MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : So if there is no "vast conspiracy," why is science so dysfunctional today?
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 5 of 7 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  in response to Message 4Sent: 3/24/2008 5:20 AM
In this context, I found another interesting example of a major problem with "science" today, that is, conflicts of interest. In the case of "smell science," there is a lot of money to be made, and this is where the high priests and pushed aside (though they still have their editorial and publishing power, of course), unlike with "HIV/AIDS," where there is money to be lost if Peter Duesberg and the "Perth Group" were given research money and taken seriously by the powerful figures in this establishment. In Turin's book, "The Secret of Scent" (2006), he describes a specific instance of this situation:

"Nature Neuroscience, however, believes the issue resolved. In an extraordinary editorial accompanying the paper, an anonymous writer thunders in the Grand Manner: 'The paper by Keller and Vosshall on page 337 of this issue is unusual; it describes a refutation of a scientific theory [really, at best, a hypothesis - they should know better] that, while provocative, has almost no credence in scientific circles. The only reason for the authors to do the study, or for Nature Neuroscience to publish it, is the extraordinary - and inappropriate - degree of publicity that the theory has received from critical journalists.' Interestingly, the author turned out to be Charles Jennings, founding editor of Nature Neuroscience, who at the time of my submission to Nature in 1995 was junior eidtor in charge of accepting or rejecting neuroscience manuscripts..."

"To declare the debate closed after one article, as Nature did, seems like undue haste...."\

But reality bites these poor excuses for scientists on the proverbial butt: "...our success rate was one product in ten molecules synthesized, two orders of magnitude better than the industry standard of one in a thousand. I guess I'll just carry on using my theory, credence or not..."

Page 188 to189. Note that the content in the brackets was supplied by me, not Turin, who also uses the term "theory" in a way that I consider inaccurate.


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: So if there is no "vast conspiracy," why is science so dysfunctional today?   MSN Nicknamegos2u  3/24/2008 7:24 PM