Science – a method of investigation, not a belief system

clees

Love this tweet from John Cleese.

There is the obvious point about “belief.” Many people seem to think the scientific knowledge is a matter of belief and, in their eyes, something that can be subjectively chosen. That is ridiculous.

But also the wise stress on science as a method of investigation and not just a body of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is always imperfect and is dynamic changing with new data – but not in  an arbitrary or chaotic way.

However imperfect our current knowledge the scientific method holds out possibilities for its improvement. And however may “mistakes” the cynic can find in our scientific knowledge they are always unable to suggest a way of correcting these mistakes except more science.

Science as a method of investigation remains by far the best way we have of understanding objective reality.

Similar articles

93 responses to “Science – a method of investigation, not a belief system

  1. Science isn’t just a method of investigation; rather it’s a particular way of viewing the world and it’s this “way of seeing” that fires the passion of many a scientist. “Be certain that science is far more a question of how to see than of what to see” (Croizat, 1964).

    Like

  2. True! Completely true!
    And the way sciences are taught in my country is utterly disgusting and as much horrible.Here you are told to study, bring good grades and make a career for yourself with ” high rewards”- for a lavish life, devoid of the true spirit of the “divinity” , of the “supreme” residing in each one of us.
    The science which uplifted us from dark ages sadly had been looked upon as something which feeds us pork, and actually leaves over filled bellies with hunger unsatisfied and empty minds
    .

    Like

  3. Technology sales entities often like to claim they are scientists, or doing science, but their goal is often to sell a product, not to try to investigate. Rather than honestly report their investigations they may selectively report.

    Like

  4. Mercola is an excellent example.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Mercola is threatening Stuartg’s market for expensive and dangerous treatment. Iatrogenics from conventional medicine is very a high cause of death.
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx

    And Stuartg refuses to acknowledge that Mercola is a fully registered doctor who may do operations and prescribe allopathic drugs.

    Note how doctors trained in “osteopathic medicine” may work as regular doctors &C in NZ.
    https://www.mcnz.org.nz/assets/News-and-Publications/List-of-approved-qualifications-for-Locum-Tenens-registration-2015-all-amendments.pdf

    Yes Mercoal sells vitamins in competition with supermarkets &c, and has a recognised Fellowship in such (FACN)

    “While many people are now aware that there are well-trained health care practitioners specializing in complementary medicine, many are still unaware that there are two kinds of allopathic physicians to choose from as well.

    Medical doctors, MDs, and doctors of osteopathy, known as DOs, have similar training requiring four years of study in the basic and clinical sciences, and the successful completion of licensing exams.

    As you may know, I’m an osteopathic physician (DO), and DOs, just like MDs, are licensed to prescribe medication, deliver babies, and perform surgery in all 50 states in the US. DOs have the identical license to practice the full range of medicine and surgery as MDs; there is absolutely no difference in their state license.

    I’m also board-certified in family medicine, and served as the chairman of the family medicine department at St. Alexius Medical Center for five years. In October 2012, I was awarded fellowship status by the American College of Nutrition (FACN)”

    Like

  6. You have tried to dispute this in the past, Stuartg, saying you have something to do with checking doctors?

    I gave the NZ list of quals for specialist locums, but there is this, too:

    “It might be worth noting that from a primary medical degree point of view,
    Council considers the American DO (Doctor of Osteopathy) degree to be equivalent to the American MD degree”

    https://www.mcnz.org.nz/assets/News-and-Publications/Consultations/Locumtenensconsultation-requestforsubmissions.pdf

    Like

  7. Gee Brian, you forgot to put in a plug for your mate, Andrew Wakefield.

    Like

  8. So, you agree that “Mercoal” is trying to sell a product, doesn’t try to investigate, and uses selective reporting rather than being honest.

    Exactly like the “technology sales entities” you mention.

    You emphasise that he is also part of “conventional medicine”. If so, then he is also part of the ” iatrogenics” and “is very a high cause of death” that you attribute to “conventional medicine”. You’re attacking others for their actions and then ignoring exactly the same activities from your hero.

    Belief system – allows you to turn a blind eye and ignore contradictions that don’t fit with your world view.

    Science – “NOT a belief system.”

    Like

  9. Richard, Wakefield has also been trying to improve health, but I think he did the absolute no-no of checking blood of some children without asking their parents.

    Like

  10. Yes, Stuartg, Mercola had once been a touring HRT rep, which I reported before. He keeps up with current research and changes his ways.

    I remember asking a NZ doctor for B vitamins. He prescribed B complex but was not able to include vitamin B3 (nicotinamide). Government health services can be slow so why jibe at a doctor trying to make up for that?

    Mercola had to be a publishing author to be awarded FACN.

    Like

  11. Richard, Wakefield has also been trying to improve health,

    Sure, Brian, *whatever* you choose to believe.

    Seriously, your pitiful support of Wakefield and refusal to acknowledge the death and damage that his fraudulent research has caused, disgusts me.

    Andrew Wakefield has become one of the most reviled doctors of his generation, blamed directly and indirectly, depending on the accuser, for irresponsibly starting a panic with tragic repercussions: vaccination rates so low that childhood diseases once all but eradicated here—whooping cough and measles, among them—have re-emerged, endangering young lives

    There has been a huge impact from the Wakefield fiasco … This spawned a whole anti-vaccine movement. Great Britain has seen measles outbreaks. It probably resulted in a lot of deaths

    Between July 2007 and May 2010, a 217-day “fitness to practise” hearing of the UK General Medical Council examined charges of professional misconduct against Wakefield and two colleagues involved in the paper in The Lancet.[89][90] The charges included that he:

    “Was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR”.[89]
    Ordered investigations “without the requisite paediatric qualifications” including colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures (“spinal taps”) on his research subjects without the approval of his department’s ethics board and contrary to the children’s clinical interests,[89] when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children’s symptoms or medical history.
    “Act[ed] ‘dishonestly and irresponsibly’ in failing to disclose … how patients were recruited for the study”.[89]
    “Conduct[ed] the study on a basis not approved by the hospital’s ethics committee.”[89]
    Purchased blood samples—for £5 each—from children present at his son’s birthday party, which Wakefield joked about in a later presentation.[89]
    “[S]howed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children might suffer”[18]

    Wakefield denied the charges;[91] on 28 January 2010, the GMC ruled against Wakefield on all issues, stating that he had “failed in his duties as a responsible consultant”,[13] acted against the interests of his patients,[13] and “dishonestly and irresponsibly” in his controversial research.[14] On 24 May 2010 he was struck off the United Kingdom medical register. It was the harshest sanction that the GMC could impose, and effectively ended his career as a doctor. In announcing the ruling, the GMC said that Wakefield had “brought the medical profession into disrepute,” and no sanction short of erasing his name from the register was appropriate for the “serious and wide-ranging findings” of misconduct.[19][92] On the same day, Wakefield’s autobiography, Callous Disregard was published, using the same words as one of the charges against him (“he showed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children might suffer”).[18] It argued that he had been unfairly treated by the medical and scientific establishment.[93]

    Like

  12. There are a few issues here, Richard.

    The first is that when you cannot think of anything wrong to say about Mercola then you try to associate him with a struck-off doctor. That is unprofessional.

