Political work: DIYbio vs. "alternative 'medicine'"
206 views
Skip to first unread message
Open BioLab Graz
unread,
Feb 11, 2016, 8:39:57 AM2/11/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio
I guess most of us are aware, that "alternative medicine" aka esoteric bullshit is a plague that influences many peoples lifes in a negative way and spreads a false view of chemistry, medicine, molecular biology - mostly in the name of making cash.
So how do you react when you're confronted with esoteric stuff, especially when it sells itself under the pretext of science? Is it our mission as a movement to fight against such lies actively? Or do you think that biohackers should be passive and just focus on their stuff?
Cathal Garvey
unread,
Feb 11, 2016, 8:59:40 AM2/11/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com
My attitude and my way of talking about this is simple: There is no such
thing as "Alternative Medicine". There is "Medicine", and there is "Not
Medicine".
Many herbal remedies, for example, are Medicine. Many are Not Medicine.
Some are Medicine but are misprescribed; for example, Echinacea is an
effective cannibinoid-based pain-killer. It is not a flu/cold cure, it
simply helps control symptoms. But, it is a "Medicine" when used
correctly. We know this because of research into Echinacea based on
traditional use.
Many herbs probably work but have not yet been researched; this makes
them Not Medicine until there is credible evidence to support their use.
You'd be surprised, though, how many herbs have actually been studied
fairly well; look them up on Pubmed. I was charmed to learn how much
research has gone into hawthorn as a treatment for heart ailments, for
example; I had never even heard of its medical use until discovering it
on pubmed.
Some types of "Alternative Medicine" are basically *always* "Not
Medicine", and are at best a placebo, at worst a replacement for
"Medicine". For example, sugar-and-water therapies like homeopathy are
Not Medicine, and are never Medicine.
Really, it's as simple as that; if there is no evidence of efficacy, it
is Not Medicine.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio
People need to become more literate in biology to combat this type of thing and that's what we as biohackers should do. I am convinced this helps a lot of people and inspires kids to get into science, which is probably the most important thing.
However you should also be aware there is a fine line to walk. At some points, e.g. curing most diseases, science has merit and should not be replaced by these alternative techniques. But at other points, e.g. if someone is in good health and believes putting crystals on their head is a way to feel even better, by forcing science upon them they likely won't feel any better.
The problem lies not in which side is right or wrong, but rather when alternative techniques are used where it makes no sense or when science is forced when it doesn't have the lead role.
Simon Quellen Field
unread,
Feb 12, 2016, 12:10:05 PM2/12/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diybio
Actually, I think selling someone crystals to put on their head to make them feel better is fraud, and should be prosecuted.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com
A friend and I used to compete to find the most obscenely over the top claims from woo products on sale online.
She won with a website selling crystals thrice blessed by a druid under the full moon, aligned to the bio-energy-field and claiming to be able to cure brown recluse spider bites and to treat AIDS among other things for the low low price of something like 200 quid.
Some of them make surprisingly concrete claims and target the most desperate people.
On a more serious note:
If you ever have someone in the family suffering from something incurable these scum circle like sharks.
There are websites that walk people through how to remortgage their house or fundraise hundreds of thousands of pounds to take their loved one to some [far off place] where [mysterious guy] has [amazing cure] which has been [rejected/suppressed/hidden/ignored] by [modern medecine/pharma/the establishment]. In practice they can end up in a clinic in china with some nutter drilling a hole in their head with a black and decker and pouring a beaker of stem cells in.(real case that happened to someone)
And there's always helpful people in your social circles who believe in the woo who'll, in good faith and thinking they're helping, try to convince the family members of the sick person to some magic man they've heard of who they've heard can help.
Magic men, homeopaths, snake oil salesmen, they're the vultures who prey on the weak, the desperate, the dying. They are the lowest of the low. Psychopaths who'll smile in peoples faces while stripping the dying of their assets in exchange for false promises of a cure or treatment.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio
"Actually, I think selling someone crystals to put on their head to make them feel better is fraud, and should be prosecuted."
I can't agree more... My heart broke when I saw one of my family members drift towards this type of fraud. I was there to explain, but many people don't have the luxury of access to knowledge to protect them.
Jonathan Cline
unread,
Feb 13, 2016, 3:15:30 PM2/13/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio, jcl...@ieee.org
On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 9:43:03 AM UTC-8, David wrote:
On a more serious note:
If you ever have someone in the family suffering from something incurable these scum circle like sharks.
Meanwhile veganism* has been repeatedly shown to reverse atherosclerosis yet 99% of all people still eat animal meat and dairy. There's quackery on all sides of the fence. Doctors love to cut and insert metal and plastic objects into people, it's a very profitable business and doctors find personal joy in it. W.H.O. declared preserved meats as cancer causing** and the public responded by noting how much they love pepperoni pizza and club sandwiches. Would you like to widen your description of "these scum"?
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com
Your point? a
If I see a swimming pool with "caution, deep water" and people still swimming in it I'm not bothered. Nobody is lying to the swimmers. Someday one of them might drown but nobody is knowingly fucking them over.
Does eating meat make your life 0.1% better than life without it in your opinion? well, over the course of 100-person lives there's reasonable odds that it could cause you to develop colon cancer, probably near the end of your natural life. Your call. Nobody needs to fuck you over.
So no, I don't feel any need to change my opinion of murderous, dishonest scam artists based on a half-baked failed attempt at drawing equivalence. The world would be a better place if every one of those human vultures was turned into processed meat.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio
As an MD, I can tell you it is probably the most frustrating part of all practice. To comprehend "Alternative Medicine" love affairs would need deep anthropological studies, but then some people still believe in God you know, so to expect scientific medicine to the ultimate standard is naive and we ourselves have to admit there is still definitely an "Art" to being an effective physician, maybe 75% science and 25% "Please believe me this is what is best for you" Individual doctors try harder and harder to comply with Evidence Based medicine but it is not always easy. Sometimes all we can say is "Ok if you think snake oil will work--go for it" and try to check important side effects and interactions with real drugs.
Mac Cowell
unread,
Feb 16, 2016, 9:30:16 PM2/16/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio
Can the claim be falsified? Can you design a clever, economic/DIYable experiment to test the claim?
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio
Just to play devil's advocate on this topic and echo Cathal's comments...
There are many potent, biologically active, compounds that are found in foods and plants. So many obvious examples: nicotine in tobacco, caffeine in coffee, or alcohol & resveratrol in red wine.
The main issue is the way supplements are regulated. Any "natural" supplement can be sold with almost no regulation so long as it is not a specifically banned material (like a steroid or illegal drug). The supplement companies can sell beeswax lip balm for $20 a tube, but cannot legally advertise that beeswax lip balm cures dry lips better than any other moisturizer -- or that it is effective medically in any way. That does not stop the internet and blogs and facebook from propagating completely false information that makes people believe its true. I think it is a scientist or medical doctors job to let people know the truth and point them in the direction of the existing efficacy studies. If they still want to pay to have a feel good moment that's up to them.
