segnosaur

With the exception of accidents (such as over-exposure to extreme elements, poisoning or physical trauma) - yes, I do. Even if they do get sick sometimes they should get better on their own, without doctors or drugs. I see... So, if that's the case, where are the people who are immortal? After all, everyone ends up dying of something (either illness or trama). If there really are these people who lead 'healthy' lifestyles, there should at least be a few who avoid accidents, and if they never get sick, they should live forever. That's an extreme case... but so could have been SARS... all I can say is the ones that did survive could have been the ones that were bodily and spiritually healthy or genetically meant to survive. Smallpox, an 'extreme case'? It affected (at one point) approximatley 10% of the population. I could also point out polio (almost irradicated in the western world), measles (much lower incidence now), or any one of a dozen diseases. So, once again, are you saying that not one person who ever lived a 'healthy lifestyle' ever caught smallpox? You're talking millions of victims here. Actually no... science doesn't acknowledge 'spirititual energy', 'souls', etc. because it actually expects things to have real evidence. Christianity didn't acknowledge science because it challenged church ignorance. That is a very good example of how newly-gained knowledge can be proved wrong in a couple of hundred years. Ummmm... no. I think you got that backwards. The idea of a geocentric solar system was not the 'newly gained' knowledge.. it was something people 'knew' going back to the ancient greeks (thousands of years ago). Just like your belief in 'alternative' medicine, it was long standing knowledge, and it was up to science to eventually dispell that knowledge. The 'knowledge' from a thousand years ago was that the sun went around the earth, that there was a global 'flood', and a whole host of other nonsense. By the way, I haven't mentioned this before (because genearally there are just so many flaws in your knowledge), but I should mention it now... You keep suggesting that 'alternative medicine' actually goes back thousands of years... but does it really? The process of vaccination goes back to 1796, so we've been using it for around 2 centuries. On the other hand, consider some of the most common 'alternative' medicine treatments: - Most of the early homeopathic work actually begun in the early 1800s, years after vaccination was successfully demonstrated - The process of chiropractic dates to the late 1800s, almost a century after the first vaccinations - Reiki (energy healing)... early 1900s - Reflexology? Early 1900s. I could go on and on...But the point is, many of these alternative heatlh care practices are a lot younger than the modern scientific approach to medicine. Actually, we weren't wrong about elemental particals. We have refined our knowledge, but the type of elementrary physics taught in high school is still valid. I don't know who Popoff is and I believe Christianity as a religion is too limited and narrow to allow spiritual evolution. As a matter of fact, most religions are. Your suggestion that you don't know who Popoff is is basically another ploy to avoid answering a question that would make you look bad. A 5 second google search would provide all you needed to know. Even if you didn't know who popoff was, I gave more than enough of a description for you to understand who he was. And even if you STILL didn't know/care who popoff was, the fact that I also mention 'televangilists' should give you an idea what I'm talking about. Popoff was one of these TV religious ministers who claimed to heal people During his 'shows', he would approach audience members that he had never met before, and describe their illness in detail before 'healing' them. However, noted skeptic James Randi managed to use a radio scanner to find out that Popoff was actually receiving information from his wife via a hidden receiver. (I chose Popoff because his fraud was perhaps more obvious than others.) Now, the 'evidence' that Popoff was healing people was exactly the same as the 'evidence' you've provided for your alternative healing. There is a 'long history' going back thousands of years for people being able to heal by touch. And just like with your 'evidence', there were plenty of anecdotes from people who had gone to his shows and seen people 'cured' by him. So, once again... if you think that 'history' and 'anecdotes' are adequate proof to show that alternative medicine works, do you believe that Peter Popoff was actually healing people. Its a simple question. Just a yes or no. (Not that I'm expecting you to actually answer it... after all, the issue has exposed a critical weakness in your argument.) Really? According to the conservative web site they have plans to add caps to certain emissions, they plan to offer tax incentives to people buying fuel efficent cars, and they have plans to invest billions in renewable fuels and hydrogen technology. Now, all that may (or may not) work, but they do indeed have a plan. So, how does a policy that encourages people to buy more fuel efficent cars NOT beneficial to the environment? How does investment in alternative fuels NOT help the environment? Compare that to the Liberal/Green party carbon tax plan... they want to add taxes to fossil fuels. But why? To encourage people to save energy? In fact, people already have an incentive to save energy. Its called their heating bill. Any bill that can allow for interpretations like the ones I quoted, no matter how far-fetched they are, sholdn't pass. But the thing is, the bill doesn't allow those interpretations. For the most part, all those claims of the extra 'powers' that it will give the government are either outright lies or distortions. Its only the gullible people who believe the stories by the alternative medicine groups about the 'evil' of the bill. You know, I challenged you to provide a reference in the bill for some of the 'bad things' it has... such as how it will prevent people from 'talking about' alternative treatments. You still haven't provided any such reference. Pretty revealing when you make some big claim about the big bad bill, but can't actually show where in the bill it gives the powers you claim it does. Actually, chemotherapy drugs are targeted to act on faster-growing cells (which are likely to be cancerous), and leave lower-growning cells alone. Your 'anology' fails because the poison would not be directed at all people in the city. My grandmother got chemotherapy. It gave her several years that she would not have had otherwise, and she was glad for it. Again, radiation therapy is aimed at the tumour, and has a very good success rate. Ummm... do you even know what the 'placebo effect' is? The 'placebo effect' is not some alternate method of healing, or some way to measure how well a drug works. With the placebo effect, a non-active substance (e.g. plain water) is given to a patient. (i.e. nothing that would actually help them to get better). If the person claims to have gotten better, that is the placebo effect. If you try any sort of 'natural remedy', and it has the same success as the 'placebo effect', it means that whatever natural remedy you got was absolutely ineffective in actually helping the patient. Any improvements were just the body healing itself. The patient would have been just as good doing nothing at all. Really, do you know anything about science? Actually, in a way, I have to thank you. You're a perfect representative for the Green Party. You see, early on, I suggested that perhaps the Green Party would be a failure because many green party supporters were scientifically illiterate. Well, you've certainly manage to prove my theory. With your talk of 'healing energy', and your claims of sciences 'failing' because they don't believe whatever claptrap new-age healers try to push, you've demonstrated that yes, indeed, scientific ignorance does cut clear across party lines. I do intend to vote conservative in the next election, not because I'm a member or because I like all their policies, but because I am a moderate libertarian and believe the concervative policies are the best ones to obtain the desired freedoms. However, I do cringe whenever I hear of conservative supporters who believe in such nonsense as creationism, and have a hard time defending such people. However, at least I can point to people like you in the green party and say "see? non-scienctific attitudes exist everwhere'. (I have to wonder if there are green party members who have a more critical-thinking mindset who cringe just as much when they read one of your posts.)

