Woo-Woo takes one last beating in 2009
DharmaTroll
Taking herbal supplement to ward off memory problems in old age 'a
waste of time'
By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 7:30AM GMT 30 Dec 2009
Thousands of people who take a herbal supplement to ward off memory
problems in old age are wasting their time, according to new research.
Ginkgo biloba, like most other herbal supplements, has been shown to
be completely ineffective.
Elderly people who took Ginkgo biloba every day for six years had as
many difficulties with recall as those who took a fake supplement, the
largest study of its kind has shown.
At least 100,000 gullible people in Britain are thought to regularly
take the supplement, which has been widely credited with improving
memory and concentration.
Made from the leaves of the Ginkgo tree, the Chinese herbal remedy has
been used as a traditional medicine for centuries.
It is thought to contain chemicals which help the flow of blood around
the body, which advocates believe will help protect the brain against
decline.
But the researchers who carried out the latest study warned that the
supplement appeared to have no effect on warding off age-related
memory problems.
Beth Snitz, from the University of Pittsburgh, who led the study,
said: “Ginkgo biloba is marketed widely and used with the hope of
improving, preventing, or delaying cognitive impairment associated
with ageing and neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's
disease.
“We found no evidence that Ginkgo biloba slows the rate of cognitive
decline in older adults.”
For the study the team followed 3,069 volunteers, all of whom were
aged between 72 and 96 years old and were given either a dose of the
herbal supplement or a placebo twice a day for more than six years.
The findings are published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA).
Earlier studies have suggested that Ginkgo biloba could have other
health benefits apart from memory, including reducing damage to the
brain during a stroke.
Available in capsules or in liquid form, the supplement should not be
used during pregnancy or breast-feeding or by patients taking blood
thinning drugs such as warfarin.
Side-effects can include headaches, allergic reactions, excessive
bleeding, and a drain on one's bank account in some cases.
Keynes
wrote:
Take thalidomide instead.
Keynes
wrote:
The real problem with gingko is that there's no patent on it.
Are you aware that all the articles in the JAMA are paid for
by big pharma? JAMA agonized over that for about five minutes
and then decided to take the money. How about all those studies
on marijuana? Results all over the place from brain jello to man
boobs to not much of anything. Science! They blinded me with
science. Science! beep boop. Poetry in motion. KaChing!
(There's one born every minute.)
DharmaTroll
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:23:12 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/kate-devlin/6906059/Taking-her...
Yeah, Nutter-Dude, a double-blind study with 3000 folks for 6 years,
and you claim its all a big conspiracy. There were lots of
researchers, and it would be pretty near impossible for one of them to
tamper with the data without getting detected.
Like your claim that trees and stars don't exist but are created by
your soul or 'Mind' or whatever snake oil you're peddling today, there
is an infinitesimal possibility that everyone is in on a grand
conspiracy; the more reasonable and overwhelming explanation is that
this huge, 6-year, expensive, carefully done study with 3000 subjects
accurately revealed that the woo-woo Ginko biloba story was a myth.
Keynes, I'm surprised you didn't conclude "well, it doesn't matter how
Ginko affects the brain, because the brain is just a piece of fat, and
it's your ineffable soul that stores all the memories, so this is
proof of the soul!"
In any case, Kooky Keynes, you have beautifully demonstrated the power
of the dogmatic clinging mind, to even in the face of the most
rigorous study, the strongest evidence, find a way to come up with a
conspiracy theory to allow you to keep clinging to your precious dogma
and delusion. A paradigm case of how religion and woo-woo operates!
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Dec 30, 1:47 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
http://www.policymed.com/2009/09/jama-ghost-writing-declines-but-still-out-to-discredit-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-no-bias-here.html
http://www.medicationsense.com/articles/may_aug_06/conflict_of_interest_060306.html
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/02/23/hlsb0223.htm
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/jama-merck-paid-docs-for-bylines/2008-04-16
There's one born every minute.
DharmaTroll
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:50:21 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
>
> There's one born every minute.
That means you were one of the 1,440 who were born yesterday, Keynes!
None of those stories is any evidence for a conspiracy. Any large
business has some corruption, and folks who cut corners to make a
buck. However, pharmaceutical companies save an amazing number of
lives, yet are given a bad rap by nutters, while bullshit woo-woo is
pedaled which fails every objective test.
Btw, in this case you've really got it ass-backwards, Nutter-Dude, as
it's the big pharma company which is pushing the supplements. Schwabe
Pharmaceuticals of Germany donated the supplements and placebo pills,
in fact. Schwabe has whined and has disputed the findings, saying the
study was hurt by a relatively low percentage of people taking the
supplement consistently (about 60 percent) and an unexpectedly low
decline in the mental faculties of the people taking placebo, which
made the comparison worse for the Ginkgo biloba. However, with a
sample size this large, it's hard to complain, as if you know which
folks took the supplement consistently, you can look at their results
and compare them to the ones who weren't consistent, and both against
the placebo group. In any case, the company you would have behind your
conspiracy wanted the opposite results so they could sell more
supplements. Heh.
You lose once again, Nutter-Dude. Better luck next time!
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Dec 30, 4:43 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
I'm sure glad that we know which journal and which
doctors are on the take. That we we can have complete
confidence in whatever they're paid to tell (sell) us.
Want to buy some smart pills? My rabbit makes 'em.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:9jlnj5hmodt6mjis9...@4ax.com...
> I'm sure glad that we know which journal and which
> doctors are on the take. That we we can have complete
> confidence in whatever they're paid to tell (sell) us.
>
> Want to buy some smart pills? My rabbit makes 'em.
This is generally around the point where a new and interesting topic would
come in handy rather than indulging sulking. It's more rewarding than
letting some little toddler throw a b4tch fit and ruin a day otherwise
packed with potential.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Keynes
>
>I'm sure glad that we know which journal and which
>doctors are on the take. That we we can have complete
>confidence in whatever they're paid to tell (sell) us.
>
>Want to buy some smart pills? My rabbit makes 'em.
Chantix, the wonder drug.
http://www.rxlist.com/chantix-drug.htm
User comments.
http://www.rxlist.com/script/main/rxlist_view_comments.asp?drug=chantix&questionid=fdb144470_pem
This drug has been approved by wall street and the FDA.
DharmaTroll
wrote:
Yes, it's getting boring, but this is in my opinion the consequence of
being a Metaphysical Nutter and pretending that stars don't exist or
that we're in the Matrix or whatever: when it comes to real life, the
nutters like Keynes yell "conspiracy theory" when there is well-done
double-blind study over 6 years involving 6000 participants that
demonstrates the non-effectiveness of woo-woo herb supplements, or
they'll claim conspiracy when most scientists in the world are in
consensus that man is responsible for much of global warming. Of
course I could keep the thread going for fun and call it "Keynes takes
one last beating in 2009". Heh.
--DharmaTroll
Nobody in Particular
ONE study against versus many for, and the nutter DT picks the one
that supports his prejudice. I haven't read the details of that study
yet, but it reminds me of the "well-designed" study supposedly showing
the ineffectiveness of Echinacea. Turns out in that one, they used a
blend of ingredients that was not fully effective, and the dosage was
1/3 of what is effective. I would not be surprised if something like
that would pop up in that "well-designed" Ginkgo Biloba study. We'll
see.
In any case, the gloating of kooky DT is reminiscent of the gloating
of creationists and global-warming deniers that discard the vast
evidence against their position and glomp on to the few (or the one)
studies that appear to support their belief.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:d8a664ba-6fb8-4da5...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 30, 5:55 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> This is generally around the point where a new and interesting topic
>> would come in handy rather than indulging sulking. It's more rewarding
>> than letting some little toddler throw a b4tch fit and ruin a day
>> otherwise packed with potential.
>
> Yes, it's getting boring, but this is in my opinion the consequence of
> being a Metaphysical Nutter and pretending that stars don't exist or
> that we're in the Matrix or whatever: when it comes to real life, the
> nutters like Keynes yell "conspiracy theory" when there is well-done
> double-blind study over 6 years involving 6000 participants that
> demonstrates the non-effectiveness of woo-woo herb supplements, or
> they'll claim conspiracy when most scientists in the world are in
> consensus that man is responsible for much of global warming. Of
> course I could keep the thread going for fun and call it "Keynes takes
> one last beating in 2009". Heh.
A new and better topic is more prominent, and the content makes more impact
than getting lost in the inevitable drunken ramble these things turn into.
Also, it forces said toddlers to change their focus and pump their chubby
little legs to keep up. This unjams things and opens up the door to being
influenced rather than fighting them on dead men's ground. Indeed, this is
more likely to attract a bigger and fresh audience, and leave said toddler
marginalised and compromised, and their sweaty little fist reaching for the
lollipop. Ah, gotcha. Come to Papa.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
zenworm
>
> > There's one born every minute.
>
> That means you were one of the 1,440 who were born yesterday, Keynes!
>
> None of those stories is any evidence for a conspiracy. Any large
> business has some corruption, and folks who cut corners to make a
> buck. However, pharmaceutical companies save an amazing number of
> lives, yet are given a bad rap by nutters, while bullshit woo-woo is
> pedaled which fails every objective test.
>
> Btw, in this case you've really got it ass-backwards, Nutter-Dude, as
> it's the big pharma company which is pushing the supplements. Schwabe
> Pharmaceuticals of Germany donated the supplements and placebo pills,
> in fact. Schwabe has whined and has disputed the findings, saying the
> study was hurt by a relatively low percentage of people taking the
> supplement consistently (about 60 percent) and an unexpectedly low
> decline in the mental faculties of the people taking placebo, which
> made the comparison worse for the Ginkgo biloba. However, with a
> sample size this large, it's hard to complain, as if you know which
> folks took the supplement consistently, you can look at their results
> and compare them to the ones who weren't consistent, and both against
> the placebo group. In any case, the company you would have behind your
> conspiracy wanted the opposite results so they could sell more
> supplements. Heh.
>
> You lose once again, Nutter-Dude. Better luck next time!
>
> --DharmaTroll
The formulation of a 'study' is set up by a few people.
The outcome of any study is dependent on its 'framing'.
The categorization of the data is a critical factor in the
interpretation of the data.
The multitude of technicians and scientist doing their
job of reliably (as per the framing set out in the study)
collecting the data is not a critical factor.
The more pertinent issues are:
who is in control of the studies framing?
how is the set up for the framing and data collection derived?
who is in control of the interpretation of the findings? - re:
a) the inclusion of categories and the exclusion of
categories of data
and
b) the interpretation of the studies findings which often
includes the authority to edit or deem elements inconclusive.
The answer to these questions is often a small group or
individual who has close (conflict of interest?) ties to the
funding agency/corporation and whose parts (both sides)
and interaction in the process is not subject to public
scrutiny.
Obviously corporations that are competent have already
developed strategies for any of the possible 'outcomes',
including propaganda.
ZN :D _/|\_
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without effort
DharmaTroll
>
> In any case, the gloating of kooky DT is reminiscent of the gloating
> of creationists and global-warming deniers
No, I'm on the side of science, which is that just about all herb
'supplements' are bullshit, as the rigorous 6-year study I posted
suggests, and that humans are causing global warming, which most
scientists concur. It's you assholes who call solid research and
reasoning "scientism" and then deny global warming or claim that the
world was created by magic.
> that discard the vast evidence against their position
> and glomp on to the few (or the one)
> studies that appear to support their belief.
Well, the majority of scientists back me up, ya lyin' sack'o'snake
oil. Tons and tons of studies have demonstrated that almost all herbal
supplements are useless, that the universe has been around for 13.7
billion years, rather than created by "Mind" or "God" or whatever
Kreationist Keyes says, and that the world is getting warmer due to
humans (actually much of it from the cows that humans raise to
slaughter). I don't have beliefs about these things, fool: I make
inference to the best explanation, whether I like it or not, which is
what you dogmatic dingleberries call "scientism".
If I have seen further than a fool like Nobody in Particular, it is
only by standing on the shoulders of giants and shoot spitballs on you
fools below.
--DharmaTroll
Charles E Hardwidge
> Well, the majority of scientists back me up, ya lyin' sack'o'snake
> oil. Tons and tons of studies have demonstrated that almost all herbal
> supplements are useless, that the universe has been around for 13.7
> billion years, rather than created by "Mind" or "God" or whatever
> Kreationist Keyes says, and that the world is getting warmer due to
> humans (actually much of it from the cows that humans raise to
> slaughter). I don't have beliefs about these things, fool: I make
> inference to the best explanation, whether I like it or not, which is
> what you dogmatic dingleberries call "scientism".
Being well versed in systems and having a personality type that leaned in
that direction I "got" the Diamond Sutra almost instantly. No need to read
through pages of legalese or handwaving.
If I recall, one of the key lessons of the Buddha was cause and effect. Now,
one may argue and posture but if you slam your head into a wall it's going
to hurt. It's no more complicated than that.
Casually skimming these groups one sees grander and grander claims over less
and less. How is this different from the "unenlightened" who play games over
more "mundane" affairs? None that I can see.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Timothy Little
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/kate-devlin/6906059/Taking-her...
>
> >Taking herbal supplement to ward off memory problems in old age 'a
> >waste of time'
>
> >By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
> >Published: 7:30AM GMT 30 Dec 2009
>
> >Thousands of people who take a herbal supplement to ward off memory
> >problems in old age are wasting their time, according to new research.
> >be completely ineffective.
>
> >Elderly people who tookGinkgobilobaevery day for six years had as
> >many difficulties with recall as those who took a fake supplement, the
> >largest study of its kind has shown.
>
> >At least 100,000 gullible people in Britain are thought to regularly
> >take the supplement, which has been widely credited with improving
> >memory and concentration.
>
> >been used as a traditional medicine for centuries.
>
> >It is thought to contain chemicals which help the flow of blood around
> >the body, which advocates believe will help protect the brain against
> >decline.
>
> >But the researchers who carried out the latest study warned that the
> >supplement appeared to have no effect on warding off age-related
> >memory problems.
>
> >Beth Snitz, from the University of Pittsburgh, who led the study,
> >improving, preventing, or delaying cognitive impairment associated
> >with ageing and neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's
> >disease.
>
> >decline in older adults.”
>
> >For the study the team followed 3,069 volunteers, all of whom were
> >aged between 72 and 96 years old and were given either a dose of the
> >herbal supplement or a placebo twice a day for more than six years.
>
> >The findings are published in the Journal of the American Medical
> >Association (JAMA).
>
> >health benefits apart from memory, including reducing damage to the
> >brain during a stroke.
>
> >Available in capsules or in liquid form, the supplement should not be
> >used during pregnancy or breast-feeding or by patients taking blood
> >thinning drugs such as warfarin.
>
> >Side-effects can include headaches, allergic reactions, excessive
> >bleeding, and a drain on one's bank account in some cases.
