Re: What the American Medical Association hopes you never learn about its true history

[Guest guest]

> To most Americans, the concept of " nonprofit " goes hand-in-hand with

> trust.

Why? A few years ago, newspapers broke the story of the salaries of

the CEO's of all of the big non-profits. The CEO's were being paid

up to several hundred thousand dollars a year. What made the story

is that the CEO of the Salvation Army was only getting 12K a year.

It was real clear what the nonprofits are.

> The AMerican Medical Association (AMA) is a nonprofit agency whose

> mission is " to be an essential part of the professional life of

every

> physician and an essential force for progress in improving the

nation's

> health, " according to the AMA's website.

That is bs. The AMA tries to stop new medical schools from being

founded. Any immigration attorney will tell you that they never have

docs who are clients because it is too hard for foreign docs to get

into this country. Why? Because the AMA does not want the pay of

docs to fall due to competition.

Consider chiropractic

> medicine, It is a legitimate medical practice that often solves

medical

> problems conventional medicine can't.

Why must we consider it? Care to bring in witchdoctors next? So the

AMA has done some nasty things. So what? What does that have to do

with scientific method?

[Guest guest]

Lee wrote: Why must we consider it? Care to

bring in witch doctors next? So the AMA has done some nasty things.

So what? What does that have to do with scientific method?

If the so called scientific method is to

be the sole arbiter of healing practice, there’s nothing to talk

about. Forget about the corruption

involved in the scientific method.

Forget about the bias, conflict of interest and payola involved in the

scientific method.

I really don’t have the time or inclination

to expose the scientific method on this discussion board. Let’s just say that the scientific

method, unlike the Scales of Justice, is not double blind. Not by a long shot.

By the way, many people have experienced

healing through chiropractic. I

don’t submit to it, but many people swear by it, as they do accupunture.

[Guest guest]

“To most Americans, the concept of " nonprofit " goes

hand-in-hand with trust.”

Lee wrote: Why? A few years ago, newspapers broke the story of

the salaries of the CEO's of all of the big non-profits.

“Most Americans” probably didn’t read the newspapers

that day.

I spoke today to my sister who lives in a suburb of Detroit--not exactly rural America. She had not even heard of the bird flu.

Most Americans are living their lives day-to-day. To them, “non-profit” means

just that--that the institution (typically a charity) is involved in altruistic

endeavors for which no profit will be made. Unlike you and I, who DID read the

newspapers that day, they place their trust in institutions that they perceive

to have THEIR best interests—not their own—in mind.

Right or wrong, that’s the way it is.

[Guest guest]

What corruption involved in the Scientific Method? It is a standard

and a method. That is all.

" Bias, conflict of interest and payola involved in the scientific

method " ??? Huh?

[Guest guest]

Lee wrote: It is a standard and

a method. That is all. " Bias, conflict of interest and payola

involved in the scientific method " ??? Huh?

Good lord, Lee. Evidence abounds

about negative study results not reported, fraud in research, plagiarized

studies, pay-for-studies, etc., etc., etc.!

Do your homework, man, before you bow down to the Scientific

Method. Sheesh.

[Guest guest]

In fact, the scientific method is an objective problem solving device. The method stands apart from all the things you describe. It is a way of investigating something or trying to figure something out. In a nutshell:

1. I think A can cure X.

2. Experiments on A to see if this is true/false.

3. Conclusion.

That is the scientific method in the barest form. Whether people choose to follow it is entirely their choice.

Coy <catherinecoy@...> wrote:

Lee wrote: It is a standard and a method. That is all. "Bias, conflict of interest and payola involved in the scientific method"??? Huh?

Good lord, Lee. Evidence abounds about negative study results not reported, fraud in research, plagiarized studies, pay-for-studies, etc., etc., etc.!

Do your homework, man, before you bow down to the Scientific Method. Sheesh.

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

wrote: That is the

scientific method in the barest form. Whether people choose to follow it

is entirely their choice.

That’s the scientific method in its PUREST form, undefiled by Big

Pharma greed and avarice. There should be ZERO TOLERANCE for scientific

fraud but, alas, it exists. See the UK white paper I previously posted wherein

it refers to this problem.

[Guest guest]

Fraud is not part of the scientific method. Since fraud is not part of the deductive reasoning upon which the scientific method is built. The scientific method can be applied as well to alternative medicinals and, indeed to situations in everyday life. It's how we arrive at our decisions. Coy <catherinecoy@...> wrote:

wrote: That is the scientific method in the barest form. Whether people choose to follow it is entirely their choice.

