User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you believe in the farmacy trend?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm a hippy and I'm proud of it. Also, I have proof it works. No aluminum DO for me!

    3 7.69%
  • I'm kind of a hippy, but I was brought up that way, and/or I like moral aspects of the trend.

    4 10.26%
  • This is a thing? Who's Jenny McCarthy? I mean, I guess both are fine.

    4 10.26%
  • Science trumps turnips all day. Beets and apples won't keep you from having eczema hunny, sorry.

    24 61.54%
  • I don't really care at all. I can't afford either of them anyways.

    4 10.26%
First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 343

  1. #11
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei
    She demands higher quality of product, yet fails to address that the 'toxins' aren't that toxic at all. The toxins in a vaccination are less than you'd ever accidentally ingest as a kid.
    I don't think you can make this claim since I'm not aware of any human baby/toddler toxicity studies with ethylmercury. What may be a toxic dose for a child may be completely safe for an adult.

    If she wanted a higher quality product, why not go fucking make one herself? But no. She expects all those other people--you know the ones that spend endless hours in school learning this shit to do it for her at her will and command. Instead of, ya know, contributing.
    But you can make this argument with car safety or melamine laced dog food from China. I don't understand all the anger directed toward her for wanting a safer product.

    Aluminum is far too easy and convenient of an answer--and alzheimers has been going on long long before modern medicine and all of its aluminum. I'm not going to hound vaccine companies forever just because of this vague concept. They'd need far more evidence than that.
    This is a current scientific controversy. No one can say what role, if any, aluminum plays with Alzheimers.

    Most hypertension has an unknown cause. It's well documented that diet and exercise HELP a TON with treating hypertension--it's basic scientific principles.
    We do know that essential hypertension (hypertension that's not caused by some other disease) is caused by a high sodium to potassium ratio. There are many papers on this.

    Where in this study does it make sense to say, that alzheimer's was diagnosed, and then it immediately says "78% lower risk of the disease." Did they have the disease or not? Because if they did, and they cured it with vitamin C in 78% of the people, that shit would be all over the place.
    This was a three year study. They surveyed several thousand people and then divided them into the supplement group and the non-supplement group. After three years, they found that those people taking vitamins C & E had 70% less Alzheimers.
    Vi Cit Tecum.

  2. #12
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,143

    Default

    my mom does scientific research and studies people's diets. She actually has been following kids from the time they're fetus til 4 (I think she got permission to follow them longer recently) and they do all these tests like blood, the MEG, urine ect. and seeing how diet and enviroment contributes to development. It's pretty cool. There's a lot of studies being done with nutrition and dieseases.
    *yodelling* AAAaaaaAAaaiiiiiiayyyyyyyy


    by @agentwashington
    Likes Thalassa, countrygirl liked this post

  3. #13
    Meta Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    I am near in complete agreement with what @kyuuei is saying. Rather than quote and just repeat stuff, I am just going to echo with a resounding YES. So, thank you for making this topic, and being a reasonable person on all of this. The world needs A LOT more people like you .

    This is all something I feel very very strongly about. I'll be honest, I am so effing tired of talking about all of this, because it never seems to go anywhere. Nevertheless, having an anti-vaccine, science illiterate mother makes this a sensitive issue for me. Anti-vaccine individuals are causing real, tangible harm to world health by their own ignorance. It might be coming from the best of intentions, but that doesn't make it right, or soften it much. Why? Because we can show, easily, that this is not a problem, claims have been disproven, and the evidence is there. Yet, many reject it for obscure data that doesn't hold the clout of scientific consensus, or just fall for some strange conspircy. The idea of scientific consensus is somemthing that many individuals seem to overlook, and it is one (in particular in medicinal fields) is often very important. Stronger consensus = stronger evidence. Yet, strangely, there are quite a few individuals that see that as "suspicious". I could not tell you why, but it is what often happens, and is a problem.

    I'm so worn out by this stuff, politics, and stuff and people just not listening to reason. I am really not patient when it comes to this, because it's so much fucking goddamn work to show people how they are wrong, and even when they are shown they often still won't accept it, and it sends me into internal fits of rage. It's such a waste of my energy. I'm a point where I want to go "I give up! I want to live my life and just be happy please". I do my part when it comes up (in person) but even then I am sort of giving up with that as well. I'll never let this stuff go completely, but I just want to stuff my head in the sand for a while.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I don't think you can make this claim since I'm not aware of any human baby/toddler toxicity studies with ethylmercury. What may be a toxic dose for a child may be completely safe for an adult.
    Her claim is valid. If just for the fact that she really does not specify, nor take into account quantity. Toxicology studies are not done on every single compound known. Partly because it's somewhat impractical. However, similar molecular structure imparts (often- but not always) similar activity. This is what is known as the structural activity relationship and is used all the time by the pharmaceutical industry, biochemists, and chemists alike. Nearly all organomercury compounds are toxic, but dimethyl mercury is regarded to be the most toxic mercury compound known. Considering the toxicity of this, and the extremely small doseage of mercury in a different form in the vaccine itself, it really can be dismissed as erronous until evidence appears that it might be a problem (and it's not). This is about making a scientific informed assumption. It seems kind of hand-wavey but this kind of thing is done all the time. The concept of making informed assumptions is alien to a lot of people, and some people outright hate it (I get a lot of organic chemistry students that struggle with this), and refuse to do it. Unsurprisingly, these individuals very often struggle as scientists. It works though, and it's been proven to work. Science would not work if it were not for this.

    But you can make this argument with car safety or melamine laced dog food from China. I don't understand all the anger directed toward her for wanting a safer product.
    The anger comes from the egregious intellectual dishonesty. Which, ignorant or not, can and often is a serious problem. I'm all for consideration of intention, but the anger is absolutely valid and I completely understand it.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari

    Likes Ivy liked this post

  4. #14
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard
    If just for the fact that she really does not specify, nor take into account quantity.
    Dose is everything in toxicology. What is the evidence that the quantity (however little it may be) of ethylmercury used in vaccines before 2001 is safe?