>
> The real problem with gingko is that there's no patent on it.
> Are you aware that all the articles in the JAMA are paid for
> by big pharma? JAMA agonized over that for about five minutes
> and then decided to take the money. How about all those studies
> on marijuana? Results all over the place from brain jello to man
> boobs to not much of anything. Science! They blinded me with
> science. Science! beep boop. Poetry in motion. KaChing!
>
> (There's one born every minute.)
The flaw with your argument is that there is no patent on exercise,
water, or stopping-smoking -- yet JAMA publishes numerous articles on
the benefits of those.
And aspirin is a dispositive proof since it was based on willow (or
any salicylate-rich plants)... So, if the GB presented any aspect of
efficacy, then the company deriving and demonstrating an effective
extract COULD patent it.
The reason that no company is patenting such a thing is precisely
because there is no effective component to GB which positively
influences cognitive function.
gbb
> ONE study against versus many for, and the nutter DT picks the one
> that supports his prejudice....
If your were really trying to "win" the argument, you would provide
links to all of those "many for" studies. As it stands, you simply
posted a personal attack. You lose.
--
gbb
Allen Barker
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/kate-devlin/6906059/Taking-herbal-supplement-to-ward-off-memory-problems-in-old-age-a-waste-of-time.html
>
> Taking herbal supplement to ward off memory problems in old age 'a
> waste of time'
>
> By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
> Published: 7:30AM GMT 30 Dec 2009
>
> Thousands of people who take a herbal supplement to ward off memory
> problems in old age are wasting their time, according to new research.
> Ginkgo biloba, like most other herbal supplements, has been shown to
> be completely ineffective.
>
> Elderly people who took Ginkgo biloba every day for six years had as
> many difficulties with recall as those who took a fake supplement, the
> largest study of its kind has shown.
>
> At least 100,000 gullible people in Britain are thought to regularly
> take the supplement, which has been widely credited with improving
> memory and concentration.
It's a real scientific no-no to purposely misquote a reference.
It was a solid, testable scientific hypothesis that ginkgo
might help reduce dementia in the elderly. It was put to
the test, in a large double-blind study (larger than the
earlier double-blind studies). This particular hypothesis
didn't hold up (assuming the study does). But is it woo-woo
when a scientist predicts a particle which then does not
appear as predicted?
Reducing or delaying dementia is only one possible use for
ginkgo. It is known to have measurable effects on the body
-- unlike, say, liquids diluted down to water. So it is
probably medicine for something.
Not every effect can be effectively measured scientifically,
and of those which can only a few are ever formally tested
(especially to this level). Many folk-remedies have turned
out to be effective. Were the people who used those
remedies before a double-blind study confirmed it
"gullible"?
Why would someone practice meditation before science tested
it and found it to have some benefit?
> Made from the leaves of the Ginkgo tree, the Chinese herbal remedy has
> been used as a traditional medicine for centuries.
>
> It is thought to contain chemicals which help the flow of blood around
> the body, which advocates believe will help protect the brain against
> decline.
>
> But the researchers who carried out the latest study warned that the
> supplement appeared to have no effect on warding off age-related
> memory problems.
>
> Beth Snitz, from the University of Pittsburgh, who led the study,
> said: �Ginkgo biloba is marketed widely and used with the hope of
> improving, preventing, or delaying cognitive impairment associated
> with ageing and neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's
> disease.
>
> �We found no evidence that Ginkgo biloba slows the rate of cognitive
> decline in older adults.�
zenworm
wrote:
>
> It's a real scientific no-no to purposely misquote a reference.
>
> It was a solid, testable scientific hypothesis that ginkgo
> might help reduce dementia in the elderly. It was put to
> the test, in a large double-blind study (larger than the
> earlier double-blind studies). This particular hypothesis
> didn't hold up (assuming the study does). But is it woo-woo
> when a scientist predicts a particle which then does not
> appear as predicted?
>
> Reducing or delaying dementia is only one possible use for
> ginkgo. It is known to have measurable effects on the body
> -- unlike, say, liquids diluted down to water. So it is
> probably medicine for something.
>
> Not every effect can be effectively measured scientifically,
> and of those which can only a few are ever formally tested
> (especially to this level). Many folk-remedies have turned
> out to be effective. Were the people who used those
> remedies before a double-blind study confirmed it
> "gullible"?
>
> Why would someone practice meditation before science tested
> it and found it to have some benefit?
ZAZEN HO!
^worm
DharmaTroll
>
>
> > Taking herbal supplement to ward off memory problems in old age 'a
> > waste of time'
>
> > By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
> > Published: 7:30AM GMT 30 Dec 2009
>
> > Thousands of people who take a herbal supplement to ward off memory
> > problems in old age are wasting their time, according to new research.
> > Ginkgo biloba, like most other herbal supplements, has been shown to
> > be completely ineffective.
>
> > Elderly people who took Ginkgo biloba every day for six years had as
> > many difficulties with recall as those who took a fake supplement, the
> > largest study of its kind has shown.
>
> > At least 100,000 gullible people in Britain are thought to regularly
> > take the supplement, which has been widely credited with improving
> > memory and concentration.
>
> It's a real scientific no-no to purposely misquote a reference.
>
> It was a solid, testable scientific hypothesis that ginkgo
> might help reduce dementia in the elderly. It was put to
> the test, in a large double-blind study (larger than the
> earlier double-blind studies). This particular hypothesis
> didn't hold up (assuming the study does). But is it woo-woo
> when a scientist predicts a particle which then does not
> appear as predicted?
Absolutely. The claim that gets the woo-sters spending hoards of money
around here is the claim about memory.
> Reducing or delaying dementia is only one possible use for
> ginkgo. It is known to have measurable effects on the body
> -- unlike, say, liquids diluted down to water. So it is
> probably medicine for something.
There was a very strong claim, and New Agers I know swear by it. So
they do a 6-year study, very well done, rigorous, over 6000 people,
and they find nada, absolutely no help in memory. So you say, "well,
um, it must be a cure for something, because it's an herb and affects
the body." That's silly. You can say the same thing about anything.
Indeed you would say that generic response about every single form of
snake oil. "The snake oil isn't water, so it must affect the body
somehow, so it has to be a magical cure for something or other."
That's logically equivalent to the Creationist nutters claiming, when
we acquired radioactive dating tech, that dinosaur fossils were
millions of years old and we could radioactively date the Earth to 4.5
billion years, that, um, well, God put them all there and made it look
older to test our faith. In other words, nothing could ever disprove
ANY form of magic snake oil for you, do matter how much good research
is done.
> Not every effect can be effectively measured scientifically,
> and of those which can only a few are ever formally tested
Actually, effects that are real can indeed be tested scientifically,
as the alternative is simply blind faith in authority and anecdotal
claims, which are not only worthless but often horribly misleading.
> Why would someone practice meditation before science tested
> it and found it to have some benefit?
They shouldn't, said the Buddha! In the Kalama-sutta, Sid says, don't
believe anything because authorities say it, even the Buddha, or
because it's popular or written in some holy book, but instead -test
it- and if you demonstrate it helpful, do it, and if not, drop it.
I have a cousin who takes 20 pills of vitamin and herbal supplements
every morning, and she swallows these woo-woo stories hook, line and
sinker. Here's one of the stories I've gathered to try to give her
other perspectives:
An attractive young airline stewardess told a physician that she was
taking more than 20 vitamin pills a day. "I used to feel run-down all
the time," she said, "but now I feel really great!"
"Yes," the doctor replied, "but there is no scientific evidence that
extra vitamins can do that. Why not take the pills one month on, one
month off, to see whether they really help you or whether it's just a
coincidence. After all, $300 a year is a lot of money to be wasting."
"Look, doctor," she said. "I don't care what you say. I KNOW the pills
are helping me."
How was this bright young lady converted into a true believer? First,
an appeal to her curiosity persuaded her to try and see. Then an
appeal to her vanity convinced her to disregard scientific evidence in
favor of personal experience—to think for herself. Supplementation is
encouraged by a distorted concept of biochemical individuality—that
everyone is unique enough to disregard the Recommended Dietary
Allowances (RDAs). Quacks won't tell you that scientists deliberately
set the RDAs high enough to allow for individual differences. A more
dangerous appeal of this type is the suggestion that although a remedy
for a serious disease has not been shown to work for other people, it
still might work for you. (You are extraordinary!)
The sale of vitamins has become so profitable that some otherwise
reputable manufacturers are promoting them with misleading claims. For
example, for many years, Lederle Laboratories (makers of Stresstabs)
and Hoffmann-La Roche advertised in major magazines that stress "robs"
the body of vitamins and creates significant danger of vitamin
deficiencies.
Another slick way for quackery to attract customers is the invented
disease. Virtually everyone has symptoms of one sort or another—minor
aches or pains, reactions to stress or hormone variations, effects of
aging, etc. Labeling these ups and downs of life as symptoms of
disease enables the quack to provide "treatment."
Some practitioners claim to detect "deficiencies" (or "imbalances" or
"toxins," etc.) before any symptoms appear or before they can be
detected by conventional means. Then they can sell you supplements (or
balance you, or remove toxins, etc.). And when the terrible
consequences they warn about don't develop, they can claim success.
Food safety and environmental protection are important issues in our
society. But rather than approach them logically, the food quacks
exaggerate and oversimplify. To promote "organic" foods, they lump all
additives into one class and attack them as "poisonous." They never
mention that natural toxicants are prevented or destroyed by modern
food technology. Nor do they let on that many additives are naturally
occurring substances.
Sugar has been subject to particularly vicious attack, being (falsely)
blamed for most of the world's ailments. But quacks do more than warn
about imaginary ailments. They sell "antidotes" for real ones. Care
for some vitamin C to reduce the danger of smoking? Or some vitamin E
to combat air pollutants? See your local salesperson.
Quackery's most serious form of fear-mongering has been its attack on
water fluoridation. Although fluoridation's safety is established
beyond scientific doubt, well-planned scare campaigns have persuaded
thousands of communities not to adjust the fluoride content of their
water to prevent cavities. Millions of innocent children have suffered
as a result. And the waste with billions of bottles water, not just to
make it, not just to pay for something which is perfectly safe from
the tap and then only a small fraction of them get recycled -- it's
amazing how the woo-woo-ists as well as the main-stream hucksters like
Coke and Pepsi have sold fear to the gullible and get them to pay for
something that they can have for free -- water.
--DharmaTroll
Lee Rudolph
of _olio Theobroma cacao_ weren't able to quash *this* publication,
babez!
Prevention of _striae gravidarum_ with cocoa butter cream
Keisha Buchanan, Horace M. Fletcher, and Marvin Reid
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital
of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston, Jamaica
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Volume 108, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 65-68
Abstract
Objective To determine whether cocoa butter cream is effective
in preventing striae gravidarum.
Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
enrolled 300 pregnant women: 150 women received cocoa butter cream and
150 women received a placebo cream. The women were followed-up from 16
weeks of pregnancy to delivery to assess the development of _striae
gravidarum_. Maternal height, weight, and abdominal girth were recorded
at each visit. After delivery the placenta was weighed, and anthropometry
and Apgar scores of the neonate were recorded.
Results The 2 groups had similar clinical parameters at booking.
_Striae gravidarum_ developed in 44% of patients using cocoa butter
cream compared with 55% of those using placebo; the difference was not
significant (.2 = 2.8, df(1), P = 0.09). _Striae gravidarum_ were more
common among younger women and those with large neonates. However, no
relationship was found between development of striae and body mass index.
Conclusion Cocoa butter cream does not prevent _striae gravidarum_. In
Afro-Caribbean women, development of _striae_ is related to young age of
the mother and large neonates.
Keywords: Cocoa butter cream; Striae gravidarum
...
Notes (LR): 1. _Striae gravidarum_ are "stretch marks" when they're at
home. 2. I wonder how they (as it were) blinded the participants, given
the extremely salient odor of _olio Theobroma cacao_. 3. According to
the body of the paper, _Centella asiatica_ ointment *does* work to
prevent stretch marks; but the plant it comes from is not widely available,
nor is it otherwise involved in commerce, unlike cacao (which in particular
is plentiful in Jamaica, hence its use there as a "folk remedy").
4. The paper does not include a recipe for placenta _mole_. 5. Who
cares about stretch marks, Hon--as long as you smell like hot chocolate
I'm going to stick around!
Lee Rudolph
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> The mighty financial forces of the Body Shop and other such purveyors
> of _olio Theobroma cacao_ weren't able to quash *this* publication,
> babez!
>
> [snip]
>
> Conclusion Cocoa butter cream does not prevent _striae gravidarum_. In
> Afro-Caribbean women, development of _striae_ is related to young age of
> the mother and large neonates.
A reverse reasoning would lead one to conclude that
antibiotics, especially the stronger ones, the last-resort
ones (in metaphysical terms, the ultimate ones), should
be avoided because they are harmful, in that they create
the condition for their own uselessness -- habituation,
and therefore resistance to the illnesses that they are
supposed to act against (remember, they act as last resort,
so when they become useless, there is no further cure).
The Boston Globe has an article from The Associated
Press on "Solution to killer superbug found in Norway",
by Martha Mendoza and Margie Mason,
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/12/30/
solution_to_killer_superbug_found_in_norway/?page=full
<<There is no sign of a dangerous and contagious staph
infection that killed tens of thousands of patients in the
most sophisticated hospitals of Europe, North America
and Asia this year, soaring virtually unchecked.
The reason: Norwegians stopped taking so many drugs.
Twenty-five years ago, Norwegians were also losing their
lives to this bacteria. But Norway's public health system
fought back with an aggressive program that made it the
most infection-free country in the world. A key part of that
program was cutting back severely on the use of antibiotics.
Now a spate of new studies from around the world prove
that Norway's model can be replicated with extraordinary
success, and public health experts are saying these
deaths -- 19,000 in the U.S. each year alone, more than
from AIDS -- are unnecessary.>>
<<Dr. John Birger Haug shuffles down [hospital] Aker's
scuffed corridors, patting the pocket of his baggy white
scrubs. "My bible," the infectious disease specialist says,
pulling out a little red Antibiotic Guide that details this
country's impressive MRSA solution.
It's what's missing from this book -- an array of
antibiotics -- that makes it so remarkable.
"There are times I must show these golden rules to our
doctors and tell them they cannot prescribe something, but
our patients do not suffer more and our nation, as a result,
is mostly infection free," he says.>>
Less is more. Woo-woo in its most insane form. Beyond
human imagination. Throw them in an insane asylum.
Now.
Tang Huyen
Allen Barker
Absolutely it is woo-woo when a scientist predicts a particle
which does not appear??
>> Reducing or delaying dementia is only one possible use for
>> ginkgo. It is known to have measurable effects on the body
>> -- unlike, say, liquids diluted down to water. So it is
>> probably medicine for something.