That’s the scientific method in its PUREST form, undefiled by Big Pharma greed and avarice. There should be ZERO TOLERANCE for scientific fraud but, alas, it exists. See the UK white paper I previously posted wherein it refers to this problem.

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

wrote: Fraud is not

part of the scientific method.

Oh, yes, it is, as the scientific method is practiced by Big Pharma,

and there’s plenty of it, too.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/IEEE/p2.htm

Everyone should know

that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in

their duties to the people who support them. –Linus ing

A

major new report has concluded that fraud

and fabrication is widespread throughout medical research. The practice has

potentially devastating implications because doctors base treatment on

published research.

The

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was set up last year following mounting

concern among editors of scientific publications that research studies

contained faked results.

It

is thought that increased pressure to achieve results to obtain scarce funding

resources has pushed many scientists into acting dishonestly. The COPE report

cites 25 cases of scientific fraud.

More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/106186.stm

[Guest guest]

Excuse me one more time, . The method is a three step process. And that's that. The method is the method. Period. Can it be influenced? Yes. But that is not an integral part of the scientific method. I am done talking about this. Coy <catherinecoy@...> wrote:

wrote: Fraud is not part of the scientific method.

Oh, yes, it is, as the scientific method is practiced by Big Pharma, and there’s plenty of it, too.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/IEEE/p2.htm

Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them. –Linus ing

A major new report has concluded that fraud and fabrication is widespread throughout medical research. The practice has potentially devastating implications because doctors base treatment on published research.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was set up last year following mounting concern among editors of scientific publications that research studies contained faked results.

It is thought that increased pressure to achieve results to obtain scarce funding resources has pushed many scientists into acting dishonestly. The COPE report cites 25 cases of scientific fraud.

More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/106186.stm

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

wrote: I am done talking about this.

You may be “done talking about this”

but if you rely on the so called scientific method to bring about heroic

changes/results in medicine, you’ve got your head up your canal, in my

opinion.

Others may benefit from this exchange,

however, so that their own heads are not so lodged.

[Guest guest]

, it is the glory of modern science and modern medicine that

the Scientific Method has been perfected. It is this that has led to

our modern advances, and some of this method was invented before Big

Pharma: it was invented by Sir Francis Bacon and others long ago in

England. Philosophy, psychology, and other fields have long sought for

such a secure method of discovering truth.

I recommend that you try reading a few books on philosophy of science

and then you will begin to understand. I applaud your populist attack

on corporations, but it has nothing to do with mere method.

[Guest guest]

Lee wrote: it is the glory

of modern science and modern medicine that the Scientific Method has been

perfected.

Yes, there are many, like you and , who are slavishly devoted to

science, at the expense of healing.

We see it every day in the gleaming halls of Official Medicine, where products

of the scientific method manage to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of our

loved ones.

You can stay knelt at the alter of the scientific method all you want. I’m for pursuing other means of

healing that don’t have anything to do with whether X + Y = Z, but have

more to do with the intuitive skills of master healers who appeal to the heart.

Check at Amazon. Many books

have been written on this very subject.

[Guest guest]

LOL . Throw out the standards--which is what you seek to do--

and you admit any and all charlatans and frauds. But I am not going to

pursue this conversation because it is clear that you do not wish to

learn. It staggers me that so many people have devoted their lives to

the logic of this, yet you dismiss it. Next, I expect you will dismiss

logic and thence grammar itself.

[Guest guest]

, Why don't you establish your own group to debate this sort

of thing. We want to discuss the flu pandemic here. I want to stay on

topic because I do not want people to join and then discover that we

talk about anything but flu and then leave.

[Guest guest]

Lee wrote: Next, I expect you will dismiss logic

and thence grammar itself.

Suggested reading for

the overly scientific:

Love, Medicine

and Miracles : Lessons Learned about Self-Healing from

a Surgeon's Experience with Exceptional Patients

http://tinyurl.com/aesbv

Molecules of Emotion—The Science Behind Mine-Body Medicine

http://tinyurl.com/8xkek

Thoughts for the

incorrigibly “scientific”

Our scientific power has outrun our

spiritual power. We have guided

missiles and misguided men.

-- Luther King, Jr.

The whole history of science has been the

gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that

they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely

inspired. -- W. Hawking

There is no reality in the absence of observation. --The Copenhagen Interpretation

of Quantum Mechanics

To know that we know what we know, and to

know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge. --Copernicus

The most beautiful thing we can experience

is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science. --Albert Einstein

It is proof of a base and low mind for one

to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely

because the majority is the majority. Truth does

not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the

people. --Giordano Bruno

I have yet to meet a single person from

our culture, no matter what his or her educational background, IQ, and specific

training, who had powerful transpersonal experiences and continues to subscribe

to the materialistic monism of Western science.

