The Flat Earth & Conspiracy Theories

[crgfstr1]

Most peer reviewed studies are paid for by big pharmacy corporations and the data is skewed to get the answers they want. Without good data the having peers review it still leads to garbage in garbage out.

I would be interested to see qualitative evidence of that.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... influence/
https://theamericanscholar.org/flacking ... oKTvvHRrAo
http://www.livescience.com/8365-dark-si ... sions.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/25-facts-a ... rs/5433260
http://ourhealthcaresucks.com/health-ca ... -evidence/
http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma
http://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturer/c ... dden-data/
http://www.naturalnews.com/023074_ghost ... rials.html
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 1844,d.cWw
http://vactruth.com/2012/07/09/7-examples-pharma-fraud/
http://www.vaclib.org/docs/myths.htm

[crgfstr1]

Look at the World Heaths Organization focus on vaccines. A nice study on how much money they are making and how to make more:

http://who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/ ... kaddar.pdf

[morbo3000]

Look at the World Heaths Organization focus on vaccines. A nice study on how much money they are making and how to make more:

http://who.int/influenza_vaccines_plan/ ... kaddar.pdf

That is not what that's about at all. It's about the economics necessary to drive the production of the vaccines and make them available for a low cost so they can be distributed in poor countries.

Pharmaceutical companies have skewed studies in their favor. But it does not follow that they are skewing the data about vaccines. There are too many lives at risk. WHO isn't making money from vaccines.

A good question to ask is what are the credentials of the sources of information we will and will not believe. Some watchdog groups are reputable, and some are not. So what criteria do we use to judge which one to believe?

Howard Rheingold has posted about "crap detection." He is very reputable. And rather than tell you what to believe, he provides resources for determining whether or not a site is providing good or bad information. As always, your mileage may vary.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/163G ... O8tpw/edit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHVvGELuEqM

Blessings...

[dizerner]

Whether a thing is complicated enough to say an answer either way may not be clear enough for certainty or rather an opinion against the prevailing be justly labeled "nut job conspiracy theory" can sometimes be a bit difficult to sort out. I do find it remarkable anyone could consider a flat earth as a plausible hypothesis.

[backwoodsman]

A couple ideas:
- Humility.

Man, that sure cuts both ways, doesn't it?! For example, humility would incline one to believe that:

1. The majority is not always right, even if you're part of it.

2. The majority of scientists are not always right -- not because they're in some kind of conspiracy, but because they're as human as the rest of us, with the same tendencies toward self-induced ideological blindnesses, ect., that most people never make the effort to get themselves out of. This has been illustrated repeatedly in this forum, particularly in topics having to do with creation vs. evolution.

3. Using phrases like "science deniers" doesn't automatically make someone else the "science denier". The real "science denier" could very well be oneself, if one hasn't taken the trouble to take a good, honest, open-minded look at the other guy's position and the scientific evidence behind it.

4. Likewise, labeling some idea a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean it is one; it might simply mean you don't want to bother considering the evidence for it.

5. No matter how thoroughly one thinks he's studied a topic, he should always keep in mind that someone, somewhere, just might know something he doesn't know.

[crgfstr1]

I too don't understand the flat earth idea. I haven't really looked into it because I don't see what difference it would make in my life. Flat, round, nothing I can do about it.

Vaccines not being as safe as claimed is much more of a near term issue for me as I have to make real decisions (although they are extremely limited because I live in CA) about what to do.

Asbestos was well know before the 1900's to cause lung issues. Yet it took nearly 90 years to reduce its use to very minimal levels. I had a town house that still had asbestos in it and it was built in the 80s. The big companies called it safe and then safe if used appropriately even though it clearly wasn't. It still isn't illegal for some uses in the US even though most other countries have gotten rid of it.

When 10 people in the US hold half of the wealth there is very little the average person can do even if it is sensible and safe if those that hold the money don't want it done. It wont be done.