>
> There was a very strong claim, and New Agers I know swear by it. So
> they do a 6-year study, very well done, rigorous, over 6000 people,
> and they find nada, absolutely no help in memory.
That is not what the study found, because that is not the
precise scientific hypothesis which was being tested.
That is your unscientific overgeneralization, which you
are trying to pass off as science. Your own brand of
woo-woo, if you will.
> So you say, "well,
> um, it must be a cure for something, because it's an herb and affects
> the body." That's silly. You can say the same thing about anything.
> Indeed you would say that generic response about every single form of
> snake oil. "The snake oil isn't water, so it must affect the body
> somehow, so it has to be a magical cure for something or other."
And it would probably be true, since the "something or
other" was left undefined and so could range over the
whole universe of things to cure. Not very logical
of you.
> That's logically equivalent to the Creationist nutters claiming, when
> we acquired radioactive dating tech, that dinosaur fossils were
> millions of years old and we could radioactively date the Earth to 4.5
> billion years, that, um, well, God put them all there and made it look
> older to test our faith. In other words, nothing could ever disprove
> ANY form of magic snake oil for you, do matter how much good research
> is done.
Magic snake oil itself is not a scientific hypothesis; it
cannot be "disproved." Your metaphor is ridiculous.
>> Not every effect can be effectively measured scientifically,
>> and of those which can only a few are ever formally tested
>
> Actually, effects that are real can indeed be tested scientifically,
> as the alternative is simply blind faith in authority and anecdotal
> claims, which are not only worthless but often horribly misleading.
So no effect is "real" unless there is an effective
scientific way to test it? What an absurd definition of
"real." When a new measurement device is invented does
that change what is "real"? Are subjective experiences
real? Do psychological assays really measure what they
purport to measure? If it costs $200 million to measure
some effect, is it unreal in a cost-benefit way? What
if something can only be measured in principle or in
theory?
>> Why would someone practice meditation before science tested
>> it and found it to have some benefit?
>
> They shouldn't, said the Buddha! In the Kalama-sutta, Sid says, don't
> believe anything because authorities say it, even the Buddha, or
> because it's popular or written in some holy book, but instead -test
> it- and if you demonstrate it helpful, do it, and if not, drop it.
Why can't people test ginkgo and see if they find it
helpful, in just that same way?
Kitty P
"Allen Barker" <allendotel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5p2%m.5$Sh...@newsfe25.iad...
Exactly. People have been led away from being aware of their own bodies. We
rely too much on others to determine what we know about ourselves. I want a
doc if I have a broken leg or a heart attack - but my traditional doctor is
the last person I would ask when it comes to vitamin deficiencies in my diet
or environment, which incidentally can lead to the weakened leg bone and
heart attack to begin with.
Kitty
Keynes
And air too. Don't forget air.
>And aspirin is a dispositive proof since it was based on willow (or
>any salicylate-rich plants)... So, if the GB presented any aspect of
>efficacy, then the company deriving and demonstrating an effective
>extract COULD patent it.
Aspirin is the trade name of a drug by Bayer whose patent
ran out long ago. Quite a lot of our drugs came from nature
but have since been synthicized.
>The reason that no company is patenting such a thing is precisely
>because there is no effective component to GB which positively
>influences cognitive function.
But there was an admission that there may be other beneficial
effects not tested for. I'm not sure the study was on the up and up.
I don't think any study is on the up and up when there are billions
to be made and only millions to lose. I think our system is totally
corrupt, public and private.
My aged mother gets Rx eye drops. A month's supply of less than
1 ounce costs $100. $800 a cup. $1600 a pint. $3200 a quart.
$12,800 a gallon. (I think the actual bottle amount is 1/3 oz. =
$38,400 a gallon. I suspect it is THC for glaucoma.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_medicine
Charles E Hardwidge
news:mvudnQZHR_ANMKHW...@supernews.com...
>
> <<Dr. John Birger Haug shuffles down [hospital] Aker's
> scuffed corridors, patting the pocket of his baggy white
> scrubs. "My bible," the infectious disease specialist says,
> pulling out a little red Antibiotic Guide that details this
> country's impressive MRSA solution.
>
> It's what's missing from this book -- an array of
> antibiotics -- that makes it so remarkable.
>
> "There are times I must show these golden rules to our
> doctors and tell them they cannot prescribe something, but
> our patients do not suffer more and our nation, as a result,
> is mostly infection free," he says.>>
>
> Less is more. Woo-woo in its most insane form. Beyond
> human imagination. Throw them in an insane asylum.
> Now.
The British health system (among other things) suffered from the Thatcher
legacy of budget cuts and competition. Fundamental hygiene and nursing
empathy has eroded as a result. A Labour government weakened by big finance
and covertly Tory driven grassroots campaigning hasn't helped. This lack of
clarity and imbalance in politics is fuelling a brutal race to the bottom.
Civil war is a little melodramatic but things have been tearing apart.
I've had an inside view of the Civil Service and know how some people pad
their work, and had a city councillor standing on a pavement full of trash
defend the "hard working" authorities who couldn't nail a nuisance neighbour
problem. I also have an inside view of a multi-million pound tax fraud and
police cover-up. So, when I hear indignant police officers and their Tory
pals squeal like alki's in faux outrage I am unmoved.
If there's a common points between bad medicine, bad policing, and bad
governance it's people who don't listen. They're so busy trying to "fix" the
problem and defend their reputations they gasp with surprise when someone
dies under a knife, in dark alley, or of mere neglect. Cue the usual public
enquiries, cries of never again, and layers of legalistic and procedural
boilerplate. Here, I agree. Culture is key to effecting change.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
zenworm
> "Allen Barker" <allendotelldotbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
multivitanoumenality?
^worm
possum
Tang Huyen
possum wrote:
> happy new year.
Happy New Year, Jan.
I went through San Francisco airport today,
it was routine scan, and no full-body scan
yet. Security was about normal, both before
boarding and in the plane.
Tang Huyen
Julian
>
> possum wrote:
>
>> happy new year.
>
> Happy New Year, Jan.
>
> I went through San Francisco airport today,
> it was routine scan, and no full-body scan
> yet.
Better luck next time...
Happy New Year to the pair of you.
Tang Huyen
Julian wrote:
> Better luck next time...
>
> Happy New Year to the pair of you.
Happy New Year to you, too. Thank you
for replying to Kitty about Fu, in that post
I missed one word: "stung to the quick".
It was hard to notice any tightening in
security. Probably it would be mostly for
flights coming into the USA from the
outside world.
Tang Huyen
Julian
Schipol is reoported to be introducing full body scanners
for USA bound flights withing 3 weeks. I'm a little stunned
that they haven't been in place already.
Keynes
They may get the machines alright, but where will
they get the men who want to see naked women?
possum
wrote:
i caught a glimpse at a news report today where they showed full body
scans to air travellers, and *all* those interviewed thought it was a
jolly good idea.
possum
happy new year to one and all.
possum
thanks julian. happy mmx to you too. : )
possum
Tara
(in article
<6a60cb1d-a399-418a...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>):
Hey you guys long time no...but not forgotten. Have a very Happy New and
All Year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tara
Kitty P
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:ltnqj5tf40elj3a8k...@4ax.com...
Like all TSA workers - it will soon become boring and they too will become
passive aggressive.
Kitty
Keynes
We could deputize all air travelers and pay them something.
Then terrorists could turn themselves in for the reward.
Keynes
I'm getting suspicious.
So far this new year looks just like the old one.
Julian
> I'm getting suspicious.
> So far this new year looks just like the old one.
Yep, another year where expressions of good will are beyond you.
Keynes
Are you feeling deprived?
Good will to you, sir! And welcome to it!
(Ooo. That hurt me.)
In my inhuman capacity I don't like to acknowledge praise
or blame, or deal in commiseration and aw shucks much.
It doesn't feel right for me to say some things or to not
say other things. Some things go without saying.
And some are pretty cheap.
halfawake
> Quackery's most serious form of fear-mongering has been its attack on
> water fluoridation. Although fluoridation's safety is established
> beyond scientific doubt, well-planned scare campaigns have persuaded
> thousands of communities not to adjust the fluoride content of their
> water to prevent cavities. Millions of innocent children have suffered
> as a result. And the waste with billions of bottles water, not just to
> make it, not just to pay for something which is perfectly safe from
> the tap and then only a small fraction of them get recycled -- it's
> amazing how the woo-woo-ists as well as the main-stream hucksters like
> Coke and Pepsi have sold fear to the gullible and get them to pay for
> something that they can have for free -- water.
The level of chlorine in DC's tap water is at carcinogenic levels. And
i didn't hear this from a psychic but from a news article. And the
water administration itself just admitted that it lied about the lead
levels in the drinking water for about a decade - the levels have been
dangerously high. I wouldn't drink DC tap water if you paid me without
a filter. To do so would be to ignore the scientific findings.
Best,
Robert
= = = = = = = =
Lee
"halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hhn2p2$fbk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
we get a detailed report from our water department
every so often and it shows in ppm what's in the water
and how safe it is for drinking, cooking and bathing, yet
if you leave a bowl of water in the sink for a couple of days
it gets as thick as honey. something's just not right there.
Wilson
"Lee" <origi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XIudnSWv4PAMjqLW...@earthlink.com...
I'd say trust your own experience before you listen to so called
"experts". More than a few of them have their own agendas.
--
Wilson
http://puddinheadwilson.tumblr.com/
Evelyn
"halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hhn2p2$fbk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Chlorine is a proven carcinogen. But the deadly diseases which are water
borne, and which have been eliminated by chlorination, are pretty horrible
too. So we choose long term illness in order to avoid short term illness.
I used to work for Culligan in their drinking water department. The stuff
in your water would shock you if you knew. We use our well water (which
is treated for just about everything with a lot of equipment) for
everything, but for drinking we get Culligans reverse osmosis purified water
delivered in bottles. It is absolutely delicious.
People think they are getting something good in buying spring water. It is
not true. Spring water is mostly just tap water that has been run through
a little charcoal filter to remove bad flavors. Whatever microscopic junk
is in the water is still there, it just tastes a little better. If you buy
water in bottles to drink, be sure that you buy the purified kind. In my
area those have a different color label than the regular spring water, but
the price is the same, even if the water is a lot cleaner. So look for the
one that is reverse osmosis purified.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Evelyn
What they consider safe means that a reasonably healthy person will most
likely not get sick from it. But there can always be that odd virus or
pathogen of some kind that can sit wrongly with any individual. Leaving
water sit in a bowl in a warm home environment for a few days will allow
whatever is in that water an opportunity to grow and multiply. What comes
out of your faucet may be safe as long as the water flows on a regular
basis, but if you don't run your water long enough or often enough, it can
get contaminated laying around stagnant in the pipes too. Always run the
water a few minutes to clear out the pipes before taking a drink.
Lee
"Evelyn" <evely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhnklm$cso$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
i have filters at the kitchen and shower but
there is also an issue of black mold now
where ever stagnant water sits for a short time.
i don't have any health issues but older people
or pregnant women may not be so lucky.
Lee
"Wilson" <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:NKqdnYcpD7WQ2aLW...@supernews.com...
our water department probably has the furthest
thing from what could be called experts that one
could imagine.
Lee Rudolph
>i have filters at the kitchen and shower but
>there is also an issue of black mold now
>where ever stagnant water sits for a short time.
>i don't have any health issues but older people
>or pregnant women may not be so lucky.
You too may be old and pregnant some day!!!
Lee Rudolph
Lee
i read about a study they did in philadelphia
where they found traces of over 50 different
prescription drugs in the water. when people
take medication it isn't fully assimilated and
ends up back in the water supply. no need
to go to a pharmacy, just drink the tap water.
Lee
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hhnlfj$3ek$1...@reader1.panix.com...
can't wait
Keynes
Copper piping used to use lead solder connections.
Water standing in the pipes can contain lead. Newer
solders are supposed to be safer. Anyway, running
the water for a bit is a good idea. I always used
plastic PVC pipe, and you know what's bad about
that...
Keynes
That's why you should have an old pregnant
woman as your water taster.
Standing water in the house picks up stuff from
the air that may grow in it. They say you should
let chlorinated water stand for 24 hours before
using it for the fish tank or for bakers' yeast.
Lee
i didn't know that you could
bake in the fish tank.
Keynes
There are many wonders in the world, grasshopper.
Of course you can bake in the fish tank.
But the fish won't like it.
zenworm
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 09:31:47 -0500, "Lee" <original...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"Evelyn" <evelyn.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hhnklm$cso$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >> "Lee" <original...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:XIudnSWv4PAMjqLW...@earthlink.com...
>
> >>> "halfawake" <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The 'unstabilized' chlorine used in water treatment
is engineered to off-gas into the air from the waters
surface, so setting aside some tap water in an open
top container allows the chlorine to dissipate.
This is why from the tap it will be toxic to fish and yeast but
let stand for a day and no problem. If you want to improve the
taste and lower the chlorine toxicity of your drinking water just
keep an unsealed jug in your frig. Most of the chlorine
will dissipate overnight. Ever wonder why if you are running
the water from your tap down the drain the tap water does
not chlorine contaminate the environment? - the sealed
pressurized piping that delivers the water to and moves it
around in your house retains the chlorine. Once it enters
a drain (a much larger pipe wherein there is no pressurization
and the water inside has an open surface) the chlorine
off-gasses into the air and dissipates.
Cool huh? - the magic of science.
^worm
DharmaTroll
> DharmaTroll wrote:
>
> > Quackery's most serious form of fear-mongering has been its attack on
> > water fluoridation. Although fluoridation's safety is established
> > beyond scientific doubt, well-planned scare campaigns have persuaded
> > thousands of communities not to adjust the fluoride content of their
> > water to prevent cavities. Millions of innocent children have suffered
> > as a result. And the waste with billions of bottles water, not just to
> > make it, not just to pay for something which is perfectly safe from
> > the tap and then only a small fraction of them get recycled -- it's
> > amazing how the woo-woo-ists as well as the main-stream hucksters like
> > Coke and Pepsi have sold fear to the gullible and get them to pay for
> > something that they can have for free -- water.
>
> The level of chlorine in DC's tap water is at carcinogenic levels.
No, it is not, and chlorine itself isn't a problem, Robert.
I'll explain seriously below, but first I must pelt you with the usual
unnecessary, obligatory, and gratuitous insults. Heh. And then I'll
conclude my post with the most serious problem that chlorine in tap
water poses, which neither Robert nor any other of you uninformed
gullible posters even mentioned. So make sure you read to the end the
informative, insightful ramblings of the totally awesome DharmaTroll!
> And i didn't hear this from a psychic but from a news article.
Probably FOX news or a supermarket tabloid.
