Most Health Problems Caused by Lack of Intelligence

[ginkgo]

Most of the health problems and problems in the world are caused by lack of intelligence among the experts (the ones that people listen to). I find these very stupid things among the smartest people. Here is one example: A site on this forum said: "Animal studies conducted at the National Institute on Aging Gerontology Research Center and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, for example, have shown that both calorie restriction and intermittent fasting along with vitamin and mineral intake, increase resistance to disease, extend lifespan, and stimulate production of neurons from stem cells."

The problem is "along with." It invalidates a study. You cannot change more than one variable in a study or experiment. For example I do a study that shows that praying to the devil builds muscles. One group does not pray to the devil and their muscles do not grow. Another group prays to the devil along with weight lifting and their muscles get bigger. That proves that praying to the devil builds muscles. I found the above site on the discussion saying that the American Diabetes Association give donuts to people.

I wanted to put the above on my site on fasting but I cannot since it is stupid. Do you have any examples of stupid things from smart people? Einstein said that his equation E=MC2 would have no practical use. This is where nuclear bombs and nuclear energy comes from.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

You cannot change more than one variable in a study or experiment.

Unless you wanted to see how well a combination of variables work together...

[JSB]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

Most of the health problems and problems in the world are caused by lack of intelligence among the experts (the ones that people listen to). I find these very stupid things among the smartest people. Here is one example: A site on this forum said: "Animal studies conducted at the National Institute on Aging Gerontology Research Center and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, for example, have shown that both calorie restriction and intermittent fasting along with vitamin and mineral intake, increase resistance to disease, extend lifespan, and stimulate production of neurons from stem cells."

The problem is "along with." It invalidates a study. You cannot change more than one variable in a study or experiment.

Not true. You can change as many variables as you want as long as you account for the changes in your control groups. There's nothing at all stupid about that study, if everything is accounted for.

[ginkgo]

If you change more than one thing, then you do not know how a single variable affected the change. If you change 2 things and the results are good, the both things may have helped or 1st thing helped a lot and the 2nd thing hurt a little or 1st thing hurt a little and 2nd thing helped a lot. There is no way to know.

If you want to see how 2 changes work together, then you first change each of the things to see how each one affects the study and then you do both together. But you have only changed one thing since the last study. For example-- praying to the devil. You first have a group that prays to the devil and one that does not. Then you have one that lifts weight and one that does not. Then you have a group that prays to the devil and also lifts weight and one that does not. That last study is changing both things, but only one thing has changed since the last study and that is both being done together and not separately.

So if a study shows that one thing helps 5% and another thing helps 10%, then you can do them together and if it helps 20%, then you can determine that there is synergy. Synergy means that the total is more than the sum of their parts. But only one change at a time can determine what caused the change. So if you did both together and got 20% help, without the first 2 studies, you do not know how each one worked. Here is Wiki Answers saying the above: WikiAnswers - What experiment includes only one variable changes at a time

Here is another site that says this: "Experimental design (procedure). In designing the experiment, it is critical that only one variable - a condition that may effect the results of the experiment - is changed at a time. This makes the experiment a 'controlled' experiment." Intel International Science and Engineering Fair : Scientific Method: The Process of Science Note that you can infer that a controlled experiment is a valid one and an uncontrolled study is an invalid one.

This one is on The Scientific Method. It says "EXPERIMENT. Design and do a series of experiments. You must design each experiment so you can observe the results if one and only one variable is changed. By changing just one variable, you can determine that variable's effect on your chosen event. To see the real effect, you need to change the size of a single variable several times. Be sure to include one or more experiments when none of the variables are changed on purpose. This is called the control experiment. The control is very important. It shows the normal results from your experiment if you don't try to change anything." From Scientific Method

Here is another site saying the same thing: "You have probably been introduced to the scientific method in every science class you have taken in your educational career. One of the important features of this method is the utilization of an experiment to disprove (or support) your hypothesis. Doing an experiment always involves collecting some information (in science we refer to information as data) that is then analyzed to come to some conclusion that will either support or not support your hypothesis. The collection of data during an experiment involves making careful observations. If observations are not made carefully it may lead to experimental errors and/or invalid conclusions. Another important part of the experimental process involves how we change conditions of the experiment. When we change a condition (called a variable), we must be careful to change only one variable at a time to see if it has an effect on the outcome of the experiment. If we were to change more than one variable at a time and the outcome of the experiment changed, we would not know which variable caused the changes that were observed. All of the conditions or factors of the experiment (other than the variable that we have changed) are kept the same throughout and are referred to as constant factors (constants for short). Experiments are most useful when they have a component called a control group. This control group provides a standard for comparing the effects of changing variables." Integrated Physical Science (IPS) Notice how above stresses "one and only one."

