All of fatfreddie's Comments + Replies

Good. I'm glad you'll never show a manipulated video as evidence again. I hope this has been educational. Whether they test MMS or not is irrelevant. We have a good idea what Big Pharmai is capable of, and it smashes your conspiracy theory to smithereens. Or it's simply summarizing the conclusion? Like, in an abstract? ...all the more reason to use an efficient two-stage test process. You are not responding to this point or the alternate explanation, which is fatal to your conspiracy theory and your greatest piece of evidence for MMS being a miracle cure. Why is that? This is not a response. You are irresponsibly pushing MMS, a bleach solution, as a miracle cure for real-world problems that kill real people, based on trivially flawed deceptive videos exploiting a mistake a first-year stats student could diagnose after the Bayes theorem section of their stats 101 course. I know everything I need to know about you. I don't need to test MMS when there is zero evidence of its help and plenty of evidence of its harm. The burden of proof is on MMS proponents to show that drinking poison can be helpful. (This is a burden which has been passed by many therapies such as chemotherapy, incidentally.) I never said you said that. You are again not responding and evading. That was my summary, and I also explained what the problem was: Should I add rhetoric or careless reading to my above list of what I know about you?

Video is not even systematic data. It's beyond easy to manipulate. Oddly enough, Nature doesn't care what vested interests think. It either works or it doesn't. When we look at systematic reviews and meta-analyses of how Big Pharma biases results (for example, the research summarized in Goldacre's Bad Pharma), we do not see anything like 'Big Pharma has suppressed 100% effective miracle drugs for global killers'. We see things like 'trials conducted by Big Pharma are 10% more likely to favor them than trials of the same drug conducted by neutral third-parties'. No, it makes a clear point about video editing which you can confirm by watching the video yourself, and offers a straightforward way in which the results are misleading which is immediately recognized as plausible by anyone familiar with the two-stage approach to medical testing (cheap initial screening with high false positive rate followed by expensive slow accurate test) used the world over which minimizes expenses & time. True of all of the thousands of alternative & traditional medicine, none of which work. They all have fans who 'witnessed the effects'. No, it's not the best you can do. And this is why I am angry at you and people like you: you are engaged in crappy thinking, you are ignorant, and your ignorance drives out good information. You can do better. You can easily do better. Where are your literature reviews and meta-analyses? Where are your Kickstarters to fund real experiments? Hell, where are your n=1 self-experiments? It is possible to run your own blind self-tests (if you spend even a minute genuinely thinking about it, you can figure out self-blinding), and it is possible to do with MMS: in fact, MMS is especially easy to test because it is dissolved in water. I have run and am running many randomized self-experiments on myself to investigate things that mainstream medicine has not yet resolved to my satisfaction. For example: * http://www.gwern.net/LSD%20microdosing (I put this f

No, it's not showing that. It's showing a dude doing something in Africa, who may or may not be with the Red Cross (they were very quick to disclaim him) doing something which may or may not be a malaria treatment (which was sold to them as a purification agent, hm...) which may or may not have had the results claimed by someone who presents no hard documentation and which my link offers a much more likely explanation for (regression to the mean due to quick first-pass testing with a high false positive rate). Maybe. If even that. Each cut is a chance to shift film entirely: seeing is not believing. Documentarians know this very well, that it's easy to lie. See propaganda films like Triumph of the Will, modern polemicists like Michael Moore, or heck any of the examples in TvTropes. Just simple juxtaposition of shots can lead to starkly different interpretation of the same exact material by the viewers - the famous Kuleshov Effect. (Why do you think they give an Oscar for best film editing?) Sadly, 'seeing is believing' for a lot of people...

Ah, a video. Of course you can trust anything you see in a video edited by a partisan, right? It's not like it's a bunch of snippets put together out of context with a misleading voice over or anything. http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2013/05/fake-and-unethical-trial-video-claims-miracle-mineral-solution-cures-malaria/