Xeno Biden doesn't care.
mukt
joined 4 years ago
Hello! I've been searching for a reddit alternative, and yes, I've picked Lemmy and Raddle, but here's the thing. My morbid curiosity is perked up, and a part of me wants to join the "free speech" alternatives, like Saidit, Poal, etc. What's wrong with me that I want to join toxic places? I mean, yes I'll find a whole new perspective (albeit wrong), on political topics, but a part of me wants to be the antagonist, and post lefty memes, and music with a left-leaning message (bands from r/rabm) I know that's like kicking the hornet's nest, so you don't need to start in with "that's a bad idea" I know it is. My main point/question is, is it wrong to join a site with potential hate speech? Does it make someone a bad person?
It's ok to explore/try everything from a safe distance.
Am I the only one who remembers "My pleasure" ?
for a long time, no one was developing android apps for xmpp.
Says the guy who needs no evidence for his beliefs.
I'm not sure why you have such obsession with apples,
I do not have an obsession with apples. I took it up as a specific example and remained consistent. Do you find consistency difficult to understand?
... but clearly it's not the only unreasonable thing in your brain. After my first message I thought your answer would me something like "that's a stupid example for the sake of argument, nobody would really think that". In that, I was wrong, and a bit less hopeful for the sake of humanity.
So you wanted me to behave in a predictable manner, but I didn't. That should actually increase your hope from humanity. Give it some thought.
I'll just invite you to make your research about how apples will cure COVID, or any other illness. You seem to bet highly on it, and you think medical research can be done in the side, easy peasy. You clearly have easy too much time.
I'd take up on your offer if you can provide an isolated sample of the virus culture. Deal?
Please don't forget to post the mandatory "haha! I won, my logic was unbeatable!". Won't be seeing that notification though.
Lol. You are definitely not a good loser.
I created this post to discuss about the ill-effects of traditional medicine, which is clearly known to not follow systemic scientific methodology.
You wanted to trash talk about traditional medicine without acknowledging that modern medicine isn't following science either.
Traditional medicines are based on the concepts of balance of dosha (vata-pita-kapha), primal elements (fire, water, earth, air, space) and humor (blood, phlegm, black bile, yellow bile). Now that's ayurveda, siddha and unani for your respectively.
Modern medicine has the parallel concept of homeostasis, which is even more generalized.
Likewise, homeopathy is based on the concept of "likes get cured by likes" - therefore, the harm-causing agent is diluted to many parts.
Homeopathy is not traditional medicine. In fact, it is younger than allopathy - the mainstream modern medicine.
There's also other traditional medicines, witch doctors and faith-based healing, from Asia, Africa and even Europe. None of these align with the modern scientific theory - knowledge of which is accessible to the general public.
Most of modern medicine is inaccessible without paying a doctor, and the research behind it is behind paywalls and not accessible to general public either.
Now, if you don't understand basic science, I am not going to bother, you have all the free time in the world to cross-examine it yourself, starting with fifth grade concepts of chemistry - that's all you'll need, not even physics or biology.
Question. Are you an Indian, or have recieved education in India?
You chose to be a bad actor starting from the initial comment, deliberately choosing to misdirect a flaw that is not a part of science, but corporate greed and capitalism.
So you understand that modern medicine is not a scientific enterprise, but one of crony capitalism that has overtaken academic institutions. Good to know.
It is because profit over safety overshadows the concern for the well-being of another human, and has nothing to do with modern science itself. In the example you've mentioned about Johnson&Johnson, instead of safer substitutes, they chose to use talcum power, which is always contaminated with asbestos. Be it Ponds, Nivea or Cinthol, all of these are contaminated with asbestos, and they're still being sold.
And, this is worse than coronil.
Now, what you've done is:
- misdirected the conversation from traditional medicine to modern medicine
- misdirected the consequences of capitalism to modern medicine
How is it my problem that what you are shilling for doesn't stand my scrutiny?
You've engaged in red herring fallacies multiple times.
And therefore, there is no need for me to engage in any further conversation with you.
s/ Your scientific majesty, I have sinned against the church of modern medicine. Please condone my blaspheme against the divine doctrine of science. I'll atone by trash-talking against the evil pseudo-science of traditional medicine. /s
Feeling better?
But I can assure you, damages done by them are dwarfs
Except that they don't. Pharmas are held accountable for medical mishaps, so are doctors and nurses. Not these quacks pretending to be guru or godmen.
Lol. Remind me. Who has been held responsible for covid-19?
As far as it comes to my "appeal to authority", the FDA, FSSAI, CDSCO or NHS have a team of highly skilled scientists, who have spent years on their specialization.
Not too long ago, it took these specialists 27 years to decide that a widely diatributed vaccine had a fatal side-effect and should be discontinued immediately. Also, have you read the time frame of justice in Johnson & Johnson case?
And the flip-flops by qualified doctors and their institutions on whether alcohol is bad for health or good... before that smoking, X-rays.
They are questioned by other governing bodies of health, they are answerable to the public, make decisions based on rigorous scientific evidence from lab data and clinical trials. They also have to go through peer reviews, most of which is done in well-respected journals. There are smart people out there who question them regularly. My trust is not blindly on that institute, but rather their entire eco-system, that allows me to see for myself how they have reached to a solution that benefits human society.
There was this video (now removed and heavily censored even in FOSS circles) which showed one-by-one some newspaper clippings about percentage efficacy of covid vaccines declared in published research. It started with a headline declaring 100% efficacy of vaccines, followed by another with 99%, than 98,... 97... and so on, ending literally at 1%.
What do you think? Were these figures were sent to newspapers before peer-review, or after?
Personally, I don't care.
Whatever makes you feel better. I am done here. I'll leave some reading material for you though.
If you haven't read actual Russian propaganda so far, I'd highly recommend reading the entire Big Serge's Substack for a rather informed take from perspective of a Russian in USA.
Enjoy these long reads with good tea.
Flat eathers actually give what they think is evidenxe fir their claims.
Looks like you haven't actually read much there either.
That making a proper medical study is something too hard for a single person to do on their spare time is not appealing to authority, it just shows how complex and rigorous a proper study has to be to be usable. A study with 100 subjects is considered small, now think how long it would take to interview them, take samples, analyze them, follow up... and all that to check a random fruit?
On what basis did you come up with sample size of 100? I have read studies with samples less than that size, including control groups.
I know that for indian traditional medicine you can just say "it's on an ancient book!" and "somebody who followed it lived to 100 years" but they don't have to prove it.
I am not aware of testing techniques involved in Indian traditional medicine and have no comments on their scientific-ness. Also, for the record, I don't think Ramdev/Patanjali have developed their cures for modern ailments in accordance with whatever traditional testing techniques used to be.
Why single out known drugs, but exclude known foods?
I haven't said you can't, just that if you are going to go to the massive work that's a proper study, you want a proper justification for it.
Justification is easy : An apple offers numerous benefits over allopathic medicines and if it is found to be a replacement of any medicine, it should be replaced.
Is there anything in apples that makes it seem useful?
Nutritive value alone settles that question as far allopathic drugs are concerned.
... else, why apples? why not pears? peaches? oranges?
I haven't ruled any of them out.
For example, some drugs that were used in treatment of covid symptoms were identified by combining the results of thousands of patients and seeing that some that were using that drug to treat a different condition were doing better. Based on that the hypothesis that that drug was the reason was done and the experiment started, tested and validated.
They did all of that, and other things, because they didn't have any drug that worked, but they specifically wanted only a combination of drugs to work, so they just did whatever jugglery they could.
For the record, there is still no drug to cure covid.
On the same manner a lot of drugs were shown to be useless, and even that is important information for those looking for a good one. Just like on real life, if you lose your keys at home, you make the hypothesis that they are in your coat and check that hypothesis. You don't just say "I'm going to check on the fridge". It's not impossible, it's just not the most likely scenario so it's far from your first guess.
As far as curing covid is concerned, ALL drugs are still useless. IN REAL LIFE.
What you are suggesting here is reverse of what following scientific method would lead to: First check apples, and if a positive result is there, then go check for components.
No, not at all. First step is to make a hypothesis based on some observation.
If you have made an observation that people that eat apples seem to fare better with an illness, then you can make he hypothesis that's because of the apples and then define some measurable variable for validation the hypothesis. You don't say at random 'why not apples?' and then mobilize a team. You don't have a reason for it. If for instance, apples are rich in a component that is shown to be good, they might check giving apples for the experiment. Again, without reason, why apples and not kiwis?
They checked the drugs at random. Four years of hit and trial and there is still no method to the madness that happened.
Hypothesis in checking apples is trivial, and actually similar to one involved in testing any drug.
I haven't said the opposite. Just that there doesn't seem any reason to test for apples.
The only clear reason that remdesivir got tested before apples is that big pharma, or anyone else systematically funding doctors, does not see any jump in bottomline when apples are black-marketed.
In a complex set of assumptions, reasons do not exist. They are invented to butter the side of bread that suits one.
Sure you can, and you’d be as right as big pharma is in curing baldness. You’d be with less money though, and without that money, doctors who line up supporting big pharma are unlikely to line up for you.
I'm sure some quack Guru would be happy to use that to sell their services to fools like you. It's really funny to see how much money fake medicines make and their defenders saying "big pharma bad because profit".
I am all for profit, if made legitimately. But I have seen single dose of remdesivir (which wasn't curing anything) sell for over $1000... in India.
Can't say I enjoyed the conversation, but I'm done. You either lack the skills to understand or have too much bad faith to have an honest argument.
Unfortunately, most people mistake familiarity of ideas with their truth, and you are no different. This is why big lobbies get their way through propaganda, and people's will is generally meaningless.
I wouldn'y be too sure about being fluent part. I am an Indian and I have seen bulk of so called indologists (professors in American and European academia) unable to pronounce common sanskrit words - despite writing bestsellers on the subject.