Some thoughts on this.

As far as JustinL goes (an all his other names he uses to play with), I see him as comic relief. Lots of passion and air, little substance (no information shared). I think his style is fine in the Debate Forums , however I think personal attacks just create confusion in Support Forums .

Now more important, I have suggested that Hveragerthi have a link to his website where he can host all the studies he uses to back up his claims so everyone can cross reference them. This is not a personal attack but a request that helps all you are trying to reach. ;-)

So far there was much resistance to this idea and instead he engaged in condescending remarks. He seemed confused and irritated by what I was trying to explore (not state as a hardwired truth). I am a pretty open minded guy. I am also no stranger to scientific data and papers although I won't wave degrees or qualifications. This is moot anyway. I actually think (based on observation) that certain mainstream training actually hives your mind into ways of thinking that are not truly open. Cookie cutter logic that tends to miss the intuitive leaps such as scientists as Einstein could make. There are many ways to think that move ideas and solve problems. The scientific method is but one. Logical linear thought processing has its place but there are many other ways to think as well. lateral thinking is also an important mental skill. There are many others.

There are many scientists who wear their degrees like a badge of honor and then there are the gifted scientists who don't allow themselves to be hived by their own methods nor a hived consensus herd mentality that can exist within scientific communities. (Remember it was scientists of a day not to far in our distant path that held to the notion that the earth was flat and had much Science to back that up their claims). When we cling to dogma (any data from yesterday) we are rigid. To be open is to be fluid about all ideas. The truly gifted scientists think way outside the box and are often attacked by their own colleagues who are resistant to think outside the box. These scientists are the ones that end up being the leaders in their field while other ones are more like the repeaters (parrots) who are content with a label and the pride they get from airing that label wherever they go. I often see where some Science becomes like a religion in it's rigidity keeping one held frimly into disconnected paradigms. Often pride rears its ugly head and we protect our ideas at all cost.

I say show us the data that conclusions are derived upon ad let everyone decide their own truth. This holds much more substance than just parading around saying "I am a scientist, believe me." Then go on to mock everyone else who doesn't believe your ideas. Anyone can hand pick studies to back up their theories and yes they may even look sound. This is why it is important to cross reference and even more important to see who funded these studies. This will show any paths to possible agendas. One needs to know the scientist as well as the funding and to examine patterns in this regard to know if the Science can even be trusted. For instance if the cattleman's association is funding a study on the need for animal protein in one's diet, red flag is raised. Information has many angles to it and many of them are hiding behind papers that claim truth using scientific methods. We are living in times where more and more scientists are being caught for falsifying data. This is why connecting dots beyond the papers being flown as proofs are important. Politics are heavily involved in many studies. When more emphasis is placed on credentials than actual information, this to is a massive sign.

Truth is negotiable anyway. Show me one thing that anyone thinks is absolute in its measure of truth and I can begin blowing holes in it and creating doubt. Reality is NOT hardwired no matter how convincing it looks. We live in a liquid reality that is changing. The "science of yesterday" is evolving and changing. Of course what I am saying is a new frontier of thought. Rigid scientists will not hear what I am saying in this regard.

Don't even get me started on all the science for hire going on in the nutritional and medical areas. It would do many good to study this so they can understand how agendas can and do fuel papers and how they are designed to look a certain way. They will appear very convincing because they are designed to be. It is then, very important to see what troughs these "scientists" are feeding from. That is just as important, if not more important, than the data itself.

Not enough creedence is given to people's own personal experience. This is why scientists and medical main streamers tend to poo poo placebo. They would do much better to use their scientific methods to explore how and why it works. But as we many of us know there is no money in our bodies healing themselves. There is a profit, though, in needing things outside ourselves. Our economy is driven on this paradigm This is where much of our scientists are spending their time. Why? Because that's where the money is. And often scientists who are pure at the level of science that is being used to explore important things like nutrition and medicine are bullied or discredited. It is real important to understand the politics going on in science which colors said science.


That said, I think everyone can share information and should. If one really wants others to find the "truth" in that information they will back up their data and science or information they are sharing in a concise manner.

Instead of being told "I will not do your homework for you."
Being indignant just fuels confusion and misunderstanding.
Curezone is the wrong site to be attempting to fly on an image of being a scientist. People actually want the goods beyond the label.
Tweet