Well, if your conservative candidate really is avoiding all contact with the public, and you think that your local MP is important to you, then by all means vote against him. I just think its rather idiotic for people to complain about conservatives avoiding debates when in many cases they have been attending all-party debates, and have been meeting the public, just not every possible debate. Perhaps he does. But keep in mind that even if a politician has 'socially conservative views', it does not mean that they will necessarily decide to act on them. For example, Harper may be against abortion; however, any attempts to make abortion illegal would A: be political suicide, and B: may not stand up to a constitutional challenge. Or perhaps he may be against abortion, but feels that it is still up to the woman to decide, or that it is a sufficently low priorty. If Harper does decide to bring in anti-abortion legislation, then indeed I will likely vote against him. I just don't see that happening any time in the future.

That would be up to him to report - in a party committed to openness and transparency. Why exactly is him reporting the 'other commitment' required for openness and transparacy? If the CBC really wanted to follow up, they could have contacted his campain office to find out where he actually was. Its a campaign... he'd want to be out meeting people (even if it is in a more 'controlled' setting). Not like he'd be hiding under the crust of the earth with the mole people. Why? Did the CBC say he originally agreed to the debate and then dropped out? Did they say how long ago the debate was scheduled? Not reporting something as minor as a candidate's prior commitment is not exactly a complaint-worthy event. Its not like the CBC would have been lying, etc. As I said, the report did not mention any previous committments, and all other candidates were able to attend. Which still doesn't answer the question... should candidates be expected to drop any and all previous commitments (regardless of how much earlier they've been scheduled) if and when a debate is called?

Quite possible they didn't mention a reason for his refusal. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a reason for him not to attend. He may have had another commitment but just did not relay that to the CBC, or the CBC may simply not have reported what his prior commitment was. Or perhaps they feel such debates quite often turn into a bash-the-conservative free-for-all. Ummm... no. The problem in those 'less democratic' societies is not that they're missing face-to-face debates, the problem is that the opposition often isn't even allowed to publish anything at all. Well, did you attend the debate that I posted a reference to earlier? If not, why not? You had a perfect opportunity to hear the candidate speak if you really wanted. (Well, assuming you live in his riding.) So, do you think that candidates should be available any time, anywhere for debates? Should they drop any and all other commitments when a debate is called, regardless of what that other event is?

