The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Torfuscation – Gaming Study Design to Effect an Outcome

As important as is the mode of inference one employs commensurate with study completion, is the design of the study itself. Before one begins to attempt to reduce and analyze a body of observational resource, the ethical scientist must first select the study type and design that will afford them the greatest draw in terms of probative potential. The intricacies of this process present the poseur an opportunity to game outcomes of science through study design, type and PICO features, such that it produces outcomes which serve to further the political, hate or religious causes of their sponsors.

There are several ways to put on the appearance of conducting serious science, yet still effect outcomes which maintain alignment with the agency of your funders, sponsors, mentors or controlling authorities. Recent ethical evolution inside science, has highlighted the need for understanding that a researcher’s simply having calculated a p-value, applied an arrival distribution or bounded an estimate inside a confidence interval, does not necessarily mean that they have developed a sound basis from which to draw any quality inference. In similar philosophy, one can develop a study – and completely mislead the scientific community as to the nature of reality inside a given issue of contention or science.

We are all familiar with the trick of falsely calling a ‘survey of study abstracts’, or a meta-synthesis of best evidence, or an opinion piece summarizing a body of study from one person’s point of view – a ‘meta-analysis’. A meta-analysis combines congruent study designs and bodies of equivalent data, in order to improve the statistical power of the combined entailed analyses.1 The fake forms of meta-analysis do no such thing. A meta-analysis is a secondary or filtered systematic review which only bears leveraged strength in the instance wherein randomized controlled trials or longitudinal studies of the same species, are able to be combined in order to derive this higher statistical power. Every other flavor of such ‘blending of study’, does not accomplish such an objective. Such blending may, and this is important, actually serve to reduce the probative power of the systematic review itself. Nonetheless, you will find less-than-ethical scientists trying to push their opinion/summary articles upon the community as if they reflected through convenient misnomer, this ‘most rigorous form of study design’. One can find an example of this within the study: Taylor, Swerdfeger, Eslick; An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies; Elsevier, 2014.2

This equivocal sleight-of-hand stands as merely one example of the games played within the agency-influenced domains of science. With regard to manipulating study design in order to effect a desired scientific outcome, there are several means of accomplishing this feat. Most notably the following methods, which are all called collectively, torfuscation. Torfuscation involves employing a less rigorous study type (lower rank on the Chart below), an ineffective study design, or a type of flawed methodical PICO-time analysis, which will serve most often to weaken the probative potential of a study which could ostensibly serve to produce an outcome which threatens its sponsors.

Torfuscation

/philosophy : pseudoscience : study fraud : Saxon : ‘hide in the bog’/ : pseudoscience or obfuscation enacted through a Nelsonian knowledge masquerade of scientific protocol and study design. Inappropriate, manipulated or shallow study design crafted so as to obscure or avoid a targeted/disliked inference. A process, contended to be science, wherein one develops a conclusion through cataloging study artifice or observation noise as valid data. Invalid observations which can be parlayed into becoming evidence of absence or evidence of existence as one desires – by accepting only the appropriate hit or miss grouping one desires as basis to support an a priori preference, and as well avoid any further needed ex ante proof.  A refined form of praedicate evidentia or utile abstentia employed through using less rigorous or probative methods of study than are requisite under otherwise ethical science.  Exploitation of study noise generated through first level ‘big data’ or agency-influenced ‘meta-synthesis’, as the ‘evidence’ that no further or deeper study is therefore warranted – and moreover that research of the subject entailed is now socially embargoed.

Study design which exploits the weakness potential entailed inside the PICO-time Study Design Development Model3 (see Study to Inference Strength and Risk Chart below), through the manipulation of the study

P – patient, problem or population
I – intervention, indicator
C – comparison, control or comparator
O – outcome, or
time – time series

Which seeks to compromise the outcome or conclusion in terms of the study usage; more specifically: prevention, screening, diagnostic, treatment, quality of life, compassionate use, expanded access, superiority, non-inferiority and or equivalence.

