Mr Bill Gates - conscious stage green philanthropist OR dangerous, shady elitist?

[Forestluv]

34 minutes ago, DrewNows said:

@Serotoninluv Im sorry but if you aren't willing to learn a new language if not but simply to challenge it, then tough rocks. Id rather hear about your perceived nonsense in whatever i share rather than your made up nonsense to make a point. I value understanding over debate, like you im sure...accept nothing, question everything. This modality definitely does not appeal to authority

Naturally to be aware of the inherent flaws in all models and systems of communication but that doesn't mean one model can be used to tear apart/down the content of another...i'd love to see you "go there" with me to question this model of healing used to save so many chronically ill people because i believe it holds great promise for the future of our world, directly connecting spirituality to physical body, diseases and all healing modalities as a whole

You are interpreting what I am saying in a particular way that is contracted.

The main point is that I am not saying you are completely wrong and that everything you have posted is completely wrong. My impression is that your mind has created two opposing, and mutually exclusive, theories - theory A or theory B. Whenever I write something, you seem to be categorizing that into either theory A (which you agree with) or theory B (which you disagree with). Such a binary construct makes it very difficult to discuss and communicate pros and cons of multiple theories, nuances and inter-relationships. For example, if I point out a deficiency in theory A, you seem to assume that I disagree with theory A and that I therefor agree with the opposing theory B. 

I agree with you that alternative medicine has great potential. I’ve engaged in alternative medicine. I agree with you that various alternative diets and detoxes can have health benefits., This is the frustrating part for me. The misinformation I’m pointing out does not reduce or dismiss the value of alternative medicine, detoxes etc. The misinformation is totally unneeded. In fact, removing the misinformation, or clarifying it and integrating it, would greatly increase the understanding and value. You would not need to reject the core component of your beliefs. It’s not a competition. I would actually like to see much more scientific research invested in alternative medicine. 

To create the accurate holistic models it’s best to integrate accurate information. If we were to create a fusion band of jazz and classical music - we would bring together the best musicians that have expertise in jazz and classical music. We wouldn’t deny the best classical musicians because we are afraid that means we need to reject jazz. And we wouldn’t have all jazz musicians that spout off nonsense about classical music like “Mozart never existed. We cannot have anything related to Mozart in our jazz-classical fusion band”. 

What I am saying is that your links bring up some nice “jazz music” of value to the band, yet it is sprinkled with some nonsense about classical music, because the musicians are not classical musicians and don’t understand it. And then you keep saying that I’m a closed-minded classical music lover that is anti-jazz.  It’s not a competitive conflict between jazz and classical. I think you would be much better off just going with the jazz or integrating jazz and classical together. But what you’ve got now is some nice jazz music mixed with some really bad classical music. 

[Consept]

1 minute ago, DrewNows said:

What else do we have to work with other than narratives and testimonials? We get stuck only at the road we are unwilling to walk. The highest truth is that which allows us to walk any road (whether that be conspiracies or the allopathic perspective) full of compassion and free of resistance. Anyways that’s just my insight, appreciate your maturity always, and apologize if it’s not always my style of communication haha. As a reminder sometimes going down these rabbit holes aren’t for the intentions of closing old doors/beliefs but to open as many doors as is available without worry of non acceptance, going insane, or even being ostracized. Life’s too short not to bring passion to every endeavor, am I right!? ??  

 

All good man, i completely get where youre coming from and its a long road for all of us. But i think pointing out where there are holes in your logic does ultimately help you along that road, it can be a hit to the ego but you know fuck that guy anyway lol. I just wanted to post this video because its exactly how i felt when i heard looked into this Bill gates stuff - 

 

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

24 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Please don’t conflate what I say. 