Hmmm... is this the Diane Finley you were talking about? http://www.simcoereformer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1225367 A bitter battle between Liberal candidate Dr. Eric Hoskins and current MP Diane Finley over broken promises transpired at last night's all-candidates' debate. Note the part of the article which mentions all candidate's debate. So while it is true that there have been several scheduled debates where Finley has not attended, it doesn't mean she's totally ignored the process.

Well, probably all candidates have web sites where they discuss their own (and their party's) platforms. They usually give various speaches where they talk about their activities, plans, etc. First of all, I've already pointed out that this candidate did participate in an open debate with the other candidates. If you wanted to see how they'd react to being questioned, you would have had the opportunity. Secondly, keep in mind that the type of 'debate' that goes on in the house of commons is quite a bit different than the type of 'debate' that occurs during an election forum.... although speakers in the house of commons do have to put up with oppostion 'cat calls', the rules of the house are more 'question-response'; in an election debate its more of a free-for-all.

First of all, it should be noted that the Orleans candidate (Royal Galipeau) has actually appeared in a debate with all the other riding candidates, so its not like he's been totally invisible. http://www.orleansonline.ca/pages/N2008093001.htm Secondly, your 'reference' doesn't really do much to put his refusal into context. Perhaps he had other commitments that could not be moved/rescheduled. Or perhaps he felt that he would not be given a fair opportunity to state his case. (After all, very little would be gained from a meeting where the only purpose was to attack a single candidate.) As for your suggestion that candidates avoiding such face-to-face debates "would not make their platform available in sufficient detail or time for meaningful discussion", I have to disagree again. Frankly, I think debates are probably the worst situation for introducing party policy. Such debates usually end up being reduced to sound bites. Even if someone did introduce some new policy at a debate, the opponents would be unable to make informed comments about any such new policy points.

I agree. It only makes it unnecessary for the ones conducting a phisically and spiritually healthy lifestyle. Ummm... yeah, right. Do you honestly think that if a person is lving a 'physically and spiritually healthy lifestyle' they will never need modern medicine or get sick? So, of the 2 million people who died every year from Smal Pox in the middle of this century (a disease that was wiped out via modern medicne, not one of them was living a 'healthy lifestyle'? Actually, yes there is a need to prove stuff that's been practiced. You see, humans are pattern-seeking animals. Its a trait we've evolved; we do our best to determine if Event A leads to Event B. However, we'll never be absolutely perfect at making that determination... sometimes Event A causes event B, sometimes they're unrelated and event B happens regadless of whether event A happened. Because our pattern-seeking is imperfect, there will be failures. However, usually its safer to fail by assuming A and B are related (when they're not), a so called false positive. So, people take some 'natural' medication, and they get better. They assume (because we like to look for patterns) that taking the natural medication helped. In many cases they would have gotten better without the medication. And no, I don't think people were 'idiots until very recently'. In fact, I figure most people are still idiots. (Except for me; I'm just a jerk.) We're the same basic humans that we were thousands of years ago; what has changed is that in the 1600s-1800s, we started getting a critical mass of scientific knowledge and a few key ideas. Before you go assuming that just having kowledge that goes back thousands of years makes a concept valid, remember that for centuries people believed the sun went around the earth. Why exactly are you relying on 'knowlege' that came about at the time people didn't even know the fundamentals of the solar system? I don't need to ask myself. I know what I believe, and I do not "believe" something that I have not experienced. I am not a religious person but I am practicing some of the Eastern traditional self-healing / personal evolution methods. Based on what I have EXPERIENCED, I am ready to believe in healing by energy. It goes much futher than just healing and it also falls completely outside of what modern science is ready to admit. You have totally ignored the issue, so I will state it again... It is irrelevant whether you yourself are religious. However, other people have the exact same evidence that you do that 'faith healing' works.... They have 'experienced' improvements, and the practice of faith healing has lasted for thousands of years. Because of that, do you pleave that Peter Popoff and other 'evangalists' have healed people? No, I don't know that. Please provide a statistical analysis. Any deaths from taking drugs incorrectly, etc. must be weight against lives saved from taking drugs. Curing smallpox saves 2 million lives per year, many more than die from taking drugs incorrectly. No, I never said that. I said people should get a good grounding in the fundamentals of science and critical thinking. That way, they can best deterimine A: what areas of the environment actually need protectiing, and B: the best way to actually do the protection. Many green party supporters seem to have problems with that basic concept. Assuming 'any action is better than none' is part of that flawed mentality. Of course, if the government does decide to interfere too much, they could damage the economy, and by doing so actually harm the environmental movement. Remember the old cold-war years? In the communist east, the government controlled everything; in the west we had a more 'free enterprise' ideology. Yet the western world had a much better environmental record. Why? Probaby because our greater incomes and higher standards of living allowed us more flexibility to use technology that was better for the environment. (When you're struggling to survive, often the environment is the last thing on your mind.) This doesn't mean that I think industry should be given a 'blank check' to pollute any way they want; only that we should weigh all factors in determining environmental policy.

You're partially right but I discontinue the intake of supplements for the week-ends / holidays / vacations (to allow the body to return to its status quo) and there is a noticeable difference. Ummmm... you REALLY don't understand the concept of a proper scientific control, do you. Lets see... you stop your supplmenets on the weekends and you feel different. But what else happens on the weekends? You probably go to bed/wake up at a different time, you may not eat the same foods/drink the same liquids. Mentally, you may expect to be more relaxed for the simple reason that you aren't expected to go to work. All of which will cause a 'noticable difference'. In order to properly determine whether your 'suppliments' are having an effect, you'd have to have someone randomly substitute your suplements for some placebo (without telling you) and then have you try to determine whether your changes are due to your suplements or just the placebo effect.

How much do you know of the Bill C-51? Actually I know quite a bit about C-51... I've read through the bill, and I've seen quite a few 'claims' about the bill and the debunking of those claims. Ever notice in all of his 'interpretation' of the bill, at no point does he ever actually point to the sections of the bill that are relevant? Basically, there are a whole mess of false/misleading claims that have been debunked time and time again. If you actually read the bill (rather than relying on what some 'alternative healer' claims) you can see where and why their arguments fall short. There are several good analysis done on Bill 51 by varous skeptics groups. They do a pretty good job at showing the flaws here... http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/topics/alter...r-of-inspectors http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=1...referrerid=6535 Actually the reason that was put into place was because some "natural health care" companies were taking property and dividing it up, eliminating access to warehouse/production areas behind areas that had no ownership. Frankly, its kind of a scummy thing for a company to do... I can't think of any reputable manufacturer that needs to sell land surrounding their factories to prevent people from entering. Its basically a right-of-access thing, and if you read the bill it actually gives descriptions about when such 'power' would be permitted. Again, there is a reason for that... The government has to test whatever product you're selling for impurities. Its always been the case (with any food/drug) that inspectors have to be able to take samples. Yes, if its found to be contaminated / dangerous. Why should the goverment (and taxpayers) pay some herbal company if they decide to put rat poison in their drugs? Read the bill... it clearly defines what can be seized and what can't be. First of all, keep in mind that these fines are for actual charges that go before a judge (so its not like the inspectors can fine people without any oversight). Secondly, the most important part of your claim is the phrase 'up to'. Judges can (and usually do) set the value of fines much less than the maximum. However, many of these 'alternative health' companies earn millions of dollars a year. Any proposed fines must be high enough to actually discourage them from doing things that might endanger people's health. Err... no they can't. Please point to the section of the bill that actually suggests that. Yes, its quite possible to have 'greasy' food with zero trans fat. In case you didn't know, not all 'fat' is 'trans fat'. Trans fat is just one type of unsaturated fat. There are other types (such as saturated fats). What about melanine in milk? Ring a bell? Or our home-made disaster - "Death by a thousand cold cuts" listeriosis? Differences is, people don't take milk specifically to get melamine, or eat meat specifically to get listeriosis. They are contaminates that the government/inspectors/society want to see eliminated. On the other hand, when you take some sort of herbal medicine, you're actually taking it for whatever medicinal effects it has, and quite often those medicinal effects can be dangerous. Everyone can conduct their personal trial, wich is (as long as you stick to brand names) quite safe and relatively inexpensive. Actually, no you can't. Doing your own 'personal trial' is nothing more than an anecdote, and by the time your don't your 'personal trial' your situation may have deteriorated (if you're talking about some sort of alternative medicine treatment). If you have (for example) cancer, trying varioius ineffective 'alternatives' is just going to allow the cancer to spread and prevent you from getting timely effective treatment from modern medicne.

Ok, first of all, keep in mind that any suggestion that there is a big government/business conspriracy to cover up evidence against aspertame makes someone sound like a raging conspricy nut. There are plenty of 'anti-aspartame' references out there if someone wanted to do any research. (Unfotunately, much of the anti-aspartame information out there doesn't really have a firm grasp in reality.) Secondly, the 'evidence' that Aspartame is dangerous is sketchy at best. You claim that it causes Alzheimers; yet the Alzheimer Association (and you'd figure they'd be knowlegable about the subject) belileves there is no cause/effect relationship between Alzheimers and aspartame. Same with the National Cancer Institute AMD the European Union who have found no link between aspartame and cancer. http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myth..._alzheimers.asp http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/AspartameQandA http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/murmurs..._aspartame.html Lastly, keep in mind that while yes, in the past there have been synthetic chemicals which have caused unexpected health problems, some of the most dangerous cancer-causing agents are actually all natural. You see, this is the reason we need better scientific education in the western world. We are constantly exposed to information, some good and some bad. Many people have never been taught how to think critically, or to separate 'good' sources of information from 'bunk'.

Yet you seem to support a party that is fighting against a bill (C-51) which would help provide safegards against poor quality control. And under bill C-51, they won't be under the same rules as modern drug companies. But they will have more oversight than they have now; that oversight is justified by the fact that many alternative drugs A: do contain chemicals that are more harmful than you would find in, lets say, food, and B: often make false claims. Differences between food and 'alternative medicines'.... - Alternative medicines often make bogus claims as to their effectiveness. Not so with food. (I've never seen a head of lettuce that makes medical claims) - Some 'alternative medicines' do actually contain chemicals that can be harmful if not used properly. Last time I checked, you weren't in much danger from overdosing on a BLT. Ummm... someone else already pointed this out, but it bears repeating... Don't you see the problem with your 'claim'? You started taking the supplements at the same time you quit smoking. From a scientific point of view, that little 'experiment' does not have a proper control. Just the act of quitting smoking may be responsibile for your improved condition. Yes, it is "everyone's personal choice". But I feel such choices should actually be informed choices. As such, anyone should have the right to buy and use any alternative medicine, but they should not be lied to about whether such alternatives actually work.

Ummm... if you go to that link and look up information about the author, you'd see the following in his biography: He is also a leading activist and analyst in the movement against corporate globalization.... He is a research associate and board member with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and has published six studies for the Centre including examinations of the Canadian tax system, charter schools and a study, "In Defence of public services."...He is a past executive board member of the Council of Canadians... So basically the author of that particular work has been involved with every left-wing lobby group and movement that's out there. In short, he's not exactly the type of person you should expect an unbiased opinion from.

When did I start respecting your postion? Must have missed that. If you want to argue that people will be healthier/live longer if they're more active and eat right, I'd have to agree... yes they will. But that does not negate the science behind modern medicine. Someone who is active and willing to use modern medicine (including modern drugs) is going to be healthier than someone who is active and doesn't use modern medicine. Similarly, someone who eats junk food and does not exercise but does use modern medicine will be healthier than someone who eats junk food and doesn't exercise and doesn't use modern medicine. You see, in science we have to worry about proper experimental controls... If you are trying to see of some drug/medical procedure/etc. works, you have to be able to compare groups with similar characteristics, with the only difference being whether someone gets a drug and whether someone gets a placebo. Yes, they do require double-blind studies. That's the only way you can prove that any benefit they have is not due to the 'placebo effect'. It appears that you are basing your 'proof' of their effectiveness on anecdotes and history. If so, ask yourself this: Do you believe in faith healing? That some religious person can heal the sick by touch or prayer? Do you believe in televangilists like Peter Popoff? Just like your 'alternative medicine', there has been a long history of faith healing (heck, its even in the bible). And just like alternative medicine, we can find anecdotes of people being 'healed' by Popoff. Now, if you say that you believe in alternative medicine, but don't believe in the healing power of televangilists, then why? Both of them have the same 'evidence'... namely a long history of claimed success and multiple anecdotes. Oh, as for Ginkgo Biloba, here's an article for you to look at: http://www.aafp.org/afp/20030101/tips/3.html ...There is no benefit from using ginkgo biloba in cognitively intact elderly people. First of all, keep in mind that not all supplements are sold through stores... many are sold through private sales or through the web or people who claim to be 'healers' (even though they have no actual medical training). In those cases, the dosages of 'active ingredients' may vary widely. (Someone else has already mentioned a relative who bought 'natural' medication only to find it contained unexpected quantities of 'real' medication.) Here are some other examples: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/12/...e=related_story Some men in their 30s who went to emergency rooms after taking herbal sex pills were presumably otherwise healthy, but they showed the transitory side effects of the active ingredients in regulated impotency pharmaceuticals, such as difficulty seeing clearly or severe headaches, records show. http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth...e4-151339bc833a ...55-year-old Michael Berggren died in a single-vehicle rollover after unwittingly taking prescription estazolam in a herbal sleep medicine... Secondly, the issue is not just whether the 'alternative medicine' has a certain amount of active ingredient (although that is certainly one aspect), the other issue is whether such medicines actually have the desired effect. (It doesn't matter if the package of Ginkgo is properly labeled with the right amount of chemicals, if they claim it helps memory and it doen't, then its worthless.) There are many problems that can occur with so-called 'alternative medicine'... In the best case, someone wastes money on something that doesn't work. Perhaps you may feel that giving people false hope is worth something, but most people probably would value honesty. When I use salt or sugar I don't expect to be 'cured' of anything. Its a different story if I take something that's advertised as "improving memory", or "curing erectile disfunction". In the worst case, you can either get sicker from the medication (as I've shown in the references above). Or, a person may delay getting proper treatment in favour of 'alternative' treatment. Here's a case of a family that let their baby die because they decided to use an ineffective homeopathic remedy rather than proper antibiotics. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jht.../05/nboy05.html Not exactly a great approach.... Doing 'something' may actually be counterproductive, or have unexpected detrimental effects. For example, any environmental plan which causes a negative effect on the economy may be counterproductive since fewer businesses will be able to afford to upgrade to 'green' technology. There's also the possibility that doing 'something' may end up diverting resources away from a more optimal solution. Whether they would actually 'stick to' their plan is something we are unlikely to ever find out. But I do recognize problems with their plans. As I pointed out before, they want to eliminate nuclear power. Yet they also want to reduce carbon emissions. Those 2 items are actually opposing goals. (At least with our current level of technology.)

Sweden generates a substantial amount of their electricity via nuclear power (approximately 45%). They likely would not have had the success of cutting greenhouse gas emissions had they decided to eliminate nuclear plants. Yet the Green Party of Canada has a policy to eliminate nuclear power. Denmark still uses fossil fuel to generate a significant amount of its electricty (83%) I could also point out that while Denmark has greatly reduced its CO2 emissions, other counties that also have carbon taxes (e.g. Norway) have actually seen its carbon emissions increase. So it seems that carbon taxes may not be the primary driver for decreased carbon emissions. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf42.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k/print/da.html http://www.ssb.no/klimagassn_en/ Ummmm... do you even know anythign about small pox? First of all, smallpox is a virus; the issue of drug-resistance is not an issue. Secondly, there is no more Small Pox virus out there. (Well, I think maybe 2 labs in the world have a copy of the virus, and its definitly under heavy security.) There is no chance for the virus to make a come back. Heck, even if the virus WAS out there somewhere in the world, we've had almost 3 decades since the disease was declared eraticated. Given the fact that approximately 2 million people were dying from it per year in the 60s, the programs to eradicate it have saved approximately 60 million lives. Pretty darn good for modern medicine and 'Pharma'. I am quite familiar with the problem of drug-resistant bacteria. The fact is, people are still getting cured at pretty much the same rate as before (its just that doctors may have to use stronger or multiple anti-biotics). I have. Here's a study that shows that the life expectancy for patients with ovarian cancer doubles when Chemotherapy is used: http://www.nci.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/resu...ta-analysis1206 Oh, and here is an article on the improvement of life for patients with gastric or colorectal cancer when they undergo chemotherapy (another approximate doubling). http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conte...bstract/6/3/267 Hey, I never said Chemo was pleasant. But at least it provides an option for people who do wish to prolong their life, and in many cases the patient will be symtom (and side effect) free for a significant period of time following the treatments. (One of the references I provided goes into quality of life issues.) Compare that to, lets say, homeopathy... where it gives absolutely no benefit. So now you're saying saving lives is too expensive? Well, if you have any knowledge, I'd like to hear you use it. So far I haven't seen any demonstration of that. Working for a 'big pharma' company does not necessarily mean that you are competent in assessing the quality of double blind studies. Yes there are. And I've already acknowledged that in other threads. But at least the drugs themselves DO have a beneficial effect. Most people would accept a small risk of serious side effects if they realized that it would lead to an even better chance at a cure or improved life. You see, that's the difference between you and me... I do recognize that double blind studies ARE better than 'thousands of years' of practice. Becuase I recognize what the Placebo effect is.

You do realize that some of us do believe that the concept of 'civil liberties' extends a lot further than simply the right to put drugs in your body. Some of us actually do hold the concept of economic freedom and property rights to be equally as important. It should also be pointed out that the 'left wing' is in favour of stricter gun control laws, and human rights commissions (which many see as having a negative effect on the right of free speech). I've challenged you before, but you always ignore the challenge (likely because your postion is so weak as to be undefendable). But, let me repeat the challenge so that others may once again see you squirm away: How exactly does the NDP's policies of taking my money away actually enhance my freedom. I rather expect that you'll be ignoring the above question pretty soon now. I see.. And if a poor person votes NDP, how do we know that they're not doing so because they're being 'greedy' and see the chance to obtain more wealth for themselves without having to do extra work?

Yes, they are. Of course, there are hundreds of drug companies throughout the world. Its a profitiable business, but its also very competitive. AND drug companies are required to do extensive research to show that their drugs are safe and effective. A company could easily spend hundreds of millions of dollars on researching a drug which turns out to simply not work. So, its a high risk/high rewards situation. Well, lets see... Antibiotics and vaccines typically do address the 'root' of the problem... bacteria and viruses taking up residence inside the human body. It is true that there are some diseases for which medicine does not have a 'cure'. But then, neither do 'alternatives'. However, by treating the symptoms, you A: provide comfort to the patient, and B: avoid cascading effects where one symptom causes other problems to appear. If the choice is having to live with their product, or not having their product and dying as a result, I think most people would choose to actually live while taking the product. Take Diabetes for example. Or thyroid disease. Yeah, medicine hasn't progressed to the stage where such problems can be 'cured' with a pill. So, people have to take insulin or synthroid regularly. But without those medications, the result would be death. Actually, homeopathic solutions already discredit themselves. Let me put this in clear terms: there is absolutely no scientific evidence that "homeopathic solutions" do anthing at all to eather cure disease or provide any sort of releaf. None. Nada. Zip. Ziltch. Doesn't matter if the drug companies are worried about such things cutting itno their profits. Science itself says that stuff doesn't work. Here's a suggestion.... go and read up on the concept of 'double blind studies'. After that, read up on the concept of 'peer review'. Then, go and hang around a few skeptics forums.

Hey, I never denied that the "Green Party" concept wasn't international. But an incorrect view of science is still incorrect, even if its believed by people in more than 1 country. Do you honestly think that the society benefits from pharmaceutics? Yes, they do. We have an average life expectancy that is rising. Heck, we have wiped smallpox off the face of the earth. A disease that once killed or disfigured hundreds of thousands of people every year, now gone, thanks to vaccines manufactured by drug companies. You mean the antibiotics that cured my friend's case of Strep throat? You mean the chemotherapy that was used to send the cancer that my grandmother had into remission? Actually, just the opposite: yes, pharaceuticals can have side effects, but those side effects are actually quite predictable. That's why they are usually given with various warnings. There is an even bigger danger with so called 'natural' treatments, which are often much more random due to the fact that the potency of various treatments can vary according to practictioner, time of year, etc. Except of course that that 20 cent pill required a billion dollars or so to A: develop, and B: test to ensure it was effective, and C: determine what, if any, side effects the drug had. And often don't work. You see, your post is a very good illustration of the lack of skepticism and scientific knowlege endemic in society. (And I assume that you're a supporter of the 'green party', so your post demonstrates my point exactly.) I have a fairly strong scientific background. Scientific progress (especially in medicine) requires the use of several techniques... double blind studies (which actually prove that some substance actually cures, and is not just a pacebo), and peer-review/reproducability (which attempts to eliminate any obvious flaws done during the course of research. When the issue of 'scientific knowledge' and C-51 was brought up, instead of dealing with peer review/double blind studies, you saw fit to attack any such scientific techniques as the tool of "Big Pharma", as if painting the need for actual evidence of effectiveness is somehow wrong. It seems as if in your case, anti-corpratism has trumped logic. And if you are a supporter of the Green Party, I do have to wonder if your lack of scientific knowlege extends beyond medicine into other areas (in particular, environmental science).

I could only WISH that we had what you're describing. I already said in another post that I'd like the minister of Health to be a medical doctor and the Minister of Finance to have graduated in Finance or at least accounting, the defence minister to be a retired General etc... But the perception is that the environment is the central focus of the green party. (Yeah, they do have policies on health care, the economy, the military, etc., but its the environment where they got their reputation.) And its many of their 'environmental' policies that I find questionable in their effectiveness. Oh, I see... The "science" you're referring to is the one that serves big Pharma companies No, its the science that actually serves the citizens of the country, by ensuring that when we use any sort of product (natural or synthetic) that it will A) be safe for us to use under the condistions prescribed, and will actually work as advertized. Yeah, pharmacy companies do profit by doing research into new drugs, but we as a society benefit. Ummm... you do realize that MOST of the 'natural remedies' have never actually been proven to function as advertized? Think of Smilin' Bob. Think of Homeopathy (usually nothing but water). Even when 'natural remedies' do work, they can have very nasty side effects, or can work in unpredictable ways. In the worst case scenario, a medicine might not work, but may either have nasty side effects, or may prevent someone from getting proper treatment. Because that $20 pill A: is tested to ensure consistency (unlike 'natural medicines', where potency/quality may vary widely, on a seasonal basis or on preparation methods), and B: has actually been tested to work (i.e. the product has gone multiple double blind studies to ensure that it acutually provides the stated effect). I'd gladly have a $20 pill that can actually, you know, cure me, over a $10 pill that will do absolutely nothing except drain my bank account.

