Why do People Laugh at the Internet?

It's an interresting question I think, people have a hard time to trust what they read on the internet, I mean you know what I'm talking about.
When I explain something to someone who has a clear idea of how that something is supposed to be, I always get the same answer: "You read that on the internet huh?! don't believe what you read on the internet!".
Example: a friend of mine thinks type II diabetes is not reversible, that there is no cure, I try to explain to him that it's absolutely not true, and bam "haha very funny, you believe everything you read on your internet!", even when I come with studies and proofs, people don't care, if it comes from the internet, it must be false or wrong!

However, they trust books, books must always be right, there's a guy on it with a title like MD, or Dr., they know their job and can't be wrong.
They believe their GP, their physicians, their doctors, if their doctors tell them something is that way, then it must be that way, they are scientifics, so they can't be wrong! The same goes for TV, they tend to believe what they hear and see on TV more easily. Health magazines are also a good example, a recent article I read "HIV, there is no cure!", I asked my relatives about it, and 95% believe it's absolutely true.

Anyway I just wanted to make this little article because I'm a little tired of this. Information you find on the internet isn't always right, it's like for any source of information, you have to search other sources and analyse, compare, etc. For example, Mercola claim myopia is naturally reversible which is utter BS.
I wish people did more research for themselves instead of blindly listening to some people with degrees or so-called expert without questioning their information. I think there is also a lot of brainwashing in the mass media, in every debate about a serious subject I see someone saying "haha the internet, everything you read on the internet is silly!" or something like that. The fact is that, people who are ruling this world, people who decide don't want us to know, don't want us to think for ourselves.

Any comments are welcome .

I've encountered this phenomena many times. In the beginning, I got slightly frustrated when it happened. Today, I put much less personal feelings/prestige into trying to "spread the word".

Just as in real life, Internet contains both good and bad information and since we have no tradition of "living online" yet, most people do not have the right tools to properly harvest information online.

I guess most people are afraid of thinking outside of the box. And for some, it's all about thinking outside of the box, which can be somewhat exhausting to listen to

Misirlou wrote:
I guess most people are afraid of thinking outside of the box. And for some, it's all about thinking outside of the box, which can be somewhat exhausting to listen to

Excellent reply man, everything is summed up in this quote . Admit it's hard to refrain when you hear things such as, let's say, "there is nothing you can do for your hair loss, you will be bald in the end no matter what you do!" HLT style lol

Because it's an effort to go through life being open minded and objective, most people couldn't care less. People also don't know how to argue constructively. It's also hard to convince people of anything without access to the evidence on hand.

Me: Saturated fat does not kill you.
Person: You're wrong my doctor says its bad.
Me: If you look at the most well constructed studies on the diet heart hypothesis, only 4 out of 25 show any harm of consuming saturated fat.
Person: But my doctor says it's bad.

There's only so much you can do.

Even mainstream doctors agree that it can be reversed if you start early, so in this case your friend might just be one of those guys who always act like they know what they're talking about.

I believe it's a combination of critical thinking and objectivity that is required to bypass the conditioning perpetuated by the "idiot box" and other forms of indoctrination.

There are many patients who have been told by me and others relentlessly to get off a cholesterol drug and that making dietary efforts to lowering cholesterol are futile. Rather than being interested in the details, they
retain the basic mindset to only lower their cholesterol regardless of how the message is delivered. It's probably similar to changing religions.

I can present the latest evidence per accepted peer review journals, and it still has no impact. Many do not understand just how profoundly inaccurate many books are. Most people entering the health field, standard or natural are loaded with myths with no evidence.

Only 25% of the standard medical practice even has proof that what they do actually works. So the remaining 75% do not work.

There are many surgeries that do not work, yet placebo and all the money the surgeon makes have a way of keeping the system going.

It's similar to an auto mechanic who is trusted 100% that everything they do to the car is absolutely necessarily.

Most of us grew up watching documentaries about the miracles of modern medicine and science, and in my case (and probably many others) the result was an over-confidence in the extent of human knowledge and the "correctness" of common practice...especially with regard to diet, health, government, etc.

Before I started reading about health, I believed that modern scientific methods had already "figured out" the mysteries of the human body. When you watch ER, you see all this sophisticated equipment and techniques used by surgeons...and it really gives the impression that standard medical practice is super advanced.

