Vaccines

Again, I'd like to repeat that when it comes to vaccines, I'm not literate in the science but I am more inclined towards the view that they have, historically, helped towards eradicating diseases. I have more serious problems with the continual "Trust me, I'm a doctor" approach which would prefer to keep the layman in the dark and the hegemony of scientism unchallenged.

Agreed. That idea has been out of favour for decades now in medicine. 

The profit motive of Big Pharma raises legitimate concerns and this reliance on citing research can and should be challenged. Research is only as good as the assumptions behind it will allow.

Agreed. Conflicts of interest (one of the reasons Wakefield was excoriated was over his failure to report his substantial conflict of interest) are regarded with suspicion as well as other tricks (like outcome manipulation) which are attempted. A large part of the Evidence-based medicine movement from the late 80's was about giving physicians the skills to recognize these and other threats to validity. Clinical trial registries, registration tied to publication, outcomes based research, etc...a lot of changes to how research is performed and reported have taken place over the last several decades, even if awareness has reached the general public only recently. 

Linda

Because it seems to be a fairly insulated, rather than spreading into related areas, like psychology, neuroscience, physics, medicine, etc.

And what would you say is the cause of that insulation? Would you say that it might be because of the dogma of modern science? I sure would, and I think to say otherwise is ignorant.

I involve scientists who are studying the same phenomena, but from a different perspective.

First of all, those scientists are in the heavy minority, as mentioned before. Second, that different perspective doesn't magically make them more or less valid, unless it's that they assume from the get go that the phenomena are not real, which is probably the case in a number of those situations.

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion, given that you, by your own admission, are unaware of this research and the conclusions which have been drawn from it.

...my being unaware of it, when I've steeped myself in the research and related material for years, is sufficient for me to consider that there isn't some hidden swath of information that I've somehow managed to not see or read about to any great degree save for you mentioning  here. I'm fully and entirely aware of plenty of scientists claiming to have analyzed or studied NDEs and the like who really haven't, which becomes apparent when discussing the topic with them or reading their blogs etc. I have read accounts of researchers coming to the conclusions that psi is not real and can ultimately be reductive. In my experience, that group is most definitely in the minority, for whatever reason. Don't think it's too hard to see how I could come to that conclusion.

No. I'm just using a term that proponents here use to refer to scientists in fields outside of parapsychology, like medicine. I mean no disrespect. I thought it was acceptable given that others here use it. As I mentioned before, there are quite a few parapsychologists I agree with including at least one proponent parapsychologist I completely agree with, with respect to psi.

Fair enough, but then I wouldn't consider those people experts in any regard unless they've really attempted to look closely into the material. 

It still isn't. You grossly mischaracterized my position. So I'm still not clear what it is we're supposed to be disagreeing about, given that it isn't about what you just said.

Okay, well I suppose the best course of action then is for you to think we agree and go from there.

I've never defined "authority". I said earlier that I don't like or agree with the idea of arguments from authority. I don't understand what it is you think we disagreee about.

Mind boggling, honestly.

Clinical trial registries, registration tied to publication, outcomes based research, etc...a lot of changes to how research is performed and reported have taken place over the last several decades, even if awareness has reached the general public only recently. 

Linda

It took me just a few minutes to find all these links. Of course, you know better than them too, no doubt.


Big Pharma’s Role in Clinical Trials

https://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturer/c...dden-data/


Many pharma companies failing the clinical trials test

http://www.digitaljournal.com/life/healt...cle/449464


Unsettling Truth: Most Clinical Trials are Funded by Big Pharma

http://naturalsociety.com/big-pharma-fun...ials-6111/


Trial sans Error: How Pharma-Funded Research Cherry-Picks Positive Results

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...e-results/


As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/...b8152ffe7e


How Big Pharma is slowing cancer research

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/20...-research/


Pharma’s influence over published clinical evidence

http://theconversation.com/pharmas-influ...dence-5325

And what would you say is the cause of that insulation?

The research hasn't been strong enough to be convincing, nor overcome the suspicion scientists are used to applying to their own fields, so interest hasn't spread more broadly into other fields. Parapsychology is just starting to implement some of the measures I mentioned earlier (e.g. trial registries).

First of all, those scientists are in the heavy minority, as mentioned before.

How do you know? The google scholar link I provided earlier goes to at least 25 pages of this research. I'm not sure how that compares.

Second, that different perspective doesn't magically make them more or less valid, unless it's that they assume from the get go that the phenomena are not real, which is probably the case in a number of those situations.

I agree that a different perspective doesn't magically make them more or less valid. They do show that some of the common assumptions parapsychologists make when studying NDE seem to be mistaken, such as "you can tell the difference between hallucinations and NDEs" and "brain activity is insufficient for these experiences".

...my being unaware of it, when I've steeped myself in the research and related material for years, is sufficient for me to consider that there isn't some hidden swath of information that I've somehow managed to not see or read about to any great degree save for you mentioning  here.

Did you look at the link I provided earlier to pages and pages of google scholar references? Or read some of the research?

Linda

It is unfortunate you feel that way, but I didn't mean anything more than that what I said, and I'm just trying to be helpful.

Linda

You are self-deceived.

...that or a well-crafted chatbot. That would explain a lot.

It took me just a few minutes to find all these links. Of course, you know better than them too, no doubt.

I don't get your meaning. I went through most of these and they seem to be about what we were talking about.

Linda

I don't get your meaning. I went through most of these and they seem to be about what we were talking about.

Linda

??

What were you trying to say when you wrote the following?

A large part of the Evidence-based medicine movement from the late 80's was about giving physicians the skills to recognize these and other threats to validity. Clinical trial registries, registration tied to publication, outcomes based research, etc...a lot of changes to how research is performed and reported have taken place over the last several decades, even if awareness has reached the general public only recently.

Because, to me, you seem to be saying that several decades ago it might have been the case that research was biased to benefit the pharma companies but now procedures have changed and that no longer happens. Those links suggest otherwise. They are confirming what I was talking about but I see no hint that all is hunky-dory now.

The research hasn't been strong enough to be convincing, nor overcome the suspicion scientists are used to applying to their own fields, so interest hasn't spread more broadly into other fields. Parapsychology is just starting to implement some of the measures I mentioned earlier (e.g. trial registries).

I think the first part of what you said is at the very least extremely debatable and heavily subjective, even among scientists. I think there's a clear bias against it, regardless of the strength of the studies. 

How do you know? The google scholar link I provided earlier goes to at least 25 pages of this research. I'm not sure how that compares.

What do you mean how do I know? There are literally thousands and thousands of pages of NDEs as told by people on nderf.org, and while those aren't studies, they are at least material to study. There are multiple books (including Smitty's) which go into much greater detail about a number of cases and studies. There are other studies like the Pim van Lommel ones and the Parnia studies, the Greyson studies, etc, and those are just for NDEs. I think, to me, those clearly are more voluminous than your 25+ pages.

I agree that a different perspective doesn't magically make them more or less valid. They do show that some of the common assumptions parapsychologists make when studying NDE seem to be mistaken, such as "you can tell the difference between hallucinations and NDEs" and "brain activity is insufficient for these experiences".

Yeah, just saying that they're mistaken is again nonsense. Completely biased opinion that isn't supported by research, if you do what I've been saying here, which is to actually pay attention to the majority of those who have actually studied the material and listened to the experiences from actual NDErs. This is the perfect example of lending too much credence to opinion and subjective, unsupported statements. The difference between NDEs and hallucinations is clear and well elucidated, so you just saying they're mistaken is point blank false when it's at best debatable. Same goes for whether brain activity is insufficient (the key of course being the often severely reduced brain activity of the experiencers, which is itself besides the point given the number of shared OBEs that have been studied and reported).

Did you look at the link I provided earlier to pages and pages of google scholar references? Or read some of the research?

I scanned over some of them, not in great detail. The last few months have been insanely busy for me. I have, in my time studying this materials, read accounts by researchers who, as I said, have felt that the phenomena aren't legitimate. That's fine, and I've read those. But I found the others more persuasive, and in my research I found far more erring towards the proponent side. That's my experience.

Parapsychology is just starting to implement some of the measures I mentioned earlier (e.g. trial registries).

I don't know about that. The Global Consciousness Project maintained a registry for its "formal hypotheses" from 1998 onwards.

Dante, I responded to your post in the NDE thread, so as not to derail this thread any further (I apologize for not doing that earlier).

Thanks,
Linda