    The next is that if a criminal warns us of a danger we have to ignore it.

    The MMR vaccination made by Merck was lied about by them to gain the contract. It did not work as specified. Wakefield is not anti-vaccine though you may be making some people think he is. He believed in the separate vaccines for mumps and measles.

    I suspect some of the attack on Wakefield has come from lawyers friendly to Merck. That is not to say he did not severely break rules, and cause suffering to some unnecessarily, but he was trying to research to alleviate severe suffering of families, if you know anything about ADHD. And doctors and dentists get hardened to causing suffering, somewhat. They do suicide more than the general population.

    Like

  13. One of Mercola’s warnings about vaccines of some types is the weaker immunity they produce.

    The supposed effectiveness of vaccination has been in a scenario where many people still have immunity acquired from contact with the disease.

    “Rubella virus usually causes a mild infection in humans but can cause congenital rubella syndrome (CRS). Vaccination programs have significantly decreased primary rubella virus infection and CRS; however, vaccinated individuals usually have lower levels of rubella virus IgG than those with natural infections.”

    http://cmr.asm.org/content/29/1/163.short

    And if you read more of that you see that measurements are not up to par.

    You reported increased disease, Richard. You need to demonstrate it is not a result of reduced natural immunity now the lesser vaccine immunity has been substituted.

    Like

  14. Thank you Brian, for demonstrating to readers the truth of my earlier comment.

    Like

  15. Please explain, Richard.

    And might I say about other material in the NYT quote you did: ” like failing to disclose financing from lawyers who were mounting a case against vaccine manufacturers.”

    Typical blurry news media speech. The case was against ONE vaccine manufacturer. And it succeeded on the count of dishonesty against Merck. I don’t know if Merck have appealed.

    Fortunately the NYT article makes it clear that Wakefield is not anti-vaccine. You are in trouble selectively quoting to give an impression.

    As Ken has written recently the job of science is never over, and I feel Wakefield has contributed something along the way. It is just unfortunate that the government removed doctors’ choice of which vaccines they could use.

    Like

  16. Brian – this is a load of crap.

    Mercola “keeps up with current research and changes his ways.” – Pull the other one!

    One has only the read the rubbish he writes to see that her is not keeping up with research and certainly doesn’t report it honestly.

    Take the rubbish he writes on fluoride – a load of misinformation, distortion and lies.

    He is a frau and shill for his industry. (worth about billion US $ at the moment).

    Like

  17. Brian, you are an idiot.

    Like

  18. It’s obvious the anti-Mercola faction are losing when they begin to resort to abuse.

    Like

  19. Brian,

    Who cares whether IgG levels are lower, or higher, after immunisation compared with after disease? It’s not clinically significant. If a person has specific IgG, no matter the level, it demonstrates they have immunity to that disease. That’s the reason most labs report only positive or negative to disease specific IgG following vaccination.

    Example: I had rubella. I subsequently received MMR. I’ve never had rubella IgG checked, but if I did so it would be reported as “positive”, ie immune no matter what the level is.

    And then you support Wakefield.

    Wakefield: the fraud who wanted to discredit MMR because he held the patents on single vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. Of course he’s not anti-vaccine, he wanted “separate vaccines for mumps and measles” so that he would receive a payment for every separated vaccine given!

    Wakefield: the guy who broke the ethical rules of research by paying children at a birthday party for blood samples.

    Wakefield: the guy who lied about the real results of his research.

    Wakefield: the guy who was paid by a lawyer to fabricate a non-existant relationship between MMR and behavioural problems in children.

    And you admire this… this…? (I just can’t find an appropriate word)

    Like

  20. Brian,

    Your belief in the beneficence of Mercola is irrational.

    His behaviour that you support and acknowledge (selective reporting, dishonesty, etc, all geared towards sales) is identical to the behaviour of “technology sales entities” that you criticise.

    In NZ this behaviour would be, and has been, labelled as unprofessional by the NZMC.

    It’s no wonder that he gets associated with other unprofessional frauds like Wakefield.

    Perhaps you should review your own belief system and try being objective about your heroes instead?

    Like

  21. Stuartg writes: “Who cares whether IgG levels are lower, or higher, after immunisation compared with after disease? It’s not clinically significant.”

    Because if the percentage level of individuals with IgG is greater that means the population has more immunity.

    Two doses of MMR may not be enough. Great for Merck.:

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21645515.2015.1032489

    I will try to check up on the risk of giving the 3 vaccines all together.
    Richard may understand how the ears can avoid noise deafness with a certain amount of noise per day. It is not good to put 3 days’ dose into one.

    Like

  22. Brian,

    You just don’t appear to understand. You also appear to be confusing IgG levels in an individual with levels in a population.

    Let’s recap.

    If a person has anti-rubella IgG, no matter the level, they are immune to rubella.

    The clinically relevant results are:
    Anti-rubella IgG positive = immune
    Anti-rubella IgG negative = not immune

    It doesn’t matter the units; anti-rubella IgG may = 0.001, or 10, or 10,000, or any other number you care to mention. If it is present then the person is immune to rubella. It doesn’t matter whether the IgG developed as a response to illness or vaccine, the person is still immune.

    If 90% of the population has anti-rubella IgG, then 90% of the population is immune to rubella. If 50% has it, then 50% is immune.

    Comparing the levels of IgG in individuals after rubella with those of individuals after MMR has no clinical relevance. No matter the level, if anti-rubella IgG is present then the person is immune.

    It’s like a pregnancy test – if HCG is present then the woman is pregnant. If there’s no HCG present then she isn’t. The clinically relevant result is either positive or negative. It doesn’t matter if the level is 50 or 50,000 – if HCG is present then the pregnancy is confirmed.

    For FSMs sake, this isn’t medical school stuff. I had to learn it for School Certificate Biology in 5th form!

    By the way, we’re approaching a half century use of MMR worldwide.

    In that time we’ve demonstrated our ability to pick up problems with individual batches of the vaccine within weeks of their manufacture by using science. Those same methods, used over decades, haven’t been able to demonstrate any increased risks from giving the triple vaccine. The risk is probably reduced, but is so low anyway that it is hard to separate from background random events.

    Most of the risk appears to be from the needle penetrating the skin (infections and suchlike), and one needle is expected to have lower morbidity than three.

    However, I do understand that you are limited by your belief system, so feel free to disregard the science of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of scientists/specialists around the world…

    Like

  23. Ken srote: “He is a frau and shill for his industry. (worth about billion US $ at the moment).”

    From Wiki: “Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns.”

    Please explain your assertion, Ken.

    And the USA health budget is some 4 trillion. Say Mercola’s investment is paying 10% on the investment. Then the Mercola firm could have an annual budget of 0.0025% of the USA health budget, And it is being very valuable to the public keeping the health of people up and stopping that 4 trillion figure figure from rising even further. Which may be a problem to some businesses, who are quite possibly employing destructive shills, associating Mercola with Wakefield &c.

    Like

  24. Stuartg, I copied and pasted: ” vaccinated individuals usually have lower levels of rubella virus IgG than those with natural infections.”