Try checking out the research a little more, Robert. Woo-woo
superstitionists question just about all of science, and then you
latch onto any scare mongering you read about drinking water from your
own faucet. Better stick to talking about your transcendental
experiences of awareness of awareness or whatever.
> And the water administration itself just admitted that it lied
> about the lead levels in the drinking water for about a decade
> - the levels have been dangerously high.
Like a supermarket tabloid, Robert tries to pump emotional hype,
spewing accusations of "lying" followed by "dangerous". Anything in
large amounts (such as salt) is dangerous and carcinogenic. The
question is how much is dangerous and how much are we ingesting.
Robert, you avoid both in your disingenuous emotional outburst. The
you conclude your disinformational scare cry with:
> I wouldn't drink DC tap water if you paid me without
> a filter. To do so would be to ignore the scientific findings.
Yet you didn't mention any findings at all.
> Best,
> Robert
>
> = = = = = = = =
Chlorine is the issue here, but since Robert throws in lead and tries
to pile on other unsubstantiated stories, the way UFOlogists do, I'll
deal with Robert's lead first. The legal limit of lead in water is 15
parts per billion, which is an extremely tiny amount. But what the
hell does that mean? Robert didn't even cite any parts-per-billion
figure. Freshwater fish contains up to 1000 ppb, and oyster
approximately 500 ppb. The World Health Organization (WHO) stated a
legal limit of 50 ppb for lead in 1995, which is decreased to 10 ppb
in 2010. Yes, there were a few cases in DC due to lead in the pipes
that were over 300 ppb, which is a concern, but no huge conspiracy:
Robert would have us worried that we're being lied to about our tap
water and that we might die from it. No wonder so many folks don't
believe real concerns, such as global warming, when vibrationologists
like Robert are crying 'wolf!' so often.
As for your alleged conspiracy, you can read the report here
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5312a6.htm
and yes, of 6,170 homes tested 163 (3%) had lead levels >300 ppb, in
second-draw water collected after a change in water temperature,
indicating that some of the lead in the water leached from water pipes
outside the home. Of the 201 residents from 98 homes with water lead
levels >300 ppb tested for lead in their blood, all had BLLs below
CDC's levels of concern (10 µg/dL for children aged 6 months--15 years
and 25 µg/dL for adults). When you talk like a nutter, Robert, and
babble emotional nonsense, then woo-woo-ists will cite this as 'fact'.
Oh, yeah, how much lead is in DC's tap water right now? In July 2009,
EPA received the most recent report on lead levels in DC drinking
water: 90 percent of the samples had lead levels of 6 parts per
billion (ppb) or less, far below EPA's lead action level of 15 ppb.
As for chlorine, it's not the chlorine that you have to worry about:
it's the THMs. Not one of the silly posters here has mentioned that.
It's the by-products formed when chlorine binds with organic and some
inorganic matter that are the problem for us. Though not a very big
one. Thanks to the emotionalizing by irresponsible nutters, the 1991
cholera epidemic in Peru was brought about because chlorine was
discontinued because of unsubstantiated fears like Robert's.
Life magazine declared in 1997 that "the filtration of drinking water
plus the use of chlorine is probably the most significant public
health advancement of the millennium." And countless lives have been
saved by the addition of chlorine to drinking water. But during the
past 30 years, scientists have highlighted that chlorine reacts with
organic matter naturally present in water, such as decaying leaves,
forming potentially dangerous disinfection by-products (DBPs). The
most common of these are trihalogenated methanes (THMs). Water
authorities monitor the concentration of these compounds, but the
World Health Organization (WHO) believes that the "risks to health
from DBPs are extremely small in comparison with inadequate
disinfection."
Now recent studies that have shown any significant correlation between
chlorinated water and health problems have been in pregnant women, and
with bladder cancer.
Research also linked a slightly increased risk of bladder cancer with
exposures of 50 ppb. And pregnant women who lived in areas with tap
water with high concentrations of chlorine were found to have several
small but statistically significant effects: Anencephalus, a brain
condition, rose to 0.17 percent in high THM areas; hole-in-the-heart
defects nearly doubled; and the number of cleft palates rose from
0.029 percent to 0.045 percent in high THM areas.
Now, a water-filter on your kitchen sink, or a Brita filter makes
sense, but spending a dollar (or more) to buy bottled water in a
restaurant is silly and superstitious (and btw, most bottled water is
regulated less than tap water, and then there is the diethylhexyl
adipate that leaks from the plastic into the water. D'oh!
But wait: Robert failed to mention what is perhaps the most serious
concern with chlorinated water!
In the most important studies, two-thirds of the harmful exposure to
chlorine is due to inhalation of steam and skin absorption while
showering. Taking a warm shower opens up your skin pores and clears
the way for accelerated absorption of chlorine. The steam inhaled
during showers contains up to 50 times the amount of chemicals in tap
water. This is because the chlorine, along with other contaminants and
DBPs, vaporize at a faster rate and at a lower temperature than water.
Once inhaled, the chlorine goes directly into your bloodstream.
Leading experts are confirming the dangerous effects of inhaling
chlorine while taking showers. According to researcher Bruce Black
during a meeting of the American Chemical Society:
“Taking long, hot showers is a health risk. The chemicals evaporate
out of the water and are inhaled. They can also spread through the
house and be inhaled by others. House holders can receive 6 to 100
times more of the chemical by breathing the air around showers and
bath than they would by drinking the water.”
Further, a Professor of Water Chemistry at the University of
Pittsburgh claims that exposure to vaporized chemicals in the water
supplies through showering, bathing and inhalation is 100 times
greater than through drinking water. And according to Dr. Lance
Wallace, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Showering is suspected
as the primary cause of elevated levels of chloroform in nearly every
home because of chlorine in the water.”
So really, if you are worried about effects of chlorine in tap-water,
you would have a shower-filter. The science-aware DharmaTroll has an
Aquasana Shower Filter in his shower. How about you, Robert? My guess
is that neither you, nor any of the superstitious "transcendental"
folks on these boards are using a shower filter, which is the most
important concern when it comes to chlorinated water. Well, Robert? I
got'cha this time, ya superstitious scare-monger! Bwahahaha!
--DharmaTroll
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
> So really, if you are worried about effects of chlorine
> in tap-water, you would have a shower-filter. The
> science-aware DharmaTroll has an Aquasana Shower
> Filter in his shower. How about you, Robert? My
> guess is that neither you, nor any of the superstitious
> "transcendental" folks on these boards are using a
> shower filter, which is the most important concern
> when it comes to chlorinated water. Well, Robert? I
> got'cha this time, ya superstitious scare-monger!
> Bwahahaha!
If the science-aware DharmaTroll has a shower-filter
in the physical realm, has he a filter in the mental
realm that can help him filter out the pervasive
iron-grip that the Church has on his mind?
The Church taught him in air-tight Pavlovian arcs, so
that whenever he hears or sees the word "God", he
has to think only of the Christian God and not to
allow any other meaning, even if the context makes
it crystal-clear that some other meaning is specifically
meant; whenever he hears or sees the word "faith",
he has to think only of the Christian faith and not to
allow any other meaning, even if the context makes
it crystal-clear that some other meaning is specifically
meant; whenever he hears or sees the word "grace",
he has to think only of the Christian grace and not to
allow any other meaning, even if the context makes
it crystal-clear that some other meaning is specifically
meant; whenever he hears or sees the word "the
soul", he has to think only of the Christian soul and
not to allow any other meaning, even if the context
makes it crystal-clear that some other meaning is
specifically meant; etc.
The Church has seen to it that if you revolt against
it, you may only mess with the content that it taught
you, usually by reversing it, tit for tat, but not
change the structure of thinking that it imprinted on
you, which remains inviolable and immaculate. And
that structure dictates that you think in realist (not
idealist) manner, literalist (not metaphorical, not
allegorical) manner, absolutist (not relativist, not
revisionist) manner. And you have no freedom with
regard to such strictures. The Church thinks you,
talks you, acts you, without any wiggle room.
<<Actually, it's classic Evangelical dogma: "Without
God, without accepting Jesus, makes all spirituality
into materialism, a willful madness of Godless
Atheists.">> DharmaTroll.
So the Church imposed itself on you, and your history
has been imposed history. It imprinted its meme on
you, and your history has been memetic history. You
are a walking relict of Jewish mythology, of the most
slavish and grovelling kind. You are locked up solidly
in the box that the Church slapped on your head, box
that you most willingly carry around with you to tell
you what to think, talk and do.
Now what kind of filter are you going to use to
reduce or even nullify such influence of the Church
on you? Are you going to live with it for the duration
of your life?
Tang Huyen
Lee
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:S-adnY9jpcqBQ6LW...@supernews.com...
so you'd prefer a filter that
filters out all of the filters?
Tang Huyen
Lee wrote:
> so you'd prefer a filter that
> filters out all of the filters?
A filter that filters out at least
or at most the Christian filters
for DharmaTroll the willing
slave. The Christian filters in his
case involve also the shrill
physicalist filter that he works
up by (this is the meme that the
Church allows him) reversing
Christian filters in content but
keeping intact Christian filters in
structure.
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
wrote:
Silly Tang-banger, you've got yourself all muddled.
What I said was that the first thing that comes to mind,when I hear
the word "God" is the Father-Time image of an old bearded wizard in
the sky. And yes, that came from archetypes hard-wired into me in
Catholic School.
However, you're claim, that with all my super-power intellectual
abilities, all my years of studying philosophy, and of course my doing
Buddhist practice and paying attention to all my feelings and
thoughts, about God and everything else, that I now as an adult "has
to think only of the Christian God and not to allow any other
meaning"? In fact, having an initial affective reaction to such words
allows me to understand others' conditioning and know how they are
feeling on the inside. You're basically claiming that I'm a monkey who
superficially goes by his intuitions and doesn't think critically.
While that's the first emotional intuition I get from the G-word as
well as others, intellectually, I studied all sorts of versions of
God, and I have posted endlessly that the word is misleading because
so many people mean so many things by it! And now you falsely claim
that I only accept one connotation of the word? Are you off your meds
again, Tang -- you're sounding really repetitive (more so than usual
-- your 'discourse' above reads like one of those suttas that's sing-
songy and repetitive so that the monks could memorize it to pass down
intact).
Indeed, if you had bothered to read all my awesome, insightful posts,
you'd see that I defend non-localized non-anthropomorphic, non-literal
definitions of God, especially in my arguments with Fu about some of
my favorite authors on the subject, such as James Carse and Karen
Armstrong.
Indeed, even in Catholic school, the grip of Catholic conditioning
lost its grip on me. As I've stated before, the symbol of the cross,
which for Catholics is an icon to worship, and for Jews pretty much
the same as a swastika except symbolizing a deeper and older hatred,
no longer affected me by the time I was in high school: to me one of
those shiny crosses around a girl's neck was sexy because I saw it
(and still see it) as a treasure map pointing to the four places to
put my mouth!
Now do try to get unstuck, Brother Tang, and come up with something
new.
--DharmaTroll
possum
wrote:
> DharmaTroll wrote:
> > So really, if you are worried about effects of chlorine
> > in tap-water, you would have a shower-filter. The
> > science-aware DharmaTroll has an Aquasana Shower
> > Filter in his shower. How about you, Robert? My
> > guess is that neither you, nor any of the superstitious
> > "transcendental" folks on these boards are using a
> > shower filter, which is the most important concern
> > when it comes to chlorinated water. Well, Robert? I
> > got'cha this time, ya superstitious scare-monger!
> > Bwahahaha!
>
> If the science-aware DharmaTroll has a shower-filter
> in the physical realm, has he a filter in the mental
> realm that can help him filter out the pervasive
> iron-grip that the Church has on his mind?
extremely doubtful. i wonder if DT can cite a study which doesn't
sell a product?
the aquasana filter retails for around 70 quid here.
this link below cites a New Scientist article from 1986.
http://chlorinekills.com/
pretty authoritative eh? and salvation from nasty deaths and diseases
can be yours, for a price. but only people who buy the filter are
saved.
i refuse to buy the filter, and shower wearing a gas mask and a
rubber suit, like keynes...
why, i ask, isn't the chlorine filter an industry standard for shower
manufacturers?
why oh why has public regulation fore-saken us?...
>
> The Church taught him in air-tight Pavlovian arcs, so
> that whenever he hears or sees the word "God", he
> has to think only of the Christian God and not to
> allow any other meaning, even if the context makes
> it crystal-clear that some other meaning is specifically
> meant; whenever he hears or sees the word "faith",
> he has to think only of the Christian faith and not to
> allow any other meaning, even if the context makes
> it crystal-clear that some other meaning is specifically
> meant; whenever he hears or sees the word "grace",
> he has to think only of the Christian grace and not to
> allow any other meaning, even if the context makes
> it crystal-clear that some other meaning is specifically
> meant; whenever he hears or sees the word "the
> soul", he has to think only of the Christian soul and
> not to allow any other meaning, even if the context
> makes it crystal-clear that some other meaning is
> specifically meant; etc.
i have noticed this. 'faith' and 'soul' are the most difficult for
me.
'grace' is not, but i wasn't raised as a merkin catholic like DT.
C of E, with 'made in england' stamped on me, who knows what i imbibed
and absorbed bathed in that cultural inheritance, standing in my
clogs...? one can't qualify everything one utters with one's
autobiography, although DT tries in his sigs, - and what about those
who don't even have autos? would DT ask this? <.....> how many
interpretive filters would he need, and does he think 'how many?' is
a pure science question?!
i wonder, what does it say on the 'certified reality' ticket, DT?
possum
>
> Tang Huyen
Nobody in Particular
I remember an article in a NJ newspaper back in 1965. They had just
opened the world's most advanced sewage treatment plant (don't
remember which city). To show how clean the water was, the mayor
dipped a glass into the swimming-pool sized tank and drank it. When
the reporters asked how that reclaimed water compared to the average
drinking water in the system, the engineer replied that to a tank of
that size, you'd have to add a 55-gallon drum of raw sewage, and kept
going about other nasty stuff.
Nobody in Particular
He does the same with the word "scientism". I've shown him the
definition of that term more than once, but he insists on his own
made-up definition, just so he can whine about it being an insult.
Keynes
wrote:
>
>However, you're claim, that with all my super-power intellectual
>abilities, all my years of studying philosophy, and of course my doing
>Buddhist practice and paying attention to all my feelings and
>thoughts, about God and everything else, that I now as an adult "has
>to think only of the Christian God and not to allow any other
>meaning"? In fact, having an initial affective reaction to such words
>allows me to understand others' conditioning and know how they are
>feeling on the inside. You're basically claiming that I'm a monkey who
>superficially goes by his intuitions and doesn't think critically.
Have you ever wondered how a machine can be intelligent or
think critically? Just how could a mechanism be intelligent?
