Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Flygon wrote:
I request this topic be locked then, since its purpose has been completely lost.
I agree, whenever all the other kids start having more fun than me, I just take my ball and go home. Screw them anyway, they're just douches. Douches without a ball to continue playing with. That'll show 'em. They'll miss me and my ball, and come crawling back, begging for forgiveness. Forgiveness and the ball.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Fabian wrote:
DarkKobold wrote:
This is being taken far more serious than tongue-in-cheek, than I expected.
Perhaps I needed a better introduction?
People on tasvideos take something super retarded and take it super seriously and discuss it at length over several threads spanning 6-8 months? Well color me surprised!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
No, it displays normally if it is allowed to fully scroll before pressing Start. If the button is pushed on the first possible frame, it causes the screen to be truncated. So as far as I can tell, it's a bug in the game.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I gots a new movie? Wow, thanks for updating this aqfaq, I remember quickly plowing through my run of it ~3 summers ago so that I could submit 3 spider-man movies instead of 2, and with the clunky mechanics of this game, it was probably the least polished of the 3. Thanks for taking the time to polish up this turd, and I'm pleased as punch to be your co-author :)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Warp wrote:
About perma-banning users: If someone is such a dick as to get himself banned, but years later grows up a bit and becomes a much more civil and reasonable person (yes, that can really happen), isn't there any way that he can have his ban reversed? Or is it a life sentence?
Quick question: Have you ever known of this to happen on the internet?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I did suggest that when it originally got brought up, but I haven't been active enough lately to know if there are any grues that truly deserve a chance at being regurgitated.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Well if you're more educated, you're at a lower risk to [URL=http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/16/2955844/cancer-death-rate-gap-widens-based.html]die from cancer[/URL]
So I guess I just can't win.
I am fully aware that the article says the researchers don't think its a causative effect, but a corrolation. So, now I'm done with this whole pointless discussion and am off to eat some volcano meat.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Point clarified. However, it could have saved about 5 pages of posts if you'd actually cited that other research you mentioned, instead of relying on a conspiracy theorist YouTube clip as your only reference.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
So in essence this whole argument has been about one guy doing poor research and blaming the FDA for not accepting the data from his flawed experiments, but now there is some research being done which better supports his hypothesis. That's good news, especially for people with cancer, if it turns out to actually be a viable treatment.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
sonicpacker wrote:
DarkKobold wrote:
It looks like people are finally (in the last 3 years) actually testing his 'drug' and finding that it works well on some cancers, most of which looks like breast cancer (ironically, the most curable of all cancers).
I'm directing this quote at Truncated.
Sigh, and now I'm just convinced that you're being stubborn. Truncated was right in everything that he said. Shoddy research is no replacement for high quality studies, even if the original hypothesis is shown to be correct.
Edit: Just for posterity, here's the steps of the scientific method:
Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
See the last two points? They're important, because they allow other like minded people to critique and verify your results.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Well if you plan on going into any field of medicine (or even any profession which relies on published data to guide decision making) I hope some of the stuff that's been talked about will help give you a better idea of why us in the medical and research professions are necessarily doubtful about citing evidence without sources or original research/methods.
FYI, I earned a B.S. in Exercise and Sport Science, and a Doctorate in Physical Therapy (7 years of college, essentially), while D.K. is a Ph. D. candidate with a heavy emphasis on medical research. So, we're not just full of shit, I promise.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Ahhh, makes sense. Occams razor says that its a lot easier to be a arrogant asshat than to have a multi-national conspiracy, so I'll believe the first.
More worrisome to me is how the word 'evidence' is just thrown around, as if it's all the same. For those that want to know, this wiki article should be required reading.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine#section_3
Sorry for the mobile link, on my phone right now.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
sonicpacker wrote:
mmbossman wrote:
without any sort of science behind it, IT'S NOT MEANINGFUL DATA.
Maybe just as "crazy" is in the eye of the beholder, meaningful is as well. We seem to disagree as to what constitutes real evidence. So I suppose discussing it further would be pointless.
Meaningful as in "statistically significant", which is a very real scientific concept. If you have yet to take college or doctorate level statistics, then do some research on it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
sonicpacker wrote:
Derakon wrote:
It has nothing to do with the availability of information. Burzynski is free to publish his methods by any means he likes. He just can't apply them (outside of strictly restricted test cases) without the FDA's approval.
Exactly. So why release them? So the methods can be stolen by other people in other countries exactly like the FDA tried to do? Sounds good to me.
mmbossman wrote:
In both scenarios, 5 people had full remission of their cancer, which their medical records will show. But when you don't have a scientific study behind the records, you won't know about the other 995, especially if what's-his-name won't release his methods.
Jesus Christ, have I not said more than once that he claims it to be ~25% EFFECTIVE ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF CANCER.
And you're missing my entire point. I don't care if it's 1% or 100% more effective, without any sort of science behind it, IT'S NOT MEANINGFUL DATA.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Medical records are written documentation of a patient's course of care. They are not (in isolation) a form of "proof" that some form of treatment "works", just that the patient likely had some sort of change. The fact that what's-his-face won't release his methods for his drug trials makes any sort of medical records that stem from that essentially meaningless. Example:
A) I'm a big drug company and make a new cancer drug. I give 5 people my medicine, and all 5 of them have a full remission of their cancer! I tell the scientific community that my medicine is a success.
B) I'm a big drug company and make a new cancer drug. I give 1000 people my medicine, and 5 of them have a full remission of their cancer, but 995 of them have no change! I tell the scientific community that my medicine cured 5 people of cancer, but I leave out anything about the other 995.
In both scenarios, 5 people had full remission of their cancer, which their medical records will show. But when you don't have a scientific study behind the records, you won't know about the other 995, especially if what's-his-name won't release his methods.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
sonicpacker wrote:
I was saying that the people that can testify for Burzynski's methods have their own personal medical records to back up their statements. That is good evidence..... The man has not released his methods. Of course they cannot be replicated (unless it is through sheer luck).
I don't want to jump into this one too, because I really have no idea of any of the supposed research or why/how it was suppressed/erased/etc., but the two statements above, so close together, made me LOL.
FYI, medical records are not scientific evidence, they are anecdotal accounts.
If we were meant to eat meat, it would come prepackaged as steaks, and not have to be grown on a cow!
Correct. We are not meant to eat meat. Eating meat is usually immoral for humans, because we are intelligent creatures, so we know that it's wrong to kill animals.
We weren't 'meant' to cook food any more than we were 'meant' to build computers or 'meant' to put a man on the moon. We discovered cooking! The whole concept that we were 'meant' for anything is pure absurdity.
By "meant" I mean that all creatures have always eaten natural food (perhaps I should have used the word adapted instead of "meant"). No other creatures have ever cooked their food, and nature and evolution knows what's best for us. Our bodies have evolved to eat food that is in nature, so it's not a good idea to start burning food suddenly... if we want to do that, we should first change our bodies so that they can handle that kind of food.
In fact, some theorize that the ability of humankind to grow large brains was directly related to cooking.
Yeah, that's a common myth. It's surprising that there are scientists who say that. Strange how poisoning the body with chemicals and smoke would make the brains grow...
Warp wrote:
You seem to give nature some kind of sentience and will, like it's a benevolent being who tries to protect and benefit us, as long as we obey nature.
Accurate statement. If we go against natural laws like gravity, we will die. If we eat unnatural food, we will get diseases or die (because our bodies are not adapted that that kind of food). We have to live in harmony with nature.
A) Morality is a non-scientific, emotional construct.
B) Evolution is a process of a species changing over the course of a period of time to adapt to its environment. For every beneficial gene that gets passed on, there are many more genes which don't. But the scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with how one person changes, so evolution can't "know what's best for us"
C) Contradicts (B)
D) Scientists say things because they have evidence to back up their statements. The quality and amount of evidence behind their statements will decide how "good" their statements are (i.e. whether you should believe them or not).
E) Successful space flight would disagree with you.
F) Harmony is a non-scientific, emotional construct.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(822)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I can't tell if this whole thread is just one big level, or if people are really voting yes for a two hour Carmen Sandiego because it was botted. Needless to say, I don't think I'll watch it to find out (Sorry Bobo)
