Mr Bill Gates - conscious stage green philanthropist OR dangerous, shady elitist?

[LaucherJunge]

@Serotoninluv
I can totally get behind this one, this is one of the few responses in this thread which sounds very unbiased to me. Not to say that it's the absolute truth.

In the end we honestly don't know so many things and I would wish for a world where things would be questioned and tested or investigated independently of funding or agenda. But the current system that we have is way too critical of any opinion outside of the mainstream, way too focused on finance and simply corrupt to the core.

Edited April 15, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[DrewNows]

25 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Right off the bat, there is poor framing. The first sentence is “Do bacteria cause disease? Do viruses?”. . . That is horrible framing. It sets up a binary decision of whether or not bacteria and viruses cause disease. That is the foundation of the entire article. Such a binary construct will miss intricacies and nuances.

Okay so right off the bat you have been asked to entertain an idea. This upfront-ness is professional in my eyes because those who aren’t willing to entertain new ideas are being used by their own minds. 
@Serotoninluv look at the good news, at least the article isn’t trying to reel you into anything. 

25 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Do bacteria and viruses cause disease? If we say ‘no’, we limit ourselves to diseases independent of disease. We exclude ourselves from learning and understanding microbial-based diseases. As well, the mind will not be open to see the interactions between microbial and non-microbial aspects of disease. For example, how the microbiome in the gut interacts with the genetic background in the grain.

Things to consider moving forward, most of us were raised on the understanding that bacteria and viruses cause disease rather than being actual symptoms of a diseased body or jeopardized immune system. 

25 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Do bacteria and viruses cause disease? If we say ‘yes’, it allows more space - yet it too can be limiting. For example, if we believe that only microbes cause disease, we will not be open to learning about non-microbial diseases. As well, we would not be open to viewing interactions between microbial and non-microbial within a disease. For example, someone may have a poor diet that leads to inefficient cellular respiration and a compromised immune system. Opportunistic bacteria may be able to gain traction in this body that was already compromised. So is the disease caused by the poor diet or by the bacteria? Both.

Do bacteria and viruses cause disease? The best answer would be “yes and no” and then an open exploration. 

Since the article is grounded in “no”, it will be inherently misleading. It had some truths, yet it is also has misleading statements contextualized to support the underlying agenda of the article. 

Something I believe should be a given here is that simply focusing on the negatives or “flaws” of a questionable agenda right out of the gate will inherently create some distortion or bias in the understanding. When someone isn’t willing to play along that means they assume they are being asked to believe this “new theory” without further research and exploration, so they also make the assumption for the degree of intelligence put into the science/study behind the agenda 

too simplistic is a red flag for some but for others, this means the answers for skepticism should come much more easily 

@Serotoninluvlastly appreciate your willing observation ?

Edited April 15, 2020 by DrewNows

[Guest Tobia]

@LaucherJunge My post actually began as an open question. I stated "I don't know".

@Leo Gura was particularly aggressive from the beginning, judgemental and 100% dismissive of everything. Bringing the discussion to a black and white defensive thinking instead of a balanced attempt to consider nuance like @Serotoninluv did.

[LaucherJunge]

@Tobia Yeah, I agree. didn't really mean to attack anybody with that but just to highlight that I liked this approach.

Edited April 15, 2020 by LaucherJunge

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

5 minutes ago, Tobia said:

 

@Leo Gura was particularly aggressive from the beginning, judgemental and 100% dismissive of everything. Bringing the discussion to a black and white defensive thinking instead of a balanced attempt to consider nuance like @Serotoninluv did.

Exactly.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Tobia said:

@Serotoninluv So HOW can I be comfortable accepting a forced vaccination when lack of transparency, proprietary ingredients, adiuvants and censorship are the norm?

When vaccines are prepared well for serious diseases, vaccines have strong benefits for society that outweigh the negatives. Most vaccines have trace heavy metals which are not good for the body to accumulate over time. For most people, such trace heavy metals will not show obvious negative consequences (although they could be one of many variables that contributes to an illness). As well, a portion of the population may have genetic or nutritional deficiencies that make them more vulnerable to vaccines. However on balance, I would say that, for serious diseases, the benefits of vaccines outweighs the negatives.

