Empirical Evidence
From the comments on all sorts of posts on this blog there seems to be a lot of followers who are blessed with a lot of science level brains and there's nothing wrong with that but it does bring a bit of an inconvenience to people less fortunate. The smarties come up with comments that proclaim the truth for them while there is more between heaven and earth namely empirical evidence.
Some time ago there was a topic on this blog about faith and in the meantime I saw a broadcast on TV that scientists go very far in their right or I believe in my own.
Scientists are therefore just as divided as the whole nation put together and it is no different for the kklojesvol.
The latter group are a danger for some governments because they form too large a group that can undermine certain certainties. This process is currently also taking place in Europe. Putin will show that Europe (and the West) are not intangible. Poverty and the winter 2022/2023 are going to put a lot of people in a situation they didn't see coming and where are the scientists or other smart people who ever thought of a worst case scenario? The seed to flee NL came years ago with the realization that with 17 million you are nothing compared to a few billion in the area. That is called common sense, but nothing substantiates it, so it is an empirical early conclusion.
Everything does not come out of the blue and is it therefore not strange that the current elite or government in TH govern the country in this way?
Well, having said this. It strikes me that nowadays there are particularly many cancer cases in the group of 60-70 years, especially from farmers who started spraying with chemicals 40-50 years ago. I don't see that phenomenon above 70. My empirical evidence is that something went wrong here and in 2022 it is still not too difficult to ingest questionable substances.
If you don't use chemicals as a farmer, people don't trust you and you have to explain everything and the biggest poison dealers can continue with the sick system. And again…where are those scientists who have the ability to put this on the map? Or does it have to come from a farmer who barely has anything to spend?
My empirical evidence is that a smart guy's fine salary doesn't make the world a better place, but I could be wrong. Let science prove this first. In the meantime, the kklojesvol will take care of you wet and dry.
About this blogger
Read the latest articles here
OpinionsMarch 25 2024How much does time help change Thailand for the better? (reader submission)
HistoryJanuary 17 2024A journey through Thailand's past part 10 (final)- HistoryJanuary 16 2024A journey through Thailand's past part 9
- HistoryJanuary 15 2024A journey through Thailand's past part 8
I don't quite understand the purpose of this post.
Does the author want to portray science and scientists in a bad light?
The trap he falls into is that he does not distinguish between scientists with their findings on the one hand, their facts and data, their measuring is knowing – and what the citizen, the journalist, the politician makes of it. The latter interpret figures and data according to their needs.
There's the trap!
Scientists have measured that a young family has sex 2,5 times a week. That half time is because son Pieter-Jan walks into the bedroom… Yes, but, sir, I have sex with my wife three full times… Unfortunately, it is a study that took 3 years and calculated the average…
To do science is to investigate something with predetermined procedures, so that any other scientist can then do the same, to verify the findings.
Take water! Water, one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, boils at exactly 100 degrees Celsius and an air pressure of one atmosphere (1013 hPa). Any other scientist can verify that.
If that scientist is on K2 in the Himalayas, he can determine that the water reaches the boiling point more quickly due to lower air pressure.
Is that first scientist wrong? No, he has indicated exactly what he did to arrive at that scientific result… But the journalist, the populist can misuse the data and make his own truth out of the scientist's findings. So he can claim that water boils at 94 degrees…
Conclusion: the scientist knows what he is doing but does not know what others are doing with his findings and how they distort them to arrive at their own truth!
Johnny BG should take that into account before passing judgment on science.
Dear Johnny BG.:
A few notes:
1. scientists try to find out the truth and that is often not so easy (especially when empirical data are absent or people who do know the data do not want to tell), in other words: there are several theories possible about the truth that other scientists be embraced. That leads to discussion and that is good for increasing knowledge;
2. Critical thinking is something everyone can do and everyone can learn. That is not reserved for scientists;
3. Scientists rarely make predictions, so they can't be blamed for not seeing things coming;
4. About 60 years ago the world was not as open as it is today. Besides the explosive growth of communication and information. Then 17 million was not such a large number, but hardly anyone had really heard of China, let alone that we have products there. of bought (except the food).
