I have a question for you, does conventional scientific methodology have to be necessary in this modern world? This isn't to try to make an entire argument against the ideas you've posted, more or less a divergent thought.

"Lack of double-blind studies" under controlled settings are difficult to organize and hard to come by through online searches, combing through literature databases. These clinicians, researchers, field technicians, MD examiners, PHD theorists most of the time have to be funded through grants or other political entities. A lofty goal of proving a claim of some cancer research, yeah, no that's a hard pass for just about any normie doing this without any type of self gain or using their own capital, time, for rewards other than to simply help people. Getting a high enough population size to where statistical data is significant is time consuming to filter out the grander population at large. It's also very rare you see one clinician self-report their own journals/case files, as their own journals won't even see the light of day under established medical databases of scientific rigor.

To this day, the only self-reported journal with a clinician's own case files that I've ever seen was regarding vitamin C. And I think these case files went back to the 1940s-1960s.

Lack of peer-review research : maybe no one is scrutinizing previous research because there is no money to support these endeavors. There's thousands of medical literature out there for hypotheses to treat cancer, but where's the follow up? There seems to always to be "future considerations" or "further trials" for any of these hypotheses. It seems to always be "well, it could work, but we don't know. there's not enough data even though our n=200 in theory sounds reasonable. more trials need to be repeated." For the life of me, I've yet to see follow up papers to repeat trials. Conventional science for the most part, just leaves the data as is, seemingly with no one wanting to further expand on concepts.

Scientific rigor : for thousands of years, before modern science, we've had "scientists" unbeknownst in our own local communities. They weren't called scientists. A nice simple term would be farmers and ranchers. These awesome folks were able to develop hypotheses that relate to selecting between dominant and recessive genes in their agricultural products based on the results they get from their harvest. Is this type of rigor the same as modern rigor? Is one farmer's want to grow taller stocks of corn, or more corn in their stock, or more bushels in their acres, different colors of corn, or soil management, or whatever have you the same type of rigor? Are these farmers getting together and talking shop amongst themselves on how each others are getting good crops?

Basically, what i'm trying to get at is: anecdotes are just as good as the conventional methodology. Anecdotes is what helps farmers and ranchers grow sustainable food for us, as these folks surely talk amongst themselves and experiment themselves. I'm sure alot of these folks even went to agriculture school, to even get themselves familiarize with new theory. But it's still just theory, where are the practical reports of result findings? It's quite in the result of their crops of what they're theorizing on.

I just think it's a little ridiculous these days to dismiss anecdotal claims. If it's n+1 to a dataset, a result, a good protocol of experimentation, result finding, then it has sound logical repeatable possibility. But with modern conventional means, it's impossible to find repeatability for any normie without a university grade lab, lab equipment, and source to unsellable chemical compounds to the general public without credentials. Only repeatability is the function of economics, the cost, the availability, and the convenience of sourcing is capable to possibly confirm or deny any new grand claim.

That's why ivermectin, fenbendazole, methylene blue, vitamin c, chlorine dioxide, hydroxychloroquine, or whatever alternative treatment out there is being purported into the structure of our latest age of the "great awakening" Because these stuff is repeatable! The hardest part is trying to read people's own stories to see if their own methodology checks out for logical connections. Reading through the bullshit, if you will. But no one wants to do that. Only a select few who have their own determination and will power will. IE: facebook groups about cancer research. They have something to lose, or have already something to lose, and within their own will power choose to learn more about it themselves and try to restructure thinking processes within their own communities of what else may be possible.

I don't know, I wonder where the switch to scientific fervor had to be purely under controlled rigor? Somewhere along the line, there was a divergence between classical antiquity of thought (eat this willow bark, it'll help clear your headaches! aka aspirin) vs requiring everything needing to be controlled? I think, even in the realm of medicine, a healthy (pun very much intended) moderation in modern convention vs classical antiquity is just as good. Prolly big pharma only supporting papers that reach out to mainstream dogma being the complete divergence of these schools of thought, rather than a symbiotic convergence of the two.

I've got to know what some people consider to be hilly billy, rural folk stateside. Some of these folk live up to their late 80-90s with enough energy to even do gardening outside! I've listened to their treatment protocols, asked them what compounds they've done, how it's done, and by golly, they swear by it. I don't just sit there and let my own prejudices make me narrowminded, I just ask enough questions to connect logical connections that they don't necessarily know how to articulate.

Just because someone isn't a credentialed doctor, doesn't mean that they can't do their own homework in trying to learn more about the specifics of a field. Time is a person's own freedom. For some people to say "oh you're not credentialed, how dare you do your own research" Fuck outta here with that, we have the library of alexandria at our literal fingertips through cellphones, keyboards and computers. Ancient greeks would be salivating to see what possible knowledge can be learned.

I have a question for you, does conventional scientific methodology have to be necessary in this modern world? This isn't to try to make an entire argument against the ideas you've posted, more or less a divergent thought.

"Lack of double-blind studies" under controlled settings are difficult to organize and hard to come by through online searches, combing through literature databases. These clinicians, researchers, field technicians, MD examiners, PHD theorists most of the time have to be funded through grants or other political entities. A lofty goal of proving a claim of some cancer research, yeah, no that's a hard pass for just about any normie doing this without any type of self gain or using their own capital, time, for rewards other than to simply help people. Getting a high enough population size to where statistical data is significant is time consuming to filter out the grander population at large. It's also very rare you see one clinician self-report their own journals/case files, as their own journals won't even see the light of day under established medical databases of scientific rigor.

To this day, the only self-reported journal with a clinician's own case files that I've ever seen was regarding vitamin C. And I think these case files went back to the 1940s-1960s.

Lack of peer-review research : maybe no one is scrutinizing previous research because there is no money to support these endeavors. There's thousands of medical literature out there for hypotheses to treat cancer, but where's the follow up? There seems to always to be "future considerations" or "further trials" for any of these hypotheses. It seems to always be "well, it could work, but we don't know. there's not enough data even though our n=200 in theory sounds reasonable. more trials need to be repeated." For the life of me, I've yet to see follow up papers to repeat trials. Conventional science for the most part, just leaves the data as is, seemingly with no one wanting to further expand on concepts.

Scientific rigor : for thousands of years, before modern science, we've had "scientists" unbeknownst in our own local communities. They weren't called scientists. A nice simple term would be farmers and ranchers. These awesome folks were able to develop hypotheses that relate to selecting between dominant and recessive genes in their agricultural products based on the results they get from their harvest. Is this type of rigor the same as modern rigor? Is one farmer's want to grow taller stocks of corn, or more corn in their stock, or more bushels in their acres, different colors of corn, or soil management, or whatever have you the same type of rigor? Are these farmers getting together and talking shop amongst themselves on how each others are getting good crops?

Basically, what i'm trying to get at is: anecdotes are just as good as the conventional methodology. Anecdotes is what helps farmers and ranchers grow sustainable food for us, as these folks surely talk amongst themselves and experiment themselves. I'm sure alot of these folks even went to agriculture school, to even get themselves familiarize with new theory. But it's still just theory, where are the practical reports of result findings? It's quite in the result of their crops of what they're theorizing on.

I just think it's a little ridiculous these days to dismiss anecdotal claims. If it's n+1 to a dataset, a result, a good protocol of experimentation, result finding, then it has sound logical repeatable possibility. But with modern conventional means, it's impossible to find repeatability for any normie without a university grade lab, lab equipment, and source to unsellable chemical compounds to the general public without credentials. Only repeatability is the function of economics, the cost, the availability, and the convenience of sourcing is capable to possibly confirm or deny any new grand claim.

That's why ivermectin, fenbendazole, methylene blue, vitamin c, chlorine dioxide, hydroxychloroquine, or whatever alternative treatment out there is being purported into the structure of our latest age of the "great awakening" Because these stuff is repeatable! The hardest part is trying to read people's own stories to see if their own methodology checks out for logical connections. Reading through the bullshit, if you will. But no one wants to do that. Only a select few who have their own determination and will power will. IE: facebook groups about cancer research. They have something to lose, or have already something to lose, and within their own will power choose to learn more about it themselves and try to restructure thinking processes within their own communities of what else may be possible.

I don't know, I wonder where the switch to scientific fervor had to be purely under controlled rigor? Somewhere along the line, there was a divergence between classical antiquity of thought (eat this willow bark, it'll help clear your headaches! aka aspirin) vs requiring everything needing to be controlled? I think, even in the realm of medicine, a healthy (pun very much intended) moderation in modern convention vs classical antiquity is just as good. Prolly big pharma only supporting papers that reach out to mainstream dogma being the complete divergence of these schools of thought, rather than a symbiotic convergence of the two.

I've got to know what some people consider to be hilly billy, rural folk stateside. Some of these folk live up to their late 80-90s with enough energy to even do gardening outside! I've listened to their treatment protocols, asked them what compounds they've done, how it's done, and by golly, they swear by it. I don't just sit there and let my own prejudices make me narrowminded, I just ask enough questions to connect logical connections that they don't necessarily know how to articulate.

Just because someone isn't a credentialed doctor, doesn't mean that they can't do their own homework in trying to learn more about the specifics of a field. Time is a person's own freedom. For some people to say "oh you're not credentialed, how dare you do your own research" Fuck outta here with that, we have the library of alexandria at our literal fingertips through cellphones, keyboards and computers. Ancient greeks would've salivate to see what possible knowledge can be learned.

