Well, I'm with Telmo, and Bruno on the prohibition issue, no surprise, and with Craig here in being open to other worldviews, even if their odds seem low + I think our tendency to institutionalize and say "these are relevant branches of science AND THAT is quackery" deserves a halting problem kick in the complacent behind space.
Especially concerning medicine, the pharma + govt complacency to increasingly stick to derivation in labs, after political interests in e.g. South America saw what foreign pharma was doing for decades, and have tightened regulation extremely; this is costing taxpayer new medicines, for Pharma to go increasingly the lazy lab-derivation route. It's not that there isn't enough money, it's just that we should put 30 or 50% or whatever of that money into opening up new branches of less risk-averse research (less averse in the sense that uni-departments, pharma boards, govt have less conservative leverage and newer branches of inquiry be opened; not less in "ethics" sense and yes FAT chance). The taxpayer deserves more, and better medicines, new anti-biotics, nasal decongestants that work etc. And these are not out of reach. We just lack the balls because people love their own "that's bullshit, that's real science distinctions". My suggestion, turn Western lab tech into a shaman, that continually searches for new compounds and runs a broad spectrum of tests, "tasting testing" a lot of plants for that broad list of things we need to continually develop (new antibiotics to everything crucial). But politics, "science", pharma, and public opinion for this is of course what it is. We have the tech to "taste the entire jungle" and, unlike the shaman, don't have to put our lives on the line as a living lab. Every second, we waste not doing this, we loose lives. But waiting for consensus from the above web of interests will produce just derivatives, albeit respectful, scientifically viable, profitable, peer-reviewed ones; "not some quackery crackpot proposition based on shamans tasting plants". This is too little too late, discriminatory, and incredibly stupid, as the old farts in charge, will need medicines and their innovation at some point. On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:30 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 3/24/2013 10:27 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 3/23/2013 2:49 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >>> Since you don't believe in anything (which you believe... ;) ), >>> >> >> There's a difference between believing specific propositions and >> believing *in* something. >> >> > Which would be? > > > If I believed *in* science then I'd believe whatever science said. I > believe many particular things that science says, but only to the extent > that if I have to act on them I reason from their truth instead of the > contrary. > > So some partial transcendental truth that you do and do not believe in. Thanks for teaching the list how to believe correctly in this sermon. You said you're "atheist", right? > > >> 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. >>> >> >> Sure, and I trust my neighbor more than I do the police; but who should >> I call if I have a burglar? >> >> > In good faith you call the institutionalized web of burglars, who will in > 99% of cases file it + simply not care, *unless* something/someone > concerning the incident can be politicized. > > > That's about as useful as most of your advice. > > It is useful: don't waste your time filing stupid reports nobody will go after. Spend that time with family or friends. And no, I didn't bother reporting the last time somebody broke our car window to steal things, because it's a waste of time. When I park on some corner, then I get a ticket and am forced to pay. When I get burgled Law doesn't care; like a lazy thief, it will go after the guilty party only if it has address and license; or because of politics. It's similar the whole world over, exceptions: mediterranean police actually smile sometimes, police in Asia + South America are more openly thieves, can be more dangerous but can be more "flexible" sometimes. Police in Western Europe are zombies unless you know them. As for the US, taking LA and NY as representative (don't visit bible belt much)... The US is police state par excellence. Nowhere, have I ever encountered such a high concentration of monitoring by cops, which I see on most drives lurking somewhere, even in suburbs etc. whereas most world cities this kind of presence is reserved for highly frequented public or political space. In most places in Europe, most drives I take are cop-free. But no illusions, US security threat rhetoric has us forbidding more than 50ml of fluid on planes and stuff, so I wouldn't be too surprised if... You seek advice here? I advise you to not tolerate living in a police state. It is more comfortable without that. I refuse to believe that you face the problem of evil/getting hurt/getting stolen from etc. with "who should I call when the bad snake-oil-salesman cometh?". > 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. >> > > It's not psuedo-science and it's not science - it's commerce. > > I beg to differ: it is institutionalized burglary, with a lot of good people caught up in the web beyond their control making bread and beyond, granted. Concrete example from pharma these past few years concerning everybody who buys medication for common cold or flu: Phenylephrine is marketed in the US and various parts of the world as a nasal decongestant, to avoid meth labs getting their hands on unlimited amounts of Pseudoephedrine as precursor. Problem? Phenylephrine doesn't work. Billions of people buying something that does not perform better than placebo in clinical trials. Without any efficacy upon yours truly either. Sales are fine, apparently. Snake-oil-salesman's burglary comes to light every time a scandal in this area arises. Do you propose that the FDA warrant efficacy? They used to try to do that, > but libertarians wanted big pharma to be free to sell them