--Albert Einstein

And my personal favorite:

He who joyfully marches in rank and file

has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,

since for him the spinal cord would suffice. --Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

Lee wrote: We want to discuss

the flu pandemic here.

Who’s stopping you?

[Guest guest]

I don't expect heroic anything from the scientific method since that is not the objective focus of the scientific method. I do expect, though, that people will use deductive reasoning which, as I've mentioned before, is the bedrock of the scientific method. Coy <catherinecoy@...> wrote:

wrote: I am done talking about this.

You may be “done talking about this” but if you rely on the so called scientific method to bring about heroic changes/results in medicine, you’ve got your head up your canal, in my opinion.

Others may benefit from this exchange, however, so that their own heads are not so lodged.

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

wrote: I do expect,

though, that people will use deductive reasoning which, as I've mentioned

before, is the bedrock of the scientific method.

The higher the consciousness (man), the more critical it is that

OBSERVATION be utilized. The problem

with “evidence based medicine”—which is what Official

Medicine is turning to—is that it ELIMINATES observation. I predict we will rue the day that the

healing arts turn from being an art to paint-by-numbers.

[Guest guest]

But isn't observation part of deductive reasoning? How do you make a conclusion about something without observing its effects? Coy <catherinecoy@...> wrote:

wrote: I do expect, though, that people will use deductive reasoning which, as I've mentioned before, is the bedrock of the scientific method.

The higher the consciousness (man), the more critical it is that OBSERVATION be utilized. The problem with “evidence based medicine”—which is what Official Medicine is turning to—is that it ELIMINATES observation. I predict we will rue the day that the healing arts turn from being an art to paint-by-numbers.

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

wrote: But isn't

observation part of deductive reasoning? How do you make a

conclusion about something without observing its effects?

If you’re Big Pharma and you conclude

the results the way you want them to be!

If we don’t reign them in, we can look

forward to this:

And now, for a

massive infusion of optimism—and a great reason to take your

supplements—consider the thesis of The

Singularity Is Near. In this new book

(Viking, New York,

2005), artificial intelligence practitioner, technologist, inventor, and

futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts a near future in which

all of our present socioeconomic problems will be solved. In this thrilling

future, human aging and pollution will be reversed; world hunger will be

solved; our bodies will be transformed

by micromachines to overcome the limitations of

biology, including death; and virtually any physical product will be

creatable from information and elemental matter alone. How in

the world will this be accomplished? [Try this: www.realdoll.com

]

According to Kurzweil’s Law (stated below), this will happen by a

convergence of the exponentially accelerating (read “runaway”)

revolutions taking place in genetics, information technology, robotics, and

nanotechnology (what he calls the “killer app”). Together these

will bring about exponential increases in human intelligence that will

radically and irreversibly transform everything, from sexuality to spirituality

to our ability to live as long as we

want. How fast will this happen? Metaphorically and, to some

degree, literally, this transformation will happen at the speed of light—in about 40 years, by the year 2045.

The

Special Laws of Exponential Growth

As full of science

fiction as this appears to be, on the surface, many of us are already familiar

with—and look favorably upon—special cases of the law that will

bring the revolution of accelerating returns to fruition. As an example,

consider ’s

Law, an exponential law created by one of Intel’s founders in the 1970s,

which correctly stated that computer chip power and value would continually

double every 18 months. ’s

prediction has remained true to this day, and it has become an accepted tenet

of the dot-com world that we have embraced. Another law, governing the

acceleration of key events in biological and technological evolution from the

Big Bang to the Internet, again demonstrates the exponential nature of

accelerated growth. In the words of Kurzweil,

A billion years ago, not much happened over the course of even one

million years. But a quarter-million years ago, epochal events such as the

evolution of our species occurred in time frames of just one hundred thousand

years. In technology, if we go back fifty thousand years, not much happened

over a one-thousand-year period. But in the recent past, we see new paradigms,

such as the World Wide Web, progress from inception to mass adaptation (meaning

that they are used by a quarter of the population in advanced countries) within

only a decade.

While there are

questions about the ultimate endurance of ’s

Law and other special cases of exponential growth, Kurzweil

answers these criticisms with the concept of paradigmatic shifts in which one

paradigm replaces another paradigm, thereby allowing acceleration to continue,

not affecting the exponential path. In ’s

Law, examples would be the jumps from punch cards to relays to vacuum tubes to

transistors to integrated circuits. As each paradigm saturates its utility,

another comes along to puncture the equilibrium, and it comes so fast that the

exponential curve is maintained. Given this acceptance of these and other

special laws, it may well be that many of us are already soft-core “singularitarians,” without even knowing it.

