25 Comments:

1. 

   tobiaslarsgunnar / November 11, 2009 7:54 pm

   Yes, truly ‘objective’ science would not be influenced by ’seniority and Personalities’. Personalities/Egos are so obviously protective of themselves and by extension their ‘own ideas’. The ‘followers’ then support their ‘authority’.
   This negates it being true science when this is involved – so until the human is ‘clear, enlightened, ‘fresh eyes’ , no agendas (whatever words you’d like to use, and they are ‘uncomfortable’ for many scientists
2. 

   sinmantyx / November 11, 2009 7:57 pm

   Oh – nevermind – you think Dr. Mercola is an “expert”.

   One molecule of mercury is going to do SQUAT – which is why the FDA allows Homeopathic “Doctors” to sell nothing for money – because it’s not going to actually harm anyone. Why don’t you go pick on them – they are selling dilute poisons (so dilute as to no contain anything) packaged as “medication” and “natural therapies”.
3. 

   tobiaslarsgunnar / November 11, 2009 7:57 pm

   since then we enter the realm of ‘consciousness’ that thorn in the side of the game of ’scientism’.
   But if we are honest we need to include it in our study of the world around us. Our Minds ( and hearts (oooh, even scarier) do affect the world around us, and obviously our perception of it) .
   So I say to Science – please admit you have ‘prejudices’ ( i.e. for ex. consciousness is NOT a factor in our experiments would be a big assumption in many experiments) – that would be one prejudice.
4. 

   tobiaslarsgunnar / November 11, 2009 8:00 pm

   I respect ‘true science’ – but it’s seldom seen in my view.
   We must have a larger approach now, larger inclusive perspective – not a reductionist mechanistic model of our selves and ’science’.
   We must include the ‘viewer’ and consciousness when ‘Observing’ what occurs around us. A deeper, bigger model that will explode ‘old sciences’ ways – just like any ‘ism’ needs to be transcended.
   Really a new era of a new ‘Enlightenment’.
5. 

   sinmantyx / November 11, 2009 8:01 pm

   Explain to me how that is possible?

   Scientists have a goal of being as objective as possible. Part of attempting to be objective is to be introspective concerning possible biases.

   However, regardless of how senior or how well-respected a person is – if the evidence does not hold, that person’s work will eventually be marginalized.

   If this were not so, we would all believe that gyroscopes create anti-gravity. I’m sure we’d still believe in Vulcan as well – since Newton is so well thought of.
6. 

   sinmantyx / November 11, 2009 8:06 pm

   Oh boy. I should have seen that coming.

   You into “consciousness studies”? I find them a bit intriguing to a degree – but on the face of it, it just smacks of a bunch of philosophers taking quantum physics to some ridiculous extreme.

   Well, we’ll see if you can create some interesting models and form predictive hypothesis based on them. Good luck with that. (Seriously.)
7. 

   sinmantyx / November 11, 2009 8:09 pm

   Realize though that the allure of “new science” or breaking the “old science” ways, can sometimes lead people to grasp onto pet theories for no other real reason than those theories being novel.

   I see it all the time. The revolutionary scientist archetype of so venerated that individuals will try to emulate that, despite evidence and sound ideas – not because of them.
8. 

   sinmantyx / November 11, 2009 8:14 pm

   btw – Dr. Rashid Buttar (who treats cancer and autism with detoxification) is in trouble with his state medical association and he’s whining that they are being unfair.

   Surprise! Surprise!

   From his website: “Our treatments are so effective, that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth.”

   So, that’s one person claiming that detoxification cures Autism.
9. 

   tobiaslarsgunnar / November 11, 2009 8:17 pm

   Science was a game that I left – found it too confining.
   Yes, and direct experience does short cut the ‘looking outward’ for ‘evidence’. (our reflection)
   But this a ‘giant leap for mankind’ and we are just starting to toy with it.
   I agree with your comment below about pet theories and extremes….so a balance, a meeting ground, a real growth of true Science merging with ‘the Observer’
   I see it coming – but some ‘battles’ before we get there.
   all the best – and good luck w/ your pursuits.
10. 

    tobiaslarsgunnar / November 11, 2009 8:21 pm

    but I agree with your observation that many people are panic, emotion TV driven and really don’t have the capacity to understand something as simple as ‘Dosages’. Sad but true. And keep up the good fight for trying to shed some light on that.
    I am also saying that to keep moving forward into a New Science, a bigger Science – long term effects, larger picture, Observer Effect etc. must be included.
11. 

    sinmantyx / November 11, 2009 8:35 pm

    Good luck to you as well.
12. 

    C0nc0rdance / November 12, 2009 12:50 am

    What is the pathway for converting ethylmercury to methylmercury? Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? You didn’t even spell methylmercury correctly.

    The two are very distinct, have very different half-lives, and different toxicities.
13. 

    sinmantyx / November 13, 2009 5:18 am

    Hey – don’t be hating on bad spellers. I’m pretty sure I have spelled thermosel about five different ways.

    I, however, also have no idea where anyone would get the idea that ethylmercury converts into methylmercury – unless someone left a typo somewhere.
14. 

    willbxtn / November 13, 2009 7:53 pm

    Firstly, awesome video dude!

    Secondly, I support vaccination whole-heartedly, and I CANNOT be accused of being brain-washed by Big Pharma or the media – I get my news from the remarkably reliable Private Eye, and my training is in Civil Engineering – the latter gives me an accurate understanding of the scientific method and a great admiration for its reliability.

    Oh, and I reckon Sparticus is annoyed as some kids laughed at his tin-foil hat… =P
15. 

    WakingUpCanada / November 16, 2009 5:57 pm

    This shit is garbage,
    Fluoridated water is POISONOUS WATER, period!
    It has no benefit to our health what so ever, in fact the TRUE fact is that it damages the human mind and body; SCIENTIFIC fact. Don’t make this bullshit video to convince that it doesn’t matter the airplanes spray in the sky, or mercury in vaccine, or pesticide on food. The fact is it is all dangerous and bad for humans, fuck off with ur bullshit tryin to convince ppl otherwise!

    youtube . com / wakingupcanada < THE TRUTH
16. 

    C0nc0rdance / November 16, 2009 6:15 pm

    It seems you are reacting on an emotional level, rather than any kind of thoughtful, rational approach.

    I place a high value on data obtained by objective testing. I generally trust my colleagues in the field of science to act in the best interest of the society they live in.

    When I look at both sides, I notice one side yells and TYPES IN CAPITALS a lot, and the other have peer-reviewed publications, education and expertise, and are open about their methods and data. No contest.
17. 

    C0nc0rdance / November 16, 2009 6:20 pm

    I’ve just viewed your channel. I didn’t realize you were a full-fledged spittle-spewing New World Order, Illuminati, CIA Mind Control, Alex Jones Zombie.

    Clearly, further discussion would be pointless. You have abandoned reason for madness. Enjoy the ride!
18. 

    Didyouknowthisstuff / November 16, 2009 6:24 pm

    For me its not the mercury, it is the lack of studies for side effects. Period.
19. 

    C0nc0rdance / November 16, 2009 6:31 pm

    Flu vaccines have been used for over 70 years, given to millions of people in multiple countries every year; the elderly, children, and those with chronic diseases included.

    What kind of side effects did you have in mind? Something that has never been tested for?
20. 

    BrellK / November 16, 2009 6:33 pm

    Dude, calm down.
    Did you wake up with Roids already in your system this morning?
    Perhaps you should LOOK INTO some of the claims you just made, and you will see that you are WAY off course.
21. 

    Didyouknowthisstuff / November 16, 2009 7:10 pm

    Oh by the way your vid is on my playlist, as I said, I try to use both sides of the story and let anyone else decide on their own.
    did you take your Riddlin today….LOL
22. 

    Didyouknowthisstuff / November 16, 2009 7:13 pm

    watch?v=RhZesZe33cw
23. 

    Didyouknowthisstuff / November 16, 2009 7:22 pm

    The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm
    will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects.” – Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association
24. 

    RexFordVII / November 18, 2009 1:07 am

    I completely believe you when you say your an info junkie. Now you have to take the next step and set up objective parameters to determine which info is credible and which is not.

    If you believe fluoridated water is some how harmful at municipal concentrations, you’re subscribing to bad information.

    Sit down and really think right now what your standards are for accepting a claim.
25. 

    LBiolSci / November 18, 2009 5:53 am

    Actually to understand why they can not declare that no harm will be done by water fluoridation, first you need to understand scientific method. Scientific method is hypothetico-deductive. It does not prove anything, however it disproves the opposing ideas. When it can not disprove a opposing idea it accepts is as objectively true and waits to see if it can disprove it later with the help of future evidence. Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.