is that just to keep scientists in a job??.. must be

Setanta wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2017 at 11:51pm:


Ahhh
Doctors

If it were not for penicillin, doctors would still be walking around shaking rattles and wearing beaks.

Doctors are, on the whole, butchers who rely on the human body to repair itself.
Only chemists who have discovered ways and means of helping, have truely contributed to the health of society.

Doctors hack, jab, remove and mangle bodies.

Only the occasional brilliant doctor actually helps.

Engineering has advanced to amazing levels, FEA once impossible to carry out is now commonplace
3d graphics and engineering theorey is being rewritten every day.

But doctors still simply hack, cut ans remove.
Butchers in suits

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 11:00am:


Ask any doctor.
They will tell you that the best way to live a long life is to stay away from hospitals and doctors.

I cant remember exactly when,
But I remember reading something years ago.
The doctors went on strike, it may have been the UK, cant remember.

But the death rate dropped considerably in that time.
It can therefore be concluded that doctors = death.

Hell they treat cancer by poisioning the body to the point of death, hoping that it kills off the cancer before the patient.

Trillions of dollars are given to cancer research every year.
Doctors make billions for cancer treatment

There will never be a cure, simply because its worth far too much not to.

Valkie wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 4:59pm:


Before the discovery of modern medicine, life expectancy in Europe was about 35.

I agree with Valkie on this issue, your local GP these days is nothing more than a drug dealer, they don’t even know how to take blood samples anymore they send you off to pathology.

Drug companies visit the GP and offer incentives to distribute their brand of drugs, if the GP meets the quota in 12 months’ time he may get a $5000 bonus or higher, how do I know, one of our friends became a chemist and his first job was to market the drugs for the company he worked for doing exactly what I described above.

As for hospitals when a patient comes in ill they will diagnose the symptoms and administer the cure, but they don’t ask can this patient handle what we are about to give him/her as the cure, they follow procedures even if it means the death of the patient.

If you question them can he or she take what you are about to do, or if you oppose what they are about to do, they will hit you with do you want us to save them or not, leaving you no option but to agree.

What about specialists, mum had a spill towards the end of last year she went into hospital and then into old age care, she had suffered chronic osteoarthritis in her knees for about 10 years and was in a wheel chair, she could just get from her chair to her bed or toilet.

While she was in hospital a specialist with his team of novices came by and picked up her file he then ordered that she be given a whole lot of pain killers and that the next day they would try to make her walk, he boasted that by the end of this treatment she would walk 40 metres.

I was present and I said to the doctor your kidding aren’t you, I told him my mum’s knees were rubbing bone on bone and that she’s lucky to walk 2 metres at best with the aid of a frame.

Of course when we get ill we are going to go to the doctors or the hospital, but if you’re a really old person whose body might not be able to handle the cure or remedy they give you then you might not be coming back.

Heaven help you from doctors and lawyers.

Public health, like running sewers had a lot to do with decreasing the death rate/lengthening life expectancy.

Over the last 70 years in Western countries smoking has become unpopular, that helps life expectancy too.

The only threat I can see: idiot antivaxxers not vaccinating their children. Measles epidemics are already occurring and I dread seeing news about a new polio epidemic. My generation would all have had at least one kid in their class with their legs in calipers. I certainly remember the epidemic in the mid 1950s, the broadcasts telling everyone to wash their hands after having been to the toilet.

