Peer-reviewed study proves: Poo stinkier than Woo

[Berlum]

The latest results from a rigorous, authoritative peer-reviewed study* establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that Poo is stinkier than Woo.

Poo -- academically defined as corporately funded "scientific research" and PR propaganda -- was unanimously found to be 10X times stinkier and more suspect than 'Woo' (a corporately coined term intended to deride and dismiss out of hand anything that does not make Massive Mega-Buck Profits for corporately funded "science."


Link to a serious paper by the Union of Concerned Scientists: "How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense" http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html


* Rigorous, authoritative study was conducted by a panel of me and my buddies (aka peers ) sitting around my kitchen table collectively swilling down a case of local brew, aka "Peer Beer."

[Cooley Hurd]

1. "Woo" has been the new meme here on DU...

Used interchangeably with "CT", "Grassy Knoll", etc.

"Poo" will remain, to me, as, well... Poo (poop, caca, shit).

[Berlum]

3. Yup. It's a way of dismissing things without giving them due consideration

We are witnessing a corporate onslaught of damning things as 'woo' in the hopes that people will not take them seriously.

Meanwhile, corporations keep flinging 'poo' at us with the other hand. It's a double-sided corporate strategy to distort reality and create their own profiteering 'reality.'

KARL ROVE: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

[Cooley Hurd]

4. Rove took "The Prince" to heart...

Machiavelli lives within Rove.

[n2doc]

6. Yep. Just like "emo" was a few months back. Must be interns making this stuff up. n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

8. I missed "Emo"!

Of course, my first thought was:

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. If you regard 2005 as 'new'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4227640

('woo-woo' has, at some point, been shortened to 'woo', but it dates back to at least 2005)

[Cooley Hurd]

21. It's been used to an expanded degree as of late...

...much less so before. I've been here awhile.

[leftstreet]

2. LOL what an excellent term

Corporate conspiracy Poo

[laundry_queen]

5. Yup.

There was a big 'kerfuffle' on CBC (Canadian broadcasting corp) last year when they did an investigation on how scientists in Canada were being compensated by large corporations. It was set up in such a way that it's nearly impossible to trace. The large corporations set up a web of 'institutes' and other organizations that appear to be independent - but they aren't. It's these organizations that fund many studies or even individual scientists. Sometimes 2 or 3 of them together will team up with a university and the research that results appears legitimate. However, often the scientists that are employed by the universities are also receiving grants from some of these institutions on other studies, which leads to a possible bias in the results. So science is being perverted currently and it's impossible to know which studies are legitimate and which aren't. The ones that are purely funded by universities and government are the most likely to be legitimate, but even then you need to look at the scientists involved and what other grants they are receiving for other studies. It's a depressing degradation of modern science.

[adirondacker]

16. yes it is...We have Ratheon, Lockhead Martin, GE, Johnson and Johnson, etc all "contributing"

to our oceanographic sciences. Many own and operate their own ships with NSF funding to boot. Best to keep your mouth/fingers shut or your "funding" will amount to $0. Much of the funding goes to the same players, leaving crumbs for others to fight over.

[laundry_queen]

22. exactly.

the CBC piece had a very prominent Canadian scientist that is on TV a lot, and showed her to have accepted funding from numerous 'foundations' that were tied to pharmaceutical companies and not only that, she was 'sponsoring' some of their newer medications in ads...medication that she had done 'peer reviewed' studies for. It was pretty disgusting.

[jsr]

7. Speaking of poo

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/25/5678851/uc-davis-surgeons-resign-after.html

UC Davis surgeons resign after bacteria-in-brain dispute
By Marjie Lundstrom
Published: Sunday, Aug. 25, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 1A

Two UC Davis neurosurgeons who intentionally infected three brain-cancer patients with bowel bacteria have resigned their posts after the university found they had "deliberately circumvented" internal policies, "defied directives" from top leaders and sidestepped federal regulations, according to newly released university documents.

Dr. J. Paul Muizelaar, 66, the former head of the neurosurgery department, and his colleague, Dr. Rudolph J. Schrot, violated the university's faculty code of conduct with their experimental work, one internal investigation concluded.

All three patients consented to the procedures in 2010 and 2011. Two of the patients died within weeks of their surgeries, while the other survived more than a year after being infected...

The surgeons' resignations – along with the harsh conclusions of at least eight internal and external investigations of their conduct – bring to a close a tumultuous chapter for the School of Medicine, whose dean announced her own resignation last November.

[Berlum]

9. Scientific American: "Corporate Control Over GMO Research"

Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end

By The Editors (of Scientific American)

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

[Berlum]

10. Honest Independent Science

[pnwmom]

12. Thanks! I'm going to borrow this.

[pnwmom]

11. Thanks for the article! nt

[Precisely]

13. "Climate change dictates that we need biotechnology."

On another Poo thread, this comment. "Climate change dictates that we need biotechnology." So the forces that are ruining the planet benefit in how many ways from this scheme? What a racket. The Poosters problem is you can't copyright and charge for "Woo."

