What's going on with the influx

[lizerdbits]

of troll like posts here? It's like it's becoming the health scare lounge, but this is a group not a forum. Is it just more annoying to me since I had an 11 hour stressful day? I guess I'll go to bed. :shrug:

[varkam]

1. My theory is that...

they are flying to the Health Lounge for the Winter, but are coming from A/S so have to come through this group in order to get there.

[Warpy]

2. It's not just you

because the non skeptics here feel we've invaded their sacrosanct forums, religion and health. They honestly feel the religion forum should be restricted to the religious and the health forum should be restricted to the quack cures.

That's why they're here, to give us a taste of our own medicine, they reason, by parading mawkish belief as an antidote to our skepticism.

What they don't seem to understand is that the religion and health forums are public forums and open and that this one is restricted and they never seem to notice our absence from restricted specific belief and alt med forums.

They're just weeing on our trees, folks.

[realisticphish]

12. so this is retaliation?

looking like idiots, and mildly annoying 15 or so core posters is their cunning plan?

[Warpy]

13. More like marking some new territory

with urine so we'll know who owns DU.

[moggie]

3. I think it's a sexual kink

Being on the receiving end of anger and criticism makes them feel all hot and tingly, and then they have to go and beat off to a picture of Deepak Chopra.

[WoodrowFan]

11. eww

eww, I was just going to suggest that they're assholes and they got bored reading their anti-semetic tinfol crap in the PIgstye.

[mr blur]

4. School's out for summer

and they're stuck at home with no-one to play with and nothing else to do.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

5. True that

There is already a DU woo group where they can play. Like the SSP Group statement says, non-skeptics are welcome as long as they participate in a non-disruptive manner, which I think our two recent non-skeptic participants have not been doing.

[HamdenRice]

6. Perhaps it's just an influx of skeptics

whose interests are different from the existing core group of posters. You can be skeptical about the ability of crystals to cure cancer. Or you can be skeptical about the effect of the profit motive on the quality of care in our corporate health care system (see Michael Moore's "Sicko) or about the effect of Bush administration political interference on environmental science.

Both qualify as skeptics.

[TZ]

7. .

tag! (sorry CD...no can post smilie from work)

[mr blur]

9. Quick work! (nt)

[lizerdbits]

14. I guess I'll have to

stop using 'ignore' to play.

[Random_Australian]

8. And the people who are skeptical of the microbial theory of disease.

Or evolution. Or people who are skeptical of the idea that demons cause epilepsy. I hardly need to point out that all of those people are skeptical of something, and only one would likely be suited for the group. Yes, it's the third one.

In fact, one could say that being suited for the Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group isn't going to be issue based at all.

I'll get back to that in a second - I'd just like to point out that the examples you used were in fact examples of things the people here believe and not representative of what the OP was talking about.

Now, getting back to the main deal: What kind of poster is this group for? Well, the most glaring thing to me is the ideas about standards of proof and evidence: Specifically, that some of us think about how tests work, and things like "X is claimed to be proof for Y. But is it?"

And that's not what has been referenced by the OP. The arguments presented (at least the ones I've been in) have not been the least bit logical, and the poster simply made claims where the people in this group are interested in how the claims can be backed up. No, I'm not talking about you. I'll get to you at some other point.

Feel free to take this post, mentally rewrite it as a slur upon all humankind based only on hearsay, and dismiss it.

[HamdenRice]

10. "No, I'm not talking about you. "

Well, OK.

On edit:

I see your point that this forum is not for people who are "skeptical" of say evolution.

It is for people who defend consensus science, right? My examples -- corporate profit influence of medical best practice, or Bush administration interference in environmental science -- are also about defending consensus science, so I assume that's why you wrote, "No, I'm not talking about you."

[trotsky]

15. What world do you live in?

Where you can make the absurd claim that "Bush administration interference in environmental science" is about defending consensus science? The Bush admin discards scientific consensus whenever it opposes their extreme right-wing agenda. They're about as anti-consensus as can be. (And to be kind to you, I'm not even going to rake you over the coals for the strawman of implying that none of the other posters in this forum think the profit motive has negatively influenced healthcare in this country.)

[cosmik debris]

16. He lives in a world where this passes for skepticism

Incidentally, the author of the story was prosecuted under French law for violating their official secrets law, thereby confirming the authenticity of the leaked documents on which the story was based.

