Ah, this feels good. A nice, warm, comfortable island of RATIONALITY on DU. Oh, yes.

[Redstone]

I didn't know about this group until recently. But you can bet I'll be back.

(I'll admit that it IS enjoyable to check in on the fever-brained inhabitants of the 9/11 forum, but their monomania does get to be a bit disturbing after a while. Except for the "chemtrail" sub-group; THOSE people are disturbing immediately upon reading their posts.)

Redstone

[TZ]

1. Hi Redstone!

I would say its a island of mostly rational people..with the occasional proselytizer visiting to convince us narrow minded skeptics of the errors of our ways....:crazy:
Welcome to the Big Yak conspiracy!
:hi:

[LeftishBrit]

2. Good to see you here!

I've noticed and liked your posts elsewhere.

Just make sure that the human/alien hybrids don't give you any evil vaccines that will mess up your aura, and I'm sure you'll be fine!

[Redstone]

3. And I gotta look out for the chemtrails! (Hey, thanks for the kind words.)

Redstone

[progressoid]

4. It's a nice place to kick off your shoes huh?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

5. Welcome Redstone

I see Bohemian Grove fast-tracked you in. Welcome to the TWOOF Suppression Squad.

[varkam]

6. Rationality? We're all just paid shills for the pharmaceutical company.

Oh, and guys, Merck gave me my raise! I'm now getting 25 cents per post: SA-WEET!


(Oh, and :sarcasm: for all you lurkers out there).

Welcome to our group! :hi:

[semillama]

94. For the record, I am not a paid shill for Big Pharma.

I am, however, part of the cover-up about aliens imparting their wisdom to ancient civilizations.

[trotsky]

96. Wait a minute.

I thought you were part of the 9/11 Coverup Squad?? How do you people expect me to keep all this straight? OK, who here is on the 9/11 Coverup Squad? Show of hands, please!

[semillama]

100. Nope, I'm an archaeologist

Covering up ancient astronauts is my department. Can you imagine the chaos if people knew Von Daniken was RIGHT????

[realisticphish]

7. The more, the merrier

:hi:

[mr blur]

8. Welcome. Here's your membership card

[Seldona]

10. There is a card?

Aww I must have been away that day...

:cry:

[Warpy]

9. It's an antidote to the Health Woo Lounge

where a very informative and hopeful article about a possible line of attack against HIV was turned into a nutfest by a bunch of ignorant twits with time on their hands and nothing better to do than retell silly stories about rogue CIA agents and sloppy polio researchers.

In it's own way, that forum is just as bad as the general conspiracy forum.

I wish the mods would do a better job of policing the nutcases and turn it back into a forum for health news and health policy.

[CanSocDem]

11. The role of "rationality" in our society.....

...is a stated discussion point in the forums' preamble but most of the posters here can't get past chortling and laughing about all of the irrational elements of society.

There is no discussion about what makes something rational or irrational, just smug name-calling for the growing number of DU members who can clearly see the reactionary resistance to searching for a better way, in this forum.

At the risk of doing something rare (as in criticizing someones belief system), the notion promoted that free-market western medicine is the pinnacle of humanitarian and scientific technology is, at best, laughable.

Yet, it's considered 'rational' to stifle discussion about making things better.

Read quickly as I'm sure this will be deleted.

.

[LeftishBrit]

12. I am amazed that you, as a Canadian...

would equate 'Western medicine' with '*free market* Western medicine.'

'Free market' doesn't refer to the medical principles but to how the medical treatment is administered financially, who pays for it, and who has access to it. Canada and Europe have systems of administering medical treatment which are NOT 'free-market'; but the same principles of scientific medicine obtain. Indeed, the term 'western medicine' is a bit of a misnomer, since the same principles obtain in Japan, China, India and everywhere else in the world, so long as people have access to and use doctors and hospitals. Perhaps 'Doctor-administered medicine' or 'Science-driven medicine' or 'Medicine as specialized profession' would be a better term. At any rate, using conventional/ 'western'/ doctor-administered medicine does NOT mean belief in or use of the free market for medical care. In fact, 'alternative medicine' tends to involve the free market in a much purer form.

[lizerdbits]

14. DO NOT FEED IT

and it will go away.

[HamdenRice]

15. I think what the poster is referring to is the incentives to big pharma

There is a running debate about this. Most truly skeptical people, especially people with some background in economics, looks at various actors and ask what their incentives are to determine how those incentives might affect behavior.

One conclusion we might draw from that is that, for example, it is more profitable for a big pharma company to produce a drug that treats a condition over a long or permanent course of treatment, than to cure it.

For example, a change in diet, exercise, stress, and other things can have a tremendously positive effect on, for example, early stage high blood pressure disease. Another alternative would be a drug to be administered for life that reduces blood pressure.

If the company that produces the drug is for-profit, operating in a for profit health care system, economists would expect that the drug producer would prefer (and try to influence the system to prescribe) the use of the drug rather than push for a cheaper, more natural healing method, such as counseling and monitoring of diet, weight, exercise and stress.

