Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
Ascorbic acid, scurvy? Used for centuries. But no, according to mr know it all MD Fistedchuff thats all a lie! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Ascorbic acid, scurvy? Used for centuries.
But no, according to mr know it all MD Fistedchuff thats all a lie!Uh, I would've read what Fisticuffs actually said before responding with this. :~
-
All about equally poorly effective. Congratulations, chiropractic: you perform about as poorly as six other less expensive things. None of which are narcotics, FYI. Back pain usually goes away on its own and people usually seek treatment at the greatest epoch of pain, leading quite easily to a fake treatment effect. Most of those people your parents "treated" got better because of a complicated placebo effect and a regression to the mean. I can guarantee they never actually treated any organic disease in the back by "adjusting" people. From the sum total of scientific studies on chiropractic and lower back manipulation (which itself is pretty scant), that's very clear.
- F
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Vitamins? Really?
Ever heard of the British Navy handing out lime juice to avert scurvy since what, 1750 or some such?How about rickets and Vitamine D deficciency? You must of heard of these surely.
Too little being bad does not imply that the more you have the greater the benefit. If you're not vitamin deficient, then vitamin supplements are at the very least pointless, and I've heard that in some cases they've even been implicated with a higher mortality rate.
Yeah of course, but calling them crap was Fistedchuffs statement, which clearly they are not, given Vitamin C's virtual mirraculous cure in the British Navy centuries ago. You know thats why the British are called Limeys? Because they were given lime juice?
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Ascorbic acid, scurvy? Used for centuries.
But no, according to mr know it all MD Fistedchuff thats all a lie!Uh, I would've read what Fisticuffs actually said before responding with this. :~
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Uh, I would've read what Fisticuffs actually said before responding with this
He called vitamins crapo, and then said they werent 'discovered' until 1925. (Discovered like some sort of lost land or something aparently...). No, they werent called vitamins untill 1825 but the existence and diseases caused by 'vitamin' deficiiency has been known about for centuries.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Uh, I would've read what Fisticuffs actually said before responding with this
He called vitamins crapo, and then said they werent 'discovered' until 1925. (Discovered like some sort of lost land or something aparently...). No, they werent called vitamins untill 1825 but the existence and diseases caused by 'vitamin' deficiiency has been known about for centuries.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
He called vitamins crapo, and then said they werent 'discovered' until 1925. (Discovered like some sort of lost land or something aparently...).
He said that vitamin pills weren't invented until around 1930.
-
Yeah of course, but calling them crap was Fistedchuffs statement, which clearly they are not, given Vitamin C's virtual mirraculous cure in the British Navy centuries ago. You know thats why the British are called Limeys? Because they were given lime juice?
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Yeah of course, but calling them crap was Fistedchuffs statement, which clearly they are not, given Vitamin C's virtual mirraculous cure in the British Navy centuries ago. You know thats why the British are called Limeys? Because they were given lime juice?
. . . You're trying to explain to an M.D. the value of vitamins? The cure for a vitamin deficiency is something with that vitamin. They're NOT, as far as I know, the cure for anything else.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
He called vitamins crapo, and then said they werent 'discovered' until 1925. (Discovered like some sort of lost land or something aparently...).
He said that vitamin pills weren't invented until around 1930.
He said that to imply that before then people werent able to take extra vitamines thus refuting my statement that vitamins had been known about for centuries and had been used sucessfully to trreat scurvy refuting his argument that vitamins are crap. That is the train of his deranged arguing, if you are going to jump in half way, keep track of the whole thing. Of course he is also wrong, you can take vitamins through food in general. Is not lime juice a supliment? The British Navy used it expressly as that. Yest accordijng to Fistedchuff a supliment has to be a pill. Typical doctor, obsessed with his own superiority but actually intelectually limited and logically fallacious.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Yeah of course, but calling them crap was Fistedchuffs statement, which clearly they are not, given Vitamin C's virtual mirraculous cure in the British Navy centuries ago. You know thats why the British are called Limeys? Because they were given lime juice?