[Writertype]

A more accurate analogy would be a muscle building experiment in which people were randomized to two groups: one group that did nothing out of their normal routine (the "control" group) and one group that lifted weights and prayed to the devil. If the weight lifting Satan worshiping group got bigger muscles you could conclude that one or both of those manipulations led to the change. Future experiments would then decide whether the devil praying or the weight lifting made the difference.

It's really not dumb at all.

[MightySunTzu]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

Most of the health problems and problems in the world are caused by lack of intelligence among the experts (the ones that people listen to). I find these very stupid things among the smartest people. Here is one example: A site on this forum said: "Animal studies conducted at the National Institute on Aging Gerontology Research Center and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, for example, have shown that both calorie restriction and intermittent fasting along with vitamin and mineral intake, increase resistance to disease, extend lifespan, and stimulate production of neurons from stem cells."

Perhaps these variables were indeed tested independently of one another (because researchers are generally quite aware of the importance of constructing a carefully controlled experiment, unless of course they have an agenda) and when they said "along with", they meant "as well as". Vitamins and minerals are almost never recommended in a water fast so it would be very surprising if "along with" actually meant that the vitamins and minerals were taken while a person was fasting. But who knows .

[andrew112]

I think what ginkgo is saying is that if you have multiple variables, then you do not know which variable was responsible for the results of the experiment.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by MightySunTzu

Perhaps these variables were indeed tested independently of one another (because researchers are generally quite aware of the importance of constructing a carefully controlled experiment, unless of course they have an agenda) and when they said "along with", they meant "as well as". Vitamins and minerals are almost never recommended in a water fast so it would be very surprising if "along with" actually meant that the vitamins and minerals were taken while a person was fasting. But who knows .

You are right that the vitamins and minerals are not part of a water fast. You said "who knows." They should know but are not telling. But there is a saying: "There is a limit to genius, but there is no limit to stupidity." Are you saying that instead of saying "for example, have shown that both calorie restriction and intermittent fasting along with vitamin and mineral intake, increase resistance to disease", they meant to say "for example, have shown that 3 things-- [not both] calorie restriction, [as well as] intermittent fasting and [as well as] vitamin and mineral intake, increase resistance to disease".

You can make money by being president of Microsoft as well as being a prostitute. That has a very different meaning than "you can make money by being president of Microsoft along with being a prostitute." With the 2nd one, which of the 2 is more profitable for that person? The point is-- who knows what they are saying.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by andrew112

I think what ginkgo is saying is that if you have multiple variables, then you do not know which variable was responsible for the results of the experiment.

I cannot take credit for inventing the above. It is part of the scientific method and is also common sense.

[Dreamline]

I find it stupid that a great big expensive study will be done to find out if drinking a glass of wine every evening will reduce heart disease and then, when it shows a positive result...the study authors invariably say "These results show it would be beneficial to produce a drug made with reservatrol, the active ingredient in grapes that lowers heart disease risk..."

Why not just drink and fraggin glass of wine every night!!??

Jennifer

[Writertype]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

I find it stupid that a great big expensive study will be done to find out if drinking a glass of wine every evening will reduce heart disease and then, when it shows a positive result...the study authors invariably say "These results show it would be beneficial to produce a drug made with reservatrol, the active ingredient in grapes that lowers heart disease risk..."

Why not just drink and fraggin glass of wine every night!!??

I think so that (1) you can give higher doses of the active ingredient and hopefully increase the preventative power and (2) so that people can take in the active ingredient without the negative effects of other chemicals (like ethanol) in the wine that are not effective. Still, you have a good point!

[lifetimelearner]

Originally Posted by Writertype

A more accurate analogy would be a muscle building experiment in which people were randomized to two groups: one group that did nothing out of their normal routine (the "control" group) and one group that lifted weights and prayed to the devil. If the weight lifting Satan worshiping group got bigger muscles you could conclude that one or both of those manipulations led to the change. Future experiments would then decide whether the devil praying or the weight lifting made the difference.

posts that make me go
huh??????????

interesting experiment

[lifetimelearner]

Originally Posted by Writertype

I think so that (1) you can give higher doses of the active ingredient and hopefully increase the preventative power and (2) so that people can take in the active ingredient without the negative effects of other chemicals (like ethanol) in the wine that are not effective. Still, you have a good point!

it is a good point but I would rather have other methods than wine

[James81]

But how do you know that each independent variable WASN'T tested independently. You are assuming that there were only two control groups, when the reality is there were probably more like 4 or 5 control groups.