    Toxicology studies are not done on every single compound known.
    Shouldn't they be done on mercury compounds since it's a known neurotoxin? Is that not common sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard
    Because we can show, easily, that this is not a problem, claims have been disproven, and the evidence is there.
    What evidence are you talking about? I've seen evidence to the contrary. For example:

    Fine and Chen reported that babies died at a rate nearly eight times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT vaccination.
    Although some studies were unable to find correlations between SIDS and vaccines,22–24 there is some evidence that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated. For example, Torch found that two-thirds of babies who had died from SIDS had been vaccinated against DPT (diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus toxoid) prior to death. Of these, 6.5% died within 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within 3 days; and 37%, 61%, and 70% within 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively.
    Source: Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard
    Considering the toxicity of this, and the extremely small doseage of mercury in a different form in the vaccine itself, it really can be dismissed as erronous until evidence appears that it might be a problem (and it's not).
    How can evidence appear when people don't want to find out? It's all a moot point today because mercury is no longer used in most vaccines thanks to concerned citizens like Jenny McCarthy.
    Vi Cit Tecum.

  5. #15
    Meta Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    To summerize for everyone, My point is as follows: Vaccines have some minor problems, they can and should be improved. However as it stands, the benefits they provide, FAR EXCEEDINGLY FAR outweigh the negatives they sometimes can cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Dose is everything in toxicology. What is the evidence that the quantity (however little it may be) of ethylmercury used in vaccines before 2001 is safe?
    You ignored what I said about informed assumptions. Either way, the fact that no mercury related illnesses arised from it. It's distinct, and easily diagnosed.


    Shouldn't they be done on mercury compounds since it's a known neurotoxin? Is that not common sense?
    Yes, and I find it hard to believe it hasn't been, but I'll be honest I am not in the mood to look to look it up as it's a meaningless detail here for discussing this with you.


    What evidence are you talking about? I've seen evidence to the contrary. For example:

    Source: Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

    That's one study. While I can agree with you that vaccines do have problems and have room for improvement (ALL things in medicine do) the good they provide FAR FAR outweighs the negatives they cause. Many people seem to overlook this.


    How can evidence appear when people don't want to find out? It's all a moot point today because mercury is no longer used in most vaccines thanks to concerned citizens like Jenny McCarthy.
    Mercury wasn't even a problem in vaccines. The horrible things she has caused GREATLY, by a HUUUUGE margin, outweighs any good she could have caused. I despise what her and others have done, and honestly, your support of her has brought this to a point where I honestly can not talk to you on this matter further, so I am done. Completely.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    spso
    Posts
    130

    Default

    I don't get caught up in "magic" very much at all; however, I've met doctors who were poorly informed and gave me medications that were at very least contraindicated for the symptoms present. This is the problem with medicine, in my experience. While there's a plethora of peer-reviewed journals that are available to even the novice researcher armed with google scholar, some doctors seem to coast through by the grace of their title. This is where it becomes an issue, and it probably is the reason for mistrust. Many serious medication-induced symptoms or disorders can arise in this way.

    As such, I go with what what works but what is also the most well-researched. These are often more natural products because whatever properties they elicit have been documented for sometimes centuries. Weeding out what truly works and what truly is harmful is a great feat that a lot of times cannot be done without testing it on the general population. And incidentally, the causaility vs. correlation fallacy is also the reason why the harm of these products goes unnoticed. It may be casually brushed off as being more likely caused by something else.

    Actutane, for example, was out for years, and females had a high birth defect rate for newborns in the 85-95 period. They did however also have greatly improved acne and younger looking skin--a fact that would later send many even "naturalist" to select topical retinoids. Many were also probably on other pre-natals. So it was not clear that it was the accutane, until about 15 years later. Now women cannot get pregnant if they take it.

    While I definitely agree that we should heed to science, I don't think doctors always stay abreast. And many it is these doctors who do "studies," sometimes solely for the grant money. I had a course in grad school in which we read journals; our professor would give us extra credit if we identified the logical flaw, and there were a good deal in some of them. Although this is in computer science, I'd imagine it to be the same or worse in a field where absolutes such as "Does work" and "Does not work," as there's far more ambituity.

    Also, not all of science can be made pre-emptive, which always carries risks. For these reasons, I can't fault many "naturalists;" though, like the under-informed doctors, they probably could benefit somewhat from researching more.
    Likes Thalassa liked this post

  7. #17
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I don't think you can make this claim since I'm not aware of any human baby/toddler toxicity studies with ethylmercury. What may be a toxic dose for a child may be completely safe for an adult.
    Testing babies with mercury until they're toxic is probably as unethical as you can get. However.. I'd say that the fact that most babies are doing okay in a world that got vaccines before they were even improved upon highly is evidence enough that babies are going to be okay with a minute amount of literally anything. I've had literally every vaccine that was available to me at my age, and some most people my age do not get anymore. Like.. Me and every other military person out there. There are some vaccines administered at the beginning of life because of how prevalent and persistent diseases are--and the guarantee-y-ness that babies will die from them--that seemed to (and accurately did) outweigh the potential for things like mercury toxicity. Babies are growing up fine and healthy all the time.. and they mostly all get vaccines. So I don't know where your grounds are for wanting studies in areas that aren't only not feasible, but would really waste research money. That'd be like me asking you to study how many pages are in a typical notebook--no one is affected school wise by having to buy more notebooks, it doesn't seem to be a factor in education, so why would you study it with precious research money when it doesn't even make sense to go around counting pages? But by all means, go ahead and try to get funding for testing how toxic you can make babies with mercury. I'm sure that won't get people all pissed off.

    But you can make this argument with car safety or melamine laced dog food from China. I don't understand all the anger directed toward her for wanting a safer product.
    It's because she throws out, willy-nilly and knowing her celebrity status lends her an audience, an entire classification of drugs. She doesn't want a 'safer product'. She wants attention and something to complain about in her perfect little world to keep herself viable. If she said "Oh, the RUBELLA vaccine causes toxicity in children, I see all these studies that say so." I could MAYBE see her point. But vaccines are vast, with many different ones all containing different ingredients.. and they're ALL bad. It's like saying all carbs are bad just because you don't like processed food. She isn't even focused on her demands--she just hates for the sake of hating. And that's why it's infuriating. Because she lacks any scientific foundations, and her convictions are static even when presented new evidence that contradicts the studies she relied on. She wants studies when they agree with her--and ignores studies that don't, even when they far outweigh the studies she likes. She's not actually aiming for a quality product. She's aiming for attention and blind hatred. Because, like everyone else in the world, admitting you're wrong is hard.. and wanting validation for the way you personally feel about things is more tempting than any evidence.