For reasons that escape me at this point, this simple economic observation is frequently howled down here as a "conspiracy theory." We are supposed to believe that big pharma companies have only the interests of patients in mind -- despite the fact that according to the corporate law under which they are organized, legally they must prioritize profits to shareholders over all other concerns. We are not supposed to be skeptical of the claims of for-profit pharma corporations that something like, um, profits, might affect their decisionmaking, nor are we supposed to be skeptical about their self-description of their motives in advertising, and that those motives might be different from their analysis of their motives in the board room.

Moreover, for reasons that escape me, treatments that have been clinically demonstrated to be effective that do not involve pharmaceuticals -- such as diet, exercise and stress reduction -- are denounced here as "woo woo" or with other derogatory insults, as though the Journal of the American Medical Association or Harvard School of Public Health must be a priori wrong if they stray from the narrow materialist, pharmaceutical path.

Those are just some examples of "Skeptics" being unable to be skeptical.

[LeftishBrit]

17. The point is...

that as far as I'm concerned, it's largely IRRELEVANT whether the pharma companies 'have only the interests of the patients in mind'. What's important is whether the treatments in fact DO help the patients. I am NOT going to deny myself or my family members an effective treatment just because it might give profit to some wicked pharma company, any more than I'll do so to appease the anti-stem-cell-research Christian Right.

Where Pharma and the profit motive are mainly dangerous IMO is that they DENY valuable medical treatments to people who cannot afford them, and don't live in countries that fund their medical care: i.e. most people in the developing world. This is shameful. However what is shameful is not that some people do get access to modern medicine, but that too many people are deprived of it.

'If the company that produces the drug is for-profit, operating in a for profit health care system, economists would expect that the drug producer would prefer (and try to influence the system to prescribe) the use of the drug rather than push for a cheaper, more natural healing method, .'

But what if it is NOT operating in a 'for profit health care system'? That is my whole point: if modern medicine is just useless rubbish aimed at making a profit for the companies, why is it also practiced in countries that have socialized medicine, and where Pharma pressures on governments are counteracted by strong counter-pressures to make things as cheap as possible?


'Moreover, for reasons that escape me, treatments that have been clinically demonstrated to be effective that do not involve pharmaceuticals -- such as diet, exercise and stress reduction -- are denounced here as "woo woo" or with other derogatory insults,'

No doctors and no posters here (that I know of) have ever implied that diet and exercise and stress reduction are NOT important treatments. What may have been said is that, important as they are, they cannot cure EVERYTHING. And one thing that interests *me* is that once a nutritional treatment becomes part of mainstream conventional medicine - e.g. giving folic acid to pregnant women, or adding fluoride to drinking water - it instantly becomes an object of suspicion to some of the very same alternative-medicine advocates who usually claim that doctors are not using nutritional supplements sufficiently!


'For example, a change in diet, exercise, stress, and other things can have a tremendously positive effect on, for example, early stage high blood pressure disease. Another alternative would be a drug to be administered for life that reduces blood pressure.'


Very true - and most doctors advocate lifestyle changes *before* considering medication (unless blood pressure is already very dangerously high - and then they'd probably recommend both!) I am very aware of this topic, as I, personally, with full support and encouragement from my doctor, have been keeping my (hereditary) tendency to high blood pressure at bay through lifestyle measures for years now. Eventually I may have to go on medication; but if I can prevent this through diet and exercise, then I (and my doctor) would prefer it. The idea that somehow doctors would be *against* trying lifestyle measures first amazes me - not true at all.


'One conclusion we might draw from that is that, for example, it is more profitable for a big pharma company to produce a drug that treats a condition over a long or permanent course of treatment, than to cure it.'

Not really, as curing an illness makes it more likely that the patient will live into old age, and the elderly make more use of pharmaceuticals than anyone. In any case: if this is the argument, then why is it that the aspect of modern medicine that usually arouses the most opposition from alternative-medicine advocates is *vaccination* - which, far from involving long-term treatment of diseases, *prevents* then from developing in the first place?

[HamdenRice]

18. "why is it also practiced in countries that have socialized medicine"

This raises the question of what "modern medicine" is. I certainly am not arguing that modern medicine is rubbish; that, like many of your points, is a straw man, and therefore, I won't respond to most of them.

But surely you would agree that "modern medicine" is practiced differently here in the US than where you are in the UK. Here, where the insurance companies pressure primary MDs to take no more than 20 minutes for each patient, where drug reps ply MDs with lunches, drinks and free samples, where drug companies have cross ownership and interlocking directorates with insurance companies, the course of treatment for an overweight middle aged patient with high blood pressure is going to be quite different, indeed, than it is where "socialized medicine" is in place. As you point out, you are working with your doctor on this; here, you would be ushered out the door in about 10 minutes with a prescription for a "block buster" drug and that would be that.

I'm not trying to list all the benefits and detriments of "modern medicine" and neither was CanSocDem. We were addressing ourselves to what has become the dominant tone of self-described "Skeptics" in this forum. I'm sure that you and I would mostly agree on the effect of the profit motive on medicine, as compared to socialized medicine, and the effectiveness of evidence based prescriptions for a mix of pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, diet, exercise and stress management.

