• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Scientific Publications

The original report seems to be at:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ ... s_5099.pdf

Think the figure Ghostisfort is on about is:

Figure 2.2 Age-standardised mortality by cause of death, England and Wales, 1950-1999

He's drawing the wrong conclusions. As cause of death the position of cancer hasn't changed much unlike stroke or CHD. He quietly ignores improved 5-year survival rates for some types of cancer and most of the rest of the report.
 
oldrover said:
The longevity is also not due to modern medicine, but to health and safety and Tesco. The deplorable working conditions and poor food of the past are something I personally experienced first hand. While those who were well-off and well cared-for had life-spans just like today. Yet another myth.

I think you might find modern medicine has played a part in that too, or are you denying that the NHS has done any good over the years. Statins and anti hypertensives have played a part alongside as you say better living conditions and nutrition.

I ask you again to please post the complaints from the medics and some evidence that this publication which is still available was withdrawn.

I don't usually do medical, not my area, its too emotional for me, I did not record the complaints from those who didn't like the cancer PDF but I do know that medicine is full of mythology like all science. As usual, much of the old pharmacopia is presented as new science... However, I don't deny the effectiveness of drugs.
Many of the non medical items I've highlighted on my website that are attributed to modern science have been around for yonks and have only appeared because someone has decided that they can make money from them. I don't see any reason to exclude drugs.

I did manage to locate the file on the Internet. You need to search: cancertrends_5099.PDF
The figure I referred to is Figure 2.2, Age-standardised mortality by cause of death, England and Wales, 1950 - 1999.

Shikimic acid, a primary feedstock used to create the anti-influenza drug Tamiflu, is produced by most autotrophic organisms, but star anise is the industrial source. In 2005, there was a temporary shortage of star anise due to its use in making Tamiflu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illicium_v ... cinal_uses

If you know anything about statins, you would also know of the serious problems they have caused. I know this from personal experience as my wife was quite ill after taking them for just two weeks; unable to use her arms and general muscle pains.
 
Timble2 said:
He quietly ignores improved 5-year survival rates for some types of cancer and most of the rest of the report.
Having lost several members of my family to the ravages of cancer I don't understand how you can be smug about survival rates. I know how this can affect families and the misery it causes. This is why I don't normally argue about medical science matters. Both you and I know how the 5-year thing works?

For those who think that the medical profession has their best interests at heart, may I suggest reading the following book:
The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens: The True Story of the Efforts to Suppress an Alternative Treatment for Cancer, AIDS, and Other Immunologically Based Diseases
 
Thanks Timble2 I tried downloading it off the link and just left it, eventually it loaded.

In contrast, age-standardised mortality from cancer (malignant
and non–malignant neoplasms) in both males and females
changed relatively little during the 50 year period.

This was supposed to be cause of the problem. Look at the graphs again Ghostisfort in this the version which you claimed was withdrawn due to pressure from the medical mafia, but also take some time to read the text.

Also you claim, so far without posting any references, that the medical profession claimed that longer life spans affected the stats. You seem to find something wrong with this, why would that be? It’s a fact. The elderly population has been increasing over that period. There are a lot more elderly people living in Britain today than ever before.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=168

Cancer is predominantly a disease of the elderly. The overall crude
annual rates of cancer incidence in 1997, 423 per 100,000
population for males and 426 for females, conceal wide differences
between the sexes and across the age-groups.

This is bound to affect the cancer mortality, what would be surprising is if it didn’t. Look at the figures again as a whole and notice how the instances of other major types of disease have declined. Strokes decrease by two thirds in both males and females, heart disease drops by over a half in males and nearly two thirds in females

In short you’ll see an increase in the incidences an effects of a certain disease if you increase the size of the group most associated with it and reduce the impact of other competing diseases on that group.

To test whether there’s any validity in your claim that research and improved medical technology hasn’t helped it’s best to examine some of the cancers by incidence, mortality and age, over the years. These aren’t the most up to date figures but they’re the ones you quoted as leading to the conclusion that;

The reason for complaints about Cancer Trends was because on the figure titled "Deaths from all causes" there is a straight line from 1950 to 19999 for all cancers. In other words, there was no change in the number of cancer deaths in those 49 years up to 1999. This is in spite of all the money spent on research and all of the campaigns such as anti-smoking

Firstly breast cancer to examine the effects of a screening programme. Females only. Incidences raised sharply in all groups over 50 years old, the age at which women are routinely offered screens. Despite the increase in incidence the mortality rates remain similar to those recorded in 1950. The only increase being in the over 85’s.