Nico B.
unread,
Apr 4, 2016, 7:56:54 PM4/4/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio
This is somewhat hard for me to agree with, only because I grew up in the Hippie/Alternative/Pseudoscience culture. In many ways, I agree that when it comes to the idea of "Medicine" we need to follow a rigorous evidence based approach when it comes to understanding various avenues of treatment. Though, there is a hilarious tendency for one of my old hippie buddies to talk about some wahoo idea that I brush off and 3-5 years later I read a scientific paper proving the validity of their claims. I think there is something to be said about "Intuitive/Alternative Medicine," and to call these concepts "non-medicine" (ie. meditations, mindfulness, change in diets, herbalism) is showing an ignorance to a different form of science. Simply because the findings of an herbalist, intuitive healer, or mindfulness coach are written in a different vernacular that isn't heavy in science-based terminology doesn't discredit the validity of their studies.
I think when it comes to the fight for "Medicinal Transparency" its important for both sides of the spectrum to understand the frustrations of both sides of the medicinal coin. Many in the "Alternative" folks have a deep distrust for mainstream science/medicine for valid reasons such as a lack of transparency by pharma, medical professionals pushing drugs rather than treatments, and being prescribed 'medicine' with out being explained (or with out the necessary studies to provide) potential side effects. On the "mainstream" side, there is just as many complaints for an abundance of ambiguous language, non-compounded or peer reviewed evidence/studies, false claims for profits, placebo effects, bull shit claims about lunar energies energizing people rectums and curing their cancer. But let us not forget the so many times people in mainstream science have done the same for the sake of cutting corners, expediting approval, or creating higher profit margins. Bull shit doesn't see a divide between perspectives on medicine, bull shit artists are everywhere and don't discriminate between critical thinkers and intuitive persons.
The way I see it -- having one leg in the homeopathic/nutrition/herbalism/acupuncture/permaculture/psychedelic/alternative world, the other in the world of DIYbio/hackers/tech/big pharma/genetics/big agro/tech ed. -- there are two major perspectives on medicine: preventative based and treatment based. Big Med seems to be a front for the latter, the alternative to which the other side of the thinking world (the serious ones at the very least) work towards preventing the issues that pharma treats the symptoms of.. and its only recently that mainstream med has started to advocate for preventative medicine.
I got my money on the future of medicine being in a combination of healthy life style promotion/mitigation and after the fact treatments that big med has always provided. get off that scientific arrogant high horse and realize that just because someone isn't scientifically literate, doesn't mean that they don't know what they're talking about.
David Murphy
unread,
Apr 4, 2016, 8:42:24 PM4/4/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com
Sounds lovely. But it's all tripe.
If you watch a stream of random letters for long enough you'll occasionally see a description of something that kind of looks like a prediction that seems to pan out. It's still just random.
Sometimes an occasional herb turns out to include some chemical usable as a drug and people crow about it.
Because safety testing is too "western" and conformist.
Real doctors have been telling people to get more exercise, eat more fruit and veg and drink plenty of fluids for a long long time.
You don't have to be scientifically literate to understand that before you feed random crap to people you should probably check to see if it's literally deadly poison. But the herb-pushers think they're too good for that. They've got too much secret spiritual knowledge to need to actually check if they're murdering people.
They're utterly incompetent and grossly negligent at best and murderous and greedy at worst.
> Just to play devil's advocate on this topic and echo Cathal's comments...
>
> There are many potent, biologically active, compounds that are found in
> foods and plants. So many obvious examples: nicotine in tobacco, caffeine
> in coffee, or alcohol & resveratrol in red wine.
* On bioactive natural products
You may be interested by a paper I wrote recently about compounds seen
as panaceas. I have a tendency to put resveratrol on my list of
suspicious compounds with all kind of miracle effects (doesn't mean it
may not have an interesting use). The paper is open-access and can be
found here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b01009
Most of the claims you will find about the new "cure-all" molecules that
you find in any health-oriented-food-store are based on in-vitro
bioassay data… You could get a grasp at what can go wrong from the paper
too and I can help if you need some other references.
Most of the "known" compounds and organisms have NOT been studied for
their bioactivity in a scientific way. And most of the studies that have
been done are not sufficient to prove or disprove any real benefit. The
rest of the studies are done on always the same molecules…
* On what DIYBIO people can do
So there is a lot left to do and I think that DIYBIO can clearly be part
of this adventure. Many experiments with Natural Products can be done in
a garage, like extraction, chromatography for analysis and purification,
testing on cells or microorganisms etc
I'm willing to help if someone is interested in learning the lab
techniques (I'm not really experienced with cell and microorganism
cultures so I may not be the best for that part).
Structural analysis is a lot harder to do in a garage, because equipment
like NMR, mass spectrometry and Xray diffractometer are not cheap
equipments (yet?). There is still the possibility of doing it the
old-way with chemical analysis using chemicals to break the compouds in
small parts and study these parts, testing for functional groups and so
on. But I know that some chemicals that were used are on the watch-lists
for drug manufacture or explosive manufacture (at least in US) and
others may be really hard to source. Not even talking about safety here.
* On traditional medicine
Also I wanted to note, there is a lot to learn, and that has been
learned from the study of traditional medicines. I think it is
irresponsible or maybe just simply a proof of stupidity to just throw
the baby with the bath water just because the water looks
suspicious. The fact is that traditional medicines are still the only
source of accessible medicine for a big part of the world. And this is
probably not going to change anytime soon. Many practitioners of
traditional medicine are really happy to have return of scientific
people on what they are doing and are ready to adapt what they are
doing. Also many are redirecting their patients when they know they have
nothing to cure that condition but allopathy (in the sense of
"occidental" or "modern" medicine here) can. I'm absolutely not talking
about the self-taught quantic-naturopaths and other scams here.
* Additional notes
To note also, NIH has a big program on complimentary and alternative
medicines (https://nccih.nih.gov/) trying to find what is worthwhile and
what is not (among other things). And this is not as easy as "just make
a simple assay", "just throw everything that looks like that", etc
J.
Jake
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 11:17:01 AM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio, bjonnh...@bjonnh.net
I think you're on to something that could really be a major part of DiyBio. DIY means doing investigations for yourself about things you are interested in. I'm sure everyone here has experiences with herbal extracts or dietary substances. If something makes you feel different you should find out why! If something cures or helps a statistically significant population that is also worth investigating.
It's pretty basic science to separate out "active" ingredients. Start with polar/nonpolar extracts, that can cut your work in half. If you find an "active" extract then go further. Do simple column chromatography to produce fractions, then find the active fraction. We're literally talking about a tube with silica in it (fancy cat litter) and a solvent system!
It's a shame that we aren't nailing down more effective extraction and standardization systems on a weekly basis. The herbal industry is a disgrace IMHO, BUT probably 5-10% of the longstanding claims have real merit.
Jonathan Cline
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 11:20:41 AM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com, Jonathan Cline
On 4/4/16 5:42 PM, David Murphy wrote:
Real doctors have been telling people to get more exercise,
eat more fruit and veg and drink plenty of fluids for a long
long time.
For every one of those doctors, there are a hundreds of million
dollars spent by corporate executives to misinform the public:
Quote
""The research, led by scientists from Imperial College London
and published in The Lancet,
compared body mass index (BMI) among almost 20 million adult men
and women from 1975 to 2014. It found obesity in men has tripled
and more than doubled in women. Lead author Prof Majid Ezzat said
it was an "epidemic of severe obesity" and urged governments to
act. The study, which pooled data from adults in 186 countries,
found that the number of obese people worldwide had risen from 105
million in 1975 to 641 million in 2014. Meanwhile the number of
underweight people had risen from 330 million to 462 million over
the same period."" http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35933691
Not much new there, states the obvious, just a simple quote from
this week.