    Researchers would know what you have described, so this will just be a case of translation difficulty. I suggest: “The vaccinated individuals [en masse] usually have lower levels of rubella virus IgG than those with natural infections”

    And I spelled it out with the Israeli study: ” We conducted a seroprevalence study of IgG antibodies among 439 Israeli adults born in 1988–9, based on a representative sample of sera collected at age 18–19 upon recruitment to mandatory military service in 2007. In total, 85.7% were seropositive for measles as compared with 95.6% in the 1996 recruitment (P < 0.001)."

    And note for the 2007 "individuals": In 2007, the first Israeli birth cohort to be twice vaccinated during childhood with Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine reached adulthood. In parallel, Israel experienced its largest measles outbreak since 1994.

    So as I said to Richard there is more to it than Wakefield.

    Like

  25. And further to what I wrote:
    Vaccine
    Volume 16, Issue 20, December 1998, Pages 2052–2057
    “The vaccination-induced measles virus antibodies decline in the absence of natural booster infections. It is important to follow how long the protection achieved by the present vaccine programme will last after elimination of indigenous measles.”

    So the reduced effectiveness of vaccines with time has been expected.

    And here is another example, from China, away from any supposed effect of Wakefield:
    http://aph.sagepub.com/content/27/2/NP808.short
    “Recent Resurgence of Measles in a Community With High Vaccination Coverage”

    “Also, 200 cases occurred in those aged to 22 to 30 years old, accounting for 21.8% of total cases, with the age-specific incidence being 12.8 per 100 000 population. The characteristics related to age distribution have changed in recent measles outbreaks.”

    Which impinges on the child-bearing years with risk to the unborn.

    How does this compare with what Wakefield has been blamed for?

    Like

  26. It’s obvious the anti-Mercola faction are losing when they begin to resort to abuse.

    Idiots exist, Brian. Your behaviour on this blog over the past 18 months clearly demonstrates this.

    Arguing rationally with an idiot is pointless.

    Like

  27. OMGFACTS: “Today, as we all know, the word ‘idiot’ is used to mean someone of relatively low intelligence. However, the word comes from ancient Greek and it had a completely different meaning back then!

    Idiot or Idiots in Ancient Greek was used to mean a private person or someone not interested in politics. Because of the word’s negative connotations, ‘idiot’ slowly molded into the terminology used today. Ironically, a lot of people use that word to describe our politicians today. ”

    I think Richard has it back to front.

    Like

  28. I asked: “How does this compare with what Wakefield has been blamed for?”

    So looking into it myself: my cite gave the Chinese measles cases in a well-vaccinated population example was 17.6 cases per 100,000 people in 2008.

    Then the CDC give sketchy info for USA talking about largely Amish. They would not be vaccinated even if Wakefield had not said anything. So if I take the 383 Amish off the approx 640 USA measles case in 2014 peak measles epidemic, that leaves up to about 310, who might be said to have been influenced by Wakefield, though some were vaccinated. In a USA population of some 300 million. That means some 1 case per million USA people.

    I think that way of attacking Mercola fails.

    Like

  29. Brian,

    You said: “The vaccinated individuals [en masse] usually have lower levels of rubella virus IgG than those with natural infections” as your interpretation of ” vaccinated individuals usually have lower levels of rubella virus IgG than those with natural infections.”

    You still don’t get it, do you?

    You apparently missed the bit of the summary that says “Vaccination programs have significantly decreased primary rubella virus infection and CRS”. I wonder why that would be? (rhetorical)

    Even if vaccinated individuals have a lower level of anti-rubella IgG on average than individuals who have survived the infection it doesn’t make a scrap of difference clinically. Anyone with ANY level of anti-rubella IgG is immune to rubella. Antibodies from vaccination and illness both reduce over time, but as long as they are still present the person is immune.

    If you have antibodies, you are immune. If you don’t, you’re not. The level of antibodies doesn’t matter at all, merely their presence or absence. It’s a simple binary equation.

    Of course, you have previously told us that your belief system does not acknowledge binary thinking. Fortunately for the rest of us, science is not a belief system and so can use binary thinking and analyses.

    Like

  30. Brian,

    Let me quote Mercola – direct from his website (copy and paste):

    “The information on this website is not intended … as medical advice” and “These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”

    Mercola himself tells you not to trust his website for medical information and that his products won’t do anything for any disease. You have blind faith in the rest of his website, but not this part?

    That’s because it’s a paradox to believers in Mercola.

    If these statements are true then the rest of his website is not trustworthy. If other parts of the website are true then this part is lying.

    How do we know what to believe? Well, no-one has to believe any of it unless they adhere to a belief system. We can use science to test it instead.

    There’s no paradox when science is used to analyse Mercola’s website. Those two quotes may be the most accurate statements on the site.

    Somehow the most unambiguous parts of Mercola’s website are those that allow him a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card when people follow his “advice” and find out how bad it is.

    Like

  31. This measles discussion is about whether Mercola, proxy Wakefield, have increased measles, by opposing vaccination.

    As the Chinese ref said, vaccination has decreased measles. But it also says it is on the rise again. Fewer individuals have requisite immunity now than in the earlier years of vaccination. (And incidentally it said there is doubt about the testing efficacy, whichever way that goes.)

    In well-vaccinated Wuhu, China, lots of infants (too young to vaccinate?) in 2008 were getting measles, possibly since vaccinated parents had lost their own immunity, which they would less likely have lost if they had attained it naturally though infection, (or had their IgG boosted back to effective by contact with naturally infected people, was it?) Note the change in age pattern since vaccination started.

    The level of measles in this well-vaccinated city is far greater than in USA where Wakefield is supposed to have been causing trouble. It is very likely that the little USA epidemic is a result of the same mechanism as in China and nothing to do with Wakefield. He may even be helping the overall effect by keeping a sufficient level of natural immunity in the population, though that is not his intention. He wanted single dose vaccines. Whether he is right or not ADHD or perhaps autism, which he is hoping to explore, is far more prevalent than measles and can put life-long stress on families, schools and communities.

    Your diversion: “Even if vaccinated individuals have a lower level of anti-rubella IgG on average than individuals who have survived the infection it doesn’t make a scrap of difference clinically. Anyone with ANY level of anti-rubella IgG is immune to rubella.”

    Anyone with any money can get on the bus. It makes a difference if they have none.

    “Antibodies from vaccination and illness both reduce over time, but as long as they are still present the person is immune.”

    And obviously they are not present in an increasing number of young parents who were vaccinated, they are reducing FASTER over time in the well-vaccinated population. You won’t get away with encouraging two-valued thinking.

    Like

  32. Brian,

    You quoted: “Today, as we all know, the word ‘idiot’ is used to mean someone of relatively low intelligence. However, the word comes from ancient Greek and it had a completely different meaning back then!”

    My online dictionary shows:

    idiot
    noun informal
    a stupid person.
    synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, nincompoop, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, imbecile, dullard, moron, simpleton, clod;
    More archaic
    a person of low intelligence.
    Origin
    Middle English (denoting a person of low intelligence): via Old French from Latin idiota ‘ignorant person’, from Greek idiōtēs ‘private person, layman, ignorant person’, from idios ‘own, private’.

    If you wish to comment in ancient Greek, using language and meanings as they were then, it’s up to you.

    Personally, I’ll stick to English (New Zealand)

    Like

  33. Stuartg, a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Individualism_in_Athenian_democracy

    which also quotes from Thucydides:
    “We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.”