Then the two other most common forms of cancer.

Firstly incidences of lung cancer, in females incidences were raised in 97 from 71 the biggest increase being in the 65-84 age range. In males there was a decline except in the 75-84 which remained fairly constant and the over 85’s which increased from around 350/100,000 to apr 580/100,000.

Mortality rates halved for males under 55 years, and increased in all other older age groups. In females the mortality rose pretty much in line with the increasing incidences, again the biggest increase being in the over 65’s.

Then colorectal cancer, overall though there are fluctuations the rates of incidences are fairly similar in 1971 and 1997 in both sexes. However the rates of mortality have dropped in every group. The highest rates of incidence and mortality again being found in the over 85’s.

You could argue that these last two are particularly significant in view of a reduction in deaths from coronary and cardio-vascular disease reported (though as a whole they’re still Britain’s biggest killer) as factors associated with colorectal and lung cancer smoking and diet are also the major risk factors for heart and vascular disease.

I suggest you go back and read it again. The figures presented show that population age and decrease of other diseases are highly significant, and in fact there is ample evidence there that modern treatments are significantly improving patients’ outcomes.
Especially regarding breast cancer where the figures do strongly suggest the screening programme is helping.

You claimed that doctors had had this publication withdrawn, but in fact in addition to it’s update which is viewable for free, it’s on sale from four mainstream retailers, it can be viewed in full at two official government websites and one other website, and is quoted as a reference by Cancer Research UK. All this on the first results page. Therefore I think that claim was wrong.

You also claimed that it was in fact Tesco that had caused the population of this country to live longer not medicine. There is some truth there in that the availability of and improvement in food quality plays in an important part in general health. However your denial that medicine and by extension the NHS and the efforts of it’s staff is not also responsible I find offensive.

I don't usually do medical, not my area

but this isn’t medicine it’s reading numbers on a graph.
 
oldrover said:
This was supposed to be cause of the problem. Look at the graphs again Ghostisfort in this the version which you claimed was withdrawn due to pressure from the medical mafia, but also take some time to read the text.
The original problem remains: That the graph shows a straight line from 1950. Now, if the cause is what you claim, older people and that there are more today than in 1950, how to account for the straight line? There should be some deviation.
The size of the group has not changed significantly. Britain has a very stable population that has changed relatively little in the past fifty/sixty years. What has changed is that the general health of the population has improved over the years. There is a drop in infectious disease that is clearly shown on the graph and reflects this trend. There is no such trend with cancer.

This is not my original point, it being the mythology that accompanies all exchanges about health and longevity. That there is some mythical medical research that will give us all extended life spans.
I do not deny that medical treatment has an impact on those who are ill, but this is not reflected in the overall longevity of the entire population.
 
Ghostisfort said:
This is not my original point, it being the mythology that accompanies all exchanges about health and longevity. That there is some mythical medical research that will give us all extended life spans.

Any examples of this being 'pedalled'?
 
Ok, population 1951-2001increased by nearly 10 million or almost twenty percent.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ ... lation.pdf

Percentage of over 85’s has risen from 15-16% between 1983-2008.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ ... Sept09.pdf

The fastest population increase has been in the number of those aged 85 and over, the “oldest old”. In 1984, there were around 660,000 people in the UK aged 85 and over. Since then the numbers have more than doubled reaching 1.4 million in 2009

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=949

All figures drawn from the national statistics office, who I think we can assume are fairly reliable. I don’t expect you to address the fact that this is objective evidence which clearly refutes this statement;

The size of the group has not changed significantly. Britain has a very stable population that has changed relatively little in the past fifty/sixty years.

From my perspective I also think it’s pointless continuing to discuss what the report actually shows until you’re willing to look at or refer to anything beyond figure 2.2 which appears on the top of page 4, actually the second page of the main body of a 229 page epic. If you want to read it or not that’s up to you, but as you say it’s ‘on the Internet for all to see - who have the eyes to see’.