    She's allowed to hate all vaccines for ANY delusions or perceptions that she has. No one's telling her otherwise. But its the stuff she does around that, the fact she tries to pretend its scientific and educated and not personal emotions that puts it all out of whack and angers people.

    This is a current scientific controversy. No one can say what role, if any, aluminum plays with Alzheimers.
    Exactly. But there is little evidence to support it. Just like someone came out and said "Oh, Carbs are bad for you I think! look!" And it turned out processed foods were what was bad for us.. and carbs are easily converted into processed foods in the shape of breads, cookies, etc. It was a big huge hoopla over NOTHING--carbs were not the criminal. You're literally saying, "I'm avoiding ALL aluminum until I have proof it doesn't cause alzheimers." Fat in food CAN make you fat, but that doesn't mean avoiding all of it entirely it is the most rational thing to do. In the spectrum of things, aluminum hasn't shown near as much dangers as other chemicals -- like all the chemicals that come out of vehicles and cars and that go into them for example -- and yet it's getting uneven focus. The amount of aluminum in vaccines is considerably less than you'd ever need to cause any disease though--up to and including alzheimers even if there were a causation.

    I don't avoid all restaurants if I get sick at one. I might avoid that restaurant. It would have to take something insanely huge for me to stop going to all restaurants.

    We do know that essential hypertension (hypertension that's not caused by some other disease) is caused by a high sodium to potassium ratio. There are many papers on this.
    Uh. Yeah. That's what the drugs are helping treat. But why they developed it is unknown. Regardless of sodium intake, eating habits, culture--people all around the world develop it all the time. There is no KNOWN cause. That's a mechanism of the disease itself. I don't see what you're trying to dispute here. I never said we didn't know how the disease works--we do. We know how to treat it too, and are working for better treatments. But that doesn't mean we know the true source. We don't.

    This was a three year study. They surveyed several thousand people and then divided them into the supplement group and the non-supplement group. After three years, they found that those people taking vitamins C & E had 70% less Alzheimers.
    Thousands of people, and only three years? How does that account for alzheimers manifesting later in life? How does it account for the fact that NONE of these guys HAD alzheimers to begin with? It's a quack study, dude. I'm sorry, but it is. Not all studies are born equal. This lacks the longitudinal depth, and basic criteria to qualify as anything useful ever. "Oh, take Vitamin C and you won't get Alzheimers! Don't worry about the fact that many of these people don't have Alzheimer's in their family history, or that taking vitamins tends to promote people into better health as well! Forget all that stuff! In three years if you don't get alzheimers, you Wont!" .. It's entirely misleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    This is about making a scientific informed assumption. It seems kind of hand-wavey but this kind of thing is done all the time. The concept of making informed assumptions is alien to a lot of people, and some people outright hate it (I get a lot of organic chemistry students that struggle with this), and refuse to do it. Unsurprisingly, these individuals very often struggle as scientists. It works though, and it's been proven to work. Science would not work if it were not for this.
    It's no different from how organic food people discovered organic foods were helping them. They made an educated guess, based on experience and similar already founded principles, and discovered it did work in one way or another for whatever problem they had. It stands to reason that, "If the pores are clogged it does nasty things for the body." There isn't a need to pull a ton of scientific pore studies out of old dusty books to know that you don't want clogged pores. Similarly, if you have a foundation in chemistry and medicine activation sites, you can guess how things will work.

    There's a lot of medicines that "work" that we don't even know the reasons why still. We developed them, and use them, without even knowing how. It's been the stuff of science since the beginning. Guess, test, results, and eventually theorize and turn it into a principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Dose is everything in toxicology. What is the evidence that the quantity (however little it may be) of ethylmercury used in vaccines before 2001 is safe?
    All the 1980-2000 babies that are perfectly fine functioning adults right now that didn't die of horrid diseases, end up with life-long suppressed immune systems from damaging illnesses, or get stuck in a wheelchair their whole lives from polio.

    Shouldn't they be done on mercury compounds since it's a known neurotoxin? Is that not common sense?
    If it's a known neurotoxin, why are we going to test it on people? .. It's been tested on lab rats enough already. That's like saying, "If electricity can burn people, shouldn't we see how much people can be burned by it?" .. No. We shouldn't. Jeezus, you're just trying to make mad scientists now.

    How can evidence appear when people don't want to find out? It's all a moot point today because mercury is no longer used in most vaccines thanks to concerned citizens like Jenny McCarthy.
    It's not thanks to Jenny McCarthy. It's because scientists are always looking for better medicines anyways. As discoveries are made and technology advances, so too do medicines. Yes, the consumer has a dictation in all of this.. Absolutely not to be discredited. No sense in making a vaccine people won't use. But a large reason mercury is no longer used is because of technological advancements and discoveries. People can complain all day about mercury--if there's nothing to replace it, what can they do? Bitch and take it, or bitch and not take it. That's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elocute View Post
    I don't get caught up in "magic" very much at all; however, I've met doctors who were poorly informed and gave me medications that were at very least contraindicated for the symptoms present. This is the problem with medicine, in my experience. While there's a plethora of peer-reviewed journals that are available to even the novice researcher armed with google scholar, some doctors seem to coast through by the grace of their title. This is where it becomes an issue, and it probably is the reason for mistrust. Many serious medication-induced symptoms or disorders can arise in this way.
    I find that hard to believe. We live in an age of technology where all kinds of information is out our fingertips. We don't have to spend $1000 for a lengthy, boring textbook. We have the cliffnotes of like everything ever. People need to be more proactive about their health--trusting anyone without rapport established first isn't really the way to go about things.