I have a question for you, does conventional scientific methodology have to be necessary in this modern world? This isn't to try to make an entire argument against the ideas you've posted, more or less a divergent thought.

"Lack of double-blind studies" under controlled settings are difficult to organize and hard to come by through online searches, combing through literature databases. These clinicians, researchers, field technicians, MD examiners, PHD theorists most of the time have to be funded through grants or other political entities. A lofty goal of proving a claim of some cancer research, yeah, no that's a hard pass for just about any normie doing this without any type of self gain or using their own capital, time, for rewards other than to simply help people. Getting a high enough population size to where statistical data is significant is time consuming to filter out the grander population at large. It's also very rare you see one clinician self-report their own journals/case files, as their own journals won't even see the light of day under established medical databases of scientific rigor.

To this day, the only self-reported journal with a clinician's own case files that I've ever seen was regarding vitamin C. And I think these case files went back to the 1940s-1960s.

Lack of peer-review research : maybe no one is scrutinizing previous research because there is no money to support these endeavors. There's thousands of medical literature out there for hypotheses to treat cancer, but where's the follow up? There seems to always to be "future considerations" or "further trials" for any of these hypotheses. It seems to always be "well, it could work, but we don't know. there's not enough data even though our n=200 in theory sounds reasonable. more trials need to be repeated." For the life of me, I've yet to see follow up papers to repeat trials. Conventional science for the most part, just leaves the data as is, seemingly with no one wanting to further expand on concepts.

Scientific rigor : for thousands of years, before modern science, we've had "scientists" unbeknownst in our own local communities. They weren't called scientists. A nice simple term would be farmers and ranchers. These awesome folks were able to develop hypotheses that relate to selecting between dominant and recessive genes in their agricultural products based on the results they get from their harvest. Is this type of rigor the same as modern rigor? Is one farmer's want to grow taller stocks of corn, or more corn in their stock, or more bushels in their acres, different colors of corn, or soil management, or whatever have you the same type of rigor? Are these farmers getting together and talking shop amongst themselves on how each others are getting good crops?

Basically, what i'm trying to get at is: anecdotes are just as good as the conventional methodology. Anecdotes is what helps farmers and ranchers grow sustainable food for us, as these folks surely talk amongst themselves and experiment themselves. I'm sure alot of these folks even went to agriculture school, to even get themselves familiarize with new theory. But it's still just theory, where are the practical reports of result findings? It's quite in the result of their crops of what they're theorizing on.

I just think it's a little ridiculous these days to dismiss anecdotal claims. If it's n+1 to a dataset, a result, a good protocol of experimentation, result finding, then it has sound logical repeatable possibility. But with modern conventional means, it's impossible to find repeatability for any normie without a university grade lab, lab equipment, and source to unsellable chemical compounds to the general public without credentials. Only repeatability is the function of economics, the cost, the availability, and the convenience of sourcing is capable to possibly confirm or deny any new grand claim.

That's why ivermectin, fenbendazole, methylene blue, vitamin c, chlorine dioxide, hydroxychloroquine, or whatever alternative treatment out there is being purported into the structure of our latest age of the "great awakening" Because these stuff is repeatable! The hardest part is trying to read people's own stories to see if their own methodology checks out for logical connections. Reading through the bullshit, if you will. But no one wants to do that. Only a select few who have their own determination and will power will. IE: facebook groups about cancer research. They have something to lose, or have already something to lose, and within their own will power choose to learn more about it themselves and try to restructure thinking processes within their own communities of what else may be possible.

I don't know, I wonder where the switch to scientific fervor had to be purely under controlled rigor? Somewhere along the line, there was a divergence between classical antiquity of thought (eat this willow bark, it'll help clear your headaches! aka aspirin) vs requiring everything needing to be controlled? I think, even in the realm of medicine, a healthy (pun very much intended) moderation in modern convention vs classical antiquity is just as good. Maybe prolly big pharma only supporting papers that reach out to mainstream dogma.

I've got to know what some people consider to be hilly billy, rural folk stateside. Some of these folk live up to their late 80-90s with enough energy to even do gardening outside! I've listened to their treatment protocols, asked them what compounds they've done, how it's done, and by golly, they swear by it. I don't just sit there and let my own prejudices make me narrowminded, I just ask enough questions to connect logical connections that they don't necessarily know how to articulate.

Just because someone isn't a credentialed doctor, doesn't mean that they can't do their own homework in trying to learn more about the specifics of a field. Time is a person's own freedom. For some people to say "oh you're not credentialed, how dare you do your own research" Fuck outta here with that, we have the library of alexandria at our literal fingertips through cellphones, keyboards and computers. Ancient greeks would've salivate to see what possible knowledge can be learned.