Marc Emery on the Police State

[eyeball]

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

I trust norman's article has shaken your beliefs.

As I see it a good portion of the spending increases under Harper have been for those parts of the state that are used to come down the hardest on people. More police, more weapons, more laws, more prisons and of course more surveillance and more secrecy. Cuts to things like funding to help people mount charter-based challenges to the law tell the real direction Harper is taking the state, not to mention liberty.

Claiming Nazism because of disagreement to a law or two does not make for rational debate or discussion.

Neither does claiming Libertarianism in defence of Harper.

Edited August 23, 2008 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

I trust norman's article has shaken your beliefs.

As I see it a good portion of the spending increases under Harper have been for those parts of the state that are used to come down the hardest on people. More police, more weapons, more laws, more prisons and of course more surveillance and more secrecy. Cuts to things like funding to help people mount charter-based challenges to the law tell the real direction Harper is taking the state, not to mention liberty.

Neither does claiming Libertarianism in defence of Harper.

Hey. the new Tories are actually just clones of the old Tories!

Compare how they have governed with Mulroney and co. Can anyone tell me any big philosophical differences, except that Mulroney had the two biggest majorities Canada has ever seen? Mulroney just had more power, that's all.

That being said, at least they've never robbed us and handed out the loot in Montreal restaurants. It will take a loong time for many of us to forgive the liberals for that! Politicians are like puppies. They must be punished or they will continue to mess on your floor.

After another term or two in the wilderness we might be willing to give them another chance. Right now they would need a leader with the charisma of Trudeau and sadly for them, there's not a single member of their caucus who would even outshine Ralph Benmergui or George "Snuffleupagus" from the CBC!

I mean, these are people who would think that live music could only mean Walter Ostenek playing a polka!

Compared to Trudeau who jetsetted with royalty and rock stars, they are lame, lame, lame.

[Pliny]

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

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

What's he done this year? That article is a little dated.

The Conservatives are a minority government and the opposition won't bring them down. I think most of what they have been spending on is vote buying and transfer payments to the provinces, in equalization and healthcare plus some on security since that was a big public concern.

Has he created any Ministries with or without portfolio or new government agencies? The liberals under Chretien didn't seem to like spending. except on themselves. I prefer a government that does as little as possible, too bad they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

[Smallc]

What's he done this year? That article is a little dated.

The Conservatives are a minority government and the opposition won't bring them down. I think most of what they have been spending on is vote buying and transfer payments to the provinces, in equalization and healthcare plus some on security since that was a big public concern.

Has he created any Ministries with or without portfolio or new government agencies? The liberals under Chretien didn't seem to like spending. except on themselves. I prefer a government that does as little as possible, too bad they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

According to recent reports spending is increasing at an even more rapid pace, something like 11.1%.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...40-14fa4dceaad1

Edited August 24, 2008 by Smallc

[Pliny]

I trust norman's article has shaken your beliefs.

Judging from what you think my beliefs are I would say yes. But they aren't what you think they are so, no they have not shaken my beliefs.

As I see it a good portion of the spending increases under Harper have been for those parts of the state that are used to come down the hardest on people. More police, more weapons, more laws, more prisons and of course more surveillance and more secrecy. Cuts to things like funding to help people mount charter-based challenges to the law tell the real direction Harper is taking the state, not to mention liberty.

So I can take from that you are not a Conservative. What you are implying is the Conservatives aren't either.

Claiming Nazism because of disagreement to a law or two does not make for rational debate or discussion.

Neither does claiming Libertarianism in defence of Harper.

In no way do I consider Harper a Libertarian nor have I claimed that he was. He is a Conservative. He likes to make laws like any non-Libertarian social democratic party would, that he is not being politically correct or particularly leftist in his law-making is basically your complaint.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Pliny

[Pliny]

According to recent reports spending is increasing at an even more rapid pace, something like 11.1%.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...40-14fa4dceaad1

Well, frankly, I would like to see the budget surplus reduced by tax cuts rather than government spending. What did the Liberals do with their surpluses? It was criminal how big the surplus was, we were way overtaxed. The GST is cut 2% along with some other tax cuts and we still have a surplus. The Tories can't spend it fast enough. We are still overtaxed.

I don't agree with the Conservatives on several issues but I still wouldn't vote for the NDP or the Liberal guy, Dijon or whatever his name is.

[segnosaur]

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.

Problem is, I made the exact same statement... (See post #149... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....t&p=330278)

- 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.

Yeah, so you need to fully comply with the act... that doesn't mean that all parts of the act actually are relevant to you.

Heck, legally, I'm supposed to fallow all the laws regarding gun control, murder/manslaughter, shop lifting, and noise enforcement bylaws. Of course the fact that I don't own a gun, have no intention of killing or stealing, and don't have parties makes those laws easy to follow.

Not every part of every law is going to apply to every individual.

Take something simple, like the food and drug act... there are parts of the act that refer to product sampling when an item is in liquid form, as opposed to solid. This doesn't mean that farmers have to start selling liquid steaks... it means that they deal only with the sections of the law that actually are relevant and apply to them.

So we're left with the question... where in C-51 is it required for you to make medical claims when your stuff is in capsule form?

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.

Ah, so now it was not just some single CFIA manager, but now she actually got a team together to actually discuss the issue. (Heck, if my memory serves me correctly, you didn't even say it was a manager when you first made the claim.)

You know, this seems to be becoming more and more incredulous the longer you try to discuss it. I could accept you calling CFIA to clarify things (even though I doubt anyone that they would put you through would be qualified to talk about pending legislation). But the more you expound on your story the less believable it becomes. Next thing you know you'll be telling us that Harper called you personally to say "You kelp farmers are screwed.. Ha ha!"

Wonder if the CFIA manager also saw bigfoot.

Will you require some sort of sworn statement from her before we proceed with this discussion?

Nope, I told you exactly what I want... I want you to go to the actual text of bill C-51, and point to whatever text and section indicates that if you're selling anything in capsule form that you must make some sort of claim.

In all the time you've repeated that story about talking to CFIA people, you could have found and posted the relevant section. But, as I predicted, rather than actually doing so, you repeat some statement which you already made before.

- 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?

Well, here's the problem with that particular statement...

The question of risk-vs-rewards has nothing to do with any medical claims that you may or may not have made.

The issue of risk vs rewards was discussed because you specifically pointed out a bunch of dangerous modern medications. This issue of dangerous modern medications as been discussed more than once here. (Believe it or not, there is more than one issue that's currently being discussed in the thread.)

The fact that you can't even keep track of the various issues being discussed in the thread is rather, well, inconvenient to put it mildly. Are you doing that on purpose?

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.

The fact that Smilin' Bob can continue to sell his 'male enhancement' pills by making false claims rather suggests that the government doesn't yet have the ability to eliminate fraud and false claims.

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?

I never claimed to be a 'true blue' libertarian. Only that I have certain libertarian ideals.

Regardless of what oversight we have over food or drugs, there will always be the chance of something, ahem, unfortunate happening (for the simple reason that its impossible for the government to monitor every single bite we take.) Hardcore libertarians would argue that any government oversite is unneccessary since the producers will already desire to sell a 'good' product. After all, being known as a 'death company' isn't very good for business. (And obviously the fact that some deaths occurred even with government oversight suggests that its possible government oversight is ineffective).

I don't subscribe to that though... I believe government action is warranted to ensure the safety of our food and drug supplies (natural and modern), and to ensure that no false claims are made by the health care field.

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.

Ummm... the fact that you're not making a claim doesn't necessarily mean that other alternative health care sellers aren't making their own claims.

How many times do I have to bring up Smilin' Bob for that little bit of information to sink in?

Once again... even though SOME natural product sellers don't make claims, MANY DO!!!

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?

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.

So, in other words, someone who has fallen for snake oil salesmen in the past, and can recite whatever bunk they've heard, is considered 'informed'. Got it.

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.

No, actually, the opposite.

Its a big, complex world. There are so many facets of science, biology, medicine, physics, etc. that it is impossible for anyone to be fully versed in everything they may encounter.

THAT'S why we need some sort of government regulation for drugs (both natural and modern)... So that the scientific community can use proper controls to ensure effectiveness and safety, so that when we go and buy some "headache reliever" or antibiotic, we know that its more likely to help us than kill us.

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

From the dictionary: person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives

Example... claiming someone who claims that government oversight of the drug system is acceptable, but decries similar oversight when dealing with their own products.

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

First of all, what 'questions' have you asked that I've missed? I usually go through great troubles to make sure I address every issue that is raised on a point by point basis.

Secondly, why haven't you addressed any question's I've raised?

You can start with: Where in C-51 do they suggest you need to make product claims if your food is in capsule form?

[segnosaur]

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.

There are elements of a monopoly in Canadian health care, but there are also certain elements of freedom.

Ultimately though, its irrelevant for this conversation. We aren't dealing with the mechanism for the delivery for health care services. We are dealing with one issue only... how to determine if something works and is safe. So far, the scientific method seems to be the best way to determine what works and is safe. If you want to consider that a 'monopoly', then fine... but the alternative is to accept things which don't work as being equivalent.

I don't get where you think that most alternative health care has been proven to be false.

Probably because a good chunk of it has.

Lets see: Homeopathy? Doesn't work. (And homeopaths seem to want to treat every possible disease known to man)

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/5/393

Got a cold? A lot of people try Echinacea. But, it may not work.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005...cea-030905.html

Have insomnia/anxiety? Don't try kava or valerian.

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/...fective-4047-1/

What about something serious like Hep C?

http://gastroenterology.jwatch.org/cgi/con...tion/2004/811/2

I could go on and on giving example after example of ineffective alternative remedies.

Even when there are situations where alternative remedies might have a positive effect they are often misapplied (for example, St. John's wart may help mild depression, but is ineffective against severe depression), or whatever effects are not as good as what can be produced by modern medications.

And of course, those are the medicines that they've actually done actual studies on... I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of remedies that people are selling with no real clinical trials.

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.

First of all its not quite true that the government doesn't spend money on 'alternative' health care. For example, in the past they've funded chiropractic services.

Secondly, its more than just government money we should be worried about. Every dollar spent by a patient on 'alternative' health care means one fewer dollar they can spend going out to dinner, going to a movie, investing in their future. (Now, you could argue "if it brings them hope/comfort, then its money well spent", but to me, that's false hope.)

It must remain in the market where it either succumbs or thrives.

Well, as I said, the problem with the market (in this case) is that people are often making decisions based on a position of ignorance. They may not know about double blind studies, control groups, etc., so may select a product based on who has the slickest ad and best 'claim'.

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.

You're right... nobody has studied it. But then, nobody has studied many of the other herbal remedies that are on the market. That's my point.

Why should we assume some herbal remedy as effective (even if its never been clinically proven) while assuming butter-spider is ineffective?

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.

Problem is, if there is any validity to accupuncture, then its quite possible that using random needle locations might actually provide some effectiveness.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/563382

Ideally, when you do double blind studies, the 'control group' should be given something which is basically innert. Kind of hard to have an inert needle jammed into you (even if its not in the exact spot you'd expect.)

And by the way... it is possible that acupuncture may relieve symptoms of some diseases. However, acupuncturists often make claims which are not supported. Heck, even a journal dedicated to acupuncture concluded Thirty years of active acupuncture research have failed to unequivocally demonstrate its clinical efficacy http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000324.html. (Sadly, this is not the original source)

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.

WE are finding it harder and harder to find new antibiotics. What you have said here is just aimed at being oppositional.

No, I was just trying to address the issue you made about antibiotics becoming 'less effective'. The way you stated it ("antiboitoics are becoming less effective", or whatever) implied that you might not be cured AT ALL by antibiotics, whereas that's not the case.

On the graph showing the number of deaths for influenza over the past 5 years)

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.

Well, YOU made the claim and provided the evidence... its not my job to do your research for you.

By the way, one other problem with using the death rate for measuring the effectiveness of influenza vaccine... the average age of the population is increasing in North America. Even if a vaccine is USUALLY effective, old people would still be harder hit if/when they do get affected.

Besides there is quite a large spike in the final year.

Yes, a spike that I pointed out was 13% shorter than the next tallest spike. If vaccination can prevent 13% of deaths, I say bring it on.

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.

And the actual clinical study I provided, that was published in a peer reviewed journal that showed it prevented the spread of influenza form health care staff to patients... do you think that was an imaginary study?

On some method to determine effectiveness of medicines, including alternatives

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.

Still waiting to hear about your amazing method to determine effectiveness of medications. The way you're avoiding providing any information on your proposed methodology suggests any skepticism I have is justified.

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 know exactly what's happening... under the placebo effect the body is healing itself naturally, while the credit is being given to some inert substance that was given.

Yeah, people who eat better, who excercise more likely will get healthier faster when taking placebos... but the point of the placebo effect is not to worry about how a person could normally live better, its to analyze the effect of a drug (or non-drug) based on what a person's healing ability already is.

[normanchateau]

The Tories can't spend it fast enough. We are still overtaxed

QUOTE(Pliny @ Aug 23 2008, 01:33 PM) *

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.

Quite the reversal in position but acknowledgment that the Harper Conservatives are spending like drunken sailors.

[Pliny]

Quite the reversal in position but acknowledgment that the Harper Conservatives are spending like drunken sailors.

No doubt they are spending a little too freely. I suggest it is mostly vote-buying and getting the soft liberals to salivate and ring the right bell at the next election.

Not a reversal in position. I don't support the Conservatives on several fronts and particularly the taxing of income trusts was a betrayal of confidence. Why should I support positions I do not wish to support, be they liberal or conservative.

I think you are too used to having to vote the party line once you have committed yourself to the ideology.

I myself am for limited government, something not offered to me by any party except the Libertarian party but I am not quite a Libertarian either although much of my political concepts spring from there. I believe perhaps that Libertarianism is a better ideal to strive for as opposed to the empowering of the State.

The liberals offer me poitical correctness and the welfare state. The NDP offer me nationalization of industry and more socialism. The Conservatives offer to turn back the clock, as their name implies, and reinstitute some of the old values of the fifties. Nothing is particularly appealing on our political landscape however I would vote Conservative if the election were held tomorrow. I would never vote NDP and would have to hold my nose to vote Liberal.

[Pliny]

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.

There are elements of a monopoly in Canadian health care, but there are also certain elements of freedom.

I agree. There is an element of freedom. Freedom from responsibility for one's health. The government will determine what is important and what you need to know.

Ultimately though, its irrelevant for this conversation. We aren't dealing with the mechanism for the delivery for health care services. We are dealing with one issue only... how to determine if something works and is safe. So far, the scientific method seems to be the best way to determine what works and is safe. If you want to consider that a 'monopoly', then fine... but the alternative is to accept things which don't work as being equivalent.

Probably because a good chunk of it has.

A little slippy there....I want to consider "what" a monopoly. The scientific method? I never said or implied that. Government holds the monopoly. It determines what it will accept and not accept from the scientific community. Governments have in the past used scientific criteria to engineer populations. I cite the psychiatric labeling of political prisoners in the former soviet union and the sterilization of citizens in our own country in the thirties.

I also reject todays rhetoric regarding global climate change and the political solutions offered, i.e., the Kyoto Accord.

Lets see: Homeopathy? Doesn't work. (And homeopaths seem to want to treat every possible disease known to man)

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/5/393

Got a cold? A lot of people try Echinacea. But, it may not work.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005...cea-030905.html

Have insomnia/anxiety? Don't try kava or valerian.

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/...fective-4047-1/

What about something serious like Hep C?

http://gastroenterology.jwatch.org/cgi/con...tion/2004/811/2

I could go on and on giving example after example of ineffective alternative remedies.

Even when there are situations where alternative remedies might have a positive effect they are often misapplied (for example, St. John's wart may help mild depression, but is ineffective against severe depression), or whatever effects are not as good as what can be produced by modern medications.

And of course, those are the medicines that they've actually done actual studies on... I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of remedies that people are selling with no real clinical trials.

Segnosaur, I take what I can from any practice. I have just as many disagreements with alternative medicine as I do with western allopathic medicine. My argument is that instead of allowing individuals to do their own research and figure out what is best for them they make that decision for them. Is it any wonder people are ignorant of medicine today. They have the freedom of irresponsiblility and that is what it comes down to.

Homeopathy has some merit in that it attempts to be unobtrusive and natural. I agree much of it is innocuous but it is gaining in popularity so it must be offering something to the public or it wouldn't have a chance, especially at the price to it's consumers. The only things that can survive beyond consumer rejection are supported by government. If your only source of information which you trust is the government thenyou are headed for the Gulag.

First of all its not quite true that the government doesn't spend money on 'alternative' health care. For example, in the past they've funded chiropractic services.

Once it is funded it is no longer alternative, it is mainstream. Homeopathy is lobbying government for recognition and inclusion under the health act. They wish to get on the gravy train, something that I think would meet with your disapproval just as you think chiropractry shouldn't be funded. In fact, if allopathic medicine were entirely effective they would not need to be on the gravy train, people would willingly pay for their services.

Secondly, its more than just government money we should be worried about. Every dollar spent by a patient on 'alternative' health care means one fewer dollar they can spend going out to dinner, going to a movie, investing in their future. (Now, you could argue "if it brings them hope/comfort, then its money well spent", but to me, that's false hope.)

No private money should be spent on alternative health care. The fact it is is an indication of shortcomings in what is offered.

Well, as I said, the problem with the market (in this case) is that people are often making decisions based on a position of ignorance. They may not know about double blind studies, control groups, etc., so may select a product based on who has the slickest ad and best 'claim'.

True. Looking to government for responsibility leaves them wanting in the ability to evaluate information.

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.

You're right... nobody has studied it. But then, nobody has studied many of the other herbal remedies that are on the market. That's my point.

Why should we assume some herbal remedy as effective (even if its never been clinically proven) while assuming butter-spider is ineffective?

Yes. Why should we and that's my point.

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.

Problem is, if there is any validity to accupuncture, then its quite possible that using random needle locations might actually provide some effectiveness.

You mean like the placebo effect? Acupuncture has precise pressure points. Any effectiveness that occurred in a control group would have to be attributed to the placebo effect. Otherwise you have to admit to some effectiveness of the precise practice.

Ideally, when you do double blind studies, the 'control group' should be given something which is basically innert. Kind of hard to have an inert needle jammed into you (even if its not in the exact spot you'd expect.)

And by the way... it is possible that acupuncture may relieve symptoms of some diseases. However, acupuncturists often make claims which are not supported. Heck, even a journal dedicated to acupuncture concluded Thirty years of active acupuncture research have failed to unequivocally demonstrate its clinical efficacy http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000324.html. (Sadly, this is not the original source)

Agreed. And the claims of western medicine fall short as well. There is lots to learn.

WE are finding it harder and harder to find new antibiotics. What you have said here is just aimed at being oppositional.

No, I was just trying to address the issue you made about antibiotics becoming 'less effective'. The way you stated it ("antiboitoics are becoming less effective", or whatever) implied that you might not be cured AT ALL by antibiotics, whereas that's not the case.

Well, YOU made the claim and provided the evidence... its not my job to do your research for you.

By the way, one other problem with using the death rate for measuring the effectiveness of influenza vaccine... the average age of the population is increasing in North America. Even if a vaccine is USUALLY effective, old people would still be harder hit if/when they do get affected.

that is a consideration that need to be taken into account. I haven't seen a scientific study including that. Have you? you should mentinoit to them.

Yes, a spike that I pointed out was 13% shorter than the next tallest spike. If vaccination can prevent 13% of deaths, I say bring it on.

And the actual clinical study I provided, that was published in a peer reviewed journal that showed it prevented the spread of influenza form health care staff to patients... do you think that was an imaginary study?

I didn't see that study. I just read some glowing reports.

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.

Still waiting to hear about your amazing method to determine effectiveness of medications. The way you're avoiding providing any information on your proposed methodology suggests any skepticism I have is justified.

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

I don't believe I had mentioned a "method". I mentioned there are other things that need to be studied.

[Oleg Bach]

I do not need a police state - I am the police state because I police myself and act according to civil law. Those that are not civil should be arrested and jailed - lets start at the top - how about some of the crimminal lawyers and judges that release gun men on bail to harrass and kill again- I would say they need some policing and a policy that insists on good judgement not on some crazed enforce policy that quiet powermongers inflict on sociey to amuse themselves.

[eyeball]

The fact that Smilin' Bob can continue to sell his 'male enhancement' pills by making false claims rather suggests that the government doesn't yet have the ability to eliminate fraud and false claims.

No, governments don't have the will to protect people from fraudulent claims with the laws they already have at their disposal.

Where in C-51 do they suggest you need to make product claims if your food is in capsule form?

In the parts that authorize CFIA analysts to decide what is food and what is a drug.

[Pliny]

I do not need a police state - I am the police state because I police myself and act according to civil law. Those that are not civil should be arrested and jailed - lets start at the top - how about some of the crimminal lawyers and judges that release gun men on bail to harrass and kill again- I would say they need some policing and a policy that insists on good judgement not on some crazed enforce policy that quiet powermongers inflict on sociey to amuse themselves.

Well, you may not need a police state but others need to be arrested and jailed.

Once the laws favour one group over another there is no justice and justice has now removed it's blindfold. Hmmm....Similar to eating the apple from the tree of knowledge.