I have never heard from anyone that they were given a doctor's
advice to eat oatmeal for breakfast, however I have heard from
dozens of family or friends or acquaintances who were prescribed
cholesterol medications (which have side effects such as
increasing the risk of liver cancer).
> You don't have to be scientifically literate to understand that
before you feed random crap to people you should probably check to
see if it's literally deadly poison.
Said no one who works at McDonalds corporate office, ever. A
friend of mine feeds his kids fast food all the time because he has
been confused by purposeful misinformation ("corporate marketing").
His kids act blood-sugar-insane and he says they're "moody". Then
he allows them to eat candy (which has ingredients which have
increased fat & sugar ratio over the years). It is a wonder how
humans are surviving at all in the past few decades. Summer is
coming up and that means outdoor parties. Sales of hot dogs are
continuing to break new records - a product that has
anti-nutritional content today. I don't even run into people who
can cook anymore. I suggested at a recent private event which was
catered using onsite chefs, yet which had only "steak" or "chicken
breast" on the menu, that they provide something simple for non meat
eaters, such as grilled eggplant. This event had millionaires in
attendance, they could afford better food. The suggestions were met
with ridiculous arguments for why they could only offer steak. Then
I found the real reason: the menu was decided by a subgroup called
the "house committee", which is likely made up of the (uneducated,
misinformed, and timid) wives of the millionaires - yet this group
was in charge of the nutritional needs of three hundred people.
How about the abnormally high lead content in the residential water
supply of certain U.S. towns right now? Given a rubber stamp of
approval by everyday government workers due to budget signoffs and
timidity. Lead will haunt that population group's health for
decades.
Meanwhile there are small communities and internet sites dedicated
to exploring uses and benefits of common ingredients like apple
cider vinegar. The efforts won't receive any R&D funding
because there's no financial return on investment for corporations
or startups (not patentable).
Jonathan BISSON
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 11:36:50 AM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
> It's pretty basic science to separate out "active" ingredients. Start with
> polar/nonpolar extracts, that can cut your work in half. If you find an
> "active" extract then go further. Do simple column chromatography to
> produce fractions, then find the active fraction. We're literally talking
> about a tube with silica in it (fancy cat litter) and a solvent
> system!
Working with that every day, I disagree. It is not always that simple. It
is not just "throw it in the column and get some fractions". You have to
develop which solvent you are using, which particle size, which solid
phase chemistry… You have degradation issues, coelution issues,
artifacts issues…
It is like saying, making a GMO is easy, just take a sequence, shoot it
on the cells and it is ready to go… No its not that easy.
>
> It's a shame that we aren't nailing down more effective extraction and
> standardization systems on a weekly basis. The herbal industry is a
> disgrace IMHO, BUT probably 5-10% of the longstanding claims have real
> merit.
Extraction and standardization are complex process. Especially with
herbals as matrix effects and variations in different samples can be
pretty high. If you add the adulteration issue to that…
I think 5-10% is a lot, I'm not sure it is that high in reality…
David Murphy
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 12:42:27 PM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com
"His kids act blood-sugar-insane and he says they're "moody"."
"A challenge study design was employed,
in which thirty-five 5- to 7-year-old boys reported by their mothers to
be behaviorally “sugar sensitive,” and their mothers, were randomly
assigned to experimental and control groups. In the experimental group,
mothers were told their children had received a large dose of sugar,
whereas in the control condition mothers were told their sons received a
placebo; all children actually received the placebo (aspartame).
Mothers and sons were videotaped while interacting together and each
mother was then questioned about the interaction. Mothers in the sugar
expectancy condition rated their children as significantly more
hyperactive."
Implication:
Even if he was secretly feeding them pure sugar free food you'd still convince yourself that they were "blood-sugar-insane".
Your beliefs and expectations can massively skew your perceptions.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com, Jonathan Cline
I agree with you, I have no control
group and my statements were mostly subjective, however simple
observations do have some benefits and soft conclusions can be
drawn. Not to go into too many details from one example, but
literally bouncing off the walls (using couches as intermediary)
and then later sitting on the floor with tears streaming down
cheeks (without cause), and then later, acting "normally nutty
like a kid" and playing a video game, to me, is vacillating pretty
hard between moods. High fat & salt content in fast food has
been implicated before as well.
By the way since when does aspartame fit as a placebo? Aspartame
tastes sweet and therefore could trigger behavior. :-P
Was the study you linked to sponsored by Coca Cola Co.?
A group
called the Global Energy Balance Network, led by scientists
and created by Coca-Cola, announced this week that it was
shutting down after months of pressure from public health
authorities who said that the group’s mission was to play
down the link between soft drinks and obesity.
Coke’s
financial backing of the group, reported
by The New York Times in August, prompted criticism
that the company was trying to shape obesity research and
stifle criticism of its products..
Public
health authorities complained that Coke, the world’s largest
producer of sugary beverages, was adopting tactics once used
by the tobacco industry, which for decades enlisted experts
to raise doubts about the health hazards of smoking. Last
month, the University of Colorado School of Medicine said
it would return a $1 million grant that Coca-Cola had
provided to help start the organization.
Tens of millions of dollars of corporate spending even spills over
to skew opinions on this diybio group (not just this thread but
historically; search for threads containing the keyword: salmon).
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com, Jonathan Cline
This thread has revealed some distaste
for conmen and witchdoctors (on any side of the fence though
especially the most extreme kinds). And some calls to arms
against these folks. I have no fondness for them myself. However
this group has many biologists and so, everyone here should
realize that nature is biased to producing these types of people.
Very literally. Nature is designed to produce more cheaters.
Women are engineered to mate with charismatic conmen when given
the choice (vs. straight laced, upstanding peers), meaning,
evolution is designed to produce ever growing quantities of the
fraudsters. Therefore the call to arms against these people is a
war against human nature itself. The theme reminds me of a synbio
paper presentation on yeast, whereby a small segment of the
population will cheat neighbors for their own nutrition and
growth. An individual battling against this force will always
lose against the test of time and the resources of the larger and
more evolutionarily advantaged group. Not trying to be fatalistic
about it. Whether or not this means the foxes currently outnumber
the rabbits and the rabbits need to scale up their armory to
slaughter the foxes, I don't know. I only know the cheaters (the
fraudsters, the foxes in this analogy) will always exist and there
must be some purpose for their existence, otherwise evolution
itself would not be biased towards creating them. Or it could be,
that god has failed (analogy: nature, and evolution, is broken;
but bad men have also claimed this and then claimed that they were
attempting to fix nature, leading to disastrous results, so that's
a dangerous road to be on). The cheaters are one mechanism for
breaking out of local minima.
Now I will go listen to Dystopia.
Jonathan BISSON
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 1:47:03 PM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
> Implication:
> Even if he was secretly feeding them pure sugar free food you'd still
> convince yourself that they were "blood-sugar-insane".
> Your beliefs and expectations can massively skew your perceptions.
