M. McGregor ([info]m_mcgregor) wrote,
@ 2008-05-13 15:10:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:10 percent of brain - 100 percent stupid, science and/or skepticism

List of random falsehoods ignorant people believe are true.
Here, with no explanation for them and no reason for posting them other than I'm annoyed and grumpy, is a list of lies and stupidity that ignorant people believe. Remember, ignorance is not terrible, but willfull ignorance is. I urge you to use the internet and found out why these are all false. Wikipedia's a perfectly fine start. I could post all the links, but in my grumpy and curmudgeony anger attempt to promote critical thinking, I'll just make you do all the work yourself.

Things that are not true:

1. Vaccines (and to a greater extent, thimerosal) cause autism.

2. Homeopathy is a catch-all category of natural cures, which includes basically anything made out of herbs, plants, or anything not FDA approved to actually treat anything.

3. Natural is good for you, or is somehow innately superior to man-made products.

4. Evolution claims we all came from monkeys.

5. An eyeball is too complex to have evolved over time, and must have been intelligently designed.

6. Evolution is a theory about how life began, or as Ben Stein puts it "Evolution says we all came from a lightning strike in a mud puddle!"

7. Herbs, plants, and any other natural products that aren't FDA approved to actually treat illness or disease are secretly effective, and perfectly safe to use. There is of course no reason to ever mention to a doctor that you're taking an herbal supplement, because herbs are magic, and fix your problems without causing any of those pesky chemical reactions that might, you know, kill you.

8. Chi exists.

9. Western/Ancient/Traditional remedies have been used for thousands of years, and are therefore superior to modern remedies.

10. Kevin Trudeau is just trying to help!

11. You need to cleanse your body of toxins.

12. Organic [anything] is innately good, and better than non-organic [anything].

13. You should be taking vitamins every day, no matter how good your diet is.

14. There's no such thing as a coincidence.

15. Quantum mechanics means anything is possible.

16. The Founding Fathers of America were (especially Thomas Jefferson) all Christian.

17. Homeopathy is not stupid.

18. The full moon makes people crazy, or the full moon makes crazy people crazier, usually resulting in hospitals being busier on full moons.

19. Your tongue only tastes certain kinds of flavors on certain sections of its surface: sweet on the tip, bitter to the back-sides, etc.

20. There is no gravity on the moon.

21. The phases of the moon come from the earth's shadow obscuring part of the moon's surface.

22. Disease and illness can be overcome through sheer willpower.


And of course:

23. People only use ten percent of their brains.




(Post a new comment)


[info]artistshipper
2008-05-13 08:18 pm UTC (link)
Actually, Chi does exist. It just isn't what most people think it is. Chi can be translated as "breath", y'see.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]m_mcgregor
2008-05-14 05:04 am UTC (link)
Okay, Chi doesn't exist in your foot.

My favorite chi-related video is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I in which a "Kiai Master" shows off how super fantastic his Chi powers are by defeating a bunch of his very agreeable students without ever touching them, just punching the air in front of them. He then challenges any Mixed Martial Arts fighter 5000 dollars that he can defeat them with his breath powers.

Unfortunately, one of them takes him up on the offer.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]artistshipper, 2008-05-14 07:19 am UTC

(Anonymous)
2008-05-13 08:53 pm UTC (link)
Oh nooooo, all my beliefs shattered.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]m_mcgregor
2008-05-14 05:04 am UTC (link)
Is it wrong that I get a little thrill when I destroy hopes and dreams?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Origins of the Earth
(Anonymous)
2008-05-13 10:09 pm UTC (link)
Multiple choice question seen recently in The Economist (fer cryin' out loud):

The origins of the Earth are explained by:
(a) the Book of Genesis.
(b) the theory of evolution.
(c) Intelligent Design.