There are two issue you brought up. One was regarding the strength of evidence regarding germ theory. I said that germ theory is fundamentally states the existence of pathogenic microbes and that no medical expert would argue against this essentially irrefutable evidence. If you are speaking to people that argue against this fundamental tenant of the theory, then they would not be considered medical experts. I’ve spent 30 years of my life within the scientific community, it’s my career. And I can tell you that anyone who argues against the fundamental tenants of germ theory would not be considered a medical expert within the scientific community. That’s not to say that medical experts can add in nuances. I’m talking about what makes germ theory germ theory: the existence of pathogenic microbes. And scientists don’t argues that a theory has not been “proven”. That term is rarely used by scientists. We use terminology like “support” or “demonstrates” or “statistically significant”. For example, I could say that there is immense empirical data supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution. I could also say that the theory has been expanded and we now know greater details of the mechanisms of evolution, such as underlying genetics. Yet a scientist wouldn’t really say that the theory has not been “proven”. It would be like a physicist saying the Law of Gravity hasn’t been “proven”. The fundamental framework is sound and we build upon it. 

The second issue had to do with vaccines. In terms of science - an immense number of studies have been conducted and reviewed by experts in the field. There is now a consensus within the scientific community. In scientific terms, by saying you have a problem with those studies, would place yourself on the same level as experts that have reviewed the studies and countless scientific experts that have read the studies. For example, you may criticize studies due to small sample sizes, insufficient controls, lack of blind studies, usage of T-tests rather than Anova etc. That is certainly possible, yet these factors have been rigorously examined by many experts in the field. I would be cautious of what you are claiming here as you may be entering Dunning-Kruger territory. Alternatively, you may be claiming you have problems with the scientific consensus for non-scientific reasons. I would also be cautious here as you may be entering conspiracy theories. For example, one may say the studies were biased due to a conspiracy to pressure researchers to publish certain results to continue the vaccine system. Or, I suppose we could take a transcendent view and question the efficacy of studies contracted within a materialist paradigm - yet that doesn’t seem to be the level of conversation in this thread. 

Again, I disagree. There is plenty of scientific evidence that shows the limitations of that pro-vaccine research.

Let me just drop this here:

https://vaxxter.com/

 

 

[Consept]

4 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

Again, I disagree. There is plenty of scientific evidence that shows the limitations of that pro-vaccine research.

Let me just drop this here:

https://vaxxter.com/

 

 

@Serotoninluv right now

Edited April 15, 2020 by Consept

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

Again, I disagree. There is plenty of scientific evidence that shows the limitations of that pro-vaccine research.

Let me just drop this here:

https://vaxxter.com/

This is an anti-vaxxer website that proudly claims they are anti-vaxxer.

These are not publications in science journals that were peer-reviewed by experts in the field.

Again, I’m not saying there are no concerns about vaccines. Yet, if you want to make scientific claims, then use the highest scientific sources (primary articles in peer-reviewed journals).

For example, this is a peer-reviewed scientific article of a meta-analysis of studies conducted with over 1.2 million children. There was no significant correlation with vaccines and autism.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

[LfcCharlie4]

1 hour ago, roar said:

Please develop some critical sense for yourself 

I have thank you. 
 

hence why I’m able to listen to many, many teachers with an open mind, and listen to sources regarding Covid-19 from many many sources in regards to the nature of the virus, how we can prevent the virus, how we can protect ourself from the virus, supplements, how to boost overall health etc, I don’t just listen to Icke and believe everything he says, he has his opinions, but it’s always advisable to listen to both sides. 
 

That’s why a podcast like London Real has been so great recently, he’s had people like Icke on, who doubt the existence of Covid-19 and have his theories, then he has multiple doctors on around natural healing and how we can protect ourselves, and then he also has had The likes of Sadhguru and Wim Hof on, his podcast has been amazing recently. 
 

Ive enjoyed diving deeper into Ickes work, as I never really did before. And, I know 99% of people here would’ve maybe watched one video, and never read his books or anything like that, so from that vantage point it’s quite unfair to judge. 
 