Meta-Garbage, Deescalation and PICO-time Manipulation

One example of tampering with the PICO-time attributes of a study, would consist of the circumstance wherein only medical plan completed diagnostic data is used as the sample base for a retrospective observational cohort study’s ‘outcome’ data. Such data is highly likely to be incomplete or skewed in a non-probative direction, under a condition of linear induction (a weaker form of inference) and utile abstentia (a method of exclusion bias through furtive data-source selection). In similar fashion and as example, if the average age of outcome diagnosis is 5.5 years, and the average slack time between diagnosis and first possible recording into a medical plan database is 4 to 18 months, then a constraining of the time-series involved inside a study examining that data, to 4.5 years, is an act of incompetent or malicious study design. But you will find both of these tricks to be common in studies wherein a potential outcome is threatening to a study’s sponsors; agents who hope to prove by modus absens shallow and linear inductive inference that the subject can be embargoed from then on. Just such a study can be found here: Madsen, Hviid; A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism, 2002.4 A study may also be downgraded (lower on the chart below), and purposely forced to employ a lesser form of design probative strength (Levels 1 – 7); precisely because its sponsors suspect the possibility of a valid risk they do not want exposed. This is very similar to a downgrading in inference method called methodical deescalation – a common trick of professional pseudoscience. One may also notice that often, studies employing these three tricks are held as proprietary, concealed from the public during the critical study design phase. This is purposeful. This is oppression in the name of science. One may also notice that the ‘meta-analysis’ decried earlier in this article, cited this very study just mentioned as a ‘best evidence study’ inside its systematic review. If you meta-study garbage, you will produce meta-garbage as well (see Secondary Study in the Chart below).

The following is The Ethical Skeptic’s chart indexing study design against mode of inference, strength and its risk in torfuscation. It is a handy tool for helping spot torfuscation of the three example types elicited above, and more. The study types are ranked from top to bottom in terms of Level in probative strength (1 – 7), and as well are arranged into Direct, Analytical and Descriptive study groupings by color. Torfuscation involves the selection of a study type with a probative power lower down on the chart, when a higher probative level of study was available and/or warranted; as well as in tampering with the PICO-time risk elements (right side of chart under the yellow header) characteristic of each study type so as to weaken its overall ability to indicate a potential disliked outcome. The Chart is followed up by a series of definitions for each study type listed. The myriad sources for this compiled set of industry material are listed at the end of this article – however, it should be noted that the sources cited did not agree with each other on the material/level, structure nor definitions of various study designs. Therefore modifications and selections were made as to the attributes of study, which allowed for the entire set of alternatives/definitions to come into synchrony with each other – with minimal overlap and confusion. So you will not find 100% of this chart replicated inside any single resource or textbook. (note: My past lab experience has been mostly in non-randomized controlled factorial trial study – whose probative successes were fed into a predictive model, then confirmed by single mechanistic lab tests. I found this approach to be highly effective in my past professional work. But that lab protocol may not apply to other types of study challenge and could be misleading if applied as a panacea. Hence the need for the chart below.)

Study Design Type Definitions

PRIMARY/DIRECT STUDY

Experimental– A study which involves a direct physical test of the material or principal question being asked.

Mechanistic/Lab – A direct study which examines a physical attribute or mechanism inside a controlled closed environment, influencing a single input variable, while observing a single output variable – both related to that attribute or mechanism.

Controlled Trial

Randomized (Randomized Controlled Trial) – A study in which people are allocated at random (by chance alone) to receive one of several clinical interventions. One of these interventions is the standard of comparison or the ‘control’. The control may be a standard practice, a placebo (“sugar pill”), or no intervention at all.

Non-Randomized Controlled Trial – A study in which people are allocated by a discriminating factor (not bias), to receive one of several clinical interventions. One of these interventions is the standard of comparison or the ‘control’. The control may be a standard practice, a placebo (“sugar pill”), or no intervention at all.

Parallel – A type of controlled trial where two groups of treatments, A and B, are given so that one group receives only A while another group receives only B. Other names for this type of study include “between patient” and “non-crossover” studies.