But according to the consensus here, that would make you a "woo woo" "conspiracy theorist," because you would be doubting the purity of the motives of the for profit sector, while advocating a medical treatment that was not strictly chemically based.

[mr blur]

19. There is no "consensus here" -

Although we do agree that trolls are a waste of time.

[CanSocDem]

20. Unless you receive US television...

...you have no idea how the pharmaceutical companies promote disease. Of course, what they are really promoting is their patented 'cure'.

Smarter than average consumers have noticed that the war on disease is like the War on Terrorism.....a money maker.

.

[HamdenRice]

48. " what they are really promoting is their patented 'cure'"

Or worse, a patented prescription that must be taken once a day for the rest of the patient's life.

[trotsky]

24. How very odd.

Moreover, for reasons that escape me, treatments that have been clinically demonstrated to be effective that do not involve pharmaceuticals -- such as diet, exercise and stress reduction -- are denounced here as "woo woo" or with other derogatory insults

I have never once seen a post from one of the "Skeptics" whom you so dearly despise that dismisses the role of "diet, exercise and stress reduction" as woo. Perhaps you could back up this claim? You wouldn't be misstating and/or exaggerating in order to try and look like you have a point, would you?

[HamdenRice]

25. "so dearly despise"

Why do you confuse disagreement with hatred? I don't.

Hmmm...

[trotsky]

26. Not going to take up the challenge, huh?

Color me surprised. :eyes: So I guess your accusation is false.

(And to answer your red herring question, your true feelings are on display every time you post. Most especially in the posts you end up getting deleted for being unable to restrain yourself.)

[HamdenRice]

27. Let me get this straight

You are accusing me of somehow exaggerating the discussions I've had with others.

You start with the ludicrously exaggerated premise that I despise skeptics.

Can you see why I won't respond to you? My irony gland, which is buried deep in my hypothalmus, would explode -- a serious medical condition that could not be cured by my sacred crystals.

I have a better suggestion. Why not put me on ignore. I've never had a fruitful exchange with you, never read anything interesting by you, never seen a single post of yours on the greatest page or front page, and realize that going down any path on any topic with you is likely to lead to something like Monty Python's black knight.

[trotsky]

28. I'm just asking for a link to a single post.

You won't, or can't provide it. And so I am left with the conclusion that your claim is false. Of course, because you can't provide any evidence to support what you say, you again launch a personal attack, because it's all you have in your bag o' tricks. Your game is so old, so predictable, it's humorous at this point. I wouldn't dare ignore you for fear of losing a nice source of daily laughter!

However, since you claim you've "never had a fruitful exchange with (me), never read anything interesting by (me), never seen a single post of (mine) on the greatest page or front page" perhaps you should take your own advice and put me on Ignore if you just can't stand me?

[varkam]

30. Because he can't stand the thought that he's been bested.

It really is as simple as that.

[HamdenRice]

32. A moderator piling on in a petty personal dispute?

Not one of your better moments.

[varkam]

34. I'm not a moderator.

Not one of yours, either. Then again, you do tend to set the bar fairly low.

[HamdenRice]

38. Once a mod, always a mod, I say.

You still are supposed to have a reputation to uphold.

[varkam]

40. Lol! Maybe I'll enroll in HamdenRice's school of civility.

What are the courses that you teach? Trolling 101? The Effective Use of Personal Posts to Discredit Opponents? Equivocation for Beginners?

It is rare that I have seen you engage in discussion where you have been respectful, much less civil. I'm willing to wager that I have fewer deleted posts than you do. In fact, I would wager that I have fewer deleted posts in my entire tenure here at DU than you have had in, say, the past month. It really is a shame, because you do seem rather intelligent. I'd imagine that discussions with you would be interesting if you didn't seem so full of bile much of the time.

I do find it interesting, though, that instead of responding to my point you decided to try to turn things around on me. Very interesting, indeed.

[HamdenRice]

33. Sure

First post the link to your proof that I despise Skeptics.

See how hypocrisy can invalidate your own question?

[trotsky]

35. LOL

You can't answer the challenge, HR. You lose. I caught you in a falsehood.

[HamdenRice]

39. Sure

You go first.

[varkam]

41. Why can't you just admit that you exaggerated?

It's not exactly a high crime.

[trotsky]

42. What kind of playground game are you trying now?

I asked YOU for evidence first, so YOU need to provide it.

Let's be honest here - the truth of the matter is that you simply can't. You got caught making a patently false claim. And now rather than just admit you were exaggerating, you are in full defensive mode trying desperately to make it look like I made some kind of claim that needs verification before yours.

You tried, and you failed. Again.

[varkam]

36. Don't change the subject, Hammy.

Surely you can provide a single little link to a single little post that will substantiate what you claimed.

[cosmik debris]

29. You don't need permission to put someone on ignore.

We've been through that before.

If you want to ignore trotsky, YOU have the POWER!

I dare you to use it.

[HamdenRice]

37. "We've been through that before"

Yes, we have. That's why you should know that if I put both of you on ignore I don't want to have you both still heckling from the peanut gallery.

You are not particularly well respected or known posters, never write anything of interest, never write anything that gets on the greatest page or first page, and never provide interesting analysis or new information. That's why I have nothing to gain whatsoever from interacting with both of you.