Errrm. What is a secular humanist who uses more than 10% of his brain supposed to choose?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Origins of the Earth
[info]mymatedave
2008-05-13 10:27 pm UTC (link)
None of the above?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Origins of the Earth - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-14 05:06 am UTC
Re: Origins of the Earth - [info]mymatedave, 2008-05-14 08:01 am UTC
Re: Origins of the Earth - [info]jlbarnett, 2008-05-15 01:12 pm UTC
Re: Origins of the Earth
[info]unicornzvi
2008-05-14 01:48 pm UTC (link)
The answer is (a) although not in a way most fanatics would take it - there is actually no contradiction between the description of how the universe (and Earth) was created in the book of genesis and the commonly accepted theory of the big bang followed by gradual accretion into stars and supernovas seeding higher elements, etc... Well as long as you don't try and insist every "day" was the same length. My high school physics lab had on the walls posters detailing each "day" and explaining in terms of physics and modern time keeping what happened in each and how long they lasted.

The Unicorn

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Origins of the Earth - [info]rudyhenkel, 2008-05-14 06:04 pm UTC
Re: Origins of the Earth - [info]unicornzvi, 2008-05-15 06:26 am UTC
Re: Origins of the Earth - [info]higherlogics.blogspot.com, 2008-05-16 05:45 pm UTC
Re: Origins of the Earth - [info]jlbarnett, 2008-05-15 01:14 pm UTC
number 19
[info]infin1x
2008-05-14 12:59 am UTC (link)
Number nineteen pisses me off, because my elementary teachers actually taught me that in third grade.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: number 19
[info]fluffybkitty
2008-05-14 02:59 am UTC (link)
Yeah me too, except it was year 9 for me. I can still remember the lesson too and how fascinated I was with it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: number 19 - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-14 05:07 am UTC
Re: number 19 - [info]jlbarnett, 2008-05-15 01:18 pm UTC
No One
[info]stormrizing
2008-05-14 01:48 am UTC (link)
Do I believe number one? No. But I would not dismiss it as you seem to have. One side or the other is mistaken. We will not know for sure until studies are done. Ref at bottom.


"In fact, no study has conclusively linked thimerosal-containing vaccines to neurodegeneration. Equally true, however, is that no one has studied the long-term effects of exposing children to low doses of a mercury compound that has been in use for almost 70 years.

This much is known: the human body breaks down thimerosal to form ethylmercury, a chemical cousin of methylmercury, about which more is known. In some studies, prenatal exposure to low doses of methylmercury has been associated with subtle neurodevelopmental abnormalities. In 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration determined that under the recommended childhood immunization schedule, some infants risked exposure to cumulative doses of ethylmercury that exceeded some federal safety guidelines governing exposure to methylmercury. Furthermore, high doses of mercury compounds, including thimerosal, ethylmercury and methylmercury, are known to be kidney and nerve toxins. In July 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service recommended removal of thimerosal from vaccines as soon as possible."





http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012339

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: No One
[info]m_mcgregor
2008-05-14 04:59 am UTC (link)
Yes, we will know, because the studies have been done.

One side or the other is mistaken. We will not know for sure until studies are done. Ref at bottom.


One side is mistaken. They've dreamt up a causal relationship where one does not exist, and where no evidence for one exists.

Methyl Mercury (the stuff everyone thinks of when they think of mercury - quicksilver) is not the same as Ethyl Mercury. One is highly toxic (after a certain dosage) and can cause neurological damage. The other is not. They are not the same compound.

There have been multiple studies done on thimerosal, and there has never been any link found between it and an increase in autism rates, or any kind of cause-effect between it and autism. Despite this, mostly to quell the unfounded fears of the ignorant, Thimerosal was REMOVED from the MMR vaccines many years ago. Autism diagnoses (not rates, the rates have stayed the same) have continued to increase despite the removal of Thimerosal.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10997.html: From the summary of this report done by the Institute of Medicine (non-profit, non-governmental orgnization and one of the United States National Academies, like the Academy of Sciences):

"The committee reviewed the extant published and unpublished epidemiological studies regarding causality and studies of potential biologic mechanisms by which these immunizations might cause autism. Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism finds that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism."

That's science-speak for "VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM."