Crossover – A longitudinal direct study in which subjects receive a sequence of different treatments (or exposures). In a randomized controlled trial with repeated measures design, the same measures are collected multiple times for each subject. A crossover trial has a repeated measures design in which each patient is assigned to a sequence of two or more treatments, of which one may either be a standard treatment or a placebo. Nearly all crossover controlled trial studies are designed to have balance, whereby all subjects receive the same number of treatments and participate for the same number of periods. In most crossover trials each subject receives all treatments, in a random order.

Factorial – A factorial study is an experiment whose design consists of two or more factors, each with discrete possible values or ‘levels’, and whose experimental units take on all possible combinations of these levels across all such factors. A full factorial design may also be called a fully-crossed design. Such an experiment allows the investigator to study the effect of each factor on the response variable or outcome, as well as the effects of interactions between factors on the response variable or outcome.

Blind Trial – A trial or experiment in which information about the test is masked (kept) from the participant (single blind) and/or the test administerer (double blind), to reduce or eliminate bias, until after a trial outcome is known.

Open Trial – A type of non-randomized controlled trial in which both the researchers and participants know which treatment is being administered.

Placebo-Control Trial – A study which blindly and randomly allocates similar patients to a control group that receives a placebo and an experimental test group. Therein investigators can ensure that any possible placebo effect will be minimized in the final statistical analysis.

Interventional (Before and After/Interrupted Time Series/Historical Control) – A study in which observations are made before and after the implementation of an intervention, both in a group that receives the intervention and in a control group that does not. A study that uses observations at multiple time points before and after an intervention (the ‘interruption’). The design attempts to detect whether the intervention has had an effect significantly greater than any underlying trend over time.

Adaptive Clinical Trial – A controlled trial that evaluates a medical device or treatment by observing participant outcomes (and possibly other measures, such as side-effects) along a prescribed schedule, and modifying parameters of the trial protocol in accord with those observations. The adaptation process generally continues throughout the trial, as prescribed in the trial protocol. Modifications may include dosage, sample size, drug undergoing trial, patient selection criteria or treatment mix. In some cases, trials have become an ongoing process that regularly adds and drops therapies and patient groups as more information is gained. Importantly, the trial protocol is set before the trial begins; the protocol pre-specifies the adaptation schedule and processes. 

Observational – Analytical

Cohort/Panel (Longitudinal) – A study in which a defined group of people (the cohort – a group of people who share a defining characteristic, typically those who experienced a common event in a selected period) is followed over time, to examine associations between different interventions received and subsequent outcomes.  

Prospective – A cohort study which recruits participants before any intervention and follows them into the future.

Retrospective – A cohort study which identifies subjects from past records describing the interventions received and follows them from the time of those records.

Time-Series – A cohort study which identifies subjects from a particular segment in time following an intervention (which may have also occurred in a time series) and follows them during only the duration of that time segment. Relies upon robust intervention and subject tracking databases. For example, comparing lung health to pollution during a segment in time.

Cross-Sectional/Transverse/Prevalence – A study that collects information on interventions (past or present) and current health outcomes, i.e. restricted to health states, for a group of people at a particular point in time, to examine associations between the outcomes and exposure to interventions.

Case-Control – A study that compares people with a specific outcome of interest (‘cases’) with people from the same source population but without that outcome (‘controls’), to examine the association between the outcome and prior exposure (e.g. having an intervention). This design is particularly useful when the outcome is rare.

Nested Case-Control – A study wherein cases of a health outcome that occur in a defined cohort are identified and, for each, a specified number of matched controls is selected from among those in the cohort who have not developed the health outcome by the time of occurrence in the case. For many research questions, the nested case-control design potentially offers impressive reductions in costs and efforts of data collection and analysis compared with the full case-control or cohort approach, with relatively minor loss in statistical efficiency.

Community Survey – An observational study wherein a targeted cohort or panel is given a set of questions regarding both interventions and observed outcomes over the life or a defined time period of the person, child or other close family member. These are often conducted in conjunction with another disciplined polling process (such as a census or general medical plan survey) so as to reduce statistical design bias or error.

Ecological (Correlational) – A study of risk-modifying factors on health or other outcomes based on populations defined either geographically or temporally. Both risk-modifying factors and outcomes are averaged or are linear regressed for the populations in each geographical or temporal unit and then compared using standard statistical methods.