Why is it that you don't seem to be able to say the reverse?

[trotsky]

43. And yet you can't ignore us.

Clearly SOMEBODY likes reading what cd and I have to say. :rofl:

[cosmik debris]

44. Then why do you do it?

"...I have nothing to gain whatsoever from interacting with both of you."

Yet you consistently respond with insults and accusations.

Why do your actions betray your words?

I dare you to put me on ignore!

[onager]

45. Wrong on all counts

...if I put both of you on ignore I don't want to have you both still heckling from the peanut gallery.

Paranoia. Bwah! You want to make sure you know it if we're talking behind your back, right?

Now see if you can find the Double-Top-Secret Thread where we frequently theorize that CanSuck and Hamhock are the same person.

You are not particularly well respected or known posters...

Maybe not in the 9/11 forum or those intellectually stimulating GD copycat threads. But both are very much known and well-respected in A/A and the Skeptics group. And were, long before you poked your haughty snout in to enlighten us poor befuddled ignoramuses.

...never write anything of interest...

That must be why you waste so much of your valuable time getting your rhetorical ass handed to you by them.

...never write anything that gets on the greatest page or first page...

Yes, we all know you're the frigging Prom Queen of the Greatest/First page. Could you tell me again exactly how many recs you've had? Using my psychic powers, I just know you have that answer right at your fingertips.

...never provide interesting analysis or new information.

Totally subjective. I strongly disagree with you. Both CD and Trotsky frequently provide devastating analysis of wooery in all its forms.

That's why I have nothing to gain whatsoever from interacting with both of you.

Except maybe a sense of humor.

[HamdenRice]

46. "well-respected in A/A and the Skeptics group"

Not saying very much, as currently constituted.

"your rhetorical ass handed to you by them..."

Yes, as I've said many times, the same way the Monty Python white knight gets his ass handed to him by the Monty Python black knight ("I'll bite yer ankles off!"); who is handing whom an ass is sometimes in the eye of the gullible beholder, or worse, the black knight.

"I strongly disagree with you... blah blah blah blah blah"

Yawn.

[cosmik debris]

49. Just to set the record straight, I got over 80 recs on this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=676214&mesg_id=676214

I'm not completely un appreciated in the larger world.

[mr blur]

50. Why don't you just go somewhere else and play? The grown-ups are talking (eom)

[varkam]

31. I'd like to see a link, too.

He can't provide something that doesn't exist, though.

[HamdenRice]

47. Sure I can ... but let me break this down for you

Supposedly according to trotsky (or was it CD? They're pretty much the same to me, and I don't distinguish between them), I exaggerated.

But in the first line, he says I despise Skeptics -- an exaggeration, insult and outright lie all rolled into one.

Now think about this. Think about how online discussions work. His silly question, introduced with an exaggeration, insult and lie, is supposed to inspire me to go search for some discussion I had some time ago about the efficacy of non-pharmaceutical therapies or some current discussion that exhibits the tendency in question.

Now if the question was posed by someone whose opinion I respected, I would think, hmmm... I want to impress this fellow DUer whom I respect, so let me spend several minutes looking for it.

But do you really think I would waste a nano second trying to answer a blatantly hypocritical question that displays, many fold, the very fault I am being accused of from a person about whom and about whose opinion, I don't give a rat's ass?

Let's review:

1. It's a silly question, and yes I have a link.

2. It begins with a stupid insult; I barely continued reading it.

3. It contains exactly the kind of exaggeration it accuses me of.

4. I don't give a rat's ass about the person asking the question.

5. Every discussion with the person in question ends up with his rhetoric and coherence spiraling down the whirlpool of every increasing silliness like a turd in a toilet bowl; do I really want to discuss anything with this person.

6. Therefore, it is much more instructive for all involved to simply point out the stupidity and hypocrisy of the question.

When he provides a link proving that I said I despise Skeptics, then I will provide a link to the heckling and dismissal as "woo woo" by the peanut gallery of a scientific paper that uses non-pharmaceutical alternative medicine for measureable physiological effects.

[trotsky]

51. I *told* you, Ricey...

the clearest evidence of your unbridled rage toward "Skeptics" (i.e., people who disagree with you) has been deleted. Any one of the many posts in which you flung names, insults, and whatever else bit of bile you could muster because you simply can't win an argument - they're all gone, thanks to helpful mods who enforce DU rules.

But hey, why don't I just go ahead and say that I exaggerated - even though unlike you, I wasn't trying to make a point in a discussion but merely point out your past behavior. I exaggerated your obvious annoyance with "Skeptics" to the level of despise. There. See how easy that was?

Now the ball's in your court. Provide that link, or retract what you said.

[CanSocDem]

52. You must have missed the thread....

...where I said essentially that 'good living and positive thinking' will make you well and had to endure days of insults from the skeptics who insisted on, among other things, their right to be sick and the absolute superiority of western medicine. True skeptics should be questioning the fundamental lack of success in providing good health to the citizens of the USA.

The so-called skeptics around here are hardly serving the public interest which I think is a basic tenet of Democratic Underground.