Ideally, vaccine design would prioritize the wellbeing of individuals and society. Yet when we mix in toxic capitalism, politics, greed, power dynamics, misinformation etc. an altruistic intention can get corrupted. The question you raise about transparency is a core ethical concern of informed consent. Without transparency and accurate information, how can someone give informed consent? This is one of my main ethical issues in pharmaceutical research. For example, pharmaceutical-based research of Tamiflu removed data and misrepresented data. Their Tamiflu product was then marketed worldwide, which was later found to be mostly ineffective with lots of side effects. The pharmaceutical manufacturer was later found to have intentionally conducted bad science. This can be remedied somewhat by peer-reviewed publications, yet that can get corrupted too. As well, the structure of drug design sets up an inherent conflict of interest. By the time a drug reaches stage 4 clinical trials, 100s of millions of dollars are invested as well as the careers of researchers. It’s high stakes for the researchers, their funding and shareholders. This is a huge conflict of interest which leads to biased science (either intentionally or unintentionally).

A country lacking altruistic intentions, integrity and transparency will also lack trust within the populace. In such an environment, I would not be comfortable. Yet keep in mind, it’s not black and white. For example, in the US there are both ethical and unethical practices of pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, the unethical aspects can get exaggerated and amplified in media through partially correct and partial misinformation.

Below is a good video looking at “bad science”. It includes the mechanisms of generic bogus claims (like eating grapes prevents breast cancer). Yet also looks under the hood at how pharmaceutical companies can conduct biased, bad research and even publish it. However, this not to say all pharmaceutical research is biased/bad. Imo, the presenter is legit and see different perspectives clearly. Ben Godacre is a *real* physician that understands science and how people manipulate science to their own advantage.

 

[Forestluv]

42 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

Okay so right off the bat you have been asked to entertain an idea. This upfront-ness is professional in my eyes because those who aren’t willing to entertain new ideas are being used by their own minds. 
@Ser

I’m not referring to the “upfrontness”, I am referring to the frame. I’m happy to say it is an upfront, bad frame.

It’s not just a new idea to be open to, it is the framing. We could easily be upfront with a more accurate frame. For example we could ask “Are you aware bacteria and viruses are only one variable of many that contribute to diseases?”. This is an upfront, accurate frame, however the publisher wouldn’t use it because it is not aligned with it’s intention to convince the readers that bacteria and viruses don’t contribute to disease. 

It would be like someone saying “Genetics doesn’t cause Schizophrenia”. This is partially true, yet highly misleading. Certain genes forms can contribute to Schizophrenia, yet are insufficient by themselves to cause Schizophrenia. There are many variables, including  environmental variables. It’s thought that dozens of genes each contribute to Schizophrenia, yet collectively genetics only contributes about 65% and environmental 35%. . . Similarly, we could hypothesize that microbes are only one variable of many that contribute to a illness/disease, yet on their own are insufficient to cause a illness/disease. . . . In contrast, the claim that microbes in no way contribute to any illness/disease would be inaccurate. As well, the claim that microbes are the only causative agent of every illness/disease is also inaccurate. Both extremes are inaccurate, because it’s not an either / or binary situation. There is an inter-relationship of many factors - including (yet not limited to) microbes. 

42 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

Something I believe should be a given here is that simply focusing on the negatives or “flaws” of a questionable agenda right out of the gate will inherently create some distortion or bias in the understanding. When someone isn’t willing to play along that means they assume they are being asked to believe this “new theory” without further research and exploration, so they also make the assumption for the degree of intelligence put into the science/study behind the agenda 

too simplistic is a red flag for some but for others, this means the answers for skepticism should come much more easily 

I criticized them for their framing right out of the gate, not an agenda. These are two separate things. For example, if I asked you “When did you stop beating your child?”. The framing is bad, regardless of agenda. The framing assumes that you have a child and that you beat your child. 

