Quantum Gravity

[whollygoats]

I am not a scientist. I have only rudimentary understanding of scientific processes.

I am educated, though. Largely in the social sciences.

Of late, I have been exposed to a fair amount of information on what is being called Emergence cosmology.

There are a number of videos online purporting to provide a layman understanding of newly posited cosmological hypotheses.

E8 and quasicrystals feature prominently.

Quantum Gravity Research and a fellow purporting to be a research physicist by the name of Klee Irwin produced these videos.

RationalWiki states that Irwin is engaged in pseudoscience.

Since there are such advanced arbiters of quackery and pseudoscience here, I thought I'd ask you to demonstrate, for the non-scientist layman, how it is you determine whether this set of ideas is 'scientific', or bunkum.

How do the unnumerate tell quantum from bunkum?

 

[skepticalbip]

Quantum gravity hypothesis was suggested something like seventy years ago as an attempt to develop a GUT. Nothing useful came of it. About thirty years ago, an updated hypothesis called quantum loop gravity was suggested - so far yielding nothing useful.

I am not familiar with Klee Irwin but I would say that, if that video is an example of his work, then it looks like he is involved in some really deep WOO. There was a lot of WOO, some outright misstatements, and a few (very few) small nuggets of concepts from QLG in the little of that video that I watched

 

[bilby]

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037

I haven't watched the video, but the fact that you are hearing about this via a video is itself a big red flag:

3. Was the claim first announced through mass media, or through scientific channels?
Real discoveries go through an unbiased peer review process, which results in publication through scientific journals. When a belief is first announced through the mass media, like Pons and Fleischman's cold fusion experiments or like the Steorn Orbo perpetual motion machine, there's generally a reason its proponents chose not to subject it to the scrutiny of peer review.

So the first test is: Is this video based on published scientific paper(s) in reputable journal(s)? If not, then you are best served by assuming it to be nonsense, until and unless a paper is published on the topic.

If there IS a basis for this in scientific paper(s), then the question becomes: How to Spot a Pseudoscientific Paper?

There are also some words that appear FAR more often in pseudoscience than in real science, and the presence of several of these words should be treated as a powerful warning that skepticism is warranted.

These include:

Quantum
Emergence
Quasi-
Crystal
Natural
Energy
Organic
Toxin

(This list is incomplete, you can help by expanding it)

Obviously these words CAN be used to describe legitimate scientific phenomena, but they are FAR more common in pseudoscience than in science. Spotting how these words are misused can be difficult, but when they are not used correctly, that's a HUGE red flag. For example, if someone presents as scientific any claim where the word 'organic' is used to mean anything other than 'of or concerning living things' or 'molecules containing carbon', they are almost certainly a quack.

There's another good list of 'Red Flags' at: https://scienceornot.net/science-red-flags/; These cannot definitively tell you whether or not a claim is true - there really is no substitute for learning the science yourself, at the end of the day - but they are a good guide to which sources or claims are worthy of your further consideration, and which are likely to be pure bullshit.

 

[whollygoats]

Hmmmm....So, everything Linus Pauling has done should be tossed out as trash?

 

[bilby]

Hmmmm....So, everything Linus Pauling has done should be tossed out as trash?

Where did anyone make that suggestion?

I don't understand how you could reach that inference from either skepticalbip's or my response.

 

[whollygoats]

Oh...I dunno....Founder of quantum chemistry and molecular biology. Extensive work on crystalline structure. Valence Bond Theory. Orthomolecular Medicine. Megavitamin Therapy. Peace activist.

You tell me where the science ends and the pseudoscience begins.

And, how is it that I should trust these "published scientific paper(s) in reputable journal(s)"? Who is it that is a trustworthy arbiter as to what is reputable?

 

[skepticalbip]

Oh...I dunno....Founder of quantum chemistry and molecular biology. Extensive work on crystalline structure. Valence Bond Theory. Orthomolecular Medicine. Megavitamin Therapy. Peace activist.

You tell me where the science ends and the pseudoscience begins.

And, how is it that I should trust these "published scientific paper(s) in reputable journal(s)"? Who is it that is a trustworthy arbiter as to what is reputable?

You have completely lost me. Could it be that you posted this in the wrong thread? I saw nothing that you mentioned in that video.

ETA:
But to get to your original question:

How do the unnumerate tell quantum from bunkum?

