/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15415763
>you should realize cancer has been a thing for hundreds, even thousands, of years

And then what?
when people had any ailment, no study was conducted.
And then there came """established""" treatment protocolls, which then became """standard of care""" protocolls.
Such as giving people arsenicals and mercurials.

>>15372434
In the 19th century arsenic was often the poison of choice for murderers. In the early 20th century its image was redeemed when an arsenic derivative became the salvation of those suffering from syphilis.

> https://web.archive.org/web/20201123203943/https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/early-solution
> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/212552
> https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/opinion/syphilis-and-the-use-of-mercury

"Mercury was the remedy of choice for syphilis in Protestant Europe. Paracelsus (1493-1541) formulated mercury as an ointment because he recognised the toxicity and risk of poisoning when administrating mercury as an elixir. "

> antimonials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimonial

> take the antomony pill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimony_pill

https://brill.com/display/book/9789004333253/B9789004333253-s007.xml

>>15342560
Peer review process, was never scientifically verified to be of benefit.
Which is a kekistrophic paradox.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

"we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused."

"There are several ways to abuse the process of peer review. You can steal ideas and present them as your own, or produce an unjustly harsh review to block or at least slow down the publication of the ideas of a competitor. These have all happened. Drummond Rennie tells the story of a paper he sent, when deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for review to Vijay Soman.9 Having produced a critical review of the paper, Soman copied some of the paragraphs and submitted it to another journal, the American Journal of Medicine."

"
Here is an example of two reviewers commenting on the same papers.
-Reviewer A: `I found this paper an extremely muddled paper with a large number of deficits'
-Reviewer B: `It is written in a clear style and would be understood by any reader'.
"

"peer review" and "conspiracy" are synonymous terms, since it's establishment.
Not only is it a tool for enabaling conspiracy, but also it allows shitty researchers, to shut down any research contrary to their opinion, just because of ego problems.
It's a "big boys club".

>>15330112
>That's not a good thing though. Most sickness is just detox. When you're never sick, your body never releases the toxins, so they accumulate and accumulate and accumulate until some day you're getting cancer or some shit.
Absolutely retarded premise.

If being sick, is a detox.
Then why is not getting sick, not just a sign, of:
>no toxins
>your microbiome and detox organs like liver and kidneys are working properly, therefore stuff is not accumulating
>not consooming crappy products

Also taking the "not getting sick"-claim to serious, most people would never remembering, having diarrhea for one day is being "sick", this is also a "detox" pathway.
Same for having some mild cough or sniffels for a day...
Or sweating and feeling non vital for one day for apparently no reason...

This is a sceptard mindset, to think only in black and white.
>if you never getting sick, you are not healthy
Also doing remote diagnosis and claiming shit like this, will let the no-germ-camp look more outlandish than already appears to NPCs and System Leeches.

>>15328268
Just take the eternal antimony pill