So yes there probably is a cause. Yet I'm accused of lacking in "critical thinking".
I find it odd that people who subscribe to an atheistic worldview believe in something as mystical as luck. The cause of a situation has an actual cause not luck. I thought we lived in a cause-based universe not an "irrational" universe. To answer the medical gatekeeper question of why some people die at thirty and others live smoking at hundred? Good question yet it does have an answer. The cause is probably quality of prenatal/early life nutrition, biochemical individuality, and spiritual/mind factors, which were much higher quality a hundred years ago than thirty years ago (something the gatekeepers never differentiate between).
So yes there probably is a cause. Yet I'm accused of lacking in "critical thinking".
0 Comments
A certain TV comedian apparently bashed the whole supplement industry in the wake of Dr. Oz coming before a senator. Oz was called in on account of claims made about some weightloss supplements. The comedian widely lies about supplements. Typical mainstream media (is it true my generation is idiotic enough to get their information from a comedian? Theres no hope for the world).
Well, I certainly think most the weightloss industry is a fraud. Oz is a sellout and doesn't represent the true face of alternative medicine anyways. Its typical of media because they only give pseudoskeptics a voice and their always small-minded, pick on weakest case. You would do your health a favor by not listening to a huckster comedian simply getting ratings by the use of ridicule. Actually, supplements are regulated or perhaps better than drugs as the FDA constantly threatens to shutdown the whole industry based on a few contaminated/spiked products. Really its a minority company/products giving supplements a bad name. Besides pharmaceuticals are far more dangerous telling by their laundry list of side affects and billion dollar class action lawsuits. Well, I must be a conspiracy nutcase because I do believe in many of the medical conspiracies asked in a JAMA Internal Medicine study.
What else do I expect out of a conventional medical journal anyways? They call the truth a conspiracy in order to dismiss the long history of war on alternative medicine and public health concerns (My blog Pathsofnature: Why Nearly Half Of Americans Are Justified In Believing Medical "Conspiracies"). Apparently, anyone who questions the medical status quo is an "uneducated nutcase" and has a psychological condition (typical arrogance of medical authorities). What do educated people do anyways? They eat fast food, take drugs, spray pesticides on their lawn, follow status quo unquestioningly, and are responsible for much of the harm done to the environment and human health. Much of the modern obsession with technology and its subsequent abuse has done immense harm to the ecosystem and all living organisms health. I'm glad to be a crazy uneducated person that takes herbal supplements and organic food. Educated people apparently don't believe in organic food and follow doctors unquestioningly. Is that why thousands of people die every year from conventional medicine? Because their not crazy apparently. "Trumping up one superficial case as representative of all cases. Its same tactic used by pseudoskeptics to attempt to discredit an entire group."
The mainstream media seems to be ever engaged in pushing false breakthroughs (or to use ISNs word "fakethrough"), fraudulent biases, and allowing only the gatekeepers a voice. Sure, they give coverage to the pro-GMO propaganda and supplement bashing, but do you ever hear the other side? I wonder how people could be so ignorant as to believe an intellectual rag like New York Times and USA Today. If they do, they must be the most uniformed people on Earth. I'd rather get my news from some conspiracy nutcase website. However, its not surprising. I've always believed that humans are conditioned to do the things they do. Well, the general population anyways seems to be easy for mind control. With the advocating by some doctor against supplements you almost wonder whos really pulling the strings. Does the general population know of the long corrupted history of the pharma-medical complex? Do they honestly give a damn about real alternative medicine? The puppets claim its so dangerous to be deterred from the drug dogma, but people don't want responsibility for their health anyways. They can't be bothered to look outside the false window presented to them. If you going to believe one authority then theres another authority that totally contradicts the first authority. Life is never a certainty in the context of modernity or vain delusion for answers. There are many truths in this world. The purpose of MSM seems to be only creating a dogmatic image of established truth. Better just to throw the TV out the window and turn computer off. Yet suckers keep coming back to have their fears staunched by the latest bullock on pro-chemical-GM-genetic myth-vitamin denial-drug dogma, and so on. Take the subject and simplify it and then turn it into a twisted truth. The thing is pieced together and even tries to blame its opponents for its own problems. Self-p Regardless of your views on the vaccine issue theres an obviously fake story floating about the internet that supposedly was written by someone who "grew up unvaccinated" (post here). Now what really irritated me about the story is that it seems to try to discredit natural medicine and make conventional medicine look superior. They push the same old propaganda without realizing that drugs/vaccines don't make you impervious to disease.