If the person explaining their theory can not express their theory in mathematical terms then there is a damned good chance that it is bunkum. The video leaned heavily on "consciousness" as a causal factor for physical reality and I have never seen a mathematical description of consciousness even though they did several times show him at a white board with scribbling on it. But then, me being quite skeptical, I don't automatically assume that anyone wearing a white smock and standing near a white board with equations on it is necessarily evidence that they are making sense.

 

[bilby]

Oh...I dunno....Founder of quantum chemistry and molecular biology. Extensive work on crystalline structure. Valence Bond Theory. Orthomolecular Medicine. Megavitamin Therapy. Peace activist.

I know who he is.

You tell me where the science ends and the pseudoscience begins.

What makes you think that Linus Pauling was engaged in pseudoscience? Nothing I or skepticalbip have posted entails that conclusion.

And, how is it that I should trust these "published scientific paper(s) in reputable journal(s)"? Who is it that is a trustworthy arbiter as to what is reputable?

Consensus and repeatability are a good guide; But ultimately reality is the final and only arbiter. Nullius in Verba as they say at the Royal Society. If in doubt, check for yourself. If the person telling you something refuses to give you enough details to check for yourself, then he's not to be trusted.

 

[steve_bank]

pseudo science is profound nonsense as objective science.

Scientific speculation is not pseudoscience. Phantasmagorical speculation that has no basis in established scince is pseudoscience. Some of the pop science shows by Mako a credentialed scientist drifts into pseudo science.

Starting in the 70s books were written mixing eastern mysticism with QM and modern science. Deepak Chopra does PBS shows weaving science and mysticism to a mesmerized audience, pure pseudoscience for profit.

The question of what constitutes a boundary between scientific speculation and pseudoscience is a good question.

Remember Einstein made his reputation with the Photoelectric Effect. His work on relativity done while working as a patent engineer was largely rejected. The idea time was not absolute was not taken seriously.

Same with radio waves.

 

[whollygoats]

...

The question of what constitutes a boundary between scientific speculation and pseudoscience is a good question.

Remember Einstein made his reputation with the Photoelectric Effect. His work on relativity done while working as a patent engineer was largely rejected. The idea time was not absolute was not taken seriously.

Same with radio waves.

Yes....That is my question as a non-scientist. What constitutes the boundary. I understand that Einstein was not particularly happy with the applications, and implications, of quantum mechanics, and by extension the work of Neils Bohr, Max Planck, and Werner Heisenberg....I get the impression he thought that quantum mechanics was quackery. Evidently, it is 'quackery' that seems to work to solve any number of modern problems.

I pulled out the example of Linus Pauling because I am somewhat familiar with him and his accomplishments, some of which have been condemned as 'quackery' (orthomolecular medicine and megavitamin therapy), while others, particularly his work in quantum chemistry, is considered Nobel Prize quality. And bilby lined out several stereotypic features which I thought rather marked out Pauling for suspicion. That quantum juju stuff and depending so much upon crystallography for his results. And he is a freaking peacenik of Nobel proportions.

So...My suspicions are that the Quantum Gravity presentations are just high quality woo that is doing a far better job of pitching 'scientific' concepts and backgrounding them for a lay audience than most scientific programming for lay audiences I have seen....and I come from a 'science library' background. I got suspicious when the 'consciousness' stuff got introduced and came down with a claim of 'universal pre-existant consciousness' being a requirement of 'reality'. But then, I know next to nothing about the topic other than what I learn from non-mathematical explanations of purported expert specialists.

Then there is the matter of "who do you trust". As bilby has noted, Nature always bats last. The trouble is, there are a number of areas where Nature ain't too clear and everybody is awaiting a clear, and hopefully concise, explanation....a beneficially useable interpretation. Cosmology seems to be one of those areas.

And, sometimes the proof of Nature is veiled for the purposes of profit. The physical sciences seem to have been more rigorous in maintaining the reputation of its theaters of controversy and publication. Other scientific fields have not fared quite so well....like economic geology, agricultural chemistry, and biopharmaceuticals. As I understand it, the whole realm of uncorrupted "peer review" publishing in medicine, and, by extension, biochemistry and biomechanics, is under attack for the manipulation of results for profit rather than safe, beneficial results. Time still tells, but the cost in human suffering in the duration is unnecessary and horrific.