You don't think that people at Johns Hopkins didn't think of what you are saying and take that into account?

[Dreamline]

Originally Posted by Writertype

I think so that (1) you can give higher doses of the active ingredient and hopefully increase the preventative power and (2) so that people can take in the active ingredient without the negative effects of other chemicals (like ethanol) in the wine that are not effective. Still, you have a good point!

it is a good point but I would rather have other methods than wine

But that is part of the stupid aspect: It assumes first of all that reservatrol was the ONLY ingredient in the wine contributing to the positive response. It may have been reservatrol with the controlling aspect of "ingredient Z" that has not yet been discovered in wine. It may be reservatrol with the mitgating action of low doses of alcohol.

Secondly, it assumes that just because 1.6 mcg of reservatrol are good that 1500 mg must therefore be better.

Two assumptions, in medicine and health that have gotten humans in trouble, and dead, before now.

Jennifer

[JSB]

As a general rule, scientists aren't stupid, and they usually account for independent variables in their experiments. Johns Hopkins is a first-tier research institution, and a sloppy study is unlikely to make it past peer review and get published in any reputable journal.

The vitamin and mineral supplementation was probably included to match the vitamin and mineral intake of the non-fasting participants, in order to remove any confounding effects of malnutrition or deficiency. (I'm just guessing here.)

Why do you automatically presume the study is flawed? In all fairness, you would need to read the original paper to properly criticize the methodology, rather than reading a possibly inaccurate, certainly incomplete summary of it on a website.

[aggie]

there is a big differnce between intelligence and common sense...the latter of which seems to lacking among even the most intelliegent people...the experiment obviously had to include common sense...if you control your weight and fast occasionally...one would probably make sure they were getting enough vitamin and mineral supplements in addition to what they were eating while dieting....the devil muscle experiment...would also include common sense. someone who honestly wants to pray to the devil, but wants muscles...will probably work out...if they have common sense...unless you are speaking of people who have actually sold their souls and expect muscles from worshipping the devil....to me it kind of a peculiar example of an experiment anyway. what i find even more stupid is the amount of tax payer money that funds so-called scientists projects/experiments that are basically ways to torture animals to prove some things that common sense would already tell us not to do to our bodies....

[ginkgo]

Whatever happened in the study was not explained properly. They should at least have a link to it so we could check it ourselves. Did you hear about the study that shows that Italian people are more intelligent than Polish people? Well you can search for it, but I made it up.

I did read about a government study that showed that most heavy (overweight) children had heavy parents. That is fine. The conclusion by the government was that being overweight is genetic. It sounds like they never heard of the debate of nature versus nurture. Now if they said that all the children were raised by thin foster parents then that would take nurture out of the equation (unless the children were thin).

But this was not the case. It was fat parents raising fat children. Now that idiotic logic would say that religion is genetic since most children of Christians are Christians and most children of Muslims are Muslims. If the government was so smart then why do we have the worst financial problem in almost 100 years? Now you can say that it was not the government's fault, but Ron Paul blames it on them. He is a smart M.D. Why doesn't he have that title following his name? Why does the FDA approve of a drug and millions of doctors prescribe it for pain (not a terrible disease), when it turns out to be a drug that kills people (Vioxx)?

[JSB]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

Whatever happened in the study was not explained properly. They should at least have a link to it so we could check it ourselves.

I agree. Why not take issue with the reporting of the study rather than blaming the study for being flawed and claiming how stupid it is, as you did in your original post?

(I'm not claiming the study is good, merely saying that unless you read the original published paper that the researchers wrote, you can't properly critique their methodology or results. Of course it may have flaws, but you're dismissing a peer-reviewed paper published in a reputable journal as "stupid", without having even read it.)

[ginkgo]

You are saying how can I put down a study that may have never even happened. You are right. It was referring to the report of a study that may or may not have happened especially since they did not put up a link to it.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by Writertype

A more accurate analogy would be a muscle building experiment in which people were randomized to two groups: one group that did nothing out of their normal routine (the "control" group) and one group that lifted weights and prayed to the devil. If the weight lifting Satan worshiping group got bigger muscles you could conclude that one or both of those manipulations led to the change. Future experiments would then decide whether the devil praying or the weight lifting made the difference.