[dwight92070]

To crgfstr1, Let's do a calculation. The total net worth of Americans in the first quarter of 2015 was estimated to be 84.9 trillion dollars. So if 10 people owned half of that, they would own 42.45 trillion dollars. That averages out to 4.245 trillion dollars each. Bill Gates is worth 79.2 billion currently which is a little less than 2% of 4.245 trillion. Let's say that the richest 10 people each had a net worth equal to Bill Gates, then their combined net worth would be 792 billion which is still a little less than 19% of 42.45 trillion.
To conclude, 10 people cannot possibly own half of the U.S. weath. Possibly 1000 people do, but I doubt even that. They would each have to average over $4 Billion and there are only about 536 billionaires in the country. So now we are looking at 2,3, or 4 thousand people realistically that could even possibly own half of the U.S. wealth.
But doesn't the Bible say that God is in control, no matter how many billionaires there are?

[crgfstr1]

I was a little off my memory of the article but it doesn't change the point. To clarify 20 people in own half the wealth (not dollars) of the US. 80 people have half the wealth of the world. I realize these articles may be limiting their measure of wealth to only certain types of assets. Limiting it to dollars wont arrive at accurate numbers either. The challenge is wealth is very fickle as many assets have no intrinsic value. Dollars themselves actually have no intrinsic value either.

Even more conservative estimates like 1% owning half the wealth doesn't really change the fact that the average person is essentially a slave to the rich. All major corporations are controlled by the very rich. The economies of the world could easily be planned and controlled by them. It doesn't need to be coordinated other than making policies that enable the rich to get richer. Even most small companies are are funded by a few rich organizations. Only small family owned businesses or those living self sustained lives are not under the control of the very rich. Most have loans which historically have been used to force smaller businesses to sellout or lose everything. This is how much of the farming industry was taken over.

Most articles that try and down play the wealth inequality focus on the income of the 1% rather than the wealth. It is also harder to determine wealth because much of it is made of by control of land or other assets that haven't been bought or sold in a long time making it impossible to determine their true value. Many only include wealth from liquid assets such as stocks (which is why there is a big discrepancy from those stating only 1% to those claiming much higher inequality).

The media is controlled by very few rich people so everything that comes out of it should be taken with a grain of salt. The associate press is responsible for most of the "news" that is produced. Several people have made pulled together video clips where all the major news outlets just read the same story verbatim.

The alternative news though has its problems as well. There are certainly some alternative media make up stories in order to be read at all. The point is to not to use derogatory and dismissive labels such as "conspiracy theory" to dismiss ideas that aren't held by the majority or pushed by any form of media. For most of history the what the prophets believed was not believed by the majority and dismissive labels make others ignore things without thinking about them.

Your point of God being in control is a good one. I think we live in a time where we have ignored God for so long that he is letting it be run by very evil people. We live in very troubled times as in the days of Noah I believe.

http://www.thenation.com/article/20-peo ... americans/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/meet ... the-world/
https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pres ... -rest-2016
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/19/world/wealth-inequality/

[thrombomodulin]

Even more conservative estimates like 1% owning half the wealth doesn't really change the fact that the average person is essentially a slave to the rich...

I think I disagree with this. I don't think it is valid to start from an observation of a certain amount of wealth inequality and then somehow jump to the conclusion that those with less are slaves to those who have more. The text which follows what I quoted above doesn't establish any means by which the rich are alleged to make slaves of the poor. How are you getting from one to the other?

Only small family owned businesses or those living self sustained lives are not under the control of the very rich. Most have loans which historically have been used to force smaller businesses to sellout or lose everything. This is how much of the farming industry was taken over.

It is true that society has been changed into a state where the average person is now a debtor. As far as I understand the creditor, however, is through the commercial and central banks. This came about because of the intervention of the State into financial affairs through a monopoly on money creation, and the policy choice of the State to continuously expand the money supply through the loan market. Thus, I understand it to be an error to attribute the cause of the average person as being a debtor somehow to the rich. The correct cause is the nature of the monetary system. Why do you see it as being otherwise?

Thanks
Pete

[dwight92070]

Now you say 20 people own half the wealth in the U.S. and 80 people own half the wealth in the world. But you essentially disallow using dollars, so you can still make your point, without any way of backing it up. Obviously, wealth can be measured in other things besides dollars, but dollars still seem to be the "measuring rod" used by most people, which tells me that it is the most accurate. I think I disproved your "10 people own half the wealth of the U.S." statement quite clearly, so it is obvious that your new "20 people" and "80 people" statements are also false. Also false is your statement that we are all slaves to rich people. You also disallow the use of the term "conspiracy", since that is something that you obviously believe in. You pull numbers out of a hat and spout (yes) conspiracies, but you have NO facts to verify any of it.