On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:55 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 3/23/2013 3:58 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 4:30 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 5:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> My God people don't you have even a rudimentary bullshit detector?
>>> Fantastic
>>> claims, cries of persecution, irreproducible results, this crap just
>>> reeks
>>> of junk science!
>>> I don't think Sheldrake is correct, but he writes papers and collects
>>> experimental results. Maybe he's lying, and maybe other scientists are
>>> lying. That happens, unfortunately -- in part because the wrong
>>> incentives where created, but that's another topic. We all assign
>>> degrees of belief to different things. For example, I assign I high
>>> degree of belief to the idea that most scientists are not deliberately
>>> lying to me. If I didn't I would have to reject science, because I
>>> don't have the time or resources to replicate even a fraction of the
>>> results. We all accept science mostly by betting on a set of beliefs.
>>> I assign a low degree of belief to morphic fields, but am willing to
>>> listen to theories. If I weren't, I would lose the opportunity to play
>>> with ideas.
>>> You will be persecuted if you decide to do experimental research with
>>> psychedelics. Apparently you will be censored if you even propose the
>>> idea. Nobody will be able to reproduce your results without breaking
>>> the law. The only scientific claim that Hancock makes is that
>>> ayahuasca can be used to treat drug addiction. We are legally
>>> forbidden from testing this claim.
>>> Actually ayahuasca is exempted from the ban on DMT on the grounds of
>>> religious freedom.
>> I don' think it's that simple. From my limited understanding of laws,
>> my impression is that the plants themselves are exempted from the
>> international conventions, but creating a preparation with active DMT
>> from them is illegal.
>> UniĆ£o do Vegetal won a court case in the USA that allows them to use
>> it for religious purposes. I'm not American and not used to case law,
>> so I don't really understand what that means.
> It just means that the law allowed for religious exceptions and a judge
> ruled in a particular case that ayahuasca was such an exception.  Other
> courts are bound by this decision unless it is overturned by a higher court
> on appeal.
>>  Also, it's one thing to be prohibited from using a drug as treatment.
>>>  But
>>> it's something else to study it scientifically.
>> Agreed. I guess the distinction is important if you are in favor of
>> such restrictions to begin with.
> I am in favor of some regulation of drugs used as treatment - to avoid
> dangerous fraud as in the old days of traveling snake-oil salesmen.
Yes, thank goodness for Pfizer, Bayer, and the rest of them + the
regulatory systems that ensure patients' safety. Good to see also that
health insurance are not keeping black lists right now, because doing so
would be transparent discrimination. Maybe fifty years ago such a position
was tenable; don't know, wasn't around then.

But what we have now is institutionalized, your-local-pharmacy + Doc +
Govt. snake-oil salesman.

Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ), it is
redundant to point out that there are more trustworthy ayahuasca cooks,
indeed traveling snake-oil-salesmen (although institutionalizing ayahuasca
use is showing its share of problems), than pharma + ethics boards + govt.
+ medical industry interests blended into this scheme of making medicine
more and more expensive for the needing, appropriate patients. This is
pseudo-science and apparently all these interests are working together with
a telepathically linked united, benevolent interest to better and help the
sick and needy.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to