--HamdenRice

Apparently being prosecuted in France makes reporters infallible and beyond skepticism.

[WoodrowFan]

17. Plus

Even if he is correct (always a huge IF with HR) it is still illegal to leak a classified document even if it is incorrect (as it may reveal a particular source).

[cosmik debris]

18. You're not allowed to question that.

No real skeptic would question the accuracy and truth of a government document, would they?

:rofl:

[HamdenRice]

24. What is the likelihood that not one

but several hundred classified documents would all be wrong?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[WoodrowFan]

33. Hey!

Hey, I was answered YOU, not the troll!

[cosmik debris]

34. Every post is a target. Every target is a point.

Get your head in the game!

[HamdenRice]

27. "makes reporters infallible and beyond skepticism" -- reading comprehension is your friend

The sentence you yourself quote is:

"thereby confirming the authenticity of the leaked documents on which the story was based."

Do you know what "authenticity" means?

In the context of reporting, law suits and art, it means that the document (or art object) is what it purports to be.

The French government could not prosecute someone for publishing a forgery. By prosecuting, they authenticated the documents as indeed classified intelligence documents.

It does not mean that the reporter is "infallible," a claim that derives entirely from your own imagination.

Can you see the difference?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Random_Australian]

20. Point of order: He was arguing the opposite.

And saying that Bush interference in science was an attack on consensus, therefore of interest to the defenders of that (the skeptics).

I also note that his last post was actually entirely ambiguous about which we he thought, you needed to take context from previous.

:)

No harm done that cannot be easily erased.

[HamdenRice]

23. Yes, that is what I meant

It's perplexing that anyone could read it otherwise.

[HamdenRice]

21. A world in which most people have reasonably good levels of reading comprehension

" "Bush administration interference in environmental science" is about defending consensus science ..."

That is, criticizing and being skeptical of the Bush administration's interference in environmental science is a defense of consensus science.

Too bad you could understand that. Your misunderstanding of so many simple sentences makes for a high noise to signal ratio on these boards.

[trotsky]

25. Good grief, you need to work on your sentence composition.

There is no way that was clear - but you can I'm sure feel free to insult my intelligence all you want. It's your nature.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Random_Australian]

36. Note: It was actually ambiguous in your post. Try reading it through

from a "it was pro-bush" perspective. It still makes as much sense.

[Random_Australian]

19. I also kinda noted that the "old core" skeptics kinda believed that stuff already.

On the one hand, it seems more than obvious that most of the posters here think corporate profit and the like is basically a shitstain.

(The rest come from different countries (like, say, Australia) where accusing someone of wanting to "Americanise" the health care system is an insult politicians use. Until recently, it was a lot like the accusations that democrats hated freedom, (except it was primarily aimed at the right wing), and had about the same likelihood of occurring.

I say "until recently" because there is a fucker that wants to take over the RW here, and I put nothing past him.)

Similarly, the likelihood of finding someone pro-bush-meddling (in anything, let alone science) is low.

That is, the old core skeptics weren't averse to either those beliefs or their discussion.

However, you say that the new people are/could be people who hold those beliefs (talking about those at odds with the group) and as such at odds with the group.

I find that a little puzzling, honestly. Do you mean the oldies didn't like to discuss it? Doesn't the OP also specifically reference the Health Forum people? (which refers to people who believe in rather "alternate" cures, of course, not all people who post there)

I guess I'm not really seeing where you're coming from in saying that our visiting friends are also skeptics is all.

[HamdenRice]

22. It's a running dispute

in which the existing core of DU self proclaimed "Skeptics" claim that American big pharma companies have only the interests of patients at heart and that any suggestion that, the profit motive may adversely affect what pharmaceuticals develop and market and how the for profit health care system treats patients is "woo woo" or a "conspiracy theory."

By that standard, Australians would all be "conspiracy theorists," if "Americanizing" health care is considered a bad thing.

[LeftishBrit]

26. Wrong

No one here argues that 'American big pharma companies have only the interests of patients at heart' or that the 'profit motive may (not) adversely affect what pharmaceuticals develop and market'.

For example, because of the profit motive, many people in developing countries don't have access to affordable medicines. Also, pharma companies tend to concentrate more on developing treatments for diseases that predominantly affect people who can pay, or whose governments can pay, for them, and may neglect diseases that are commoner in developing countries (though there are certainly exceptions to this).