It's meaningless to say we haven't studied the longterm effects of thimerosal in children, because no effect has yet been found. There's no evidence that suggests to us that we should have to study it in the first place. That's not to say that we shouldn't - absolutely, let's study the longterm effects of thimerosal on children - but that is to say that you don't start panicking about vacccines and stop giving them to your children for a lie.

Of course high doses of mercury is a toxin. Children are not getting high doses of it in their vaccines, nor are you when you get a flu shot. That's nto the argument.

Vaccines do not cause autism. This is as scientific a fact as you can basically get. The studies have been done. That IoM link is the eighth and final report of a series of studies that began over ten years ago.

Also: longterm health effects of thimerosal in vaccines for children is meaningless anyway. Autism is not a "longterm" effect that suddenly triggers itself when you're twenty years old and sitting in Psych 101. Autism is almost always diagnosed at a very young age, and is not something that "kicks in" at some random time. It just so happens that the age that autism usually gets diagnosed is the same age that most children are getting many of these vaccines.

Vaccines do NOT cause autism. Stop it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: No One - [info]stormrizing, 2008-05-14 04:09 pm UTC
Amusing as Always
[info]rudyhenkel
2008-05-14 04:04 am UTC (link)
You've actually taught me something with number 21. Thanks for that. You should add to it the belief that seasons are caused by how far the earth is from the sun.

Some videos I think you would enjoy:

Enemies of Reason (w/ Richard Dawkins)

Episode 1 - Exposing things like astrology, dousing, psychic healing, chi, etc.
Part 1 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKpKU9ss7w0

Episode 2 - Exposing things like herbal remedies, homeopathy, etc.
Part 2 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBGYR3F3O14



Brilliant explanation by James Randi on the stupidity of homeopathy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Amusing as Always
[info]rudyhenkel
2008-05-14 04:05 am UTC (link)
Argh! The Christian-founding-fathers thing is especially irritating. I'm working on a counter-essay to that for my site, www.marylandatheists.org. If you know of any good sources for information on that front, I'd be grateful.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Amusing as Always
[info]m_mcgregor
2008-05-14 05:11 am UTC (link)
Randi's lecture of homeopathy is a true classic and one of thousands of reasons that the guy is one of my heroes.

If you weren't aware of it, they've recently started putting up the full lectures of many of the speakers from the first two Amazing Meetings (the James Randi Educational Foundation's annual skeptical convention) on youtube. There's some great stuff in there.

http://www.youtube.com/user/AmazingMeetingVideos

One of my favorites is the Penn and Teller set from the 2nd meeting where they trick Randi into wearing a set of handcuffs and leave him with a big pile of keys to free himself so he'll have to sit there while they do their Q&A. Someone comes in to tell them that Randi was supposed to be speaking in another room 5 minutes ago, so Penn gets up to give him the real key and admit the joke was that he never gave him the real one. Instead, Randi just...

Well, he gets out in such a fashion that Teller can't shut up about it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Amusing as Always - [info]rudyhenkel, 2008-05-14 05:26 am UTC
Re: Amusing as Always - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-14 05:33 am UTC
Re: Amusing as Always - [info]rudyhenkel, 2008-05-14 05:50 am UTC
Re: Amusing as Always - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-14 05:58 am UTC
Re: Amusing as Always - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-14 05:58 am UTC
Re: Amusing as Always - [info]rudyhenkel, 2008-05-14 07:48 am UTC
Re: Amusing as Always - [info]rudyhenkel, 2008-05-14 07:52 am UTC
Re: Amusing as Always - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-14 09:18 am UTC
Re: Amusing as Always - [info]jlbarnett, 2008-05-15 05:06 pm UTC
Re: Amusing as Always - [info]rudyhenkel, 2008-05-18 12:51 am UTC
Re: Amusing as Always - (Anonymous), 2008-05-20 09:47 am UTC

[info]thule222
2008-05-14 04:37 am UTC (link)
8. Chi exists.