I would ask you though to clear this up;

I have a downloaded government file PDF that was withdrawn due to complaints by the medico's. It's called "Cancer Trends in England and Wales 1950 to 1999"

The original has gone I can assure you

I don’t doubt for a second that you made either of these statements, that the report had been withdrawn and that that was a result of pressure from doctors, in good faith. The thing is though the most significant, that the report was withdrawn, has been proved wrong. I know I’ve asked before but please could you give some idea of where you heard this. Speaking for myself if I was getting information from a source which was so easily shown to be wrong I might start questioning it.
 
oldrover
The reduction in deaths from infectious diseases is plain to see, whereas the reduction in deaths from cancers is absent.
Both on the same chart with the same criteria.
I can't put this more simply.
Until you can explain this it's pointless moving to other areas of the document.
This is what it's all about, what I wrote about and what you seem to be determined to avoid.

Sometime after I downloaded the PDF, I had reason to search for it again. I'm speaking of several years ago. I could no longer find the file, but what I did find were the complaints about the file and I recall that one of the complainants was a doctor, who was saying the same things as you are. I had no reason to record this at the time and I don't remember where it was. When I tried to find the file for this thread it appeared again and no one was more surprised than me. I posted a link but Timble had already done so.
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
This is not my original point, it being the mythology that accompanies all exchanges about health and longevity. That there is some mythical medical research that will give us all extended life spans.

Any examples of this being 'pedalled'?

There are at least two threads on New Science.
Immortality (Not Far Away)
Longer life spans

Professor faked anti-ageing data
By Neil Bowdler
BBC News

Those who want to delay the aging process must look elsewhere
A South Korean professor has admitted that he forged data on anti-ageing technology which was published in international science journals.
Kim Tae-kook has agreed to retract two papers he wrote, after his university discovered that he fabricated evidence.
The professor claimed he had found out how to extend the lifespan of mammalian cells, using a technology dubbed MAGIC, or magnetism-based interactive capture.
He has been suspended from teaching and further research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7296973.stm

'Anti-age' drug found
Anti-ageing research might one-day lead to a fitter and longer retirement
For the first time, scientists have succeeded in boosting an animal's life span with drugs.
Microscopic worms given the therapy lived nearly 50% longer than normal.
The researchers say the experiments are the first real indication that ageing can be treated.
They believe the drugs might be useful for combating human diseases that strike in later life. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/904722.stm

The U-M results offer promising early evidence that scientists may succeed at finding targets for drugs that someday could allow people to live longer, healthier lives. http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/0 ... ging.drugs
[/quote]
 
Thank you for explaining that.

I'm not trying to avoid anything, the figures you're concentrating on in fig 2.2 are only going to be accurately interpreted one way or the other by examining the rest of the report. just to go by the second graph is a gross over simplification.

Of course I don't know whether I'm underestimating the amount of time you've spent on it, but it seems to me you haven't spent a lot. And have already drawn all your conclusions.
 
I recall that one of the complainants was a doctor, who was saying the same things as you are

I have to add, do you think that could be because that's what the report implies. And to be honest I can't imagine how this could have been framed as a complaint.
 
Why publish a graph that shows 'deaths from all causes', if part of it is only correct when accompanied by other data? This is not logical, it makes no sense but is typical of the obfuscation regularly used by academic science.
I think the problem here is that we are looking at this from opposite sides of the coin.
There is no cure for cancer, although many people do go into remission. There is no motivation for drug companies to find a cure:
Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice
http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure ... kes_notice
And so, there is a need among the medical professionals to put a positive spin on failing treatment. This is why I suggested that those who want to know about things as they really are, read the book on the circumstances surrounding the attempted prosecution of Gaston Naessens.
The problem is the same problem that is prevalent throughout academic science - dogma... That there is only one way to skin a cat. This is the box that academia has built around itself, to protect its own interests at the expense of the health of us all.
 
Why publish a graph that shows 'deaths from all causes', if part of it is only correct when accompanied by other data? This is not logical, it makes no sense but is typical of the obfuscation regularly used by academic science.

I think I see where the problem is too, your taking the later elements of the report as other data. It isn’t it’s the information that the graph 2.2 was compiled from. The graph in question only exists because of that data, it is that data, summarised and displayed in an age standardised form, and with no reference to specific cancer type. The authors of the report make this quite clear. Quoting figures without understanding how they were compiled or what they represent is pointless.