Sure, but it doesn't mean that sugar does nothing to the kids and that
the mother's reaction in the study wasn't due to reinforcement from
experience…
Jonathan BISSON
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 2:20:45 PM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
> Very literally. Nature is designed to produce more cheaters. Women are
> engineered to mate with charismatic conmen when given the choice (vs.
> straight laced, upstanding peers), meaning, evolution is designed to
> produce ever growing quantities of the fraudsters. Therefore the call
[…]
> more evolutionarily advantaged group. Not trying to be fatalistic about
> it. Whether or not this means the foxes currently outnumber the rabbits
> and the rabbits need to scale up their armory to slaughter the foxes, I
> don't know. I only know the cheaters (the fraudsters, the foxes in this
I'm not sure whether I have a problem with your view of women, food
chains, mating behavior here, or your teleological evolutionary
explanations, or maybe just all of that together.
Cathal (Phone)
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 2:44:25 PM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com
I'm still confused about why the foxes are mating with rabbits, or was it the other way around? Are women badgers in this analogy, or maybe polecats?
But if foxes use not-medicine and rabbits use real medicine, that explains the relative populations, right? Am I understanding this?
So lost. Such confuse.
Jonathan Cline
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 3:23:59 PM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com, Jonathan Cline
It is a controversial theme because it
is threatening. Science, though (no I won't give refs). Can't
bear the idea that scammers win? Stores sell "baby water" for two
cents more than both drinking water and distilled water (nice
non-threatening pink label, too). What's that about? Is
that a commercially backed version of "alternative medicine"?
Could be highly entertaining to try to convince a new father or
mother with the "baby water" product in their shopping cart that
it is a worse product choice (because it funds the producer as
well as 2 cents more for no benefits) than the generic product.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com
> (no I won't give refs).
Nuff said, move on everyone.
Gordana Ostojic
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 4:43:08 PM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio, cathal...@cathalgarvey.me
Most alternative-medicine people use ibuprofen for headache and fever reducing. If the cancer or other serious diseases would have the similar treatment outcome rates, I bet that most people would use nonalternative treatment.
Jonathan Cline
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 5:02:50 PM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com, Jonathan Cline
On 4/5/16 12:44 PM, Cathal (Phone)
wrote:
> (no I won't give refs).
Nuff said, move on everyone.
Okay in that case I will give an example as a reference.
>I've got a great, ancient topical method for killing MRSA,
too: cauterisation. Where's my BBC piece?
Here in the above, Cathal attempts to belittle another
researcher's own science experiments towards antibiotics -- which
could be called a study into alternative medicine or simply pure
research just as many experiments are done out of pure curiosity
-- apparently because of something (jealousy? that he isn't
getting media coverage on his own projects?). Meanwhile, and
here's the possibly political part (in the sense of: acting in a
community's self-interests), Cathal's affiliated lab(s) have their
own antibiotic research experiments ongoing. As well as a project
on probiotics -- which could also currently be called alternative
medicine.
On 4/4/16 5:42 PM, David Murphy wrote:
Sounds lovely. But it's all tripe.
That is a very immediate dismissal isn't it? "[Suggestions of
alternatives to traditional medicine are] all tripe." Hmm!
If you watch a stream of random letters for long
enough you'll occasionally see a description of something
that kind of looks like a prediction that seems to pan
out. It's still just random. Sometimes an occasional herb
turns out to include some chemical usable as a drug and
people crow about it.
Peppermint tea works great for me for some things. Or how about
something UK related for Cathal: munching fennel seed when exiting
an Indian restaurant. Much better than something over the
counter, I'd say, and far simpler. Are these "just random"
prediction? I don't think so. I saw a prediction that sunlight
(interpreted as: UV light) could cure gym shower athlete's foot
better than pharmacy topical treatments - true or false, I don't
know, but sunlight is free, so I doubt it will be studied much.
I'm not in either camp, I have equal burden of proof from both
sides (alternative and traditional). It all seems fine until
traditional medicine prescribes antibiotics "because.. well.. we
don't know what it is" (no specific diagnosis, though perhaps
good results). If there's no specific diagnosis then an
alternative can't really be substituted well or reliably, so just
take the personal nuclear bomb of antibiotics. Yet if there is
one thing worth studying in modern medicine, it is alternatives to
antibiotics.
A long while back in this group (years ago), I believe I posted
some refs of studies concluding that the largest problem in
alternative medicine was identifying and correctly labeling the
ingredients. Sometimes due to honest mistake and often other
times due to fraud. Tree bark which supposedly cures cancer is
going to be more expensive per weight than the tree bark which
supposedly cures hair loss (or whatever), and if they both look
very similar, there's the mislabeling problem. So while the
predicitions in some cases might have some probability of merit,
the wrong ingredients are used or sold, or studied.
More often it turns out that the magic men and conmen
have been giving people cancer or simply feeding them
poison
Allegedly true, literally, in an avenue perhaps unexpected
"""The owner of a Dallas-area hospice ordered nurses to
increase drug dosages for patients to speed their deaths and
maximize profits, according to an FBI affidavit. A copy of
the affidavit for a search warrant obtained by KXAS-TV
in Dallas-Fort Worth alleges Brad Harris ordered higher
dosages for at least four patients at Novus Health Services
in Frisco. It's unclear whether any deaths resulted from
overdoses of drugs like morphine."""
Nico Bouchard
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 5:03:30 PM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com
Lol. So whole foods can sell $8 asparagus water and simply because it's experiential and non-observed information (no reference article or it's such a ubiquitously experienced thing there's no need to provide that info unless you're being incredibly anally retentive) it didn't exist at all. Let's actually not pay attention to the well designed bull shit on our shelves and only use our brain power to disprove 10,000 year old experiential knowledge because it doesn't conform to the way we choose to empirically label the world so we can more easily manipulate it or understand it from a position of non-interconnectivity.
How anti science and anti enlightening that perspective is, to discredit a differing perspective on knowledge simply because it doesn't follow you're perfered model of reasoning.
So Cathal, you wanna accelerate bioscience but you're not willing to accept a differing perspective on the complexities of life unless it conforms to your chosen vernacular? That's what it's sounding like. Following that trajectory doesn't sound like we're gonna have much of an internal revolution. False mission statements sure look good on a home page though.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com, Nico Bouchard
More like "Guy makes bullshit misogynistic statement, and when called out shouts 'Science, but I won't cite it!'". At that point I stop listening, yes.
But it's easy to turn around and mumble something about me being commercially compromised as a way to smokescreen, so whatevs.
I'm *very* interested in studying *traditional* medicine using scientific rigour. I have seen plenty of amazing research into herbal medicines that yielded real medical insight. I'm certainly not dismissive of scientific treatment of traditional knowledge. What I'm against is cladding bullshit in scientific trappings, whether it's mysogyny like we've seen today, or faux cancer therapies.
Jonathan Cline
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 5:17:07 PM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com, Jonathan Cline
Ha, this is great, laugh of the day,
the first web search hit on this item: "Whole Foods' $6 Asparagus Water Is Just Water With Three
Stalks of Asparagus in It"
The operator denied the product existed. Eventually
she transferred the call to a gentleman in the produce
department who did not want to give his name. He explained
that the product was new, "We've had them on the shelf for the
last few days." When asked how the item is made, he said,
"It's water, and we sort of cut asparagus stalks down so
they're shorter, and put them into the container." When Eater
asked what it was for, there was a long pause before he said,
"Well, it's... to drink." He elaborated, "The nutrients from
the asparagus do transfer into the water." As a point of
comparison, Whole Foods has whole bundles of asparagus on sale
for about $5.