"Just you wait and see," rings a mite hollow.

 

[steve_bank]

...

The question of what constitutes a boundary between scientific speculation and pseudoscience is a good question.

Remember Einstein made his reputation with the Photoelectric Effect. His work on relativity done while working as a patent engineer was largely rejected. The idea time was not absolute was not taken seriously.

Same with radio waves.

Yes....That is my question as a non-scientist. What constitutes the boundary. I understand that Einstein was not particularly happy with the applications, and implications, of quantum mechanics, and by extension the work of Neils Bohr, Max Planck, and Werner Heisenberg....I get the impression he thought that quantum mechanics was quackery. Evidently, it is 'quackery' that seems to work to solve any number of modern problems.

I pulled out the example of Linus Pauling because I am somewhat familiar with him and his accomplishments, some of which have been condemned as 'quackery' (orthomolecular medicine and megavitamin therapy), while others, particularly his work in quantum chemistry, is considered Nobel Prize quality. And bilby lined out several stereotypic features which I thought rather marked out Pauling for suspicion. That quantum juju stuff and depending so much upon crystallography for his results. And he is a freaking peacenik of Nobel proportions.

So...My suspicions are that the Quantum Gravity presentations are just high quality woo that is doing a far better job of pitching 'scientific' concepts and backgrounding them for a lay audience than most scientific programming for lay audiences I have seen....and I come from a 'science library' background. I got suspicious when the 'consciousness' stuff got introduced and came down with a claim of 'universal pre-existant consciousness' being a requirement of 'reality'. But then, I know next to nothing about the topic other than what I learn from non-mathematical explanations of purported expert specialists.

Then there is the matter of "who do you trust". As bilby has noted, Nature always bats last. The trouble is, there are a number of areas where Nature ain't too clear and everybody is awaiting a clear, and hopefully concise, explanation....a beneficially useable interpretation. Cosmology seems to be one of those areas.

And, sometimes the proof of Nature is veiled for the purposes of profit. The physical sciences seem to have been more rigorous in maintaining the reputation of its theaters of controversy and publication. Other scientific fields have not fared quite so well....like economic geology, agricultural chemistry, and biopharmaceuticals. As I understand it, the whole realm of uncorrupted "peer review" publishing in medicine, and, by extension, biochemistry and biomechanics, is under attack for the manipulation of results for profit rather than safe, beneficial results. Time still tells, but the cost in human suffering in the duration is unnecessary and horrific.

"Just you wait and see," rings a mite hollow.

IMO it all depends. You need some hard sconce to be able to tell.

There was an obscenity case decades back. The judge said famously on the question of what defines obscenity, 'I do not know how to define it but I know it when I see it'.

Usually I get a sense of whether or not something is pseudo science, and I have been wrong once or twice. To me the many universe interpretation of QM is more philosophy than anything else.

The science philosopher Popper put it simply, for something to be science it must be testable in same fusion. I like that in general but then is cosmology science? There is no clear boundary, it is a judgment call.A good basic way to access any science is ask how it fits within Laws Of Thermodynamics.There was a guy who first popped up on the net in the 80s claiming he discovered a mechanical process that violated conservation of energy. He pooped up in various forms on the 90s.

You can look at the Discovery Institute site. It is a very slick looking site seemingly scientific and formal. It is essentially a façade promoting creationism and Intelligent Design. Plenty of scientific sounding papers and books.

In the early 19th century there was a fad. People were injecting themselves with a serum derived by monkeys for longevity.

 

[bilby]

...

The question of what constitutes a boundary between scientific speculation and pseudoscience is a good question.

Remember Einstein made his reputation with the Photoelectric Effect. His work on relativity done while working as a patent engineer was largely rejected. The idea time was not absolute was not taken seriously.

Same with radio waves.

Yes....That is my question as a non-scientist. What constitutes the boundary. I understand that Einstein was not particularly happy with the applications, and implications, of quantum mechanics, and by extension the work of Neils Bohr, Max Planck, and Werner Heisenberg....I get the impression he thought that quantum mechanics was quackery. Evidently, it is 'quackery' that seems to work to solve any number of modern problems.