As well, over simplification is a red flag for someone understands underlying complexity. Sometimes there is a balance between oversimplification and accuracy when trying to articulate understanding. For example, I was helping my niece with her biology homework and explained how genes have either a dominant or recessive allele. Technically, this statement isn’t 100% accurate. Yet in this situation, sacrificing some accuracy is worth it to be able to articulate a fundamental point. As she continues her education, we can add in complexities and nuances. In a few years she will fully understand the dominant vs recessive nature of genes and I will tell her “Remember how I told you there was only dominant and recessive alleles? Well, that ins’t totally accurate. . . check this out, there are also other forms”. In this context, removing complexity and accuracy for the sake of simplicity and fundamentals is not misleading. Yet in other contexts, oversimplification is misleading and hinders articulating understanding. The statement “microbes don’t cause disease” is so oversimplified that it is misleading. And the article double-downed on this misleading frame by repetitively trying to dismiss how microbes can be a contributing factor to disease. 

[Forestluv]

54 minutes ago, LaucherJunge said:

@Serotoninluv
 I would wish for a world where things would be questioned and tested or investigated independently of funding or agenda. But the current system that we have is way too critical of any opinion outside of the mainstream, way too focused on finance and simply corrupt to the core.

I too would love to see an environment in which new questions are explored for the sake of curiosity, truth and progress. As you say, influences such as funding and agenda can corrupt. I see this a lot in scientific research and it’s getting worse as capitalism engulfs scientific research. 

Imo, questioning mainstream views for the sake of being anti-mainstream will create a dilemma. Mainstream views include that which is true, partially true and untrue. If a mind decides to reject all mainstream views, it will successfully filter out all the untrue views. Yet this comes at a cost - the mind will also filter out true mainstream views and partially true mainstream views. As well, the mind will be attracted to all anti-mainstream views, many of which are false or partially false. Such a mind will be gullible and vulnerable to any anti-mainstream outlet - includes nefarious outlets. 

I think this is one of the major issues for younger generations. There is an enormous amount of conflicting information online and not just news outlets - also social media. And people + algorithms are getting very good at disseminating misinformation - often in the name of “anti-mainstream”. I see many people believing whacky ideas because they are anti-mainstream. 

[DrewNows]

@Serotoninluv what I see is an unwillingness to consider what science of the human body must change in order for the terrain theory to be plausible. Changing the focus drastically changes the components and meaning of  disease. In common medical practice, there’s importance placed on blood and the treatment of symptoms, but also an overlooked framework surrounding the lymphatic system and it’s contribution to a healthy immune system 

For the publisher to say both the body’s terrain and the bacteria/viruses present are both responsible for causing disease seems more like a contradiction to the entire premise and evidence to support natural healing through detoxification. Notice the article doesn’t say genes aren’t playing a part in the type of disease, but also there’s the newly promoted science of epigenetics (or gene expression) which seems to support cellular regeneration

27 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I criticized them for their framing right out of the gate, not an agenda. These are two separate things. For example, if I asked you “When did you stop beating your child?”. The framing is bad, regardless of agenda. The framing assumes that you have a child and that you beat your child. 

I still see that context/circumstance are vital for interpretation here

I don’t see why the article shouldn’t be able to frame microbes as our friends and not as potential threats. In the new frame of this article, sickness/detox is a natural and effective way for the body to cleanse itself of unwanted toxins/waste

Edited April 15, 2020 by DrewNows

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, Tobia said:

 

@Leo Gura was particularly aggressive from the beginning, judgemental and 100% dismissive of everything. Bringing the discussion to a black and white defensive thinking instead of a balanced attempt to consider nuance like @Serotoninluv did.

There was nothing defensive or judgemental about what Leo said. He simply came from a higher paradigm than many of you here, and you are mistaking it as lower.