    We ended up going to three doctors because my mother's disease was so rare that they didn't know what she had--but they all thought it looked like something else. I'm not going to deny there are quack doctors (that's a whole other discussion, and I agree it's a problem.. but Not nearly to the extent people think it is) out there, but if you're willing to listen to anyone at their word before even taking a glance at what you have, or establishing a trust relationship with a doctor before divulging your symptoms and signs, then I don't know what to say. You're throwing your trust out there to the wind just because they say they have a PhD. That's not really the right answer--and not fair to the doctors.

    As such, I go with what what works but what is also the most well-researched. These are often more natural products because whatever properties they elicit have been documented for sometimes centuries. Weeding out what truly works and what truly is harmful is a great feat that a lot of times cannot be done without testing it on the general population. And incidentally, the causaility vs. correlation fallacy is also the reason why the harm of these products goes unnoticed. It may be casually brushed off as being more likely caused by something else.
    The same could be spun around onto natural products as well. You can tell me all day long that hypertension can be treated with x chinese herbal supplement, but people all over the world are using modern hypertension treatments anyways. There's a known correlation with people obsessed with natural cures and products, and a conscientiousness of health and body care in general. It's easy for healthy people to say their cancers were cured with diet--but tell that to a cancer patient, and you'll get frowny-faces and gtfos. It's easy for people to say "organic foods help you with disorders" if you can afford it. But these supplements, usually made from things easy to grow and cheap to harvest, are marketed far beyond the cost of production, and sometimes filled with fillers. There's a whole bad-side debate to herbal supplements and remedies.

    Sometimes the best option is the cheapest and most readily available one--and while sometimes that's all natural cures (Every doctor ever will tell you to wait out a cold vs using anti-virals right away, physical therapy is still like the number 1 recommendation for chronic pain, and many doctors still tell you to use good ole' hydrogen peroxide for a sore throat vs medicine) it doesn't mean natural cures are always feasible.

    Whatever works for you and your health, is fine, though.. really.. I tend to use natural remedies for many things, simply because it's cheap and/or free.

    Actutane, for example, was out for years, and females had a high birth defect rate for newborns in the 85-95 period. They did however also have greatly improved acne and younger looking skin--a fact that would later send many even "naturalist" to select topical retinoids. Many were also probably on other pre-natals. So it was not clear that it was the accutane, until about 15 years later. Now women cannot get pregnant if they take it.
    There is a phenomenon out there about pressuring pharm labs to pump out things faster than they'd like. Funding is a huge issue with this--and on both sides. There are usually pretenses like "These are experimental drugs that haven't been tested, but have shown x..".. and people usually agree to it.. and then later on cry that they used drugs that weren't properly tested. It's the way the game goes. You live and learn.

    While I definitely agree that we should heed to science, I don't think doctors always stay abreast. And many it is these doctors who do "studies," sometimes solely for the grant money. I had a course in grad school in which we read journals; our professor would give us extra credit if we identified the logical flaw, and there were a good deal in some of them. Although this is in computer science, I'd imagine it to be the same or worse in a field where absolutes such as "Does work" and "Does not work," as there's far more ambituity.
    It's a never ending struggle and battle. I mean, if you told a shaman to stay abreast with the latest findings, he'd say "Why? What I've been doing has been established for generations, why do I NEED this now?" You say you trust naturalists because they've been well documented for hundreds of years... Why would they ever need to learn or identify new things if what they're doing works in their lifetime? Going to school for 12 years as a doctor now-a-days.. what you started school with will be obsolete when you end it. There has to be some sort of system set up to establish increments because it's impossible for humans in general to keep up with the times lately. It just is.

    I usually invite people who distrust doctors and their methods to go to medical school and change the industry. Most people don't feel that strongly about it.. and that's fine. But it's a long, hard walk in those shoes.. and there's very, very little consideration given to them and their miles in the process. It's a lot of thankless work.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  8. #18
    Almöhi Stephano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w3 so/sp
    Posts
    1,105

    Default

    Some also claim praying helps. There are enough studies to disprove that but no believer really cares. People believe what they want to believe.
    4w3 - 7w6 - 1w9 : The Idealist

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    spso
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Testing babies with mercury until they're toxic is probably as unethical as you can get. However.. I'd say that the fact that most babies are doing okay in a world that got vaccines before they were even improved upon highly is evidence enough that babies are going to be okay with a minute amount of literally anything. I've had literally every vaccine that was available to me at my age, and some most people my age do not get anymore. Like.. Me and every other military person out there. There are some vaccines administered at the beginning of life because of how prevalent and persistent diseases are--and the guarantee-y-ness that babies will die from them--that seemed to (and accurately did) outweigh the potential for things like mercury toxicity. Babies are growing up fine and healthy all the time.. and they mostly all get vaccines. So I don't know where your grounds are for wanting studies in areas that aren't only not feasible, but would really waste research money. That'd be like me asking you to study how many pages are in a typical notebook--no one is affected school wise by having to buy more notebooks, it doesn't seem to be a factor in education, so why would you study it with precious research money when it doesn't even make sense to go around counting pages? But by all means, go ahead and try to get funding for testing how toxic you can make babies with mercury. I'm sure that won't get people all pissed off.



    It's because she throws out, willy-nilly and knowing her celebrity status lends her an audience, an entire classification of drugs. She doesn't want a 'safer product'. She wants attention and something to complain about in her perfect little world to keep herself viable. If she said "Oh, the RUBELLA vaccine causes toxicity in children, I see all these studies that say so." I could MAYBE see her point. But vaccines are vast, with many different ones all containing different ingredients.. and they're ALL bad. It's like saying all carbs are bad just because you don't like processed food. She isn't even focused on her demands--she just hates for the sake of hating. And that's why it's infuriating. Because she lacks any scientific foundations, and her convictions are static even when presented new evidence that contradicts the studies she relied on. She wants studies when they agree with her--and ignores studies that don't, even when they far outweigh the studies she likes. She's not actually aiming for a quality product. She's aiming for attention and blind hatred. Because, like everyone else in the world, admitting you're wrong is hard.. and wanting validation for the way you personally feel about things is more tempting than any evidence.

