People who believe pseudoscience should be jailed and beaten

Post Reply New Topic

I went out grocery shopping with my mom, stepsister, and kid half-sister yesterday. Upon walking toward the dairy and ice cream aisle (The frozen section in this particular store is split into dairy and non-dairy), "Teisha" (Not my kid sister's real name) clamors for some freeze pops. The stepsister, "Caleigh" (Again, not her real name) makes baseless claims of aspartame causing cancer. I actually wanted to smack the living s**t out of her for that. My mom drinks the same Kool-Aid and she refuses to sway after I show her scientific evidence debunking controversies around artificial sweeteners (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... sweeteners). Unless you're a phenylketonuriac or you ingest a lot of aspartame, it's not an issue. It's just a f*****g amino acid! If you want to avoid NutraSweet because you're allergic to it or you just don't like the taste, that's fine, but to make claims that are unsupported by medical science is something that should warrant a jail sentence.

I seriously wanted to put her under citizen's arrest for denying science. She also has the gall to claim that vaccines may cause autism despite that being bunk, too. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/)

I don't give a f**k about her "mommy instincts". It does not and will not take priority over scientific consensus. Nobody ever has the right to believe pseudoscience and never will! Why the f**k do these people still believe after they've been proven wrong? Do their brains not work? Are they genetically inferior or something? Do science-minded people such as myself need to drag these f*****s out into the streets and make them learn by force?

Last edited by Weiss_Yohji on 12 May 2014, 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How old is caleigh you might want to get some help if you are having urges to smack the living s***t out of children before it escalates. As far as I know science has not entirely disproven that such sweetners could contribute to cancer or not....but nothing really implies it for sure would either however it is a pretty well known fact its unhealthy but I'd have to look up specifically what health problems it would contribute to...but yeah a kid saying something like that isn't really too far off at least they know artificial sweeteners are unhealthy and will try to avoid having things with them. The crap makes me very nauseous and I don't see how anyone can stand it. But no someone should not be put under citizens arrest because you disagree with them or they say something not entirely factual. Is it your mom who thinks vaccines cause autism or also 'caleigh'? that has been entirely debunked but all you can do is explain that if someone doesn't believe it you can't make them so perhaps spend your energy on something more fulfilling then trying to convince them you're right. Also how do you define pseudoscience?

"Caleigh"'s in her early 30s. She's living with us because she's had a life of hard living involving copious amounts of drinking and IIRC hard drug use. "Tiesha" is 12 so there might be some hope for her. I should have clarified that first.

As far as I know, it's just my mom and even then she only said vaccines may cause autism. I showed her the above link to the National Cancer Institute last night. She took the mouse out of my hand and closed the window.

I personally don't drink diet soda, but not because of any perceived health risks from artificial sweeteners. I just don't like the taste unless it's Splenda. I rarely drink soda, and rarer still do I drink alcohol.

Last edited by Weiss_Yohji on 12 May 2014, 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ah it sounded like you where in the store with two kids or something....even so artificial sweetners aren't healthy and in my opinion should be avoided, as for directly causing cancer that could be a bit far fetched...but not sure that is grounds to have someone beaten and imprisoned? But yeah a lot of people in general don't know 'all' the facts on everything they talk about. Nothing wrong with trying to inform people but if they are stubborn or whatever depending on what it is sometimes its best to just let it go.

I don't like seeing people conned. Facts do not take a backseat to maternal instinct and authority opinion. My mom kept saying that whether she's right or wrong doesn't matter. Stubborn people need to be deprogrammed and their thought processes corrected. I feel I can't just let them be. It's wrong to make such far-fetched claims.

She also claimed that saccharin caused cancer in rats. I did one Google search and again, couldn't find any hard evidence proving so.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer- ... upplements
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/945.htm

Years ago, "Caleigh" claimed that MSG caused brain damage. Au contraire:
http://extoxnet.orst.edu/faqs/additive/ificmsg.htm#NEU

What the hell went wrong in our society that people believe mommy instincts, hearsay, chit-chat, chemophobia, and fear-mongering over actual science? What does it take to remake human nature to correct these flaws?

You have to keep in mind that the studies showing aspartame was safe comes mostly from entities funded by the very investors that own the aspartame industry. So you have a veiled conflict of interest.

