about what one would do if diagnosed with cancer, you specificaly stated " if you are going to die spend your money enjoying yourself." I did not interpret that to mean everyone is going to die. That's a given.

    Again different chemotheraputic agents work differently. Not ALL work to kill cells and thereby kill good cells along with the bad, some do work this way but not all. Since the mapping of the human genenome and identification of the various cancer markers they are much more targeted killing the cancerous cells and leaving good cells alone. They also have fewer side effects. So to say chemo is mustard gas is a gross misunderstanding. I highly recomend an article in The New England Journal of Medicine {Two Hundred Years of Cancer Research" June 7,2012. It can be read on line.

  282. Kazina

    lol susan were you actually alive then? just like emerging scientific data about caffeine, and gmos, and these other poisons, The truth is and was out there, it just gets compromised because of agendas. Many doctors knew beforehand, just like it's nearly impossible for them to not know how poisonous the pills they prescribe now are and how important nutrition is, but they are owned and benefit from this kind of illness so many won't speak up until it becomes common knowledge (which it Should be already) and is reported in mainstream media as 100% etc..... We know better than to rely on that stuff now cuz anything mainstream is designed to work Against people, not for them... well, it's designed to work for the pocketbooks and control of the "powerful" people.. but the average citizen is supposed to be bamboozled and poisoned. with the amount of information and advancements in true science (not the bs stuff that supports all these lies and propaganda) we've all got the tools to be informed and understand how to take care of ourselves and see what's really going on. Many do know, and thank goodness for you all, seriously, but many are still totally ignorant and idiotic... It's not our fault that you can't find the truth out.. you've got all the resources. stop eating poisoned stuff corrupting your brains and the truth will be easier to decipher. stop wasting so much time arguing with people who actually know and spend that time using the available resources to educate and enlighten yourself. it's sad cuz the people who are doing this arguing for the evil opposition like NEVER actually listen to or read/comprehend a word the truth speaker says!! get your head outta your toxic a** and take advantage of the knowledge available to you

  283. Kazina

    LOL it came from the government, real reliable source haha

  284. nonameonshore

    So what you're saying is GMO science is worthwhile, it's just the companies (namely Monsanto) practicing it that are questionable? But there's no reason to resort to this type of technology. We've had food surpluses here in our part of the world for years; we stored our grains and let Africa starve. In any case, Africans know how to farm; many of their leaders are actually very suspicious of GMO technologies and with good reason. These technologies are dangerous. The US government with the help of the Rockefeller Foundation and entities like the Bill Gates Foundation is pushing GMO technology as a weapon of imperialist expansion. After the oil, it's "he who owns the world's food supply, owns the world" - Can you imagine the arrogance of a company that actually thinks they should own the world's seed supply? And to boot, a company like Monsanto with an abysmal track record of showing any kind of concern for human safety, welfare, well-being? There's a story in Jeffrey Smith's book, Seeds of Destruction, about Monsanto being the recipient of some rarely bestowed legal penalty for unconscionable behavior in the deploy of knowingly harmful chemicals… I can't remember the exact details, but look it up and then ask yourself if you want a company like this owning the world's seed supply? Put Monsanto and these extremely destructive ag businesses out of business and then institute Permaculture methods to restore the land. Go to the internet and look Permaculture up... Look at what people like Geoffrey Lawton and John Liu are doing to revive the land. That's where we should be headed now. There would be no reason in the world for companies like Monsanto to spend so much time lobbying in Washington D.C. if they were actually providing a useful and much needed service/products to the world. They force their garbage on a reluctant public because what they are doing today is no different than what they've done in the past… Monsanto concocted Agent Orange and then left the US government, meaning you and me (the taxpayers), to clean up the mess. The resultant birth defects in Vietnam are a criminal outcome on the level of the atrocities we committed in Iraq using nuclear grade weapons. As for demonstrable humanitarian concern, Monsanto has none. And it's deluded to think you can convince yourself or anyone else that what they are doing is not harmful.