Just the same, nice to see the mods removing some of the more virulent attacks on my character and motives. I'm here to promote the public interest. What are you here for.....????

[trotsky]

53. I'm sorry, do I know you?

Were you part of this discussion? Did you have a link that supports what Ricey said?

[cosmik debris]

54. It's not enough for him to put his pud in the spuds

He has to put it in every where he goes.

[varkam]

56. You remind me of a kid that gets in trouble...

and then completely mischaracterizes their own behavior to try to soften the blow.

where I said essentially that 'good living and positive thinking' will make you well and had to endure days of insults from the skeptics who insisted on, among other things, their right to be sick and the absolute superiority of western medicine

That's not what happened, and you know it. I'm assuming your power-of-positive-thought belief system is fine with prevarication. But if you really feel that us mean old skeptics just gave you a raw deal, then here's a bright idea genius:

DON'T POST IN THE SKEPTIC'S FORUM

ETA: Here's a prime example of where you "essentially said that 'good living and positive thinking' will make you well"...or rather where you blame someone for being ill. You say tomato...

Here's another example of you "promoting the public interest".

Take a good long read through that whole thread, again, and tell us that we were being mean to you.

[CanSocDem]

65. Your links, though thoughtful for sure....

...miss the point, as usual. Nice try just the same...

You say:

"...or rather where you blame someone for being ill."


I said:

"......people choose ill health for their own reasons."

"People get sick for their own purposes. Often it is to test their own abilities."

Well, there was this bit of "wooery":

"...Don't eat so much garbage, walk to work, wear proper shoes.....etc. You will feel better. And remember this, doctors are in it for the money. Sorry to sound cynical but it's even worse than you imagine."

"...As for 'western doctors', it's about the system, not the individuals. Public health is a human right."


My only excuse for those earlier quotes is that they were posted before I knew the exact number of crybabies in the forum.


.

[varkam]

66. There is no excuse for such vile sentiment.

You openly blamed people here for their diseases as well as the diseases of their children, then when called out on it instead of realizing how ungodly heinous such statements are, you just resort to more name-calling and evasion when an apology is more appropriate.

May you live in interesting times.

[HamdenRice]

75. Step 1, semi complete. Step 2, let's work on your reading comprehension

1. With you it's always one step forward, two steps back. So you admit that you exaggerated about the word, "despise." Fine. Congratulations!

The problem is you've now added another lie/exaggeration/insult. What evidence do you have of my "unbridled rage"? You don't have any, because I don't have unbridled rage at you, other self-proclaimed Skeptics or anyone else. Your attempt at mind reading is, therefore, faulty.

So now you have another lie/exaggeration/insult to either retract or prove. And, btw, those deleted posts were never evidence of either hatred or "unbridled rage" -- just colorful descriptions of what I perceived to be the limits of some posters' ability to reason to supportable conclusions, or, as with the Monty Python Black Knight posts, humorous observations about the irony of certain posters who, after being bested in argument, claim victory in a manner analogous to the claims made by everyone's favorite "victorious" knight.

So you will need to rephrase your question once again.

2. Now let's work on that reading comprehension issue. Let's look at what I wrote, and what you seem to think I wrote, and how your failure to comprehend what I wrote caused you to ask a strawman question.

My paragraph:

Moreover, for reasons that escape me, treatments that have been clinically demonstrated to be effective that do not involve pharmaceuticals -- such as diet, exercise and stress reduction -- are denounced here as "woo woo" or with other derogatory insults..."

Your "question":

I have never once seen a post from one of the "Skeptics" whom you so dearly despise that dismisses the role of "diet, exercise and stress reduction" as woo. Perhaps you could back up this claim?

To parse the premise of your question, you seem to be saying that you have never seen a Skeptic ... <dismiss> the role of "diet, exercise and stress reduction" ... and you ask for evidence that a Skeptic has made such a claim. But that's not what I said.

I said "treatments that have been clinically demonstrated to be effective that do not involve pharmaceuticals -- such as diet, exercise and stress reduction -- are denounced here as "woo woo" ..."

Notice that the clause between the dashes is a parenthetical clause. The prepositional phrase, "such as," clearly shows that "diet, exercise and stress reduction" are used as illustrations of a larger category, namely, "treatments that have been clinically demonstrated to be effective that do not involve pharmaceuticals." Can you see the difference between the object of the passive verb construction, "are denounced," and the parenthetical prepositional phrase that provided an illustration of such an object? Can you see how your question is a strawman, because it asks for support for a statement that wasn't made?

In other words, any person of normal reading comprehension ability, not trying to cloud the question with invective, would have written:

"I have never once seen a post from one of the "Skeptics" ... that dismisses treatments that have been clinically demonstrated to be effective that do not involve pharmaceuticals as woo. Perhaps you could back up this claim?"

Now that you may be able to understand the statement, would you like to rephrase your question? Please do so to the best of your ability. (And when you do, please remember, you need also to rephrase in response to the issues raised in part 1, as well as the issues raised in part 2.)

And if so, do you really still think it's necessary for me to provide a link to support my proposition?

