@jerlands,
jerlands wrote:
Quote:What is it like being a nut case?
Quote:I would be more than happy to see advances in medicine to help people.
But these experiments are incredibly sloppy. You also have to look underneath the system.
You get a few outsiders to play along, because they are paid to play along. This playing along allows them to continue their grants, so they continue to make money meanwhile pretending they are carrying out further research.
So you buy off certain people outside the experiment to give your shitty experiment credibility. Then you just continue consuming the funds so you can survive.
Now lets look at the reverse. You do your experiment, you are honest and it really is bullshit. So you say it was a failure. You no longer continue to have grant money behind that research. You lose and need to go another direction. You are no longer paid to carry out further study.
SO there is NO incentive to ever admit an experiment is bullshit. You have EVERY incentive to lie and suggest that there is "merit" within the experiment.
You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
There is much less money involved practicing Integrative Medicine vs. Allotropic medicine. People don't have incentive to lie because there's no gain in it.
The amount does not matter. He has always resided in allotropic medicine, which is why he doesn't and CANT publish papers in medical journals. He has nothing that allows him to qualify for publish. The ONLY way he can get around this is through challenge other researchers to prove him wrong. This is terrible science.
It says, I have this hypothesis, prove it wrong. This means you are telling other people to put up money to run these experiments simply based on a hypothesis. No one is going to do that unless there is merit in the hypothesis to give traction to taking up the challenge.
So he buys off people willing to get behind him. He pays them to say there is merit in the experiment. So he can continue to be funded for "further" research.
Yes he has every incentive to lie.
I typically love the underdog. A person who has an idea in which everyone says is stupid, retarded and impossible. However; if the person stops there and produces nothing then everyone is proven right. But if the underdog proves the ideas by going through all the necessary hoops and obstacles and passes them all. Then it WILL get the attention of those who understand that there is some truth in the research.
This whole process protects science from getting filled up with bullshit, sorry, male cow feces. It isn't about trying to suppress a scientist. Or that there is some hidden conspiracy to put a lid on medical breakthroughs that will change the world in a way that the "secret society" don't want in the public domain.
Science protects itself by being skeptical, not just a little, but aggressively skeptical of all claims. It is by this metric that we keep science pure. Otherwise if we don't, it will fill up with snake oil salesmen.