I’m not being facetious but you seem to take a terribly pessimistic viewpoint from these overview figures which I’m sure you don’t enjoy, so please take some time to examine the report more closely you may get a better perspective.
 
Male
Female
All cancers - no change
Heart disease - reduced
Stroke - reduced
Infectious disease - reduced
oldrover
The graph in question only exists because of that data, it is that data, summarised and displayed in an age standardised form, and with no reference to specific cancer type. The authors of the report make this quite clear. Quoting figures without understanding how they were compiled or what they represent is pointless.
They either represent "deaths from all cancers" or they don't. Which is it?
I don't understand your last sentence above. Are you saying that I don't understand or that the compilers didn't understand?
The 'you don't understand' is wearing very thin and if true is not as a result of an inability to understand, but an inability to explain.
Presenting information to the public and then declaring that the public would not understand it is strange and not a little counterproductive.
I am perfectly happy to concede, that no progress has been made with a disease for which there is no cure. This is a truism.
This disgraceful situation exists because of the hubris of academic science and its refusal to look at alternative methods.
 
Here's a long, very interesting article from Nature.com, outlining the work of a - new to me - UK physicist in studying Cancer.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110601/ ... 4020a.html

It's long, but in a nutshell backs up a lot of what Ghostisfort has linked to. To those of us that would like to believe curing the "Big C" is a discovery just around the corner, then im afraid for all of us - and who hasnt seen a friend or loved-one benighted be this most pernicious disease? it makes for slightly depressing reading. A quick quote seems to be in order:

As best he can remember, says Paul Davies, the telephone call that changed his professional life came some time in November 2007, as he was sitting in the small suite of offices that comprise his Beyond Center at Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe.

Until then, the questions that animated Davies' research and 19 popular-science books had grown out of his training in physics and cosmology: how did the Universe come to exist? Why are the laws of physics suited for life? What is time? And how did life begin? But this particular call was nothing to do with that. The caller — Anna Barker, then the deputy director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland — explained that she needed his help in the 'War on cancer'. Forty years into the government's multibillion-dollar fight, said Barker, cancer survival rates had barely budged.
 
They either represent "deaths from all cancers" or they don't. Which is it?

Yes this is what it means, unless you mean no there’s no change in mortality rate for each and every cancer, as this tends to suggest;

Male
Female
All cancers - no change

In which case no. It means that over a fifty year period despite all the complexities taken into account such as age, gender, cancer site, changes in social tends, screening programmes, treatment types, decrease in the impact of other diseases, availability of clinical trials and the ages of those likely to be enrolled, time of diagnosis, socio economic group, variation in reporting accuracy, geographical location, increased survival of some types of, and the varying prevalence of the many types of cancer and their individual survivability etc the figures for overall mortality have changed very little. It’s a complicated picture and one you can’t really do justice to with one graph.

Yes it is a coincidence, but it’s been arrived at statistically through objective data from legitimate sources. Remember the figure 2.2 is a summary of the data, other statistics may be presented later in the report but it is they who have led to its construction.

As far as I can see the fact that you don’t understand is purely down to the fact that you have no intention of doing so. You’ve obviously no intention of reading what is an honest report which acknowledges it’s own shortcomings and warns against over optimism in the fact that statistically survival rates have improved (Before you quote the straight line again please don’t bother, later on there are other graphs which illustrate the higher incidences of cases indicating that on face value that even a static mortality level represents significant progress)

Maybe hubris isn’t something that only established academia is guilty of. Or is ignoring the substance of what they criticise and draw conclusions on something which only true free thinkers are entitled to do.
 
Twin_Star said:
Here's a long, very interesting article from Nature.com, outlining the work of a - new to me - UK physicist in studying Cancer.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110601/ ... 4020a.html
I was thinking about rynner's post of a couple of days ago, where alien archaeologist of the future find our remains.
It got me thinking about what they would make of the LHC?
They would probably surmise that it was based on the more ancient Crookes Tube that they had discovered earlier, but that it must have been used for some kind of ritual purposes as the priesthood of the time, The Theorists, were far too aloof to possess any practical engineering skills. Just as archaeologists do today, but in this case they would be right.