Well of course it does. How do you think the Force works?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]m_mcgregor
2008-05-14 05:11 am UTC (link)
Midichlorians.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mymatedave, 2008-05-14 08:07 am UTC
some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies.
(Anonymous)
2008-05-14 08:42 am UTC (link)

Science proves this.
I remember reading news (based on scientific papers) about this.

For instance certain 'cures' contain amino-acids that are necessary for life but not produced in our bodies.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies.
[info]m_mcgregor
2008-05-14 09:17 am UTC (link)
I would be happy to comment on any news story you can show me that supports this claim.

Certainly there are ancient remedies that were effective. They're just not more effective than 99% of modern remedies. Willowbark tea can help your headache. That's because it contains salicyclic acid. Scientists figured that out and decided to make a highly concentrated pill. They called it aspirin.

I'm not saying ancient remedies were never effective. I'm saying that modern therapies and remedies are far superior in almost every instance.

And I'll also add that while some ancient remedies were effective, most were not. Infant mortality rates and general life-expectancy during the middle ages kind of speaks for itself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies. - [info]wobin, 2008-05-14 12:33 pm UTC
Re: some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies. - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-14 02:47 pm UTC
Re: some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies. - [info]wobin, 2008-05-16 08:33 am UTC
Re: some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies. - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-16 04:40 pm UTC
Re: some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies. - (Anonymous), 2008-05-16 02:19 pm UTC
Re: some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies. - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-16 04:43 pm UTC
Re: some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies. - [info]jlbarnett, 2008-05-16 05:01 pm UTC
Re: some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies. - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-16 05:12 pm UTC
Re: some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies. - [info]higherlogics.blogspot.com, 2008-05-16 05:57 pm UTC
Re: some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to modern remedies.
(Anonymous)
2008-05-15 06:42 am UTC (link)
Make that some Ancient/Traditional remedies are superior to some modern remedies. Forex. for chronic pain relief of severe pains such as people suffering from terminal cancer or AIDS tend to encounter smoking pot is better then almost all modern pain relief methods. ALMOST being the key word since processing the active ingredient into a calibrated and measured dose of the drug which can be swallowed or injected is MUCH better then smoking pot. And the same is true for any Ancient/Traditional remedy which actually does any good. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions every year looking at these 'Ancient/Traditional remedies' and finding which are actually helpful and why they are and under what conditions do they do more harm then good.

Granted they average somewhere around 15 years between "this thing actually does help people sometimes" and "we now have an FDA approved drug/treatment that doctors can prescribe without risking their license". So if you want you can take those Ancient/Traditional remedies that have been confirmed to have some benefit and unless you're unlucky so long as you take reasonable precautions you probably won't discover one of the sets of conditions under which the drug/treatment causes more harm then good. Probably, so do you feel lucky?

The Unicorn

P.S
The above of course assumes that the plants you used in your self medication are exactly the same species as the one which was identified as having some benefit and that it wasn't forex, grown under the rules for ornamental plants (which allow far more toxic herbicides and insecticides to be used then food plants, much less medicinal ones)

The Unicorn

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]unicornzvi
2008-05-14 02:00 pm UTC (link)
I'd object to numbers 18 and 22. While people don't become crazy(or crazier) due to the moon being full many beliefs (crazy or otherwise) have their adherents preforming crazy stuff during the full moon so the effects to an outside observer are identical.

"sheer willpower" and personal belief that you will recover can significantly assist in curing whatever ails you weather that's a cold or cancer. This means that most illnesses can be overcome through sheer will power, although of course all else being equel you'd have a much better chance of surviving if you go to a doctor.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]m_mcgregor
2008-05-14 02:56 pm UTC (link)
The Lunar effect has been studied for decades. It's an urban legend and nothing more. There is no increase in crime or hospital attendance during a full moon. Whether or not people have "crazy" rituals they perform on the nights of the full moon isn't something I can speak on, since crazy in that case is pretty much subjective. But going on the basis of crime and hospital attendance, the moon don't mean squat.