5. Your observation about the link between cancer and chemical spraying is interesting but is absolutely no empirical evidence for anything. For empirical evidence you have to do research: how many cancer cases, where, how much sprayed, which means, how many years, mask worn during spraying or not, wind direction, cancer cases in the family etc etc etc. As the gap between cause and effect becomes more years , a cause and effect relationship is difficult to prove because dozens of other factors are involved;
6. Scientists are not there to prove things (verify) but to rule out possible causes (falsify). In other words: one does not conclude what is true, but in particular what is (in any case) NOT true.
'In empirical research you conduct tests or experiments, analyze the results and draw a conclusion based on that'
In the past I used to sit once a day and the rest as needed, I always tried to put away the 25.3 Pm, especially in the first two years.
Today, that's another figure I'm not going to list here.
One of my teachers during my schooling used to tell me that there is no poison, it's about relationships with whatever.
Although using a guinea pig with many things was desired.
As soon as TE stands for it, it does not go well, but yes, tell that to the human being when there is Te.
It is an outdated statement that toxicology is all about dosage, although it is not entirely untrue. The combination of various substances harmful to health is also an important aspect for estimating the harmfulness to health (toxicity).
Falsification is methodologically essential to scientific progress. Johnny BG makes a complete abstraction of this. In fact, he considers this essential methodological basis for scientific advancement to be a shortcoming and gets stuck at the level of mere empirical observation and interprets and concludes in a short-sighted, clumsily conceived, hypothetical frame of mind.
Nice for talking at the bar, or in (a) social media, but unscientific.
You don't get a bachelor's degree with that, and certainly not a master's. Which is not to say that you couldn't be a successful businessman, or a bright politician, or a good craftsman, or... so many other useful honorable things. With all due respect.
Leave the academic to academics. They are supposed to understand that.
There is nothing wrong with a healthy scientific interest of a non-scientist, but then immediately playing the wise nose is over.
Hasn't the proof already been provided by the Western world?
Thailand still uses chemicals that have long been banned in the Western world.
1-2 years ago it was reported that Thailand was going to ban a range of chemicals, causing quite a stir among crop producers. It was put back and I have not yet read that there are any further actions on these chemicals. So it is still used.
Not long ago, I ordered a spice. Followed shortly by an email that it had to be taken back because of a product that was in it. That product, as an addition, had been approved for a long time. However, there was a new directive regarding this product, less use of this product was allowed.
I looked it up and it turns out that I was allowed to consume this all my life in a variety of products.
So it has now been established empirically that you will get diseases?!
.
Statins are still prescribed for cholesterol lowering, but have side effects ranging from here to gunter and can be really bad. I read at Dr. Maarten, TB forum, also regularly his disapproval of statins. However, I found it myself.
Even small things such as summer winter time setting seem to have a negative effect, it is only an hour change. In Japan, they have seen an increased mortality rate among the elderly, after its implementation, statistics. In the Netherlands people have tried to abolish this through a lawsuit, I was once told. There are also reports, so empirically established that it is bad?
Perhaps for the elderly (Japan) and ok now I can't say anything anymore, otherwise my thing won't be posted.
I tried to read your contribution 2 times, but to be honest I didn't understand it.
This for example:
Well, having said this. It strikes me that nowadays there are particularly many cancer cases in the group of 60-70 years, especially from farmers who started spraying with chemicals 40-50 years ago. I don't see that phenomenon above 70.
What do you want to demonstrate with this?
1. You get cancer from chemicals used?
2. You get cancer from ethernite roofing and that was not used before?
3. Before the age of seventy, almost all people with cancer die?
4. Smoking is bad for your health and probably people used to smoke less?
It would have been better to limit yourself to 1 subject.
Especially point 3… above 70 you don't see that phenomenon… logical, because those are the ones who survived!
Thanks to those who took the trouble to shed a different light on the piece. I crawl back into my cage.
I don't know what the situation is with cancer in Thailand and the farmers, but I do know that there is currently a cancer explosion going on worldwide, you can guess why.
I read in the responses that we should mainly rely on the scientists
Someone here also says: “Leave the academic to academics. They are supposed to understand that.”
Yes, you would say so, but unfortunately (or should I say fortunately) over the last 2.5 years it has become clear that a very large part of the acclaimed academics here are nothing more than common criminals who enrich themselves at the expense of the fellow man.
Still, it's nice that monkey has come out of the sleeve now.
Falsification of documents and test results, corruption, is commonplace, it involves a lot of money and of course prestige, because that is the most important thing in the life of these people.
I will never again trust anyone with a white coat and their supporters, however unfortunate it may be for the honest academics, because they are still there, they must first regain the confidence of the civilian population, although I fear that this going to be very difficult.
Keep it up Johnny and don't get bogged down by negative comments, but you'll know that when you tackle controversial topics on TB. anyone with a different opinion will get it, that's hip these days, well it's the time we live in.
Quote:
'I don't know what the situation is with cancer in Thailand and the farmers, but I do know that there is currently a cancer explosion going on worldwide, you can guess why. '
Can you tell us a little more about that 'cancer explosion worldwide'? Where can I find those numbers? And then what is the cause? Please come help me.
I read this article from February 2022:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/are-cancer-rates-really-on-the-rise-worldwide#Today,-we-understand-more
Quote:
Although an aging population and increased incidence of known cancer risk factors may contribute to an overall increase in cancer rates, other factors may play a role. These may include better diagnostic techniques, more open exchange of healthcare information, and improved awareness.
there has been a steady increase in the number of cancer diagnoses since at least 2007, but no steeper increase since 2019.
Dear Tino
I don't think you need my help searching the internet, and I detect a Tino almost belly-rolling on the floor, Nevertheless the following: Increase in cancer has to do with:
Point 1. delayed care due to the canonized corona measures, that came first and the rest was unimportant.
Point 2. large increase in cancer due to compromised immune system as a result of reckless and falsely praised and not tested according to the rules very dangerous DNA changing miracle shots against the new flu.
point 3. again football players again with this time no heart attacks but testicular cancer, this week alone 3 football players, Urologist calls for alertness, but that must again all be a coincidence of course 🙂
Of the dozens of sites here is one from a colleague from the USA. Dr Cole, but with some simple research you can find a lot of messages, but of course these are all wappies!
WAPPIE = Scientifically Active Person talking In Honesty, this according to Prof. dr. Dr. Pierre Chapel.
PS in Thailand there is an increase in young men with heart rhythm disorders (not girls), but that is also a coincidence of course.
https://rumble.com/v1bgjgn-stage-4-cancers-taking-off-like-wildfire-were-going-to-see-a-two-to-threefo.html
I had forgotten this one, Reuters news agency, you know the one who is always there like the chickens to fact check, The ex-boss John Smith now works at ………..pfizer!
Doesn't this say enough? Reuters is therefore also to the sharks.
https://www.thebaron.info/news/article/2014/06/26/thomson-reuters-ceo-james-smith-joins-pfizer-board
Here they (Reuters) fact check the Thai heart problems in young people, they (reluctantly) admit it's true but the numbers don't add up, not 1 in 3 have complaints, but only 1 in 6
So nothing to worry about people, it is quite normal that teenagers get massive heart problems after the second miracle injection. what else does it take to wake people up? This is not right this is wrong!….or could it be a coincidence?
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-heart-teens-vaccine-idUSL1N2ZT2B5
The number of cancer cases worldwide will rise to almost 25 million per year in the next twenty years if risk factors such as alcohol consumption, sugar consumption and obesity are not addressed. That is what the World Health Organization (WHO) predicts in the World Cancer Report 2014, published today.
Sharp rise in new cases
The number of cancer cases has increased worldwide in recent years. There were 2008 million cases in 12,7 and 2012 million new cancer cases worldwide in 14, while the number of deaths is estimated at 8,2 million. The WHO predicts that by 2035 those figures will rise to almost 25 million new patients per year (an increase of more than 70 percent) and 13 million deaths.
source: https://www.tubantia.nl/gezond/who-waarschuwt-voor-alarmerende-toename-nieuwe-kankergevallen~a0a73c36/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F
Doctors, by definition, are not scientists.
Doctors diagnose individuals, prescribe treatment or medications, or operate.
Also do not know any doctor who does real scientific research, not yet on the population of his own patients.