    She's allowed to hate all vaccines for ANY delusions or perceptions that she has. No one's telling her otherwise. But its the stuff she does around that, the fact she tries to pretend its scientific and educated and not personal emotions that puts it all out of whack and angers people.



    Exactly. But there is little evidence to support it. Just like someone came out and said "Oh, Carbs are bad for you I think! look!" And it turned out processed foods were what was bad for us.. and carbs are easily converted into processed foods in the shape of breads, cookies, etc. It was a big huge hoopla over NOTHING--carbs were not the criminal. You're literally saying, "I'm avoiding ALL aluminum until I have proof it doesn't cause alzheimers." Fat in food CAN make you fat, but that doesn't mean avoiding all of it entirely it is the most rational thing to do. In the spectrum of things, aluminum hasn't shown near as much dangers as other chemicals -- like all the chemicals that come out of vehicles and cars and that go into them for example -- and yet it's getting uneven focus. The amount of aluminum in vaccines is considerably less than you'd ever need to cause any disease though--up to and including alzheimers even if there were a causation.

    I don't avoid all restaurants if I get sick at one. I might avoid that restaurant. It would have to take something insanely huge for me to stop going to all restaurants.



    Uh. Yeah. That's what the drugs are helping treat. But why they developed it is unknown. Regardless of sodium intake, eating habits, culture--people all around the world develop it all the time. There is no KNOWN cause. That's a mechanism of the disease itself. I don't see what you're trying to dispute here. I never said we didn't know how the disease works--we do. We know how to treat it too, and are working for better treatments. But that doesn't mean we know the true source. We don't.



    Thousands of people, and only three years? How does that account for alzheimers manifesting later in life? How does it account for the fact that NONE of these guys HAD alzheimers to begin with? It's a quack study, dude. I'm sorry, but it is. Not all studies are born equal. This lacks the longitudinal depth, and basic criteria to qualify as anything useful ever. "Oh, take Vitamin C and you won't get Alzheimers! Don't worry about the fact that many of these people don't have Alzheimer's in their family history, or that taking vitamins tends to promote people into better health as well! Forget all that stuff! In three years if you don't get alzheimers, you Wont!" .. It's entirely misleading.



    It's no different from how organic food people discovered organic foods were helping them. They made an educated guess, based on experience and similar already founded principles, and discovered it did work in one way or another for whatever problem they had. It stands to reason that, "If the pores are clogged it does nasty things for the body." There isn't a need to pull a ton of scientific pore studies out of old dusty books to know that you don't want clogged pores. Similarly, if you have a foundation in chemistry and medicine activation sites, you can guess how things will work.

    There's a lot of medicines that "work" that we don't even know the reasons why still. We developed them, and use them, without even knowing how. It's been the stuff of science since the beginning. Guess, test, results, and eventually theorize and turn it into a principle.



    All the 1980-2000 babies that are perfectly fine functioning adults right now that didn't die of horrid diseases, end up with life-long suppressed immune systems from damaging illnesses, or get stuck in a wheelchair their whole lives from polio.



    If it's a known neurotoxin, why are we going to test it on people? .. It's been tested on lab rats enough already. That's like saying, "If electricity can burn people, shouldn't we see how much people can be burned by it?" .. No. We shouldn't. Jeezus, you're just trying to make mad scientists now.



    It's not thanks to Jenny McCarthy. It's because scientists are always looking for better medicines anyways. As discoveries are made and technology advances, so too do medicines. Yes, the consumer has a dictation in all of this.. Absolutely not to be discredited. No sense in making a vaccine people won't use. But a large reason mercury is no longer used is because of technological advancements and discoveries. People can complain all day about mercury--if there's nothing to replace it, what can they do? Bitch and take it, or bitch and not take it. That's it.



    I find that hard to believe. We live in an age of technology where all kinds of information is out our fingertips. We don't have to spend $1000 for a lengthy, boring textbook. We have the cliffnotes of like everything ever. People need to be more proactive about their health--trusting anyone without rapport established first isn't really the way to go about things.

    We ended up going to three doctors because my mother's disease was so rare that they didn't know what she had--but they all thought it looked like something else. I'm not going to deny there are quack doctors (that's a whole other discussion, and I agree it's a problem.. but Not nearly to the extent people think it is) out there, but if you're willing to listen to anyone at their word before even taking a glance at what you have, or establishing a trust relationship with a doctor before divulging your symptoms and signs, then I don't know what to say. You're throwing your trust out there to the wind just because they say they have a PhD. That's not really the right answer--and not fair to the doctors.



    The same could be spun around onto natural products as well. You can tell me all day long that hypertension can be treated with x chinese herbal supplement, but people all over the world are using modern hypertension treatments anyways. There's a known correlation with people obsessed with natural cures and products, and a conscientiousness of health and body care in general. It's easy for healthy people to say their cancers were cured with diet--but tell that to a cancer patient, and you'll get frowny-faces and gtfos. It's easy for people to say "organic foods help you with disorders" if you can afford it. But these supplements, usually made from things easy to grow and cheap to harvest, are marketed far beyond the cost of production, and sometimes filled with fillers. There's a whole bad-side debate to herbal supplements and remedies.

    Sometimes the best option is the cheapest and most readily available one--and while sometimes that's all natural cures (Every doctor ever will tell you to wait out a cold vs using anti-virals right away, physical therapy is still like the number 1 recommendation for chronic pain, and many doctors still tell you to use good ole' hydrogen peroxide for a sore throat vs medicine) it doesn't mean natural cures are always feasible.

    Whatever works for you and your health, is fine, though.. really.. I tend to use natural remedies for many things, simply because it's cheap and/or free.



    There is a phenomenon out there about pressuring pharm labs to pump out things faster than they'd like. Funding is a huge issue with this--and on both sides. There are usually pretenses like "These are experimental drugs that haven't been tested, but have shown x..".. and people usually agree to it.. and then later on cry that they used drugs that weren't properly tested. It's the way the game goes. You live and learn.