. . . You're trying to explain to an M.D. the value of vitamins? The cure for a vitamin deficiency is something with that vitamin. They're NOT, as far as I know, the cure for anything else.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
They're NOT, as far as I know, the cure for anything else.
Who the fuck said they are? He called them crap, I pointed out his stupidity. (Oh, you know that many mass produced vegetables have less nutrients than organically grown ones? No doubt the utter basic fact of that, which can be proved through chemical analysis, will be denied by Fistedchuff no doubt) Anyway, I am off for a coffe down at the cafe,. back in 40... :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
They're NOT, as far as I know, the cure for anything else.
Who the fuck said they are? He called them crap, I pointed out his stupidity. (Oh, you know that many mass produced vegetables have less nutrients than organically grown ones? No doubt the utter basic fact of that, which can be proved through chemical analysis, will be denied by Fistedchuff no doubt) Anyway, I am off for a coffe down at the cafe,. back in 40... :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Who the f*** said they are? He called them crap, I pointed out his stupidity.
That's a very unsophisticated attempt at understanding what he said. When a chiropractor sells vitamins to a patient for something other than vitamin deficiency, chiropractic is garbage.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
(Oh, you know that many mass produced vegetables have less nutrients than organically grown ones? No doubt the utter basic fact of that, which can be proved through chemical analysis, will be denied by Fistedchuff no doubt)
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I doubt it. It's a purely empirical claim, and if I know the mind of Fisticuffs at all it is that he would avoid saying that if he didn't know it for sure. If my memory serves me, which it rarely does, so I could be completely wrong about this, but I seem to recall that Fisticuffs was a biochemist or some such at one point.
-
He said that to imply that before then people werent able to take extra vitamines thus refuting my statement that vitamins had been known about for centuries and had been used sucessfully to trreat scurvy refuting his argument that vitamins are crap. That is the train of his deranged arguing, if you are going to jump in half way, keep track of the whole thing. Of course he is also wrong, you can take vitamins through food in general. Is not lime juice a supliment? The British Navy used it expressly as that. Yest accordijng to Fistedchuff a supliment has to be a pill. Typical doctor, obsessed with his own superiority but actually intelectually limited and logically fallacious.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
He said that to imply that before then people werent able to take extra vitamines thus refuting my statement that vitamins had been known about for centuries and had been used sucessfully to trreat scurvy refuting his argument that vitamins are crap.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
That is the train of his deranged arguing, if you are going to jump in half way, keep track of the whole thing.
I actually have read the whole thing. To be perfectly blunt, Fisticuffs has handed your arse to you.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Who the f*** said they are? He called them crap, I pointed out his stupidity.
That's a very unsophisticated attempt at understanding what he said. When a chiropractor sells vitamins to a patient for something other than vitamin deficiency, chiropractic is garbage.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
(Oh, you know that many mass produced vegetables have less nutrients than organically grown ones? No doubt the utter basic fact of that, which can be proved through chemical analysis, will be denied by Fistedchuff no doubt)
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I doubt it. It's a purely empirical claim, and if I know the mind of Fisticuffs at all it is that he would avoid saying that if he didn't know it for sure. If my memory serves me, which it rarely does, so I could be completely wrong about this, but I seem to recall that Fisticuffs was a biochemist or some such at one point.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
When a chiropractor sells vitamins to a patient for something other than vitamin deficiency, chiropractic is garbage.
When a doctor recomends more expensive medcines because he gets a kick back from a particular medical company, and the tax payer foots the bill, what is that doctor? (And yes, that has happened).
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's a purely empirical claim
Yes, it actually has hard evidence, so how can you doubt it?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Fisticuffs was a biochemist or some such at one point.
Who knows, this is the internet, he hides, as do all of us, behind a persona. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
He said that to imply that before then people werent able to take extra vitamines thus refuting my statement that vitamins had been known about for centuries and had been used sucessfully to trreat scurvy refuting his argument that vitamins are crap.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
That is the train of his deranged arguing, if you are going to jump in half way, keep track of the whole thing.
I actually have read the whole thing. To be perfectly blunt, Fisticuffs has handed your arse to you.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
When a chiropractor sells vitamins to a patient for something other than vitamin deficiency, chiropractic is garbage.
When a doctor recomends more expensive medcines because he gets a kick back from a particular medical company, and the tax payer foots the bill, what is that doctor? (And yes, that has happened).
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's a purely empirical claim
Yes, it actually has hard evidence, so how can you doubt it?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Fisticuffs was a biochemist or some such at one point.
Who knows, this is the internet, he hides, as do all of us, behind a persona. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
When a doctor recomends more expensive medcines because he gets a kick back from a particular medical company, and the tax payer foots the bill, what is that doctor?
Irrelevant to the argument?
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Yes, it actually has hard evidence, so how can you doubt it?
:confused:
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Give up eh?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
To be perfectly blunt, Fisticuffs has handed your arse to you.
Only if you choose to ingore facts.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Give up eh?
No, it was just a very difficult sentence to parse. It was long after I posted that I understood it.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Only if you choose to ingore facts.
The fact being that sailors were given a diet that contains vitamin C...?
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
When a doctor recomends more expensive medcines because he gets a kick back from a particular medical company, and the tax payer foots the bill, what is that doctor?
Irrelevant to the argument?
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Yes, it actually has hard evidence, so how can you doubt it?
:confused:
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Give up eh?
No, it was just a very difficult sentence to parse. It was long after I posted that I understood it.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Only if you choose to ingore facts.
The fact being that sailors were given a diet that contains vitamin C...?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, it was just a very difficult sentence to parse. It was long after I posted that I understood it.
:)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The fact being that sailors were given a diet that contains vitamin C...?
Yes, that is one fact showing that even if vitamines were not so named and were not produced artificially the benefits of said compunds were known.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Irrelevant to the argument?
Only in the narrowest of senses.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
:confused:
You said it had empiricle evidence, yet you doubted it.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
You said it had empiricle evidence, yet you doubted it.
I meant I doubted that Fisticuffs would say it.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, it was just a very difficult sentence to parse. It was long after I posted that I understood it.
:)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The fact being that sailors were given a diet that contains vitamin C...?
Yes, that is one fact showing that even if vitamines were not so named and were not produced artificially the benefits of said compunds were known.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Yes, that is one fact showing that even if vitamines were not so named and were not produced artificially the benefits of said compunds were known.
Therefore munching vitamin C tablets every day is beneficial?
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Again are you really that dence? For one, this was a hypothetical situation. Therefore you can not use the 'outcome' of it as evidence, for it has not happened. For two, my argument was it will not be released due to profit decline.
Not sure what you are talking about but wrong for several issues. Some possible guesses as to what you are referring. First obviously the battery market is not hypothetical. It is making money and it is doing so by making a battery that lasts longer. Second on average business people make business decisions about what they think the market will do. They have no special abilities that allow them to see the future. Thus if they make a product that lasts longer they do so with the hope that is will increase revenue.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
My point was the competition gets squashed out.
And my point is that you are wrong. And your Durcell example specifically demonstrates that you are wrong.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I gave you many examples of larger companies squashing competition ragardless of their innovations. Have you ever heard of Patent Trolls? Guess not. Simply put you are dead wrong here. I have given you ample evidence supporting it yet you have provided no counter evidence.
And your assertions on that topic are nonsense. In any number of ways especially as it applies to the automobile market. There is NO way that any of the tactics that you are referring to can broadly impact the automobile market. And as a specific example of that, many countries either do not respect the patent process that you refer to with "Patent Trolls" or the enforcement in the country is so lax that the country might as well not be part of the process. And many more countries are more likely to only enforce infringement that is blinding obvious.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Nope. You still have not provided any evidence disproving what I have said or facts I have given
Sorry? Are you claiming that the battery market has NOT been actively creating and marketing batteries that last longer for years?