I pulled out the example of Linus Pauling because I am somewhat familiar with him and his accomplishments, some of which have been condemned as 'quackery' (orthomolecular medicine and megavitamin therapy), while others, particularly his work in quantum chemistry, is considered Nobel Prize quality. And bilby lined out several stereotypic features which I thought rather marked out Pauling for suspicion. That quantum juju stuff and depending so much upon crystallography for his results. And he is a freaking peacenik of Nobel proportions.

So...My suspicions are that the Quantum Gravity presentations are just high quality woo that is doing a far better job of pitching 'scientific' concepts and backgrounding them for a lay audience than most scientific programming for lay audiences I have seen....and I come from a 'science library' background. I got suspicious when the 'consciousness' stuff got introduced and came down with a claim of 'universal pre-existant consciousness' being a requirement of 'reality'. But then, I know next to nothing about the topic other than what I learn from non-mathematical explanations of purported expert specialists.

Then there is the matter of "who do you trust". As bilby has noted, Nature always bats last. The trouble is, there are a number of areas where Nature ain't too clear and everybody is awaiting a clear, and hopefully concise, explanation....a beneficially useable interpretation. Cosmology seems to be one of those areas.

Then it's perfectly OK to reserve judgment, and neither accept nor reject claims made, pending better evidence.

"I don't know" is a perfectly good position to take.

And, sometimes the proof of Nature is veiled for the purposes of profit. The physical sciences seem to have been more rigorous in maintaining the reputation of its theaters of controversy and publication. Other scientific fields have not fared quite so well....like economic geology, agricultural chemistry, and biopharmaceuticals. As I understand it, the whole realm of uncorrupted "peer review" publishing in medicine, and, by extension, biochemistry and biomechanics, is under attack for the manipulation of results for profit rather than safe, beneficial results. Time still tells, but the cost in human suffering in the duration is unnecessary and horrific.

"Just you wait and see," rings a mite hollow.

Then look for the 'store'. If someone presents medical information on their web page, or at a seminar or conference, and they include a sales pitch, or the site is plastered with banner ads for their application of the principle they are claiming, or their cure for the disease under discussion, then that's a strong indication that they are in it more for money than for facts.

 

[whollygoats]

Well, to be fair, Ben Goldacre's site links to books and teeshirts for sale at online outlets.

 

[bilby]

Well, to be fair, Ben Goldacre's site links to books and teeshirts for sale at online outlets.

Well as soon as his research shows that wearing a teeshirt while reading a book can save you from dread diseases and horrible misfortunes, that will be a big red flag that that element of his research may be dodgy as fuck.

The issue is people who are both identifying problems and selling you the solutions for those problems at the same time.

 

[whollygoats]

Then it's perfectly OK to reserve judgment, and neither accept nor reject claims made, pending better evidence.

"I don't know" is a perfectly good position to take.

Okay.

I would hope that "I don't know; I'd like to know more," would be even more in order. And, "How is it that you know that?"

So, what those of us not trained in the sciences need is a means of determining what evidence is 'better'. Preferably from someone trustworthy and reliable.

 

[whollygoats]

Well, to be fair, Ben Goldacre's site links to books and teeshirts for sale at online outlets.

Well as soon as his research shows that wearing a teeshirt while reading a book can save you from dread diseases and horrible misfortunes, that will be a big red flag that that element of his research may be dodgy as fuck.

LOL...I rather suspect that he might well claim that wearing his teeshirt and reading his book helps save from dread diseases and horrible misfortunes...

The issue is people who are both identifying problems and selling you the solutions for those problems at the same time.

Oooo....yeah. I can go with that. Case in point: The pharmaceutical industry. A multi-brazillion dollar global industry built upon doing exactly that.

 

[bilby]

Then it's perfectly OK to reserve judgment, and neither accept nor reject claims made, pending better evidence.

"I don't know" is a perfectly good position to take.

Okay.

I would hope that "I don't know; I'd like to know more," would be even more in order. And, "How is it that you know that?"

So, what those of us not trained in the sciences need is a means of determining what evidence is 'better'. Preferably from someone trustworthy and reliable.

Pretty much.

And the only way to judge somebody's reliability is to look at their record - how often are they wrong, and (FAR more importantly) how do they respond when they are presented with evidence that they are wrong?