  285. nonameonshore

    This comment strip started out I believe with a rejoinder suggesting that there is no proof that Monsanto and the FDA are in collusion -- The fact is it's obvious and has been ongoing for a very long time…Monsanto serving as food czar is a direct reference to this collusion,

  286. awful_truth

    @susan g: It would seem that we at least have some common ground. For the record, chemotherapy was derived from mustard gas. You are correct regarding the modern versions have gotten better at targeting cancer cells due to the human genome project; in fact, high end strains are now taylored more to the individual, and the type of cancer they are dealing with. With that said, the success rate is still utterly hit, and miss.
    As I have stated with others, my greatest concern is the influence of greed within all human endeavors. For this reason, we should all be skeptical regarding what is considered acceptable treatments, for the following reasons.
    1) In my 50 years, I have seen the population of the planet more than double. Since we can't feed what we have now, you have to ask yourself if the powers that be really want to cure cancer?
    2) On the flip side, All humans carry oncogenes that can be activated by basically anything, relative to their environment, and genetic predisposition. For this reason, curing cancer with high success rates could actually be impossible. (we will never know everything)
    3) Contrary to popular opinion, the number 1 cause of cancer is obesity. Scientific analysis has confirmed that unhealthy cells due to lack of conditioning actually re-write a persons DNA, allowing oncogenes be activated. Note: This even encompasses modern environmental contamination, poor diet, etc (although the number of smokers has dropped by 2/3's in north America in the last 30 years, cancer rates have skyrocketed since)
    4) How many potentially great treatments have been shutdown due to threat of loss of profits to pharmaceutical companies? This is where many people refuse to accept the influence of the main driving force within human civilization. (greed) It is always far easier to brush off alternative treatments as snake oil salesmen, when the FDA shuts down successful operations. (Royal Ray Rife, and Harry Hoxie are great examples, especially if you research their approach to fighting cancer, and how they were shut down)
    5) Last but not least, is the power of the mind. Whether it be a placebo effect, or an individuals personal fortitude, no one should ever dismiss that which works for any person. For this reason, this may very well be why poor treatments have some success, not because the potential of the treatment, but the potential of the individual. (the power of thought)
    In closing, I have covered the spectrum to convey to you that we should all question, and research vigorously before making our minds up as to how we want to deal with the situation if it arises. (the ability to choose) It is not the science I question, only the corruptability of human nature.
    I respect what you said to me susan g, in your response, and reading the new England journal of medicine is a good thing. (educating oneself) I only re-iterate the need for people to remind themselves the old adage; " believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see". Most things in life are not what they appear to be. More often than not, the cause is always the same. (greed, gluttony, pride, envy, sloth, lust, and wrath) Take care, and best wishes susan g.
    P.S: The key to eternal youth is exercise. This above all else will give anyone the greatest chance at a long healthy life!

  287. Neil Mcginnis

    Well said. Thank you for speaking up and exercising your ability to think critically.

  288. a_no_n

    that's a fault of government corruption, not of science.

  289. a_no_n

    god that was a huge wall of text...try and cut the ranting down please it's very difficult to read.

    Yes monsanto is big and evil...it got that way because people like you made GM such a toxic brand that no other business could dare to challenge their monopoly...how can they when people like you will scream MONSANTO at the top of your lungs at every viable occasion...you can't pay for advertising as good as that!

    I also don't see how Monsanto is bad = science is harmful.

    Your view on GM is entirely based on superstitious paranoia, you think GM is guilty solely because of it's assosiation to monsanto, and that just isn't right...That's the same as people saying weed supports terrorism and organised crime...it's ridiculous, it isn't based in logic.

    It also ignores the fact that pretty much all of our food is genetically modified...Carrots for example used to be purple, and Corn was developed entirely by the native americans, it can't exist in the wild.

  290. nonameonshore

    You can't draw definite boundaries of that sort. In any case, Monsanto is not a scientific organization. But science has definitely been corrupted by this behemoth and the fascist rules it operates under.