Physicists have done nothing that could possibly be construed to be of any possible use to their fellow man/woman since at least the 1930's. Above we have a biologist expecting one of them to crack a long-standing problem in medicine? More millions spent, more papers published, but expect no results from a theorist.
What is needed is someone who has been kicked out of biology for thinking-up original ideas.
 
oldrover
So it's yes and no then?
My free thinking is not for your good self, but for the young. Whom I hope, will be encouraged to aspire to a level of independent, self confident thinking that will drive the present generation of academics from the cloistered comfort of their cushy jobs and start anew with a science worthy of the title.
We may then see a cure.
 
Ghostisfort said:
Physicists have done nothing that could possibly be construed to be of any possible use to their fellow man/woman since at least the 1930's.

A point which you've thus far failed to prove...

What is needed is someone who has been kicked out of biology for thinking-up original ideas.

Such as...?
 
Ghostisfort said:
Physicists have done nothing that could possibly be construed to be of any possible use to their fellow man/woman since at least the 1930's.
When a statement is wrong, repeating it n times does not make it correct.

And equating a Crooke's Tube with the LHC is just plain ludicrous. Does a Crooke's tube collide together two beams of protons or lead nuclei in order to study the sub-atomic and often short-lived debris that results?

I think not.

A Crooke's Tube can be put together by any competent lab technician. The LHC, by contrast, is a major engineering project the size of a city. Every aspect of it took years to plan and build.

Next you'll be telling us that a modern skyscraper is similar to a mud hut!
 
rynner2 said:
Ghostisfort said:
Physicists have done nothing that could possibly be construed to be of any possible use to their fellow man/woman since at least the 1930's.
When a statement is wrong, repeating it n times does not make it correct.

And equating a Crooke's Tube with the LHC is just plain ludicrous. Does a Crooke's tube collide together two beams of protons or lead nuclei in order to study the sub-atomic and often short-lived debris that results?

I think not.

A Crooke's Tube can be put together by any competent lab technician. The LHC, by contrast, is a major engineering project the size of a city. Every aspect of it took years to plan and build.

Next you'll be telling us that a modern skyscraper is similar to a mud hut!
OK
Maybe I should have said it was more like the old glass TV tube - in fact it's almost identical to the old type TV tube (CRT), which in turn is a development of the Crookes Tube.
Neither of which is the invention of modern physics (Post 1930's Einstein - one of my themes)
In 1907, the Russian scientist Boris Rosing (who worked with Vladimir Zworykin) used a CRT in the receiver of a television system http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinv ... ayTube.htm

The experimentation of cathode rays is largely accredited to J.J. Thomson, an English physicist who, in his three famous experiments, was able to deflect cathode rays, a fundamental function of the modern CRT. The earliest version of the CRT was invented by the German physicist Ferdinand Braun in 1897 and is also known as the Braun tube. It was a cold-cathode diode, a modification of the Crookes tube with a phosphor-coated screen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube#History
William Crookes is now called a physicist, but he was educated as a chemist and became an amateur physicist. He was also a spiritualist, something else that would certainly exclude him from the scientific community today.
 
Ghostisfort said:
He was also a spiritualist, something else that would certainly exclude him from the scientific community today.

But that's mere speculation. Not all scientists today are aetheists, and aren't all hounded out of the establishment for their religious beliefs.
 
Ghostisfort it’s yes to this

"deaths from all cancers"

But no to this

Male
Female
All cancers - no change

They are two different statements.

You raised this report as an example of scientific propaganda. Whilst setting yourself up as an example of fair free speech. When asked why all you’ve done is attempt to make capitol out of the second graph. As far as I can see there are three options;

Either you’ve not read it, in which case you’re guilty of the same dogma which you accuse others of.

You’ve read it and not understood it, which is fair enough. But as the information you rely doesn’t go past page 2 of the main body I don’t think this is the case.

You have read it and are deliberately misrepresenting it.

The claim that it was withdrawn was wrong, and personally I can’t find any controversy regarding it on the internet as you said you had, this and the lack of any reference to the main bulk of the report leads me to the opinion that the only propaganda is coming from you.

Are you willing to answer a question for me, have you read beyond page 4 of the report.
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
He was also a spiritualist, something else that would certainly exclude him from the scientific community today.