I do like cucumber water though. It seems to "do something,"
especially on a hot day. Self sliced, not bought for many dollars
off the shelf. Hah!
On 4/5/16 2:09 PM, Cathal (Phone) wrote:
More like "Guy makes bullshit [censored] statement,
and when called out shouts 'Science, but I won't cite it!'". At
that point I stop listening, yes.
Cathal, I won't cite, for many reasons mostly time and depth, but
the conclusions are rather straightforwardly seen for those not
living in a bubble. If you call it by that term, then I suggest a
basic review of evolution or a casual view of the Discovery
Channel.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com
So, watch some telly, decide women are thoughtless automata that mate with the nearest red bottomed ape, call it self-evident, and in turn call that wild supposition "Science". Got it.
Seriously, I'm out. This would be hilarious if the people being insulted were fictional. Enjoy the remains of what started out as a serious conversation, I guess.
Nico B.
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 6:16:10 PM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio, cathal...@cathalgarvey.me
I don't see the sexist remarks the same way you do. Looks like a jovial and sarcastic statement but you internalize it however you wish. Granted, I'm equally lost on that whole fox v rabbit argument. But lets just talk about trump for a laugh... but wait, he's real. that's what makes it funny. that bull shit pervades at such HIGH levels.
So you're saying just because the modern field of biology is such that its maybe what, a few hundred years old we're going to throw the baby out with the bath water and say all of the standing knowledge that has yet to be transposed into modern vernacular is mute simply because its still at the status of "alternative" because we haven't had a medical revolution in the greater scope of things since penicillin (or rather, haven't put the same money towards solutions other than bandaids)? why not syphon that money into a group that would allow for a greater standardization of science terms to find a happy medium, or offer the money to transpose old trad. medicine texts into modern science terms since they seem to have no credibility unless filed with the right semantics. I agree with you that we need to push the scope of biotech further, but it also sounds like that process (as its perpetrated by yourself and Ryan) only pursues the efforts promising great financial return. thats not revolutionary in any sense. shit, the other night we looked at member payments for CCL and for such an esteemed member of the DIY/biotech community, ryan hadn't paid the $80/mo. once.
Unfortunately for us both, the current model will never allow for trad. medicine scripts to be transposed in a timely fashion because there is no immediate financial gain or incentive towards that end. Shit man, there are individual researchers that were able to cure their cancer with CBD treatments 20 years ago and only now is science catching up (i.e. one company you're accelerator seeded a few years ago if I recall correctly). So by your methodology, we might very well have cures or treatments to such horrid diseases, but because it counters the established equation of funding = non- controversial (unless coupled with pre-existing pro-movements) + scientific terminology + high capital return potential. I mean, if you wanna keep throwing money at big biotech thats great, but if you're actually trying to revolutionize science maybe you could convince some of the money people to provide more to the hacker spaces that are filled with nerds looking for a bit of financial backing for their time to do such things as, accelerate biotech on the ground level.
Jonathan Cline
unread,
Apr 5, 2016, 6:47:41 PM4/5/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diy...@googlegroups.com, Jonathan Cline
This is a great proof for what happens
in the case where ideas threaten the establishment or status quo
(unfortunately). Directly on topic. Anyone working outside the
castle walls runs into this type of behavior. Beware mob rule and
group think. What happens when the scientists themselves succumb
to group think? Critical thinking takes time, compared to a
knee-jerk emotional response. Scientists can be biased in
specific ways. Cathal perhaps was not the leader of the school's
football team and may have specific emotional biases.
Unfortunately some themes are so volatile that they result in very
dangerous terms being bandied about accidentally or mistakenly
(including potentially libelous phrases). Those terms should not
be used lightly. It's unfortunate if Cathal's critical thinking
skills only go so far.
Not sure where you guys lost the fox and rabbit analogy. I
suppose in the UK they'd call it foxes and hairs? Basic biology
right, and used in some synbio models- 1st order predator prey
model-
y
is the number of some predator (for example, foxes);
The analogy is that the population of scammers prey on the honest
victims but that the nature of the cycle is to oscillate,
therefore, the previous call to "hang the lot of 'em" will be
temporary at best (and dangerous if it is thought to engineer them
out of existence entirely), especially as, human nature is biased
to continually produce scammers. This is unfortunate news for the
normally happy bunnies. Scammers might be too harsh a word in
some contexts. They could also be called CEO's in many cases, or
used car salesmen in others, or government contractors/employees
who "accidentally overlook" the residential water supplies having
safe levels of lead. In alternative medicine, the population of
scammers grows until the regulatory authorities are forced to take
notice and throw them (some of them at least) in jail, that
squelches the population for a while, until the next rise. The
rise comes from product innovation. Not all innovation is
beneficial but it does change the status quo (breaks out of the
establishment's minima.) Q.E.D. Everyday example, look at the
rise of vaping products, for good or ill, currently non regulated
still (I believe).
Whether or not more funding of outsider-science can propel "good
innovation" and keep down the "bad innovation" is anyone's guess
but obviously that is the hope of anyone in a diybio group (and
maybe also the hope of the DOD and FBI among their other interests
in it).
But that doesn't answer the question for what to do if the
scientists themselves reject valid science due to establishment
thinking.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio, jcl...@ieee.org
Such a spirited discussion... But you know what is really controversial... gene drive systems for population knock down.
Traditional medicine says it's too radical, and mainstream scientists say it's just too dangerous to not do nothing.
Just eat your Kava kava and milk thistle extract and you'll be fine!
Dennis Oleksyuk
unread,
Apr 7, 2016, 2:41:06 PM4/7/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio, jcl...@ieee.org
To proponents of science based medicine. Try to stop yourself and just ignore people who are proactively pushing non-medicine, either directly or under pretext of being 'open minded'. Your time is better spent spreading scientific knowledge to people who are not active promoters of non-medicine. Once you convert someone to the scientific way of thinking they very rarely come back. You can count that as a solid win against ignorance.
Those who are pushing non-medicine usually have too much invested into the argument to give it up. They either make public claims, which makes it really hard to backtrack and don't look bad. Or their livelihood literally depends on it because that is how they make their income.
Also take a look at this article/podcast. It says the same thing but in much better way. I relisten and reread it time to time to remind myself to resist the urges to fight the anti-science claims.
> To proponents of science based medicine. Try to stop yourself and just
> ignore people who are proactively pushing non-medicine, either directly or
> under pretext of being 'open minded'. Your time is better spent spreading
> scientific knowledge to people who are not active promoters of
> non-medicine. Once you convert someone to the scientific way of thinking
> they very rarely come back. You can count that as a solid win against
> ignorance.
>
> Those who are pushing non-medicine usually have too much invested into the
> argument to give it up. They either make public claims, which makes it
> really hard to backtrack and don't look bad. Or their livelihood literally
> depends on it because that is how they make their income.
>
> Also take a look at this article/podcast. It says the same thing but in
> much better way. I relisten and reread it time to time to remind myself to
> resist the urges to fight the anti-science claims.