The

General Law of Accelerating Returns

Addressing the

bigger case, Kurzweil’s Law states that an

analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change in

general is exponential, not linear, as it is often portrayed. Therefore, he

claims—hold your breath—“we

won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century; we will

experience something more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s

rate).” This is because the “returns,” such as chip speed and

cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. In other words, the curves are

self-seeding. Thus, there’s even exponential growth in the rate of

exponential growth. Consequently, within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence,

leading to The Singularity—technological change so rapid and profound

that it represents what appears to be (from this side, at least) a rupture in the fabric of human history.

The implications include the merger of

biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal

software-based humans, and ultrahigh levels of intelligence that

expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

How great and fast

will human intelligence become? Initially, about a million times more

intelligent and a million times faster! Eventually, future minds will be

trillions of times more powerful than they are today,

birthing a new civilization based on the transcendence of biological

limitations and radically amplified creativity.

Will

Humans Transcend Their Biology?

While readers of Life Enhancement understand that the use

of supplements can help achieve and maintain good health, the more dedicated

users are motivated by the goals of functional enhancement and life extension,

the historical dream of achieving indefinitely longer life without health

deterioration. Well, here at last is the optimist’s road map that many of

us have been waiting for. As Kurzweil states in both The Singularity Is Near

and Fantastic Voyage,

another recent book, if you succeed in living longer, you may live long enough

to be able to determine exactly how long you live.

Anticipating a lot

of flak for his thesis, Kurzweil devotes two chapters

to responding to the possible perils of a genetics/nanotechnology/robotics age

as well as to a wide variety of brickbats thrown by critics. He handles these

hypothesized challenges with alacrity, including my biggest concern, the

likelihood of government regulation.

Out

of the Dark and into the Light

Will The

Singularity and human biological transcendence happen on schedule? Will they

ever happen? Who knows … but what is truly stunning about Kurzweil’s spectacular vision is the degree to which

it seems totally plausible.

Vision has been

heralded as our most important sense, yet reproducing

it has been to date one of the stumbling blocks of artificial intelligence and

robotics. But vision involves light, which, ironically

sets the upper limit for both speed in the universe and speed in computers (and

ultimately, according to The Singularity Is

Near, nonbiological brain speed). So if

The Singularity is to succeed, we must tap into the speed of light. For as much

as our past civilization has dwelled in the dark, the future belongs to the

light.

More at: www.lef.org

No thanks…sounds

awful…I’ll be long gone by then.

[Guest guest]

That some may twist the method to suit their own purposes, is not the same as saying that the method is inherently invalid as it objectively stands. That BigPharma needs some radical overhauling cannot be denied. I am definitely in favor of rooting out all the "crooks" involved in presenting flawed information about their experiments. This the fraud of the worse kind because it puts lives at risk. Had all the information about Vioxx, for example, been given truthfully ... etc etc .... the rest is sad history .... Coy <catherinecoy@...> wrote:

wrote: But isn't observation part of deductive reasoning? How do you make a conclusion about something without observing its effects?

If you’re Big Pharma and you conclude the results the way you want them to be! If we don’t reign them in, we can look forward to this:

And now, for a massive infusion of optimism—and a great reason to take your supplements—consider the thesis of The Singularity Is Near. In this new book (Viking, New York, 2005), artificial intelligence practitioner, technologist, inventor, and futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts a near future in which all of our present socioeconomic problems will be solved. In this thrilling future, human aging and pollution will be reversed; world hunger will be solved; our bodies will be transformed by micromachines to overcome the limitations of biology,

including death; and virtually any physical product will be creatable from information and elemental matter alone. How in the world will this be accomplished? [Try this: www.realdoll.com ]

According to Kurzweil’s Law (stated below), this will happen by a convergence of the exponentially accelerating (read “runaway”) revolutions taking place in genetics, information technology, robotics, and nanotechnology (what he calls the “killer app”). Together these will bring about exponential increases in human intelligence that will radically and irreversibly transform everything, from sexuality to spirituality to our ability to live as long as we want. How fast will this happen? Metaphorically and, to some degree, literally, this transformation will happen at the speed of light—in about 40 years, by the year 2045.