[Jim Lane]

20. You're wrong on one point -- woo can be profitable, too.

You write:

The Poosters problem is you can't copyright and charge for "Woo."

You can copyright a book about astrology. I don't know what the sales figures are but, judging from how much of this rubbish I see on bookstore shelves, I'll guess there's some serious money being made.

To take just one form of medical quackery, "In the U.S., consumer sales of homeopathic treatments reached $870 million in 2009, growing 10 percent over the previous year, according to Nutrition Business Journal estimates." (from "Homeopathy prospers even as controversy rages")

[laundry_queen]

23. It can be but orders of magnitude count here. nt

[arikara]

25. Poo tops woo in profitability

870 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the megabillions the poo companies bring in.

If homeopathy spent the money the poosters spend on drug pushing... er... advertising... they'd make considerably more. Something tells me we wouldn't have to watch smiling tv people expound for 2 minutes on all the drastic side effects of homeopathy either.

[Precisely]

28. Many of the alternatives that are Poo-Pooed

are free, low cost or DIY. Not so with genetic engineering.

[Precisely]

14. Frankenflies

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2410484/Scientists-launch-thousands-GM-insects-fields-alternative-chemicals.html

[mathematic]

15. From somebody that believes in chemtrails.

lawl.

[Berlum]

18. I have no use for beliefs

I stand on knowledge.

Please refrain from introducing FORBIDDEN thoughts on DU, or some True Believer will assuredly alert on you for your gross VIOLATION.

[zappaman]

30. Nobody on DU is dumb enough to believe in chemtrails.

NOBODY.

[progressoid]

19. Woo is a corporately coined term?

Oooookay.

[sagat]

34. Yeah, that's bullshit.

"Woo woo" has been used in the skeptic community for a long ass time.

[liberal_at_heart]

24. how about if I don't believe either.

I don't believe corporations, but I also don't trust some of the research coming out against some of these products either. There is no true unbiased scientific research anymore. Everyone has an agenda and everyone's research is biased.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. I think you meant "Pee Review."

"Rigorous, authoritative study was conducted by a panel of me and my buddies (aka peers ) sitting around my kitchen table collectively swilling down a case of local brew, aka 'Peer Beer.'"

[Smarmie Doofus]

27. Love this! K , R and bookmarked. n/t

[Zorra]

29. Thank you! I am bookmarking to use during the next invasion of DU by corporate trolls. nt

[Berlum]

31. 10...9...8...7...

[liberal_at_heart]

32. I've noticed something on this site. If you are not anti-GMO you are bullied, insulted,

and ridiculed. I don't know why I am surprised. People who eat meat and sugar are also ostracized and yes I do eat both meat and sugar. Enjoy your self appointed superiority. I'm deleting this thread and any other thread thas has anything to do with GMOs.

[Berlum]

35. Nah. You have it backwards. The GMO Mutant Corps are occultly shoving GMO crud down our throats

That's bullying.

Those who oppose this thuggery, and who wish only to exercise their free will against this occult, mechanical industrial mutant foodlike crud, use a wide array of rhetorical defenses against the Behemoth GMO Corps and their Trolls. It is David (people who want the right to choose what they eat and feed to their families) against Bullying Goliath, Inc. (MegaCorp GMO, Big Ag, and Big Pharma).

There you have it.

[etherealtruth]

33. Yeah, we here at DU certainly want to be the forerunners in promoting junk science...

... scams and charlatans.

Perhaps we can allow posters to pitch their "miracle cures" ... we can encourage homeopathic testimonials (that wacky water memory cures just about anything).

Your post is not about Monsanto (a corporation I despise with every fiber of my being) ... your post appears to be in support of quackery (woo). You do everyone a disservice by mocking those that aggressively confront woo.

If you wish to present evidence that GMOs have real and potential dangers I have collected a wealth of scholarly information (studies conducted and published by others) that links GMOs to the increase in number and severity of food allergies that may be attributed to GMOs.

Why post in support of quackery as a whole?

I have seen far too many people physically, emotionally and financially harmed by being taken in by "woo" (I worked in hospice and public health for a decade). I will not sit back and keep my mouth shut about Woo ... regardless of someone's aunt Ethel eating lawn clippings and being cured of pancreatic cancer (or whatever the ridiculousness of the day ,may be)

[Berlum]

36. The OP juxtaposes Woo with Poo - it endorses neither

The intent was to point out -- accurately -- that a lot of corporate poo gets flung around on DU. The OP is clearly satirical.

If you want to start a serious thread on the dangers of GMOs, be my guest. But if you want to join in a farcical satirical discussion, you best be ready for farce and satire. Purveyors of corporate Poo love to dish it out, but get all umbragey when it splatters back their way

[etherealtruth]

37. Nope

We have historically had issues with woo here ... sorry, my sense of humor associated with "woo" (read quackery) just isn't there