    But Richard seems to be claiming I have no business here at all since I am too investigative/scientific and an idiot not to be on the quasi-science bandwagon, comfortable to some.

    People interested in science sometimes have notions they would be interested to follow up or discuss.

    Here is one of mine: Girls are pulling ahead of boys academically. Is it just a coincidence that it is happening in the years since some widespread vaccination has started?

    The CDC covered up that BOYS were affected in the ADHD direction correlated to MMR.

    Like

  34. Stuartg, as for your 7:51 comment, Mercola offers advice that people can go to their registered health professional and discuss. Otherwise they might not come across it. Of course they are at risk by diagnosing themselves, but if they do go wrong with Mercola’s products they are unlikely to suffer the great problems that many conventional medicine iatrogenics cause. He is helping immunity through nutrition and lifestyle and not relying on conventional antibiotics which are losing their effectiveness.

    Like

  35. Brian,

    Not my diversion. My response to your inability to understand both immunity and the papers you selectively quote.

    You brought up the subject of rubella: “The vaccinated individuals [en masse] usually have lower levels of rubella virus IgG than those with natural infections” and: ”vaccinated individuals usually have lower levels of rubella virus IgG than those with natural infections.”

    I noted that you didn’t quote the immediate preceding sentence, though: “Vaccination programs have significantly decreased primary rubella virus infection and CRS” In case you didn’t realise, this sentence tells us that vaccination works, although I suspect your belief system didn’t allow you to see that.

    You’re obviously not aware that anti-rubella IgG is just a marker that reveals the immune system is primed to start churning out billions more anti-rubella IgG molecules the moment it encounters the rubella virus again. After all, that’s what “immune” means for rubella (or didn’t your belief system allow you to realise that?)

    I know arguing against a belief system is a pointless exercise, but yet again (sigh…)

    If a person has ANY level of anti-rubella IgG, then they are immune to rubella. Not “weaker” or “lesser” immunity, just immunity. It doesn’t matter whether it’s from vaccination or illness, they are fully immune.

    Comparison: If a woman has ANY level of HCG, then she is pregnant. Not “weaker” or “lesser” pregnancy, just pregnancy. It doesn’t matter how she became pregnant, she’s still fully pregnant.

    Your quote: “This measles discussion is about whether Mercola, proxy Wakefield, have increased measles, by opposing vaccination.”

    Look at the title: “Science – a method of investigation, not a belief system”.

    You brought up rubella and measles, not Ken. I have tried to demonstrate that your “knowledge” of rubella derives from your belief system. Unfortunately, your faith does not allow you to see the paradoxes that science readily demonstrates in your belief system.

    Like

  36. Brian,

    You belief system is not allowing you to investigate anything. All you are doing is selectively looking on the web and even then cherry picking.

    You are completely ignoring the process of science and it’s method of investigating natural processes. You have blind faith in your belief system.

    “The CDC covered up that BOYS were affected in the ADHD direction correlated to MMR.”

    And do you also believe that the New Zealand government covered up that a French atomic bomb sank the Rainbow Warrior?

    Like

  37. Stuartg you keep going on about confusion between individual and population immunity. Take measles, “Measles antibody: reevaluation of protective titers”
    RT Chen, LE Markowitz, P Albrecht… – Journal of infectious …, 1990 think there is still susceptibility if PRN titers fall below 120. Illness without rash may still occur above that level.

    Dimech et al may have been referring to dropping through that level.

    You wrote at 8:57 pm:
    ” noted that you didn’t quote the immediate preceding sentence, though: “Vaccination programs have significantly decreased primary rubella virus infection and CRS” In case you didn’t realise, this sentence tells us that vaccination works, although I suspect your belief system didn’t allow you to see that.”
    I had written at 7:53 pm: “As the Chinese ref said, vaccination has decreased measles.” and sorry I smudged together the Dimech and the Levine studies. So that is the acknowledgement you ask for with measles substituted for rubella, sorry. Rubella is “German measles” and we used to say we had had measles if we had had that.

    And so I was acknowledging that vaccination “works,” (for some duration). That was the starting point for then saying the efficacy had then been dropping, and I maintain with greater drop than any caused by Wakefield, and I gave the figures.

    Like

  38. Stuartg 8:57pm: “Your quote: “This measles discussion is about whether Mercola, proxy Wakefield, have increased measles, by opposing vaccination.”

    Look at the title: “Science – a method of investigation, not a belief system”.

    You brought up rubella and measles, not Ken. I have tried to demonstrate that your “knowledge” of rubella derives from your belief system. Unfortunately, your faith does not allow you to see the paradoxes that science readily demonstrates in your belief system.”

    Stuartg, you brought up Mercola:
    “Stuartg | January 7, 2016 at 4:36 pm |

    Mercola is an excellent example.”

    and Richard:
    Richard Christie | January 8, 2016 at 8:46 am |

    “Gee Brian, you forgot to put in a plug for your mate, Andrew Wakefield.”

    So do I have to let yours and Richard’s comments pass without reply?

    Like

  39. Stuartg:
    “I have tried to demonstrate that your “knowledge” of rubella derives from your belief system. Unfortunately, your faith does not allow you to see the paradoxes that science readily demonstrates in your belief system.”

    That is a straw ,man you are making. I suppose you will go on for ages with it the same as you went on saying for a long time about Mercola:
    Stuartg | February 12, 2015 at 4:02 pm |
    1. Mercola is not a medical doctor. He says so himself, on his website. He’s an osteopath with no qualifications that would allow him to be recognised as a doctor in New Zealand.”

    Though you seem to have eventually understood during the last few days that you were wrong.

    After I referred to another persons with similar basic degree to Mercola, you said:
    Stuartg | February 14, 2015 at 11:16 am |

    BTW, the person you referred to is under general registration. That means exactly the same practice restrictions as a brand new New Zealand or Australian medical graduate. So, yes, very much like a PA. My knowledge comes from having to supply both general and vocational oversight myself.”

    If you had been doing oversight you should have come across, as I said before:
    https://www.mcnz.org.nz/assets/News-and-Publications/Consultations/Locumtenensconsultation-requestforsubmissions.pdf
    “It might be worth noting that from a primary medical degree point of view,
    Council considers the American DO (Doctor of Osteopathy) degree to be equivalent to the American MD degree”

    which is a NZ consultation document from 2014, before our discussion.

    It looks like you use a well known technique of slinging lots of innaccurate mud in the hope that some of it sticks.

    I wonder if you would take such pride if you had to communicate over a real name.

    Like

  40. And just to clear up again your bit about PA which is a Physician Assistant I repeat I wrote, but you still went on slinging the mud as you see after my comment:
    soundhill1 | February 14, 2015 at 11:01 am |
    Stuartg. No definitely not like a physician assistant.

    Here are the words:
    “Dr Gault is permitted to practise medicine in General Practice at Lake Surgery under the supervision of Dr Francine Meuli between 01 March 2014 and 28 February 2015; at Taupo Medical Centre under the supervision of Dr Francine Meuli between 01 March 2014 and 18 March 2014; under the supervision of Dr Francine Meuli between 01 March 2014 and 28 February 2015.