But that's mere speculation. Not all scientists today are atheists, and aren't all hounded out of the establishment for their religious beliefs.
Scientists are expected to be atheists in support of the materialistic philosophy of science. The fact that some scientists claim to be Christian or whatever makes no difference to this fact. Some are tolerated and some are not...most have career problems if they insist on publicising their beliefs.
Certain invitees to a workshop on the Foundations of Physics received from the organisers letters withdrawing their invitations. The letter to Brian Josephson asserted: "It has come to my attention that one of your principal research interests is the paranormal ... in my view, it would not be appropriate for someone with such research interests to attend a scientific conference." http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/art ... nvite.html
Brian Josephson is a Nobel Laureate in Physics.
"I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian (Pioneer of MRI) was refused his just honour because of his religious beliefs. Having silly ideas in one field is no good reason to deny merit for great ideas in another field. Apart from the fact that this time, the Creation Scientists will think that there is good reason to think that they are the objects of unfair treatment at the hands of the scientific community. M. Ruse"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Va ... ontroversy

A patent was granted in 1974, it was the world's first patent issued in the field of MRI. By 1977, Dr. Damadian completed construction of the first whole-body MRI scanner, which he dubbed the "Indomitable."
http://inventors.about.com/od/mstartinv ... /a/MRI.htm

6 October 2003
"The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institute has today decided to award The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2003 jointly to Paul C Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield for their "discoveries" concerning "magnetic resonance imaging"
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medi ... press.html
Maybe you could add some of this to your timeline?
 
oldrover said:
Ghostisfort it’s yes to this

"deaths from all cancers"

But no to this

Male
Female
All cancers - no change

They are two different statements.

You raised this report as an example of scientific propaganda. Whilst setting yourself up as an example of fair free speech. When asked why all you’ve done is attempt to make capitol out of the second graph. As far as I can see there are three options;

Either you’ve not read it, in which case you’re guilty of the same dogma which you accuse others of.

You’ve read it and not understood it, which is fair enough. But as the information you rely doesn’t go past page 2 of the main body I don’t think this is the case.

You have read it and are deliberately misrepresenting it.

The claim that it was withdrawn was wrong, and personally I can’t find any controversy regarding it on the internet as you said you had, this and the lack of any reference to the main bulk of the report leads me to the opinion that the only propaganda is coming from you.

Are you willing to answer a question for me, have you read beyond page 4 of the report.
The answer is no, I did not read all of the report. As I said, its in PDF format and difficult to read. I can only assume that your point, although not sated, is that the incidence of some cancers has reduced while others have increased and this accounts for the discrepancy.
But surely this is the case for all complaints?
My original post concerned figure 2.2 only and I can only conclude that you wish to discredit all of my posts by niggling about things not stated.
No one else who has checked the facts, disputes the fact that cancer is incurable. I really don't understand just where you hope to go with this line of posting?
If you are saying that some cancers are curable then link the evidence.
 
Ghostisfort said:
Scientists are expected to be atheists in support of the materialistic philosophy of science. The fact that some scientists claim to be Christian or whatever makes no difference to this fact. Some are tolerated and some are not...most have career problems if they insist on publicising their beliefs.

But, like I said, not all of them are hounded out, nor excluded. In both examples you've cited it seems that neither party lost their jobs, etc..

Maybe you could add some of this to your timeline?

If you've actually read my timeline you'll see that it only goes up to 1950.
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
Scientists are expected to be atheists in support of the materialistic philosophy of science. The fact that some scientists claim to be Christian or whatever makes no difference to this fact. Some are tolerated and some are not...most have career problems if they insist on publicising their beliefs.
But, like I said, not all of them are hounded out, nor excluded. In both examples you've cited it seems that neither party lost their jobs, etc..

No, that has never been stated.
I said:
"Scientists are expected to be atheists in support of the materialistic philosophy of science." No mention of hounding, that would be too obvious.
 
So you didn’t actually read the report, thank you at least that’s honest.

My original post concerned figure 2.2 only and I can only conclude that you wish to discredit all of my posts by niggling about things not stated.

I’ll stick to things that have been stated, and no sorry that’s not what your original post said;

On the subject of medicine: I have a downloaded government file PDF that was withdrawn due to complaints by the medico's. It's called "Cancer Trends in England and Wales 1950 to 1999". What it basically shows is that there were no cancer trends during that period.
The official and the real history of science, old and new, are on the Internet for all to see - who have the eyes to see.

Originally it was that a report had been withdrawn because of pressure from the medics. A point subsequently found not to be correct. It was later you expanded the point to figure 2.2.