    It's a never ending struggle and battle. I mean, if you told a shaman to stay abreast with the latest findings, he'd say "Why? What I've been doing has been established for generations, why do I NEED this now?" You say you trust naturalists because they've been well documented for hundreds of years... Why would they ever need to learn or identify new things if what they're doing works in their lifetime? Going to school for 12 years as a doctor now-a-days.. what you started school with will be obsolete when you end it. There has to be some sort of system set up to establish increments because it's impossible for humans in general to keep up with the times lately. It just is.

    I usually invite people who distrust doctors and their methods to go to medical school and change the industry. Most people don't feel that strongly about it.. and that's fine. But it's a long, hard walk in those shoes.. and there's very, very little consideration given to them and their miles in the process. It's a lot of thankless work.

    I find that hard to believe. We live in an age of technology where all kinds of information is out our fingertips. We don't have to spend $1000 for a lengthy, boring textbook. We have the cliffnotes of like everything ever. People need to be more proactive about their health--trusting anyone without rapport established first isn't really the way to go about things.
    In fairness, I was talking mainly about psychiatry. This area, as far as I know (I am not in the medical field), is far more ambiguous and labile due to not understanding the underpinnings of brain chemistry yet.

    I had quite a good rapport with the doctor, which is what made me stay. He and his office officials were also courteous, but I didn't heed people saying it was a "pill factory," including other psychiatrists.

    As I replied in my post of yours you left (again thank you), I should have been researching this far more than I did. I eventually downloaded a pharmacology book and read more currrent articles.

    When I brought a few in to discuss what they said, I was basically told to shut up as I do not have any medical experience. I later went to a hospital with a more open-minded doctor and got medication that really helps me.

    I have heard of other stories from MDs, especially dermatologists and psychiatrists. I'd imagine this happens less in less ambiguated fields of internal medicine because things tend to be more delinable.


    The same could be spun around onto natural products as well. You can tell me all day long that hypertension can be treated with x chinese herbal supplement, but people all over the world are using modern hypertension treatments anyways. There's a known correlation with people obsessed with natural cures and products, and a conscientiousness of health and body care in general. It's easy for healthy people to say their cancers were cured with diet--but tell that to a cancer patient, and you'll get frowny-faces and gtfos. It's easy for people to say "organic foods help you with disorders" if you can afford it. But these supplements, usually made from things easy to grow and cheap to harvest, are marketed far beyond the cost of production, and sometimes filled with fillers. There's a whole bad-side debate to herbal supplements and remedies.
    I'm sorry if I did not make this clearer: I tend to go with products that are more well-researched. As organic chemistry was largely an 1800s/1900s phenomenon, a lot of chemicals and their interactions are not fully known to us. So I said the products TEND to be more natural, as a consequence of being more researched. If they are not natural but well-documented, I will opt for them over herbs with dubious effects. Lithium is the most perscribed for my disorder, and it has documentation from the Roman Empire era, where those with "hysteria" were noted to be better after bathing in lithium springs (so even its cutaneous activity is somewhat established).

    I'm on medication that is not naturally occuring, but it is well-documented, and I have a pretty good sense of what to expect. I also used facial products with parabens, mostly because I don't see why they are so maligned, given their concentration in most products vs. the toxicity level. Then there's a low level of cutaneous diffusion etc.

    I'm the last person to recommend some "herb" without research. In my family, I'm normally asked questions about products (I have a chemistry degree; it helps a bit, but some of the compounds really can't be analyzed trivially by looking at structure or by a novice). For example, I loathe "natural" weight loss products, yet many ignore the caffiene being the first on the list of ingredients, which just speeds up their metabolism slightly but also causes agitation and sleep issues in high doses.

    It's a never ending struggle and battle. I mean, if you told a shaman to stay abreast with the latest findings, he'd say "Why? What I've been doing has been established for generations, why do I NEED this now?" You say you trust naturalists because they've been well documented for hundreds of years... Why would they ever need to learn or identify new things if what they're doing works in their lifetime? Going to school for 12 years as a doctor now-a-days.. what you started school with will be obsolete when you end it. There has to be some sort of system set up to establish increments because it's impossible for humans in general to keep up with the times lately. It just is.
    Ok. Again, I don't seek natural over chemical for any reason other than perhaps it is more well-documented. If having a choice betwen 5-isobutyl-2-methoxy-scary-sounding-to-most-people and some herb that a random person believes will work, I'm going with the IUPAC one.

    Shamnism isn't really based on science in the strict sense that medicine is. Medicine, nowadays, starts normally with biochemists. And in biochemistry, everything must be rigorous or close to it.

    Doctors, unlike Shaman, can make about a quarter million dollars in a good number of fields. I certainly expect them to keep abreast of latest literature, especially since it's free for most of them. Search engines make this easy. If I have a patient suffering from X, X likely has a few instant results in fractions of a second.

    In my example, again, I had some parkinonism for a good week, and the psychiatrist stated it was not medical--but rather, it was all in my head. I asked a highly-rated doctor about the issue , and he said it was possibly the combination, It was; neuroleptics today have far more serotonergic effects, and being on a cocombinant dose of a serotonergic drug (SSRIs) could confer a problem in a cross-mechanistic fashion, as apparently the dopamine and serotonin pathways, thought previously to be distinct, are interwoven. Once the dose of the SSRI was lowered by a factor of 3, the stuttering dissapeared.

    Yes, I expect doctors making more than enough money to keep abreast of important info like this. With the Shaman, there's an element of quackery inherent within the practice as it's far from standardized.

    I usually invite people who distrust doctors and their methods to go to medical school and change the industry. Most people don't feel that strongly about it.. and that's fine. But it's a long, hard walk in those shoes.. and there's very, very little consideration given to them and their miles in the process. It's a lot of thankless work.

    In all honesty, I think the chemists are more "thankless." Doctors make about 2-3 times what an average biochemist would make, although they are the people who synthesize the molecules. No one ever really mentions them, not even doctors. If they make a mistake and produce the wrong enantiomer of ibuprofen, people die. How often have you heard of people like Linus Pauling?

    I have had a biochemist explain pathways to me better than any doctor, and he made about $70, 000/ year, about 200k less than my psychiatrist who thought something was "all in my head." They also have about a 10 year reduction of life expentancy, likely because, even with all of the protective gear, exposure to byproducts and intiial ingredients does some damage, although I don't know if the answer has been definitive.