  291. nonameonshore

    I beg your pardon: I had nothing to do with making Monsanto big and evil. And you're irrational. People who question genetic modification as it is being done today are perfectly within their rights to do so. It's a highly "iffy" operation and companies, like Monsanto, who are engaged in it, know this and they know the public has reason to be concerned so they corrupt government entities and intimidate the practitioners of science in the universities in order to have their way. Watch Bertram Verhaag's documentary: Scientists Under Attack… This is a complicated issue and probably beyond your abilities to understand so I'm not going to waste any more time here.

  292. a_no_n

    no...you have nothing to do with it being big and evil...you'll just do your damndest to make sure that whenever anyone thinks of an agricultural corporation Monsanto is the only name they'll remember,,,ffs you use their twice in one post, i'll say it again, that couldn't pay people for advertising as good as that.

    People are perfectly within their rights to question GM...on the understanding that they use facts rather than conjecture and paranoia...unfortunatly that hasn't been the case

  293. a_no_n

    how has it?
    the scientific method hasn't changed.

  294. terrasodium

    Interesting choice of words, very sciencey.

  295. a_no_n

    what does that prove i'm in on the conspiracy or something?

    Is it just blathering idiots who don't know what they're talking about whose opinions can be trusted?

  296. a_no_n

    where has it been proved that MIT doctored the results?

  297. a_no_n

    typical...It isn't possible that someone just has a differing opinion, nope instead you're so deluded you think someone has been paid to come to the internet to disagree with you...If you can't deal with criticism without resorting to childish attacks like that then you shouldn't really be posting on a public forum should you?

  298. a_no_n

    again, nobody is paying anyone to come to this website and disagree with you...your opinions are not that valuable.

    To be honest all your doing is displaying your paranoia for everyone to see.

    Do you put on the tin foil hat before you come up with your theories, or is it more of a decorative thing you put on afterward?

  299. a_no_n

    no, presumably anything that doesn't suggest it's all a conspiracy gets the same dismissive attitude from you.

  300. a_no_n

    except it isn't, and i've explained to you how that isn't the case, but you've completly ignored everything that's been said.

  301. a_no_n

    they didn't realise because we didn't have the scientific information...Science isn't a static thing it develops and matures with every new bit of information...If you can't grasp the concept that fifty years ago we knew less, then there's really no way i can explain the reality to you.

  302. a_no_n

    so what constitutes a reliable source for you?

  303. a_no_n

    this should really be in the conspiracy section.

  304. Neil Mcginnis

    lol. I'm sure we all know how science works. I have watched numerous documentaries on the scientific process. You are now arguing a totally different point than you were in the beginning. I am assuming you had to switch gears and focus on a point that nobody is arguing, that we once knew less. Even once we learn better there are many doctors that refuse to get on board for a long time afterwards and this is usually due to the influence of corporations through monetary means. It's not complicated at all, it's human nature. Please don't bother explaining Your reality to me, i've had plenty to be satiated. Let us agree to disagree, if that is a possibility for you.

  305. susan g

    No I'm not saying they were stupid. I'll say it again. Cancer research was in it's infancy compared to where we are today. They just didn't have the scientific evidence to prove that smoking cigarrets, and chewing tobacco caused lung cancer and cancer of the throat, neck, and tongue. Once studies were done comparing smokers to non-smokers the correlation causation was proven. Medical science like all science is constantly evolving.

  306. Neil Mcginnis

    Nobody is arguing that science does not evolve. We are all in agreement on this. But it is also influenced heavily by money, and this is what we disagree on apparently. Money influences every aspect of our lives and to think otherwise is to be naive and/or ignorant.

  307. susan g

    I agree with the commenter below me. This does belong in the conspiracy section. From the sinister background music to the evil sounding narrator.

    I don't believe fraud is as rampant as the maker of this doc would have one believe. Besides that is what peer review is for. Publish it and get your work out there where others can scrutinize and reproduce it. If it doesn't stand up to peer review it will be discarded and the scientist who produced it will have damaged his reputation. When this happens to a researcher it becomes impossible for them to acquire funding for their future research.