> https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4167 >
I'm just throwing some thinking about what I've read in the previous
messages, this is not just an answer to you Dennis.
Just to state another opinion than this pure black-vs-white description
of the last messages of this thread, what I've seen also is people (like
me) that just say:
- don't throw non scientific-medicine as there are stuff to be studied
scientifically here. Be it in term of biology, medicine, sociology,
psychology… And all of these fields of research can use what you are
calling non-medicine as a subject of study.
To which I also add:
- these are practices which are the only way for a huge part of the
world population to have access to things that may potentially cure
them. It may not be ideal, maybe we just don't have our word to say on
that, depends with school of thought your are from. It doesn't mean
neither that because it is working in a particular place and a
particular time in the world it will be applicable anywhere else, just
because what may cure, what is the illness and what is the
human-relationship are completely different here and there.
And this is the reason why as scientists we have to study these things
as they are part of the humanity and its practices.
If you are more from the potential return on investment (which is
leading the thinking of many that are not doing scientific research but
technological research), there are things that are clearly working
coming from traditional medicine and/or practices such as Quinine,
Cocaine, Morphine, Δ9-THC, Aspirin/Salycilic acid, Capsaicin (there are
more less known examples if you are interested).
And just to avoid the sterile pseudo-debate with people that confuse
pseudo-medicine and natural products, 49% of anti-cancer drugs from 1940 to
2014 are derived from natural products, on all drugs approved between
1981 and 2014, 25% are coming almost directly from natural products and
you can add 10% to that number if you consider pharmacophores coming
from natural products (source DOI: 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b01055, likely
not OpenAccess but I may share it with people interested, just contact
me privately).
Now we also have to think about the targets for drugs, how were these
targets discovered? I don't have exact numbers here, but natural
products still likely played a huge role in here and still do, just
because they are present in virtually all screening sets which are not
fragments or too specialized. And also because some organisms use what
they can produce to protect themselves from other organisms, (cf. the
theory of Firn and Jones if you are interested in this).
There is a whole world hidden behind the magic-natural-pill-bullshit,
one just have to filter the non-sense, the sensational and the business
sharks, and this is not an easy work.
By the way this podcast was really interesting, and I agree, you cannot
argue with pseudo-scientists, but you cannot argue neither with
pseudo-skeptics that think that rejecting everything is the way to do
science, this is not what skepticism is about. This is not about saying
no te everything, it is about subjecting everything to systematic
investigation. So saying "we shouldn't investigate because I think it is
crap" is as dumb as "You cannot investigate because it uses the quantum
magnetic field of crystals dipped in garlic juice that was left for
fermenting during 13 moons, and your instruments will not be able to
measure that anyway".
Stuff like homeopathy have been studied, nothing positive ever showed-up
(or if it did, feel free to send me the references), so we can say that
it is highly likely (don't forget falsifiability here) that it doesn't
do anything more than what a placebo does.
But you cannot say "let's not study this or that because it is folk
practice", because if you didn't subject it to scientific investigation
(whichever the aspect of it you want to study), you just know… nothing…
Jonathan BISSON
unread,
Apr 7, 2016, 3:55:34 PM4/7/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
It really seems that yes, it is probably useless to just confront
blinkered people:
« Ms. Kahle, who has a degree in physics, said she has tried to engage
directly with “serial conspiracy theorists,” with mixed results. She
said the response to one of her denials of occult mischief was: “What is
that a ‘no’ to, the portal or the demons?” »
Or maybe it is not just the good way of doing it, to this I have no
answer, and I'm not as confident as Brian Dunning here.
Nathan McCorkle
unread,
Apr 7, 2016, 3:58:42 PM4/7/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diybio
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Dennis Oleksyuk <ma...@dennis-o.com> wrote:
To proponents of science based medicine. Try to stop yourself and just ignore people who are proactively pushing non-medicine, either directly or under pretext of being 'open minded'. Your time is better spent spreading scientific knowledge to people who are not active promoters of non-medicine. Once you convert someone to the scientific way of thinking they very rarely come back. You can count that as a solid win against ignorance.
Those who are pushing non-medicine usually have too much invested into the argument to give it up. They either make public claims, which makes it really hard to backtrack and don't look bad. Or their livelihood literally depends on it because that is how they make their income.
Also take a look at this article/podcast. It says the same thing but in much better way. I relisten and reread it time to time to remind myself to resist the urges to fight the anti-science claims.
My take is don't encourage such anti-science, but also check in on their claims once in a while... you might find some serious misguidance on their part which /is/ worth fighting against... or you might find a real gem-in-the-rough.
On that last part, I feel the big "ah hah" that cheap sequencing, NMR, better microscopes, big data/compute, etc... is affording us these days is the knowledge that humans/organisms are highly polymorphic/variable. One "real science" big-pharma cancer treatment may have absolutely no effects on one patient vs another... or even the same patient that gets another form of cancer. How much granularity do traditional-medicine/pseudo-scientists even have? Certainly not cell biopsy data, sequencing from any of those biopsies that didn't occur, no fMRI, no CT, etc, etc, etc... In that light, I'd call it severely-data-limited-and-misguided science. Humans are able to recognize patterns, whether they are doing so correctly/optimally/honestly/knowledgeably is another thing. Outright ignoring 'wacky'/pseudo/bad science is not prudent, there's too much humans don't know about the world/life/physics/etc, there's too much that "seems" "magic" and definitely is not. So going by a case-by-case basis is really needed. The people that truly believe in alternative medicine, I hope, will eventually catch up with modern analytical techniques and understanding. We need to encourage the people who are really trying to make a difference, but don't yet know all the best practices.
Jonathan Cline
unread,
Apr 7, 2016, 3:59:09 PM4/7/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio, Dennis Oleksyuk, Jonathan Cline
How do you encourage scientists to
study the alternative topics though? In order to prove or
disprove, or potentially find something very interesting? Instead
of being biased towards working on the establishment's interests?
(Or instead of defaulting to studying what their PI wants or
enjoys talking about)
Kombucha for example. I like the taste and the fizz - that's why
I drink it. Quite simply it is refreshing. It has a whole culture
of "it's good for you" surrounding it though, much of it new-age
woo woo, that I do not like so much. Very unfortunate. Little
scientific research on the culture, either way. It is a very ripe
area for study. A very complex bio culture. And many centuries
old. Where's the hard research interest in it? I'd say most bio
types don't even know what it is, let alone the public. I
cultured it in the local diybio lab which had a steady stream of
local biotech professionals (quite easy as a project), so I know
first hand that the subject area is still very "underground". It
is complex enough chemically and biologically that it could be an
entire lifelong publication career for a research scientist.
Kimchi is another example, it has more publications, not as many
publications as it has every day consumers though.
Why mention so many food examples.. because food is the simple bio
material which 100% of us take daily, hopefully nutritional, and
they're easy examples. Multi-vitamins - as recently dethroned -
have a history of both traditional and alternative proponents -
such as doctors claiming they take 5000 mg (!) of Vitamin C per
day themselves.
This discussion group provides evidence that biologists may be as
biased as the public in many regards. Synbio startup types who
want to invent cowless meat rather than optimize a tomato for both
nutrition and commercial viability (that's a reference to the
previous synbio tomato project by George Church).
Resveratrol as just mentioned is a pretty controversial subject.