It's a practical problem in computing. And philosophy.
DharmaTroll
>
> He does the same with the word "scientism". I've shown him the
> definition of that term more than once, but he insists on his own
> made-up definition, just so he can whine about it being an insult.
Not so at all, and you know it. Not only are you a meanie, but you're
a disingenuous meanie, Nobody.
I've heard the word scientism used many, many times. Let's see, first
there are the Creationists, the Evangelicals who call Evolution
"scientism". Then I've heard acupuncturists, reflexologists, and the
like refer to scientific studies as "scientism". (Btw, all of these
folks use the term as a pejorative attack on good science when their
own particular flavor of pseudo-science doesn't cut the mustard.) Oh
yeah, and I hear the word flung around by my neighborhood hippie New-
Age or Wicca friends who talk about "energies" and "crossing over" to
"spirit realms" and the like. And then there are the anti-science
jerks like you on this list. Never once have I read an article by a
prominent scientist or philosopher using the term.
So I think that you know damn well that you are being insulting and
making a false claim about empirical research, and trying to level the
playing field and equate blind faith with science, the way the
Creationists want to claim that their Genesis "Bible theory" of
creation is equally as valid and reasonable as "evolution theory", or
the way our list kook Keynes wants to say that the universe was
created by "Mind" and calls the Big Bang theory "scientism". Maybe
there is some origin of the term like you say, but that's not how I've
ever, ever heard it used in all the years I've heard that term. And
you know that. Unlike some of the folks around here, you're not a
moron, Nobody. You're just plain rude.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 16:57:36 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
It's only an insoluble problem for Cartesian mind/body dualists like
yourself, Keynes. You beg the question, because you wonder how we can
be intelligent or think critically if we are "just a mechanism". That
is, you have to add the ghost to the machine for things to work, and
that's why you go the superstitious woo-woo route. But we are
intelligent, critically thinking machines, flexible enough to grow and
learn new ways to think and be creative. It's a practical problem in
computing and philosophy, yes, both how our brains do it, and how it
might be possible for androids to exist, like Commander Data. You
would like the Star Trek ep, "The Measure of a Man", where Data was on
trial and Picard defended the claim that he was, indeed, sentient.
One excellent piece that I recommend is at:
http://www.naturalism.org/consciou.htm
"FUNCTION AND PHENOMENOLOGY:
CLOSING THE EXPLANATORY GAP"
And I read a comment on another article recently that reminded me of
you, Keynes, as it was an attempt to promote your kind of mind/body
dualism, while using quantum physics to try to do it. The attempt by
Stapp to defend a view like yours is much better than any of the
blather you hurl at us on this list so you should read it and
'upgrade' your woo-woo; the comment in reply is more penetrating and
rigorous than most of my flippant replies as well, and is a wonderful
example of critical thinking and right on target. Here's the comment:
<<Mind, Unspecified
- comment on Henry Stapp's Quantum Interactive Dualism -
originally posted to JCS Online, Dec 7, 2005 by Tom Clark
The difficulty with [the Keynes' type of mind/body] dualism has always
been how to specify the interaction between two putatively separate
realms of existence, mind and body. Henry Stapp's solution in
"Quantum Interactive Dualism", Journal of Consciousness Studies V12
#11, 2005, pp. 43-58 is to connect them via quantum theory, while
keeping the mind quite distinct from the brain. The problem, however,
is that on Stapp's account the mind itself remains unspecified (like
the intelligent designer, not coincidentally) except in terms of
ordinary folk-psychological descriptions. Whatever it is, the mind
isn't the brain, but beyond that we're not told much about it.
In particular, on Stapp's account we need not ask what determines the
mind in its choices: "Thus the 'subjective' and 'objective' aspects of
the data are rationally tied together by quantum rules that directly
specify the causal effects of the subject's choices upon the subject's
brain, without any need to specify the physical antecedents of these
choices"; and: "in the quantum treatment the causal connection via the
laws of physics is not from the cause of conscious choice to the
effects of that choice, but rather directly from the conscious choice
itself to its physical effects" (p. 57 JCS, p. 17 http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/QID.pdf
). Why, one wonders, do the causes of choice get such short shrift
here? Whatever the reason, for Stapp the mind is causally privileged
over the physical brain: the mind drives the brain, but is not itself
driven by anything. This renders the mind supernatural; like god, it
gets to cause without being caused in turn. Any naturalistic account
of a phenomenon has to show its provenance in the natural world, and
on Stapp's account, the mind – variously described as consciousness,
the observer, the subject's choices, intention, mental effort, William
James' "spiritual force", etc. – has no provenance, at least none that
he discusses here. The reluctance to address the causes of mind might
be related to Stapp's desire to defend a contra-causal conception of
free will.
Stapp's discussion is ambivalent about physicalism. On the one hand,
he clearly intends to provide a scientifically defensible,
naturalistic account of consciousness and its role in choice, but on
the other he also says conscious choice transcends physical law. He
wears his normal science hat when he says: "Thus the whole range of
science, from atomic physics to mind-brain dynamics, is brought
together in a single rationally coherent theory of a world that is
constituted not of classically conceived matter, bound by principle of
the causal closure of the physical, but rather of mind and matter
connected in the way specified by orthodox contemporary physical
theory." (p. 53 JCS, p. 12 http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/QID.pdf
). But orthodox physical theory, although it transcends the classical
conception of matter, obviously does not transcend the notion of
physical law, the description of which is its raison d'etre. So it
can't also be the case, as Stapp (donning his mysterian hat) says
elsewhere that "This free choice made by experimenters…is `free' in
the sense that these choices are not determined by anything in
contemporary physical theory: they are fixed neither by any law nor by
any random variables that enter into the theory" (p. 47 JCS, p. 6
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/QID.pdf ). A rationally coherent
understanding of mind and matter based in physical theory would have
to show how the mind, as well as the brain, is a nomic (that is, law-
governed), not mysterious, process. But on Stapp's account there is
literally no accounting for choices.
Stapp thinks that explanations involving mental effort or intention
are better than merely brain-based explanations, since "the quantum
account conforms to specific laws of physics that tie mental events to
their causal consequences in the brain in a way that appears to
conform to relevant empirical data" (p. 55 JCS, p. 15
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/QID.pdf ). But unless explanations
involving mental effort and intention can state clearly where these
originate – what their causal antecedents are – then we really haven't
explained anything when it comes to human choice and behavior. Stapp
admits that "incentives lead to effort", but this suggests that mental
effort is caused; it belies his earlier assertion that choices aren't
governed by any law-like regularities, so he can't go too far down
this path. Instead, the intervening variable of categorically mental
effort is left unaccounted for, as it must be if we're trying to
rescue contra-causal free will.>>
--DharmaTroll
Nobody in Particular
I do not know that. How could I possibly know what people you
associate with and what twisted definitions are bandied about there?
The point is, I told you repeatedly what definition I use, the
definition I heard exclusively before yours, and the one you'll find
overwhelmingly if you'd bother to google it. So to keep insisting
that I mean something different than I do makes further conversation
with you pretty useless.
I hate to use the word "lie", but your accusations in your last
paragraph, which you know to be false, but keep repeating, come close
to have me use that word. You, sir, are the worst example of a
strawman debater that I have come across in quite some time.
Finally, by using repeated insults and rudeness against those who do
not share your beliefs, you have surrendered the right of using the
word "rude" against anyone else. If you can't take it, don't dish it
out.
In case you're too lazy to google the term "scientism", here are a few
links to the accepted (by me and most everyone else) definitions:
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
http://www.skepdic.com/scientism.html
http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/scientism
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/sagan.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=MtEOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover
Keynes
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 9:40 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 16:57:36 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >However, you're claim, that with all my super-power intellectual
>> >abilities, all my years of studying philosophy, and of course my doing
>> >Buddhist practice and paying attention to all my feelings and
>> >thoughts, about God and everything else, that I now as an adult "has
>> >to think only of the Christian God and not to allow any other
>> >meaning"? In fact, having an initial affective reaction to such words
>> >allows me to understand others' conditioning and know how they are
>> >feeling on the inside. You're basically claiming that I'm a monkey who
>> >superficially goes by his intuitions and doesn't think critically.
>>
>> Have you ever wondered how a machine can be intelligent or
>> think critically? Just how could a mechanism be intelligent?
>> It's a practical problem in computing. And philosophy.
>
>It's only an insoluble problem for Cartesian mind/body dualists like
>yourself, Keynes. You beg the question, because you wonder how we can
>be intelligent or think critically if we are "just a mechanism". That
>is, you have to add the ghost to the machine for things to work, and
>that's why you go the superstitious woo-woo route.
No. I'm a mind-only monist, as you well know.
And it's you who is proposing some mysterious inexplicable
mode of immaterial mind controlling the 'physical body'.
You must do that because the notion of mechanical intelligence
or mechanical 'critical thinking' is totally absurd, and you know it.
It's your job to explain how the mechanical brain can possibly be
intelligent and do 'critical thinking'. It's your adamantly held opinion,
so step right up and explain this 'physical' mystery. You're in deep
woo-woo here with your glossing over the subject. Do you think
you can tap dance so fast that no one will notice how you dodge the
issue and escape into irrational deep woo woo land?
>But we are
>intelligent, critically thinking machines, flexible enough to grow and
>learn new ways to think and be creative.
Just how is that possible? Speak up.
>It's a practical problem in
>computing and philosophy, yes, both how our brains do it, and how it
>might be possible for androids to exist, like Commander Data.
According to you, we Are androids.
You accuse others of woo woo, but you are in it
all the way up to your toupee. Explain yourself.
Or admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
DharmaTroll
Because you use the word in the same way, you low-life, you!
> The point is, I told you repeatedly what definition I use, the
> definition I heard exclusively before yours, and the one you'll find
> overwhelmingly if you'd bother to google it. So to keep insisting
> that I mean something different than I do makes further conversation
> with you pretty useless.
>
> I hate to use the word "lie", but your accusations in your last
> paragraph, which you know to be false, but keep repeating, come close
> to have me use that word. You, sir, are the worst example of a
> strawman debater that I have come across in quite some time.
Nonsense. Unless you mean that your head is full of straw. I make
valid arguments and back up my claims with reason and evidence.
> Finally, by using repeated insults and rudeness against those who do
> not share your beliefs, you have surrendered the right of using the
> word "rude" against anyone else. If you can't take it, don't dish it
> out.
I'm rude in response to meanies like yourself and herbzet and Loser
Lee, who dish it out constantly. I'd simply rather kick your butt in a
rational cordial conversation, that's all.
> In case you're too lazy to google the term "scientism", here are a few
> links to the accepted (by me and most everyone else) definitions:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html
Your 1st (and I suppose most important) link says:
<<Scientism
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching
knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about
the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the
empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in
much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects
science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview.>>
Well, this is claiming that science is just a religion, and is
'fundamentalist', as if they were two equal 'worldviews'. But that's
just the kind of bullshit I'm talking about: saying that you only
accept empirical evidence rather than religious authority and magic
doesn't make you simply an alternate kind of fundamentalist. Rather,
it would make you a non-fundamentalist of any kind. This is exactly
the kind of way that I said the nutters use this word.
http://www.skepdic.com/scientism.html
<<Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that
only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim
and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or
meaningless. This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein
in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things
as "The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural
science..." He later repudiated this view.>>
This is clearly wrong. That's exactly the definition for "Logical
Positivism" and not "Scientism". And the definition flippantly calls
it "self-annihilating". The author is clueless here. The author is
really talking about the "Verification Principle", which is from the
positivist philosopher A.J. Ayer, and which claims that meaning is a
function of method of verification, or that non-analytic sentences
must be empirically verifiable in order to be meaningful. Opponents
argued that the Verification Principle can't itself be verified, and
thus is meaningless, which is what the bozo who wrote the above quote
is referring to without understanding it, dammit. Actually the
Verification Principle can be easily defended, as the principle itself
is on a different level of logical typing as the empirical statements
which it refers to. So the talk of the verification principle being
verified leads to paradox just like Russell-type paradoxes about the
set of all sets, and whether it's a member of itself, and so forth.
This doesn't mean it's self-negating.
Anyway, if you want to accuse me of being a Logical Positivist, then
you can do so, and that wouldn't be insulting, and I could explain
what I like about that position and what I don't.
Next.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
<<The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science
has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as
philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic
explanations, and over other fields of inquiry, such as the social
sciences. The term is used by social scientists like Hayek[1] or Karl
Popper to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and
beliefs common to many scientists. They tend to use the term in either
of two equally pejorative[2][3] directions:
1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims
[4] as a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority in
contexts where science might not apply,[5] such as when the topic is
perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or
the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only
proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[3] with a
concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of
experience".[6][7] It thus expresses a position critical of (at least
the more extreme expressions of) positivism.[8][9]>>
And this, like the first one, is explained as a pejorative insult, and
states that folks like Karl Popper use it as an insult in two
differing ways! This also makes my point. This is the best of the
first three of your links, as it says: "It thus expresses a position
critical of (at least the more extreme expressions of) positivism."
Now this is my point exactly: that the nutter reduces empiricism and
science to positivism with that term. Now -that- is a "strawman" for
you, Nobody!!! I, like most rational, empirical scientists, don't
reduce everything to the Verification Principle of Positivism, as I
don't claim that art, music, love, values, and so forth are
meaningless because they can't be scientifically verified. What I
claim is that ghosts, egos, gods, and transcendental realms probably
don't exist because we don't have any evidence for them. That's a huge
difference.
As for (1.), I certainly don't see science as authoritative in matters
of ethics, or love, or art. But if you claim that your mind is not a
function of your brain, and comes from a woo-woo plane, then you
better have evidence, and crying "scientism" in response doesn't cut
it and is simply an insult to hide behind.
As for (2.), I don't go for an "elimination of psychological
dimensions of experience", but rather, I make that claim of
psychophysical supervenience, that there could not be two universes
physically identical in every respect except in one you were thinking
about a Porsche, and in the other you were thinking of a Jaguar: that
any difference psychologically must necessarily imply a difference in
the brain-structure or involve some physical difference, as the
psychological is grounded in the physical. That isn't positivism, and
it doesn't deny that art or love is meaningful, but it does render
incoherent the idea of an un-caused soul or Mind outside the physical
universe acting on or constantly creating the physical world (i.e.,
the Keynes' Cartesian mind/body dualist view).
Now nutters like Keynes are going to try to say that without a soul,
we are mere computation machines, so there is no love, no values,
etc., and therefore naturalists are positivists, hence the frequent
use of the insulting "scientism" by such nutters. But that's
nonsensical, as naturalists like myself fully embrace as meaningful
love and art and we like to listen to The Beatles, but we don't need
to add the "ghost in the machine" to have all that, you see.