    The purpose of this registration is to enable Dr Gault to complete Council’s requirements for registration within the general scope.
    Definitions of scopes
    Provisional General

    All new registrants, regardless of seniority, must work under supervision for at least their first 12 months in New Zealand to become familiar with the culture.

    During this time they are registered within a provisional general scope of practice and their performance will be assessed by senior colleagues.

    They will be required to complete certain requirements to be registered within a general scope.

    The only exception to this supervised period is for New Zealand and Australian graduates who have already completed their internship in Australia.”

    Stuartg | February 14, 2015 at 11:01 am |

    soundhill,

    I have worked with several physicians from the USA. They all went directly into practice, no supervision required.

    Mercola is an osteopath. He tells us his website is not “complete, accurate, or current.”

    I think that’s all we need to know about Mercola.”

    However you have changed in teh last few days. But you were continuing to do a lot of damage, nearly a year ago, to your own credibility.

    Like

  41. And Stuartg, when you wrote: “I have worked with several physicians from the USA. They all went directly into practice, no supervision required.”

    You did not seem to have taken in:

    “All new registrants, regardless of seniority, must work under supervision for at least their first 12 months in New Zealand to become familiar with the culture.”

    How about brushing up, and giving you proper ID would help.

    Like

  42. Brian,

    Now on the attack because you can’t defend your belief system?

    You, a person who has repeatedly refused to reveal qualifications, if any, that are relevant to this blog, are demanding to know my exact name, identity, place of work and home address (after all, that’s what my registration number will give).

    Well, even in this discussion, you’ve learned that I sat School Certificate in 5th form, which is a greater qualification than you appear to have acknowledged.

    If I remember correctly, you also know that my studies at University ended at level eight, and that I am vocationally registered.

    As for you, we don’t even know if you managed any high school qualifications – but that you don’t seem to understand simple concepts that were taught to others whilst they were still at high school.

    You have not acknowledged any qualifications in science, rather all your comments point to a lack of knowledge of science but to reliance on a belief system.

    So… You already know my relevant qualifications. My name and registration number is not needed.

    What are your qualifications?

    Like

  43. Ken,

    Those are American paediatricians, too (note spelling).

    An American pediatrician pays more in practice insurance premiums every year than my gross earnings!

    Like

  44. Ken, just sometimes people get good pay because they set up a service people like. I think Mercola set up his health info web stuff before Zuckerberg did Facebook. Facebook sells advertising, Mercola sells products which pays for his site.

    _Academic_ info has a huge amount of money in it: the amount earned for the journal articles purchased over the web completely dwarfs Amazon and Ebay.

    A “shill” is often a small contractor used by a company whose goods are not selling as fast as they wish.

    The picture you posted is saying that web material we see promoting vaccines can be the work of paid contractors who post the material to get their pay rather than because they themselves have their heart in the product they are promoting. They can have numerous IDs and do things such as ask a question about a product and answer it in another alias to make it look as if the product is in demand.

    Some shills can be quite poor people trying to earn enough to just get by on.

    Like

  45. Then Stuartg please specifically apologise to other doctors for unprofessionally besmirching the qualification of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.

    Like

  46. Ken, here is a related scenario for statins, which by the way Mercola also opposes. http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/463873/Experts-recommending-statins-are-paid-by-drugs-firms
    Both statins and vaccines bring in a lot of money.

    Like

  47. In case anyone interpreted my previous comment as medical advice to stop statins if they are having thinking problems or muscle pains, please be aware of reported rebound effects of stopping which need to be explored: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11883-010-0148-x#/page-1

    Like

  48. Don’t concern yourself , Brian.

    I don’t think anyone here would take your advice on such matters any more than they would take the advice of that fraud Mercola.

    Like

  49. Thanks, Ken, as well as the possible real risk of suddenly stopping, I want to examine disclaimers. It has been pointed out that Mercola has a disclaimer. You mentioned him and fluoride so i thought to look that up. The first info I came to was the talk of the warning on the fluoride toothpaste to go to the emergency room if you ingest more than the amount on a brush. The instructions on the toothpaste tube suggest a pea size which might have 0.3mg fluoride in it, and you could get more by drinking a glass of fluoridated water. Fraud?

    Like

  50. Yes, let’s take fluoride which people here are very familiar with.

    Mercola is a repetitive liar regarding community water fluoridation. He is one of the main disseminators of this misinformation and certainly the most common source on popular media like Facebook and twitter. He also finances FAN which promotes his propaganda and links very strongly with his campaigns.

    Like

  51. Ken, the Mercoal site reminded me in the first few minutes about fluoride crossing mouth mucosa. You had disputed that:

    :Ken | August 7, 2015 at 2:48 pm |
    “Brian, “likely to be absorbed” is just not good enough. Given the known inability if the F- anion to transport acriss membranes you need to substantiate that claim. Check out the literature.”

    But you did not comment on my reply:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003996978902194

    Mercola also pointed out that that fluoride in toothpaste will be far more concentrated than that in water.

    So I wondered again if the disabling dizziness I used to get going shopping after using “Maximum Cavity Protection” toothpaste was really from the sweeteners, which I had thought, or may have been from the fluoride. Bit scared to do tests.

    Mercola explores issues and gives another viewpoint for us to choose from. Conventional advice may take a while to catch up.
    https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/vitamind-sun-exposure.pdf
    Mercola and the vitamin D Council still do not think the USA Gov is up with the play.

    Like

  52. Brian: “Then Stuartg please specifically apologise to other doctors for unprofessionally besmirching the qualification of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.” WTF?

    All I have said in the past is that Mercola (or “Mercoal” as you seem to prefer) would have problems getting registered in NZ by either the Medical Council or the Osteopathic Council. Anything else is either your fevered imagination or your belief system in overdrive.

    To be registered with the Medical Council he needs to have passed the USMLE (or possibly the COMLEX?) – and then he and any others would be assessed on a case by case basis. Even if registered he would be required to work under direct supervision for at least a year. His website, advertising and sales practices would probably be viewed as unethical conduct and so count against registration.

    To be registered with the Osteopathic Council, well, let’s quote them:
    “You may apply for registration only if:
    You have a Master of Osteopathy, conferred by Unitec Te Whare Wananga o Wairaka; OR
    You have passed the OCNZ qualifications assessment process; OR
    You are registered with an equivalent Australian registration authority”

    Hmmm… The Osteopathic Council doesn’t quite appear to require world recognised qualifications. Mercola doesn’t seem to qualify for registration as an osteopath in NZ, either.

    So, Brian, do you care to comment further about the knowledge and skills of NZ registered osteopaths? Maybe compare their qualifications with the degrees conferred by the medical schools of Auckland and Dunedin?

    By the way, for someone who is so focussed on the qualifications of others, I notice that you still do not admit to having any qualifications yourself. Do you actually have any? Would you care to enlighten us? Or just leave us with the knowledge that you don’t have any qualifications?

    Like

  53. Stuartg it is my opinion that as a claimed representative of the medical fraternity in NZ you are bringing it into disrepute by way of your continued attempts to obfuscate the qualification of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.

    I believe if I complained to the Medical Council they would find a way to identify you through Ken, who announced my name.

    You have claimed that Dr Gault, who graduated Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine in the year 2000 was being treated in 2014 very much like a PA. That is a physician assistant, and is a result of a lesser qualification.