[DrewNows]

The medical system trains doctors to overlook the purpose of the great lymphatic system, ignore the chemistry of the substances put in the body, and the cause and effect natural responses produced chalking it up to be “bad bacteria” or “potential virus”, which in reality is nature’s way of assisting our survival, its a hugely created fabrication of truth to try to explain the unexplainable through a narrow lense of understanding as we’ve become so disconnected with nature

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by DrewNows

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

@Serotoninluv what I see is an unwillingness to consider what science of the human body must change in order for the terrain theory to be plausible.

Scientific inquiries begin with a hypothesis, followed by experiments to test that hypothesis, followed by observation and data gathering, followed by data interpretation, followed by updating the original hypothesis, followed by more testing of the new updated hypothesis - and the cycle continues. 

The article you linked is using sciencey-sounding lingo in a very misleading way. It is asking the reader to discard hundreds of thousands of actual scientific experiments conducted by thousands of scientists over a hundred years. It is asking to dismiss thousands of peer-reviewed articles based on millions of empirical data points. The author then offers a pseudo-sciencey explanation that may be perceived as having a scientific basis for those that don’t understand science., In the above flow chart, the author gives a hypothesis and that’s it! That’s literally it. Anyone can create a hypothesis. My 9 year old niece can create a hypothesis. We can pull shit out of our ass and call it a hypothesis. Calling it a “theory” is an effort to elevate a hypothesis to increase it’s credibility when it lacks underlying support. In biological science, “theory” is not a hypothesis. A theory is at a much much higher level. In real science, to reach theory status, an immense amount of research must be conducted from multiple directions and results must be consistent, predictive and reproducible by any scientist. In biology “theory” is on the same level as “law” in physics. Thus, Germ Theory is on the same level as the the Law of Gravity.

The article you linked is speculative hypothesis. It is philosophical. It is not a scientific theory. There is nothing wrong with speculation and philosophizing, yet call it what it is. To call it a scientific theory on par with Germ Theory is highly inaccurate and misleading. There are some nuggets of truth in there, yet it is also filled with misinformation. The author himself says that he has no biological understanding and that is very obvious to someone who has biological understanding. 

24 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

@Serotoninluv

For the publisher to say both the body’s terrain and the bacteria/viruses present are both responsible for causing disease seems more like a contradiction to the entire premise and evidence to support natural healing through detoxification.

But it’s the truth. Do you value truth or not? I don’t like it when someone lies to get their point across. And the author doesn’t even need to lie with misinformation. He could easily discuss how to create a healthy internal system without going off the rails into anti-germ theory. It’s totally unnecessary. 

28 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

@Serotoninluv 

I don’t see why the article shouldn’t be able to frame microbes as our friends and not as potential threats. In the new frame of this article, sickness/detox is a natural and effective way for the body to cleanse itself of unwanted toxins/waste

Because it’s inaccurate and misleading. This boils down to whether you want to learn about whats true or not. Staying locked in a paradigm is very limited, especially this one - in part because it’s totally outdated. The idea that all microbes are potential threats is so 1970s. C’mon. We’ve known for decades there are both beneficial microbes and pathogenic microbes. The microbiome in the gut contains millions of beneficial microbes necessary for healthy metabolism, immune system, brain function and emotional wellbeing. 

I agree that detox can be a natural and effective way to cleanse the body. Yet there is no need to add in whacky ideas about anti-germ theory. . . Yoga is a great way to cleanse the body, yet that doesn’t mean that drinking mercury won’t harm the body. 

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

8 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

The medical system trains doctors to overlook the purpose of the great lymphatic system, ignore the chemistry of the substances put in the body, and the cause and effect natural responses produced chalking it up to be “bad bacteria” or “potential virus”, which in reality is nature’s way of assisting our survival, its a hugely created fabrication of truth to try to explain the unexplainable through a narrow lense of understanding as we’ve become so disconnected with nature

 

Precisely

With all the discussions of "paradigm bias" on this forum, its amazing how people are trapped into the faulty allopathic medicine paradigm. And thats what it is, it has never been and never will be proven as truth, its called germ theory for a reason.