  308. terrasodium

    Could you be more specific, would it be a criminal, civil or political conspiracy section? If your going to use a law term like conspiracy,we should have a proper direction for the jurisdiction.
    Or we could just use the media terminology and consider the term conspiracy as laughable , I wonder how many Majistrates and prosecutors wear tin hats?
    But yes I agree it should be in the conspiracy section.Do you think that would be as obvious to others of lesser reasoning acquity then yourself?

  309. terrasodium

    So you contend that funding{finance sector},comes from good science funded by wealthy scientists?

  310. a_no_n

    considering the website only has one conspiracy section i think that's a bit arbitrary.
    Magistrates have to use proof and evidence to make their judgements, so your invoking them is also a bit of a straw man.

  311. a_no_n

    i'm arguing a different point, that doesn't mean i've changed anything.
    wow really doctors can be arrogant...you learn something new every day dont you (please note sarcasm).
    we can agree to disagree if you're happy living in your fairy tale world where black is white and up and down...it just means you're living in ignorance.

  312. terrasodium

    I agree , one conspiracy section is completely arbitrary, and majistrates judge the value of evidence in respect of their jurisdiction,prosecutors use various types of circumstancial implications akin to a smoking gun and not a video recording of the shooting , straw man indeed.

  313. awful_truth

    @a_no_n: I have already given 2 different documentaries that show the actual data, the doctored data, and who did it at MIT. Don't ask me again!

  314. a_no_n

    documentaries? so no actual evidence then? just say so.

  315. awful_truth

    @a_no_n: Provide me with actual evidence that you are intelligent! (your handle suggests otherwise) H_w _s th_t w_rk_ng f_r y_o?

    (LOL)

  316. a_no_n

    well...one sign of my intelligence is that i can tell a logical fallacy from an actual argument...something you've been thus far unable to do...you probably spent longer putting that together than you did looking for any evidence to justify your opinions.

    Call me stupid all you want but ad homimnem attacks aren't evidence either...Do you need me to explain to you what evidence actually is?

    also i think it's worth noting that the underscores in my name aren't actually replacements for letters...so your attempts to ridicule my name are actually quite dumb...again if you'd taken just a moment to actually look you'd have realised that...a problem that seems to effect every aspect of your comments

  317. susan g

    Are you wearing that tin foil hat shiny side out or shiny side in today?

  318. terrasodium

    ahh there it is , the calling card of the uber intelligent , the your facts don't match my facts therefore you are bananas, AKA ad vericundium/ad hominum/ad absurdium you get win, place and show in the westminster dogmatism event , blue ribbon performance, carry on with the tropes,it really calls you out .

  319. awful_truth

    a_no_n: So, no actual evidence then? Just say so!

  320. a_no_n

    so you're just going to descend into being a troll until i go away and stop asking awkward questions you can't answer?

    (p.s...you don't have to put my name at the beginning of a post replying to me...Disqus does that for you when you press reply)

  321. a_no_n

    you seem so confused as to what the word evidence actually means.

    For example, you asked me a question, to provide evidence of my intelligence, in return i highlighted my knowledge of logical fallacies, and pointed out that you don't know what a logical fallacy is by pointing out one of the many that youve based your entire argument on...you then pretend i hadn't said anything...I literally may as well have not posted anything because you would probably have said that to anything that i wrote...can i just ask an honest question? why do you bother? what's the point? what do you think this achieves? Do you think it makes you look clever?
    the long and short of it is that i put together a well reasoned responce, and you resorted to what can only be described as childlike retort of repeating my own words back at me...you can't genuinely think that's a reasonable comeback?