A person who is infrequently wrong, but when they are presented with evidence that they are responds with a reasoned assessment of the new evidence, that either shows why it is itself wrong, or inapplicable, and which is accepted by their critics; or that leads them to change their position to one that accommodates and accounts for that new evidence, is probably trustworthy.

A person who is frequently wrong, or who responds to evidence that they are wrong with personal attacks, logical fallacies or a failure to even address the evidence at all, is probably not trustworthy.

Of course, there are still no guarantees. But learning to spot clear, reasoned and logical arguments, and their opposites, does not necessarily require a deep understanding of the topic under discussion. You don't need to know anything about Relativity to know that "Well I know Einstein says I must be wrong, but he was an idiot, so therefore I am right" is a poorly formed and unreliable argument that speaks volumes about the unreliability of the person making it.

 

[bilby]

LOL...I rather suspect that he might well claim that wearing his teeshirt and reading his book helps save from dread diseases and horrible misfortunes...

The issue is people who are both identifying problems and selling you the solutions for those problems at the same time.

Oooo....yeah. I can go with that. Case in point: The pharmaceutical industry. A multi-brazillion dollar global industry built upon doing exactly that.

If the 'pharmaceutical industry' was a monopoly monolithic entity, you would be correct. But it's not, so you may well not be.

If Pfizer could get away with doing what you allege, then I am sure that they would. But then, so would Roche, or Novartis, or Merck. But such a conspiracy would be fragile - one defector could make a fucking mint, at the expense of all the others, so it's an unstable scenario. Maybe, if there was just one regulator, then the big players could manipulate that regulator to 'police' the conspiracy. But Pharmaceuticals is a multinational game, with many different national regulators; And again, it would be quickly obvious if one country or regulatory jurisdiction were producing far better (or worse) health outcomes than the rest.

One prediction that is implied by your hypothesis is that there should be completely different lucrative diseases, and/or different lucrative treatments, in different jurisdictions. We don't see this, which makes your hypothesis seem implausible.

And there are plenty of people (I am one) who used to work in the pharmaceutical industry, but don't any more. How are we all to be kept silent? If we cannot be, then where are the whistle-blowers armed with hard evidence of this wrongdoing?

In short, if the system wasn't getting better at weeding out ineffective treatments and replacing them with more effective ones, we would expect to see no improvement in life expectancy nor in general health of populations with access to modern pharmaceuticals. And yet we do see exactly those benefits.

How are people living longer, healthier lives if modern medicine is based on lies? How come the third world, with its reliance on 'natural' and 'traditional' cures is full of sick people who die (relatively) young?

It is possible that parts of the mainstream pharmaceutical market are driven be pseudoscience - mega-dose vitamins are a good case in point - But the idea that the whole industry is a sham is clearly nonsensical. Simple population level statistics are enough to demonstrate that.

 

[steve_bank]

Well, to be fair, Ben Goldacre's site links to books and teeshirts for sale at online outlets.

Yep, the basic question is what are they trying to sell you. In the 70s there was Pyramid Power. People slept under pyramid frames they bought thinking it would make them live longer. There was some mumbo jumbo about Egyptof course. Clains that fruit stayed fresh longer under a pyramid.

Then there was Orgone Energy. It goes back to around the 1950s. People built Orgone collectors to sit in. Linked to virility of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone

And of course it is still around. The Roman's thousands of years ago coined the term caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.

And of course the saying attributed to PT Barnum, there is a sucker born every minute. And WC Fields rendition, never give a sucker an even break.

https://www.naturesenergieshealth.com/health/orgone-energy/
http://www.orgone-energy.com/


I've watched the DR Oz show. He scientifically debunks a lot of the supplements and pseudo medical claims.

 

[whollygoats]

LOL...I rather suspect that he might well claim that wearing his teeshirt and reading his book helps save from dread diseases and horrible misfortunes...

The issue is people who are both identifying problems and selling you the solutions for those problems at the same time.

Oooo....yeah. I can go with that. Case in point: The pharmaceutical industry. A multi-brazillion dollar global industry built upon doing exactly that.

If the 'pharmaceutical industry' was a monopoly monolithic entity, you would be correct. But it's not, so you may well not be.

No, it's not. It is what is known as a 'price leadership oligopoly'.

