4 ms·

> Scientists hope that the new insights into liver development and performance will yield novel therapies for the more than 100 disorders that afflict the organ

> Scientists hope that the new insights into liver development and performance will yield novel therapies for the more than 100 disorders that afflict the organ, many of which are on the rise worldwide, in concert with soaring rates of obesity and diabetes. No need to wait, an excellent book explains how to easily clean your liver: http://www.ener-chi.com/books/the-amazing-liver-gallbladder-flush http://www.ener-chi.com/books/the-amazing-liver-gallbladder-... The thing is you can literally see all the things that have been jamming your liver for years, as they're being "washed" out when you go to the toiled - very impressive. Keep in mind that a liver that is jammed does not fully clean your blood. If your blood is not clean, it will eventually cause trouble all over your body.

treehau5 9y ago
https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/flushes.html https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/flushes.h...
crpatino 9y ago
Downvotes are for signaling failure to honour conversation protocol, no disagreement of opinion. You guys shoud know better. If you want to argue that liver cleansing is a quack, do so in a comment. Better yet, ignore the parent and let it fall to the bottom of the conversation.
- chc 9y ago
  That is not accurate. Downvotes are for comments that negatively contribute to the conversation. One way a comment can negatively contribute is by failing to honor protocol, but it is not the only way. Even simply extraneous comments like lazy jokes probably should be and conventially are downvoted on Hacker News. Promoting pseudoscience definitely doesn't seem like a very good contribution to me.
  - crpatino 9y ago
    Then you should argue against it, and let the best argument win. Last time I checked, Chc was not the infallible God of Truth and Goodness. Maybe it is not a good contribution, but it is not for you alone to tell.
    - dpark 9y ago
      > Maybe it is not a good contribution, but it is not for you alone to tell. "Maybe it is an abusive, racist comment, but it is not for you alone to tell." Your argument is hollow, because it applies to literally every reason to downvote. But technically you're right. Which is why we have voting. Collectively the readers decide which comments contribute to the conversation. There is no moral obligation to give equal airtime to quackery and fraud.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  Peddling what is obviously bullshit fails to honor conversation protocol as well.
  - crpatino 9y ago
    No, but downvoting people who does not share you opinion is. Double-plus for downvoting people that calls you on your hypocricy. The terapeutic modalities you have label under the collective label of "bullshit" is a valid options for millions of people in America alone. And the reason this is so is because doctors distill hubris in their interactions with everyone else (like you), and then when they are found in a mistake or in some sort of self serving scheme, they pretend nothing happened (like you) and try to blame someone else (like you). What to help science win? You need to win back the hearts of all those millions of people that got disillusioned with modern medicine. And the way to do so is to treat people with respect and let the strenght of your arguments set the direction of the debate. Once you have to resort to censorship and name calling, you have already lost.
    - jamiek88 9y ago
      The rules aren't an API to work around. They have a spirit and an ethos. You can't say 'yah boo you guys have to listen to me by your own rules' and not expect to get called out on it. Not all opinions are equal. This place has its faults but tolerating pseudoscience especially quack medicine is not one of them.
    - dpark 9y ago
      > Once you have to resort to censorship and name calling, you have already lost. I'd like to live in a world where this is true, where voiced opinions were all fairly evaluated and the right decision made. But I don't. People hear bullshit and believe it when they should know better, and silencing dissenting opinions actually works quite well.
      - crpatino 9y ago
        Thank you for engaging, dpark. You mentioned elsewhere that the (HN) audience collectively decides. You are right, I have taken a small punishment in my karma numbers, but I am willing to pursue this regardless. You claim that people hear and believe bullshit. That itself is a symptom; mainstream medicine has been unable to provide adecuate healthcare services, so the quacks come in and fill in the gap. Your chosen side is very eager to throw accusations of malfeasance and stupidity, but in many cases it would be more accurate to say that people is doing a (perhaps misguided) attempt to deal with hard realities with limited options. It does not help that said side is prone to downplay its own pursuit of profit motive. This state of affairs is not new at all. According to Lester King's "The Medical World of the Eighteen Century", this goes back at least to the days of Henry VIII in the English speaking world (and has its roots in the medieval customs and institutions of the guilds and the Church). The problem is fundamentally economic and political (who has the right to ministrate health of their fellow man), but doctors like to hide behind appeals to authority (ancient tradition first, later science). True Science should have no business taking sides on what ultimately ends up being comercial disputes; theirs is to look at Nature and figure out how it works. I am obviously engaged in the Alt-med scene, and I can tell you by personal experience that it does work well enough. The problem is that, being a low status subject, the ranks of its practicioners are filled with anti-intellectual types; and yes, this means there're lots of bullshit being peddled out there, and even the stuff that seems to work does probably work according to principles that are unknow to the people that use them. And it is an herculean taks just trying to figure out what's complete bonkers and what's real phenomena waiting to have an actual explanation.

