Science v. Science-Fiction
July 16, 2010
Most of what we hear from mainstream scientists is best understood as science-fiction - though since scientists hide the fictional aspect of their stories, we should call them liars. For decades have doctors and other scientists claimed that, "Steroids don't work." Even when the Eastern Europeans were dominating Olympic sports, doctors wrote in their bible - the Physicians Desk Reference - that anabolic steroids do not enhance athletic performance.
Would anyone today agree with that claim, made as late as the early-80s? If not, then why believe what doctors are claiming today, instead of envisioning what the established truth will be tomorrow? Today's lie that will be tomorrow's truth is human growth hormone (HGH).
Doctors today claim that human growth hormone "doesn't work." Here is what the respected (not by me) Mayo Clinic writes about HGH:
Studies of healthy adults taking human growth hormone are limited. Although it appears that human growth hormone injections can increase muscle mass and reduce the amount of body fat in healthy older adults, the increase in muscle doesn't translate into increased strength. In fact, researchers have found that strength training is a cheaper, more effective way to increase muscle mass and strength.
To look like Sylvester Stallone, you need only hit the gym 3 days each week? That is a laughable claim to anyone who actually lifts weights. It is also a laughable claim to anyone who has studied the science - as opposed to listening to scientists - of human growth hormone. Yet that is what Mayo says.
It's not always obvious to laypersons, but to understand science, you must understand morality. Mayo is not making scientific claims. It is making moral judgments. Read this line, for example:
Synthetic human growth hormone, which must be injected, is available only by prescription. It's approved to treat adults who have true growth hormone deficiency — not the expected decline in growth hormone due to aging.
Well, why not? It is a scientific fact - that needs no explanation to any many over 40 - that levels of human growth hormone and testosterone decline with age. Isn't that a bad thing?
No. Scientists have made the aesthetic and moral judgment that "growing old" is "natural." This is the naturalistic fallacy. Not everything that is natural is good. Cancer is natural. Chemotherapy is unnatural. If you get cancer, do you just die?
Yet because scientists have made the value judgment that growing old - which means slowing decaying until physical weakness and dementia set in - they denigrate HGH. They denigrate by first lying about its effectiveness. They also denigrate HGH by labelling natural-and-expected effects as side effects.
HGH leads to increased muscle mass, less fat mass, and stronger bones and joints. Indeed, one "side effect" to HGH use is joint pain. Your hands and shoulders hurt for a few months, because your body is generating more cartilage. Thus, the joint pain is not a side effect, but rather is the natural "growing pains" one should expect when generating new tissue.
Yet the lies will persist. People will attempt to argue with me, by citing the Mayo Clinic. (I no longer argue with anyone about anything unless they can prove they've conducted 20 hours of independent research. )
Whatever one's aesthetic viewpoint, consider this: Stallone does not look like this because of whey protein and egg white omelettes. Instead, he's using the same stuff that mainstream doctors claim "doesn't work," or has too many "side effects."