The Special Laws of Exponential Growth

As full of science fiction as this appears to be, on the surface, many of us are already familiar with—and look favorably upon—special cases of the law that will bring the revolution of accelerating returns to fruition. As an example, consider ’s Law, an exponential law created by one of Intel’s founders in the 1970s, which correctly stated that computer chip power and value would continually double every 18 months. ’s prediction has remained true to this day, and it has become an accepted tenet of the dot-com world that we have embraced. Another law, governing the acceleration of key events in biological and technological evolution from the Big Bang to the Internet, again demonstrates the exponential nature of accelerated

growth. In the words of Kurzweil,

A billion years ago, not much happened over the course of even one million years. But a quarter-million years ago, epochal events such as the evolution of our species occurred in time frames of just one hundred thousand years. In technology, if we go back fifty thousand years, not much happened over a one-thousand-year period. But in the recent past, we see new paradigms, such as the World Wide Web, progress from inception to mass adaptation (meaning that they are used by a quarter of the population in advanced countries) within only a decade.

While there are questions about the ultimate endurance of ’s Law and other special cases of exponential growth, Kurzweil answers these criticisms with the concept of paradigmatic shifts in which one paradigm replaces another paradigm, thereby allowing acceleration to continue, not affecting the exponential path. In ’s Law, examples would be the jumps from punch cards to relays to vacuum tubes to transistors to integrated circuits. As each paradigm saturates its utility, another comes along to puncture the equilibrium, and it comes so fast that the exponential curve is maintained. Given this acceptance of these and other special laws, it may well be that many of us are already soft-core “singularitarians,” without even knowing it.

The General Law of Accelerating Returns

Addressing the bigger case, Kurzweil’s Law states that an analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change in general is exponential, not linear, as it is often portrayed. Therefore, he claims—hold your breath—“we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century; we will experience something more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate).” This is because the “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. In other words, the curves are self-seeding. Thus, there’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Consequently, within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity—technological change so

rapid and profound that it represents what appears to be (from this side, at least) a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultrahigh levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

How great and fast will human intelligence become? Initially, about a million times more intelligent and a million times faster! Eventually, future minds will be trillions of times more powerful than they are today, birthing a new civilization based on the transcendence of biological limitations and radically amplified creativity.

Will Humans Transcend Their Biology?

While readers of Life Enhancement understand that the use of supplements can help achieve and maintain good health, the more dedicated users are motivated by the goals of functional enhancement and life extension, the historical dream of achieving indefinitely longer life without health deterioration. Well, here at last is the optimist’s road map that many of us have been waiting for. As Kurzweil states in both The Singularity Is Near and Fantastic Voyage, another recent book, if you succeed in living longer, you may live long enough to be able to determine exactly how long you live.

Anticipating a lot of flak for his thesis, Kurzweil devotes two chapters to responding to the possible perils of a genetics/nanotechnology/robotics age as well as to a wide variety of brickbats thrown by critics. He handles these hypothesized challenges with alacrity, including my biggest concern, the likelihood of government regulation.

Out of the Dark and into the Light

Will The Singularity and human biological transcendence happen on schedule? Will they ever happen? Who knows … but what is truly stunning about Kurzweil’s spectacular vision is the degree to which it seems totally plausible.

Vision has been heralded as our most important sense, yet reproducing it has been to date one of the stumbling blocks of artificial intelligence and robotics. But vision involves light, which, ironically sets the upper limit for both speed in the universe and speed in computers (and ultimately, according to The Singularity Is Near, nonbiological brain speed). So if The Singularity is to succeed, we must tap into the speed of light. For as much as our past civilization has dwelled in the dark, the future belongs to the light.

More at: www.lef.org

No thanks…sounds awful…I’ll be long gone by then.

Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

wrote: That some may

twist the method to suit their own purposes, is not the same as saying that the

method is inherently invalid as it objectively stands.

Well, I suppose if you could embed a failsafe mechanism into the method

so as to ensure its integrity, it’d be OK. But you can’t. Therefore, slavish devotion to something as

prone to error as anything else is misguided, in my opinion.

[Guest guest]

That is the nice thing about methods and logic: they are neutral

methods that people can agree on if they wish to see progress or to

discuss something. Marxists and moslems do not want progress, so they

do not agree with this sort of neutral method.

The question is: where do the pop medicine people stand? Reject

scientific method and logic and deductive reasoning, and you reject the

values upon which all of our progress rests. People who do this may as

well then go to the boonies, live in a cave and wear buffalo skins.

Bottom line: if you live in modern society and make use of its

benefits, such as a computer, then you must accept the value

orientation upon which it is based. And scientific method and

deductive reasoning are part of those values.

> I don't expect heroic anything from the scientific method since that

is not the objective focus of the scientific method. I do expect,

though, that people will use deductive reasoning which, as I've

mentioned before, is the bedrock of the scientific method.

[Guest guest]

Lee wrote: Reject scientific

method and logic and deductive reasoning, and you reject the

values upon which all of our progress rests.

I do not reject the so called scientific method. I object that it is used wrongly.