    Like

  54. So, Brian, you have diligently searched since last August and bene able to find just one old paper indicating a slow rate of isotopic exchange in anaesthetized rats. Yet the consensus is that most membranes only transfer F as HF. You will need to produce something better than this to reverse that consensus.

    This is the problem with Mercola – her makes claims like this without substantiation, or relying on distortion of the science. His material on fluoride is full of lies, misrepresentations and distortions – easily shown.

    he is a fraud and only the most gullible – or ideologically/commercially motivated – would reproduce his claims.

    Do you have a commercial interest in promoting his products and lies?

    Like

  55. Qualifications again, Brian.

    When are we going to hear yours?

    Like

  56. Perhaps you should look up the current practice of your favourite NZ DO? How well are they doing?

    Like

  57. “Physician assistants are nationally certified and state licensed to practice medicine under the supervision of a physician.”

    How is that different from a DO during their first year in NZ?

    Like

  58. Ken that assertion of Mercola’s was in was in a video he did with a dentist trained in public health who had formerly been a fluoridation promoter for some 25 years if I remember.

    I gave the fluoride mucosal absorption cite in an immediate reply to you. Here is another I could have but people sometimes like to discount experiments which describe apparent suffering to animals.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003996968901404
    No mention of HF, only NaF.

    Like

  59. You are out of date Stuartg.
    Any physician, including MD requires a year of supervision on entry to NZ, to get accustomed to the culture. I guess it means less circumcision &c.
    By being out of date, saying USA MDs do nto require supervision for a year, you are implying that a DO is lesser.
    By your logic an MD with 20 years experience is just like a physician assistant when they come.

    Like

  60. Brian, a reason for the extremely slow transfer shown in the papers you cite is that the HF concentration is very low in NaF solutions near neutral pH. In the stomach the low pH means the proportion of F in HF form is much higher.

    However, these two papers describe very artificial situations and given that real time measurements are easily possible with humans the lack of evidence for transfer is the reason why the consensus is that it doesn’t occur. (Although I understand there is evidence for F- transfer across some intestinal membranes).

    The fact is Mercola is well known for promoting lies, misinformation and distortions on community water fluoridation. You are attempting to defend him by deflection into a small area where you can find a few very old papers you think destroys the consensus. They don’t.

    Do you have commercial interests leading to this confirmation bias?

    Like

  61. “How is that different from a DO during their first year in NZ?”
    Because the DO is, in that supervised year, being pointed towards working by themselves and a PA isn’t.

    You volunteered your quals Stuartg, therefore you have to live up to them.

    My training is not to do with health stuff which has always been just an interest to me.

    Like

  62. Brian,

    From Wikipedia: “Physician assistants are nationally certified and state licensed to practice medicine under the supervision of a physician.” Exactly the same applies to a PA in New Zealand.

    As you confirm, a DO in New Zealand has to be nationally certified and may only practice under supervision during their first year.

    So yes, a DO in New Zealand has to work in a similar situation to a PA during their first year in the country. You confirm it, I confirm it. What’s wrong with that?

    Have any DOs worked for longer than a year in NZ? You seem to have the information at your hands and I would be interested to know.

    USA MDs. Hmm… I don’t believe I have mentioned them up to now. Within the last year I have worked alongside American physicians in their first year in NZ who were not working under supervision. I suspect that your perusal of the NZMC website has led to a less than optimal understanding of the intricacies of medical registration within New Zealand.

    You really seem to have an obsession about the qualifications of other people, Brian. It’s almost as though you were envious. Are you certain you don’t have any?

    Liked by 1 person

  63. Stuartg wrote: “from Wikipedia: “Physician assistants are nationally certified and state licensed to practice medicine under the supervision of a physician.” Exactly the same applies to a PA in New Zealand.”

    Yes, where are we going?

    “As you confirm, a DO in New Zealand has to be nationally certified and may only practice under supervision during their first year.

    So yes, a DO in New Zealand has to work in a similar situation to a PA during their first year in the country.”

    And most mammals are born out of wombs. Means something but there are big differences.

    “You confirm it, I confirm it. What’s wrong with that?”

    Some people like different mammals.

    “Have any DOs worked for longer than a year in NZ? You seem to have the information at your hands and I would be interested to know.”

    I looked up few last year on the register, if it still works the same. What has happened to emergency medicine doctor Dr Scott McMaster, DO? Maybe DOs want to travel and broaden experience.

    “USA MDs. Hmm… I don’t believe I have mentioned them up to now.”

    you wrote: “Stuartg | February 14, 2015 at 11:01 am |

    soundhill,

    I have worked with several physicians from the USA. They all went directly into practice, no supervision required.”

    And continuing what you wrote today: “Within the last year I have worked alongside American physicians in their first year in NZ who were not working under supervision. I suspect that your perusal of the NZMC website has led to a less than optimal understanding of the intricacies of medical registration within New Zealand.”

    “intricacies” or rule bending. I quoted what was said in the Gault blurb.

    “You really seem to have an obsession about the qualifications of other people, Brian. It’s almost as though you were envious. Are you certain you don’t have any?”

    Ken agreed with me they are not relevant of commenters on this discussion group, “Dr Connett”

    I have no health quals and never attempted any.

    But you brought up Mercola to take a swing. The way you are doing it discredits your fraternity.

    And Ken repeatedly puts him down.

    It is a bit like how people have been libelling Seralini. And I note even after he has been successful in a case against one of the libellers.

    Like

  64. Brian,

    “USA MD” – your words.
    “American physician” – my words.

    If I had meant “USA MD”, I would have written “USA MD”. Just read what is there and don’t try to (mis)interpret.

    Like

  65. Brian,

    Have you finally learned what the anti-rubella IgG titre means? And that it’s not what you believed? Just noting your sudden silence on the subject.

    Have you managed to “check up on the risk of giving the 3 vaccines all together” yet? Or do you still believe that one needle is riskier than three?

    Do you still believe that Mercola’s website is about medicine, diagnosis, treatment, cures and prevention of disease, even when he tells you it isn’t? “The information on this website is not intended … as medical advice” and “These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”

    Do you still believe it when you tell me that what Mercola does is “conventional medicine”? After all, that’s what the qualifications that you repeat are all about. Those qualifications, according to you, tell us he is a “shill” for the “expensive and dangerous treatments” with “very a high cause of death” from “iatrogenics” that you believe is “conventional medicine.” If he’s not practising “conventional medicine” then how are his qualifications relevant? Paradox?

    Why do you still respect the proven fraud Wakefield?

    Have you looked up how your Taupo DO is doing? I suspect that you believed she was still on the NZ medical register. Since she isn’t, she never worked in NZ without supervision.

    Are there any unsupervised DOs on the NZ medical register? You’re rather silent on that question.

    Brian, you are doing a good job of demonstrating a belief system. You believe that what you are doing is science. You believe that you have a unique perspective on the world – and you are right. It is unique. Unfortunately, it’s not science.

    The reality is that you are subjectively choosing what you want to believe. Objective reality is not like that

    You determinedly hang on to your chosen beliefs, getting more flustered and making more spelling mistakes as the evidence against those beliefs mounts, until the evidence suddenly overwhelms your beliefs. Then you rapidly change the subject and there is silence about that belief. If many beliefs fall in a short time it’s almost like flight of ideas.