I'll stop at the first three of your links, but they support what I've
said, and indeed the wiki one actually explains that these are used as
insults in TWO different ways: "They tend to use the term in either of
two equally pejorative directions."
So you've made my case for me. Thanks, I guess.
In the end, Charles' remark is probably the most reasonable:
On Jan 2, 11:58 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:91d4d2e3-1f4e-4791...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Rather cynical, but a reasonable complaint.
> > Thank God you didn't use the term "Scientism", at least!
>
> It sounds awfully like calling anyone who gives a shit a socialist, or
> anyone with a brain a fascist. I'm not a socialist or a fascist but nutters
> at the extremes like to brand people. Yeah, whatever.
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
Yeah, that's it: the way President Obama was pummeled by his opponents
in the election, and still is, with the term "Socialist". Now that's a
stronger case, as it's an insult even though there are many folks who
call themselves "Socialist" in a positive way. Whereas there are no
scientists and critical thinkers who call themselves believers in
"Scientism", any more than there are any Buddhists who call themselves
the equally offensive term, "Hinayanists".
Now your own damned links have only made my case for me, and that one
was idiotic enough to simply paste in the definition of Positivism,
and then try to use a refutation of it from a half-century ago that
didn't work. Zheesh. Do you understand now that this word is used to
attack rational thinking and empiricism by those who want to place
religious authority and belief in superstition on the same level as
Einstein? It's simply a rude insult that's a conversation-stopper used
when a believer has no evidence or argument.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 19:23:45 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 2, 9:40 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 16:57:36 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >However, you're claim, that with all my super-power intellectual
> >> >abilities, all my years of studying philosophy, and of course my doing
> >> >Buddhist practice and paying attention to all my feelings and
> >> >thoughts, about God and everything else, that I now as an adult "has
> >> >to think only of the Christian God and not to allow any other
> >> >meaning"? In fact, having an initial affective reaction to such words
> >> >allows me to understand others' conditioning and know how they are
> >> >feeling on the inside. You're basically claiming that I'm a monkey who
> >> >superficially goes by his intuitions and doesn't think critically.
>
> >> Have you ever wondered how a machine can be intelligent or
> >> think critically? Just how could a mechanism be intelligent?
> >> It's a practical problem in computing. And philosophy.
>
> >It's only an insoluble problem for Cartesian mind/body dualists like
> >yourself, Keynes. You beg the question, because you wonder how we can
> >be intelligent or think critically if we are "just a mechanism". That
> >is, you have to add the ghost to the machine for things to work, and
> >that's why you go the superstitious woo-woo route.
>
> No. I'm a mind-only monist, as you well know.
You alternate between a spiritual monist and a dualist.
Same thing, whether you posit a soul, or deny the body as well: in
either case you still are positing a woo-woo ghost in the machine,
even if you then say that the machine is an illusion created by the
ghost. That extra twist makes no difference. Adding more woo-woo
claims doesn't save you; rather it just digs you deeper in the deva-
dung.
> And it's you who is proposing some mysterious inexplicable
> mode of immaterial mind controlling the 'physical body'.
No, I claim it's a completely physical brain that is controlling the
body, and that 'mind' is only a verb denoting the function of the
phyiscal brain. No immaterial soul.
> You must do that because the notion of mechanical intelligence
> or mechanical 'critical thinking' is totally absurd, and you know it.
No. Not only is the idea of brains being conscious without souls not
"totally absurd", but the idea isn't absurd at all. I just don't know
how they work, that's all. Your ghost in the machine is much more
absurd, and I don't mean just emotionally to me (as my intuitions are
conditioned just as are yours and therefore aren't extra evidence for
anything), but rather, you have add an extra woo-woo ghost for no
reason. And then you take it to a new level of absurdity by claiming
that only your ghost exists and that cats and trees and brains don't.
Speak of totally absurd, Zheesh!
> It's your job to explain how the mechanical brain can possibly be
> intelligent and do 'critical thinking'.
No it isn't. Hell, I'm such an ignoramus that I'm not completely sure
how my damned television works, and I can't take it apart into a
hundred pieces and then put it back together again. (I can do the
first half of that, though!). I don't need to explain exactly how
brains are conscious to point out that adding a woo-woo non-physical
ghost is NOT a better explanation, and simply passes the buck of
explanation.
> It's your adamantly held opinion,
> so step right up and explain this 'physical' mystery.
Again, you appeal to the same old fallacy, that because I don't know
how exactly my brain works, that that means that ghosts, souls, God --
whatever woo-woo you want-- is somehow a better, or even an equal
explanation. It is not. I don't have to prove that there are no UFOs
and explain all the strange sightings folks have reported to say that
your "Alien Invasion" belief is most likely wrong, and that there are
terrestrial explanations for all the weird sightings that I simply
haven't discovered and may never discover. Boy, are you proud of that
tin-foil hat of yours, Keynes!
> You're in deep woo-woo here with your glossing over the subject.
No, I'm not. I'm just saying that the no-woo-woo explanation that
brains are conscious is the simplest and makes the most sense, even
though I don't know exactly how brains work. I don't have to know that
to claim that your ghost in the machine story is more far-fetched.
> Do you think you can tap dance so fast that no one
> will notice how you dodge the issue and escape into
> irrational deep woo woo land?
I don't dodge the issue. I simply don't know everything: you make
omniscience a necessary condition to refuting you. That's silly. I
don't need to be omniscient; I only need to know that adding your
ghost in the machine doesn't explain anything better, and postulates
an arbitrary, unneeded entity, that's all.
> >But we are, I claim,
> >intelligent, critically thinking machines, flexible enough to grow and
> >learn new ways to think and be creative.
>
> Just how is that possible? Speak up.
I don't know. Like, why is there something rather than nothing, dude?
It's an amazing mystery we don't know yet, and may never know fully.
But again, that alone is no reason to go positing a "ghost in the
machine", you see.
> >It's a practical problem in
> >computing and philosophy, yes, both how our brains do it, and how it
> >might be possible for androids to exist, like Commander Data.
>
> According to you, we Are androids.
Um, I claim that androids would be just like us, yes. That is I don't
hold a human-centered meat-head bias, that the particular kind of
stuff the brain is made of is responsible for consciousness. That is,
I'm a functionalist. Whether meat-heads or the silicon cirtuits in
Data's positronic brain, what is needed is the proper relationships
and complexity, and it's not a matter of some particular kind of
stuff. I'm officially an activist in the android-equality revolution
movement, or at least I will be if someone invents it on Facebook.
> You accuse others of woo woo, but you are in it
> all the way up to your toupee. Explain yourself.
> Or admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
No, I'm not making a woo-woo claim here at all. Please follow
carefully. Fact. We're conscious. Fact. We have brains that seem to be
necessary for consciousness, in that there has never been a case of
anyone thinking and feeling without a brain (not including fiction,
such as The Wizard of Oz). Now all I'm saying is that there is no
reason to posit a ghost in the machine as well, nor anything that is
functionally a "soul", something woo-woo outside of Nature, of
Physics. So either there is consciousness which comes about totally
within the natural world, some kind of emergent property of the
physical, or there is something supernatural, a soul or "Mind" --
whatever -- that supposedly "explains" consciousness. You believe in a
soul (i.e., something beyond the physical universe) because of your
intuitions, which I claim have been conditioned by the received view
of Cartesian mind/body Dualism in our culture.
So either we are physically conscious naturally, in some way we don't
understand, due to the physical structure and functioning of physical
brains, or there is a supernatural or transempirical ghost in the
machine which causes consciousness, creates reality or even just the
illusion of reality, etc., but which we don't understand. Since we
don't understand in both cases, and since your intuitions don't count
for anything extra, as they are conditioned by a mind/body dualistic
view, then might as well go for the unexplained story without the woo-
woo rather than the unexplained story with the woo-woo.
That is, saying brains seem to be conscious and we don't know exactly
why but something explains it that we don't know yet is a lot less
crazy than saying "there must be some ghost in the machine and that
explains it", as that doesn't explain it but simply "passes the buck"
to a woo-woo realm which itself then isn't explained.
I don't need to explain why NOT to add a woo-woo ghost in the machine,
except to say that since the ghost of yours doesn't really explain
anything, there's no reason to add it, and it's more reasonable and
rational to simply say that from what we know, brains are conscious
all by themselves, but we just don't know the specifics yet, just as
in the past we didn't know why the planets exhibited circular motion,
but better to say back then that it's something natural we hadn't
discovered (i.e., what we now call gravity), rather than posit
something trans-empirical or supernatural (e.g., angels pushing
them).
--DharmaTroll
(DharmaTroll picks up Karaoke microphone and starts singing):
If there's something strange
in your neighborhood
Who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
If there's something weird
and it don't look good
Who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
I ain't afraid of no ghosts
I ain't afraid of no ghosts
If you're seeing things
running through your head
Who can ya call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
An invisible man
sleeping in your bed
Who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
I ain't afraid of no ghosts
I ain't afraid of no ghosts
Who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
If ya all alone
pick up the phone
and call
GHOSTBUSTERS
I ain't afraid of no ghosts
I here it likes the girls
I ain't afraid of no ghost
Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah
Who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
If you've had a dose of a
freaky ghost baby
Ya better call
GHOSTBUSTERS
Lemme tell ya something
Bustin' makes me feel good!
I ain't afraid of no ghosts
I ain't afraid of no ghosts
Don't get caught alone no no
GHOSTBUSTERS
When it comes through your door
Unless you just want some more
I think you better call
GHOSTBUSTERS
Who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
Who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
I think you better call
GHOSTBUSTERS
Who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
I can't hear you
Who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
Louder
GHOSTBUSTERS
Who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
Who can ya call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
Who ya gonna call?
GHOSTBUSTERS
halfawake
> On 12/31/2009 07:42 AM, DharmaTroll wrote:
>
>> On Dec 31, 4:48 am, Allen Barker<allendotelldotbar...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/30/2009 01:23 PM, DharmaTroll wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/kate-devlin/6906059/Taking-her...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Taking herbal supplement to ward off memory problems in old age 'a
>>>> waste of time'
>>>
>>>
>>>> By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
>>>> Published: 7:30AM GMT 30 Dec 2009
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thousands of people who take a herbal supplement to ward off memory
>>>> problems in old age are wasting their time, according to new research.
>>>> Ginkgo biloba, like most other herbal supplements, has been shown to
>>>> be completely ineffective.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Elderly people who took Ginkgo biloba every day for six years had as
>>>> many difficulties with recall as those who took a fake supplement, the
>>>> largest study of its kind has shown.
>>>
>>>
>>>> At least 100,000 gullible people in Britain are thought to regularly
>>>> take the supplement, which has been widely credited with improving
>>>> memory and concentration.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a real scientific no-no to purposely misquote a reference.
>>>
>>> It was a solid, testable scientific hypothesis that ginkgo
>>> might help reduce dementia in the elderly. It was put to
>>> the test, in a large double-blind study (larger than the
>>> earlier double-blind studies). This particular hypothesis
>>> didn't hold up (assuming the study does). But is it woo-woo
>>> when a scientist predicts a particle which then does not
>>> appear as predicted?
>>
>>
>> Absolutely. The claim that gets the woo-sters spending hoards of money
>> around here is the claim about memory.
>
>
> Absolutely it is woo-woo when a scientist predicts a particle
> which does not appear??
>
>>> Reducing or delaying dementia is only one possible use for
>>> ginkgo. It is known to have measurable effects on the body
>>> -- unlike, say, liquids diluted down to water. So it is
>>> probably medicine for something.
>>
>>
>> There was a very strong claim, and New Agers I know swear by it. So
>> they do a 6-year study, very well done, rigorous, over 6000 people,
>> and they find nada, absolutely no help in memory.
>
>
> That is not what the study found, because that is not the
> precise scientific hypothesis which was being tested.
> That is your unscientific overgeneralization, which you
> are trying to pass off as science. Your own brand of
> woo-woo, if you will.
Allen is correct in this, DT. You are so prejudiced that you do not hold
yourself to the same scientific standards that you impose on others.
Yes, that is an insult, in case your oversensitive meter was activated,
but it is a well-deserved one. I have often accused you of exaggerating
your critiques of statements that you feel imply certain beliefs that
are not stated, and are over-reactive to any criticism of your own
approach to things. That does not mean that you are not smart or don't
make any valid points, but that you are far from objective or consistent
and your manner, while humorously self-aggrandizing, is less humorously
oversensitive and precious at times, obscuring the verity of your
arguments, or lack thereof.
In this case, the study was of whether gingko prevents the onset of
dementia in old age. That is not the main claim for gingko that I have
ever heard or that has been made by anyone. It may be a sub-claim which
has been disproven. The major claim for gingko is that it *improves
memory,* not that it prevents dementia. Dementia is not a loss of
memory, it is caused by one of two major mechanisms: degeneration of
neural tissue, or Alzheimers, which actively produces plaque that
destroys brain cells. There has *never* been a claim that gingko
prevented the formation of plaque - none that I've ever heard; nor
degeneration of neural tissue.
The claim for gingko is that it improves memory through increasing blood
flow to the brain, thus giving brain cells more sustenance and highly
vital function. It *does* increase blood flow, this has been proven,
and the question is whether this improves memory or not. This study did
not test this claim.
Again, increasing memory through increased neural blood flow is a
totally different effect than stopping the onset of dementia in old age.
The former can be tested in a fourty year old or a thirty year old,
and is not related specifically and directly to the onset of dementia
which is either degenerative or a disease process. Aspirin can prevent
a heart attack and keep clots from forming. It does not prevent
rheumatic fever caused by a bacterial infection. The effects of gingko
being lumped together are equally distinct. By discrediting gingko for
one of these claims based on a lack of proof for the other, shows that
your prejudice is at play and that your way of reading these results is
not rigorous, nor scientific in nature.
>> So you say, "well,
>> um, it must be a cure for something, because it's an herb and affects
>> the body."
That is NOT what Allen said. He said specifically that it has been
PROVEN to have specific effects on the body, such as increasing blood
flow to capillaries and that DOES have very credible possibilities for
positive effects. It is a serious enough effect that one would not want
to to take Gingko if one had high blood pressure, because the increased
blood flow might be dangerous.
Allen's claim was not general, he referenced PROVEN scientific effects
which could have other medical implications that have not been
sufficiently tested.
Best,
Robert
That's silly. You can say the same thing about anything.
>> Indeed you would say that generic response about every single form of
>> snake oil. "The snake oil isn't water, so it must affect the body
>> somehow, so it has to be a magical cure for something or other."
>
>
> And it would probably be true, since the "something or
> other" was left undefined and so could range over the
> whole universe of things to cure. Not very logical
> of you.