It's really not dumb at all.

When I said that one group does not pray to the devil, this meant that they do nothing out of their normal routine. Now if you test out just the praying, then you know if it matters. Then if you test out just the weight lifting (just one variable changed in each example), then you know if that makes a difference.

Now if you test out changing both together, you have created more confusion. At the end of your study you would know that you do not know many things. You would not know if the praying made a difference. You would not know if weight lifting made a difference. You would not know if both made a difference and would not know if both together are required to make a difference.

Changing just one variable, like the above sites said, lets you know if that changes the results. It is called the scientific method. Doing something else like you said could be called the non-scientific method or un-scientific metod.

[Beuford]

I'd say lack of intelligence along with greed cause most of the health problems.

[moonrambler]

So in the last four months have you looked into these animal studies for yourself? Perhaps their experiments indicated that intermittent fasting did not have significant results, but intermittent fasting ALONG WITH vitamin supplementation had significant results.

I'd say apathy has a lot to do with health problems, and so does lack of money.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

So in the last four months have you looked into these animal studies for yourself? Perhaps their experiments indicated that intermittent fasting did not have significant results, but intermittent fasting ALONG WITH vitamin supplementation had significant results.

I'd say apathy has a lot to do with health problems, and so does lack of money.

As far as a lack of money, a study in Europe and in USA showed that the richer people were, the healthier they were. First there is stress. The poor person is worried that they will have enough money for rent so they will not be homeless and worried about their next meal.

They cannot afford to be worried about health. Also life is so stressful and miserable, the sooner they die, the better. Why prolong the misery. My mother and uncle were like that but I think it was because they were chain smokers. They died at 46 (stroke) and 51 (heart attack).

My other uncle did not smoke and was very close to his 4 daughters. He lived until 70 yet his 4 daughters were very upset when he died. Now you cannot be calm and relaxed if you need to go to the bathroom. The chain smoker is like that since the longer you go without a cigarette, the more insane you get.

The wealthy person does not need to worry about money. So he can be concerned about being happy and relaxed and enjoying life for as long as possible. That uncle that lived until 70 had plenty of money since he and his wife had a PhD in chemistry. They were also very intelligent scientists. When the kids were young, they had a nanny and both parents worked.

The saint is like the wealthy person. He has no need to worry about anything. In God he trusts. The only poverty is lack of faith and trust. The poor person is scared of many things. The rich person is only scared of a few things. The saint has no fear. St Francis of Assisi was dirt poor and begged for money but was very happy.

Note that I am not a Christian. Jesus says about anxiety, "Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your Heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?.... Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself (NIV bible-- Matthew 6:26). The line in blue is in both Matthew 6:27 and Luke 12:25."

[Ronnock]

To the "a glass of wine a day" topic. It is the Grape Seed Extract in wine that lowers cholesterol (more specifically LDL). So, why would a pharmaceutical company make a pill to prescribe to people as a derivative of whatever is in wine? Simple, to make money. There's no money in being naturally healthy.

To the whole variable thing, I do believe that they just weren't giving out all of the information from the study. They most likely concluded with a very shallow synopsis.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Ronnock

To the "a glass of wine a day" topic. It is the Grape Seed Extract in wine that lowers cholesterol (more specifically LDL). So, why would a pharmaceutical company make a pill to prescribe to people as a derivative of whatever is in wine? Simple, to make money. There's no money in being naturally healthy.

So all the people who can't drink or don't want to drink a glass of wine a day are just screwed, right?

Is it ok that numerous herbal companies are selling grape seed extract in pills or is it only the evil pharmaceutical companies we need to worry about?

[scorpio1980]

Most health problems come from too much stress, and the bad habits that stress cause. Stress causes havoc in the body in all sorts of ways, and then it also can lead to over or under eating, binge drinking, smoking, drug use, lack of sleep, etc. I believe lack of intelligence seems to be good for the body in general. I have noticed some of the "slowest" people I have ever known seemed to be the people with very low stress levels, who seem to always be happy, and who don't let vanity get in the way of anything. Lack of intelligence seems to offer a person more of a simple existence, leading them to eat simple, work simple, sleep simple, and all together be simple.Lack of intelligence usually means the person will bow to authority, and usually become religious, they are usually the ones who believe the government is their to help them, and these people seem to benefit from their belief system, and are more vulnerable to what the media, holy book, or random people tell them is correct. To lack intelligence is great for you physical health, but the price you pay is thinking for yourself.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Most health problems come from too much stress, and the bad habits that stress cause. Stress causes havoc in the body in all sorts of ways, and then it also can lead to over or under eating, binge drinking, smoking, drug use, lack of sleep, etc. I believe lack of intelligence seems to be good for the body in general. I have noticed some of the "slowest" people I have ever known seemed to be the people with very low stress levels, who seem to always be happy, and who don't let vanity get in the way of anything.