  322. awful_truth

    @a_no_n:
    1) I gave you 2 different places where you could verify the evidence you were requesting. Instead, you blew it off without even checking.
    2) By your own reasoning, documentaries are not evidence, regardless of the information that is provided in them. So, I asked you to prove that you are intelligent. Your response was only just your opinion, without any hard facts. (intelligence is subjective) This is why I responded with your own words. (to show you were being contradictory)
    3) Most importantly, why would you blog on a documentary site, if you don't believe any of the information provided in them? This is not only illogical, it only proves that your intentions are simply to troll, not to exchange, or communicate ideas.
    If the taste of this is unpalletable for you, perhaps you should re-evaluate your motives instead of wasting other peoples time with your mind games. I thank you on behalf of all fellow bloggers who read these for exposing your true nature, so you will not waste their time in the future. I gave you an opportunity, and you blew it. For this reason, I will no longer respond to your minutia, and will instead communicate with those who have something to offer.

  323. Joshua Marks

    Awful_truth, excellent use of patience, language, rationality, self-evident reflections on the obvious... but you're dealing with a shill/troll PhD from cartoon land in a_no_n. And, with over 6,000 comments, apparently has the keyboard taped to his wrists... Props for the reasoned and reasonable efforts though!

  324. awful_truth

    @Joshua Marks: Thank you for the kind words Joshua, it is most appreciated. It is unfortunate that some people have nothing better to do with what little time they have on this planet, than to try to create grief for others.
    With that said, they do have a singular purpose. If we never felt the sting of evil, we would never develope the tools to combat it. (morality) Take care, and best wishes Joshua!

  325. Joshua Marks

    Yes... well we can imagine the trouble and complexity of juggling so many concurrent "I get to say something" conversations - this must seem like a sandbox of never ending fun with over 2,500 different documentaries to jump in and inserting himself into by way of comment... WOOHOO! All while licking frosting off his crayons and clicking channels back and forth while eating the gruel with "the big spoon" - imagine. What a mess.

  326. awful_truth

    @Joshua Marks: Funny stuff Joshua; the imagery you provoked in my head is priceless!
    (Homer Simpson on steroids)

  327. a_no_n

    1) i've explained to you why documentaries aren't evidence...they can be tampered with, the makers are under no obligation to tell the truth, and since documentaries cost money they can be subject to financial bias and thus are worthless.
    2) so you were listening to what i said, you just chose to ignore it...Why is it not a valid point?
    I wasn't being contradictory, i gave you testable evidence that i'm intelligent...you just chose to do nothing with it except act childish.
    3) this isn't a blog it's a comment section. And all i did was ask you to provide evidence for your claim...is that seriously what you consider to be trolling?

    I'm not playing mind games i'm just asking you to proove what you've said...if you can't do that without having a tantrum and throwing all your toys out the pram then maybe you shouldn't be posting on a public forum.

    By those who have something to offer i take it you mean people who agree with you since you can't seem to cope with differing opinions.

    Try infowars or something like that...they all pat each other on the back and agree with each other over the flimsiest evidence possible...you'll fit right in.

  328. susan g

    Wow! It's a real "love fest" between you and your buddy Joshua.

    Why can't you understand that people might have a differing opinion from yours? Therefore they may want to express that opinion and even challenge other's opinion.

    Why is it considered trolling in your eyes when someone asks you to provide real proof of your assertions? Isn't the comment section there to exchange ideas and share opinions?

    You are making claims with nothing to back them up. a_no_n is correct about documentaries NOT being evidence. The maker often has an agenda and there is nothing balanced or neutral about it.

    Why do you automatically accuse someone of being a shill and on the payroll just because they don't agree with you? How arrogant of you.

  329. terrasodium

    Do you read and follow the advice given in your own comments? You should just acknowledge that the abstractions presented in life are beyond your ability to comprehend , until we come up with a hadron collider to examine the political partical you will be without empirical evidence to pack in your blunderbus, don't let any of this deter you, asking people to prove a negative has always been the hallmark of the logically minded. Best regards, hope you find a why inside your how.

  330. Anon

    OK so the documentary is a bit hokey. I don't think it has any real value. I have heard the story about Mendel fudging the math but I have a really hard time swallowing it. That being said, this documentary attempts to redeem itself at the end when the narrator admits that the checks and balances in the scientific community, such peer review do a good job at keeping it honest. Still a waste of time if you ask me. The documentary was bland, boring, and amateurish at best. Dont waste your time.

