Thoughts on PE from johndough

Be peaceful… or else! :-p

As I’ve said before, I love the sciences. And I’m sure you mean well, and have the best of intentions, and really want to contribute something to our scientific knowledge (oxymoron?) as a world. But to borrow and paraphrase an urban colloquialism:

” At this time in history, it’s all about the Benjamins baby.” Observe:

Pharmaceutical Industry

The global vaccine market is expected to register revenues in excess of US$ 34 Billion by 2012. (Businesswire, Dec 22, 2009)

“For the first time ever, in 2006, global spending on prescription drugs topped $643 billion, even as growth slowed somewhat in Europe and North America. The United States accounts for almost half of the global pharmaceutical market, with $289 billion in annual sales followed by the EU and Japan. Emerging markets such as China, Russia, South Korea and Mexico outpaced that market, growing a huge 81 percent.

US profit growth was maintained even whilst other top industries saw little or no growth. Despite this, “.the pharmaceutical industry is — and has been for years — the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S. In the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry topped the list of the most profitable industries, with a return of 17% on revenue.”

Publish or Perish

“Publish or perish” refers to the pressure to publish work constantly to further or sustain a career in academia. The competition for tenure-track faculty positions in academia puts increasing pressure on scholars to publish new work frequently. (Wikipedia- Publish or Perish)

Frequent publication is one of the few methods at a scholar’s disposal to improve his or her visibility, and the attention that successful publications bring to scholars and their sponsoring institutions helps ensure steady progress through the field and continued funding. Scholars who focus on non-publishing-related activities (such as instructing undergraduates), or who publish too infrequently, may find themselves out of contention for available tenure-track positions.

A scholarly writer may experience pressure to publish constantly, regardless of the academic field in which the writer conducts scholarship. One physicist, for example, sees evidence of shoddy scholarship in the field. In the 1990s, graduate students and untenured assistant professors in the humanities and social sciences may have experienced more pressure than academics in the natural sciences, but after 2000, the pressure spread into other disciplines and the phenomenon came to influence the advancement of tenured associate professors to the coveted full professor title in the United States. Because of declining enrollments in MBA programs, business school professors are also significantly under pressure in the mid-2000s.”

Now I don’t know your situation. But the doctors and engineers I know are under various pressures, both financial and peer, as described in the data I pulled, to generate funding, produce results, and publish to establish enough of a rep to eventually garner tenure, and get even more funding.

What I’m saying is that not everyone in these fields are in it for altruistic reasons.Or if they are, they end up having to bend to the status quo. And it’s been my experience that it doesn’t get more emotionally argumentative, vicious, petty, & biased than the Scientific intelligentsia.

It’s hyperbole on your part to state that McCarthy and Wakefield are responsible for a resurgence in measles.

Vaccines work off the principle of “like cures like”, which has been used in various healing arts for thousands of years.

Do vaccines work? Obviously yes. Can they cause adverse side effects, including death? Again yes. Are these effects statistically insignificant? As a whole of the population, yes. When it’s your child or wife?. Not so much.

I’ve known a number of people who’ve had adverse reactions to various vaccines. They obviously didn’t work for them. Anecdotal, I know, but an important observation for me in determining how I deal with vaccines. I don’t. They’re much safer ways to protect you’re health. Would I discourage people from using them? No, I’d show them both sides of the issue and let them come to an informed decision.

I’ll be the first to say that to believe that Wakefield’s autism study was the only evidence needed was flawed thinking on the part of many. Does it invalidate people’s suspicions? No. They’ve just got to do a better job of proving it. But like PE, I don’t see it happening. 34 Billion dollars in vaccine revenue by 2012 is “kill you dead money” if you get in the way of that kind of cash flow. Nowadays it’s just easier to destroy someone’s reputation. Ask Pons and Fleischmann.

Life is usually not about extremes. PE works for some, and for various reasons, not for others. But it does work. Just because JAMA, BMJ, or Lancet doesn’t confirm this fact, makes it no less real.

LOL. Kinda’. I actually got into this by way of Qigong I learned.
One of the “side effects” is a bigger penis. It’s actually an
Anti-aging regimen.

Ugh are we seriously having this conversation? The site says you can use either “proved” or “proven” as the perfect tense of the verb, which was the way I was using it. “Proven” is the only acceptable one as the participle adjective. Both are good for the verb. But shit this is an unfortunate line of communication for this thread so that’s as far as I’m going with it.

It just feeds into the theme of everyone’s “brave ant noble” crusade against scientists. The media and television shows like House like to glorify people who “stand up to science.” It’s why you can turn on CNN or Fox news and see a scientist who’s spent his career studying the data on evolutionary theory sitting across from a radical preacher creationist as if they’re equals. And then everyone buys it and calls it a “debate.”

This is fun. I like you guys. Gonna go tug on my Dick for a while now.

Nice. Experimenting.

Well, I guess I agree, but it looks like you’re not viewing it with a truly unbiased eye. Almost like you’re interpreting specific things to support your own conclusions, but leaving out the rest (if it is clear what I mean). But maybe I just don’t understand what YOU mean :p

I’m not aware. I’d love to read about what they’ve tried to do. Maybe I could find something similar to my own situation.

I have yet to come across a thread where someone claiming great early gains was scrutinized. Usually they are congratulated by a few people and then the thread dies. One of two things is happening: 1-people accept it because it’s been posted about before, 2- people don’t believe it but choose not to address it. I’m inclined to believe it is #1.

:) But my point is this: Why should it be unpopular? I almost get the feeling that non-gainers are viewed as quacks who just don’t know what they’re doing.

Because, has you said, gainers outnumber non-gainers here.

So, we should start saying : “Hey, don’t report that you have gained, please, UFGator could be upset.”? This is your idea of an honest forum?

I can’t get what you are asking for, basically.

Well, why don’t do a search for Aristocane? Or horsedick?

In the meanwhile, show me a few threads where non-gainers were treated like quacks instead than receiving friendly advices.

You could start reading about this guy then

secjay

/pedata/data.ph … username=secjay

There seems to be some confusion…

Unpopular in this sense means “not accepted or frowned upon.” I’m not talking about unpopular in the sense of “not routine or usual”

No, that’s not what I’m saying and I have never hinted at that being something that I wanted to have happen. Totally unfair comment, and rude too.

What you do want to happen, then? Do you have many examples of threads were this ‘not accepted or frown upon’ thing is evident, UFG? I’d like to see them.

Great answer ))) If u desperately want big dick , u will do every f …. ng thing to achieve your goals, and no doctor can stop you !

So, you give me a list of 3 people who have supposedly not gained.

secjay - his stats show that he gained
aristocane - banned for posting fake pictures plus he claims that he did gain girth
horsedick99 - assuming I have the right one, gained a lot according to his sig horsedick99

I must be missing something here!

Using YOUR correllation that skeptics tend to be non gainers or injury-proned people, THIS thread is a perfect example :)

How much Secjay gained, UFGator? Write down stats, please.

Where my correlation is? Which post are you referring to, UFGator? Quote please.

I gave you an example of a 1) Mod who is an hard-gainer - and mabye non-gainer would be more proper; 2) a guy that was claiming extraordinary gains and was banned; 3) a guy that has received more than enough skeptics and ironic comments by vets because claiming extraordinary gains.