Lack of intelligence seems to offer a person more of a simple existence, leading them to eat simple, work simple, sleep simple, and all together be simple.Lack of intelligence usually means the person will bow to authority, and usually become religious, they are usually the ones who believe the government is their to help them, and these people seem to benefit from their belief system, and are more vulnerable to what the media, holy book, or random people tell them is correct. To lack intelligence is great for you physical health, but the price you pay is thinking for yourself.

I do not mean just IQ intelligence but also emotional intelligence. The latter is more influential when it comes to making money in your own business. I mean the intelligence (both of the above) to know how and do the things that make you stress free.

I know a guy with a genius level IQ but he is a cocaine addict. That means that he has a very low emotional intelligence. You have heard of Nurture vs Nature. It is like which is better your right leg or your left leg. IQ intelligence is what Hitler had. It comes from genes (nature). But if you have very abusive parents (nuture), then you will have a very low emotional intelligence.

It is better to have very nurturing parents and low intelligence than a high intelligence with parents that are very abusive to you.

People who have both of the above in high levels know that there are things like exercise, yoga and meditation that can not only reduce stress but make someone stress free like the enlightened person. See this webpage on what I mean by an enlightened person.

Also can you really know what someone else is feeling? They had on the news this mentally challenged guy who was thrown off the bus since his bus pass said female. His sister got it for him. This guy was lost for hours because of this.

They said that he was very upset from this whole ordeal. But they showed him grinning (not smiling but grinning) from one ear to the other. Do you know what I am talking about? There is the saying "ignorance is bliss." To use the saying of Michael Jackson about the people who believe that saying, they are ignorant.

This site says:.
"Well, that's what a grin is... It's just a big (or wide) smile. However, grin can have a negative connotation. It's sometimes used in place of "smirk," which is an offensive smile."

"As I see it, there is some difference in connotation between "smile" and "grin" as well. A smile is always supposed to be a positive thing, but a grin is often ambiguous. You can have a "warm smile" on your face, but ever heard of a "warm grin"??? A grin can be "broad", but depending on the context even this can be either positive or negative."

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Is it ok that numerous herbal companies are selling grape seed extract in pills or is it only the evil pharmaceutical companies we need to worry about?

The difference is in the marketing. The herbal companies selling grape seed extract aren't trying to pretend that their product is the only one offering those benefits. The name itself informs people of the source, which allows them to make a decision about whether to buy their product or consume grapes instead.

The pharmaceutical companies don't present their product in the same way. They try to portray their product as the only (or at least the best) source of the chemical responsible for those results. It isn't selling the pill that is the problem, its the deception involved to get people to buy it.

[foxyshadis]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

The difference is in the marketing. The herbal companies selling grape seed extract aren't trying to pretend that their product is the only one offering those benefits. The name itself informs people of the source, which allows them to make a decision about whether to buy their product or consume grapes instead.

The pharmaceutical companies don't present their product in the same way. They try to portray their product as the only (or at least the best) source of the chemical responsible for those results. It isn't selling the pill that is the problem, its the deception involved to get people to buy it.

In my experience herbal companies are actually worse about that. They are very much businesses run by greed, making money hand over fist for supplements that can be obtained more cheaply from regular foods. They love to mislead when it comes to efficacy, and several have huge advertising budgets and cult followings that promote the products in the same way doctors do for pharmaceuticals. They'll even sometimes promote the same sin you dislike big pharma for, claiming that this herb or that root is the best cure for something. They often have terrible quality control or even outright lie about the quantities and efficacy of supplements, and never mention side effects.

And then when they get sued, they quietly settle and change their name and logo, and presto, a new startup with no more fraudulent history. Just like pharma.

The same advice goes for both: Do your research, be open-minded and willing to experiment, be honest with (and listen to) your doctor and your herbalist, and don't let wishful thinking or distaste cloud your judgment. You can lose a lot of money and your health otherwise.