If Pfizer could get away with doing what you allege, then I am sure that they would. But then, so would Roche, or Novartis, or Merck. But such a conspiracy would be fragile - one defector could make a fucking mint, at the expense of all the others, so it's an unstable scenario. Maybe, if there was just one regulator, then the big players could manipulate that regulator to 'police' the conspiracy. But Pharmaceuticals is a multinational game, with many different national regulators; And again, it would be quickly obvious if one country or regulatory jurisdiction were producing far better (or worse) health outcomes than the rest.

Pharmaceutical companies are trans-national and have the ability to corrupt any and all regulatory agencies. No, they are not a monolithic entity, but they are a well-coordinated group of tacit collaborators. They are positioned such that their experts are the natural sources for regulators and a turnstile of management has replaced any trustworthy 'safe distance' regulation.

One prediction that is implied by your hypothesis is that there should be completely different lucrative diseases, and/or different lucrative treatments, in different jurisdictions. We don't see this, which makes your hypothesis seem implausible.

I fail to see how this is necessarily implied. Perhaps you need to provide some proof of this implication.

And there are plenty of people (I am one) who used to work in the pharmaceutical industry, but don't any more. How are we all to be kept silent? If we cannot be, then where are the whistle-blowers armed with hard evidence of this wrongdoing?

Dr. Thomas Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration. Dr. Richard Horton, editor of Lancet, a major international 'peer reviewed' medical journal. Dr. Marcia Angell, senior editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, another major international 'peer reviewed' medical journal, wrote an intriguing tome entitled, The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. Medical ethicist Carl Elliot has written an engaging book about how that system operates, entitled, White Coat Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine. Even Ben Goldacre has chimed in to support the effort to rein in an arrogant and grasping industry. Clarion calls have been announcing for more than a decade about how the pharmaceutical industry is gaming the whole scientific community to maximize its profits. That you are not aware of this means that you are either asleep at the wheel, or, more likely, in the pay, or otherwise under the influence, of the industry. I'd even suspect that you might be one of the Key Opinion Leaders the industry has been cultivating for years now....But, no....You were, and probably still are, in the pay of pharmaceutical interests. So, it seems you have probably actively avoided any critiques of the industry which lined your pockets for so long. And, just because YOU did not see something nefarious happening while you were there, doesn't mean something nefarious was not happening. Your cluelessness does not excuse the travesties of an entire industry.

In short, if the system wasn't getting better at weeding out ineffective treatments and replacing them with more effective ones, we would expect to see no improvement in life expectancy nor in general health of populations with access to modern pharmaceuticals. And yet we do see exactly those benefits.

Yep...We once saw exactly those benefits. But, once the industry gained the reputation, they rested on it and began started buying Congresscritters and gaming the adoption and approval system so as to pad their profit margins. Once the scientific community in pharmaceuticals had installed itself as the high priesthood of medicine, they proceeded to 'put their thumb on the scale during every sale'. They now have a very similar problem to that of the Catholic Church...they have acquired a well-entrenched cadre of corrupted priests and the corrupted bishops and scandalized archbishops act to cover up the reality in the trenches.

How are people living longer, healthier lives if modern medicine is based on lies? How come the third world, with its reliance on 'natural' and 'traditional' cures is full of sick people who die (relatively) young?

Nope....There was a distinct period when the scientific paradigm provided easily provable and readily demonstrable benefits for the populations it served. That is where it earned the reputation it presently enjoys. But, as time has gone along, the easy and most readily observable 'wonder' results were obtained and the low fruit of medical research were harvested. Now, it is not so easy. The costs have gone up, the complexity increased, the results rarer, the patents are expiring, and the target audiences have shrunk.

It is possible that parts of the mainstream pharmaceutical market are driven be pseudoscience - mega-dose vitamins are a good case in point - But the idea that the whole industry is a sham is clearly nonsensical. Simple population level statistics are enough to demonstrate that.

Mega-dose vitamin therapy is not mainstream here. It has been debunked. I'm thinking more about shit like Vioxx, SSRIs and adolescents, 'knock-off' drugs, off-list prescribing, patent tweaking, and the whole list of entirely unnecessary and ill-conceived pharmaceuticals which have been released upon the unwitting public since 1986.

So...I'd guess that you are either an apologist for a group of robber baron flim-flam artists, or so ignorant of the industry norms as to be entirely misleading.

This is why I have dubbed you Bishop bilby. You are actively involved in covering up the sins of the pharmaceutical industry.