    Let’s contrast that to science: a method of investigation where ideas change as new data comes to hand. If data shows that someone’s idea is wrong, it is acknowledged, discarded, and the discussion continues. Everyone learns something new and ultimately new knowledge is generated.

    Science – a method of investigating and understanding objective reality.

    Liked by 1 person

  66. Stuartg: Do you still believe that Mercola’s website is about medicine, diagnosis, treatment, cures and prevention of disease, even when he tells you it isn’t? “The information on this website is not intended … as medical advice” and “These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.”

    And on the Vitamin D Consensus I cited, (ACC, Cancer Society, Min of Health) it says: “The information provided here applies to the general population and is not
    designed to replace specific advice to individuals given by a medical practitioner.”

    Like

  67. Stuartg: “Have you finally learned what the anti-rubella IgG titre means? And that it’s not what you believed? Just noting your sudden silence on the subject.”

    Does it work the same as for the other measles?

    I cited there is less morbidity In an individual when the titre is above a given level. You say zero, they didn’t.

    That is one sort of “level.”
    Another sort of “level” is what percentage of the population are above that first level.

    Like

  68. “Do you still believe it when you tell me that what Mercola does is “conventional medicine”? After all, that’s what the qualifications that you repeat are all about. Those qualifications, according to you, tell us he is a “shill” for the “expensive and dangerous treatments” with “very a high cause of death” from “iatrogenics” that you believe is “conventional medicine.” If he’s not practising “conventional medicine” then how are his qualifications relevant? Paradox?”

    On the NZ register is emergency and hospital medicine doctor Scott McMaster, DO. He was trained at Midwestern which is the new name for Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine where Mercola trained.

    A “shill” works dishonestly like someone with two Facebook accounts trying to create market interest in a product.. Serious stuff:
    “Trade Me welcomed the $42,000 fine imposed on a car trading company in the Auckland District Court today, as The Auto Co Ltd was sentenced for its part in the largest case of shill bidding in Trade Me’s history”
    http://www.trademe.co.nz/trust-safety/2013/5/23/autoco-shill-bidding-fine/

    Like

  69. “If he’s not practising “conventional medicine” then how are his qualifications relevant? Paradox?”

    He can use whatever treatment fits the situation. A NZ osteopath has to refer patients on for allopathy, so there is that suspicion that they might not do so soon enough. A USA Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine can choose the best treatment and do it straight away. And attend to the whole birth process. When he knows a regular allopathic approach is fraught with iatrogenics he may have other directions. Prevention may be a large factor.

    I suppose if you are treating vitamin B12 deficiency anaemia you prescribe cyanocobalamin. But Mercola could do Methylcobalamin, one less conversion step for the body.

    Like

  70. Stuartg: “Let’s contrast that to science: a method of investigation where ideas change as new data comes to hand. If data shows that someone’s idea is wrong, it is acknowledged, discarded, and the discussion continues. Everyone learns something new and ultimately new knowledge is generated.”

    Which can be a painful process in health. Captain Scott tried to obey science in choosing food for his trans_Antarctic journey. And scurvy became a problem though it had been known how to cure it in 1750 – 1800.

    “Except for the nature of vitamin C, eighteenth century physicians knew this too. But in the second half of the nineteenth century, the cure for scurvy was lost. The story of how this happened is a striking demonstration of the problem of induction, and how progress in one field of study can lead to unintended steps backward in another.

    An unfortunate series of accidents conspired with advances in technology to discredit the cure for scurvy. What had been a simple dietary deficiency became a subtle and unpredictable disease that could strike without warning. Over the course of fifty years, scurvy would return to torment not just Polar explorers, but thousands of infants born into wealthy European and American homes. And it would only be through blind luck that the actual cause of scurvy would be rediscovered, and vitamin C finally isolated, in 1932.”

    And in the Antarctic about scurvy: “They had a theory of the disease that made sense, fit the evidence, but was utterly wrong. They had arrived at the idea of an undetectable substance in their food, present in trace quantities, with a direct causative relationship to scurvy, but they thought of it in terms of a poison to avoid. In one sense, the additional leap required for a correct understanding was very small. In another sense, it would have required a kind of Copernican revolution in their thinking.”

    My words: It would have been dishonourable for Scott to ignore the current “science” in preparation of the rations. And I think such problems exist today, not only in science. In some religions we even get “honour killings.” Though Scott managed to change the diet to fresh seal meat and let go of the faith in the scientifically prepared rations. And perhaps you might think about Mercola like that. Though he is definitely science-based but sees through the “honour science” that you seem to wish to impose on me, Stuartg.

    Liked by 1 person

  71. Sorry missed the URL for last comment:
    http://www.idlewords.com/2010/03/scott_and_scurvy.htm

    Stuartg: “Why do you still respect the proven fraud Wakefield? ”

    Even prisoners can be given jobs.

    People are trying to get others to disregard Seralini’s work because some rats got big tumours. He was ethics-based and took photos of it all. But even if we believe animals unduly suffered should we disbelieve/cover up results that may lead us to keys to something like the obesity epidemic?

    I think you are looking for a way to get people to ignore Wakefield’s work because some of it is uncomfortable for you and you cannot argue with it so you attack the messenger and hope some of the mud will stick. On this group we are not suppose to do ad hominems.

    It is a very common procedure in politics.

    Like

  72. Stuartg wroter: Brian,

    “USA MD” – your words.
    “American physician” – my words.

    If I had meant “USA MD”, I would have written “USA MD”. Just read what is there and don’t try to (mis)interpret.”

    So what quals and where do they fit in the NZ scheme?

    Like

  73. Stuartg: “Have you looked up how your Taupo DO is doing? I suspect that you believed she was still on the NZ medical register. Since she isn’t, she never worked in NZ without supervision.”

    There’s probably also MDs who move on. Since there are fewer in total DOs it would take longer before one would stay.

    Or maybe the DOs feel unwanted because of such as Stuartg’s riddles.

    Like

  74. Stuartg wrote:
    “Have you managed to “check up on the risk of giving the 3 vaccines all together” yet? Or do you still believe that one needle is riskier than three?”

    Sorry this is getting a bit drawn out. Stuartg gets cross with me if I do not answer promptly.

    So please help me go through where some of this is pointing, without ad hominems toi anybody, thanks.

    https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?q=related:x8PVB1cMiKcJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

    Like

  75. Ken wrote: “And however may “mistakes” the cynic can find in our scientific knowledge they are always unable to suggest a way of correcting these mistakes except more science.”

    Need to specify assumptions.

    For example “science-based medicine” suggests vitamin supplementation is not needed. They are assuming a particular type of population/conditions.
    Their doctor has only seen one case of scurvy. Doctors should travel, and “science-based medicine” attend to their observations.

    Like

  76. You are burbling again, Brian. Shilling perhaps, but still burbling.

    Like

  77. Here is some more burbling:

    Radionz news has just given official warning of not feeding herbicide tolerant swedes to animals in the spring.

    These products are the result of “science” and Minister Nathan Guy formerly appeared to be trying to protect the sellers: farmers should beware of ALL brassicas.

    Now there is admittance that these “science-based” swedes are much higher in glucosinolates.