Not sure what exactly about my post was so hard to understand. The environment is a complex issue. The green party claims to have the inside track on actually improving the environment; however, their polcies are not necessarily any better (and may actually make things worse). If you claim to be a specialist in subject X, then shouldn't you be a specialist in subject X? At least the Conservatives and Liberals don't make the environment the focus of their party. Well, for one, they want to "include alternative medicine in mainstream programs". (See: http://lp.greenparty.ca/tiki-index.php?pag...mparison+chart). I could also point out that they oppose C-51, a bill supported by various skeptics groups in Canada.

I'm an athiest. I have been for a while. I think all religions are moronic (although some more than others). Yet I'm not willing to vote Green OR NDP. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with actually applying logic and reason to my choice. I have Libertarian views, and while all parties have elements and policies that are 'anti-freedom', the NDP and Greens are more anti-freedom than the others. Not everyone who disagrees with the Greens or NDP does so because they're a religious nut. Many of us do so because we want to build a better country and see the 'left wing' parties as being contrary to that.

Yes, that HAS been the common wisdom. However, scientists HAVE been able to manipulate the adult stem cells to generate tissues that they had thought impossible. Embryonic stem cells? They often produce tumours when used. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hh_MWg...UjX2MgSpcoiJoBQ The situation may change in the future. But as it stands now, adult stem cell research seems to be the one having all the success. (And once again, I want to stress that I am an athiest, and I have no objection to the use of embryonic stem cells... I'm just concerned about results.) Keep in mind that the limits on embryonic stem cell research applies only to funding provided by the United States government. As far as I know (feel free to correct me on this), private organizations (including businesses) can continue doing embryonic stem cell research, as can the governments in other parts of the world. If there are significant advances that can be made by embryonic stem cells, they likely will be made, even if one particular funding source (i.e. the U.S. government) refuses to contribute.

First of all, why exactly do you think someone who is 'parachuted in' will not be able to understand your needs? And even if they don't "understand your needs", how exactly will that impact your daily life? After all, every MP will have staff (both in Ottawa and their home riding) to handle day to day needs. And every politician will be required (at some time) to vote for legislation not because they agree with it, but because the party leaders agree with it. Secondly, don't you think there are certain advantages to having a star candidate 'parachuted in'? If the party they run for ends up gaining power, then your M.P. would have a good shot at being a cabinet minister, which would make them more influential in promoting the welfare of your riding within the caucus. This doesn't necessarily mean that you should totally ignore the qualities of the individual candidates, or that you should automatically vote for people assigned to the riding by the party leader. I'm just saying that you shouldn't automatically discount a potential candidate just because he's not a long term resident of your riding.

My understanding of Democracy is everyone's (or at least the decided voter's) opinion should matter and once a certain number of people vote for something that something has to materialize in a tangible way. Ignoring the minorities is Dictature, not Democracy... I think the most important part of your response was when you said "My understanding of Democracy. Like I said, the only real, necessary concept in order to have a 'democracy' is to have citizens vote and to have the majority rule. Its the addtion of other mechanisms (constitutions, bill of rights, etc.) that actually makes society work. Let's simplify things a bit... Let's vote unanimously for one guy for life so that he can do what needs to be done for the country without the hassle of bikering parliamentarians. Let's not vote after that - it's a waste of time and money. Besides, this one guy we elected will most likely appoint someone before he dies... Your argument makes no sense. It sounds like you're trying to argue some sort of 'slipperly slope' argument, but I don't buy it. There is nothing in our political system (even if it is a flawed first-past-the-post system) that would elimiate the need for future elections.

Once again, this 'view' needs to be corrected... The Greens will do what they think will protect the environment. Unfortunately, because the average green supporter is probably just as clueless about science as the average Conservative/Liberal/NDP/Bloc supporter, what they think will help the environment isn't necessarily what will help the environment. Either that, or show people that you're gullible enough to be taken in by slogans and pointless ideals, rather than by actually, you know, knowing something about how science and the environment work.