Obviously its a massive redundancy to say; that it is the professional cancer specialists and their sycophants, that are going against the scientific method here. Not Joanne and myself. Just to review:
1. All evidence is scientific evidence. There is no demarcation.
2. Evidence is merely data, applied for-or-against a SPECIFIC hypothesis, through a process of logic and human reason.
3. The scientific method involves marshaling evidence for or against competing hypotheses (or paradigms) in parallel. There must be two or more competing hypotheses to be even having a legitimate discussion about science or evidence. Three ought to be considered a minimum from a professional point of view. Four-Six is better, even if a couple of them are dummy hypotheses.
4. No-one has any business being in denial of any available evidence at all. All evidence ought to be considered. There is a lot of loose talk about “anecdotal” evidence. All evidence counts. But in the final analysis rightful certitude only comes from CONVERGENT EVIDENCE. Evidence that comes in from different and independent angles. You can be very sure of something, though no single piece of evidence is totally righteous, if you have many lines of convergent evidence.
5. Official stolen money or big Pharma studies are not evidence without a specific hypothesis. They are not. You might think they are but they are not. Science sentiment doesn’t count. Only factual data related to a specific hypothesis through a process of reason counts as evidence. No amount of clinical trials are evidence if you don’t have that three-way relationship. And to develop that three-way relationship you need THE CONCRETE FACTS OF THE STUDY. You can do nothing without the concrete facts of the study.
A summary showing little more than the sentiment of the reviewer, or the experimenters, is insufficient. This is not a moral or ideological point of view. Its a practical one. Since evidence is only evidence if you have data, a specific hypothesis, and one related to the other via human reason ….. it ought to be obvious that you cannot put this package together, if you are vague on the concrete facts of the experiment. There is simply no getting around this. What was done specifically? What were the specific results?
Consequently, most loose talk about “peer reviewed literature” in practice, has almost no evidential value at all. Because, for the most part, the concrete specifics are unavailable, and/or the proponent would be too lazy to break the facts down and go through the process of reason …. even if the concrete facts were available, for him to be able to do so.
It might come as a surprise to you that most of this chatter about, and based on, “peer reviewed literature” is close-to-worthless, but there you have it.
6. Studies on rats do not constitute powerfully effective evidence even with a specific hypothesis. This is the case even if the concrete facts of the study are known.
Still if the concrete facts of the study are known, it ought to be a fairly simple matter of making inferences for or against a specific hypothesis. BUT IF THE CONCRETE FACTS OF THE STUDY ARE UNKNOWN, or if they are known but the process of reason is not applied scrupulously ….. then even if the clinical trials were to cost 100 million dollars, and even if these trials involved a thousand certified phd’s, then the use of these trials in ones “argument” would constitute weak evidence indeed.
7. If you are not totally without perspicacity you ought to be able to tell when there is institutional skewing going on. When accusations are made …….. but try as you might………… you cannot suss out what the specific hypothesis is …. this is a sign of institutional skewing.
I’m particularly disappointed with Edney on this score. Because he was oblivious when it came to special relativity. He finally seemed to slowly be coming around on global warming, having started out as stupid as a bag of hammers. And he was quite good with the oceanic alkalinity story, even legitimately picking me up on a couple of pointers. So this time around I would have thought he would have noticed the totally one-sided tribal nature of the propaganda against B7. To call it “institutional skewing” is to heap on this unscience all the great praise I can.
KANGEN WATER. THE STORY OF THE RATS AND THE STORY OF THE CHICKS.
Let me give you an example of number 6. I’m referring to these two trials as “stories” since thats all they amount to from an evidential perspective, until-and-unless …. we come into possession of all the concrete facts of each study.
There was a trial with Kangen water on baby chicks in two congested hatcheries side-by-side. The chicks with the Kangen water had a far greater survival rate. Were healthier, grew bigger and faster.
Another study was with rats. The rats had some problems. They developed lesions. What specific hypothesis do these dimly known facts go for or against?
Taking the second example given to me by a Catallaxian, there is no evidence at all that this rats study goes against anything I’ve said. The Catallaxian implied that I hadn’t been reading the scientific reports. In fact that is about all that I had been doing.
So what evidence is there either way? Alkaline water is dangerous if you drink it before, during or after you eat protein. Since we are not supposed to have protein in our bloodstream. We are supposed to break protein up into amino acids prior to absorbing it into our bloodstream.
