MEDICAL SCIENCENeed to make the stance of this site ‘upfront and clear’ -it is time the wider Scientific Communityinsisted that the Medical Science Communityconduct medical research in accordance withgenuine ‘scientific rigour’ and not ‘scientific rigor-mortis’ - that is, allow/encourage the on-going asking of questions, discussion and debate,rather than no (further) questions, no (wide) discussion, and (defintiely) no debate.NOT TO SAY ALL BADPlenty of good Medical Science around,with some astounding results - eg artifical limbs/lenses.And I am happy that the medical services are available when needed -but not as the be-all and end-all of ‘health’,because there’s plenty no not like.5 YEAR ‘HALF-LIFE’Of all the Medical Science ‘known today’,half of it will be irrelevant/superseded in 5 years time -that is, the Medical ‘definiteness’ of today is about half-right!This is where Medical Science in particular ‘suffers’ from ‘rigor-mortis’ -that is, so often adament that current knowledge is ‘fact’,rather than being more ‘scientific’ in that ‘pure science’ is more accurately defined as a collection of theories that need continual ‘re-testing’.‘SLY-ENCE’As more outlined below, Medical Science often uses ‘science’ very slyly -‘that is, too often uses ‘Sly-ence’.NOT FOLLOWING ‘BEST PRACTICE’The crux of needing to be better is in the ‘bending of rules’ to suit outcomes.For instance, not using ‘genuinely neutral’ placebos in trials, eg - using the existing versions of a drug as the ‘placebo’ for the newer version, or- using an ‘unrelated’ drug as the ‘placebo’ for a new drug.Considering the insistence by Medical Science that ‘neutral placebo’ is the gold standard of research,then it needs to do such on its own insistence.CLAIMS ‘BETTER THAN NATURE’Interesting when nature is where it gets all of its ingredients from.FOCUS ON PATENTS NOT PATIENTSIf something is not patentable, then it is highly unlikely to be of use to Medical Science.Shows underlying interest in financial gain - and possible Noble prize/s -than for genuinely positive health outcomes.INSISTENCE ON CLINICAL-ONLY DATANeeding its own page … click tap for Clinical v FieldIMPORTANCE OF ‘EVIDENCE’Also needing its own page … click tap for Control of ‘Evidence’COINCIDENCE OF NEGATIVESAlong with control of ‘evidence’ and focusing only on positives,any negative outcomes are ‘downplayed’ - especially through the use of ‘just coincidence’ as a common form of ‘scientific’ explanation.DECADES LONG LIES Remember how Medical Science ‘proved’ there wasNO LINK between smoking tobacco and ill-health - including any link at all with lung disease, especially cancer/s?Heck - it was even good for the lungs - especially menthol cigarettes!Then after decades of these medical denials, Medical Science finally had to admit there were very direct links and that was medically-known for a very long time.Or how long it took for the link between ‘Agent Orange’and illnesses in ‘Veitnam Service Personnel’ was admitted by Medical Science? -let alone the damage it must have also done to the local population!Or how there was ‘nothing unhealthy about asbestos’?Or that Thalidamide was good for pregnant women?TAKES TIME TO KNOWWhich leads to a very important question …what is currently stated as being ‘medically safe’ that will be future-admitted/proven as not being safeAND is currently known to be not safe?Unfortunately, Medical Science has a history of LYING,so we will probably not know for years - or more likely decades to come -before current lies are ‘exposed’, let alone admitted to. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~(Back) To …Main List of ‘Our View of Health’ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~WARNING:“SteveKineez”.Health may make it easier for you to form positive changes within and to your health/life.“SteveKineez” ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~(Back) To …Steve “Kineez” Whole Site OverviewSite-Wide Disclaimer and Copyright Notices