>
>> That's logically equivalent to the Creationist nutters claiming, when
>> we acquired radioactive dating tech, that dinosaur fossils were
>> millions of years old and we could radioactively date the Earth to 4.5
>> billion years, that, um, well, God put them all there and made it look
>> older to test our faith. In other words, nothing could ever disprove
>> ANY form of magic snake oil for you, do matter how much good research
>> is done.
>
>
> Magic snake oil itself is not a scientific hypothesis; it
> cannot be "disproved." Your metaphor is ridiculous.
>
>>> Not every effect can be effectively measured scientifically,
>>> and of those which can only a few are ever formally tested
>>
>>
>> Actually, effects that are real can indeed be tested scientifically,
>> as the alternative is simply blind faith in authority and anecdotal
>> claims, which are not only worthless but often horribly misleading.
>
>
> So no effect is "real" unless there is an effective
> scientific way to test it? What an absurd definition of
> "real." When a new measurement device is invented does
> that change what is "real"? Are subjective experiences
> real? Do psychological assays really measure what they
> purport to measure? If it costs $200 million to measure
> some effect, is it unreal in a cost-benefit way? What
> if something can only be measured in principle or in
> theory?
>
>>> Why would someone practice meditation before science tested
>>> it and found it to have some benefit?
>>
>>
>> They shouldn't, said the Buddha! In the Kalama-sutta, Sid says, don't
>> believe anything because authorities say it, even the Buddha, or
>> because it's popular or written in some holy book, but instead -test
>> it- and if you demonstrate it helpful, do it, and if not, drop it.
>
>
> Why can't people test ginkgo and see if they find it
> helpful, in just that same way?
>
halfawake
>
> possum wrote:
>
>
>>happy new year.
>
>
> Happy New Year, Jan.
>
> I went through San Francisco airport today,
> it was routine scan, and no full-body scan
> yet. Security was about normal, both before
> boarding and in the plane.
>
> Tang Huyen
>
Hm...interesting, Tang, I went through L.A. airport on both Dec. 30th
and Dec. 31st. We could have practically - but not quite - said hello.
halfawake
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 02:09:43 +0000, Julian <Julia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Tang Huyen wrote:
>>
>>>Julian wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Better luck next time...
>>>>
>>>>Happy New Year to the pair of you.
>>>
>>>Happy New Year to you, too. Thank you
>>>for replying to Kitty about Fu, in that post
>>>I missed one word: "stung to the quick".
>>>
>>>It was hard to notice any tightening in
>>>security. Probably it would be mostly for
>>>flights coming into the USA from the
>>>outside world.
>>
>>Schipol is reoported to be introducing full body scanners
>>for USA bound flights withing 3 weeks. I'm a little stunned
>>that they haven't been in place already.
>
>
> They may get the machines alright, but where will
> they get the men who want to see naked women?
>
>
That is a goddamn problem. Oh well, guess I'll have to volunteer again...
halfawake
> On 1 Jan, 00:13, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> wrote:
>
>>possum wrote:
>>
>>>happy new year.
>>
>>Happy New Year, Jan.
>>
>>I went through San Francisco airport today,
>>it was routine scan, and no full-body scan
>>yet. Security was about normal, both before
>>boarding and in the plane.
>>
>>Tang Huyen
>
>
> i caught a glimpse at a news report today where they showed full body
> scans to air travellers, and *all* those interviewed thought it was a
> jolly good idea.
>
>
> possum
>
> happy new year to one and all.
happy new year jan, from hawaii.
Robert
DharmaTroll
> Allen Barker wrote:
> > On 12/31/2009 07:42 AM, DharmaTroll wrote:
> >> On Dec 31, 4:48 am, Allen Barker<allendotelldotbar...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 12/30/2009 01:23 PM, DharmaTroll wrote:
> >>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/kate-devlin/6906059/Taking-her...
>
> >>>> Taking herbal supplement to ward off memory problems in old age 'a
> >>>> waste of time'
>
> >>> ginkgo. It is known to have measurable effects on the body
> >>> -- unlike, say, liquids diluted down to water. So it is
> >>> probably medicine for something.
>
> >> There was a very strong claim, and New Agers I know swear by it. So
> >> and they find nada, absolutely no help in memory.
>
> > That is not what the study found, because that is not the
> > precise scientific hypothesis which was being tested.
> > That is your unscientific overgeneralization, which you
> > are trying to pass off as science. Your own brand of
> > woo-woo, if you will.
>
> Allen is correct in this, DT. You are so prejudiced that you do not hold
> yourself to the same scientific standards that you impose on others.
> Yes, that is an insult, in case your oversensitive meter was activated,
> but it is a well-deserved one.
You're cruizin' for a bruizin', Robert!
> In this case, the study was of whether gingko prevents the onset of
> dementia in old age. That is not the main claim for gingko that I have
> ever heard or that has been made by anyone. It may be a sub-claim which
> has been disproven. The major claim for gingko is that it *improves
> memory,* not that it prevents dementia. Dementia is not a loss of
> memory, it is caused by one of two major mechanisms: degeneration of
> neural tissue, or Alzheimers, which actively produces plaque that
> destroys brain cells. There has *never* been a claim that gingko
> prevented the formation of plaque - none that I've ever heard; nor
> degeneration of neural tissue.
Fair enough. Actually, that ginkgo has antioxidant properties that
counter free radicals and by doing so slow down dementia is the idea
behind it.
> The claim for gingko is that it improves memory through increasing blood
> flow to the brain, thus giving brain cells more sustenance and highly
> vital function. It *does* increase blood flow, this has been proven,
> and the question is whether this improves memory or not. This study did
> not test this claim.
Yes, this is interesting, as caffeine restricts the blood flow and
makes one tired, but more alert, which is why caffeine isn't used by
athletes, ginkgo might work well as a stimulant. I have friends that
use it and claim it helps with ADD, actually, instead of taking more
intense drugs like Ritalin.
> Again, increasing memory through increased neural blood flow is a
> totally different effect than stopping the onset of dementia in old age.
Well, the increased blood flow is already known. The New-Agers peddle
the stuff for older folks, and if it wasn't such a money-maker I
wouldn't be so harsh on it. I mean, I love garlic, and there are all
these alleged good things that garlic has in it and effects, and it
doesn't matter to me that all that may be bullshit, because I love the
taste of garlic and it's cheap, so I put loads of it in the food I
cook whenever possible. But this is a pill you take, and it's such a
money-maker, but now the biggest study on the effect I've heard
advertised the most has turned out to be baloney. And you're response,
of course, is to insult me. Happy New Year to you too, Robert.
> The former can be tested in a fourty year old or a thirty year old,
> and is not related specifically and directly to the onset of dementia
> which is either degenerative or a disease process. Aspirin can prevent
> a heart attack and keep clots from forming. It does not prevent
> rheumatic fever caused by a bacterial infection. The effects of gingko
> being lumped together are equally distinct. By discrediting gingko for
> one of these claims based on a lack of proof for the other, shows that
> your prejudice is at play and that your way of reading these results is
> not rigorous, nor scientific in nature.
>
> >> So you say, "well,
> >> um, it must be a cure for something, because it's an herb and affects
> >> the body."
>
> That is NOT what Allen said. He said specifically that it has been
> PROVEN to have specific effects on the body, such as increasing blood
> flow to capillaries
He didn't mention that. Had he said, "it increases the blood flow to
capillaries, so maybe it could be used to relieve headaches" I would
have said, yeah, maybe, and it should be tested. But it's the
vagueness to which I objected, that if it doesn't do what the claim
is, that well, it's probably medicine for something or other.
> and that DOES have very credible possibilities for
> positive effects. It is a serious enough effect that one would not want
> to to take Gingko if one had high blood pressure, because the increased
> blood flow might be dangerous.
>
> Allen's claim was not general, he referenced PROVEN scientific effects
> which could have other medical implications that have not been
> sufficiently tested.
>
> Best,
> Robert
From a typical good synopsis on the studies on ginkgo:
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/ginkgo-biloba-000247.htm
<<Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba) is one of the oldest living tree species and
its leaves are among the most extensively studied botanicals in use
today. Unlike many other medicinal herbs, ginkgo leaves are not
frequently used in their crude state, but rather, in the form of a
concentrated, standardized ginkgo biloba extract (GBE). In Europe and
the United States, ginkgo supplements are among the best-selling
herbal medications and it consistently ranks as a top medicine
prescribed in France and Germany.
Ginkgo has been used in traditional medicine to treat circulatory
disorders and enhance memory. Scientific studies throughout the years
lend support to these traditional uses. Emerging evidence suggests
that GBE may be particularly effective in treating ailments associated
with decreased blood flow to the brain, particularly in elderly
individuals. Laboratory studies have shown that GBE improves blood
circulation by dilating blood vessels and reducing the stickiness of
blood platelets.
Ginkgo leaves also contain two types of chemicals (flavonoids and
terpenoids) believed to have potent antioxidant properties.
Antioxidants are substances that scavenge free radicals -- damaging
compounds in the body that alter cell membranes, tamper with DNA, and
even cause cell death. Free radicals occur naturally in the body, but
environmental toxins (including ultraviolet light, radiation,
cigarette smoking, and air pollution) can also increase the number of
these damaging particles. Free radicals are believed to contribute to
a number of health problems including heart disease and cancer as well
as Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. Antioxidants such
as those found in ginkgo can neutralize free radicals and may reduce
or even help prevent some of the damage they cause.>>
Now it seems to me that this herb (1) costs lots of money and is a big
moneymaker, and (2) has sold a ton in order to prevent or lessen
Alzheimer's and memory loss in old age.
Sure, what you say about its increasing blood flow has been
demonstrated, but it's been sold based on so much alleged stuff that
just hasn't panned out and now has been shown not to be true. And
these same nutters that make the claims whine about big pharma
companies when they make money from drugs that have been tested and do
well (and they even claim conspiracy theories about them). I think a
lot of the hype with Ginkgo is that it's somehow not considered to be
a drug and has the woo-woo "ancient Chinese wisdom" stamp on it, a
stamp that allows all sorts of useless bullshit to make tons of money.
And that's what annoys me the most.
But I'll grant you that I was sloppy on this and yes, that the
increased flow of blood does mean that Gingko is probably useful as
medicine, maybe in combination with other things.
But hey, Robert, you didn't respond to my most important post in this
thread -- maybe you missed it. You're gonna wanna take a cold shower
when you read this one. Heh heh heh
On Jan 2, 4:14 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> DharmaTroll wrote:
> > Quackery's most serious form of fear-mongering has been its attack on
> > water fluoridation. Although fluoridation's safety is established
> > beyond scientific doubt, well-planned scare campaigns have persuaded
> > thousands of communities not to adjust the fluoride content of their
> > water to prevent cavities. Millions of innocent children have suffered
> > as a result. And the waste with billions of bottles water, not just to
> > make it, not just to pay for something which is perfectly safe from
> > the tap and then only a small fraction of them get recycled -- it's
> > amazing how the woo-woo-ists as well as the main-stream hucksters like
> > Coke and Pepsi have sold fear to the gullible and get them to pay for
> > something that they can have for free -- water.
> The level of chlorine in DC's tap water is at carcinogenic levels.
No, it is not, and chlorine itself isn't a problem, Robert.
I'll explain seriously below, but first I must pelt you with the usual
unnecessary, obligatory, and gratuitous insults. Heh. And then I'll
conclude my post with the most serious problem that chlorine in tap
water poses, which neither Robert nor any other of you uninformed
gullible posters even mentioned. So make sure you read to the end the
informative, insightful ramblings of the totally awesome DharmaTroll!
> And i didn't hear this from a psychic but from a news article.
Probably FOX news or a supermarket tabloid.
Try checking out the research a little more, Robert. Woo-woo
superstitionists question just about all of science, and then you
latch onto any scare mongering you read about drinking water from your
own faucet. Better stick to talking about your transcendental
experiences of awareness of awareness or whatever.
> And the water administration itself just admitted that it lied
> about the lead levels in the drinking water for about a decade
> - the levels have been dangerously high.
Like a supermarket tabloid, Robert tries to pump emotional hype,
spewing accusations of "lying" followed by "dangerous". Anything in
large amounts (such as salt) is dangerous and carcinogenic. The
question is how much is dangerous and how much are we ingesting.
Robert, you avoid both in your disingenuous emotional outburst. The
you conclude your disinformational scare cry with:
> I wouldn't drink DC tap water if you paid me without
> a filter. To do so would be to ignore the scientific findings.
Yet you didn't mention any findings at all.
> Best,
> Robert
> = = = = = = = =
adipate that leaks from the plastic into the water. D'oh!)
So really, if you are worried about effects of chlorine in tap-water,
you would have a shower-filter. The science-aware DharmaTroll has an
Aquasana Shower Filter in his shower. How about you, Robert? My guess
is that neither you, nor any of the superstitious "transcendental"
folks on these boards are using a shower filter, which is the most
important concern when it comes to chlorinated water. Well, Robert?
I got'cha this time, ya superstitious scare-monger! Bwahahaha!
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 11:45 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
Consciousness is indeed a mystery.
But let's do a bit of critical thinking and
use our mechanical intelligence anyway.
Leaving aside consciousness as unresolved for now,
how can a mechanical brain-mind be intelligent, with
free will, and capable of 'critical thinking'? This is a
practical problem, not a woo woo exercise. As an
intelligent, critically thinking, android empiricist
how does that work?
How can a deterministic machine be intelligent rather
than just working by rote and rules without 'understanding'?
(Can there be 'intelligence' without 'understanding'?)
How much critical thinking can be done without intelligence?
How free is the will of a deterministic mechanism?
If your simple brain-model is so good, you ought to be
able to clear all this up pretty quick. But if you can't,
there must be something missing from your simple model.
What's missing?
Intelligence, critical thinking, free will, and 'understanding'.
There can't be such things in a deterministic mechanism.
Keynes
wrote:
>Now it seems to me that this herb (1) costs lots of money and is a big
>moneymaker, and (2) has sold a ton in order to prevent or lessen
>Alzheimer's and memory loss in old age.
120 (buy 1 get 2) 240, 60mg tabs for $4.79 = $0.0199/tab
or 5x120 = 600, 60mg for $9.58 = $0.0159/tab
DharmaTroll
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 22:43:55 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
No, it's the same problem. You point out that "consciousness" or
"critical thinking" or "[insert mental function here]" is a mystery,
and then you say "how can this be without a soul, a ghost in the
machine". It's again question-begging as you start from a Cartesian
Dualist framework, assuming you need a ghost to be conscious, and then
ask how can you have a person without the ghost, and you assume that
this would render a person the same as your laptop, without the soul
you believe in.