Observational – Descriptive

Population – A study of a group of individuals taken from the general population who share a common characteristic, such as age, sex, or health condition. This group may be studied for different reasons, such as their response to a drug or risk of getting a disease. 

Case Series – Observations are made on a series of specific individuals, usually all receiving the same intervention, before and after an intervention but with no control group.

Case Report – Observation is made on a specific individual, receiving an intervention, before and after an intervention but with no control group/person other than the general population.

SECONDARY/FILTERED STUDY

Systematic Review/Objective Meta-Analysis – A method for systematically combining pertinent qualitative and quantitative study data from several selected studies to develop a single conclusion that has greater statistical power. This conclusion is statistically stronger than the analysis of any single study, due to increased numbers of subjects, greater diversity among subjects, or accumulated effects and results. However, researchers must ensure that the quantitative and study design attributes of the contained studies all match, in order to retain and enhance the statistical power entailed. Mixing lesser rigorous or incongruent studies with more rigorous studies will only result in a meta-analysis which bears the statistical power of only a portion of the studies, or of the least rigorous study type contained, in decreasing order along the following general types of study:

Controlled Trial/Mechanism
Longitudinal/Cohort
Cross-Sectional
Case-Control
Survey/Ecological
Descriptive

Interpretive/Abstract ‘Meta-Synthesis’ – A study which surveys the conclusion or abstract of a pool of studies in order to determine the study authors’ conclusions along a particular line of conjecture or deliberation. This may include a priori conclusions or author preferences disclosed inside the abstract of each study, which were not necessarily derived as an outcome of the study itself. This study may tally a ‘best evidence’ subset of studies within the overall survey group, which stand as superior in their representation of the conclusion, methodology undertaken or breadth in addressing the issue at hand.

Editorial/Expert Opinion – A summary article generally citing both scientific outcomes and opinion, issued by an expert within a given field, currently active and engaged in research inside that field. The article may or may not refer to specific examples of studies, which support an opinion that a consilience of evidence points in a given direction regarding an issue of deliberation. The author will typically delineate a circumstance of study outcome, consilience or consensus as separate from their personal professional opinion.

Critical Review/Skeptic Opinion – A self-identified skeptic or science enthusiast, applies a priori thinking with no ex ante accountability, in order to arrive at a conclusion. The reviewer may or may not cite a couple examples or studies to back their conclusion.

Sources: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

     How to MLA cite this article:

The Ethical Skeptic, “Torfuscation – Gaming Study Design to Effect an Outcome”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 15 Apr 2019; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-9yQ

April 15, 2019 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Institutional Mandates, Tradecraft SSkepticism | , , | 2 Comments

An Official ‘Thank You’ to Science Based Medicine

Rookem’s Razor:  All things being equal the most expensive explanation tends to be the correct one. Chronic and severe pain is a no bullshit tolerance factor, it serves to make one a skeptic, very fast.
WARNING: The following testimonial constitutes an ‘anecdote’ and cites a resolution based upon actual patient input to doctors. When you have gotten up off the floor after fainting from the horrific pseudoscience of it all, simply click your heels three times and repeat over and over “The plural of anecdote is not data” and it will be all better.

I wasted three years of suffering and then $16,300 pursuing the approach Science Based Medicine might prefer for a malady which my Integrative Medicine Practitioner resolved in one appointment, $200 and by means of a supplement. Which now is quackery indeed? I am now in doubt. Patient success experience or revenue goal oriented scripted shotgun testing? Well let’s hold on that conclusion. This was not the last time unfortunately I was to have been harmed by bad medical advice coming from a Science Based Medicine representative ‘skeptic’.

One thing that I do know is that, were I to practice the Big Healthcare method on the left (chart at bottom) in my labs, I would be committing lab fraud in order to bilk my clients out of artificially prolonged revenue through fake science (see The Lyin’tific Method). In Science Based Medicine however, fraud only applies to outsiders, and is misdefined as anything that does not revenue-serve their cronies, any competing business or anything else they decide that they do not like.