    Here is the history, sorry today’s news not included:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/search/results?q=swedes&utf8=%E2%9C%93

    Ken if you say more science is needed to overcome the problems of science then who bears the costs? The Minister says the suppliers. They have been misled by the “science” and may now be dubious about future science.

    Like

  78. I told y’all that he’s an idiot.

    Like

  79. Richard,

    I agree. Fulfils every definition in the last two aeons.

    Like

  80. So clever Richard and Stuartg will be enjoying proving milk from the cows fed the science diet is just great in all respects. The idiots will be avoiding the extra glucosinolates which get into the milk.

    Like

  81. Why should I point out his errors further? It’s not as if he’s using science and will acknowledge the errors.

    There’s no way anyone using a belief system instead of science is going to acknowledge that their beliefs are wrong.

    He provides a really good example of someone stuck in a belief system.

    I think I’ll go and watch a real scientist in action (just got a DVD of the late Mick Aston in Time Team).

    Like

  82. Stuartg, some people can taste the difference in the milk in the season when the cows are fed on brassicas. Glucosinolates may have some beneficial properties, but they also can suppress thyroid function.

    I think what is really bothering you about my recent comments is how I am parroting what many “pro-science” types do: identifying the products of science with science. “GMOs are ‘science’ and non-luddite.”.

    I suppose I should have more plainly said to Ken to make plain the distinction between products and process of science.

    Where Ken says: “Science as a method of investigation remains by far the best way we have of understanding objective reality,” please do not take that to mean all the products of science are just great.

    Like

  83. Brian,

    That’s an excellent confirmation that you don’t understand science. It confirms you are using a belief system instead of science.

    You are selecting your beliefs to conform to a reality that only exists within your head. Those beliefs are never discarded, even when they are demonstrated by others to be false or self-contradictory. All you do is change the subject to another of your beliefs.

    Science is a process. It doesn’t have physical products. It’s all about understanding reality. If an idea is shown not to reflect objective reality, it is discarded.

    The ideas of science are then taken by engineers, pharmacists, farmers, architects, etc, and used to provide physical products. If the understanding of objective reality produced by science was wrong, then those physical products manufactued by others, that you use every minute of your life, would be useless.

    I have to acknowledge an assumption I made for the above statement. Since you use the University of Google, you probably also have a roof over your head, wear some form of clothing and eat food produced by farmers or hunters. Those products derive from the ideas of science but are only products of science according to the belief system in your head.

    Like

  84. Stuartg:”Science is a process. It doesn’t have physical products. It’s all about understanding reality.”

    Thanks for spelling that out. My point exactly.

    “{The ideas of science are then taken by engineers, pharmacists, farmers, architects, etc, and used to provide physical products.”

    And they and their henchmen/shills usually label people who urge caution
    about those products as Luddites or science haters or deniers. &c.

    ” If the understanding of objective reality produced by science was wrong, then those physical products manufactued by others, that you use every minute of your life, would be useless.”

    So what about HT swedes?

    Like

  85. Stuartg: “Since you use the University of Google,”

    I go back before Google. It is useful, especially with its filtering help such as in scholar.google.co.nz

    I also go back before the Internet. It was fun when indexes started to be put on CDRoms.Before that it was a matter of consulting the huge bound paper indexes.

    ” you probably also have a roof over your head, wear some form of clothing and eat food produced by farmers or hunters. Those products derive from the ideas of science but are only products of science according to the belief system in your head.”

    Stuartg, it is great that you want people to distinguish between a “product of science,” and a “product deriving from the ideas of science.”

    Sorry I missed out “deriving from the ideas.”

    And I am pointing out that technology sellers like to leave out the words “product of” and try to cultivate identification of idea of *the products* being *the science itself*, in the minds of the public.

    Ken quote this on 19 Oct 2014″
    “Some Fear Ebola Outbreak Could Make Nation Turn to Science

    NEW YORK The Borowitz Report—There is a deep-seated fear among some Americans that an Ebola outbreak could make the country turn to science. In interviews conducted across the nation, leading anti-science activists expressed their concern that the American people, wracked with anxiety over the possible spread of the virus, might desperately look to science to save the day.“It’s a very human reaction,” said Harland Dorrinson, a prominent anti-science activist from Springfield, Missouri. “If you put them under enough stress, perfectly rational people will panic and start believing in science.””

    Was the Borowitz report just trying to get more money to the vaccine researchers and identify vaccines with science? I wonder about whether they would be prepared to accept the way Nigeria eliminated ebola as anything to do with scientific reasoning:
    “” Nigeria’s quick responses, including intense and rapid contact tracing, surveillance of potential contacts, and isolation of all contacts were of particular importance in controlling and limiting the outbreak, according to the ECDC.”

    Should or shouldn’t Nigeria’s approach be called “turning to science?”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_virus_disease_in_Nigeria

    Like

  86. Stuartg, here is another angle on the use of the word “science.”

    “…an independent review that found that the commonly prescribed antidepressant drug Paxil (paroxetine) is not safe for teenagers, despite the fact that a large amount of literature already previously suggested this. The 2001 drug trial that took place, funded by GlaxoSmithKline, found that these drugs were completely safe, and used that ‘science’ to market Paxil as safe for teenagers.”

    Science 1: a method of investigation
    Science 2: a product deriving from the ideas of sc3ence 1.
    Science 3: a point in science 1 frozen in concrete and used as a basis for getting away with marketing stuff.

    Like

  87. Sorry missed the URL for last comment, which also refers to herbicide which I mentioned above as possibly connected to GMO effect on obesity.

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/12/22/6-reasons-were-fatter-than-30-years-ago-its-not-food-or-exercise/

    And here is an abstract which must take away some peoples trust in what is put across as “science.”

    http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356%2815%2900429-1/abstract

    Like

  88. “All you do is change the subject to another of your beliefs.”

    As in:
    – Cows, brassicas and thyroid function…
    – Herbicides and GMOs…
    – Vaccines, Ebola and Nigeria…
    – Paroxetine and teenagers…
    – Increased calories and reduced exercise not a cause of obesity…

    Or maybe it’s the Gish gallop, or flight of ideas?

    Like

  89. Starve it.
    Feeding it will never kill it.

    Like

  90. The Stuartg Protocol:

    Doctor is taking med student on rounds. Asks patient how they are feeling today. Idiot intelligent patient tries to elucidate with some illustrative matters and asks doc a difficult question which he cannot answer. (Never do that.) Doc labels as flight of ideas and adds antidepressant to chart. Embarrassed student who knew the answer does not dare say anything.

    Like

  91. Aww, OK Richard.

    But sometimes it’s fun. 😀

    Like

  92. “soundhill1 | January 7, 2016 at 12:27 pm |

    Technology sales entities often like to claim they are scientists, or doing science, but their goal is often to sell a product, not to try to investigate. Rather than honestly report their investigations they may selectively report.

    Stuartg | January 7, 2016 at 4:36 pm |

    Mercola is an excellent example.”

    In trying to put down Mercola you people do not look very professional.

    Take a leaf from his book as he puts stuff down:

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/01/16/how-oil-industry-conquered-world.aspx?e_cid=20160116Z3_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20160116Z3&et_cid=DM94903&et_rid=1315002564

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s