People who move society and the evolution of humanity forward are the ones who challenge the status quo because they realize they have been fed lies. 

[Forestluv]

29 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

The medical system trains doctors to overlook the purpose of the great lymphatic system, ignore the chemistry of the substances put in the body, and the cause and effect natural responses produced chalking it up to be “bad bacteria” or “potential virus”, which in reality is nature’s way of assisting our survival, its a hugely created fabrication of truth to try to explain the unexplainable through a narrow lense of understanding as we’ve become so disconnected with nature

 

You are missing what I’m trying to convey. I am not saying there is no value in these ideas. There is some value. To me, you are not able to distinguish between the value and the bullshit. Imo, part of the reason is that you are trusting what others say about science. You may be resonating with the value aspects and accept all of what they say - grouping together value and bullshit. Yet without an understanding of the biology, I can see how it would be difficult to discern between value and BS.

Allopathic medicine has its limitations. Are there some closed minded allopathic doctors? Do course. Are there benefits of alternative medicine? Of course. Do some scientists over exaggerate the pathogenic nature of microbes? Of course. Yet to then extrapolate this to say microbes don’t exist or don’t contribute to illness is absolutely absurd. And the baffling thing to me is that you don’t need to do this. I have no idea why you are so attached to this view. It’s like saying getting oil changes for a car is important for proper function, so that means rust can damage a car. . . . I don’t understand why you think they are mutually exclusive.

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

 its called germ theory for a reason.

In the biological sciences, a “theory” is at the highest level. A theory is on the same level as a “Law” in physics. Germ Theory is on the same level as The Law of Gravity. Biology uses the term “theory” instead of “law”. It is the highest standard of irrefutable scientific evidence.

Don’t confuse “hypothesis” with “theory”.

Saying “it’s just a theory” is a misunderstanding and very misleading.

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

In the biological sciences, a “theory” is at the highest level. A theory is on the same level as a “Law” in physics. Germ Theory is on the same level as The Law of Gravity. Biology uses the term “theory” instead of “law”. It is the highest standard of irrefutable scientific evidence.

Don’t confuse “hypothesis” with “theory”.

Saying “it’s just a theory” is a misunderstanding and very misleading.

I am aware of the significance of the word theory. However, this is a nuanced issue.

I have heard various medical experts explain why germ theory has never been proven. 

Regardless, the topic at hand is vaccinations. And there is so much evidence out there of the government cover ups of their dangers, and their correlation to autism. Vaccine companies are the least regulated out of all other drugs and the companies are allowed to do their own research. Fox guarding the henhouse. And they are controlling what is being taught in the education systems to a large extent. 

Vaccines can also be administered orally which is safer than intravenously but our medical paradigm fails to make that switch.

Vaccines may have some application. But a mandatory vaccination for healthy people around this Covid flu is a violation of human rights. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by TrynaBeTurquoise

[DrewNows]

@SerotoninluvYou are reinforcing the points I made in the beginning about your approach to new information. If you are satisfied with the answers you have, so be it, but perhaps trying to pin my understanding on dogma is merely a projection used to justify the hold you have on your extensive knowledge of biology and health.  

not only do i like to practice radical open-mindedness but i like to encourage others to do the same. Why? Because I am not satisfied with our current systems in place (literally none of it)  and when i find enough evidence connecting some dots in my mind and challenging the old paradigm, it seriously peaks my curiosity for what could be possible. Did i simply take in a new modality on blind faith without continuously testing, challenging and verifying such claims? Of course not. I began this journey simply exploring the plausibility of "breatharianism" and it lead me to new and behold perspectives/understandings hidden from the general public but connecting the old wisdoms of naturopathy and homeopathy with the current understandings of western medicine. 

