-
Paleo.<br><br>
Apparently not quite what it is cracked up to be.<br><br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rnafternoons/if-not-paleo,-then-what/7200410">http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rnafternoons/if-not-paleo,-then-what/7200410</a><br><br>
Listened to this yesterday on the ABC radio. The arguments in favour of paleo sounded remarkably familiar. I wonder whether Pete Evans and Winger are related.<br><br>
Obviously Paleo has some basis in fact, but don't dare dis it or question it's totality. -
<p><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6wjEnha9Uf4/TP_371UOOoI/AAAAAAAACMU/qM1ioBkJvto/s1600/cave.jpg" alt="cave.jpg"></p>
-
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin'>http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin</a><br><br>
Interesting article , the last paragraphs about the Internet and its effect on science will ring true with anyone who's watched the pro disease crowd ignore facts and outright lie. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="571778" data-time="1460487911">
<div>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin'>http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin</a><br><br>
Interesting article , the last paragraphs about the Internet and its effect on science will ring true with anyone who's watched the pro disease crowd ignore facts and outright lie.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Do you mean this one (doesn't it conclude the opposite to what you have posted)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When I asked Lustig why he was the first researcher in years to focus on the dangers of sugar, he answered: “John Yudkin. They took him down so severely – so severely – that nobody wanted to attempt it on their own.â€</p>
<p> </p>
<p>or this</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It is a familiar complaint. By opening the gates of publishing to all, the internet has flattened hierarchies everywhere they exist. We no longer live in a world in which elites of accredited experts are able to dominate conversations about complex or contested matters. Politicians cannot rely on the aura of office to persuade, newspapers struggle to assert the superior integrity of their stories. It is not clear that this change is, overall, a boon for the public realm. But in areas where experts have a track record of getting it wrong, it is hard to see how it could be worse. If ever there was a case that an information democracy, even a very messy one, is preferable to an information oligarchy, then the history of nutrition advice is it.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="571964" data-time="1460538089">
<p>By opening the gates of publishing to all, the internet has flattened hierarchies everywhere they exist. We no longer live in a world in which elites of accredited experts are able to dominate conversations about complex or contested matters.</p>
</blockquote>
<br><br><p>Instead, we get Andrew Wakefield, and <strike>K</strike> Jenny McCarthy and other fucking uneducated nutbag cuntards, who support his publicly-funded misinformation, long after it is proven to be scientifically unsound across a number of fields, not the least of which is medicine.</p> -
<p>The internet is fantastic in that it lets people critique shit & fully analyse it. The problem is people are reeeeeally bad at discerning valid critiques from batshit stupidity that agrees with them. And they will always lean towards anything that agrees with their already anchored view.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And no one does dick in the way of research.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I could set up a site saying I'm Doctor Gollum with a PHD from Havard in climate science. And 1000x more people would cite the shit I posted as proof of their already set ideas, than would actually check to see if I was actually a Doctor. Or had a PHD. Or knew where Harvard was. </p> -
And the Internet isn't necessarily responsible for people being gullible shit birds:<br><br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.cracked.com/article_20007_5-ridiculous-lies-that-fooled-whole-world.html">http://www.cracked.com/article_20007_5-ridiculous-lies-that-fooled-whole-world.html</a>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="572011" data-time="1460553510">
<div>
<p>The internet is fantastic in that it lets people critique shit & fully analyse it. The problem is people are reeeeeally bad at discerning valid critiques from batshit stupidity that agrees with them. And <strong>they will always lean towards anything that agrees with</strong> their already anchored view.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And<strong> no one does dick in the way of research.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I could set up a site saying I'm Doctor Gollum with a PHD from Havard in climate science. And 1000x more people would cite the shit I posted as proof of their already set ideas, than would actually check to see if I was actually a Doctor. Or had a PHD. Or knew where Harvard was. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Unfortunately a lot of people think that seeking out articles that confirm their bias <strong><u>is</u></strong> research.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And still others think they have an open mind when what they've actually got is an empty one.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sometimes the two sets intersect, and that's where crazy lives.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="572011" data-time="1460553510">
<div>