Also, there is no doubt that profit motives - perhaps more those of insurance companies than pharmaceutical companies- help to prevent universal health care in America, and sabotage it in other countries.

What people *do* object to is the idea that vaccines and other 'conventional' medications generally do more harm than good, or that the fact that Pharma may be making a profit from a medicine is ipso facto a reason for avoiding that medicine. In particular, we object to the idea that 'alternative' medicine is automatically superior to 'conventional' medicine. Many of us STRONGLY object to the idea that anyone who defends vaccination or conventional medical treatment must be 'a Pharma shill', motivated solely by profit.

You may not have most of the views that I outlined in the last paragraph; but there are a number of people who do, and THIS is what concerns us, especially perhaps those of us who are ourselves patients or relatives of patients.

[TZ]

28. Did I ever say that?

No. But despite what you BELIEVE..there are actually ALOT of checks and balances on Pharma companies.
Did you know the regs are tighter and ENFORCED more on private industry than in academia..oh and when it comes to safety issues both for their employees and for the drugs they manufacture they are MUCH more strict than in academia..Hello..FDA SURPRISE inspections...Its not a nice little lunch chat!
BTW, not all pharma/biotech are for profit..there is one person here who works in a nonprofit that does vaccine research.

What you seem to have not gotten from Sicko is that the science of the Pharmaceutical/Health care industry is still the best in the world (I went to Mayo...and its hard to believe one could get better care anywhere)..The insurance racket however..is what makes the health system so poor here.
Woo is stereotyping all doctors and health care practitioners as soulless money grubbers something that happens all the time here on DU. And yes, even companies that are overly profit minded can still put out good product..I know (and so does Lizerdbits) one exactly like that.
You are also ignoring that actually there is a lot of stuff you can do in the private industry that you can't in academia..I know one brilliant malaria researcher that was so frustrated by the restritctions and pettiness of his govt research he went out and founded a now well respected biotech company that ONLY does malaria research. Does he want to make a profit? Yep. Does he care about curing malaria. Absol-friggen-loutely.
Here on DU people who make profits are considered teh evil..but not all corporations are alike..some actually CARE about the quality of the stuff they put on the market and work very hard to be innovative and work on new and better treatments..I see it here.
Are all companies like this? Of course not. And actually, most techs/pHD's in the field are in the field because they like the science and they care about helping people. AND they know what companies don't---and LEAVE them. Its funny how that works..the best talent goes not necessarily to who pays the best (although it helps) but to who does the best and most interesting work.

As someone who has worked in both academia and private industry...I'll stay in the private sector, thank you very much. It has its problems, but IMHO, its a much better place for someone like me..interested in innovative technology and advancing the health care knowledge in this country--not wasting time in petty academic disputes, and NOT trying to make a good product, but protecting one's reputation

[trotsky]

30. Prove it.

the existing core of DU self proclaimed "Skeptics" claim that American big pharma companies have only the interests of patients at heart

Post a link from a person you deem a "Skeptic" demonstrating this.

Prove it or shut up about it.

Of course I'm aware of your history of completely avoiding any challenge to what you spew, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop calling you on it.

[Random_Australian]

35. Uh, where?

Out of curiosity.

[varkam]

37. Exaggeration?

in which the existing core of DU self proclaimed "Skeptics" claim that American big pharma companies have only the interests of patients at heart and that any suggestion that, the profit motive may adversely affect what pharmaceuticals develop and market and how the for profit health care system treats patients is "woo woo" or a "conspiracy theory."

I'll challenge you to find even one post where a memeber of the "existing core of DU self proclaimed 'Skeptics'" claim that pharmaceutical companies have only the interests of patients at heart. If, as you claim, there are multiple members saying this, then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to direct us to one post substantiating your claims.

[realisticphish]

38. substantiation is for commies nt

[varkam]

39. How silly of me.

I guess substantiation is something that only "$keptics" do, and true skeptics are free to run their mouth and expect to be taken at face value.

I swear, that man is a walking No True Scotsman fallacy. I half-expect to start hearing "fundamentalist skeptic" bandied about.

[salvorhardin]

40. Oh, that pretty much already occurs in the 9-11 dungeon

You should hear the wailing about Randi and how JREF is nothing but a money-making scam. I'm almost interested, now that Phil Plait is president of JREF, to hear all about how "The Bad Astronomer" is really "Teh Evul Astrologer".