The body treats protein as an invading pathogen. It starts attacking the protein as if it were a bacterial and viral infection. You develop food allergies. Your immune system is compromised. And so you are prone to developing symptoms of those diseases like AIDS where the quacks reckon the immune system is attacking the body. Despite not being sure the quacks are correct here, these are the symptoms you are going to bring down on your head, if you work real hard to mix up strong protein ingestion with destroying your stomach acidity with alkaline water. If you have an alkaliser and the kids aren’t scrupulous on this matter, you must take it away from them. I cannot stress the importance of this enough.
So where is the evidence with the rats example, that is for or against anything I’ve lectured about on this blog?
The evidence is not there. Because evidence is only evidence if we are talking data (broadly considered) related to an hypothesis (narrowly considered) by a process of human reason (competently engaged in).
So Joanne has competently brought forth strong evidence indeed (PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITNESSED FIRST-HAND NO LESS) for what I’ve been telling you guys. Its been a massive help to me. To my confidence that I’m on the right track. And why? Because the quality of the evidence she brings is so righteous. And because the evidence she brings IS CONVERGENT EVIDENCE.
Whereas Edney, Cambria, and the Catallaxians have brought us no evidence at all against the hypotheses that I have being expounding on. I’m not being absolutist here. I’m not exaggerating. It is a fact that they have brought no evidence at all. Nothing. Zip. Because evidence requires a specific hypothesis, data, the one related to the other by human reason. If any of that is missing it doesn’t so much as constitute evidence.
Now what is my best guess about the different results, on the surface of things, between the trials with the baby chicks, and the rats? Well rats don’t know when they are supposed to use and avoid the alkaline water do they??? Fucking obviously not. Yes they got lesions.
LESIONS: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE RATS, COMPARED TO THE EXPERIENCE OF EARLY-80’S GAY AIDS SUFFERERS.
So do AIDS sufferers. So did those AIDS sufferers who absorbed multiple different proteins, in the form of sperm and blood, as well as fecal material, and innumerable viruses …. through their rectum. And they took all sorts of drugs, including nitrates, and spent all night dancing, using uppers and poppers, and then treated themselves with anti-biotics.
Anti-biotics encourage the growth of L-form bacteria. They encourage the growing power and resistance in formerly prosaic pathogens. All the drugs and constant bouts of sickness would also lead to reduced pH, which would lead to even normal pathogens coming fully alive and going into rapid action like they tend to do in your low-pH mouth.
So the rats got lesions. So did the gay early-80’s party-boy humans. This is all evidence in support of stuff that I’ve been telling you. But then we don’t know the concrete facts about the study on the rats. We don’t know what they were eating and the timing of their eating and drinking the ionised water.
Well then how about the baby chicks?
A LOW-PROTEIN VEGETARIAN DIET?
One imagines that the chicks were brought up in controlled conditions and were given almost exclusively low-protein plant material to eat. You throw all the scraps out to the chickens in the chook pen on the farm. But when you are hatching baby chicks, in cramped conditions, by the many thousands, you would presumably give them a vegetarian diet.
So there you are. The rats get the lesions, thanks to their stomach acid being destroyed when they are trying to digest stronger proteins. But the chicks are on a vegetarian diet and therefore get all the gains from alkalised water, and yet none of the problems, that the rats did.
Thats what we assume anyway. From our position of near total ignorance of the concrete facts involved with both studies. You see we don’t have the concrete details.
CIVILIANS AND SCIENCE WORKERS ALIKE TYPICALLY GOING OFF THE DEEP END.
So many people make hay out of the “peer reviewed literature” without having the concrete details or relating these to a specific hypothesis. If they did not act in this way, the global warming fraud could never have happened. Since the peer reviewed literature, properly-considered, supports the idea that CO2-emissions are good for the biosphere (although coal-electricity generation has at least POTENTIALLY many nasty by-products ….. CO2 itself is a good by-product).
So please. Can we follow the scientific method from here on in. Edney try harder. You too Cambria. Constantly haranguing me with unscientific stupidity, and claiming you are taking the scientific position, because of “respected peer reviewed journals” ……………… Well this sort of stupidity is just plain rude. Particularly when we are seeing a pandemic of this sort of nuttiness right now.