treehau5 9y ago

https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/flushes.html https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/flushes.h...

crpatino 9y ago

Downvotes are for signaling failure to honour conversation protocol, no disagreement of opinion. You guys shoud know better. If you want to argue that liver cleansing is a quack, do so in a comment. Better yet, ignore the parent and let it fall to the bottom of the conversation.

chc 9y ago
That is not accurate. Downvotes are for comments that negatively contribute to the conversation. One way a comment can negatively contribute is by failing to honor protocol, but it is not the only way. Even simply extraneous comments like lazy jokes probably should be and conventially are downvoted on Hacker News. Promoting pseudoscience definitely doesn't seem like a very good contribution to me.
- crpatino 9y ago
  Then you should argue against it, and let the best argument win. Last time I checked, Chc was not the infallible God of Truth and Goodness. Maybe it is not a good contribution, but it is not for you alone to tell.
  - dpark 9y ago
    > Maybe it is not a good contribution, but it is not for you alone to tell. "Maybe it is an abusive, racist comment, but it is not for you alone to tell." Your argument is hollow, because it applies to literally every reason to downvote. But technically you're right. Which is why we have voting. Collectively the readers decide which comments contribute to the conversation. There is no moral obligation to give equal airtime to quackery and fraud.
pavel_lishin 9y ago
Peddling what is obviously bullshit fails to honor conversation protocol as well.
- crpatino 9y ago
  No, but downvoting people who does not share you opinion is. Double-plus for downvoting people that calls you on your hypocricy. The terapeutic modalities you have label under the collective label of "bullshit" is a valid options for millions of people in America alone. And the reason this is so is because doctors distill hubris in their interactions with everyone else (like you), and then when they are found in a mistake or in some sort of self serving scheme, they pretend nothing happened (like you) and try to blame someone else (like you). What to help science win? You need to win back the hearts of all those millions of people that got disillusioned with modern medicine. And the way to do so is to treat people with respect and let the strenght of your arguments set the direction of the debate. Once you have to resort to censorship and name calling, you have already lost.
  - jamiek88 9y ago
    The rules aren't an API to work around. They have a spirit and an ethos. You can't say 'yah boo you guys have to listen to me by your own rules' and not expect to get called out on it. Not all opinions are equal. This place has its faults but tolerating pseudoscience especially quack medicine is not one of them.
  - dpark 9y ago
    > Once you have to resort to censorship and name calling, you have already lost. I'd like to live in a world where this is true, where voiced opinions were all fairly evaluated and the right decision made. But I don't. People hear bullshit and believe it when they should know better, and silencing dissenting opinions actually works quite well.
    - crpatino 9y ago
      Thank you for engaging, dpark. You mentioned elsewhere that the (HN) audience collectively decides. You are right, I have taken a small punishment in my karma numbers, but I am willing to pursue this regardless. You claim that people hear and believe bullshit. That itself is a symptom; mainstream medicine has been unable to provide adecuate healthcare services, so the quacks come in and fill in the gap. Your chosen side is very eager to throw accusations of malfeasance and stupidity, but in many cases it would be more accurate to say that people is doing a (perhaps misguided) attempt to deal with hard realities with limited options. It does not help that said side is prone to downplay its own pursuit of profit motive. This state of affairs is not new at all. According to Lester King's "The Medical World of the Eighteen Century", this goes back at least to the days of Henry VIII in the English speaking world (and has its roots in the medieval customs and institutions of the guilds and the Church). The problem is fundamentally economic and political (who has the right to ministrate health of their fellow man), but doctors like to hide behind appeals to authority (ancient tradition first, later science). True Science should have no business taking sides on what ultimately ends up being comercial disputes; theirs is to look at Nature and figure out how it works. I am obviously engaged in the Alt-med scene, and I can tell you by personal experience that it does work well enough. The problem is that, being a low status subject, the ranks of its practicioners are filled with anti-intellectual types; and yes, this means there're lots of bullshit being peddled out there, and even the stuff that seems to work does probably work according to principles that are unknow to the people that use them. And it is an herculean taks just trying to figure out what's complete bonkers and what's real phenomena waiting to have an actual explanation.