A paradoxical truth?

aquascoot wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:45am:



So in other words not truths, just musings.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 10:50am:

 

science cant answer the really big questions though.
you can call it musings if you want and just worship at the altar of science.

but , this is merely using science to remain disengaged and, here we go again, to remain lazy.


science will never be able to tell you what career to pursue.
science will never be able to tell you who to get into a relationship with.
there will never be a sicentific study that tells you why you shouldnt supplicate to women if you wish to remain attractive.
science cant construct a double blind crossover trial to show that an interdependant relationship is better then an independant or co dependant relationship.'
science wont be able to tell you why its a bad idea to outshine your boss, why you should have mentors above you and people below you who you are mentoring.

and because science cant do these things, people (fat steves and people who think they are scientific) will just follow the path of least resistance, ignore these questions because no one can produce a peer reviewed study  and that path of least resistance becomes  the highway to failure.
you will need more then science to climb the narrow road to success 

vague and meaningless?

thats how i would describe a lot of science .

for example. scientific studies showed, (by showing pictures of faces to 1000 university students) that having a symmetrical face makes you more attractive to the opposite sex.

now who do you think is going to do better with women in a nightclub.

a guy who spent $10,000 getting plastic surgery to fix his symmetry or a guy who just learnt the behaviours (and science cant teach you these) of being confident, funny, self amused and cocky

aquascoot wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 3:07pm:




Yep, true idiot.

lee wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 3:29pm:




Ummm, please explain?

aquascoot wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 3:32pm:






You do realise you have to test your hypothesis, how do you propose to do that?

And according to the World Happiness Report you are completely 100% wrong.

Norway was number 1.


Bhutan was 97. Australia was 9th http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/HR17.pdf

lee wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 3:45pm:



The first one where did anyone say it should be higher?


And the second, there wqas a paper published in Circulation last year on this. They found that full fat products reduced diabetes risk, but the conclusion was that when people used low-fat products they tended to replace the fats with sugars.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 4:13pm:



Then I suggest turning off your computer.

lee wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:



Glad you put the edit. I think this summarises the problem here. Its usually not the science thats the issue, its the reporting. This only confirms what we already know, there is a right homeostatic level of these components.

Science is only as good as.
The scientists
The data
The way the data is collected.
The hypotheses and the goal
And finally, some might consider more importantly.

WHO PAYS FOR THE RESEARCH.

This is patiently obvious in ANY studies from the prostitute of universities the Macquarie Uni.
Govco pays for a road safety research, citing that speed kills
Suprise suprise, Mac Uni finds that SPEED KILLS

Other contributing factors are discarded, just as long as they find that speed kills.

GOVCO PAYS TO GET THE ANSWERS THEY WANT.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 5:29pm:


Why bother?

They will simply point out some reason or other why its not flawed.

Thats the trick, make it all look so legitimate, while at the same time bowing to their masters will.

But I will tell you one you already know.

They carefully word a question on a survey so that no matter how you answer, it still feeds their data.

Ie
Instead of asking someones unsolicited opinion, they give the person an opinion znd then simply quantify it.

How much of a contributing factor does speed contribute to road death?
20%
50%
75%
100%

By answering the question you have already agreed to the statement, which you may not agree with.

All their surveys, which are from where much of the data is collected, are the same.
Its a science of making people say what you want.

The actual science itself can be used to prove things.
Such as that fraudlent add where the car that is 5klm hr over the speed limit hits the truck, but the other does not.

Many many factors are not taken into account.
Factors that make the whole premis ludicrous.

No two cars are the same, nor are the drivers, the road surface or the weather.
There are so many other more important factors that are simply ignored, simply to prove what their masters want.

Two of tge most important.
A driver driving at the speed limit is generally less aware of his surroundings ghan one speeding, because the speeder is paranoid about being caught so he is watching more carefully.
He would not only see the truck sooner, he would apply the brakes far earlier.

The road surface has the greatest influence on a cars stopping ability.
Most of the goat tracks we laughingly refer to as roads in Australia are so poor that your tyres only make actual contact 70% of the time.
That makes stopping a game of chance at best.

The grubberment want proof that its draconian speed revenue program is effective, this is why Mac Uni get paid to "adjust" the data.

But the truth is in the facts.
Even with more speed detection and the most draconian rules in the world.
Our road toll is riding.

Stupidiiiitty is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result
Unless tge result required is revenue collection.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 6:00am:


And you know all about things not being science.