Many in this discussion group and in local labs have denounced it
as having value. Would it even be of any interest, if it wasn't
found in a popular legalized drug with huge commercial revenue?
(i.e. Wine.)
About the podcast linked below. Its good and the points are
valid. However it could be much more beneficial to create a
standard scientific response to the pseudo-science people. Rather
than "just refuse to debate the pseudo-science" it could be better
change the topic: rather than debating the subject, point the
audience to the proper references. Basically only speak on the
topic as: "RTFM, and here are the textbooks to read."
This is why and how FAQs work. I've seen it work too many times
to discount it's power. Groups will debate topics back and forth
and often not change their minds, just as the podcast explains.
Publish a FAQ however, and the conversation is changed: "RTFM,
here's the FAQ." Debate ends and the level of discourse is
raised. Many pseudo-science believers simply don't have the
correct references, they're reading the wrong books and watching
the wrong youtube channels. PLoS makes this much easier - find
the easier to read articles and spread their links. The other
part of the podcast addresses "reporters". Journalists are so
biased or used to producing misinformation it is ridiculous. The
only way around this too, is to insist in writing that the
journalist include a link to the related scientific papers. The
psychology of "myth stickiness" has been published at length by
good studies recently. Myths are hard to debunk once published
even if hard facts are presented. Misinformation is sticky.
This explains part of why pseudo-science is so hard to eliminate
and why it can be so frustrating.
> scientific papers. The psychology of "myth stickiness" has been
> published at length by good studies recently. Myths are hard to debunk
> once published even if hard facts are presented. /Misinformation is
> sticky./ This explains part of why pseudo-science is so hard to
> eliminate and why it can be so frustrating.
I'm interested in these papers, do you have the references of the good
ones you did read on the subject?
Nathan McCorkle
unread,
Apr 7, 2016, 4:10:48 PM4/7/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to diybio
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Jonathan Cline <jcl...@ieee.org> wrote:
How do you encourage scientists to
study the alternative topics though? In order to prove or
disprove, or potentially find something very interesting? Instead
of being biased towards working on the establishment's interests?
(Or instead of defaulting to studying what their PI wants or
enjoys talking about)
Kombucha for example. I like the taste and the fizz - that's why
I drink it. Quite simply it is refreshing.
Ugh, not me, science bias! (though I feel like I've heard some research on negative reactions to vinegar-containing compounds indicates poor gut flora or something, sugar addiction maybe... I can't remember) (p.s. I don't like vinegar, even in prepared foods I often will pass on eating it)
It has a whole culture
of "it's good for you" surrounding it though, much of it new-age
woo woo, that I do not like so much. Very unfortunate. Little
scientific research on the culture, either way. It is a very ripe
area for study. A very complex bio culture. And many ceturies
old. Where's the hard research interest in it? I'd say most bio
types don't even know what it is, let alone the public. I
cultured it in the local diybio lab which had a steady stream of
local biotech professionals (quite easy as a project), so I know
first hand that the subject area is still very "underground". It
is complex enough chemically and biologically that it could be an
entire lifelong publication career for a research scientist.
I knew a guy who said he applied a salve of the SCOBY to some plant graft wounds, and said the grafts healed up nicely! Pseudo-science away!
Kimchi is another example, it has more publications, not as many
publications as it has every day consumers though.
Now I will definitely eat a bunch of kimchi or other Korean vegetable ferments. I don't know if they make acetic acid or if they're lactic acid ferments, maybe that's why I find them palatable vs. kombucha/vinegar?
Why mention so many food examples.. because food is the simple bio
material which 100% of us take daily, hopefully nutritional, and
they're easy examples. Multi-vitamins - as recently dethroned -
have a history of both traditional and alternative proponents -
such as doctors claiming they take 5000 mg (!) of Vitamin C per
day themselves.
This discussion group provides evidence that biologists may be as
biased as the public in many regards. Synbio startup types who
want to invent cowless meat rather than optimize a tomato for both
nutrition and commercial viability (that's a reference to the
previous synbio tomato project by George Church).
Wasn't there talk that anything he does turning into a patent war, therefore discard what he does (until 20 years from now) :P
Resveratrol as just mentioned is a pretty controversial subject.
Many in this discussion group and in local labs have denounced it
as having value. Would it even be of any interest, if it wasn't
found in a popular legalized drug with huge commercial revenue?
(i.e. Wine.)
About the podcast linked below. Its good and the points are
valid. However it could be much more beneficial to create a
standard scientific response to the pseudo-science people. Rather
than "just refuse to debate the pseudo-science" it could be better
change the topic: rather than debating the subject, point the
audience to the proper references. Basically only speak on the
topic as: "RTFM, and here are the textbooks to read."
This is why and how FAQs work. I've seen it work too many times
to discount it's power. Groups will debate topics back and forth
and often not change their minds, just as the podcast explains.
Publish a FAQ however, and the conversation is changed: "RTFM,
here's the FAQ." Debate ends and the level of discourse is
raised. Many pseudo-science believers simply don't have the
correct references, they're reading the wrong books and watching
the wrong youtube channels. PLoS makes this much easier - find
the easier to read articles and spread their links. The other
part of the podcast addresses "reporters". Journalists are so
biased or used to producing misinformation it is ridiculous. The
only way around this too, is to insist in writing that the
journalist include a link to the related scientific papers.
This seems like the option I was thinking about too, "read this brief overview (novella style book) of the last 2000 years of science, then read these modern references". The closer to the cutting edge research though, the muddier some things get, and sifting through all the "inundation of publications" I imagine will get subjective quickly.
Jonathan Cline
unread,
Apr 7, 2016, 4:15:16 PM4/7/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Jonathan BISSON, DIYbio, Jonathan Cline
I can revisit this later. Maybe
referenced in summaries by Psychology today.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio, Dennis Oleksyuk, Jonathan Cline
One of the most dangerous alternative
medicine movements I can remember from recent years was/is the
"anti vaccination movement". Spearheaded by certain celebrities
and based on no hard studies, it won over a ton of followers -
result: risk not just for the guardians who chose that route for
children but also anyone who comes in social contact with those
children (perhaps those not yet old enough to get vaccinated or
need an update).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies
""
A 2005 measles outbreak in the US state of Indiana
was attributed to parents who had refused to have their children
vaccinated.[66]
Most cases of pediatric tetanus
in the US occur in children whose parents objected to their
vaccination.[67]... Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that the
three biggest outbreaks of measles in 2013 were attributed to
clusters of people who were unvaccinated due to their
philosophical or religious beliefs. As of August 2013, three
pockets of outbreak—New York City, North Carolina, and
Texas—contributed to 64% of the 159 cases of measles reported in
16 states.[69][70]"""
Cathal's view is so dangerously naive, to assume that the leaders
of pseudo-science are as obvious as a "red bottomed ape". The
stars of alternative medicine are often very, very charismatic and
also have a lot of financial and media resources behind them, as
well as time, because they make it "their lives' work".
Especially if they are purposeful fraudsters, but even if they are
not. It's common sense isn't it? If they're charming people's
grandmothers out of health and/or savings, these are very scarily
talented snake oil salesmen. If they had red bottoms then
everyone could immediately discount them.
