Guide 3

1. Corruption of Medical Science

This is a very hard topic to discuss. As it involves the #Science issue that plagues online interactions today. The “religion of science” issue. In which people follow science as blindly as they follow any doctrine by anyone as long as its written in a “book” or “journal”. As a conceptual comparison to that they are both text documents by people you have not met.

To have a disclaimer before I begin, my opinion of science is that it should either be paid for by the state which is obligated yearly for people to vote on investment areas for research for yearly spending. Such as, “the state invest 2k in research for rabbits”, “2k research into spending of backyard poker games” etc. Such as in the case where europe got 5 million responses on a random issue of time management… people do give a shit, regardless about whether you think all your friends do. Some will and I think its a good decisional theory on application of monetary expenditure on research. Also its better than the current system for researchers who are known to be pushed into very pocketed certain areas over others.

The other option, probably even better, is peer-to-peer investments which lock shareholders from contributing more than a base % of the overall required amount. This works very well from what I read for sole traders themselves, and I believe overall society as a whole functions better without being marketed and hounded by the corporatocracy. I love corporates, I love big business. But similar to spirituality where i do not wish monotheism to eradicate all its competition, I do not like monopolies or duopolies in business. I like data, and I dislike the idea that corporates can pay their way to eliminate duality in their industry. Ie, dont like our drink, well you have to drink it cause 99% of people believe its right for you because there is no research saying otherwise. The issue is popularisation of data to allow it to get into the hands of average people looking for studies. For example, in Australia if I am a member of a community, I have a right to take out a form of citizen card at my local university library and access a limited amount of peer-review journals which are under agreement from the University with that website. Whilst the university might take out, say, 100 website agreements, a local citizen can access maybe 20 website agreements. The issue with this, is that, those websites might be more likely to publish certain studies over others, and etc. You see where I am going with this. That it’s the ability for someone to acquire the data easily, that I find important.

In this sense. When a corporate invests and edits information in a study. To some regard, I have no opinion. If the data is taken from me, I have an opinion. If someone finds out something, and I put my time into seeking it. I feel that I should, through investment, be able to find and access the data. Not have it locked away if the information is valid for my general well being, whether mentally, spirituality, for health affects, for general dinner party bants discussions, etc. I like to access data. If something has not been researched, that is not the debate in this section, the debate is as to whether if something has been researched, and you are blocked from the data, is this acceptable to you? In my research, no. It lessens society, in my opinion.

On the other end of the spectrum, does corporate interest sway research topics away from the progression of society development?

This is a massive topic for me and is on my top 10 lists of, “if you bring this up and poke me the wrong way I might sit and yell viciously at you for an hour about it cause it bothers me so much.” I research a lot of things. I sit and found out something and I’m like :-O. I get excited and run out to tell people, and I am hit with the, “this is not common knowledge and so we don’t believe you,” wall. This in itself is not a problem. I don’t expect people to believe me for no cause. My issue is within; why are some subjects scientifically researched very heavily and not others.

I formulated two opinions; 1, does culture only research things necessary to it at the time to survive (ie, the “it was made before its time” or “they are well before their time” phrases, in which it is eluded that common culture cannot accept a new invention in its current state); 2, that ‘mainstream science’ was being swayed to research things that were not actually of overall interest and was causing problems within the overall conscious state. After a long time, I reasoned that I actually admit it to be both. Under that, the first is fine, the latter is very frightening. The actual issue is, “how much” is the latter occurring and do I believe my culture (the race) is being negatively affected by this. I believe yes, that the corporate sway especially in some countries, is too heavily out of sync with actual human expectations for data.

This thought really surfaced over certain touch points such as religion vs science. As to which I find very interesting because, they are nothing to do with each other. Its like saying my foot gives a shit what my knee does. My body will act regardless of those two regions bickering, they don’t give a shit. Science and religion seem to only conflict due to the reasoning that one has had power that the other developed an interest in, which is fine. The issue is, why current culture believes this, because your average person is very rarely educated in the scientific industry, doesn’t produce peer-reviewed journals and doesn’t read them. Nor as most people priests and scholars of theology and go to church everyday and follow their religious teachings word for word as it is up for interpretation for each denomination of god or deity followed. Yet claims to stand on this front in so much force, to aggressively bash another facet of life which is totally unconnected. It would be like stabbing your foot because your knee claimed it thought it shouldn’t have power to walk near it. You can see that would crush your ability to walk, and detrimental to your entire body.

Okay take an example. Chakras and Nerve plexus are identical. One is an eastern word, one is a western word, for the same thing. Chakras are an avid part of eastern medicine, yet as soon as you bring up the term “chakra” to most mainstream westerners, they laugh. Which confuses me, as they are integral also to western medicine. This is an example of #science, and there are a lot of these examples. In which westerners are made to look stupid because they don’t know their own science, in this example that chakras are a part of the scientific theory and taught on how important they are to the body and spine. As they are taught in eastern religion and medicine. This occurs across a huge varying amount of fields, in which, a lot of this data should be common knowledge. In the same way all Indians know wtf a chakra is, because its base knowledge.

“Does corporate interest sway research topics away from the progression of society development?” But you all know that coca cola gives you energy though. This is not a bad thing, I am giving an example of why corporate swaying of research can hinder the developmental process of a culture as a whole. Ie, dumbing down people by making them just #science rather than actual scientific understanding. To refer to the discussion in Guide 2 about Opinions… people have a lot of opinions, which they claim are inferred by their own scientific community. In which they are likely not, but they claim they are. I believe this is even more amplified by emphasis on paid for science overtly popularised rather than all the scientific industry because some is paid for and therefore promoted.

Every single article which affects a corporate may be put into a PR campaign sent to local media. But every study which hits a peer-review journal may not be pushed and campaigned to be in that same website/newspaper/tv station. The media outlet may only be able to pick a few. Though the latter may be more interesting to people, they will receive the former due to the push from the PR. We were taught when studying Journalism that some companies don’t even change the PR statement faxed over to the newspapers, they will just publish the PR statement, which has already been dressed up like a story, word for word into the news.

Therefore, this is a sore subject for me overall because it affects my ability to communicate with my peers. The more I know, the less I can find people who know what I do. Even if what I know is normal data, it may be mocked due to being counter to mainstream opinions. Ie, fat is bad rather than sugar. Fat is not bad, there is two kinds, like cholesterol. Polyunsaturated and… etc etc… you get the picture. The specific debate on things which should be common knowledge can sometimes be missed due to market agenda.