And one more thing: I note that several of the Skeptics has failed or refused to address the substantive issue that this subthread was about, namely whether it is skeptical (small s) to suspect that a pharmaceutical company's behavior might be affected by the profit motive. I wonder why that is?

[trotsky]

77. You're a piece of work.

After all that, and even backing down in trying to find some common ground, you unleash new attacks... and STILL refuse to provide evidence to back up your false claim.

How very, very sad.

[HamdenRice]

82. "you unleash new attacks" -- huh?

I pointed out that you have misread the original paragraph. Rather than go down the circular drain arguing about whether my link supports my assertion, I just want clarity between all involved as to what my paragraph means.

That's not an attack.

[trotsky]

85. Post your link.

You said you have one. So post it. Go ahead. Put aside all this rancor and just post your link. Very simple to do. Post it.

[HamdenRice]

87. First -- and you don't seem to get this

what precisely is the statement of mine that you want the link to support? At present, your question is a strawman.

You need to revise and restate your question.

There is no acrimony; only the desire for clarity.

[trotsky]

88. Post your link.

The one you refer to in post #47.

Post it. You look more and more foolish as you desperately avoid the simplest of requests.

Post the link.

[cosmik debris]

90. Get your head in the game! n/t

[HamdenRice]

99. The link to answer which question?

The one you asked or the one you should have asked given my original paragraph?

[trotsky]

102. The link YOU referred to in YOUR post #47.

"1. It's a silly question, and yes I have a link."

So where is it? How long do you want to play this game that makes you look more and more ridiculous the longer it goes on?

[cosmik debris]

80. .

[varkam]

55. I didn't read what you wrote - I just scanned quickly for a link.

I didn't see one.

[cosmik debris]

57. It's the alpha male thing

He thinks he gets to make the rules. If you don't play by his rules, he will take his link and go home to pout.

If he can't be the boss, he doesn't want to play.

[varkam]

58. Ah. Thank you for the helpful synopsis.

:hi:

[cosmik debris]

59. And remember, he only has 4 pitches

and none of them hit the strike zone.

1 change the subject.
2 blame others
3 call names
4 declare victory

If you don't swing at those pitches, you get a base on balls.

He will never strike out anyone until he learns some new material.

[TZ]

70. Do you work in the industry? NO. Do you know how the companies tick?

NO. You and all the other Big Pharma shills leap to conclusions based on MEDIA BIAS.
Do I work in the industry? Yes. Do I know how the game is played YES.
I am not basing my opinion on fear paranoia and a "I read teh internets so I noes" attitude either.
Most pharmaceuticals actually work really hard to constantly top themselves..a dose of meds that is now a once a month treatment..they go back and see if they can make it once every six months...
Often they try to outdo the other companies drugs as well by producing more potent drugs that have lower doses.
And why the FUCK would any company produce vaccines (which are NOT very profitable to manufacture FYI---the regulations make it very expensive) if they just want to keep their clients sick.
I think you ought to STFU about stuff you HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT.
BTW, I am an immunologist and if you think simple exercise, diet or stress reduction can cure some of these conditions then you are even more ill educated than I thought..this is the pseudoscience group..not pseudointellectuals group.

[HamdenRice]

78. Quite a lot of woo woo, hostility and strawman there. Don't know where to start!

"Do you work in the industry? NO. Do you know how the companies tick?"

I have not worked directly for the industry, but as a former Wall Streeter, I have a very, very, very good idea about how companies work, and especially about the extent to which profit is the motive for their behavior, especially at the executive level. Moreover, although I haven't worked directly for a pharmaceutical company, I have had pharmaceutical client counter-parties, which required me to read through thousands of pages of their documents (charters, bylaws, board and board committe minutes, business plans, internal documents) for due diligence purposes for various financings, which also gave me a very clear idea of what they were generally trying to do, although not perhaps from the lab tech level perspective. I also have friends and acquaintances over the years who are doctors, drug reps, and scientists, and their views are a lot closer to mine than they are to yours. My views are not based on media bias, which tends, actually, to be quite favorable to big pharma, given the amount of advertising purchased by pharma, and the need to keep advertisers happy.

"And why the FUCK would any company produce vaccines (which are NOT very profitable to manufacture FYI---the regulations make it very expensive) if they just want to keep their clients sick."

I have no idea what you are talking about there, but it certainly seems like a strawman, because I didn't argue that companies "produce vaccines ... to keep their clients sick."

"I think you ought to STFU about stuff you HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT."

That seems more like an expression of hostility than an invitation to open, frank discussion of the real issues.

"if you think simple exercise, diet or stress reduction can cure some of these conditions then you are even more ill educated than I thought"

I raised the issue of diet, exercise and stress reduction in the context of early onset hypertension, not all "conditions." If you don't think that many in the field believe that those are an important part of a treatment regimen, then you are way, way out of the mainstream.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/circulationaha;106/20/2530

Effect of Diet and Exercise Intervention on Blood Pressure, Insulin, Oxidative Stress, and Nitric Oxide Availability
Christian K. Roberts, PhD; Nosratola D. Vaziri, MD; R. James Barnard, PhD
From the Department of Physiological Science, University of California, Los Angeles (C.K.R., R.J.B.), and the Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine (C.K.R., N.D.V.).

