Rick Reuben wrote:

kerble wrote:it'd be like you arguing with steve about analog recording.

But we aren't discussing human anatomy and epidemiology, except peripherally. What I'm discussing is political: Can a corporate medical establishment be expected to reveal all the risks associated with their products? Should everyone who presents alternative information on these products be accused of 'scaremongering'?

see: my point about you already having made up your mind. there's no reason to answer your loaded questions. and they are absolutely loaded. you're just waiting for someone to say something you disagree with so we can all see what you know. that's a presentation, not a discussion.

frame it as a discussion instead, and see how well this topic flourishes.

also,

see: ya.


cheers,

Faiz

Rick Reuben wrote:

kerble wrote:it'd be like you arguing with steve about analog recording.

But we aren't discussing human anatomy and epidemiology, except peripherally. What I'm discussing is political: Can a corporate medical establishment be expected to reveal all the risks associated with their products? Should everyone who presents alternative information on these products be accused of 'scaremongering'?

Depends upon the body of evidence and how and who is interpreting it. Just because a professional body refutes that evidence does not automatically implicate it as a grand conspiracy. There's a lot of bad science and shoddy research that occurs on both sides of the fence.

Rick Reuben wrote:I'm not required to have medical training to explore this issue.

No, but you're required to have extensive medical knowledge to be good at it.

Rick Reuben wrote:I'm reading the work of others who do.

No, what you're doing is reading the work of others who don't understand the work of the people with medical training either, but instead subscribe to a skewed political agenda. What your heroes are doing is misappropriating little details of the professionals' work, presenting them out of context and misrepresenting them as evidence of their opinions to others like yourself, who lack the medical training to know the difference.

Educated people with scientific training follow specific procedures to gather and examine evidence, and then they propose a hypothesis (or educated guess). They respect the opinions of their peers on the issue, and they also defer to other experts for information regarding subjects which are outside their own area of specialization. Then, they follow specific procedures to design strict experimental tests to determine whether their hypothesis is accurate. If the experiments bear out their hypothesis, then they present it to other scientists for their respected consideration. This is how progress is made.

What you're doing is embracing a general, paranoid, malcontent ideology, giving blind credulity to the sensationalist accusations of others who share that ideology, then cherry-picking bits and pieces of the work of others to support your borrowed opinions while disregarding the opinions of the vast majority of qualified professionals on the subject. Then you're hyping your malformed opinions as gospel truth.

It's the basic difference between knowledge and bullshit.

If you shake a baby more than three times, are you playing with it?

chopjob wrote:If you shake a baby more than three times, are you playing with it?

winner.

it's how you phrase them, not the questions themselves.


hope that's clearer.




best,


Faiz