Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 27, 2017, 05:45:13 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
101834 Posts in 2376 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10

 on: April 22, 2017, 08:38:57 PM 
Started by DougMacG - Last post by ccp
This is crazy when you see this:

 on: April 22, 2017, 08:38:15 PM 
Started by buzwardo - Last post by ccp
#1 really surprised me:

 on: April 22, 2017, 06:37:07 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M

Disinfo, IMHO.

 on: April 22, 2017, 04:38:43 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog

 on: April 22, 2017, 04:19:56 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Thank you!

 on: April 22, 2017, 01:40:25 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp

 on: April 22, 2017, 01:03:53 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp

most if not all the supplement sales carry a similar pattern of promotion.   You get someone with a science background who recites biochemical pathways that show a particular substance is involved in some sort of function that is needed for health.   From Vit C to B 12 to cofactor with magnesium and hundreds and probably thousands more

They impress the non scientist with "co factors" long chemical names and site studies that show some relationship to our health.   Then they may state taking large doses of the cofactor or other chemical increases the benefit to our health over just normal doses.  Or they will vary the presentation with claims that the nutrient or chemical has to be taken in a certain way with other substances and then, and lonly then we would all reap some increase benefit to our "prostate health, our cognitive health, our digestive healthy, more energy etc.

Then they find mostly obscure studies by usually second rate or no name researches who are spending grant money , trying to make some sort of name for themselves, or I even suspect are at times making up data for bribes  and then publish the date and their "research" in one of the money making journals that are usually second rate or are not well monitored or peer reviewed (even that process is subject to outright fraud).

So now they cite the impressive sounding biochemistry in order to sound like they understand something that the rest of us do not and they "discovered" this chemical (s) that is found by these usually insignificant if not fraudulent studies to suggest some sort of benefit.   

The chemicals are often obscure from some exotic jungle of far away ocean or island or with some claim of being the only ones who can provide in the proper purity or concentration or mix or other elixir that no one else can duplicate .

If any real scientist or doctor disputes their claim they come back with a vengeance arguing that the doctor or scientist is just threatened by this "cure" that would put the doctor or scientist out of business.

You don't have to take my word for it but the vast majority of these things , if not all , are scams.  They all have similar themes with variations that play over and over again to people who are looking to stay healthy, stay young, get an edge in life, have more sexual prowess ,  remember more , be smarte.

There si billions to be made. 

I hope I don't sound like some condescending doctor who thinks he knows it all.  I don't.  And I know I don't. 
But even on Shark Tank when some entreprenuer came on trying to get the sharks to buy into some sort of supplement they said all the supplements are just a "con".

FWIW I agree with it.

 on: April 22, 2017, 03:51:08 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Marc:  What do you get when you cross a crooked lawyer with a slimy politician?



 on: April 22, 2017, 03:38:34 AM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
 By Daniel Henninger
April 19, 2017 7:01 p.m. ET

After 59 Tomahawk missiles landed on a Syrian airfield, followed by the dropping of a 21,600-pound bomb on Islamic State’s hideouts in Afghanistan, the world has begun to ask: What is Donald Trump’s foreign policy? And so the search begins by pressing what Mr. Trump has done so far against various foreign-policy templates. Is he a neoconservative, a Scowcroftian realist or a babe in the woods?

We know this is a fool’s errand. There will be no Trump Doctrine anytime soon, and that’s fine. The Obama Doctrine, whatever it was, left his successor a steep climb in the Middle East and Asia. It is difficult to find doctrinal solutions for issues that everyone calls “a mess.” It is possible, though, to see the shape of an emerging strategy.

The place to look for that strategy is inside the minds of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster.

During his Senate confirmation hearings, Mr. Mattis said something that jumped out at the time. He called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization “the most successful military alliance probably in modern history, maybe ever.”

This was in notable contradistinction to the view of his president that NATO was obsolete. Then last week, after meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, President Trump said of the alliance: “I said it was obsolete. It’s no longer obsolete.”

Let’s set aside the obligatory sniggering over such a remark and try to see a president moving toward the outlines of a foreign policy that, for a president who likes to keep it simple, may be described with one word: allies.

NATO emerged as a formal alliance after World War II. Less formally, the U.S. struck alliances with other nations to base troops and ships, as in the Persian Gulf.

After the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, foreign-policy thinkers began to debate the proper role of the U.S. as the world’s only superpower. Liberals argued that maintaining the U.S. at the apex of this alliance system was, well, obsolete. Instead the U.S. should act more like a co-equal partner with our allies, including international institutions such as the United Nations.

The idea of a flatter alliance structure, or leading from behind, came to life with the Obama presidency. It doesn’t work.

If indeed Jim Mattis and H.R. McMaster are the architects of an emerging Trump foreign policy, their most formative experiences, in Iraq, may shape that policy.

After the Iraq War began in 2003, the U.S. tried to defeat the enemy essentially with brute force. Serving in different areas of Iraq—Gen. Mattis in Anbar province and then-Col. McMaster in the city of Tal Afar—the two men realized that force alone wasn’t winning. Instead, they sought, successfully, to gain buy-in from the local populations and tribal leaders. In return for that buy-in, U.S. forces provided security to their new allies.

The difficult and ultimately tragic question was, what happens after the U.S. leaves? In strategic terms: How does the U.S. stabilize a volatile world without becoming a permanent occupying force?

Last month, Gen. McMaster brought onto the NSA staff Nadia Schadlow, who has thought a lot about that question. Her assignment is to develop the National Security Strategy Report. The title of her just-released book, “War and the Art of Governance: Consolidating Combat Success Into Political Victory,” summarizes its core idea:

Unlike its pullout from Iraq, the U.S. has to remain involved—engaged—in the turbulent political space that always exists between conflict and peace, a space filled with competition for influence and power. What Gens. Mattis and McMaster learned in the wake of Iraq is that if you make allies, you should keep them.

Thus, Vice President Mike Pence stood at the DMZ across from North Korea reconfirming the U.S.’s alliance with South Korea. A day later, he did the same in Japan.

Mr. Trump met in recent weeks with King Abdullah of Jordan, President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi of Egypt and, most importantly, Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Crown Prince Salman. This week, Mr. Trump called to congratulate Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on his referendum “victory.”

These are the Middle East’s “tribal leaders,” or allies, whose buy-in will be necessary if the U.S. is to consolidate gains from the military strikes in Syria and Afghanistan—possibly with the partition of Syria into three tribal sectors.

Russia has separated itself by choosing instead an alliance with Iran to create a Russo-Iranian Shiite crescent extending across the Middle East to the Mediterranean.

The Mattis-McMaster foreign policy taking shape looks like a flexible strategy born of military experience in fast, fluid circumstances—our world. It is based on both formal and mobile alliances with partners willing to use diplomatic, financial, political and, if necessary, military pressure to establish stable outcomes. The word “abandon” doesn’t fit here.

Some might say that sounds like the U.S. leading alongside. With one big difference: The U.S. is in fact leading.


 on: April 22, 2017, 03:29:07 AM 
Started by buzwardo - Last post by Crafty_Dog


A ‘Red Team’ Exercise Would Strengthen Climate Science

Put the ‘consensus’ to a test, and improve public understanding, through an open, adversarial process.
Opinion Journal: The Climate Change Debates You Never Hear About
Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin on scientific self-censorship. Photo: istock images
By Steven Koonin
April 20, 2017 6:49 p.m. ET

Tomorrow’s March for Science will draw many thousands in support of evidence-based policy making and against the politicization of science. A concrete step toward those worthy goals would be to convene a “Red Team/Blue Team” process for climate science, one of the most important and contentious issues of our age.

The national-security community pioneered the “Red Team” methodology to test assumptions and analyses, identify risks, and reduce—or at least understand—uncertainties. The process is now considered a best practice in high-consequence situations such as intelligence assessments, spacecraft design and major industrial operations. It is very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated.

The public is largely unaware of the intense debates within climate science. At a recent national laboratory meeting, I observed more than 100 active government and university researchers challenge one another as they strove to separate human impacts from the climate’s natural variability. At issue were not nuances but fundamental aspects of our understanding, such as the apparent—and unexpected—slowing of global sea-level rise over the past two decades.

Summaries of scientific assessments meant to inform decision makers, such as the United Nations’ Summary for Policymakers, largely fail to capture this vibrant and developing science. Consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the “settled,” “hoax” and “don’t know” memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change. We scientists must better portray not only our certainties but also our uncertainties, and even things we may never know. Not doing so is an advisory malpractice that usurps society’s right to make choices fully informed by risk, economics and values. Moving from oracular consensus statements to an open adversarial process would shine much-needed light on the scientific debates.

Given the importance of climate projections to policy, it is remarkable that they have not been subject to a Red Team exercise. Here’s how it might work: The focus would be a published scientific report meant to inform policy such as the U.N.’s Summary for Policymakers or the U.S. Government’s National Climate Assessment. A Red Team of scientists would write a critique of that document and a Blue Team would rebut that critique. Further exchanges of documents would ensue to the point of diminishing returns. A commission would coordinate and moderate the process and then hold hearings to highlight points of agreement and disagreement, as well as steps that might resolve the latter. The process would unfold in full public view: the initial report, the exchanged documents and the hearings.

A Red/Blue exercise would have many benefits. It would produce a traceable public record that would allow the public and decision makers a better understanding of certainties and uncertainties. It would more firmly establish points of agreement and identify urgent research needs. Most important, it would put science front and center in policy discussions, while publicly demonstrating scientific reasoning and argument. The inherent tension of a professional adversarial process would enhance public interest, offering many opportunities to show laymen how science actually works. (In 2014 I conducted a workshop along these lines for the American Physical Society.)

Congress or the executive branch should convene a climate science Red/Blue exercise as a step toward resolving, or at least illuminating, differing perceptions of climate science. While the Red and Blue Teams should be knowledgeable and avowedly opinionated scientists, the commission should have a balanced membership of prominent individuals with technical credentials, led by co-chairmen who are forceful, knowledgeable and independent of the climate-science community. The Rogers Commission for the Challenger disaster in 1986, the Energy Department’s Huizenga/Ramsey Review of Cold Fusion in 1989, and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission of the late 1990s are models for the kind of fact-based rigor and transparency needed.

The outcome of a Red/Blue exercise for climate science is not preordained, which makes such a process all the more valuable. It could reveal the current consensus as weaker than claimed. Alternatively, the consensus could emerge strengthened if Red Team criticisms were countered effectively. But whatever the outcome, we scientists would have better fulfilled our responsibilities to society, and climate policy discussions would be better informed. For those reasons, all who march to advocate policy making based upon transparent apolitical science should support a climate science Red Team exercise.

Mr. Koonin, a theoretical physicist, is director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. He served as undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama’s first term.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!