The reason for complaints about Cancer Trends was because on the figure titled "Deaths from all causes" there is a straight line from 1950 to 19999 for all cancers. In other words, there was no change in the number of cancer deaths in those 49 years up to 1999. This is in spite of all the money spent on research and all of the campaigns such as anti-smoking*

Not only untrue, but that peddling this* kind of misinformation is a slur on the efforts of thousands of researchers, doctors and nurses who’ve worked their arses off over those fifty years to combat cancer. What satisfaction do you get from doing that?

Those statements are an insult to people who work in some of the most difficult circumstances there are. But you made them with no more thought than a quibble about who invented the internet, from the comfort of your own computer. And before you ask how I know how much thought you gave it, I don’t, I’m just guessing based on the amount of care you gave writing off fifty years of work.

The medics were full of excuses in their complaints, longer life due to their efforts of course. The fact is that a straight line means that the number of deaths has remained steady for at least fifty years with no impact from treatment or campaigns*.

But how could you have possibly known whether that was right or wrong, if you didn’t read it for yourself. All the time there was information there that would have clearly showed your conclusion was wrong, if you'd bothered to look. Instead of which you jumped to a conclusion, after reading one graph, and then you posted it up and tried to use it show how arrogant, closed minded and self protecting science is. Not realising that all the time this was exactly how you were behaving, by selectively taking figures and portraying them out of context in an oversimplified way. Which not only showed no concern for their true meaning, but actually distorted it*.

Then you made a series of equally inaccurate statements about population growth, age and relevance of other sections of the study, again without checking, to defend your position on a report, that you yourself brought up in the first place, when all you had to do was just look at it. Why? Is it because being right was more important than being accurate.

Bottom line you fail to check even the most basic facts. And why would you use such an emotive subject as cancer just to try to make a petty point to reinforce your stance on science.

You’ve criticised orthodox science as being dogmatic, insular and unwilling to explore other avenues your behaviour seems to me to fit that description very well.

Good luck with the brave new world.
 
Ghostisfort said:
No, that has never been stated.
I said:
"Scientists are expected to be atheists in support of the materialistic philosophy of science." No mention of hounding, that would be too obvious.

But even in the examples you gave, there's no mention of anyone being dismissed, or excluded in similar ways. Add to that the fact that you surmised that Crookes would also be excluded if he were alive nowadays - which is something you can't prove.

If you want to keep tarnishing everything with the same brush, you should at least come up with concrete examples of non-atheists being systematically excluded from science simply for having certain beliefs. What might be the case is that some individuals may possibly be excluded for certain beliefs, should they expound them publically.

Merely being a believer in any given religion does not automatically exclude someone from being a scientist.
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
No, that has never been stated.
I said:
"Scientists are expected to be atheists in support of the materialistic philosophy of science." No mention of hounding, that would be too obvious.

But even in the examples you gave, there's no mention of anyone being dismissed, or excluded in similar ways. Add to that the fact that you surmised that Crookes would also be excluded if he were alive nowadays - which is something you can't prove.

If you want to keep tarnishing everything with the same brush, you should at least come up with concrete examples of non-atheists being systematically excluded from science simply for having certain beliefs. What might be the case is that some individuals may possibly be excluded for certain beliefs, should they expound them publically.

Merely being a believer in any given religion does not automatically exclude someone from being a scientist.
Dismissed is fired sacked or sent away. Do you have a literacy problem?
I don't recall saying that Crookes would be dismissed, yet more words put into my mouth, I said he would be excluded, which is a quite different word. Excluded in the sense that he would not be there today, due to his lack of qualification. There are no amateurs working with academic physicists today, as far as I know.
"William Crookes is now called a physicist, but he was educated as a chemist and became an amateur physicist. He was also a spiritualist, something else that would certainly exclude him from the scientific community today.
An example of a physicist being excluded from a conference because of his beliefs, interest in paranormal research:
It has come to my attention that one of your principal research interests is the paranormal ... in my view, it would not be appropriate for someone with such research interests to attend a scientific conference." http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/art ... nvite.html
This is a is a Nobel Laureate in physics being 'excluded' for doing what Crookes did, or do you still think excluded is dismissed?
I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honour because of his religious beliefs...
Why does this seem like Déjà vu?
 
Back
Top