...

Conclusions— This intervention resulted in dramatic improvements in BP, oxidative stress, NO availability, and the metabolic profile within 3 weeks, mitigating the risk for atherosclerosis progression and its clinical sequelae.

<end>

http://www.nature.com/jhh/journal/v19/n3s/full/1001956a.html

Journal of Human Hypertension (2005) 19, S20–S24. doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1001956

Effects of exercise, diet and their combination on blood pressure
R H Fagard1

1Department of Molecular and Cardiovascular Research, Hypertension and Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

...

Abstract

Epidemiological studies suggest an inverse relationship between physical activity or fitness and blood pressure. In a meta-analysis of 44 randomized controlled intervention trials, the weighted net change in conventional systolic/diastolic blood pressure in response to dynamic aerobic training averaged -3.4/-2.4 mmHg (P<0.001). The effect on blood pressure was more pronounced in hypertensives than in normotensives. This type of training also lowered the blood pressure measured during ambulatory monitoring and during exercise. However, exercise appears to be less effective than diet in lowering blood pressure (P<0.02), and adding exercise to diet does not seem to further reduce blood pressure.

[cosmik debris]

79. ,

[TZ]

84. Pot meet kettle!

Hey doc..wanna tell me how Lupus (SLE) is "curable" again?:rofl:
Face it bud..you ain't no biologist nor will you ever be one.

[HamdenRice]

86. Ah, the semantic quibble!

First let's get to the strawman. I never claimed to be a biologist (not a lab tech). I was, however, in corporate finance, including bio-tech finance. I think I know what corporations' incentives are, which one can know without having a PhD in biology. Strawman dealt with!

Now, would you like, for a change, to deal with the actual substance of the issue of corporate incentives and corporate behavior?

If not, I would suggest you calm down, rent a copy of Michael Moore's "Sicko," take a step back for a bit, and get back to us.

[TZ]

89. read some science.

Seriously. You have NO CLUE what is going on in the field.
And semantics aside you have to admit you did NOT KNOW what Lupus was...

[HamdenRice]

101. My ex wife almost died of lupoid hepatitis, as you well know

You are rehashing a minor dispute that Warpy completely settled, by pointing out that the status of lupoid hepatitis changed over time. I assume you are referring to a discussion we had a long time ago about this.

At the time, by then wife and I spent several years learning about lupus in general and lupoid hepatitis in general.

My ex was cured of lupoid hepatitis at a time when the medical profession classified it as a form of lupus.

Now they don't. Big deal.

Now, please explain in calm, reasoned terms what you know about corporate financial decision-making to support what seems to be your point: that the profit motive has no role in corporate decisions as to which drugs to develop and which to market agressively (if that is indeed your position).

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mr blur]

16. The "Ignore" feature is your friend, 'Sue

I've just stopped "listening" to this dickhead.

[varkam]

21. Did you just lecture us on civility?

Wow, you of all people.

[CanSocDem]

22. Do you have something to add...???? (eom)

[varkam]

23. Sure. Irony is thy name. eom

[Random_Australian]

68. Well, you never do respond to me, but I might as well open my yap.

You should look up seperation of variables sometime. It's not only fun, but educational too. Basically put, when looking at something you need to break it into its components and address them seperately. It's a great way to deal with complex things accurately.

1) "most of the posters here can't get past chortling and laughing about all of the irrational elements of society"

Ok, I'll split this into A) The posters laugh at irrational people and B) you claim they can't "get past it"

A) is fine. We laugh at the stupid, and it is fun. Guess who I'm laughing at now.

B) is more problematic. Well, it would be, if it were true. It is interesting that you think people can't get past laughing at the irrational - I've seen the arguments here, and in complete honesty it seems to be a completely standard internet argument. Or, more accurately, it seems you make claims and then don't meet the others standards of proof and evidence for those claims, and then it degenerates into the mush the internet is well known for.

How you got from here to the conclusion that in fact every response was an extension of laughing at irrational people is beyond me. I'd love to hear your line of reasoning. No, really. Please enlighten me.

I also note that you are being inflammatory, and give you enough credit to believe that this is intentional. This leads me to conclude that you suck.

2) "There is no discussion about what makes something rational or irrational, just smug name-calling fo"

Is it not written in the great book of Internet Discussion Bible Thingamajig That I Just Made Up that "Ask, friend, without continually claiming things about what others believe, using craptastic debate tactics (see part 3), or just telling people they are smug, and ye shall receive"?

If you really want to know, most people prefer to investigate the standards by which we come to a conclusion by using those standards to infer that something obviously incorrect is in fact true.

We can discuss that more later.

3) "the notion promoted that free-market western medicine is the pinnacle of humanitarian and scientific technology"

Yeah, here is where seperating stuff will work again.

Specifically, we've said that "free-market" is basically a crock, but that, y'know, the pinnacle of scientific technology is just that is (shock, horror) the pinnacle of scientific technology.

This is what I meant by craptastic debate tactics. We support, say, PET scans or so on. fMRI's and the like. In fact, fMRI is probably the best diagnostic tool anyone has ever made, and really is the pinnacle of scientific technology.