<p>The internet is fantastic in that it lets people critique shit & fully analyse it.<span style="color:#ff0000;"> The problem is people are reeeeeally bad at discerning valid critiques from batshit stupidity that agrees with them.</span> And they will always lean towards anything that agrees with their already anchored view.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And no one does dick in the way of research.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I could set up a site saying I'm Doctor Gollum with a PHD from Havard in climate science. And 1000x more people would cite the shit I posted as proof of their already set ideas, than would actually check to see if I was actually a Doctor. Or had a PHD. Or knew where Harvard was. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Does that include you Or just anyone who has a different viewpoint to you?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="572423" data-time="1460695452"><p>Does that include you Or just anyone who has a different viewpoint to you?</p></blockquote>
<br>
If the word batshit is used I think it's safe to assume he was referring to the things you've professed to believe on this forum . -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="571992" data-time="1460545522">
<div>
<p>Winger are you still trying to pretend your pro disease rantings are anything but utterly absurd?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I was just pointing out that your comment on this article seemed to reach the wrong conclusion. Nothing to do with "pro disease"</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="572426" data-time="1460695767"><p>I was just pointing out that your comment on this article seemed to reach the wrong conclusion. Nothing to do with "pro disease"</p></blockquote>
<br>
Really? I disagree . Nothing new there though I guess. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="572423" data-time="1460695452">
<div>
<p>Does that include you Or just anyone who has a different viewpoint to you?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Includes me. For a long time I thought Ricky Ponting was over-rated. And I found stuff online to support that. And I was wrong. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Its possible to form almost any view on anything - and no matter how extreme you will find really solid sounding research to support that. But if you dig into that research it usually falls apart. But people almost never dig. Which is odd as now its incredibly easy to dig.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>50 years ago when shysters like Eric Van Dinakaran were saying "spacemen built the pyramids!" & listing all his sources it was hard to check all those sources. So if you bought his shit, sure, you were probably at least semi retarded, but there was an excuse. But now anyone beliving him is a fucking laughing stock as its incredibly easy to check his made up shit. And people did check and his sources were his cousin Bob and a paper retracted a year later by the author when peer review pointed out his huge errors. And then they asked what his actual qualifications were. And his book sales fell off a cliff, people asked him a LOT of questions & it all went a bit "Errrmmm...."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Whether I, or you, agree or disagree with something is irelevant. <em><strong>Its the degree to which people have actually dug into what they are basing that belief on</strong></em>. If you hold strong beliefs you owe it to yourself to look at those from 360 degrees. More so if you try impose those beliefs on others. Most people only seek out stuff that supports their beliefs, no matter how lacking in credability. Its why "Doctor Gillian Mckeith" was rich. Even tho' she wasn't a doctor.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(that's one of my all time favourites - "One of the earliest criticisms focuses on McKeith's diploma in nutrition from American Association of Nutritional Consultants.<em><strong> In 2004, the same diploma was also awarded, upon application and payment, to Ben Goldacre's dead cat Henrietta</strong></em>")</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Is it OK to think vacines are bad if your source is the surgeon general, 800 double blind trials & 10 years of peer reviewed papers? Yes, almost certainly, tho' maybe take 10 minutes to actually google those lead papers & see who wrote them & who paid for them. </p>
<p>Is it OK to think vacines are bad if your source is Jenny McCarthy, a website written by a guy who, <strong><em>when you look</em></strong>, has a PHD in astral travel from Bangkok Online University & your friend Pete who has a spaz kid? Of course not, you're clearly a fucking idiot. Even more so if you didn't check that PHD bit.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And the great thing is that will literally take 10 minutes to check. In the modern internet age if you are basing your nutrition on "Doctor" Gillian McKeith & you hadn't realised she's not a doctor you are a gulliable tard who should not be making important decisions for yourself.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't think people with different opinions to me are semi retard morons. I think people with opinions different to me who support those beliefs with shit that takes me 30 seconds to dismantle using google are semi retard morons.</p> -
I don't think that went quite the way Winger expected .<br><br>
Pretty much every single source you've quoted has turned out to be batshit crazy from the idiot who said 9/11 was an inside job and also believes that the Bataclan attack was a false flag to the owner of thd natural news who thinks Bill Gates is bioengineering a flu designed to wipe out minorities .<br><br><br>
More weirdness from the pro disease crowd. <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.theywantyoudead.com'>http://www.theywantyoudead.com</a> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="572566" data-time="1460715689">
<div>
<p>I don't think that went quite the way Winger expected .<br><br>