So yup. chaching! It totally sounded wayyyy too good to be true, so i had to continue on the journey to find any answers that i needed, and here i am now, sharing what i've learned and inviting others to share their views, thanks again 

Edited April 15, 2020 by DrewNows

[remember]

@DrewNows i sometimes realize how you fall into the trap of confirmation bias because of course the medical system is mostly operating on a clinical more pharmacological paradigm and alternative medicine is oftentimes banned into the shadows - but this is exactly because of some presumptuous and prejudiced practitioners who deny the advantage and progress clinical medicine has brought. if you would categorize medicine, in what categories would you classify medicine?

this is not such an easy task, because you could find many different approaches. for me what makes it easier is to classify it into preventive, interventive and palliative. vaccination is somehow a mix of preventive and interventive what makes it difficult to grasp, nutrition and lymphatic system and microbiome is at the moment mostly preventive but will be in the future also more interventive - this classification makes it more easy to get out of the systematical loops of what is happening on the body level - i try to see it more from the healers pov, assuming preventive medicine as a legitimate part of medicine not as a shadow aspect. i also know how a lot of docs think but many don’t deny preventive measurements its just that they assume this to be everyone’s own business - what makes it strange that vaccination is not. i guess that‘s making up much of the irrationality.

Edited April 15, 2020 by remember

[Forestluv]

46 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

I am aware of the significance of the word theory. However, this is a nuanced issue.

I have heard various medical experts explain why germ theory has never been proven. 

You didn’t use “theory” in the correct scientific context. A theory essentially has irrefutable scientific evidence. In this case, for the existence of pathogenic microbes. There is zero debate in the scientific community. The term “proven” is rarely used by scientists, because it is an absolute term. 
 

Those are not medical experts you are listening to. No medical expert would deny the existence of pathogenic microbes. 
 

Yet, that does not mean that we are continually updating theories as we learn more. For example, we have learned there are both beneficial and pathogenic microbes. However, this does not overturn the fundamental basis of the theory. 
 

46 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

And there is so much evidence out there of the government cover ups of their dangers, and their correlation to autism. 

No there isn’t. Go read some actual peer-reviewed scientific research regarding vaccines and autism. Look and evaluate the actual evidence yourself. There have been many reputable peer-reviewed studies from independent labs around the world and the results are consistent enough to lead to a scientific consensus. (And no, these various studies and scientists were not part of a pro-vaccine conspiracy theory).

However, this doesn’t mean that vaccines have no negative impact or that some people are vulnerable to be negatively affected by vaccines. It simply means there is no statistically significant consensus that vaccines are a causative agent of autism. 

As well, keep in mind that there can be a synergy of multiple variables leading to a condition. It is possible that vaccines are one of many contributing factors, such that they are essentially harmless to most people, because the other contributing factors are not present.

46 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

Vaccines can also be administered orally which is safer than intravenously but our medical paradigm fails to make that switch.

I just don’t have the time and patience to correct all the misinformation and misunderstanding.

There is a reason some vaccines have a intravenous ROA (and it’s not a conspiracy reason). Hint: what happens at a ph of 2 in the stomach? What would molecules need to be able to do to survive the stomach and enter the bloodstream?

[Consept]

I must say @Serotoninluv is in fire, ive learnt so much in this thread, so thanks for that.

Its funny because it started off as a thread about conspiracy but actually its a real look at confirmation bias. I asked earlier what would need to be shown in terms of evidence or facts to make you question your belief and essentially its nothing, even with a doctor (not an appeal to authority) telling you first hand, so much evidence, logic and everything people still cling to these beliefs. Whats interesting is that the same weight is not put on the evidence that has been used to gain these beliefs in the first place, for example to know that vaccines are terrible for people, it might have taken a youtube vid, a book and some unverified sources and people will believe it without needing much else or but to dispute it they can have a doctor tell them first hand, they can have a scientific consensus with thousands of tests done, research etc etc but they still will cling to the original belief. If there was even one study that proved the autism and vaccine link that would be held up all over the place but yet there a thousands that dont prove it yet you dont accept them, so either the scientific research is valuable or its not, if its not accepted when you dont like the result then it shouldnt be accepted and even used as an argument when you do like the result. Do you see the fallacy of these viewpoints?