I'm addicted to clean fields and making a profit.Round-up helps on both."
counts. You're certainly free to wallow in your junk science delusions, but the
product is safer and less toxic than most if not all the spices you put on your
organic tofu
I'm very interested in junk science, particularly these days, and defining what it is, and how a person defines what junk science is not , and who pays for setting up and observing and tabulating the results of junk science, and at what point scientific testing suddenly becomes junk science and who decides the about-turn is merely an experiment by proclaiming "How To, ....for why this must never happen again."
Case in point:
Saskatchewan Heath Care Patient No 2345679 was encouraged by her doctor to enrol in Harmone Replacement Therapy because all the scientific test results paid for proved that estrogen supplements made women look younger, with cleanly unwrinkled skin. It also was purported to prevent heart disease.
Science said so.
Under encouragement and advisement by the medical profession, No. 2345679 began wearing an estrogen patch above her left breast; unfortunately, after three months, a small lump appeared directly under the patch, at which time a biopsy confirmed the lump was malignant.
There is not one single case of reported or unreported breast cancer on either maternal or paternal side of No. 2345679's family.
The estrogen patch product was not safe; rather it was toxic, in spite of the scientific evidence showing it was a sure preventative for wrinkles and heart disease . The cancer spread to 2345679's other breast, and on to the reproductive organs, to the skin, to the lymph nodes, and to the liver.
Was the medical profession addicted to making a profit? From what I have gleaned, the more estrogen users that were signed up, the more points earned and the more trips available.
Does "safer product" promotion make 2345679 feel secure? It seems not.
What, really, is toxic? Is slow-dying classified as a toxic effect? Or is that simply wallowing?
Now, I don't mean to be brash, but the medical profession throughout the world are withdrawing Harmone Replacement Therapy as a routine prescription for wrinkles, and have been doing so for a long while, so er, was the Harmone Replacement Therapy promotion based upon junk science? Who takes ownership of that junk science? All players are quietly withdrawing. There are no more ads in magazines. No apologies either. Did you notice, so far, there is no addendum on the toes of the dead, stating, "Sorry, I guess it was toxic after all. Oopsy."
Which reminds me of the science Roundup is based upon and promoted upon ....................farmers, please check your onions tonight. Parsley
Posts
14 comments:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58769,00.html
Parsley, "...because all the scientific test results paid for proved that estrogen supplements made women look younger, with cleanly unwrinkled skin. It also was purported to prevent heart disease.
Science said so."
No it didn't! Read the article posted above.
As the author says, "...anyone who paid attention to the data rather than the hype would have known that these studies didn't at all demonstrate HRT to be a panacea."
Sounds like Patient No 2345679 bought into the hype both times. First that HRT is the fountain of youth and then again that it causes breast cancer.
Again from the article, " The study reported only a 26 percent increase in breast cancer occurrence. That result wasn't statistically significant."
and, " As the National Cancer Institute points out: "In epidemiologic research, [risks of less than 100 percent] are considered small and usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident."
See also
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm
"For these reasons most scientists (which includes scientifically inclined epidemiologists) take a fairly rigorous view of RR values. In observational studies, they will not normally accept an RR of less than 3 as significant and never an RR of less than 2."
Translation, 200 to 300 percent, you might be on to something. 26% you''re shooting in the dark.
With the kind of evidence you present, you really should contact the medical profession and explain to them that their now complete, silent exit from the Harmone Replacement promotion is too hasty and that the cancer statistics coming in, only 26%, are not surefire evidence.
Never mnd it takes at least a decade for cancer to spread from organ to vital organ, and therefore the results, the statistics are iffy, especially with the statistics skewed over assume the women are hysterical.
After all, it's entirely the womens' fault for not asking their professional advisors hard nosed questions, right? Dumb broads.
I like the way you show how blame should be laid on bimbo women. Good stuff.
Will most others agree that the blame is clearly on the women who followed professional guidance, but who were such dumb assed women, they didn't read the fine print?
Zip.
Once zipped, that thought is a tidy conclusion. You seem to personify neat thoughts quoted from Fox News in 2002,, so I thought you'd appreciate a thought in a neat package.
By the way, my past passed female doctor, who enjoyed the benefits of estrogen, for awhile, argued that I should also take estrogen.
Really tried to convince me. Is that what you call hype? I argued against it and won the argument, I guess. I am the one alive. I consider alive is winning. I consider dead losing. Do you?
If farmers still have their onions, is that winning? How's about healthy onions? How's about those dumb assed farmers who don't read Roundup's scientific results, including the fine print? Lawsy.