Im currently reading one of his books, and it raises some very interesting points regarding the nature of reality, our true self, religion, alternative healing etc, and we haven’t even got to the conspiracy part yet! 
 

I wouldn’t regard him as fully Self-Realised- I.e.- Ramana Maharshi, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille etc, however he has clearly had several awakenings, and has done 30 years worth of research with many of the things he has been saying being brought to the light recently. 
 

Critical sense involves having the open mindedness to dive into ideas that “scare” you or challenge your paradigm. 
 

For example, I would’ve never ever even looked into the potential of Climate Change being used for a political agenda, or how Agenda 21 is being played out in front of our eyes, at the least it’s eye opening. 

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

These are not publications in science journals that were peer-reviewed by experts in the field.

Dude, at least try to put in some effort.

Its in the research library, its all there. You have to register to access but its free.

[DrewNows]

19 minutes ago, Consept said:

All good man, i completely get where youre coming from and its a long road for all of us. But i think pointing out where there are holes in your logic does ultimately help you along that road, it can be a hit to the ego but you know fuck that guy anyway lol. I just wanted to post this video because its exactly how i felt when i heard looked into this Bill gates stuff - 

amen and yes it's funny i don't live by (identify with) the narratives i explore, even if they are what i share, i'd rather remain in the unknown. I respect different strokes for different folks so ill entertain such but rather live with high vibes (childlike curiosity); personally i feel nothing but love for this nerdy fella, and i see evil as a behavior (nothing but a misguided/fearful soul) afraid to admit we can never be defined, are not and will never be solely the hand we've been given

hehehe the video made me giggle, don't forget this is (somehow) his karma  

who knows maybe the information age is turning into the age of accountability

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by DrewNows

[Forestluv]

14 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

Dude, at least try to put in some effort.

Its in the research library, its all there. You have to register to access but its free.

Lol. The “research library” is for members only. None of the articles on their main blog are actual research articles. They are all opinion pieces. 

Give me a direct link to your best peer-reviewed source. I’ve already given you a peer-reviewed meta analysis. Here is another from the highest medical journal in the world: The Journal of the American Medical Association showing direct links to their peer-reviewed articles on vaccines and autism.

https://jamanetwork.com/searchresults?q=Vaccine autism&allSites=1&SearchSourceType=1&exPrm_qqq={!payloadDisMaxQParser pf=Tags qf=Tags^0.0000001 payloadFields=Tags bf=}"Vaccine autism"&exPrm_hl.q=Vaccine autism

If you want to play the science game, you would be on the losing side. As I said, the scientific consensus based on the vast majority of scientific research disagrees with you. 

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I’m not going to hunt through an anti-Vaxxer website for articles that may be peer-reviewed. Give me a direct link to your best peer-reviewed source. I’ve already given you a peer-reviewed meta analysis. Here is another from the highest medical journal in the world: The Journal of the American Medical Association showing direct links to their peer-reviewed articles on vaccines and autism.

https://jamanetwork.com/searchresults?q=Vaccine autism&allSites=1&SearchSourceType=1&exPrm_qqq={!payloadDisMaxQParser pf=Tags qf=Tags^0.0000001 payloadFields=Tags bf=}"Vaccine autism"&exPrm_hl.q=Vaccine autism

If you want to play the science game, you would be on the losing side. As I said, the scientific consensus based on the vast majority of scientific research disagrees with you. 

Haha, no I'm not interested in playing the game of scientism with you. And thats precisely what it is, its a game.

In that research library is a plethora of peer-reviewed studies by experts in the field that show harm in vaccines. If you don't want to hunt through it, I could care less. But its all there. Linking me more research doesn't negate the validity of the research I provided you with. Yeah, the vast majority of scientific research around vaccines is bunk dude. Vaccine companies do their own research for crying out loud, wake up. 

Again, I disagree so I'm just going to end my participation in this fruitless effort.

Edited April 15, 2020 by TrynaBeTurquoise

[Derek White]

@Serotoninluv There is a "how do you do your research?" thread in self-actualization. You should tell how to do proper research in that thread considering the misinformation, wild theorizing going on in the forum. It's your responsibility as a moderator and scientist to educate folks.

 

[Consept]

10 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

Haha, no I'm not interested in playing the game of scientism with you. And thats precisely what it is, its a game.

In that research library is a plethora of peer-reviewed studies by experts in the field that show harm in vaccines. If you don't want to hunt through it, I could care less. But its all there. Linking me more research doesn't negate the validity of the research I provided you with. Yeah, the vast majority of scientific research around vaccines is bunk dude. Vaccine companies do their own research for crying out loud, wake up. 

Again, I disagree so I'm just going to end my participation in this fruitless effort.

@TrynaBeTurquoise for the win!!! Close one but great knock out punch at the bell

[Forestluv]

21 minutes ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

In that research library is a plethora of peer-reviewed studies by experts in the field that show harm in vaccines. If you don't want to hunt through it, I could care less. But its all there. Linking me more research doesn't negate the validity of the research I provided you with. Yeah, the vast majority of scientific research around vaccines is bunk dude. Vaccine companies do their own research for crying out loud, wake up. 

Lol, the “research library” is for members only. I’m not going to become a member of an anti-Vaxxer organization. If there are so many links, just send me a couple. It only takes a second to cut and paste. 

You don’t seem to understand the structure of scientific research and the publication process in developed countries. Yes, many studies are conducted by pharmaceuticals and there are ethical concerns (I posted a link about bad science above). However, much of the research is conducted by non-profit universities. And publications are peer-reviewed by experts in the field that are independent of the pharmaceutical industry.

Can pharmaceuticals do bad science and slip through some poor studies? Yes. Do pharmaceuticals have an unethical conflict of interest that can bias there results? Yes. Have pharmaceuticals been caught omitting data points to better portray a drug they want to go to market? Yes. I wrote about this ethical concern above. For example, with Tamiflu.

However, what you are proposing is not limited to a pharmaceutical company or companies. What you are proposing would be a broad pro-vaccine conspiracy that involves the entire scientific community - including academic institutions and scientific journals. 

As well, vaccine development has a relatively low conflict of interest in pharmaceuticals because vaccines are not profitable. The profit margins are super low and there is little incentive for pharmaceuticals to invest in vaccine development. In particular, because it is “one and done”. Much more profitable are medications for recurring and chronic illness such as hypertension medication because the patients need the medication everyday. Here there is an enormous conflict of interest. Pharmaceuticals invest 100s of millions of dollars by the time they get to stage IV clinical trials. There is enormous financial pressure to generate research results to get the drug to market. Yet this conflict of interest is much much weaker for vaccines because they aren’t very profitable. 

Here is another meta analysis reviewing a wide-range of research. It addresses adverse effects of vaccines. In fact, the title is “Adverse Effects of Vaccines”. It also reviews both safety and potential dangers.

https://www.nap.edu/resource/13164/Adverseeffectsofvaccinesreportbrief.pdf

Again, I am not saying vaccines are 100% safe for 100% of people.

[Forestluv]

@Derek White That thread seems to be about online research related to personal development. There is some overlap between the scientific method/research and this type of research, yet I don’t want to derail the thread with scientific structure. For example, if I was doing online research to learn about how the visual system processes facial recognition, I would probably go to pubmed or google search for neuroscience articles from reputable sources. As well, I may look for videos produced by experts in the field. After one days it for a while, you start to get a feel for high quality sources. 

Perhaps I’ll make a few general comments because we all do the research and the scientific method everyday without realizing it. Plus, I’m noticing more and more how difficult it is to discover quality sources. 

[Milos Uzelac]

13 hours ago, Rilles said:

this is such a popcorn thread?

Chocolate thread for me shared that 13 hours ago moment with you. Damn the distraction is intense, and I ought to study now. Consumerist woes. Justifying myself on keeping scrolling in order to find some useful sources to stack up on to read later.

[Milos Uzelac]

@Serotoninluv Thanks for the sources you supplied here on this thread. I Will set aside time to read some of them later and take some notes, basically to stack up on some arguments if I encounter some conspiracy theories narratives popping up or being pushed to me in my environment in the few days to carefully and consciously try to dissect and dispel them without causing an emotional backlash for me the person that might be in question.

[Scholar]

So far in this thread, @Serotoninluv wrote 5,461 words as responses to mainly to 4 individuals ( @Tobia @DrewNows @TrynaBeTurquoise @LaucherJunge ), from these people it seems like one, @Tobia was successfully educated.

All his opponents combined wrote mere 1,693 words.

 

 

A self-help book contains from about 30,000 to 70,000 words.

[DrewNows]

@Scholar way to point out the relevant facts, glad to see someone keep score  

@Serotoninluvmy apologies ill reply to your response here soon enough, hadn’t  realized your post and once I had I got busy! 
 

The level of patience and understanding here by some is very pleasant indeed 

Edited April 15, 2020 by DrewNows

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, Scholar said:

So far in this thread, @Serotoninluv wrote 5,461 words as responses to mainly to 4 individuals ( @Tobia @DrewNows @TrynaBeTurquoise @LaucherJunge ), from these people it seems like one, @Tobia was successfully educated.

All his opponents combined wrote mere 1,693 words.

 

 

A self-help book contains from about 30,000 to 70,000 words.

Haha. Thanks for quantifying that my efforts were highly inefficient. It’s a good reminder to me. I can get sucked into vortexes. Hopefully, someone else may have benefited. 

Just yesterday, I wondered if I could write a book. I have several ideas. Yet I though “How could I come up with enough material to write an entire book”. And here I am now - I just wrote 10% of a book without even trying. ? 

Part of it for me is passion. I often feel passion to express and articulate understanding. As well, I am a teacher by profession so I am used to talking on and on and on. . . . I’ve taught classes in which I lost track of time. Students are packing their bags and I say “Did two hours go by already?”. For me, it’s like a flow state of consciousness. For the students, they often struggle to maintain attention. 

As an aside, for those of you looking into life purpose. . . When you are doing something that you lose yourself into and lose track of time - that’s a really good sign. Ever since I was a teenager, I would get immersed into abstraction and learning/creating concepts and wanting to articulate understanding through analogies. It’s a core part of my creative mind. 

[Consept]

18 minutes ago, Milos Uzelac said:

@Serotoninluv Thanks for the sources you supplied here on this thread. I Will set aside time to read some of them later and take some notes, basically to stack up on some arguments if I encounter some conspiracy theories narratives popping up or being pushed to me in my environment in the few days to carefully and consciously try to dissect and dispel them without causing an emotional backlash for me the person that might be in question.

This discussion was never about a science or anything evidence based, as in i believe A heres the evidence and you believe B heres your evidence, lets see what parts of your evidence are correct and what parts of mine are correct and then we can come to belief C which is either a mixture of both or one or the other wholesale. If it was that it wouldve been over very quickly. So i wouldnt advise you to do that with conspiracy theorists.

What you should is look at it from an epistemological level, with questions like how did you come to your belief, what evidence would be needed to change your belief. So really you want to look at the structure upon which their belief is built on (this doesnt just go for theorists it can be for any belief thats held to as a truth), if the structure is faulty then that will be very obvious. For example a christian might say 'i believe in god cos the bible says so' then you might say 'well does believing in a god because a book says a good way to establish truth, what about the bhagavad gita does that make that true as well?', which of course is impossible for them to answer if they want to stick to their narrative and reason for belief. Im simplifying it but i hope that makes sense.

Theres guy on youtube who does street epistemology that i like, this will give you a better idea -