  331. johnBas5

    Delivering stuff in food supply's just means adding and mixing. Poison or contraceptive does not make a difference.

    What point are you trying to make with this?
    You load this thing with ethics then ask to leave them out. What makes you think some people are going to add contraceptives through the food supply?

    There is an Island where there is a natural occurring contraceptive in the food supply. No GMO's, no breeding just 100% natural plants that contain natural biochemicals that are non-toxic and contraceptive.

  332. awful_truth

    @Susan G: If I was to use your and a_no_n's logic, than there really is no such thing as evidence, since everything can be faked, including the information you refer to as evidence. ( a meaningless argument)
    I listed 2 different documentaries which
    a_no_n has dismissed without even checking them for validity, or the infomation provided within them. For this reason, I have no desire wasting my time attempting to educate those who are unwilling to educate themselves.
    I accused no one of being a shill, (that was Joshua's comment) To call me arrogant for something I haven't said, is proof that you need to read more carefully before you level accusations and judgment.
    P.S: I have no problem agreeing to disagree. If you don't believe what I have put forth, than you can provide me with the evidence that I am wrong. Perhaps you will learn something in the attempt!

  333. terrasodium

    adding and mixing,question answered then?sciencific methods are ethic methods? Are you refering to Easter Island?Thanks for the reply.

  334. terrasodium

    you make many leaps of logic ,or lack thereof, do you feel any of your verbose addresses the orignal post? (hint red herrings)
    edit , the point you've asked for ,appears far more political then science alone
    could answer.

  335. johnBas5

    The first part adresses the question if it was Easter Island or not with not.

    My post superficially seems about those politics but turns things away from them.
    Generally avoiding harm = good.
    Nothing political about that.

  336. docoman

    If you're going to hang sh1t on someone for grammar, get your punctuation correct. Your post is harder to make sense of then the one you're being smart about, because you're too lazy to hit the shift key.

  337. Joshua Marks

    Yes, good question and comments Susan... Without the context of my previous interactions and review of a_no_n's commentary, it might appear as my comments are "premature" - or otherwise "piling on." But, a quick review of my interactions with a_no_n under the documentary Loose Change - 911... (and in my comment history) will give some context. There's also quite a bit of evidence online that there are indeed paid "trolls" to influence debate online in comment sections by "injecting" writers into blog/comment sections on these important topics... One can review comment histories and reach their own conclusions. So, it isn't "automatic" - but I do appreciate your input. Thanks.

    As an aside, I also reviewed the comments of awful_truth and do in fact appreciate the "attempts at reason" above and comment history - a personal opinion.

  338. terencegalland

    It rather seems that the guys on the front line are under pressure, and are having to compromise there own personal ethics with those of their paymasters.!

  339. Terry Chambers

    I watched 10 minutes without specifics--If a doc doesn't grab me quickly I move on. Something should be said about the politicization of science in recent years.

  340. docoman

    Something might have been said at the 11 minute mark. How would you know? ;)
    What are your thoughts on the subject mate?

  341. susan g

    Yep! You caught me. Or maybe not. Please forgive me if I cracked a joke at your expense I guess. It's just that the absurdity over who and what I do for a living is so completely at odds with what you accuse me of being and doing that well......absurdium indeed. Do you even recognize at all just how paranoid you come off?

  342. terrasodium

    it is neither possible or necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.

  343. Andreas

    "Prosecutors use various types of circumstanTial implications akin to a smoking gun and not a video recording of the shooting" -- what? What are you talking about? Do you even have a single thread of logic in your writing?

  344. Andreas

    "Acknowledge that the abstractions presented in life are beyond your ability to comprehend"

    Again the vague use of language. What abstractions? The only abstraction I am presented in life today is your terrible, illogical writing.

    "To examine the political partical" -- What? What is a partical? How a partical is political? What the &%^£ are you talking about, again?