As for the sheer willpower thing, well that's something that's pretty personal to me, so I'll try not to get riled up. Simply put, no, you cannot overcome most illnesses through sheer willpower. If you get the common cold, your willpower is not going to effect whether or not you are cured. If you get cancer, your willpower does not determine whether or not you live or die.

There are millions of people who die every year who had all the willpower in the world. There are people who are cured of terrible diseases who had no willpower at all.

Now that's not to say willpower doesn't help. Not being depressed, being active, struggling to survive and do everything you need to do to be cured, that's all going to help. But at the end of the day if you have Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma or Hepatitis or Pneumonia, then it's not willpower that's going to cure you, it's medicine.

What happens is that there are people who will get diseases and then will recover on their own. People with diseases that should be fatal sometimes pull through, and we attribute their survival to willpower. To me, this is an insult to the people who died from these illnesses. Most were no less determined to survive.

It's also a detriment to people who really are ill. I've known people (I'm a little wary about using anecdotes to support my argument, but oh well) who thought that people who were sick and not getting better were simply not trying hard enough to recover. It's similar to the claim that if someone's dying then it's because they sinned or because they're infected with a demon or something like that.

We'd all like to believe that if we were sick, our sheer willingness to survive would allow us to pull through. This is a nice fantasy, but it's not a reality, and almost anyone who's lost a loved one to illness can attest to it.

Willpower helps you cope and it helps you fight, but it doesn't decide whether you win or lose in a battle like that. Just like someone who gets shot in the heart doesn't survive through sheer willpower, so too does someone with heart disease not survive through sheer willpower.

Our minds control only so much. Probably cause we're only using 10% of them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]unicornzvi, 2008-05-15 06:55 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-05-16 10:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-16 10:50 pm UTC
re:number 9, number 9, number 9
[info]gpi_s_avery
2008-05-14 07:04 pm UTC (link)
Sorry about the white album ref there, but ya know, gotta do it when ya can.

Okay this one I've an issue with, Mac.

9. Western/Ancient/Traditional remedies have been used for thousands of years, and are therefore superior to modern remedies.

First off, this statement has some assumptions and some serious bias built in.

It's true that a good portion of Traditional or Ancient remedies are pure bunk, but many of them also proving in the lab to have serious science in them.

Take Willow bark tea, where do you think Aspirin came from in the first place, Mac?
Salicylic acid derivative medicines have been in use for thousands of years, noone knew why they worked, they just did.

We've only begun to delve into the medicine chest that evolution has provided us in the natural world.
Take Devil's Claw (Harpagophytum procumbens) for example, it's been a staple medicinal herb in africa for centuries. Now the German Commission E and ESCOP are looking at it as an alternative pair reliever and anti inflamatory drug that doesn't have the side effects of Ibuprofen. http://content.herbalgram.org/iherb/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=2285

Furthermore, look into some of the actions of companies like Monsanto. Large pharmaceuticals are busy sending teams out world wide to harvest knowledge of folk remedies from indigenous peoples everywhere. What they do is return to labs with those components and attempt to see if there is any validity to the claims of those remedies. If there is, they very quickly slap patents on those compounds and claim a new "discovery".

This sort of tactic has been a standby for Pharma companies for decades. Case in point. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/jan/31/gm.food
Monsanto got a patent on Basmati rice in a texas court in 1997. Basmati rice... the rice that Indian farmers have been growing for centuries.
They didn't actually invent it, or engineer it, they just slapped a claim on "discovering" it. Monsanto has been know for this sort of practice. Looking for naturally existing products of compounds, and then slapping pharma patents on them when noone else has done so already.

Case in point
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFDD163DF93AA35755C0A964958260
"The work, by researchers from the University of Chicago Medical Center, involves a chemical extracted from celery. In laboratory animals, the researchers found, it can lower blood pressure by relaxing smooth muscles that line the blood vessels.

Most current remedies work less directly and result in unwanted effects as well as the desired reduction in blood pressure. If the finding can be confirmed in people, the research may one day lead to a new treatment free of distressing side effects like impotence and dizziness that plague current remedies. "

I could go on and keep giving examples, where new compounds that we didn't realize existed are being shown in labs to actually exist and have genuine basis for proving ancient remedies, but I think that doing so would only bloat this already bloated post.