Its the propaganda that conventional therapies make you safe, but using natural therapies makes you somehow dangerous to be around. If anything a natural "healthnut" would have a far more extensive knowledge in how to implement medical care in a illness situation. Why is it fake? Healthnuts don't take antibiotics and they rarely ever go to conventional doctors. It seems like the author survived her "diseased" childhood. So now she has natural immunity. A real healthnut would use their own natural remedies and immune-boosting supplements, not turn to conventional medicine. Perhaps the author is working for the vaccine industry or is rebelling against her childhood. Alright, here goes. This is part rant/part serious. I'm simply trying to sum things up.
Since spending time looking through responses to various alt. health articles I came to think that perhaps many people out there are pretty ignorant about the topic or else the place is invaded by shills from the pharmaceutical and medical establishment. Actually, I think its almost funny how supposedly educated or otherwise intelligent people can be so trusting and uninformed of the medical reality of the world. They seem to know nothing about the history of the war on alternative medicine and the way new paradigms emerge. They rely on the trusted authorities of conventional wisdom without looking for alternatives. For a while theres been a certain commentator who I'll simply call Erie (not a real name) thats frequents "lefty" sites and supposedly has a background in science. One of the first comments I saw by them they dismissed that early puberty can be caused by endocrine-disruptors. Then another that dismissed that food has anything to do with health. Then said that organic food is "false claims." Then they accused another commentator of selling a product because they were called "the enemy." Actually, Erie is a common example of the arrogant, narcissistic, bigoted attitude of the cult of scientism. They always trust the corporate-medical establishment yet accuse alternative medicine of being nothing but "profiteering." Then these same elites wonder why people are turning to the internet for answers to their problems. But why do individuals like Erie, who are supposedly educated, seem ignorant of the history of suppression and corruption by the establishment? Hey, blaming everything in the world on profiteering is too simplistic after awhile. You could say as some others do that credentials are the mark of the beast and academia the inner circles of hell. Okay, thats only what some say. From what I've heard its a pretty narrow-minded place that doesn't place much value on real truth. What are some of the examples of issues being politicized and then totally manipulated by the establishment and corporate-dominated establishments alike? To start: natural medicine, fluoride, tobacco, DDT, plastics, GMOs, science itself, universities, organic food, mercury, illnesses not recognized by conventional med., and etc.
To be continued... What is it with Facebook comments that seem to attract an ignorant crowd? The comments on some the best alternative health sites seems to have a problem with mindless, nonsensical comments by individuals that clearly haven't read the article.
Then I greatly suspect that some of them (especially the inflammatory type) seem to be intentionally stirring the roost. My suspicious is about the "skeptic" empire sending out its minions to create doubt and misinformation in the comment section on various alt. health sites. The comment below is a typical example of the Facebook ignorant types and shills who try to stir the roost. The article was about a certain vaccine actually spreading disease. Now I'm not saying one way or the other when it comes to the vaccine issue, but the comment illustrates my point: "Another quack spreading lies to scare parents into agreeing with their view of anti-vaccinations! You are a homeopathic and nutritional specialist. Don't you then have a conflict of interest in writing this article? When someone's child gets the measles or the mumps because they didn't vaccinate, do you have a nice, homeade, all-natural tea to sell them?" First, the article did present cited sources for their information. The author, who I have no connection with or the site, is not trying to get anyone to agree with their viewpoint. They are presenting information on a topic thats not easily addressed in the mainstream. If modern medicine in all their glory would actually care about vaccine concerns or any other pharmaceutical concerns by the lowly peasants then maybe people wouldn't have to rely on "internet stories." Second, the instant name-calling is a telltale sign this commentator has an agenda themselves or buys into their own ideology. The instant label of "anti-vaccine" is the wrong term for a marginalized group of people who question a pharmaceutical product. So what if the author has a conflict of interest? Many conventional medicine authorities advocate staying away from alternative medicine. Do they have a conflict of interest? Perhaps the commentator is a Wikipedia contributor so they would know all about ideological warfare in the battle to control the lowly peasants minds. They know about only allowing one viewpoint onto a site. Third, who said the article was trying to sell anything? Like someones actually going to get rich selling home-made teas (misspelling there, too)? Most people don't anyways. Whos a better authority on vaccine issues, conventional doctors who aren't even aware of alternatives or simply trust what the pharmaceutical companies tell them or someone outside the whole system. I know who I'd rather trust. Sometimes I really think my mental health could improve if I stopped looking at comment sections. Internet people are a bunch of assholes. It seems anytime I attempt to discuss topics in the alternative health and food community people think I'm simply believing internet stories. First, the internet is a truly great source of information though it takes a bit of wading through the murky waters. Second, where else can you get information on marginalized topics? Who talks about vitamin research, holistic dentistry, organic food, quality natural products, and much else in "real life"?
Yeah, there are some questionable sites out there. That happens everywhere in life, why single out a particular subject matter? I tend to distrust authorities in real life and perhaps the internet as well. Well, an article on Science explains how a "hoax study" became accepted by many different open-access journals in an attempt to show the lack of quality control in open-access movement. First, many major science journals (especially medical) are just as guilty of lack of quality controls by being influenced and paid by industry, bias against a certain therapy (herbs, supplements, energywork), and the inherently faulty paradigm of "scorch the Earth" approach in conventional medicine.
Really you have to wonder exactly how scientific modern science really is sometimes. If peer-reviewers have a bias against anything that can't be patented and sold for billions of dollars then what affective therapies may be out there and not given the deserved research funds? I think open access is a good thing and hope to see it sticking around. People have a right to access information on their own whether it concerns medicine, climate, food, technology, and speech. Theres fraud present in all areas of life. The one existence of fakery in an area doesn't invalidate the reality in the rest of the area. We must not confuse establishment ignorance with lack of evidence or intuitional misdirection. Its not merely us, but also the outward them that misunderstands true nature. I got done reading "Orthomolecular Nutrition" by Abram Hoffer and Morton Walker. The book served as a compendium of information on an unconventional and much marginalized field of science in the 1970s and still proves useful today. Orthomolecular nutrition was far ahead of the drug paradigm with its embodiment of holistic health, dismissed as a trend in its written time period, and a way of healing that actually cared about someones personal health habits.
It was almost surprise mixed with fustration to have confirmation from a 1970s nutritional book that the war on alternative medicine hasn't changed much. The sad truth is that the same things in the book are still true today: attacks on vitamin therapy, propaganda by medical establishment, science orthodoxy, and the public being denied access to alternative therapies. A combination of that fustration leads to fasination with the way an alternative way can be dismissed or attacked. Well, recent research has shown that perhaps no amount of evidence can convince people. But just to think people were being helped and even cured by the use of vitamin therapy forty years ago. Niacin (vitamin B) was being used to treat mental illness while vitamin C was treating infections (sometimes better than antibiotics). And the critics launched all the usual attacks of "quackery" due to their belief that one can obtain all needed nutrients from food. They are ignorant of the basis of orthomolecular nutrition that everyone has a unique biochemical need for higher or lower amounts of certain nutrients. A chronic defiency of a certian nutrient CAN lead to health problems in individuals who need higher amounts of a nutrient. But then again the gatekeepers don't actually know anything about orthomolecular medicine and only want to debunk it. |