Rest assured, Science Based Medicine is not promoting their view of medical care as a smart option for your consideration. Their heading is one of supporting the elimination of your choices and control over your own health, independent of the secure profit pathways for big pharma, big healthcare and their oligarchy cronies extracting from both.

The empirical results are proving to be abysmal, both in terms of the cost of healthcare and the overall health and well being of Americans.

Just as a notes before we begin: because of the enormous amount of interest in this post, the supplement which enabled my final success contains the following: dicalcium phosphate, pancreatin 4X, betaine HCL, amylase, protease, pepsin, papain, oxbile, lipase, bromelain, cellulase. While my integrative medical professional and I conjecture the HCL as being effective, it is entirely reasonable to postulate that one or more of the other digestive factors was the greater contributor. It is pseudoscience to ad hoc postulate that the malady ‘just coincidentally went away on its own’. There are a number of digestive enzymes out there which fit this formula, so I am not here to promote a specific product.

Moreover, if you bristle at my offering this advice up to sufferers, because it might constitute claims of a ‘cure or treatment’, or you consider supplements to all be dangerous and in need of controlled distribution – go fuck yourself. You are a piss poor medical professional, you are not a scientist, you are not a critical thinker, and no you are not a skeptic. You cause harm to millions of people – smug in your cocooned intellectual superiority. Go look in the mirror and grow a conscience (see Skeptive Dissonance). There is a certain intolerance of self-serving bullshit and cultivated ignorance which chronic and severe pain begins to induce in a person.

This enormous harm and suffering caused by fake skeptics is just one key reason why skeptics are losing the battle for the American mind.

The Odyssey

rookems razorIt is a scam, and a crime of fraud, that I could not have been instructed about this supplement two decades ago. Why? Because hinting that a supplement might help my flank pain might ‘constitute claims of cures or treatments.’ This is how a mafia works. As a result of our sounds-good-on-paper ‘science’ millions of Americans suffer needlessly, and moreover are being held hostage and bilked out of tax and critical household budget dollars to the tune of $23,000 a year and dramatically upwards, to fund a scam in socialist medicine. Let’s examine how this fraud, activist-supported by Social Skepticism, works.

Yes, indeed I wanted to send out a heartfelt ‘thank you’ to the Science Based Medicine crowd today.  Before I do that however, let me relate the Odyssey the science gods tasked me with in my search to resolve increasingly severe lower left quadrant pain. You see over the last two years I have been experiencing recurrent lower left quadrant pain, commensurate with a whole host of other partially debilitating symptoms; none the least of which included facial sores, dizziness, ear ringing, anxiety, hair color dimming, weakness in my workouts, cold sweats, mental fog. I speak often as part of my living in support of my businesses and those subjects inside which I carry a passion. Anything which negatively affects my pneumogastric nerve and central nervous system is an unwelcome life contributor. Of course this greatly distressed me so I went, in 2013, to my General Practitioner with my complaint. He immediately scheduled me for a battery of expensive tests, starting with a colonoscopy which cost my medical plan $6,500, and then proceeded to progressively more and more likely candidates of diagnosis. You will find in social skepticism that the precautionary principle, only applies to the opportunity to make medical profits – aside from that it is always pseudoscience. We followed the Big Healthcare, Big Pharma, Big Skepticism script, much of which agrees with the SBM doctrine. You are stupid, integrative medical professionals are evil, doctors have your best interests as first priority (note: ‘best interests’ correlate to profits with an Pearson r = .99).1

Well sadly, 26 weeks and more later, we found nothing, and nothing worked. Quietly I was told by my Gastroenterologist, “I used to get 3 patients a week with unresolved flank pain back years ago. Now I get 8 patients or more per day. It is my number one patient challenge.” This is called Intelligence, inside The Real Scientific Method – but it is the kind of thing which fake skeptics dismiss with a wave of the ‘it’s nothing but a change in awareness’ hand. And they repeatedly enforce this claim upon science, media and public before any evidence has arrived for the most part – see The Art of the Professional Lie: Einfach Mechanism. Fake skeptics know well that an idea is hard to unseat once it has been uttered as truth, by Lindy Effect alone. You win, absent of much data or study at all. Just scream the conclusion as early as is possible, or after you see any hint of inductive support for your a priori notion. Never mind that everyone else in the world can spot your bias and predict exactly what your conclusion will be, never mind your eroding credibility, just do it. This is just one of the ways in which these fakers outsmart themselves, unjustifiably influence society and cause us all harm and suffering.

