Comment on After they kill Wikipedia history will be AI hallucinations.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 day agoI’m curious. Examples?
Comment on After they kill Wikipedia history will be AI hallucinations.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 day agoI’m curious. Examples?
antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
One example:
pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/…/the-fdas-relentles…
From what I can gather this urine salt treatment has actually cured many terminally ill cancer patients. Medical journals refuse to acknowledge it because he didn’t give a placebo to patients (which would be unethical because they would die). Because the treatment is based on multiple compounds in the salt, it cannot be isolated, patented, and profited from. So it must be discredited and buried. Plus if it really works as well as it seems to, it would warrant further research funding into drinking urine, and possibly home remedies. Nip it in the bud.
aubertlone@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
You have actually got to be kidding me.
This is pseudoscience… It does seem like they threw the book at him.
But this stuff isn’t medicine man. I wouldn’t really call it effective at all. For Pete’s sake!!!
Even the guy who wrote the article Pierre Koy. Talking holistic approaches to treat long COVID. Bro it’s so easy to tell how people are based on the shit they spew.
Just remember people were taking ivermectin IVERMECTIN for COVID.
Do you even hear what you’re saying? There’s no way we can prove what’s in the salt but it definitely works.
Do you actually believe any of this stuff?? Dude just go ahead and drink the pee. Tell me how you feel I hope you don’t have cancer. I truly mean that
antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 hours ago
I don’t believe anything because I haven’t had terminal cancer or the treatment. I’m guessing you haven’t either. It’s not about choosing a side. It’s an illustration of corporate interests controlling the narrative from scientific journals, to media, social media, and Wikipedia. It would be naive to believe they can’t or don’t edit Wikipedia.
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Okay, starting off with a made up fallacy is always a bad sign in science FYI… And so is going off that bad fallacy with more fallacies for 10 paragraphs.
LOL of course, that actually is pretty consistent w your pyramid conspiracies
LOL
Let’s just move on to the claims you’re making:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
See the last line? Now tell me, how is he not ALSO PART of the Turf war your article is talking about?
So it’s not just Wikipedia against him, but also medical boards. SO again, no issue with Wikipedia here, or science, he just is grifting people and you dont get what science even is (hint: it’s reproducible results).
So we know what it is, and it can indeed be synthesized (how else would the body make it, lol).
Further, you don’t always need a placebo for studies, you need a CONTROL group. Often the control group is given a placebo, but in this case, they could use other chemotherapy treatment as a control. They dont want to be more legitimate though, because their patients’ and their families would have better standing to sue them for lying/false advertising/snake oil. So no, it wasnt rejected for not having a placebo group and being too ethical to give cancer patients a placebo LOL
Gee, I dont think Wikipedia is the issue lol my word
antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 hours ago
There’s not really any conspiracy except one. Every billionaire and corporation seeks to profit above all other ethical considerations. I don’t know who’s correct regarding Burzynski, and I hope I’m never in a place to decide. But I don’t think it’s difficult for billionaires to brigade and rewrite any narrative that may profit them.
Wikipedia is great, but I don’t think it should be viewed as trustworthy or definitive as a source. In the same way billionaire-owned news corporations cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth. Wikipedia is a great place to start, but we could all use more practice following to source material, and to some extent I think Wikipedia reduces critical thinking.
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Chat GPT reduces critical thinking, because it can loterally “think” for people. If someone isn’t a critical thinker, it’s not that they consume Wikipedia, it’s that they lack critical thinking skills. They will approach ANY TOPIC or writing the same, because they aren’t a critical thinker. Wikipedia is great and doesnt reduce critical thinking.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Any examples of Wikipedia trying to rewrite history?
antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 hours ago
The pyramids in Egypt were dated by radiocarbon dating, but those dates only indicated that the pyramid structure was inhabited or used at that time - it says nothing of the construction date. Yet the pyramids have dates with no cited references on Wikipedia. What is so wrong with saying that we don’t know with any certainty how, when, or why the structures were built?
_cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 hours ago
Yeah, they could have been built by aliens who just wanted to share their urine salt treatment for cancer with us.
LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Yeah, I get what kind of guy you are now.
Everyone itt note: this guy is against Wikipedia and thinks these things. This is EXACTLY WHY we need Wikipedia. He would literally be smarter if he had never used social media and had only used Wikipedia random article generator.