Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
44. Okay,
Mon Nov 4, 2013, 05:50 PM
Nov 2013

First, the Protocol is hard to locate on Google because we use English and the Protocols tend to be replicated over the internet in the language of whatever country the scientist is in. So in France, maybe the term to look for would be "Protocole International," etc.

One of the main provisions of the International Protocol happens to be that the
"ludicrous" factor is not allowed. My "mercury replaced by formaldehyde" study I keep referring to in this forum is one example. A study done overseas has to be logically meaningful. If the parameters are nonsensical, the study is not allowed.

The cherry picking of data, so pervasive inside US research labs, is not allowed. So we have these big American companies that are doing studies to prove their pesticide is "safe" and they simply toss out data that would cause some amount of concern over the product's safety. That is not just frowned on overseas - it ends up costing a company found guilty of doing this some huge fines.

The American companies don't even abide by the terms of US Code rules and coda regarding ethics and data participants. Remember a few years back (maybe ten years ago?) when Sen Barbara Boxer went on a full scale attack as she had found out that a company in Florida was offering video cam recorders to families willing to have their living quarters sprayed with their "safe" products. Then all the people had to do wa to record the health of their children over a two year time period. Since chem components found in insecticides are often carcinogenic, and such chems don't cause the cancer for many years, the company doing this thought they'd get away with it, and perhaps they would have, but anti-pesticide activists called the Senator's office and she got the practice to stop.

One last comment: in most foreign countries, when a product is to be evaluated by the government, it is actual governmental researchers that evaluate the product. It is not possible for Monsanto to tell some governmental agency in another country what is or isn't in the product. The nation's alb does a gas spectrometry evaluation of the product and doesn't allow the company to make up what it wants to tell the government.

Interesting this is almost entirely medically-relevant research ... eppur_se_muova Oct 2013 #1
It is everywhere except the physical sciences, and they make mistakes too. bemildred Oct 2013 #2
What is interesting is that it is a study of the data submitted with the papers intaglio Oct 2013 #3
This was a lot cheaper to do though I'd guess. bemildred Oct 2013 #4
An interesting piece, still I wonder how much context it lacks. HuckleB Oct 2013 #5
Skepticism is good, I think that's the point of the OP. bemildred Oct 2013 #6
To a point. HuckleB Oct 2013 #7
People do disagree. bemildred Oct 2013 #8
Yes, and I'd certainly disagree about your claim here. HuckleB Oct 2013 #10
I know you do. nt bemildred Oct 2013 #11
To be clear: bemildred Oct 2013 #9
I've often thought that a lot of research is flawed due to poorly designed experiments. hedgehog Oct 2013 #12
That is a different can of worms, to me anyway, but yeah. bemildred Oct 2013 #13
Fifty years ago, public funding would have helped. But now a days, the truedelphi Oct 2013 #15
Yeah, it's like the normal career path now. bemildred Oct 2013 #17
Major issue there. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #43
Thank you for posting this. truedelphi Oct 2013 #14
Thank you. As I said, it's a pet peeve of mine. bemildred Oct 2013 #16
What I think about quite often: truedelphi Nov 2013 #18
Question: what International Protocols? reACTIONary Nov 2013 #20
Okay, truedelphi Nov 2013 #44
+1. nt bemildred Nov 2013 #46
Some of that is ok, but the mercury in vaccines still isn't linked to Autism. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #21
I will comment. bemildred Nov 2013 #23
Good points. CanSocDem Nov 2013 #24
Thank you. It is certainly true that we are less healthy than we could be. bemildred Nov 2013 #25
We know what causes HIV. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #27
That's good news about Glaucoma... CanSocDem Nov 2013 #34
I'm not surprised it works for that. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #41
What I'd like is a real Health Industry, not the Disease Industry we have Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2013 #37
Totally with you on the masking of symptoms. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #42
Your comment also, I would think, at applies to the poster upthread as well. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #26
I will be very surprised if autism does not prove to be multi-causal. bemildred Nov 2013 #29
The only reason that mercury in autism is still not linked to mercury is truedelphi Nov 2013 #36
Formaldehyde is natural in your foods. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #38
Sitting here quite grateful as that as of today's date no one like you is truedelphi Nov 2013 #39
I'm a skeptic, no matter what issue you hand me. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #40
+1. nt bemildred Nov 2013 #45
The standards for research & science are much higher now than when the original research was done.nt Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2013 #19
Bullshit. nt bemildred Nov 2013 #22
There may have also been financial incentive for the failed earlier studies. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #28
I was educated in the 60s, I don't have to research it. bemildred Nov 2013 #30
Ok, that's all you got. Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2013 #31
Good argument. nt bemildred Nov 2013 #32
Thank you. nt Bernardo de La Paz Nov 2013 #33
And they continue to become more stringent over time. HuckleB Nov 2013 #35
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Health»Science has lost its way,...»Reply #44