And the answer is that you don't have to start with your dualistic
"dumb matter/"soul" dichotomy in the first place. It's intelligent
matter, Keynes. When it's organized in certain ways, such as the
trillions of interconnected neurons in the brain, then that matter/
energy has all sorts of cool properties, like 'consciousness' and
'compassion' and 'critical thinking'. The physical world is awesome
and can be a complete, closed system without needing ghosts to animate
it. [Disclaimer: my calling it a closed system, while excluding ghosts
and gods, does NOT imply that we do or can know everything, to set
straight Tang's false allegations, as I believe that it won't always
remain a mystery at some level, because what we know or can know is a
tiny subset of what exists that is independently and prior to our puny
minds.]
> How can a deterministic machine be intelligent rather
> than just working by rote and rules without 'understanding'?
But it HAS understanding. Again you're question-begging by assuming
Cartesian mind/body dualism. You're implying that "A soul in needed
for understanding, so how can you be understanding if you don't have a
soul?"
> (Can there be 'intelligence' without 'understanding'?)
> How much critical thinking can be done without intelligence?
> How free is the will of a deterministic mechanism?
Again, kooky Keynes, it's a flexible, changing, self-programming
machine, and it is understanding, just as it is intelligent, and
conscious. Look, I gave you links to at least two wonderful articles
on how soulists or dualists like yourself (or idealists, if you want
to deny the existence of trees and stars as well), have to posit a
Cartesian Ego to have a robust sense of free will where you are an
uncaused cause. It's like this:
Keynes belief #1: Keynes is an Ego, an uncaused cause from outside the
universe (which is really a product of Keynes' Ego when Keynes is
being an idealist, but this extra step doesn't matter -- pun intended
-- heh).
Keynes belief #2: Free will is only possible with an uncaused cause,
an Ego from outside, so without the Ego, or soul, there is just a
machine incapable of freedom, let alone consciousness, etc.
> If your simple brain-model is so good, you ought to be
> able to clear all this up pretty quick. But if you can't,
> there must be something missing from your simple model.
>
> What's missing?
Keynes conclusion: Based on #1 and #2, DharmaTroll's idea of
naturalism where a brain is conscious, and in certain ways compatible
with determinism, free, is impossible and absurd. So Keynes' Cartesian
Ego is missing.
Rather than your answer, that your Ego is missing, I'm saying that you
already have posited too much to begin with. The answer is there is
too much to start with. That is, it's not that something's missing:
it's that you've already added too much!
I get the argument, Keynes. What I'm saying is that while you're right
that given your beliefs #1 and #2, what I say is absurd in the light
of those premises, I'm saying that both Keynes belief #1 and Keynes
belief #2 are mistaken.
So I can answer your question. I think your Cartesian Ego, which you
call "Mind" is nonsensical, a myth, an illusion.
> Intelligence, critical thinking, free will, and 'understanding'.
> There can't be such things in a deterministic mechanism.
Again, that's the classic argument for the separate Ego or Soul. But
your "there can't" rests upon your fundamental belief in Cartesian
Dualism. A beautiful book that explains how we can have freedom, at
least the kind of freedom that matters, without your Cartesian Ego or
soul, is presented in Daniel Dennett's "Elbow Room" which I highly
suggest. Or read the excellent articles I've given you already. Or
study Buddhism, as Sid also denied that you need a metaphysical self
or ego as a ghost in the machine, and pointed out endlessly that we
are a bundle of aggregates without a ghost in the machine.
One of my very favorite philosophers in High School, Alan Watts, may
have expressed my view most cleverly, though. Watts fantasized an
alien spaceship visiting Earth a couple of billion years ago, and the
aliens say, "just a bunch of dumb rocks". They go through a worm-hole
and come back now, 2 billion years later, and see the Earth as it is
today. "Oops, we were wrong," say the aliens. "They were Peopling
rocks after all!"
--DharmaTroll
Charles E Hardwidge
"Nobody in Particular" <nob...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hhoulk$7l7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> I remember an article in a NJ newspaper back in 1965. They had just
> opened the world's most advanced sewage treatment plant (don't
> remember which city). To show how clean the water was, the mayor
> dipped a glass into the swimming-pool sized tank and drank it. When
> the reporters asked how that reclaimed water compared to the average
> drinking water in the system, the engineer replied that to a tank of
> that size, you'd have to add a 55-gallon drum of raw sewage, and kept
> going about other nasty stuff.
Engineers *live* for moments like that.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Nobody in Particular
> On Jan 2, 11:38 pm, Nobody in Particular <nob...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html
>
> Your 1st (and I suppose most important) link says:
>
> <<Scientism
> Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching
> knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth
> about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to
> only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc
> worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism
> that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious
> worldview.>>
>
> Well, this is claiming that science is just a religion, and is
> 'fundamentalist', as if they were two equal 'worldviews'. But that's
> just the kind of bullshit I'm talking about: saying that you only
> accept empirical evidence rather than religious authority and magic
> doesn't make you simply an alternate kind of fundamentalist. Rather,
> it would make you a non-fundamentalist of any kind. This is exactly
> the kind of way that I said the nutters use this word.
"Unlike the use of the the scientific method as only one mode of
reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render
truth about the world and reality."
Do you get that???
Read it again.
Science means using the scientific method. The link says, in effect,
*Scientism* claims that science *alone* can render truth.
Read it again.
This, you twisted into "this is claiming that science is just a
religion". How the hell did you get that?
*Scientism* is the religion, the fundamentalist religion that you
adhere to, not science.
Read it again.
There is nothing wrong with science or the scientific method.
It is the belief that this is the *ONLY* way to render truth which is
the belief of scientism.
I cannot believe that you are so stupid that you cannot see this
distinction. Therefore I conclude that you are being deliberately
dishonest. Intellectual dishonesty is a trait of most fundamentalists
and it appears it infected you as well.
Since nothing can be done about someone else's dishonesty, I
reluctantly put you into my killfile, which is regrettable, since
occasionally you have something interesting to say. That is different
from Charles Hardwidge who, other than vulgarity and complaints never
contributed anything positive. While he's in my killfile permanently,
I'll set a 30-day timeout on you to see if you come to your senses by
then.
<PLONK>
Charles E Hardwidge
news:466d7b5b-7f2a-429a...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Keynes conclusion: Based on #1 and #2, DharmaTroll's idea of
> naturalism where a brain is conscious, and in certain ways compatible
> with determinism, free, is impossible and absurd. So Keynes' Cartesian
> Ego is missing.
I'm wondering what the fuck any of this has to do with getting out of bed.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
zenworm
wrote:
> "Nobody in Particular" <nob...@invalid.com> wrote in messagenews:hhoulk$7l7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
in the 1960's the engineers told the hydro crews
that were spraying agent orange to kill the trees
in the hydro line corridors:
"it's as safe as water"
^worm
Keynes
wrote:
Mechanism cannot be intelligent.
If you think it can, say how.
(The AI guys are dying to hear you.)
Without intelligence there can be no 'critical thinking'.
If you think there can be, say how.
I only bring up free will because you are always
talking about it. Determinism disallows free will.
You keep making assertions with nothing to back them up
but your breath. Not very intelligent or 'critical' thinking.
If you can't support your assertions on your and their own
terms of reason and evidence, then your materialism
collapses into an unsupported faith-religion, woo woo
of the dispicable type you abhor.
Mechanism cannot be intelligent.
If you think it can, say how.
(The AI guys are dying to hear you.)
Nobody in Particular
possum
happy new year to you too robert. : )
if you see any octopussies say aloha.
i think they may be my thought for the day. they change colour, and
some people believe the colour changes are emotional. we still don't
understand how human emotions and chemical changes in the brain work
very well. biology seems to get side-lined in philosophy - it was the
only science i was any good at at school, a long time ago in the stone
age... i think this was because i could relate to it, and i liked
drawing critters...i drew a mosquito which my teacher described as
'very nasty'.
have a wonderful holiday, robert, and enjoy hawaii without a thought
of brain functions and stuff. : )
possum
Allen Barker
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:29:11 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll<dharm...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> Mechanism cannot be intelligent.
> If you think it can, say how.
By a suitable definition of the word "intelligent."
(Brute-force computer power doesn't hurt, either, as
Deep Blue was "intelligent" enough to win a match
against the world chess champion. Oh, sure, *now*
you want to discuss problem domains. Turing tests
are sure to follow.)
> (The AI guys are dying to hear you.)
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more
interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
-- Edsger Dijkstra
> Without intelligence there can be no 'critical thinking'.
> If you think there can be, say how.
>
> I only bring up free will because you are always
> talking about it. Determinism disallows free will.
Kill determinism. Kill free will. Kill the horse
they both rode in on. Ahhhhh...
zenworm
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:29:11 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
the AI worms too
^worm
Lee Rudolph
>Kill determinism. Kill free will. Kill the horse
>they both rode in on. Ahhhhh...
Wait. Was the horse a willing participant, or not?
Lee "_hors de combat_" Rudolph
zenworm
wrote:
> On 01/03/2010 08:25 PM, Keynes wrote:
>
Allen Barker wrote:
"Kill determinism. Kill free will. Kill the horse
they both rode in on. Ahhhhh..."
kill the Buddha
^worm
Evelyn
"Lee" <origi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:87GdnRXHGIt0xaLW...@earthlink.com...
>
> "Evelyn" <evely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hhnklm$cso$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Lee" <origi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:XIudnSWv4PAMjqLW...@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> "halfawake" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hhn2p2$fbk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> DharmaTroll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Quackery's most serious form of fear-mongering has been its attack on
>>>>> water fluoridation. Although fluoridation's safety is established
>>>>> beyond scientific doubt, well-planned scare campaigns have persuaded
>>>>> thousands of communities not to adjust the fluoride content of their
>>>>> water to prevent cavities. Millions of innocent children have suffered
>>>>> as a result. And the waste with billions of bottles water, not just to
>>>>> make it, not just to pay for something which is perfectly safe from
>>>>> the tap and then only a small fraction of them get recycled -- it's
>>>>> amazing how the woo-woo-ists as well as the main-stream hucksters like
>>>>> Coke and Pepsi have sold fear to the gullible and get them to pay for
>>>>> something that they can have for free -- water.
>>>>
>>>> i didn't hear this from a psychic but from a news article. And the
>>>> levels in the drinking water for about a decade - the levels have been
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>> = = = = = = = =
>>>
>>> every so often and it shows in ppm what's in the water
>>> and how safe it is for drinking, cooking and bathing, yet
>>> if you leave a bowl of water in the sink for a couple of days
>>> it gets as thick as honey. something's just not right there.
>>
>>
>> What they consider safe means that a reasonably healthy person will most
>> likely not get sick from it. But there can always be that odd virus or
>> pathogen of some kind that can sit wrongly with any individual. Leaving
>> water sit in a bowl in a warm home environment for a few days will allow
>> whatever is in that water an opportunity to grow and multiply. What
>> comes out of your faucet may be safe as long as the water flows on a
>> regular basis, but if you don't run your water long enough or often
>> enough, it can get contaminated laying around stagnant in the pipes too.
>> Always run the water a few minutes to clear out the pipes before taking a
>> drink.
>
> i have filters at the kitchen and shower but
> there is also an issue of black mold now
> where ever stagnant water sits for a short time.
> i don't have any health issues but older people
> or pregnant women may not be so lucky.
Black mold is associated with developing alzheimer like symptoms and a
gazillion other horrible things. Please do all you can to eliminate it.
Most especially look for any water leaks that could be feeding it.
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Evelyn
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:cgpuj5d5e1qtted8s...@4ax.com...
> Water standing in the pipes can contain lead. Newer
> solders are supposed to be safer. Anyway, running
> the water for a bit is a good idea. I always used
> plastic PVC pipe, and you know what's bad about
> that...
There's something bad about just about everything these days.......
Lee
"Nobody in Particular" <nob...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hhr8p6$oli$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
"keep away from people who try to belittle
your ambitions. small people always do that,
but the really great make you feel that, you,
too, can become great."
>mark twain
Lee
it grows in the bathroom and the
basement walls but a little bleach
takes care of it.
Evelyn
It is very dangerous. Look it up. Stachybotros or something like
that.......
Lee
a guy i work with went to look at some houses
for sale here that had been foreclosed and he
said that the black mold was so bad that the only
thing they could do was tear the houses down.
must be something going on in this area.
Déjà Flu
<gurgle...>
>> Copper piping used to use lead solder connections.
>> Water standing in the pipes can contain lead. Newer
>> solders are supposed to be safer.
Apparently you've never soldered a pipe, either. FYI,
it still does and the solder hasn't changed.
>> Anyway, running the water for a bit is a good idea.
>> I always used plastic PVC pipe, and you know what's
>> bad about that...
You use PVC pipe for water supply lines? Amazing.
It's not code anywhere I know of, except for outside
bibs.
> There's something bad about just about everything these days.......
And, thanks to the wonders of modern communication and the
miracles of gullibility and ignorance, everyone (well, almost)
is scared of it (it = everything).
Déjà Flu
"Nobody in Particular" <nob...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hhr8p6$oli$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
"Keep away from people who try to belittle
your ambitions. small people always do that,
but the really great make you feel that, you,
too, can become great."
-- Mark Twain (see that lump in his cheek?)
Déjà Flu
<snarp>
>> i have filters at the kitchen and shower but
>> there is also an issue of black mold now
>> where ever stagnant water sits for a short time.
>> i don't have any health issues but older people
>> or pregnant women may not be so lucky.
>
> Black mold is associated with developing alzheimer like symptoms and a
> gazillion other horrible things.
By whom? Links? Cites?
Just FYI, most semi-dry mold appears blue/black and
is all over the place (and 99.99% is harmless).
Evelyn
You can't imagine the horror stories about the long term effects of that
kind of mold.
FromWikipedia;
Health problems associated with high levels of airborne mold spores
include[2] allergic reactions, asthma episodes, irritations of the eye, nose
and throat, infections, sinus congestion, and other respiratory problems.
When inhaled by an immunocompromised individual, some mold spores may begin
to grow on living tissue, attaching to cells along the respiratory tract and
causing further problems in those with weak immune systems. Generally, when
this occurs, the illness is an epiphenomenon and not the primary pathology.
A serious health threat from mold exposure for immunocompromised individuals
is systemic fungal infection. Immunocompromised individuals exposed to high
levels of mold, or individuals with chronic exposure may become
infected.[citation needed] Sinuses and digestive tract infections are most
common; lung and skin infections are also possible. Mycotoxins may or may
not be produced by the invading mold.
The most common form of hypersensitivity is caused by the direct exposure to
inhaled mold spores that can be dead or alive or hyphal fragments which can
lead to allergic asthma or allergic rhinitis.[3] The most common effects are
rhinorrhea (runny nose), watery eyes, coughing and asthma attacks. Another
form of hypersensitivity is hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP). This is
usually the direct result of inhaled spores or fragments in an occupational
setting.[3] It is predicted that about 5% of people have some airway
symptoms due to allergic reactions to molds in their lifetimes.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_mold