201–210 of 421 posts
I was cured from CFS to the point I can live a normal life with a controversial substance called MMS in 2 weeks time. The very same thing happened with a friend of mine. It's not an attempt to win any scientific argument with anecdotes here, instead I am just adding my data points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is significantly more genetic variety in the single black "race" than all others put together. You could try dividing blacks into three or twelve different races but those lines are quite difficult to draw. Any statement which considers black a single race and white and Oriental distinct is automatically suspect.
Can you compare them after you split them ? Or are you saying you can't even compare them ? Can you compare "black races" with "asian races" ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As we decode and understand more of the genome, it is possible that our genes affect more of our behavior than what the partisans of the tabula rasa hold for truth What “partisans of the tabula rasa”? Activists of both the left and right seem more likely to be partisans of genetic determinism, though of which aspects of intellect, identity, and behavior varies between them.
There are huge proponents of tabula rasa. Consider, fore example, I do research and realize trait X correlates with IQ. Also suppose trait X is highly visible so that I can easily identify who has it (just for concreteness, let's say it's black eyebrows, and 20 IQ points). This would drive the internet batty. The same is true if any such correlations are found for a number of other traits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> those without a clear physical mechanism, such as RSI or chronic back pain But RSI has a clear physical mechanism. I don't know as much about chronic back pain, but considering how much physical stuff there is in our back, I'd assume it's similar. Or does "physical mechanism" mean something other than it seems to mean?
John Sarno's theory is that such pain is indeed caused by physical mechanisms ... which are triggered by psychological mechanisms. Such things are common, like a blush to the cheeks, hair on your arm raised by fright, erections and other sexual responses, etc. He was also clear that this is not always the case, and that direct physical causes should be looked for by a specialist before pursuing psychological remedies…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See anyone who has touched "differences of iq between races".
What, genetically, is a race?
That’s something that can be tested for with relative ease.
> Ancestry informative marker sets for determining continental origin and admixture proportions in common populations in America
> ... A comprehensive set of 128 AIMs and subsets as small as 24 AIMs are shown to be useful tools for ascertaining the origin of subjects from particular continents, and to correct for population stratification in admixed population sample sets.
As population genetics becomes more advanced we will become able to distinguish ever smaller ancestry ancestry groups. For example if you don’t try to identify Continental population ancestry, just use k means clustering to divide humans into clusters based on similarity the continental groups arise naturally.
> Genetic Structure of Human Populations
> Genetic Structure of Human Populations Noah A. Rosenberg,1* Jonathan K. Pritchard,2 James L. Weber,3 Howard M. Cann,4 Kenneth K. Kidd,5 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,6 Marcus W. Feldman7 We studied human population structure using genotypes at 377 autosomal microsatellite loci in 1056 individuals from 52 populations. Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations. General agreement of genetic and predefined populations suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate assessments of epidemiological risks but does not obviate the need to use genetic information in genetic association studies.
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~huatang/gene244/readings/Sci...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have time to research your contrarion claims right now. My priors suggest it isn't a good use of my time. But I have to ask: Why haven't the climate change researchers figured out what you have? Do they have rebuttals to these claims? If so, can you please link those rebuttals in the name of transparency? P.S. You are being downvoted for being wildly off topic as well as a bit inflammatory.
>I don't have time to research your contrarion claims right now. My priors suggest it isn't a good use of my time. But I have to ask: I think you've just proven my real point I was making. >Why haven't the climate change researchers figured out what you have? What happens when your research provides evidence or an argument that doesnt fit the story of climate change? You get labelled a climate denier and nobody will…
You are claiming that the consensus view of climate change has literally nothing to say in response to your points? I find that very hard to believe. Have you done your due diligence and actually searched for any rebuttals?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether you are white or black or have epicanthic fold or stuff like that is 100% encoded in your genes. Someone saying "in terms of IQ, asians > whites > blacks", which is easily provable, will get in big trouble.
There is significantly more genetic variety in the single black "race" than all others put together. You could try dividing blacks into three or twelve different races but those lines are quite difficult to draw. Any statement which considers black a single race and white and Oriental distinct is automatically suspect.
Not only that, people want to continue using the existing (extremely flawed) categories, and that's where it leads you to problems.
"More genetic variety in a single race than between races" is a great argument for why you shouldn't discriminate based on race -- even if the mean for some "race" is higher or lower, that doesn't tell you much about the individual before you.
But it does tell you something about aggregate statistics. When you discover that some "race" is underrepresented in some field, it's completely possible that a major cause is that the median in that arbitrarily defined racial category is below the median in another arbitrarily defined racial category. Which can be true even when a significant minority in the worse off racial category is above the median in the better off racial category -- which minority constitute most of the people of that "race" who are represented in that field.
Ideally the solution is to recognize "race" as a garbage category with no scientific basis and stop using it for anything, ever again. But that is where politics gets in the way, because people have built their political coalitions around the flawed concept that categorization based on race is anything more than an error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether you are white or black or have epicanthic fold or stuff like that is 100% encoded in your genes. Someone saying "in terms of IQ, asians > whites > blacks", which is easily provable, will get in big trouble.
IQ itself is not even close to science in the sense of physics, chemistry, or even biology. Psychology as a whole is disreputable, literally half its studies fail to replicate. You might as well flip a coin. Sure, IQ is the best that we have. But it's terrible.
Saying psychology as a whole is disreputable is just anti-intellectual know nothingism. The divide between psychophysics (the study of perception) and neuroscience is as great as that between social psychology and sociology, small. Trying to denounce all of psychology by association with social psychology just betrays ignorance. The same applies to many, many papers in the exact sciences.
> In cancer science, many “discoveries” don’t hold up
> During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53" landmark" publications--papers in top journals, from reputable labs--for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development. Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated. He described his findings in a commentary piece published on Wednesday in the journal Nature.
http://medicalexposedownloads.com/PDF/Cancer%20science%20Res...
But regardless of whether we agree medically or otherwise, we should treat each other with courtesy.
[1] An internist who participates in and coordinates significant research, she specialized in CFS and fibromyalgia after her (late) sister had CFS. They have quite an organization with resources for doctors, patients, and families: http://batemanhornecenter.org/ . Over time I have gained a high opinion of her and the organization.
EDIT: clarification in 1st paragraph.