    Science uses proof and evidence, ALWAYS. It is what distinguishes it from non-science or unscientific assertions and theories. Unlike conspiracy theories that propagate uncertain, unproven and ambiguous claims such as those found in this 'documentary' that depicts science as some kind of social evil.

  345. Andreas

    It is incredibly hilarious how in your attempt to use 3 Latin terms, you managed to spell them all wrong. Which gets me to my second point:

    The use of Latin terms, as a mechanism to abstract your argument or provide it with non-existent weight, is a good indication that your argument lacks merit. You don't have to resort to Latin language to show your intellect -- you have a perfectly viable and living language which you can use to engage in complete conversation. Use it.

  346. Andreas

    So the gist of your argument is:

    Monsanto has acted unethically in the past.
    Therefore Monsanto is an unethical company.
    Therefore everyone who disagrees with me is an evil Monsanto spy or agent, or a member of their "gestapo police".

    Can you spot exactly where you went wrong with your reasoning, or do I have to point it out to you?

  347. docoman

    Welcome to TDF, I hope to read more of your posts in the future mate.

    Good luck getting any sensible answer from that poster Andreas. That is his SOP, 'Cat got the bird' smugness and most often no reply. Your advice will fall on deaf ears... he already knows more then anyone else, just ask him.

  348. docoman

    You won't get an answer from that one mate, that particular poster has been booted/banned. You can tell by the name 'guest' and if you put your cursor over their avatar, it will stay a pointer, not change to a hand (indicating a link)

    I'd guess because they didn't take the warnings the Mods gave them about accusing everyone of being on the Monsanto payroll.

  349. over the edge

    just a heads up. if a poster deletes his/her account they also appear the same way. i cannot remember if this particular poster was banned or just left.

  350. docoman

    Ahh, I didn't know that, cheers mate. And G'day :)

  351. Andreas

    For the sake of mankind, I do hope that this poster and others like him are perfectly reasonable people who resort to this sort of online activity as a 'fun past-time'. I would feel far more comfortable knowing that the person I am interacting with is a conscious troll, who later on tells his friends "I annoyed another 50 people online who took me seriously", and then laugh at the social awkwardness of internet forums and discussions.

    Sadly, my hope is probably not reflected in reality. With almost 20% of Americans believing in the Geocentric model, 46% of Americans believing in contemporary Creationism, and 4% of Americans believing that politicians are lizard-men, or that scientists are evil witch-doctors who have made it their life's mission to destroy religion, there is a very good statistical possibility that my attempt to converse will indeed fall on the deafest of ears and the most biased of minds.

  352. Επίκουρος-Ιστιόδωρος

    I only created this account temporarily in order to write these responses. However I will be from now on posting using this account. Don't mind the Greek writing, you can still call me Andreas if you prefer or the Latin version of my username (Epicurus-Istiodorus)!

  353. docoman

    I envy your ability to read Greek mate. (but not quite enough to get off my butt and learn it from scratch, too old and lazy for that much work) I'd like to be able to study the Gospels in their original language, for starters. Looks like you know Latin too.. another one I don't know. Cheers mate, I know who to ask if I've any questions in those areas, I get the feeling already I'll get a sensible and honest reply from you every time. :)

  354. docoman

    An interesting read, thanks. I had wondered why so many US citizens seem so bent out of shape by a 'black' man being president. I've read all sorts of BS going on about Obama is this or that. It makes more sense now why I've seen him called 'the anti-christ' etc.

  355. Επίκουρος-Ιστιόδωρος

    Sure thing, I'd be happy to help when and if I can. My knowledge of Latin is fairly basic, but I should be much more useful to you for my Greek. However my real expertise is in an entirely different domain (I am a PhD candidate in political theory / philosophy, and I teach (Introduction to International Political Theory, and Concepts and Challenges of Globalization) to first-year undergraduates at a British University) -- so I wouldn't want to get your hopes up and not live up to the expectations as a translator!

  356. RedBeard

    science a fraud??? What religious institution sponsored this doc...which was very boring i must add. Look at all the technological and health advances we made as people in the past 50yrs and then tell me science is fraud.

Leave a comment / review: