Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Star Press

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Comments (Page 403)

Showing posts 8,041 - 8,060 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8499
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bad Science Used To Push Cholesterol-Reducing Drugs

I had a patient in my practice this week who was seeking advice about the prevention of heart disease. He’d been on a statin for several years, and then started to get what he felt might be side-effects.

He stopped the statin and the side-effects went away. As he rightly pointed out, the relief from his symptoms might have been entirely coincidental and nothing to do with the fact that he stopped his statin medication. However, he was disinclined to restart. My patient told me that he expects his doctor to be up in arms about this. He has, apparently, an unbridled enthusiasm for statins and believes ‘everyone should be taking them’.

As I pointed out to my patient, the reality is the vast majority of people who take statins are destined not to benefit from them. And then we have the problem, of course, of toxicity and side effects.

[Link contains links which give more detail. It will keep you busy and out of trouble - "plough" through, lol]
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/bad-science-...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8500
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

“Trusting and unaware patients have been treated with potentially dangerous drugs by equally unaware but well-intentioned physicians who have been likewise trusting of the slick and obscenely profitable psychopharmaceutical drug companies aka, BigPharma, not to mention the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that is all-too-often in bed with the drug industry that they are supposed to be monitoring and regulating. The foxes of BigPharma have a close ally inside the henhouse.

That is the conclusion of two books by a courageous investigative journalist and health science writer named Robert Whitaker. His first book, entitled Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, noted that there has been a 600 percent increase (since Thorazine was introduced in the U.S. in the mid-1950s) in the total and permanent disabilities of millions of psychiatric drug-takers.”
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/04/10/are-drug...

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8501
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

News and Information about Personal Injury Lawsuits

[Avandia / Bad Science]

“The results of a large clinical study of Avandia’s heart side effects, which was paid for by the drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, has come under intense criticism for using bad science.

The RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes) study, which was released last week and published in the medical journal Lancet, was touted as showing that Avandia side effects do not increase the risk of a heart attack.

Critics of the report, which include physicians, the FDA and Avandia attorneys representing plaintiffs who have filed a lawsuits against GlaxoSmithKline, say that the methodology of the study is flawed, with too small a sample size and researchers knowing which subjects were on what medication. In addition, the study involved the use of Avandia together with other drugs and 40% of the subjects actually stopped taking Avandia before the research was completed.

Avandia (rosiglitazone) is a type 2 diabetes drug approved by the FDA in 1999. It is a thiazolidinedione agent, which acts by increasing the body’s sensitivity to insulin and aiding in the management of blood sugar in diabetics.

Nearly a dozen other studies, including some by GlaxoSmithKline P.L.C., have indicated that the side effects of Avandia may increase the risk of heart attacks, congestive heart failure, liver failure, bone fractures, macular edema and death.

One May 2007 meta-analysis of 42 clinical studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that users faced a 43% increase in the risk of a heart attack on Avandia.

The FDA required that a “black box” warning be placed on Avandia in November 2007, indicating that the drug could increase the risk of heart attacks. However, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen petitioned the FDA last year to issue an Avandia recall, indicating that the drug should not even be available, as any potential benefits provided by the medication are outweighed by the side effects.

The FDA denounced the RECORD study’s science two years ago, and GlaxoSmithKline has already started another study, known as TIDE, in response to FDA’s criticisms.

Last year, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommended against using Avandia. However, ADA officials say they will review the RECORD study’s results and determine whether they may change their recommendations.

GlaxoSmithKline PLC currently faces hundreds of lawsuits over Avandia heart risks filed by uses who suffered heart attacks, congestive heart failure and other cardiovascular injuries. All federal cases have been consolidated in an MDL, or Multidistrict Liigation, centralized in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe. The first Avandia lawsuit is scheduled for trial to begin early next summer.”
http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/avandia-heart-st...

[Gosh - are our peer review groups looking into these problems?]

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8502
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

re-posting:

Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii Sets New World Record For Faking Data

Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii, formerly an anesthesiologist at Toho University's medical school, has a record no published researcher can match. He is 209 and 3. The problem is the 3 are papers of his that are known not to be fraudulent between 1993 and 2011.

172 are clearly based on fabricated data, according to Retraction Watch. Naturally, Fujii claimed the studies were all randomized, double-blind, controlled trials and done at multiple institutions to throw off fact checkers, the way these guys always do. Some even had forged signatures of collaborators.

Apparently the whole field is a little sketchy. John Timmer at Ars Technica notes that 13% of papers retracted over the last four decades have been in anesthesiology.

37 of his papers were not included in the analysis so there is a chance he could extend his world record even more.
http://www.science20.com/cool-links/dr_yoshit...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8503
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Sam Harris has devastating logic which he employs to great effect as he mops the floor with believers.
Devastating logic?

In one of his books, Harris advocated killing people for what they believe even before they committed any act based upon it.

You must think Hitler and Stalin had devastating logic.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8504
Dec 14, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the first line from you evidence
"haven't forgotten | May 12, 2012
Now, this is meant to be a nonsense challenge, and to mirror the other nonsense challenge thread called prove there is a god."
Dolt!
LOL
Yup. I was curious as to whether you would actually look at the link.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8505
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Devastating logic?
In one of his books, Harris advocated killing people for what they believe even before they committed any act based upon it.
You must think Hitler and Stalin had devastating logic.
You should have mined for the quote and put it in your post, Buck.

I expect %10 more from you. I'm disappointed.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8506
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
The provisions of 501(c)(3) are not about contributions. They are about advocacy and efforts to affect election outcomes, and the Church's actions in this regard are quite clear. Its status should be revised and it should be required to pay corporate income taxes.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had a right to do and say what it did.

See Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress
of grievances.

Why is that significant? Be believe part of our faith is defending moral truths.

"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
(Gordon B Hinkley)

If you tell a church to "can it" and stop fighting for what they believe in when their doctrine compels them to speak out, you are "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8507
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have mined for the quote and put it in your post, Buck.
I expect %10 more from you. I'm disappointed.
It's because Sam never actually said anything that could be construed as such. ;) It's a red herring.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8508
Dec 14, 2012
 
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
If you tell a church to "can it" and stop fighting for what they believe in when their doctrine compels them to speak out, you are "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
Well, not YOU specifically, but if the government were to take legal action.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8509
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had a right to do and say what it did.
See Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress
of grievances.
Why is that significant? Be believe part of our faith is defending moral truths.
"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
(Gordon B Hinkley)
If you tell a church to "can it" and stop fighting for what they believe in when their doctrine compels them to speak out, you are "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.
You are forcing your morality onto others, plain and simple, that is wrong. Of course your morals are dead wrong but meh, if you remained like the Amish the rest of us would never have cared.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8510
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's because Sam never actually said anything that could be construed as such. ;) It's a red herring.
He made it quite clear in his book, The Moral Landscape, that he looks forward to a future where he or someone like him could remove a person's ability to even think of religion. He spoke of drugs and genetic engineering to achieve his goal of eradicating religion from the human mind. Sounds suspiciously like Orwell's Thought Police.

I find it very funny that the creep calls himself a "free-thinker" but advocates mind control for anyone else who may think differently than he does.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8511
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are forcing your morality onto others, plain and simple, that is wrong.
Just as your idols, The Four Horsemen, hope to do. Hypocrite.

BTW, have they found a replacement for that old, assjacker Hitchens yet?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8512
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Just as your idols, The Four Horsemen, hope to do. Hypocrite.
BTW, have they found a replacement for that old, assjacker Hitchens yet?
Have you found a replacement for your fake go that you lie about to your friends, family & colete strangers on the Internet.

At the end of the day, you're trying to sell us a god that simply doesn't exist, and no amount of lying is going to make us ignore fossils.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8513
Dec 14, 2012
 
derek4 wrote:
re-posting:
Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii Sets New World Record For Faking Data
Dr. Yoshitaka Fujii, formerly an anesthesiologist at Toho University's medical school, has a record no published researcher can match. He is 209 and 3. The problem is the 3 are papers of his that are known not to be fraudulent between 1993 and 2011.
172 are clearly based on fabricated data, according to Retraction Watch. Naturally, Fujii claimed the studies were all randomized, double-blind, controlled trials and done at multiple institutions to throw off fact checkers, the way these guys always do. Some even had forged signatures of collaborators.
Apparently the whole field is a little sketchy. John Timmer at Ars Technica notes that 13% of papers retracted over the last four decades have been in anesthesiology.
37 of his papers were not included in the analysis so there is a chance he could extend his world record even more.
http://www.science20.com/cool-links/dr_yoshit...
Your a creationist liar posting anti atheist and anti science propaganda, all the while having absolutely no proof of god whatsoever.

Good job argument loser.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8514
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you found a replacement for your fake go that you lie about to your friends, family & colete strangers on the Internet.
At the end of the day, you're trying to sell us a god that simply doesn't exist, and no amount of lying is going to make us ignore fossils.
I'm not promoting any god, just pointing out liars and hypocrites who wish to force their will on the rest of society.

You are an idiot.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8515
Dec 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Devastating logic?
In one of his books, Harris advocated killing people for what they believe even before they committed any act based upon it.
You must think Hitler and Stalin had devastating logic.
Shut up you Creationist too. Hitler was catholic, this was already demonstrated to you.

Show us all with your mighty intelligence where in atheism it says we must commit mass genocide.

Exactly, now quickly f*ck off back to your 6000 year old earth you fossil denying piece of creationist sh*t.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8516
Dec 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not promoting any god, just pointing out liars and hypocrites who wish to force their will on the rest of society.
You are an idiot.
You're the liar, nobody believes your two-bit opinions about a god that doesn't exist. Fact.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8517
Dec 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

I'm sorry that fossils offend you creationists so much.

But that's what happens when you live in the real world. yet imagine up a god and set of rules based on zero evidence and proven stupidity.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8518
Dec 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Devastating logic?
In one of his books, Harris advocated killing people for what they believe even before they committed any act based upon it.
You must think Hitler and Stalin had devastating logic.
Hello Buck

Any chance of posting a link to this particular assertion?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 8,041 - 8,060 of11,195
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••