You then claim that if we believe this, then we also believe that the American system of user-pays-and-pays-some-more is made of triple-wonderful topped with extra rainbows of fantastic.

Which is a false association if you want to be clever, or "a craptastic debate tactic" in the lingo.

And no, I don't think that using fundamentally false potrayals of what we believe is going to score you anything good. Maybe a medal for the best combination strawman/telling people what they believe and not asking them/false assocation/plain insult. Well, it gets my vote, and yes, it is all these things. (What can I say? It's a little hard to be non-inflammatory and yet point out the things wrong with what you say)

Note: This post is also fitted with a discussion-stifling device - it takes your post and feeds it to an ill-tempered mutated sea bass.

[TZ]

69. ..

"This leads me to conclude that you suck."

:rofl: Truer words never spoken. Lets see if the two nasties respond to THIS!:applause:

[CanSocDem]

72. Actually, I did respond to you....

...once before and since I heard no more from you, I incorrectly believed that the response answered your questions.

"I also note that you are being inflammatory, and give you enough credit to believe that this is intentional. This leads me to conclude that you suck."

Well, there you go, eh....???

"...we also believe that the American system of user-pays-and-pays-some-more is made of triple-wonderful topped with extra rainbows of fantastic.

Which is a false association if you want to be clever, or "a craptastic debate tactic" in the lingo."

I'm sorry....you believe what again...???

.

[cosmik debris]

73. .

[Random_Australian]

98. Hah, you answered one. A stroll through SS&P means there is only another 6 times you've missed.

Apologies for no response; I've been away. I'll thwack it soon.

The first thing that is kinda hard to miss about your post is that it addresses, well, lots of nothing.

For instance, my last post started with a section about how your claims were unsupported, to say the least, and I also note that it was deliberately inflammatory. You know, the kind of behaviour that prevents discussion?

Your response of highlighting a small section and saying "well there you go" doesn't actually mean anything. You know, responding to a persons post should entail more than random words. Like arguments to back up what you say, for instance.

Next, I'd like to note that how you addressed my concerns with your posting stlye (ie. that it was somewhere between falshood and insult) were brilliantly addressed by "so, what do you believe?"

Because I live on some other planet where "making odd claims about what other people believe is a silly thing to do" has something to do with "I'm sorry, what do you believe again?"

In other words, you first said "There is no discussion about what makes something rational or irrational" then "accidentally" misread "your post is acutely false, and uses a line of thought bound to lead us to inaccurate conclusions" as "This is a comment that is only valid if it contains a treatise on my thoughts on life, the universe, and everything."

More exactly, no matter what I believe, what you posted was still bullpie. I'd also like to point out that making unrelated statements in no way defends what you've said.

In other words, the standard way of going through this is that you make a post, which contains some claims. (You did) Then, there is a back and forth of defense and attack of the claims, so we can ascertain whether or not they are incorrect.

But rather than defending what you have said, you just wandered off into la-la-land.

Next time, please use arguments to support what you say.

[cosmik debris]

60. We had a nice feel-good welcome thread going here

And look what happened to it. And look who did it.

Those facts say all that needs to be said.

Edit: I met Redstone in the 9/11 forum where he complimented me on my snark. So I invited him to this group because I thought he would get a gracious welcome. Then we got the "turd in the punch bowl" and the "pud in the spuds" guys working together to make this whole group look bad.

Thanks turd, thanks pud.

[MrMonk]

61. Summary of subthreads, in a more civil tone.

"Hello, I'm here to push your buttons."

"Thank you so much for coming. Shall I show you where they are?"

"No need to bother. I can see them from here." <push, push, push>

"Please, don't overlook this one."

"How kind of you." <PUSH!>

"Well, I wouldn't want you to miss one."




It's your own fault for feeding the trolls.

[cosmik debris]

63. well said n/t

[realisticphish]

64. ha

:thumbsup:

[mr blur]

67. If we feed them, they will come -

So let's not grant them the attention and importance they so desperately crave. Rather sad, really. Perhaps they'll be more welcome in civilised company when they've finally passed through adolescence.

[WoodrowFan]

74. BOL

No, I mean it, I audibly guffawed when i read your post.

[realisticphish]

62. haha, i was just thinking that

but you know, more than anything, it highlights the need for this group, and for the growth of scientific skepticism in general

[trotsky]

71. Absolutely.

And if it can help contribute toward ridding DU of a few more disruptors, all the better.

[HamdenRice]

76. Sometimes getting to the truth doesn't "feel good"

to people whose irrational beliefs are challenged.

[cosmik debris]

81. .

[HamdenRice]

83. As I predicted!

You've reached your usual level of eloquence.

[cosmik debris]

91. .

[TZ]

92. Hey great self analysis HR..You described yourself to a tee.

[cosmik debris]

93. Feeding the troll costs you one point. n/t

[TZ]

95. D'oh!

I couldn't resist...:rofl:

[semillama]

97. Yes, it sucks when one fails their saving throw vs trolling. n/t

[Evoman]

103. Hey Redstone...welcome to the group.

Although, right now it's feeling more like a forum than a group....

[realisticphish]

104. no kidding nt