Now, myself, I'm not saying that ALL such cures, or even a majority, are based in fact. But we are discovering that there's a lot in the biological world that we just didn't realize existed, and some of the folk cures and remedies leverage actual compounds and effects that modern medicine has not been able to replicate in labs.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: number 9, number 9, number 9
[info]m_mcgregor
2008-05-14 07:47 pm UTC (link)
Take Willow bark tea, where do you think Aspirin came from in the first place, Mac?


I'm not sure, but the me of about ten hours ago seemed to know when he/I said: "Certainly there are ancient remedies that were effective. They're just not more effective than 99% of modern remedies. Willowbark tea can help your headache. That's because it contains salicyclic acid. Scientists figured that out and decided to make a highly concentrated pill. They called it aspirin. "

Your entire point here is that herbs and the like contain chemicals that pharmaceutical companies, scientists, and doctor's identify, isolate, and then use to treat symptoms. That's modern medicine. Everything you talk about is modern medicine and science. Traditional methods are not used because they've been "time tested", they're ACTUALLY tested and all the ridiculous crap that does nothing is thrown out. The stuff that actually works - aka salicyclic acid in willowbark - gets isolated and concentrated.

When you point out to me that there is a study being done to show that herb X is being used to treat Y, that's not an argument for why ancient medicine is superior to modern medicine. That's an argument for why modern medicine is superior. Because we test, we study, and then we make that into medicine. In America, that medicine becomes regulated and put through many trials before someone can claim it is an effective treatment for any disease.

You cannot sell a drug in this country that claims it can treat a disease unless it's proven that it can actually treat it. Herbal remedies get around this by never quite claiming it'll do anything (on the box, at least), and yet somehow it gets around that Echinacea is going to cure your cold or St. John's Wort is going to cure your asthma. Neither of which are true, by the way (and by not true, I mean there is no credible evidence to suggest their truthfulness).

I also never said there are no effective treatments for ailments in ancient medicine. The willowbark tea is one of the best examples of that. What I said is that modern medicine is FAR superior to traditional methods of treatment in almost every single respect. Taking an aspirin instead of taking willowbark tea is more effective if you want to get rid of your headache.

With the aspirin you'll know the exact dosage you ought to take, but with the tea you're shooting in the dark. With the aspirin you get just the active chemical which is going to reduce your pain. With willowbark tea you get all kinds of other superfluous stuff in there as well.

This is why I also mentioned the idiocy of not telling your doctor you take an herbal remedy. Herbs are DRUGS, and you can damn sure kill yourself by taking the wrong kinds in combination with other drugs - even FDA approved ones.

So I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. If it's that ancient medicine is a jumping-off point for modern medicine that's worth looking at, then I absolutely agree with you.

But if it's that ancient medicine is superior or even CLOSE to modern medicine, or that it's preferable to go with ancient remedies instead of modern ones, then I absolutely disagree with you, and in as strong a manner is politely possible.

"The test of time" is not a valid test for medication. It's at most a sign that you should begin research in a modern medicine setting.

Aspirin is greater than willow bark.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: number 9, number 9, number 9 - [info]gpi_s_avery, 2008-05-14 08:24 pm UTC
Re: number 9, number 9, number 9 - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-14 08:45 pm UTC
Re: number 9, number 9, number 9 - (Anonymous), 2008-05-15 12:53 am UTC
Re: number 9, number 9, number 9 - [info]unicornzvi, 2008-05-15 07:14 am UTC
Re: number 9, number 9, number 9 - [info]jlbarnett, 2008-05-15 01:50 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2008-05-14 11:55 pm UTC (link)
At least you haven't broken my belief in the magic power of snails to erase wrinkles. For those of you confused by this, shame on you!

(Reply to this)


[info]jlbarnett
2008-05-15 01:51 pm UTC (link)
You mention mercury? Is the mercury in the new lightbulbs the non-dangerous version.