Pretty much every single source you've quoted has turned out to be batshit crazy from the idiot who said 9/11 was an inside job and also believes that the Bataclan attack was a false flag to the owner of thd natural news who thinks <strong>Bill Gates is bioengineering a flu designed to wipe out minorities .</strong><br><br><br>
More weirdness from the pro disease crowd. <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.theywantyoudead.com'>http://www.theywantyoudead.com</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>In that case I'm only going to acknowledge my Pakeha side to flus and colds from now on.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gollum" data-cid="572541" data-time="1460714454">
<div>
<p>Includes me. For a long time I thought Ricky Ponting was over-rated. And I found stuff online to support that. And I was wrong. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Its possible to form almost any view on anything - and no matter how extreme you will find really solid sounding research to support that. But if you dig into that research it usually falls apart. But people almost never dig. Which is odd as now its incredibly easy to dig.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>50 years ago when shysters like Eric Van Dinakaran were saying "spacemen built the pyramids!" & listing all his sources it was hard to check all those sources. So if you bought his shit, sure, you were probably at least semi retarded, but there was an excuse. But now anyone beliving him is a fucking laughing stock as its incredibly easy to check his made up shit. And people did check and his sources were his cousin Bob and a paper retracted a year later by the author when peer review pointed out his huge errors. And then they asked what his actual qualifications were. And his book sales fell off a cliff, people asked him a LOT of questions & it all went a bit "Errrmmm...."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Whether I, or you, agree or disagree with something is irelevant. <em><strong>Its the degree to which people have actually dug into what they are basing that belief on</strong></em>. If you hold strong beliefs you owe it to yourself to look at those from 360 degrees. More so if you try impose those beliefs on others. Most people only seek out stuff that supports their beliefs, no matter how lacking in credability. Its why "Doctor Gillian Mckeith" was rich. Even tho' she wasn't a doctor.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(that's one of my all time favourites - "One of the earliest criticisms focuses on McKeith's diploma in nutrition from American Association of Nutritional Consultants.<em><strong> In 2004, the same diploma was also awarded, upon application and payment, to Ben Goldacre's dead cat Henrietta</strong></em>")</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Is it OK to think vacines are bad if your source is the surgeon general, 800 double blind trials & 10 years of peer reviewed papers? Yes, almost certainly, tho' maybe take 10 minutes to actually google those lead papers & see who wrote them & who paid for them. </p>
<p>Is it OK to think vacines are bad if your source is Jenny McCarthy, a website written by a guy who, <strong><em>when you look</em></strong>, has a PHD in astral travel from Bangkok Online University & your friend Pete who has a spaz kid? Of course not, you're clearly a fucking idiot. Even more so if you didn't check that PHD bit.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And the great thing is that will literally take 10 minutes to check. In the modern internet age if you are basing your nutrition on "Doctor" Gillian McKeith & you hadn't realised she's not a doctor you are a gulliable tard who should not be making important decisions for yourself.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't think people with different opinions to me are semi retard morons. I think people with opinions different to me who support those beliefs with shit that takes me 30 seconds to dismantle using google are semi retard morons.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Good post</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And agree with this</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"Most people only seek out stuff that supports their beliefs"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Its subconscious with just about everyone. So people start with a belief that say vaccines are great and then find the evidence to support it (not the other way around). This process is built on other 'invisible' beliefs about the society we live in and our place in it. So for example many could never contemplate that these official bodies might be corrupt (rotten to the core in some cases - this only applies of course in bad countries like Russia) for example. Even though the evidence with global warming is that they clearly are at least in this respect. Acceptance of this belief just goes too deep. So our in-built defense mechanisms kick in. Like labeling people funking idiots for example. Or getting angry. Or abusing people etc.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>re "spacemen built the pyramids!". Maybe they did re the Sumerian tablets. And the impossibility of building them 000,s of years back with primitive technology.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="572012" data-time="1460553646">
<div>
<p>And the Internet isn't necessarily responsible for people being gullible shit birds:<br><br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.cracked.com/article_20007_5-ridiculous-lies-that-fooled-whole-world.html">http://www.cracked.com/article_20007_5-ridiculous-lies-that-fooled-whole-world.html</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, but can we trust these "facts"?</p>
Your favourite conspiracy theories