Pars
Pars... junk science indeed. It's really about marketing. Give a farmer a complimentary go cup, a free ball cap, or just tell him how smart he is and he'll not only buy your product but he'll defend your junk science.
Annony said it all. It's really all about how clean HIS crops look and the possibility (however remote) of profit.
You bet it's about marketing.
It's about approaching a farmer or two, getting him on side, getting him to defend junk science in public, getting him to expound on the value and necessity of having not even one weed in his crop, and for his valiant efforts, give the bastard and his family a free jaunt to some third world island for a week.
Hopefully, he didn't read the fine print or check his onions.
Interesting how you leave out the last part of my statement.
"the product is safer and less toxic than most if not all the spices you put on your organic tofu."
99.99% of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves against fungi, insects, and animal predators …When plants are stressed or damaged, such as during a pest attack, they may greatly increase their natural pesticide levels, occasionally to levels that can be acutely toxic to humans.” That is what really “Bio-rules”. The concentrations of NATURAL pesticides are usually measurable in part-per-thousands down to part-per-million. The concentration of the synthetic pesticides, instead, in part-per-billion. The above situation means that the quantity of NATURAL pesticides may be very high, being equivalent to one gram of chemical each kilogram of food, down to one gram per 1 ton of food. While the concentration of SYNTHETIC pesticides will be 1,000 – 1,000,000 times lower, being measurable in nanograms per gram - that is in billionths of a gram per gram of food - equivalent to one gram of synthetic pesticide each 1000 tons of food].
Of the 71 NATURAL PESTICIDES that have been tested, 37 [ = 52% ] are rodent carcinogens. These 37 NATURAL pesticides that are rodent carcinogens are ubiquitous in fruits, vegetables, herbs and spices, like apples, apricots, bananas, basil, broccoli, cabbages, cauliflower, carrots, chili, chocolate, coffee, eggplants, lemons, garlic, celery, seeds of Soya, tomatoes, potatoes, etc. etc.
Ames and Gold estimate that "..on average the Americans ingest roughly 5000 to 10,000 different NATURAL pesticides... equivalents to approximately 1,500 mg of pesticides per person per day; which is about 10,000 times more than the 0.09 mg they consume of synthetic pesticides residues…
The possible carcinogenic hazard from synthetic pesticides are minimal compared to the background of nature’s pesticides, though neither may be a hazard at the low doses consumed.... many ordinary foods would not pass the regulatory criteria used for synthetic chemicals.
Parsley said, "After all, it's entirely the womens' fault for not asking their professional advisors hard nosed questions, right? Dumb broads."
Not at all. I would say its the dumb doctors fault for not doing his homework, and just taking somebody eles's word for it instead of reviewing the relevant data. Just because someone has a PHD on their wall doesn't automatically mean they know what they're talking about. I've met all sorts of professionals in my life that don't. Lawyers, accountants, teachers, etc. why would one think that doctors are not just as fallible.
It looks to me like hormone replacement therepy is quite valuable when it comes to releaving the discomfort of menopause. But that's it. One of the tragedies about all the hoopla around HRT now is that there are countless women who are needlessly suffering through menopause but are too scared to take the treatment.
As far as it being a killer goes the data just doesn't back it up, and neither do your personal examples.
Correlation does not equal causation. The fact that your doctor once took hormones and is now dead shows cause and effect no more than saying I see a lot of fat people drinking diet coke, therefore diet coke causes obesity. You didn't take the extra hormones yet one day you too will be dead.
By the way according to the Canadian Cancer society most women who develop breast Cancer have none of the risk factors other than being a woman and getting older(especially over 50). And most woman with breast cancer also have no family history of the disease.
For a complete list of things that supposedly have been "scientifically" proven to cause cancer go here.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cancer%20list.htm
What is the point here? Simply that epidemiology is not actually science, yet far too many people including doctors who should know better go around pretending that it is.
My favourites from the list are bus stations, bottled water, toothpaste, shaving your arm pits and being left handed.
I have already acknowledged that there are pathogens in nature.
You will continue to quote snippets that support your flat earth beliefs. You fit nicely into the "Take a pill for it" society, and you will undoubtdly do as your intellectual heroes tell you to do.
Your choice.
But my observations and advice include:
1. Cancer is running amuk in our society even if you are blind to , and we cannot ignore any correlation.
2. Natural pathogens do indeed occur in all plants, but maybe it's a good idea to not routinely individually inject them by prescription unless it's a life saving solution.
3. If the HRT didn't reflect 'cause' with serious legal repercussions, medical people and the phamaceuticals would continue to flog harmones at women. They must be afraid they cause harm and few would demand I prove harm before ceasing to take harmones.
4.Dentists grinding the lead out of your old fillings also have a sober second thought about loading up your mouth with lead as they did in the past. I would suggest it has affected your ability to reasonably predict cause and effect. You ignore correlation. Get your teeth checked.
5. In a sophisticated society, correlation never should be totally rejected, we're not smart enuff to put all the pieces of genes together. We don't know, for example, if continued pesticide use will cause generational sterility or not. But this I do know...we can't afford to be part of the experiment that proves it so. A stich in time....
4. 25% death increases should cause even you pause. Check your teeth.
5, Blaming the doctor for prescribing an approved product should cause you a second sober look at the chain of responsibility. Check your teeth.
You see, anon, accountability rests with not only the doctor, but with the manufacturer. Parallel the organic farmer who subscribes to an audit trail and says, "I'm responsible."
It's called stepping up to the plate.
Uh huh.
We have a lot of educated elite who are skipping responsibility. Did you notice or are you blinded by mad-cow science? Pars
Okay lets paint by numbers then.
1. "Cancer is running amuk in our society even if you are blind to , and we cannot ignore any correlation."
Actually it isn't when you adjust for age and known causes such as smoking the cancer rate has actually been declining. Age is a big( but obviously not the only) factor, once upon a time most people didn't live long enough to get cancer.
As too ignoring corelations when it comes to epidemiological studies it is irresponsible not to ignore corelations that are so small that they are essentially static or background noise in the data.
2. "Natural pathogens do indeed occur in all plants, but maybe it's a good idea to not routinely individually inject them by prescription unless it's a life saving solution."
Tell that to the loving mother who poisoned her own child by giving her "natural" unpasterized organic apple juice laced with E. coli O157:H7
https://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.725/healthissue_detail.asp
3. "If the HRT didn't reflect 'cause' with serious legal repercussions, medical people and the phamaceuticals would continue to flog harmones at women. They must be afraid they cause harm and few would demand I prove harm before ceasing to take harmones."
Perhaps that has more to do with the fact HRT really doesn't do anything in the wrinkle department and that jury's love to give large settlements to grieving spouses regardless of what the science really shows.
4."Dentists grinding the lead out of your old fillings also have a sober second thought about loading up your mouth with lead as they did in the past. I would suggest it has affected your ability to reasonably predict cause and effect. You ignore correlation. Get your teeth checked."
I have no filling's to 'check'. And unlike HRT the cause and effect relationship when it comes to lead has actually been proven.
5. "In a sophisticated society, correlation never should be totally rejected"
Wrong, statistically insignificant correlations should be rejected, statistically significant correlations need to be investigated further. We do not have an unlimited amount of resources to throw at every random coincidence.
"we're not smart enuff to put all the pieces of genes together." We've been doing it in plants for over 2000 years and its worked out pretty good so far. I think we are smart enough. BTW weren't you just the sentance before arguing about how sophisticated we are, and now we're all a bunch of dummies, make up your mind.
"We don't know, for example, if continued pesticide use will cause generational sterility or not."
We have no reason to believe that it will. All of the testing and experience we have strongly suggests that it won't. You are making an unprovable arbitrary assertion contrary to what we actually know. We do not make decisions based on what we don't know, we make them on what we do know. Your assertion is complete speculation, and that is certainly not science.
"But this I do know...we can't afford to be part of the experiment that proves it so. A stich in time...."
Why not? All of the available evidence(and there is a lot of it) shows us that these products are safe. We may not know everything but if you reject what we do know in favour of what we don't know and arbitrary assertions you are rejected reason.
4. "25% death increases should cause even you pause. Check your teeth."
This shows that you don't know what you are talking about and that you don't understand the math behind the numbers coming out of epidemiological studies. 25% means a lot if there is only 100% but that is not the case here. They are talking about a 25% greater chance of dieing not that 25% of the people taking the treatment on average will die.
If you have a nickel and I give you two more you have a 200% increase in the amount of money you have but it still doesn't mean you're rich. One needs to see at least a 200% and preferably 300% increase in these kind of studies before it warrants further investigation.
It is not relative risk that matters to people, but absolute risk. Double a risk of one in a million and it is still not worth losing any sleep over. Double a risk of one in two and you are dead.
"We have a lot of educated elite who are skipping responsibility"
We do indeed, we do indeed!
Post a Comment