Because if it isn't that's another thing you should add to the myths.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-05-15 05:28 pm UTC (link)
No, the mercury in modern compact florescent bulbs is the bad kind of mercury.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198

There are three main problems with CFL bulbs because of them containing mercury.

1. they are going into homes, where they will be broken and spill mercury onto floors, carpets, into sinks (when they break when being removed in the bathroom),and near or in food preparation areas, and people do not know or have the tools to properly clean up such spills and contamination.

2. They will be broken before they enter land fills, and will contaminate other wastes (some of which will be burned in waste to energy plants, sending vaporized mercury into the air)

3. The EPA has not found a way to recycle cfl bulbs yet to keep unbroken bulbs from being a threat in the future.


All that mercury has to go somewhere, and this is the first time in history that this much mercury has been placed into active use in day to day in society.

While they are less energy efficient, incandescent bulbs remain the more eco friendly lighting available in large scale.

If you want to see the future of lighting however look to LEC (light emitting capacitor) panels and nano/quantum dot technologies.
http://gadgetguruz.blogspot.com/2007/12/flexible-light-panels.html
http://www.physorg.com/news7421.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-17 09:01 am UTC

[info]jimbos
2008-05-17 04:58 am UTC (link)
isn't #22 disproved by the fact that all drugs are tested against a placebo in order to make sure that the results aren't all in the patient's mind. And the fact that the medical profession endeavors to keep sick people thinking positive about the possible outcomes. I think your statement is far to stringent.

How about #24: The theory of evolution explains how microbial life eventually became the life on earth as we know it beyond a shadow of a doubt and anyone who questions the validity of its claims is a religious nut job.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]m_mcgregor
2008-05-17 09:00 am UTC (link)
Placebos can only go so far in their effectiveness. This is why to get FDA approved as an actual treatment for a specific disease, a drug or treatment must be substantially BETTER than a placebo.

There is always a chance of someone recovering from nearly any disease or ailment. Even people with aggressive forms of cancer can spontaneously recover or go into remission. There are also many ailments that do have a mental component to them. Pain, headaches, tiredness, the so-called "symptoms of life" are often very susceptible to placebo.

But at the end of the day if you were shot in the leg, then getting surgery to fix the damage and morphine to help with the pain is going to trump any amount of willpower you have.

As for
The theory of evolution explains how microbial life eventually became the life on earth as we know it beyond a shadow of a doubt and anyone who questions the validity of its claims is a religious nut job.


I'll pretend you're not just trying to make the claim that Evolution is false or that the Intelligent Designers are some poor put-upon group of dissenters who are getting their free speech trampled upon.

Instead, I'll point out that you're right. Anyone who questions the validity of Evolution is not a religious nut. Science is built upon the idea that it should be constantly questioned and tested. Luckily for us, Evolution is one of those nice Science Facts that's been tested and prodded for about a hundred years now, with so much literature on the subject that it's almost impossible to study any realm of science and not understand that Evolution is the key to how life works.

And if I have to actually start linking you to things to show you why Evolution is true, we both know that's not going to go anywhere. It's not like it's hard to find a high school or college-level science textbook.

But if we're adding that as 24 we can add this as 25:

25. Intelligent Design has any scientific validity to it whatsoever.

and

26. Intelligent design is a viable and interesting alternative to the Theory of Evolution.

27. Intelligent design should be taught as an alternate theory on account of how it makes just as much sense as Evolution.

All wonderful falsehoods, so thank you for bringing it up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jimbos, 2008-05-17 01:47 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-17 02:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-17 02:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jimbos, 2008-05-18 04:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-18 11:36 am UTC
darwin used false evidence - (Anonymous), 2008-05-19 12:34 pm UTC
Re: darwin used false evidence - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-19 12:49 pm UTC
Re: darwin used false evidence - (Anonymous), 2008-05-21 03:15 pm UTC
Re: darwin used false evidence - [info]m_mcgregor, 2008-05-21 04:52 pm UTC

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…