‘The plural of anecdote is not data.’

Take it from a successful intelligence professional and research lab head, never trust a person who utters this phrase. They have never accomplished even the first step of real science. They are a diagnostician at best.

At the conclusion of 30 weeks of expensive investigation I was told that I “must have Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).” This is the pandemic set of symptoms from which an alarmingly increasing number of people suffer; one in which we have no idea what even causes it. Some pretty smart citizens have some well backed ideas, but of course they are slapped down as evil by SBM ‘skeptics’. I am told that the common occurrence of my pain simply stems from ‘an increase in awareness’ as well, for we have to remember that when Science Based Medicine puts out a claim, it does not have to be justified – simply promulgated to the masses unquestioned (see Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy). Now, forget the 54 million suffering people; …fuck them, our science super hero skeptic skills are needed for another much more pressing issue, Homeopathy Awareness! …ehh, that and some bigfoot scrutiny every now and again. Issues of focus that hallmark an ethical and humanity serving life.2 3

…please hold on a moment while I contain my laughing.

I had run into this ilk of malicious and oppressive incompetence before with the stupid idiot at Science Based Medicine who assured me that he represented science, and that folic acid and methylfolate were the same thing, and finally that I was an idiot for thinking any different. This professional medical advice (quackery) served to harm me greatly – as it turned out that I was suffering from decades of macrocytic anemia from having taken folic acid, instead of folate. Fortunately, another thing which was corrected by patients working with patients – and not by appeal to authority as science based medicine.

Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) of course is the diagnosis of last resort after all the money avenues have been exhausted. Now I must learn to live with my IBS, because there is no cure. There is obviously ONE contributing element since the skyrocketing started as a discrete event shortly after 1994 – but I can assure you there is no one cure.  Or, it could simply be the ‘luck of the draw’ genetically. You won the lottery again – funny how that keeps happening with medical stuff and never seems to happen at the MiniMart Lotto counter. Nothing in the environment causes it, certainly not glyphosate, and sadly nothing you can do about curing it. Your pain, slight fever, dizziness, and mental fog are all from panic attacks! Yes that is it, our go-to conclusive pseudo-hypothesis is one which cannot be tested for falsification! Such brilliance! Plenty of inductive study to confirm it. Proliferating as so many psychology studies do – standing as imperative proof that you are just weird – we are done! Yay for Science!

I was told to start to meditate and maintain an ‘awareness’ of your ‘triggers’ and ‘stress related episodes’ – as a good portion of this is psychological. Really your fault anyway, for worrying too much. But I do have an expensive set of prescriptions which can alleviate symptoms in the mean time. A funny thought drifted through my head, I had heard this line before – dermatologists attempting to treat my rosacea with $400 a month topical creams, each one of which never seemed to work; and upon being unsuccessful, fell back on this same failed message:

‘Triggers’, the watchword of the lazy and incompetent
‘Stress’, the ad hoc fallacy theory of the century
‘Awareness’, the buzzword of the incompetent and malicious.

Yes, I had heard this line of ‘go away, it’s all your fault’ sales bullshit before. 2018 note.4

Cut down on sugar, coffee, fast food and soft drinks, and exercise more. Yep, heard that too. Oh? You run 4 miles a day now and don’t do any of these things?  Well, meditate more and take these two new prescriptions.  An antispasmodic for your pain, and a relaxer to stop your ‘panic attacks’ and over-worrying. These two are a mere $92 a month more on top of your other medical costs.  A drop in the bucket really.

I Had the Ruby Slippers All Along – Finally Success!