(Bernard Madoff ran the biggest scam in the history of the world
for years and no one outed him. Nope, apparently, he charmed
everyone, especially fellow professionals who should have known
better!)
The public is being educated on science by actors and
celebrities. That's a bit askew.
However, she does have a point: there should always be more
studies. Traditional medicine does not admit "We just don't know
the answer and we don't even know the questions to ask either, so
maybe we should hold off on rolling out this technology, it might
take a few more decades to learn anything" often enough.
Financial pressure is no excuse for experimenting on human
populations.
"""What’s the top question you’d want to ask
the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]?
…Jenny McCarthy: I’ve called the CDC myself. I’ve
called [former head of the CDC and now president of Merck’s
vaccine division] Julie Gerberding — and to no avail — [for]
her response. But we want answers to our questions, and they
refuse to talk to us. I’ve tried to talk to the AAP [American
Academy of Pediatrics]. I’ve sat down with one woman and said:
“Please come look at our science. Come talk to our doctors and
see what we’re doing. Take a look at our hyperbaric chamber
treatments and our diet and our vitamins.” And she basically
said to me, “No.” So here we are. It really reminds me of the
generation of Lorenzo’s Oil. It took a parent to take
medicine into their own hands, so to speak, to save their
child. And that’s what we’re doing in this community. I just
find it ironic that if you look at something like the swine
flu shot — where they didn’t study; they just gave it to the
children and said, “We’ll look at it afterward to look at
adverse effects” — why are we then criticized in our community
for trying the diet without having studies done? We’re doing
the exact same thing they are, yet we are so criticized for
something we believe is way less dangerous than injecting
children. We’re taking away milk and wheat, yet we’re
criticized for it."""
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/jenny-mccarthy-were-not-an-anti-vaccine-movement-were-pro-safe-vaccine/
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio
"Alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to work? Medicine!"
-Tim Minchin
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 08:39:57 UTC-5, Open BioLab Graz wrote:
I guess most of us are aware, that "alternative medicine" aka esoteric bullshit is a plague that influences many peoples lifes in a negative way and spreads a false view of chemistry, medicine, molecular biology - mostly in the name of making cash.
So how do you react when you're confronted with esoteric stuff, especially when it sells itself under the pretext of science? Is it our mission as a movement to fight against such lies actively? Or do you think that biohackers should be passive and just focus on their stuff?
Jonathan Cline
unread,
May 16, 2016, 2:20:35 PM5/16/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
Cardiff University
scientists hope to use hops to stop cows producing methane
"Much of what we do is based on whizzy machines and science,
but there's a lot to learn from history," said Prof Les
Baillie.
"While some of these ancient remedies might well be hokum
or snake oil, it's likely that over thousands of years our
ancestors hit on something that actually worked."
And nothing could be more traditional than the time-honoured
remedy of honey.
"Honey has been used for thousands of years to treat wounds
and indeed is still used in our hospitals to treat patients
with these intractable infections that are not responding to
antibiotics," Prof Baillie said.
So, the university enlisted the help of bees as prospectors
in its pursuit of plant-derived anti-bacterial drugs and
treatments.
After testing hundreds of samples sent from beekeepers across
Wales, the team found a honey from Twywyn, in Gwynedd, with
the same anti-bacterial potency of New Zealand's famed
Manuka.
Cardiff University
Honey has been used as a natural remedy for hundreds of
years
The team, led by Dr Jenny Hawkins, identified the active
compounds in the most powerful honeys to find out which
flowers the bees had visited, using the National Botanical
Garden of Wales' DNA plant database.
And Prof Baillie believes this exploration of the domestic
over more exotic climes could signal a new approach.
Scientists
believe Wales could be the 'new Amazon' in the hunt for
novel cures
"Back in the day your prospector would head out on the Amazon
in their canoe looking for exotic plants as cures for the next
great ill," he added.
"But wouldn't it be fantastic if we just went out towards
Welshpool or somewhere in the mountains and found the next
cure for various conditions."
In this spirit, Dr James Blaxland has gone no further than
the local pub - or at least the brewery - to find his bacteria
killers.
He is looking at the hops used in beer for compounds able to
tackle a range of pathogens.
Hops
have been used as a flavouring additive in beer for
hundreds of years
"Hops have been used for hundreds of years as a flavouring
additive within beer. And they found in the early 18th Century
that hops which were added to beer prevented it from spoiling
so people started thinking that hops must be antibacterial,"
he said.
"We have taken this forward in the last five years and we
have screened more than 50 different hop samples from around
the world against bacterium samples."
Dr Blaxland is looking at derived compounds which could be
effective at tackling hospital superbug MRSA and even the
"massive problem" of bovine tuberculosis by using hops as a
foodstuff for cows.
Scientists
at Cardiff University are working on a beer that could
combat bacteria
There is also the unlikely possibility hops could be part of
the answer to global warming, with certain compounds
preventing bacteria that causes cows to produce methane.
And with the university looking at a possible "super mead" to
protect drinkers from myriad ills, what could be more popular?
Well, perhaps antimicrobial tea.
"It could surprise people to know that tea - the common drink
they drink every day of their lives - also contains compounds
called polyphenols that kill bacteria," Prof Baillie
explained.
Compounds
in tea could be used to battle Clostridium Difficile
Cardiff, in collaboration with Aberystwyth University, has
looked at developing a tea to treat "super bug" clostridium
difficile (C.diff) - the UK's principle cause of
hospital-acquired infection.
C.diff occurs when patients in hospital take antibiotics
which get rid of the good bacteria in their stomach, allowing
the infection to reproduce and cause disease.
Prof Baillie said C.diff is susceptible to certain
polyphenols found in tea.
"Given that it's a gut-borne disease and we drink tea, which
goes to our guts, we were intrigued by the idea of, perhaps,
making a 'super tea' that would be high enough in polyphennols
that it would kill the C. diff."
And in pursuit of the most benign brew the university teamed
up with a tea company, analysing samples from the firm's 37
plantations across the globe.
"We were able to show that tea from east Kenya was the most
effective. This was green tea rather than the traditional
black tea that we drink in this country," Prof Baillie
explained.
But perhaps the most alternative of antimicrobial sources
under the team's microscope are marine sponges found off the
Swansea coast.
Sponges have a brief history of producing "novel
pharmaceuticals", with Caribbean species having provided the
basis for cancer drug Cytarbine in the 1950s.
Dr
Alex White said there is a 'brief history' of sponges
providing novel treatments
Dr Alex White said: "These organisms in temperate zones have
adapted to harsher life. It means that they express some
molecules which are there for competitive advantage."
In this way, sponges have become adept at creating "potent
molecules" which are affective at killing cells.
"It's quite early days in our research but we have been able
to find several potential anti-bacterial molecules and to test
them against existing antimicrobial agents," Dr White
explained.
End Quote
I quoted the entire article to eliminate the RTFM handicap.
Patrik D'haeseleer
unread,
May 18, 2016, 11:31:52 PM5/18/16
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Sign in to report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to DIYbio, jnc...@gmail.com, jcl...@ieee.org
Actually, that is just good old fashioned antibiotic discovery. It's the process through which the vast majority of our existing antibiotics have been discovered. No "woo" science here.
See also Josiah's ILIAD project kit, as an example of how you can go prospecting for antibacterial activity in various natural samples:
