Marc Emery on the Police State

[segnosaur]

Nothing I suppose, its just that avenues for doing something about false claims already exist, they're just not being applied effectively.

Really? Please point to the sections of Canadian law that specifically deal with the issue of false medical claims made by the 'natural medicine' community.

C-51 will affect me and others by adding another regulatory layer intended to make us conform to standards that are applicable to corporate drug manufacturers...

Actually, no you won't. The purpose of C-51 is not to make the sellers of natural drugs just like modern drug manufacturers. There may be some additional oversight, but the requirements for product testing, etc. will be far far less stringent.

I continue to find it baffling why you are so hypocritical about this. You say you agree with current oversight of drug and food producers, but you don't want similar checks for sellers of 'natural' cures. Do you honestly assume that as a group those people selling 'natural cures' are somehow beyond reproach, that they will never attempt to defraud the public or make mistakes? If you think that people selling 'herbs' are always honest, then how do you feel when you see commercials with Smilin' Bob hawking his all natural Male Enhancement pills?

... many of which it appears are no safer a source of accurate information or products than anyone else.

I think the appropriate word in that above sentence is appears. Well, at least to you. Those of use who deal with facts and logic recognize otherwise.

How many cases do you think its necessary to show you where 'natural' health products have shown to be ineffective for you to realize that there is an issue?

When people selling homeopathic remedies to fight infections can show even a portion of the success as even the most modest modern antibiotic, you can talk.

When Smilin' Bob and his Male Enhancement formula, or all those spammers selling herbal viagra can show clinical trials demonstrating their products work, then perhaps you can talk about how good your health care products are compared to modern medicines.

As I have pointed out numerous times CFIA has told me that I'll have to make some sort of a claim if I want to put my product into a capsule...that's about it in a nutshell.

Actually, lets correct that... one person at CFIA, who may or may not have been fully versed in the details of C-51, was trying to provide an analysis based on your statements, which, truth be told, were a bit confusing. And of course we're hearing about this supposed analysis third hand, through someone who has a reason to be biased.

Think there's a reason to be skeptical?

Have you, you know, actually READ bill C-51? I did a search on the bill... the word 'capsule' does not appear anywhere in there. I don't remember reading anything about the need to make a claim, only that any claims require proof. If there is such a need, then please point to the section of Bill C-51 that actually has that requirement, that 'capsules require you to make a claim'.

Here's my prediction... instead of, you know, reading C-51 and pointing to the section that actually proves your point, you'll once again resort to A: repeating conversations that we can't verify, B: posting stuff that's irrelevant and/or long discredited, and C: ignoring any and all real evidence.

The company that made my one and only batch of extract agreed with CFIA's assessment of my case as did the company that tested and analysed my extract.

Assessment of what? That you'll have to make a claim just because its in capsule form?

Sorry, your 'conversation' with those companies deserves just as much skepticism as your conversation with the CFIA person.

Now, they would be accurate if they suggested you'll have to be careful with product labeling (on such things as product composition)... but then, anyone selling any sort of food or drug should be careful over labeling and safety.

I guess the CFIA is anticipating a wave of hysteria of the type Morris is displaying. These are fearful times we live in and the Nanny-state is on guard for thee...

Ah, there we go... never mind the hypocricy of railing against the 'nanny state' when you've already stated you have no problem with existing food and drug regulations. Never mind actually dealing with facts and, you know, data when empty rhretoric will do.

I'm sure Smilin' Bob is quite happy that you consider him and his company such fine upstanding citizens that they should be able to sell their Male Enhancement stuff with no oversight.

Perhaps you can complain against the actions of the Nanny State after I hear you've joined the Libertarian party and have started to campaign against public health care, welfare, any health and safety regulations, and gun control.

[normanchateau]

In reality, bill c-250 also made it a crime to "incite hatred" of gays, and the definition for how one incited hatred against gays is broad enough to encompass almost all religious texts. The bill made it a possibility that gay advocates could move to have priests, rabbis and imams arrested if they lecture on their religious beliefs about the immorality of homosexuality, and possibly even challenge the legality of those religious books.

"Liberal Member of Parliament Derek Lee proposed an amendment to C-250 which was adopted. "It creates a defense from prosecution for opinions expressed 'in good faith' or based on a belief in a religious text" like the Bible. This appears to be a redundant alteration to section 319 of the criminal code. Section 319 already allows immunity from prosecution "if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

In other words, the amendment allowed religious leaders to continue to tout the immorality of homosexuality. Despite that, Harper voted against legislation making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals and lesbians. This intolerant social conservative sadly is our Prime Minister.

[eyeball]

Frankly, claiming that your customers are all 'informed' is a rather bogus statement.

Claiming that I claimed this is what's really bogus.

[segnosaur]

Frankly, claiming that your customers are all 'informed' is a rather bogus statement.

Claiming that I claimed this is what's really bogus.

Really? Then please explain to me what you meant when you said: Oh my products are tested alright but I've never seen a uniformed customer.. (You made this statement in post 143, approximately 2 days ago.)

If you've never seen an uninformed customer, then doesn't that imply that all your customers are informed? What type of semantic gymnastics are you going to use to suggest that you have uninformed customers even though you you've never actually seen any? Do you have a lot of invisible customers?

Or was that really a typo, and you really did mean to imply that you've never served anyone wearing a uniform (policy, military, etc.)

[normanchateau]

QUOTE(segnosaur @ Aug 7 2008, 09:19 AM) *

What about the potential conflict between religious rights vs. gay rights? Do you simply not consider religious rights worth protecting? Or is it just easier for you to ignore the issue?

QUOTE(normanchateau)

You raise an interesting point, i.e., the conflict between religious rights and gay rights. Of course both sets of rights deserve protection. I don't know of any churches which are forced to marry lesbians. Do you?

Stephen Harper deals with the potential conflict by favouring one group over another. When Stephen Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of gays and lesbians, he did so on the grounds that it would potentially interfere with his religious rights. While Stephen Harper supports legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their religious beliefs, he opposes hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. Do you think his position is rational or do you think it's based on his religious beliefs?

[eyeball]

Claiming that I claimed this is what's really bogus.

Really? Then please explain to me what you meant when you said: Oh my products are tested alright but I've never seen a uniformed customer.. (You made this statement in post 143, approximately 2 days ago.)

If you've never seen an uninformed customer, then doesn't that imply that all your customers are informed? What type of semantic gymnastics are you going to use to suggest that you have uninformed customers even though you you've never actually seen any? Do you have a lot of invisible customers?

Or was that really a typo, and you really did mean to imply that you've never served anyone wearing a uniform (policy, military, etc.)

Its no wonder I can't get anywhere with you guys. As for Morris, he's so paranoid of kelp farmers, especially idyllic one's, that he hysterically runs to C-51 so he can feel safe, provide him with a statement from the very same government agency responsible for enforcing C-51 and he sets his hair on fire and runs around screaming la la la with his fingers in his ears. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

I've seen lots of informed customers, and a few uninformed one's too. But I stand by what I say, I have never seen a uniformed customer. I don't know seg, perhaps Morris can explain it to you here's a hint though, my typo was a flippant response to a silly one.

[M.Dancer]

Oh my products are tested alright but I've never seen a uniformed customer.

I've seen lots of informed customers, and a few uninformed one's too.

But I stand by what I say,

I would lay off the marijuana kelp cookies for a while. if i were you and just as clueless...at least until you have figured out what your line of defense will be next time...

[segnosaur]

Its no wonder I can't get anywhere with you guys.

Actually, the reason you "can't get anywhere" is that you A: tend to avoid difficult issues that are presented, B: result to dogmatic assertions in the face of evidence or logic contradicting your point of view, and C: appear to not understand the basics of science.

some examples of your "debating" style...

- You were asked why it was necessary for someone to die from eating kelp, when people had become very sick. You never responded to that.

- You were asked to point out the parts of C-51 that required you to make claims for products in capsule form, but instead you simply repeated unsubstantiated claims.

- The issue of risk-vs-reward for modern and 'natural' drugs was brought up a long time ago... instead of addressing that issue, you continue dogmatic assertions about how 'evil' modern drugs are without actually dealing with the 'reward' side of things

Here's a suggestion... if you actually want to 'get anywhere', try actually, you know, dealing with facts and logic.

As for Morris, he's so paranoid of kelp farmers, especially idyllic one's, that he hysterically runs to C-51 so he can feel safe...

Please explain your hypocracy. Why do you agree with regulations involving the food and drug industry (which you seem to acknowledge as useful in keeping people 'safe', but seem to feel that such regulations are not needed for kelp farmers and other 'natural' medical people.

Are you not being just as paranoid when you suggest we need to make sure farmers don't sell contaminated products or drug companies don't sell dangerous drugs?

Of course, this is typical of your 'debating' style... the issue has been brought up multiple times, yet you ignore it, likely because its easier to resort to dogmatics rather than deal with the issue.

I've seen lots of informed customers, and a few uninformed one's too.

Which brings up another issue that you've ignored...

How exactly do you know they're 'informed'? Do you ask them for their educational credentials? Do you ask them if they clearly understand biochemistry, or double blind studies or peer review, or any one of a dozen other scientific concepts?

But I stand by what I say, I have never seen a uniformed customer. I don't know seg, perhaps Morris can explain it to you here's a hint though, my typo was a flippant response to a silly one.

Rather a lame attempt at a 'humourous' response. But I guess we can't expect too much from someone who can't even deal with such basic concepts such as 'double blind studies' and 'peer review'.

[segnosaur]

Stephen Harper deals with the potential conflict by favouring one group over another. When Stephen Harper voted against Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of gays and lesbians, he did so on the grounds that it would potentially interfere with his religious rights. While Stephen Harper supports legislation which makes it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of people based on their religious beliefs, he opposes hate crime legislation based on sexual orientation. Do you think his position is rational or do you think it's based on his religious beliefs?

To be honest, I have no idea what was going through his mind. Personally, I am against pretty much all hate speech legislation (whether it be against homosexuals or believers in a particular religion), and if its true that Harper favors legislation against one but not the other I would oppose him on this issue.

(Do you have some reference to where he actually doe show such a split in views on hate speech?)

[eyeball]

Actually, the reason you "can't get anywhere" is that you A: tend to avoid difficult issues that are presented, B: result to dogmatic assertions in the face of evidence or logic contradicting your point of view, and C: appear to not understand the basics of science.

some examples of your "debating" style...

- You were asked why it was necessary for someone to die from eating kelp, when people had become very sick. You never responded to that.

Morris as much as accused me of trying to kill people, why should I respond to that? He's completely full of shit and he can go screw himself.

- You were asked to point out the parts of C-51 that required you to make claims for products in capsule form, but instead you simply repeated unsubstantiated claims.

I pointed out the part that CFIA will interpret to mean that I need to fully comply with the act. You said you read the act so you should recall the other part that says “analyst” means an individual designated as an analyst under section 28 or under subsection 13(3) of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act.

The regional manager I talked to at CFIA didn't just give me what she thought off the top of her head, she posed my questions to others in her agency along with my proposed lable and in no uncertain terms told me I was screwed. She didn't use those words and was very nice about it of course but why should you believe a thing I say? Will you require some sort of sworn statement from her before we proceed with this discussion? I can just see me asking..."excuse me I'm having this argument with this person on a web-board who needs confirmation that we had a discussion a few years ago..." give your head a shake. If you think I'm full of shit then just say so and leave it at that and I won't waste anymore of your time.

- The issue of risk-vs-reward for modern and 'natural' drugs was brought up a long time ago... instead of addressing that issue, you continue dogmatic assertions about how 'evil' modern drugs are without actually dealing with the 'reward' side of things

Why should I address this when, I'M NOT MAKING ANY MEDICINAL CLAIMS? You do recall confirming yourself when you visited my website don't you? I'm not selling drugs but for some very very strange reason you persist in believing I am. I'm afraid I don't even know where to begin addressing your issues except to repeat, again, that I'M NOT MAKING ANY MEDICINAL CLAIMS. Got it?

Here's a suggestion... if you actually want to 'get anywhere', try actually, you know, dealing with facts and logic.

Right back at ya pal.

Please explain your hypocracy. Why do you agree with regulations involving the food and drug industry (which you seem to acknowledge as useful in keeping people 'safe', but seem to feel that such regulations are not needed for kelp farmers and other 'natural' medical people.

Are you not being just as paranoid when you suggest we need to make sure farmers don't sell contaminated products or drug companies don't sell dangerous drugs?

Not at all because I never said they weren't necesarry. I said that the government has all the existing regulations it needs to govern me. I'm probably like you in that I don't think the government is doing a good job in a lot of cases but that's a different issue. I certainly cannot see how another layer of beuracracy will address this incompetancy or inability to perform and I'm a little mystified as to why you seem to be supporting the old socialist practice of throwing more money and regulations at its problems. So that said...how does a true blue libertarian like yourself feel about the suggestion that the food industry should regulate itself in the wake of listeria deaths caused by tainted meat?

As Maple Leaf's executives surely understand, losing the trust of consumers is disastrous in any industry, but particularly so when it comes to food. If the overriding goal of public safety is better served by adjusting meat-inspection procedures to better reflect that strong disincentive, and to focus more closely on the producers most likely to disregard it, then Canada's government should consider doing so.Story

Of course, this is typical of your 'debating' style... the issue has been brought up multiple times, yet you ignore it likely because its easier to resort to dogmatics rather than deal with the issue.

Which brings up another issue that you've ignored...,

You've got a bloody nerve lecturing me on my debating style. Especially when you insist on portraying me as someone who is selling a drug and making a claim even after you confirmed that I'm not doing either. You're either abysmally stupid or deliberatly obtuse not that there's much of a difference.

How exactly do you know they're 'informed'? Do you ask them for their educational credentials? Do you ask them if they clearly understand biochemistry, or double blind studies or peer review, or any one of a dozen other scientific concepts?

Rather a lame attempt at a 'humourous' response. But I guess we can't expect too much from someone who can't even deal with such basic concepts such as 'double blind studies' and 'peer review'.

I can usually tell the smart people from the dumb one's by the nature of their questions...you know, whether they make sense or not.

You seem to be suggesting that consumers need to be credentialed to the extent that they need to be experts on the products they buy - educated to the extent that they need to be able to understand scientific literature and peer reviews. I can only imagine what sort of managed and regulated economy we would have if your notion ever saw the light of day. Imagine if you had to produce a degree or diploma in nutrition before you went shopping for your groceries. Are you sure you're really afraid of the big bad government taking away your freedom to spend your money as you see fit or are you wishing for it?

By the way what's a hypocrite? Do you need a degree or something before you use that word?

How about you address some of my questions for a change.

[eyeball]

I would lay off the marijuana kelp cookies for a while. if i were you and just as clueless...at least until you have figured out what your line of defense will be next time...

In addition to cadmium and lead and such you should have yourself tested for tin poisoning. If there's anyone on this forum board with a fear of tin its you.

By the way what was it you said about not reading past the comma the other day? F#*k are you ever lame.

[M.Dancer]

In addition to cadmium and lead and such you should have yourself tested for tin poisoning. If there's anyone on this forum board with a fear of tin its you.

By the way what was it you said about not reading past the comma the other day? F#*k are you ever lame.

Lame I may be but at least I don't make money by selling dangerous crap to gullible fools....

...and soon, neither will you

[Oleg Bach]

You know when a police state if forming when the cops that are selected to serve are smaller and dumber and of a very low quality on the genetic level...as we all surely know - a low IQ is a must - and those that are intelligent will NOT fit into a force that obeys blindly.

[Pliny]

You know when a police state if forming when the cops that are selected to serve are smaller and dumber and of a very low quality on the genetic level...as we all surely know - a low IQ is a must - and those that are intelligent will NOT fit into a force that obeys blindly.

Bit of a generalization but not without some merit. Do the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police know of this selection process?

[eyeball]

You know when a police state if forming when the cops that are selected to serve are smaller and dumber and of a very low quality on the genetic level...as we all surely know - a low IQ is a must - and those that are intelligent will NOT fit into a force that obeys blindly.

A low emotional or empathic quotient is probably more of a factor in the development of a police state. The death of Robert Dzienski comes to mind. The rapid decision of police in this case, if not their prior intent, to use force was bad enough but the lack of any attempt to perform CPR clinched it for me. I doubt if the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are deliberately looking for low emotional or empathic quotient recruits but perhaps these sorts of people are naturally drawn towards a field of employment that suits their predispositions.

I do think its possible for a government and other institutions that are bent on becoming more authoritarian to deliberately encourage a lower emotional/empathic quotient in a population. I think this happens all the time by encouraging fear and loathing.

[normanchateau]

You know when a police state if forming when the cops that are selected to serve are smaller and dumber and of a very low quality on the genetic level...as we all surely know - a low IQ is a must - and those that are intelligent will NOT fit into a force that obeys blindly.

Next you'll be claiming that Stephen Harper has added a police officer to each of the judicial advisory committees which select judges.

[HisSelf]

Next you'll be claiming that Stephen Harper has added a police officer to each of the judicial advisory committees which select judges.

Yeah. There is no way a cop should be picking the judges. I agree 100%. In a democracy, the police do not have a voice. They are functionaries who execute the law. They certainly should be consulted, but they should be consulted by the elected politicians, who will then appoint the judiciary.

Giving the police a direct voice in the selection of the judiciary short-circuits the Canadian democratic process and it must be stopped. Don't forget. These people have unions, a secondary democratic process that favours a small number of people that negotiates against the electorate.

The police must not be allowed to have a direct voice in the selection of the judiciary. This is a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

Edited August 23, 2008 by HisSelf

[normanchateau]

Yeah. There is no way a cop should be picking the judges. I agree 100%. In a democracy, the police do not have a voice. They are functionaries who execute the law. They certainly should be consulted, but they should be consulted by the elected politicians, who will then appoint the judiciary.

This is a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

What's especially interesting here is that Harper added a police office to shift the balance of the committee to outcomes favourable to the Conservatives and he did so while leading a minority government. Can you imagine what will happen to the balance on these committees if Harper were actually to achieve a majority?

[eyeball]

What's especially interesting here is that Harper added a police office to shift the balance of the committee to outcomes favourable to the Conservatives and he did so while leading a minority government. Can you imagine what will happen to the balance on these committees if Harper were actually to achieve a majority?

The right wing is not a place, its a direction and the further we follow it the more it seems to curve up towards the authoritarian axis on the political compass. C-51 for example is just one of many examples where one party proposes a new law and the next one brings it to life. Its a natural unending progression of the state's power mostly for its own sake.

The thing about a compass is that it needs a deviation card, variation is only one part of the equation.

[normanchateau]

The right wing is not a place, its a direction and the further we follow it the more it seems to curve up towards the authoritarian axis on the political compass.

And we'll remain stuck with right wing authoritarianism as long as the anti-right wing forces comprising two thirds of Canada's population are split between the NDP, Liberals, Greens and BQ. Not that I'm equating Hitler with Harper but Hitler did come to power with a minority government and only 37% of the votes because the anti-Nazi parties split the vote.

[eyeball]

And we'll remain stuck with right wing authoritarianism as long as the anti-right wing forces comprising two thirds of Canada's population are split between the NDP, Liberals, Greens and BQ. Not that I'm equating Hitler with Harper but Hitler did come to power with a minority government and only 37% of the votes because the anti-Nazi parties split the vote.

I thought he came into power because conservative parties crossed the floor and gave Hitler the numbers he needed to defeat the big bad lefties.

See you back in the Harper/Navy thread I guess.

[normanchateau]

I thought he came into power because conservative parties crossed the floor and gave Hitler the numbers he needed to defeat the big bad lefties.

That happened only after he won the largest number of seats and a minority government.

[Pliny]

Well, given the fact that A: We have limited resources available for health care, and B: that most alternative health care has proven to be false, we have a responsibility to direct our dollars at stuff that has the best chance of working.

And based upon the best interests of health, economic interests plus our own economic interests and the strength and power of the administrative system we will make the decisions on what "has the best chance of working." This is where the monopoly lies, in the decision making process of what will and what will not be funded. It is also illegal in Canada to purchase or offer for sale medical services. I would call that a monopoly. You can say that the participants, i.e. doctors, are independent businessmen but they really only have one customer they serve - the government. They have no economic interest in the patient so their incentive is to cater to government regulation.

I don't mean to intimate in the slightest, and won't entertain the idea I do that the patient is completely forgotten in the equation by the deliverers of healthcare, but as far as their licensing and training they are ultimately accountable to the paymasters whose interests are costs and liabilities.

This limits the healthcare deliverers responsibility towards their patients. Once again, I do not suggest for a minute that healthcare providers do not care a wit about their patients. They do and perhaps, besides the economic advantage that is why they leave and set up a practice in the United States rather than having to cater to a single paymaster and their fee schedule, where they are invited to opt for the higher fee as opposed to the latest and greatest treatment or a lesser effective treatment.

The paymaster is, as mentioned concerned about costs more than treatment. They have a duty to the taxpayer to do so. When costs have skyrocketed they become especially concerned and less concerned with delivery.

There are three factors. The suppliers and deliverers of healthcare, the economic management, and the consumers.

The producers of health care productsare concerned with the purchase of their products and work on a market basis. I don't understand why this has to be; that is, that health care works on a market and business model with a socialist or collective system of payment - a recipe for disaster. We all know how competitive the market can be and it catering to one customer can get even more cutthroat and even in some cases has been fraudulent in it's claims to it's customer, altering scientific findings to get approval for their products. I am thinking of pharmaceutical companies in particular. One of the problems with this is that once something is approved by government it is the consumer (taxpayer) who pays the cost of this fraud in liability. Of course the pharmaceutical company acts totally surprised, someone is fired and they pay a fine. Life goes on for them. They would never survive that scandal in an entirely market based system and would end up in the netherworld of Enron and Worldcom.

The economic managers of health care; the government, who collects the money and disburses it, cannot contain costs. If some one wants healthcare they must pay for it. The way they contain costs is decide what they will and will not pay for. The consumers get the short end of the stick and often missout on therapies that may be expensive for less efficacious treatments and wait lists are an inevitability.

The consumer has little say in the delivery of health care under the Canadian system. Countries that offer private health care subsidize some of their public health care thorough medical tourism. People that can afford to, will buy the best they can get and they will buy it where they can get it. Since you can't buy healthcare in Canada no one comes here and since no one comes here the best go where their services are the most rewarding. We are left with a mediocre system. The result of all collectivist systems based upon egalitarianism. I am not saying you won't find a good doctor in Canada. You can find exceptional doctors but overall they are rare. Most of them in Canada are not competitive nor do they have to be. The system doesn't encourage them to be their best, it encourages them to be mediocre and the government will tell them what's acceptable and what is not.

I don't get where you think that most alternative health care has been proven to be false. No public money is spent on alternative healthcare that does not meet scientific and governmental approval. So there is no waste of resources on alternative healthcare. It must remain in the market where it either succumbs or thrives. Often when it thrives it comes under the scrutiny of health authorities. Much lobbying of government goes on to have alternatives and even mainstream products and practices fed from the trough.

If you're complaining that we're ignoring stuff that hasn't been proven, then how do you feel about faith healing? Prayer? Did you know that at one time swallowing a spider rolled in butter was considered a cure for a sore throat? Should we now include spiders in our list of acceptable cures for throat pain?

No. Only if rolled in butter with spiders that are scientifically proven to be spiders and in proper percentages and dosages. I don't think anyone ever studied that claim for precision. They may have gotten a better result with salted butter and daddy long legs or unsalted butter and the common jumping spider. We'll never know for sure.

You see, the very concept is poohpoohed because there is no scientific basis to even consider investigating any truth in the tale. You definitely immediately dismiss it as an old wives tale.

As for faith healing and prayer, they are not in the realm of science and will never be proven by science, perhaps one day accepted but never proven. We have a lot to learn regarding that.

As for your claims about acupuncture...

First of all, keep in mind that the basis for acupuncture is that it somehow improves 'chi'. Yet nobody has ever given proof of the existence of this energy source. So immediately you should be skeptical (in the same way you should be skeptical if some christian faith healer said "god did it".

Secondly, acupuncture is extremely difficult to test. How exactly do you devise a 'control group' when you're sticking needles in someone during a double blind study? After all both the patient and the 'doctor' both know they're not being stuck with needles.

Sounds like you could use a little understanding of double blind tests as well.

In a double blind test both sides of the test would have the patient informed they were receiving treatment.

Acupunture is a precision procedure. If you were doing a double blind test you would still use needles, tell the patient you were placing them in precise locations,as it is practiced while the other "doctor" would say the same and just go about sticking them any old place. Then the results would be compared.

If you don't know you don't know. It is not necessarily being skeptical, being skeptical implies you are doubtful of anything not from preapproved sources. It leaves you yourself unable to "believe" anything even if you cured your sore throat with a spider rolled in butter. It would have to be entirely the placebo effect of course and you would never recommend it to someone else.

Thirdly, yes, there have been a few studies which have shown acupuncture works in some cases. But there have also been many studies which have shown that acupuncture does nothing for many diseases that its practitioners claim it helps.

Even though the energy source has never been proven?

I was thinking specifically of cold remedies at the time.

From what I remember, cold remedies don't claim to 'cure' colds, but they do relieve symptoms. Relieving symptoms (even if they don't immediately fix the underlying problem) IS of value.

It is doubtful they relieve symptoms beyond the placebo effect.

I don't prefer to mask symptoms in any case. I would have to be immobilized by them to do such.

Antibiotics are less and less successful.

Not exactly accurate...

It is true that some antibiotics have become less effective (due to antibiotic resistance in bacteria), we've also developed new antibiotics to fight infection. So, if penecillian doesn't work, you might have to get Cipro. But if you have a bacterial infection you still have a >99% of getting cured with antibiotics (even if the antibiotics have changed.)

WE are finding it harder and harder to find new antibiotics. What you have said here is just aimed at being oppositional. Being oppositional is not the objective but if I disagree with something some one has said they immediately become oppositional. I do not originate my opinions and post them to be oppositional I like them to be informative. If they are rejected I don't mind. I am only stating a point of view. I don't support you or Eyeball or Dr. Greenthumb. I understand your points of view. The thread is about the police state. All three of you would like to see rules that support your interests and not the interest of others. You all wish to see rules made that benefit you but restrain others.

The only statistic that needs to be looked at is the annual death rate from influenza. I haven't noticed a significant drop that would indicate a positive intervention.

I stand by that statement.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchiv...008/bigpi20.htm

Ok, a number of problems with your argument and/or analysis...

First of all, note that the graph you provided contains data for both the Flu AND pneumonia. Now, I don't know if they've restricted the incidence of pneumonia to only those related to the flu (they don't give enough information), but if they're referring to pneumonia in general then its possible that the number of pneumonia deaths far outweighs those due to flu.

Secondly, the graph you provided shows influenza deaths as a percentage of total deaths. Keep in mind however, that even if the flu vaccine does save lives, we've also had advances in treating other diseases. If the flu vaccine prevents (lets say) 10% of the deaths, but improved treatment for cancer and heart disease prevent 10% of those deaths, then the vaccine will be saving lives even if the same percentage of people die from the flu.

Thirdly (and possibly most importantly), that graph only goes back 5 years. We've had the influenza vaccine for many decades, and its been in wide use for a lot longer than 5 years. Comparing one widely-vaccinated population in one year with another widely vaccinated population in another year doesn't really give you any sort of proper 'control' group. You'd need to look at influenza deaths now as compared to, lets say, the 1960s/70s.

Lastly... if you look at the data, did you notice something? For the first 4 peaks, the general trend is down. And although the last season had a fairly high 'spike', its still lower than the first spike. Lets compare the 2004 spike to the 2008 spike... the high point has decreased from 10.4% to 9.2%. That means the death rate from the flu was 13% higher at the beginning of the time period than at the end. To me, something that prevents 13% of deaths due to a particular cause is pretty significant.

An analogous interpretation of what you are saying is that Macdonald's, being the only restaurant around, doesn't hold a monopoly because there are thousands of them. Where's the monopoly?

It's true the graph is only for five years. you can look at the other graphs for other years if you like. It is on the same website, The Center for Disease Control. However, you cannot argue the trend of the graph is going down and win a point while also complaining of the short timespan of the graph. Besides there is quite a large spike in the final year. My contention there is no indication of a positive intervention in the death rate of influenza anywhere you wish to look. There are claims it is a good idea and government even dictates to healthcare staff it is mandatory but I see no indication to think it is efficacious.

As to pneumonia being included, that would have normal fluctuations from year to year but nominally change the statistic base on those nominal fluctuations. We would only see a positive consistent change if there were a positive and consistent influence.

The fact pneumonia is included in the statistics with influenza is a sore point and one has to ask, if only in the name of determining efficacy of "flu shots", why they are not separate. It is a government agency after all and that doesn't seem too scientific to me but as I said the incidences will more or less be constant for pneumonia.

No, that's not really analogous at all. If you want to compare the drug situation to the fast food industry, consider McDonald's as one drug company, Burger King to another drug company, etc. Meanwhile, the new surgical techniques are the equivalent of the new pizza place (involving something different). Each can compete against each other with new products. In each case the government can step in to make sure their food is safe.

I argued that point at the beginning but the point you miss on this argument is that all those restaurants are not catering to one payer who feeds the customer. Do you think if money got tight, and it always does with government, your choices would be limited or do you think you could always have the option to eat at the Keg?

I think you would have to pay for that privately. America would have that option, try there.

Again, we have limited resources for government health care spending and we should be directing our money at stuff that has the best chance at working.

Nobody said science was perfect. Heck, I can show you even more cases where science has made substantial blunders. Yes, there are flaws, but it is still the best system that we have for separating what works from what doesn't work.

Actually I would like to hear it. But, if you do happen to grace us with your suggestion, be prepared to have any flaws in your suggestion criticized.

I see you are skeptical. Approach anything from the point of view of doubt and your findings will inevitably prove to yourself your suspicions were correct or maximally, you will remain doubtful.

I am not saying science is flawed as a system of study or experiment but since you bring it up they do tend to put on blinders and proceed on false premises. There is the theory of relativity, and even though it has it's unexplainable anomalies, instead of questioning the theory they attempt to prove they proceed to prove, because the theory is accepted as "truth", how the anomalies can be embraced by the theory. Wandering off on tangents of string theory and quantum mechanics. I do not say they are entirely void of scientific value but really, any theory's value is in it's practical application. Newton's theory of Gravity has more practical application than the theory of relativity, except perhaps in the mathematical calculation of abstracts.

Ummm.... you do realize that that very last sentence makes absolutely no sense?

The placebo effect is basically what people imagine is happening. Any 'cure' is just the body healing itself. You're basically suggesting we cure people by doing absolutely nothing.

What do you imagine is happening? I would say that you imagine nothing - imagining is not scientific and entirely subjective.

I am suggesting people curing themselves would be an ideal worth striving for - physician heal thyself kind of thing. Just a thought.

[Pliny]

The right wing is not a place, its a direction and the further we follow it the more it seems to curve up towards the authoritarian axis on the political compass. C-51 for example is just one of many examples where one party proposes a new law and the next one brings it to life. Its a natural unending progression of the state's power mostly for its own sake.

The thing about a compass is that it needs a deviation card, variation is only one part of the equation.

Socialism is actually the direction, right or left, and both end in the totalitarian state. It is the process of enlarging the powers of the State.

Harper is not a Nazi but he is a conservative. Nazi's are socialists which does not entirely define Harper. I believe the majority of Canadians do not think of Canada as being socialist but they would be mistaken. Harper is less socialist than they are most probably. All Harper is attempting to accomplish is within the definition of conservative, not Fascism or national socialism or, obviously lib-left feel good socialism. His policies do attempt to reverse the trend of lib left socialism, that in Canada has been evident over the last three or four decades, and restore some of the values that existed prior.

Making laws is the mandate of government, the growth of the State is more of a key factor in determining the motion of the state toward totalitarianism. I believe Harper is attempting to shrink the size of the state but the statistics on that would have to be analyzed. Claiming Nazism because of disagreement to a law or two does not make for rational debate or discussion.

[normanchateau]

His policies do attempt to reverse the trend of lib left socialism, that in Canada has been evident over the last three or four decades, and restore some of the values that existed prior.

I believe Harper is attempting to shrink the size of the state but the statistics on that would have to be analyzed.

Here's one analysis of how Harper has "shrunk the size of the state":

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php