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is about 'infinite' battery life....
Thought I made it clear...I will try again... Please read the followin
jschell wrote:
First obviously the battery market is not hypothetical.
Not about the market. It is about the situation. You again, clearly have not the ability to play thought games.
jschell wrote:
And my point is that you are wrong. And your Durcell example specifically demonstrates that you are wrong.
Actually it means you can't read.
jschell wrote:
And your assertions on that topic are nonsense. In any number of ways especially as it applies to the automobile market. There is NO way that any of the tactics that you are referring to can broadly impact the automobile market. And as a specific example of that, many countries either do not respect the patent process that you refer to with "Patent Trolls" or the enforcement in the country is so lax that the country might as well not be part of the process. And many more countries are more likely to only enforce infringement that is blinding obvious.
Wow, so you can't argue against the Patent issues so you claim now that patents aren't enforced and that patents do not apply to automobiles. Lets go back to your first issue. References[^]. References[^]. References[^]
jschell wrote:
Sorry? Are you claiming that the battery market has NOT been actively creating and marketing batteries that last longer for years?
No, because again you do not know how to read. Not even going to reference the posts. Go back and figure it out yourself. The thought excersize was meant for you, but clearly your brain does not excersize enough so you stumbled and got hung up on the hypothetical details.
jschell wrote:
Thought I made it clear...I will try again...
Please read the following carefully...I reject the assumption itself of a battery with an infinit -
jschell wrote:
First obviously the battery market is not hypothetical.
Not about the market. It is about the situation. You again, clearly have not the ability to play thought games.
jschell wrote:
And my point is that you are wrong. And your Durcell example specifically demonstrates that you are wrong.
Actually it means you can't read.
jschell wrote:
And your assertions on that topic are nonsense. In any number of ways especially as it applies to the automobile market. There is NO way that any of the tactics that you are referring to can broadly impact the automobile market. And as a specific example of that, many countries either do not respect the patent process that you refer to with "Patent Trolls" or the enforcement in the country is so lax that the country might as well not be part of the process. And many more countries are more likely to only enforce infringement that is blinding obvious.
Wow, so you can't argue against the Patent issues so you claim now that patents aren't enforced and that patents do not apply to automobiles. Lets go back to your first issue. References[^]. References[^]. References[^]
jschell wrote:
Sorry? Are you claiming that the battery market has NOT been actively creating and marketing batteries that last longer for years?
No, because again you do not know how to read. Not even going to reference the posts. Go back and figure it out yourself. The thought excersize was meant for you, but clearly your brain does not excersize enough so you stumbled and got hung up on the hypothetical details.
jschell wrote:
Thought I made it clear...I will try again...
Please read the following carefully...I reject the assumption itself of a battery with an infinitCollin Jasnoch wrote:
Wow, so you can't argue against the Patent issues so you claim now that patents aren't enforced and that patents do not apply to automobiles.
I have repeatedly pointed out what it is not applicable to the ENTIRE world wide market. And explained that in detail. I can only suppose that you think that absolutely every jurisdiction in the world is subject to exactly the same intellectual property rights. That is the only reason I can suppose that you think it is relevant.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
No, because again you do not know how to read. .... The thought excersize was meant for you
I already said that I was discussing reality not fantasy. It doesn't matter how you package the idea it doesn't alter the fact that I already rejected it as being relevant. Repeatedly. I suggest you yourself should read better.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Yep you must be right. Using hypothetical cases does not get science anywhere.
Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Your only argument thus far is that my hypothetical situations are fantasy, which by definition they are. Who cares?
There are only two people in this sub-thread. Since I specify do care and reject it I can only suppose that you think that it is relevant to convince yourself of your own argument.
