Raven said:
No one's talking about a scientifically researched method to cure illness. They're talking about an off-the-cuff dumb remark from someone unqualified and not educated enough to make such claims. Instead of trying to shift the topic and get off the point, are you saying you're in agreement that injecting cleaning products directly into your body as the President says would be helpful? |
How did they scientifically research it, before questioning if it was worth looking into in the first place? Was anyone negatively impacted?
I'd like to know a concrete answer, yes. If it's potentially useful and can be worked on, great, if it's not, then no big deal.
JWeinCom said:
The idea first came from Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, a German scientist with a strong background in physics. Unlike disinfectants, which had been used in some form since 800 BC as described in the Odyssey, which has existed in its current chlorine based form since the 1700s, and which we have a great deal of understanding about, radiation of those frequencies was not yet known to be harmful. As Roentgen was STUDYING X-Rays, he noted their unique interactions with cathode ray tubes. Based on the unique way the tubes were illuminated, he began to develop a process to illuminate the body in the same way using X-Rays. Once we knew X-Rays could pass through the body in the same way, people began researching therapeutic uses for X-Rays. The knowledge that x-rays and other similar forms of radiation could cause cancer was discovered around the same time that it was discovered that it could be effectively used as a therapy for cancer. The difference here, obviously, is that on the one hand you have scientists actually researching how a largely unknown new discovery could be used, and only suggesting its use AFTER researching it, and having reason to believe it was a potential treatment. Prior to this research, they had no knowledge of the risks involved. The researchers did not have the benefit of being able to appeal to experts on the subject to see how the treatment may work. They were not idiotic because they were researching in the best way they could, guided by those most knowledgable on the topic, in light of incredibly limited knowledge base in a new field. On the other hand, we have a moron suggesting using a substance that has existed for hundreds of years, and we know a hell of a lot about, in a way that is known to be incredibly dangerous, and known not to function in the way suggested. This is despite having access to experts on virology and medicine who could have told him it was a very very bad idea, and in fact had to make several public statements afterwards to tell people not to do that. He is an idiot because he's speaking out of ass suggesting dumbass things in spite of a massive knowledge base about disinfectants that he could have consulted. He should accordingly be ridiculed and demeaned. Comparing this to the process of scientific inquiry is laughably absurd. |
The difference is not all scientists knew. Did every single scientist globally, know about the exact same findings? Do they all know what is and isn't possible now? Have people in the past been harmed because the information wasn't known be all? Are people harmed now because of medical mistakes or simply being the rare occurrence of a negative reaction to a treatment? Has anyone ever been harmed because a scientist asked a question or suggested research based on an idea?
Not all science is perfect, and neither is leadership. Should some of us think science and the people who use it are stupid and idiotic because of what harm it's caused? Science = bad because one person was hurt though many were saved? Should we spend all day everyday going out of our way to bash science? Quite a negative way to look at things I'd say.
We have someone who doesn't know something, asking a question, and suggesting the professionals potentially look into it if there's any reason to. If that's such a terrible thing, then I don't even know why anyone bothers.