This year, when my IBS started flaring up again, I went to my Integrative Medicine Practitioner this time. She said: “This sounds an awful lot like stomach HCL insufficiency and dysbiosis. I get a lot of this lately, let me tell you. In addition, you had h. pylori after one of your Far East projects, and it can wreak havoc in your stomach’s acid production. Your digestive system is possibly not putting out enough hydrochloric acid and enzyme base. As a result your undigested food is putrefying5 in your small intestine and causing a whole host of dysbiosis symptoms, (my spell checker does not even recognize the words ‘dysbiosis’ or ‘SIBO’ despite its presence as a pandemic in the US population – see chart below) auto-immune, food-sensitivity reactions and pain from that point on in your gastrointestinal tract. Let’s try this first and see how it works: Get an HCL/Betaine/Enzyme supplement and make sure you take 1000 – 2000 mg with each meal.”

Well, they say that science is probative based upon incremental risk. My integrative medical practitioner had made an incremental conjecture of risk – and I was about to test it.  And chronic pain is a NO BULLSHIT tolerance factor – it makes you a skeptic fast. She had put her conjecture on the line of risk. As a skeptic, I at least admired that.

Oh my GAWD, my Holistic/Integrative Practitioner recommended a supplement! Oh the quackery!! Let the FDA Letters fly! People are dying! Big Pharma Skeptics rescue us! Let’s take just a second to examine what is going on regarding this grand odyssey of which I only suffered in microcosm. Unresolved flank pain (IBS) is skyrocketing right now in the United States. Any self respecting skeptic should be highly energized to look into such a stark signal. In contrast, aside from accidental overdoses, extreme body builders and reckless weight loss practices, no one is getting hurt by supplements.

The reality is we needed real skeptics back in 1991-1994 when our food base was planned to be changed dramatically based upon paltry science – unfortunately all we got was this cadre of goofball science pretenders who betrayed our consumer health base. They were all caught up in Bigfoot, UFO’s and the Loch Ness Monster back then too. Unfortunately they missed this important issue demanding skepticism, in the mean time. That is why I am speaking up.

When Social Skepticism ignores skyrocketing public health and human rights concerns such as SIBO, and the proliferating list of auto-immune generated maladies stemming from our food, in favor of chasing supplements on behalf of Big Pharma regulation – this activity is not simply pseudo-science or social epistemology, it is called more specifically a legal term: malice and oppression.

Wow, after three full years of misery and health degradation, problem solved. All symptoms are abated and even my hair color is growing robust again.  But I am so much more educated you know?  And I have Science Based Medicine to thank for that education. I made a decision in accordance with their philosophy which obtained for me a $16,300 education (that because of skyrocketing MooP/deductible costs, on top of the $23,000 we all pay each year already for the health scam). This misadventure alone tallied to 1/5th of the cost of my graduate degree! So I had to learn something, right?! Otherwise I would have never experienced the educational menagerie of things you can do, when you have lots of tools, billable pathways and rote formulas at hand, but don’t have a clue what you are doing.

2019 Update:  My healthy family plan medical cost per month is now $2,767. If I held a regular job, like I did in 1998 – I would be losing my home right now from the disease of being healthy and working in America.

This is criminal. Science Based Medicine this reality of citizen suffering is in part, YOUR fault – because healthcare plans have to pay for your promoted ‘science based’ practices and the large scale fraud/exploitation of hard working families you defend.

Were I to practice the method on the left of the 2013 to 2014 comparative chart (above right) in my labs, I would be committing lab fraud in order to bilk my clients out of artificially prolonged revenue through fake science. Yes, I own and have owned several science research and application development labs through the years.  In those operations, I could never ethically perform the list on the left under REAL science.

Oh, and one small note:  If you have an entry in your records, even one instance that you were referred to one of the specialists on the left in the chart above, and you DID NOT follow the doc’s referral, then you will be declined for health insurance coverage regarding that issue when you apply later in life – say 20 years later – even if you are fine now.  I know this from experience having managed several company health insurance plans for my employees.  The Health and Pharma industry just cannot seem to get your history of records readily available to the doctors for your health needs, like my doctor could not look up the fact that I had h. pylori in my history, that might have saved me lots of money in this case.  But the industry can sure make a DETAILED history of your health decisions readily available for the insurance companies – off of which to identify a non-compliant action on your part, in order to extort money from you.