Growing up in the United States, there's a sense of supreme confidence that is derived from knowing that you live in the "best country in the world." As such you are led to believe that the government and politicians are really interested in the well-being of the citizens. There's a sense of security in believing that the best government in the world is here to protect us. You believe that everything on the super market shelves is safe.

The depressing truth is that nobody gives a shit about anything except money.

What's even more troubling than all of this is that many people don't really care about their health, and don't really want to know more about what they're eating. I used to be the same way though. I knew that donuts and french fries were unhealthy, and I knew there was a connection between diet and health, but I just never felt the motivation to make any changes.

yep complete bs in my opinion.

People that say that, dont know how to use it. On the surface if u just type things into google and then quote them, it seems its all bs.

on the other hand All medical science, and most likely all articles for other disciplines r now uploaded.

At my uni, the websites library has access to everything, such as therapeutic guidelines, MIMS drug databases, Australian medical handbook + hundreds more.

90% of the internet certainly is rubbish such as peoples opinions, misinformation, and porn. but 10% of billions of websites and trillions of pages, is still alot and more than enough to find the correct information,

if u know where to find it. Which these people obviously dont. Its simply a case of risks vs benefits. The risk of getting misinformation compared to the benefit of unlimited information.

mphatesmpb wrote:Most of us grew up watching documentaries about the miracles of modern medicine and science, and in my case (and probably many others) the result was an over-confidence in the extent of human knowledge and the "correctness" of common practice...especially with regard to diet, health, government, etc.

Before I started reading about health, I believed that modern scientific methods had already "figured out" the mysteries of the human body. When you watch ER, you see all this sophisticated equipment and techniques used by surgeons...and it really gives the impression that standard medical practice is super advanced.

Growing up in the United States, there's a sense of supreme confidence that is derived from knowing that you live in the "best country in the world." As such you are led to believe that the government and politicians are really interested in the well-being of the citizens. There's a sense of security in believing that the best government in the world is here to protect us. You believe that everything on the super market shelves is safe.

The depressing truth is that nobody gives a shit about anything except money.

What's even more troubling than all of this is that many people don't really care about their health, and don't really want to know more about what they're eating. I used to be the same way though. I knew that donuts and french fries were unhealthy, and I knew there was a connection between diet and health, but I just never felt the motivation to make any changes.

That's exactly how I used to think and feel.

Some news on how the "public health" is trying to destroy attempts for people to eat real food.

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=D26E2CE9C7B0E0690977F89688E6D713

CausticSymmetry wrote:Some news on how the "public health" is trying to destroy attempts for people to eat real food.

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=D26E2CE9C7B0E0690977F89688E6D713

Lol ffs it's like a drug bust.

Bringing in a swat team for a bunch of hippies lmao.

abc123 wrote:

CausticSymmetry wrote:Some news on how the "public health" is trying to destroy attempts for people to eat real food.

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=D26E2CE9C7B0E0690977F89688E6D713

Lol ffs it's like a drug bust.

Bringing in a swat team for a bunch of hippies lmao.

Our police state says, must be artificial only.

Hydrogenated oils okay, using mustard gas to 'treat' cancer is okay.

Sell raw cow's milk that people have drank for thousands of years, go to jail

The law makers must be high on fluoride.

There is a lot of false information and scams out there, like you said even sites like Mercola, which seem legit, contain quackery. You have all kinds of terrible sites with conflicting information, so it becomes the easiest option to ignore it all and listen to what your doctor says.

Do a search for "how to cure type II diabetes naturally" and see how many quality articles you actually get and how many sites mirror the information found in the healthyfixx article. With so much crap everywhere it's hard to know which sources to trust.

I've got to point out "naturalnews.com" also, I've read some pretty bullshit articles on there before that has programmed me to avoid ever clicking on a link to that site again.

I've come to accept that I just "don't know" certain things because they can be debated back and forth between two sides forever. It's easy to put your faith in users of this forum and trust everything they say, because they seem to be vastly more knowledgeable, and clearly have researched the subject a lot. But more than often I will not feel confident believing things I've read, because I wont find the evidence to support it. A lot of stuff I read on this site I will not be able to find anywhere else.

Healhtyfixx is a great site, and even lists a ton of sources at the bottom, but it would take me hours to hunt down these sources and understand them, and some I wouldn't even be able to find because they are from books. Quackwatch also has a lot of sources that they list in their articles, so how is one supposed to know which to trust without putting effort into research?

Most people get their information from Wikipedia, they figure if there is enough credible evidence, it will be noted in the article. But what I see is a lack of effort from everyone in the community that believes this stuff, to change the article to support their view. I've heard CS say before "Even when Wikipedia is corrected, they continue to re-edit the information back to the original statements." But I don't see why we can't just continue to re-edit it again. If there is credible evidence, I wonder why large communities like curezone aren't activity fighting to keep this information fortified in the articles? There isn't even a wikipedia article for electron depletion.

Check out the first few lines in the article for Antineoplastons:
The clinical efficacy of antineoplastons combinations for various diseases have been the subject of many such trials by Burzynski and his associates, but these have not produced any clear evidence of efficacy. Oncologists have described these studies as flawed, with one doctor stating that they are "scientific nonsense".[5] In particular, independent scientists have been unable to reproduce the positive results reported in Burzynski's studies.[6]
There is no convincing evidence from randomized controlled trials in the scientific literature that antineoplastons are useful treatments of cancer

Now how am I supposed to convince someone that the cure for cancer has already been found with this? There is a documentary about it, if there is good evidence, why aren't the people changing this article to support it more.

Documentaries are the best way to get someone on board with something. They just need to make a good documentary about AIDS, cancer, diabetes, and everything else. Show that to the person and you wont have to work hard at convincing them. I always thought it would be cool to find someone with AIDS, help them cure it, and document the entire thing for youtube or something.

The truth comes out, although very slowly. Most of the the public knows today, took a hundred years or longer to become cemented.

That all said, while the public is slowly waking up to some things, most of our peers will be degenerating because they will heed to advice generated by marketing.

I have been in the position to know personally, physicians who are on quackwatch, and the personal stories of people being cured by many methods condemned by these crooks. There's nothing more dangerous than bad information.

Patients with cancer almost always die not from cancer, but from chemotherapy and radiation that cause more cancer.

Wikipedia is shameful, and I only found out by accident, only subsequently learning how they re-edit the information.

The FDA and ADA, the CDC, and all the other agencies with a three letter name, seem to follow in line where the money is pointing. It's the same with all professions.

Take a look at Burzynski's site: http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/

They threw him in jail, there are real patients being cured. His site has photos of patients living decades following the treatment.

I can listen dozens of cancer practitioner's, most of which have had problems with the FDA.

The whole thing is like the ATF and the DEA, two agencies that the world be better without. Might as well through the central banks in the mix, the Federal Reserve.

It's the oldest story around, absolute corruption corrupts absolutely. If anyone is even remotely skeptical, if you live long enough, there will be a time when this reality become inescapable.

For the longest time, I never believed a world like this existed. It might be the same ideology of war. As a kid, it made no sense to me how a governing body of a nation can decide to create a war and have its citizens sacrifice their lives for what we often find are not for the people by the people reasons.

Money always has a way to obscure the truth. Often times it's the threat of losing the money flow, perhaps not always obtaining it, but to preserve the perverse status quo.

As always, here are some hints that there is a real problem with governing body's that people tend to put too much faith in.

If our government and business really had our best interests, we would not have fluoride, aluminium in our drinking water, nor would we have mercury placed into our mouth.

It might appear interesting to some that cancer doesn't exist in places in the world where there are no dentists.

If the establishment really knew what they were doing, cancer, heart disease and diabetes would be on the decline, instead, we are seeing increases with a brand new list of diseases that are increasing in numbers.

I second basically everything said in this thread. The ability to assimilate information and discern its validity, relies heavily upon the use of a critical thinking and an open mind. This is paramount to objectivity.

Naturalnews, while it may contain bullshit, may also contain worthy info(which it does IMO). The same goes for any informational medium.

In an absolute sense, presupposing judgement on information by association/non-association is a (common) fundamental detriment to science. Religious fanatics do this, corporate interests do this, most politicians implement this. This largely becomes a self perpetuating cycle, e.g victims becoming perpetrators, thus creating more victims.

Honestly embracing the scientific method will confront us at some point in our bias and prejudice, only in order that we may find the truth.