Next you have the FDA very quickly making statements that it is safe and points to a number of relatively minor technicalities as flaws in many of the studies showing harmful results for the product. The FDA is the LAST agency on earth you'd want to place your trust in. The FDA has the worst standards for products and in the great majority of times that products are sent to them for evaluation and approval, the FDA merely approves them without testing. Just google how many people do the paperwork properly for completely bogus products (like eyedrops/fake tears that the formula provided to the FDA in the paperwork was basically an acid that would burn through anyone's skull in seconds..and it got FDA approval).

Personally I don't touch the stuff. It makes food taste terrible imo.

I would not call the studies vs other studies 'pseudoscience' though. Its just conflicting scientific research with a big dose of big money getting tossed around.

Pseudoscience is astrology and such.

That's not entirely accurate. Case in point, this study:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0057261

It concerns consumption of aspartame and a risk of CHILDHOOD ASTHMA, not cancer. The authors specifically stated that there were no competing interests involved.

OP, I think you just posted this when you were upset and it would be good to try to regroup. If you fly off the handle and start saying people should be jailed and beaten for things like this, it's not going to help convince them that your arguments are valid or logical, even if they are.

Also, I agree with a lot of what Dantac said.

I have no comment on aspartame (except I don't trust it given the man responsible for it) but one thing to keep in mind is that scientists and other experts can be as dogmatic, closed minded and blinded by naivety just as much as intelligent. I have been told many things by supposed specialists and experts over the years that were absolutely, positively wrong especially from my paediatrician.

I have respect for science having a scientist in the family but future generations will compare our supposed vast knowledge to cave drawings.

Not so sure our society was ever without that sort of thing...but yes people with power know this and they use fear mongering and promote this stuff with propaganda...the masses are ignorant and I don't think its an accident its been a major tool for corrupt governments. I mean I feel like educating people could help but then how do you go about that when there is so much mis-information not to mention many people are stubborn and entirely stuck in their beliefs and refuse to try and be open minded. I mean my grandma is the type of person who might say stuff like that without really researching facts or claim she knows how it is when she hasn't got a clue what she's talking about. So yeah I don't really know of a concrete solution for any of that.

I agree about the FDA, certainly the worst source to get information concerning food and drugs from.

Wow, I kindof feel that the people who should be jailed [not sure about beaten] are murderers and rapists, not people who have listened to different research study conclusions than you have. Just sayin'

That's like saying you don't trust Volkswagen cars given the Nazis originally made them or that you don't trust Ziploc bags because Dow made Agent Orange back in the day. You may as well say you don't trust Mitsubishi cars because that company made the Zero fighters Japan used during World War II,

Just because a company or person has a dubious past doesn't make the products bad. It doesn't mean your VW Beetle is going to drive on its own and run over Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and others who don't fit Hitler's f**ked-up Aryan ideal. It doesn't mean your Ziploc bags or aspirin are designed to murder you. It doesn't mean your Mitsubishi car is going to explode.

The statement of no competing interests is as believable as swearing on the bible is in a court of law. Look at how many research papers showed tobacco, agent orange, DDT, etc were not harmful to people in the past yet we know for a fact they are quite harmful only after decades of floods from 3rd party research studies drowning out the 'research' of the big companies.

Funding is not just about 'here have money do research'... a university whose primary source of funds for the univ (not just research) comes from, say, Marlboro... will not be publishing or supporting articles (in fact they'll suppress them) that would show Marlboro products are worse for your health than any other cigarette (fictional example). Why? Because if they do you can bet Marlboro will not give the university much money next year. The only research that is allowed is that which has a high chance of providing the data the 'client' requests.

I've submitted applications for research grants in my univ.. you'd be surprised how many leading questions and 'tell me what you're researching, and how you research it and what you think the result will be and why' there are that have little to do with the scientific process and a lot to do with 'let me know if its in our interests to fund your research' . The search for knowledge/truth is just icing on their cake. But first you must provide the cake.

hey donkeykong - yes, you, centre of the universe, font of all knowledge, haven't you heard, time and space are illusions, you are an illusion, your mum's an illusion, your sister is an illusion, I am an illusion, Richard Dawkins is an illusion, Stephen Hawking is an illusion, even the nicest atheist in the world, Alain de Botton is an illusion, thus saith the Lord

I don't think the OP literally wanted to smack the crap out of the kid, or kill the kid.

This was hyperbole, all out of irritation. Not to be taken literally.

Pseudoscience does irritate me; I don't get violent about it, though.