placebos. > > Yup, and this influences pharma + govt activity around the world by US dominance on world politics. > > > This isn't commerce. It's burglary, sanctioned by science, state, commerce > etc. Believing this is straight commerce/fair trade between agents in view > of available data is a bet that I give the same odds as betting on > morphogenetic fields. > > > You seem informed about the products. Do you have access to data that's > not publicly available? > > I try to keep abreast about things that enter my bloodstream, an impossible task. Just Google something like "phenylephrine not effective", you'll find the articles if you want. Also try it during your next cold or ask friends if it works for them. BS compound sold millions of times a day. > > Nonetheless indeed, who should we call? The risk-averse idiocy result of > all these interests combined: companies, federal regulatory and ethics > boards, the medical industry etc. "compromises itself" into something that > doesn't work to steal cash from a person with cold/flu. Not commerce and > not science in my book. > > > Well, fraud is a civil as well as criminal cause for action. Sue them. > > That's a high capital endeavor I have no interest in, as there are funner things in life worth sharing than being correct or playing police man for truth. But if you think "we're out of the woods concerning snake-oil-salesmen..." was my point. > > > Existence and efficacy of well-prepared ayahuasca is not debatable to > anybody who has tried > > > Efficacy for what? > > Efficacy of eliciting a broad variety of effects that Brent would not believe possible. > + if you need more stronger existential proof then Dimethyltryptamine > is Schedule 1 in the US and equivalent in most countries, even though we > all have some in our metabolism. Strictly speaking: everybody in every > airport and border should be arrested. > > > But they are not. Is that existential proof it's not banned? > :) Ok, you got me. N,N-Dimethyltryptamine and any plants containing it in significant quantity can be purchased in the supermarket. > > > > Religious exemptions if written into law are not implemented, as the > reports of priests/adherents of concerned South American churches + > religions being arrested continue to appear. > > > Of course some U.S. judges ruling doesn't control in South America. > > > All this in the face of science indicating comparative safety of > Dimethyltryptamine over alcohol and tobacco. > > > What science is that? > > It doesn't show on the lists concerning harm, despite millions of people having ingested and smoked it (not merely hints of indigenous use for millennia, but millions of westerners since 60s/70s) with ayahuasca tourism and ceremonies on the rise: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://dobrochan.ru/src/pdf/1109/lancetnorway.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm1HyK-Ok8QuS4sjvrvN59KQm2fVqA&oi=scholarr Demand for poisons is inelastic. It is blatant burglary, murder etc. to prohibit them, as the more we regulate, the more incentive/profit we create for potential risk bearers, smugglers, dealers, laundering etc. as inelastic demand will simply drive up the price. It's really not more complex than this. As we live in such historic circumstance that there will always be people willing to swallow plastic containers, to boat, ship substance x over some border for thousands and thousands of bucks; saying we can "win or regulate the war on drugs" is like the promise of a Utopia wherein everybody is rich and has their dream job, because this would be the only image that would force the weaker parts of society to "just say no to 20 thousand for a quick job", as this is the only model of society in which there are no weaker segments of society. But it doesn't matter as the computer is everywhere now, so people just fashion their own drugs and rabbit holes. Problem becomes: give a drug naive person the Internet and computer games, and they won't even have the hangover to tell them "oh, you did that thing last night, so you've wasted all that time on getting this kick (was it worth it?), and now you have big headache, better be more careful..." or "wow, I had a dream, how inspiring"; you get just the titillation of euphoria without the euphoria, the wasting of time not even knowing where that went or why. Not even a kick, or unique fun for all that wasted time. People will become "druggier" in their behavioral patterns without noticing it, precisely because they will continue to titillate themselves as they deny themselves the fruits of pleasure, and inner frustration grows as the empty behavioral loops take increasing charge because "pleasure is bad except my kind". How do we know, which is "our kind" and whether we're not just pursuing some attention sink in titillation, draining our energies? Example: some kid crossing the street typing stuff into their fancy phone, ignoring traffic. Ayahuasca would not cause such irresponsible behavior in most. Halting problem prevents me from writing off morphogenetic fields etc. completely, even though in terms of consciousness alteration, I prefer psychedelics not because they are risk-free, or because of some ideology I want to see expressed, or because they have high efficacy for people to re-frame their perspectives into something more agile (which is not true for everybody); I prefer them not because of some postulated perfection but because they seem to be the only game in town, that allows consciousness to do such things. Uselessly, redundantly yours, proudly so even, PGC > Brent > > > PGC > > > > > >> Brent >> >> -- >> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -- > 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 email@example.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. > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6195 - Release Date: 03/21/13 > > > -- > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- 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 email@example.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.