I think your social security number is a lot more revealing.
Printable View
I think your social security number is a lot more revealing.
69
I thought you might have been into your astrology considering your user name. It's a shame that mainstream science labels numerology and astrology as pseudo-science.Quote:
Originally Posted by SrslySirius
If you're just talking about herbal remedies, sure. Lots of plants can relieve ailments or give health benefits. I don't think anyone denies that.Quote:
Originally Posted by RegGaymer
Homeopathic "medicine" is another thing entirely. That's taking a bit of milk thistle (or dandelion or whatever) and diluting it in a solution (such as water), 1 part per 100. Then taking that mixture and diluting it again, and again and again, until you're left with a solution where the odds of even 1 molecule of the original substance remaining is a billion to one.
I shouldn't have neg repped you for being ignorant of that. I'll make that up.
Is your star sign Cancer?
Yeah, the majority of people dismiss paranormal divine arts because it doesn't relate to the working world in a tangible way.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
These path numbers are just fun to think about; some will take this stuff more serious than others. There's no doubt that hard work, discipline, and consciously setting goals with a certain drive and determination to succeed is what's needed to 'get ahead' money wise.
What is real medicine?Quote:
Originally Posted by SrslySirius
By Maia Szalavitz @maiaszSept. 17, 20124 Comments
Record-breaking multibillion-dollar settlements against big drug companies have become routine in the U.S. In recent years, pharmaceutical companies seem to have been playing a game of one-upmanship, each surpassing yet a new milestone of wrongdoing — fraudulently marketing their drugs or making misleading claims about their safety — and the threat of massive payouts appears to have offered little deterrent.
(MORE: Breaking Down GlaxoSmithKline’s Billion-Dollar Wrongdoing)
Even the largest of settlements rarely dent the profits associated with the drugs involved: for example, the largest fine ever imposed on a drug company — July’s $3 billion judgment against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in part for illegally marketing the antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and withholding data on the health risks of the diabetes medication Avandia — accounted for just 11% of associated revenue. Many other cases resulted in relatively smaller losses even when the fines were imposed as criminal penalties, as in the GSK case, and not just for civil law violations. Contrast such outcomes with those in most individual cases of fraud, in which all profits are typically confiscated as ill-gotten gains and the fraudster goes to prison.
A recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine calls for change: levy large enough fines against drug companies for illegal behavior, so that the payouts can’t be dismissed as merely “the cost of doing business”; offer more protections for whistleblowers; and perhaps most importantly, file criminal charges against drug company executives for misconduct that could put them in prison.
(MORE: A Brief History of Antidepressants)
While the pharmaceutical industry is essential to medicine and has produced crucial drugs that have saved countless lives, eight of the 10 biggest international drug companies have recently agreed to pay millions to billions of dollars to settle charges of wrongdoing, and are currently operating under so-called corporate integrity agreements — essentially, promises not to commit the same crimes again. Some have already violated earlier agreements multiple times, however, to the tune of hundreds of millions dollars.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/1...y-settlements/
It is by definition pseudoscience.Quote:
Originally Posted by RegGaymer
In a nutshell:Quote:
a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Fi...6_noheader.png
Bullshit like homeopathy and psychic powers are thoroughly debunked when subjected to this. Things like religion and astrology often make claims that are unfalsifiable, so they can't be tested. Without evidence, there's no good reason to accept outlandish claims. That's just being gullible.
I'm sagittarius btw.
The gullible or needy happen to be on the wrong end of the billion dollar pharmaceutical industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by SrslySirius
Medicating grade school children after a ten or fifteen minute visit to the family Dr.
is now being debunked for what it is. Profit motive.
So prove your theories or let others decide for themselves what is true.
Pseudoscience, lol. A term made popular by those in control who
are happy with the way things are going.
You can't prove one method over the other can you now?
Since you picked your definition of Homeopathy from Wiki, here's what it says about today's "established" psychiatric mental disorders. That established list is now at or beyond the 400 level.
"The DSM evolved from systems for collecting census and psychiatric hospital statistics, and from a United States Army manual. Revisions since its first publication in 1952 have incrementally added to the total number of mental disorders, although also removing those no longer considered to be mental disorders.
The ICD is the other commonly used manual for mental disorders. It is distinguished from the DSM in that it covers health as a whole. While the DSM is the official diagnostic system for mental disorders in the US, the ICD is used more widely in Europe and other parts of the world. The DSM-IV-TR (4th. ed.) contains, in Appendix G, an "ICD-9-CM Codes for Selected General Medical Conditions and Medication-Induced Disorders" that allows for comparisons between the DSM and the ICD manuals, which may not systematically match because revisions are not simultaneously coordinated.
While the DSM has been praised for standardizing psychiatric diagnostic categories and criteria, it has also generated controversy and criticism. Critics, including the National Institute of Mental Health, argue that the DSM represents an unscientific and subjective system.[1] There are ongoing issues concerning the validity and reliability of the diagnostic categories; the reliance on superficial symptoms; the use of artificial dividing lines between categories and from "normality"; possible cultural bias; and medicalization of human distress.[2][3][4][5][6] The publication of the DSM, with tightly guarded copyrights, now makes APA over $5 million a year, historically totaling over $100 million.[7]"