Such is the generous, self promoting gift of Science Based Medicine. One that keeps on giving in terms of destroying households financially, and in terms of personal health. An elegant accomplishment, harming citizens in two ways at once. Fighting for the rights of oligopolies and cartels everywhere. Well done. So sciencey.

epoché vanguards gnosis

——————————————————————————————

How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “An Official ‘Thank You’ to Science Based Medicine” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 9 Nov 2014; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-3gy

January 11, 2015 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Institutional Mandates | , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Promotification Pseudoscience

Want to push a scientific looking agenda, but hate doing real science? Promotification is the way to pull it off, and look like a scientist in the mean time.
How to squelch a topic or subject you do not like, extend a lab contract, or produce favorable results, while all the time looking all “sciencey.”
Promotification – One or a series of predictive experiments touted as scientific, yet employed in such a fashion as to mislead. Deception or incompetence wherein only predictive testing methodology was undertaken in a hypothesis reduction hierarchy when more effective falsification pathways or current evidence were readily available, but were ignored. 
The false induction pseudoscience practice of only developing, or the forcing the sponsor of an idea/set of observations, as a first priority to only fully develop, evidence in support of or a series of predictive-only tests which merely serve to confirm conventional or conforming explanations of that data in question. 
Promotification suffers from the Penultimate Set Fallacy, the weakness that it affords no disciplined falsification comparatives under Developmental Science Methodology, fails the Popper Demarcation litmus, assumes that there is no aggregate or other data on the subject, enforces a priori testing hierarchies in absence of knowing what question to ask, and refuses to acknowledge differing research protocols under Discovery Science Methodology.
.

Promotification Pseudoscience, The Seven Forms of Lab and Scientific Promotional Fraud

I.     sskepticism is scientific fraudPerforming the exact same experiment, 150 times over, and getting the same result each time, and billing that as “Numerous Scientific Studies.”

Example:  Glyphosate/GM food 90 Day Rat Death studies, the same test run 65 times and being declared as “numerous scientific studies.”

II.   Performing the most expensive medical tests, studies or experiments as a first priority, so as to maximize billable client or patient revenue, when cheaper falsification tests were readily available and were ignored. Choosing to test highly unlikely scenarios as a first priority in testing so as to maximize the billable testing or work prior to finding the most likely solution as a last step.

Example: Conducting a colonoscopy search for cancer as the first step of investigation for every patient who walks in the door of a doctor’s office complaining of intestinal pain – in absence of seeking out other symptoms, patient history and patient feedback about more common maladies.

III.   Performing predictive tests to find evidence in support of a favored theory, when falsification tests of opposing or favored theories, and/or a large body of falsifying evidence, were readily available, but were ignored.

Example: Conducting predictive studies in purported haunted locations, to show that EVP phenomena could possibly in some cases be pareidolia, when case examples of clear EVP’s demonstrably shown as actual voices already existed, and were being recorded in the next room at the very same time.***

IV.  Performing patchwork predictive analyses with assumptions in the gaps that were formulated in advance with those tests outcomes already in mind.

Example:  Global Warming arguments both pro and con.***

V.   Selecting contrived testing pathways or hypothesis sets or reduction hierarchies, which serve only to confirm a favored outcome.

Example:  Testing for increases in inflation or unemployment by only examining fully understood sectors/factors which will produce known outcomes.

VI.    Performing predictive experiments to support a case of plausible deniability or conformance as POSSIBLE, and terminating the scientific method there.

Example:  Testing to observe if a bear can walk on two legs, in order to arguably preclude through plausible deniability any further scientific investigation regarding tens of thousands of bigfoot sightings.***

VII.   Performing predictive experiments in such a fashion so as to maximize the total duration involved in a study or the work content and expense billed to a contract.

Example: Heartburn industry promoting predictive studies around a full array of 1000 environmental factors and their possible contribution to stomach ulcers, in an effort to prolong research and protect prescription heartburn remedies from being held to account regarding studies, already readily testable, which would falsify this prolonged pathway in one simple step, through H. Pylori research.


*** I hold no conclusions on these subjects, and only use them here as examples wherein I have observed the tradecraft of corruption and social control – a subject in which I do bear professional skills at advising upon and countering.

April 1, 2014 Posted by | Deskeption | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: