Talk:Electrified atomic iodine

Hah! 1% iodine trichloride? They'd be better off powdering a single iodine water purification tablet, tossing it into a five-gallon jug, and filtering it. Double hah! The Foxhole Atheist 22:27, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
 * But for some real fun, they should try it with nitrogen triiodide instead ;) Secret Squirrel 22:43, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

What sort of 'do not do this at home' would result? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Still in use today
Edgar invested medical procedures that are still used today a "Pseudoscience pusher" only to describe him... sigh wikipedia you are so dramatic, something is either science or it is not.
 * Coupla things.
 * We are not wikipedia.
 * Bullshit that was wrong 50 years ago can still be bullshit and wrong today.
 * Thank you for your comment. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * At no point did you address my comment, I never once said the Nascent state was real or not, just saying the man had many successes that were not snake oil and you reduced his whole lifetime of work to a con artist, whether in a nascent state or not Iodine use and info can be largely attributed to this man, why you so hung up that he was wrong about one thing? thought this was a scientific site, 7000% attitude 0% other.
 * Not to be rude here, but I think your ability to discern bullshit from fact might be a bit... (((Broken.))) 15:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "Not to be rude here, but I think your ability to discern bullshit from fact might be a bit... (((Broken.)))" What did I say that you disagree with?


 * Seriously though commie, I never said Nascent Iodine is of value I never defended it, you just thought I did and got "activated". What did I say that that I believe that is not true? What specific piece of bullshit do I take as fact?
 * "Activated"? Is that the new PC way of saying "triggered"? Cute. Well anyway, I was subtly referencing your edit to the article asking whether or not we were jewish or whether this was a far-right hugbox safe space where you can virtue signal about how bad SJW left-wing diversity change is. Being the smart, rational, and totally not biased person you are, I would have thought you would have caught on. Oh well... 16:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's indeed address what you said. Let's even give you "Something is either science or it is not" as a universal truth.  New age medicine in general, and electrofied atomic iodine in particular is not scientific.  But it takes the terminology of science to sound like science.  Thus making it "Pseudo" science.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Activated"? Is that the new PC way of saying "triggered"?" <- No, it's just a term I happened to use.


 * If we were both smart we could chirp each other and learn from each other.


 * "New age medicine in general, and electrofied atomic iodine in particular is not scientific. But it takes the terminology of science to sound like science.  Thus making it "Pseudo" science." <-- Scientific articles prove things are safe then new data comes out and proves it's dangerous, this doesn't make the first article "Pseudo" science that is the scientific process, you build upon old and new data and learn from past wrong ideas. If edgar Cayce did all that on purpose to rip people off, he would be a con artist, if he thought he was doing something good but later it was disproven, he aided the scientific process by allowing others to disprove it and thus research more into it, calling it "like" science doesn't make any sense. If you do experiments and log the results but end up being wrong, you're not automatically an idiot or a "Psuedo science" pusher, there is no such thing as Psuedo science, as I stated something is either under the umbrealla of science or it is not.
 * Ok. Let's put this very simply and bluntly. The idea you support is bullshit that's pretending that it isn't. There, done, yay!! 16:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S.:  16:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * List of peer reviewed double blind studies showing the safety and effectiveness of "electrified atomic iodine":


 * It's never been science. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "The idea you support is bullshit that's pretending that it isn't" <- for the third time, I never once said I support Nascent iodione, go back and read my comments, I nevere defended it. What are you talking about.. You're going to call me an idiot then say some random shit and 2 more back and forths you're again going to accuse me of believing in Nascent iodine even though I never said I did, then I'm susposed to get angry that you are calling me an idiot for believing something that I never said I believe.. you guys have patterns and I've read all your playbooks, it's super weak and worked in the 1950's but people see right through that now.


 * "It's never been science." <- Exactly! Then it's not science! It's not "Psuedo science", that's not a thing! It hasn't been studied yet or properly then it does NOT fall under the umbrella of science.


 * You guys are both acting like I said "Nascent iodine is real and it works" but I never did, so nice "mice drop" with that tumbleweed but I never said nascent was science so you are arguing with what you wished I said not what I actually said. This is so weird guys, what are you?

A few things, again Again thanks for your comment, but it's looking like we're not gonna find any way to improve the article from this critique. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It's absolutely right on mark the definition of pseudoscience
 * 2) You very much implied, without stating explicitly, that it had been shown to be safe and later science reversed that. This is utterly untrue.
 * 3) Even if his whole career wasn't psuedoscience and woo bullshit(it was), this guy falls in the "but you fuck one goat" territory.
 * I'd also like to point out that there's this thing called WOMBAT, and that concept kinda goes into why certain ideas are rejected offhand by scientists. So even if your backpedaling were true, it still doesn't hold up to basic scientific rigor. 16:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Prove I back-peddled.
 * No. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok! 17:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/from-the-staff/stop-using-the-word-pseudoscience Something is either scientific or it is not, I can invent a term and give it a definition what you call "Pseudo science" scientists call "not science" or "unscientific" or "Unscientifically proven" theres no sub categories of it.


 * "You very much implied, without stating explicitly, that it had been shown to be safe and later science reversed that. This is utterly untrue." <- WTF dude I never said that. I said science can prove something is safe then more data come come along and disprove that, that in turn doesn't make the earlier study "Psuedo science". I wasn't referring to Iodine or Edgar Cayce in any way. Guys lol
 * Yeah, but the earlier study never happened ya dumbshit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Here you describe Cayce as contributing to medicine. (That's a form of science, which means the idea kind of needs to be proven.) Here and here you backpedal to "we don't know if it's true or not." (This next one is my faverite.) Here you try to poison the well by implying that if we don't agree with you we might be evil jews... here you outright lie about your first two comments... Here you try to use an escape hatch and special pleading... (And come amazingly close to self awareness.) Here I reply and explain how to sign and indent which you still haven't done... More lying, backpedaling, and special pleading from you... Well, you get the idea... So... Yeah. You're full of crap. 17:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This was the quote.

"Scientific articles prove things are safe then new data comes out and proves it's dangerous, this doesn't make the first article "Pseudo" science that is the scientific process, you build upon old and new data and learn from past wrong ideas."

I stated that when new science comes in to disprove old ideas the old ideas don't become psuedos science. I wasn't talking about Edgar or Iodine but am talking about the term Pseudo science.
 * No, pseudoscience is when you act like you're doing science and have no rigor or self-critical analysis. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As for your article... Yeah it's stupid. It invokes the balance fallacy in requesting that we treat people who have a financial incentive to lie the same as peer reviewed scientists. It invokes specially pleading when saying that quack medicine is just different cultures interacting with our own. (Actually a lot of it is people from the native culture stealing set dressing from other cultures to make their bullshit sound more legit.) science was wrong before invoked to try to make the gullible and the dishonest seem more credible... Toward the end the author of the blog post mentions requests that we mince words and try to sound nicer about calling bullshit bullshit, rather than say working on a definite definition of pseudoscience. So, in summery. Pseudoscinence is bullshit that pretends that it has actual science behind it but doesn't want to go through the same rigorous process. So for example, Racialism, homeopathy, conversion therapy, Jilly Juice, etc. 17:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I love how you're still dancing around that little JAQ off comment in the article. Sort of like you know that it hurts your credibility... 17:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Pseudoscience is not a thing. If someone isn't doing it properly it's simply not scientific. Scientific studies can be reproduced, disproven, or studied further. When you "act" like you're doing science but wear a purple bowtie and poop on the results it's not Psuedoscience it's insanity but it's for sure "NOT scientific". All what you think of as "Psuedo science" and yes including putting iodine in a battery and charging it falls under the category of "Not science". I NEVER said I believe in nascent and I never defended it and I did NOT backpeddle.


 * All your examples Racialism, homeopathy, conversion therapy, Jilly juice aren't psuedo science they are scams and/or bad ideas but all the things that pretend to prove them are "unscientific" why say it's "like" science, why not just say it's not science? &mdash; Unsigned, by: AlexGroans / talk / contribs
 * Wow. You're so close to getting it that it's mind blowing. "pseudoscience" is scams, woo, etc, that pretend to be science. OK? It is a very specific category for said claims, because they pretend they're science. Hence "pseudo" (fake), "science" (knowledge) (literally "fake knowledge"). I fucking linked a bloody fucking article that explains it and you're too busy denying it's existence to read about what we're debating. Sheesh. 17:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I could tell he was a slow learner, but hopefully his block will give him the time to actually read the article instead of bickering about what pseudoscience ought to be called. --Logos (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to lean towards "extremely well performed troll". Also, block em another hour if they don't fuckin sign their fuckin posts.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)