    And doctors aren't always open to hearing patients speak of this. I told one that the drug he was about to give me had a near identical michales-menton kinetics as the previous one that caused stuttering. I tried it anyway. Same. Same stuttering. Still all in my head. And how dare I discuss chemistry with them?! was the basic response, even though I had the journal articles on my laptop ready to go.

    As with the diva crowned for her voice, many people become complacent. Unfortunately, medicine is always changing. If they have no intentions of noticing these changes, they should opt for another profesion.

    Computer scientists, who also make frations of what doctors do, have to always be on their toes because a new class or framework may appear. And if you don't take the chance to learn it to some degree, it's easy to become obsolete, as we saw with the .com boom in the early 2000s.

    I don't see a reason to note hold Dr.s to this standard when change occurs in many other lower-paying fields, with the need to know to be functional.
    Likes Thalassa liked this post

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    spso
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Testing babies with mercury until they're toxic is probably as unethical as you can get. However.. I'd say that the fact that most babies are doing okay in a world that got vaccines before they were even improved upon highly is evidence enough that babies are going to be okay with a minute amount of literally anything. I've had literally every vaccine that was available to me at my age, and some most people my age do not get anymore. Like.. Me and every other military person out there. There are some vaccines administered at the beginning of life because of how prevalent and persistent diseases are--and the guarantee-y-ness that babies will die from them--that seemed to (and accurately did) outweigh the potential for things like mercury toxicity. Babies are growing up fine and healthy all the time.. and they mostly all get vaccines. So I don't know where your grounds are for wanting studies in areas that aren't only not feasible, but would really waste research money. That'd be like me asking you to study how many pages are in a typical notebook--no one is affected school wise by having to buy more notebooks, it doesn't seem to be a factor in education, so why would you study it with precious research money when it doesn't even make sense to go around counting pages? But by all means, go ahead and try to get funding for testing how toxic you can make babies with mercury. I'm sure that won't get people all pissed off.



    It's because she throws out, willy-nilly and knowing her celebrity status lends her an audience, an entire classification of drugs. She doesn't want a 'safer product'. She wants attention and something to complain about in her perfect little world to keep herself viable. If she said "Oh, the RUBELLA vaccine causes toxicity in children, I see all these studies that say so." I could MAYBE see her point. But vaccines are vast, with many different ones all containing different ingredients.. and they're ALL bad. It's like saying all carbs are bad just because you don't like processed food. She isn't even focused on her demands--she just hates for the sake of hating. And that's why it's infuriating. Because she lacks any scientific foundations, and her convictions are static even when presented new evidence that contradicts the studies she relied on. She wants studies when they agree with her--and ignores studies that don't, even when they far outweigh the studies she likes. She's not actually aiming for a quality product. She's aiming for attention and blind hatred. Because, like everyone else in the world, admitting you're wrong is hard.. and wanting validation for the way you personally feel about things is more tempting than any evidence.

    She's allowed to hate all vaccines for ANY delusions or perceptions that she has. No one's telling her otherwise. But its the stuff she does around that, the fact she tries to pretend its scientific and educated and not personal emotions that puts it all out of whack and angers people.



    Exactly. But there is little evidence to support it. Just like someone came out and said "Oh, Carbs are bad for you I think! look!" And it turned out processed foods were what was bad for us.. and carbs are easily converted into processed foods in the shape of breads, cookies, etc. It was a big huge hoopla over NOTHING--carbs were not the criminal. You're literally saying, "I'm avoiding ALL aluminum until I have proof it doesn't cause alzheimers." Fat in food CAN make you fat, but that doesn't mean avoiding all of it entirely it is the most rational thing to do. In the spectrum of things, aluminum hasn't shown near as much dangers as other chemicals -- like all the chemicals that come out of vehicles and cars and that go into them for example -- and yet it's getting uneven focus. The amount of aluminum in vaccines is considerably less than you'd ever need to cause any disease though--up to and including alzheimers even if there were a causation.

    I don't avoid all restaurants if I get sick at one. I might avoid that restaurant. It would have to take something insanely huge for me to stop going to all restaurants.



    Uh. Yeah. That's what the drugs are helping treat. But why they developed it is unknown. Regardless of sodium intake, eating habits, culture--people all around the world develop it all the time. There is no KNOWN cause. That's a mechanism of the disease itself. I don't see what you're trying to dispute here. I never said we didn't know how the disease works--we do. We know how to treat it too, and are working for better treatments. But that doesn't mean we know the true source. We don't.



    Thousands of people, and only three years? How does that account for alzheimers manifesting later in life? How does it account for the fact that NONE of these guys HAD alzheimers to begin with? It's a quack study, dude. I'm sorry, but it is. Not all studies are born equal. This lacks the longitudinal depth, and basic criteria to qualify as anything useful ever. "Oh, take Vitamin C and you won't get Alzheimers! Don't worry about the fact that many of these people don't have Alzheimer's in their family history, or that taking vitamins tends to promote people into better health as well! Forget all that stuff! In three years if you don't get alzheimers, you Wont!" .. It's entirely misleading.



    It's no different from how organic food people discovered organic foods were helping them. They made an educated guess, based on experience and similar already founded principles, and discovered it did work in one way or another for whatever problem they had. It stands to reason that, "If the pores are clogged it does nasty things for the body." There isn't a need to pull a ton of scientific pore studies out of old dusty books to know that you don't want clogged pores. Similarly, if you have a foundation in chemistry and medicine activation sites, you can guess how things will work.

    There's a lot of medicines that "work" that we don't even know the reasons why still. We developed them, and use them, without even knowing how. It's been the stuff of science since the beginning. Guess, test, results, and eventually theorize and turn it into a principle.



    All the 1980-2000 babies that are perfectly fine functioning adults right now that didn't die of horrid diseases, end up with life-long suppressed immune systems from damaging illnesses, or get stuck in a wheelchair their whole lives from polio.



    If it's a known neurotoxin, why are we going to test it on people? .. It's been tested on lab rats enough already. That's like saying, "If electricity can burn people, shouldn't we see how much people can be burned by it?" .. No. We shouldn't. Jeezus, you're just trying to make mad scientists now.



    It's not thanks to Jenny McCarthy. It's because scientists are always looking for better medicines anyways. As discoveries are made and technology advances, so too do medicines. Yes, the consumer has a dictation in all of this.. Absolutely not to be discredited. No sense in making a vaccine people won't use. But a large reason mercury is no longer used is because of technological advancements and discoveries. People can complain all day about mercury--if there's nothing to replace it, what can they do? Bitch and take it, or bitch and not take it. That's it.



    I find that hard to believe. We live in an age of technology where all kinds of information is out our fingertips. We don't have to spend $1000 for a lengthy, boring textbook. We have the cliffnotes of like everything ever. People need to be more proactive about their health--trusting anyone without rapport established first isn't really the way to go about things.

    We ended up going to three doctors because my mother's disease was so rare that they didn't know what she had--but they all thought it looked like something else. I'm not going to deny there are quack doctors (that's a whole other discussion, and I agree it's a problem.. but Not nearly to the extent people think it is) out there, but if you're willing to listen to anyone at their word before even taking a glance at what you have, or establishing a trust relationship with a doctor before divulging your symptoms and signs, then I don't know what to say. You're throwing your trust out there to the wind just because they say they have a PhD. That's not really the right answer--and not fair to the doctors.



    The same could be spun around onto natural products as well. You can tell me all day long that hypertension can be treated with x chinese herbal supplement, but people all over the world are using modern hypertension treatments anyways. There's a known correlation with people obsessed with natural cures and products, and a conscientiousness of health and body care in general. It's easy for healthy people to say their cancers were cured with diet--but tell that to a cancer patient, and you'll get frowny-faces and gtfos. It's easy for people to say "organic foods help you with disorders" if you can afford it. But these supplements, usually made from things easy to grow and cheap to harvest, are marketed far beyond the cost of production, and sometimes filled with fillers. There's a whole bad-side debate to herbal supplements and remedies.

    Sometimes the best option is the cheapest and most readily available one--and while sometimes that's all natural cures (Every doctor ever will tell you to wait out a cold vs using anti-virals right away, physical therapy is still like the number 1 recommendation for chronic pain, and many doctors still tell you to use good ole' hydrogen peroxide for a sore throat vs medicine) it doesn't mean natural cures are always feasible.

    Whatever works for you and your health, is fine, though.. really.. I tend to use natural remedies for many things, simply because it's cheap and/or free.



    There is a phenomenon out there about pressuring pharm labs to pump out things faster than they'd like. Funding is a huge issue with this--and on both sides. There are usually pretenses like "These are experimental drugs that haven't been tested, but have shown x..".. and people usually agree to it.. and then later on cry that they used drugs that weren't properly tested. It's the way the game goes. You live and learn.



    It's a never ending struggle and battle. I mean, if you told a shaman to stay abreast with the latest findings, he'd say "Why? What I've been doing has been established for generations, why do I NEED this now?" You say you trust naturalists because they've been well documented for hundreds of years... Why would they ever need to learn or identify new things if what they're doing works in their lifetime? Going to school for 12 years as a doctor now-a-days.. what you started school with will be obsolete when you end it. There has to be some sort of system set up to establish increments because it's impossible for humans in general to keep up with the times lately. It just is.

    I usually invite people who distrust doctors and their methods to go to medical school and change the industry. Most people don't feel that strongly about it.. and that's fine. But it's a long, hard walk in those shoes.. and there's very, very little consideration given to them and their miles in the process. It's a lot of thankless work.

    I find that hard to believe. We live in an age of technology where all kinds of information is out our fingertips. We don't have to spend $1000 for a lengthy, boring textbook. We have the cliffnotes of like everything ever. People need to be more proactive about their health--trusting anyone without rapport established first isn't really the way to go about things.
    In fairness, I was talking mainly about psychiatry. This area, as far as I know (I am not in the medical field), is far more ambiguous and labile due to not understanding the underpinnings of brain chemistry yet.

    I had quite a good rapport with the doctor, which is what made me stay. He and his office officials were also courteous, but I didn't heed people saying it was a "pill factory," including other psychiatrists.

    As I replied in my post of yours you left (again thank you), I should have been researching this far more than I did. I eventually downloaded a pharmacology book and read more currrent articles.

    When I brought a few in to discuss what they said, I was basically told to shut up as I do not have any medical experience. I later went to a hospital with a more open-minded doctor and got medication that really helps me.

    I have heard of other stories from MDs, especially dermatologists and psychiatrists. I'd imagine this happens less in less ambiguated fields of internal medicine because things tend to be more delinable.


    The same could be spun around onto natural products as well. You can tell me all day long that hypertension can be treated with x chinese herbal supplement, but people all over the world are using modern hypertension treatments anyways. There's a known correlation with people obsessed with natural cures and products, and a conscientiousness of health and body care in general. It's easy for healthy people to say their cancers were cured with diet--but tell that to a cancer patient, and you'll get frowny-faces and gtfos. It's easy for people to say "organic foods help you with disorders" if you can afford it. But these supplements, usually made from things easy to grow and cheap to harvest, are marketed far beyond the cost of production, and sometimes filled with fillers. There's a whole bad-side debate to herbal supplements and remedies.
    I'm sorry if I did not make this clearer: I tend to go with products that are more well-researched. As organic chemistry was largely an 1800s/1900s phenomenon, a lot of chemicals and their interactions are not fully known to us. So I said the products TEND to be more natural, as a consequence of being more researched. If they are not natural but well-documented, I will opt for them over herbs with dubious effects. Lithium is the most perscribed for my disorder, and it has documentation from the Roman Empire era, where those with "hysteria" were noted to be better after bathing in lithium springs (so even its cutaneous activity is somewhat established).

    I'm on medication that is not naturally occuring, but it is well-documented, and I have a pretty good sense of what to expect. I also used facial products with parabens, mostly because I don't see why they are so maligned, given their concentration in most products vs. the toxicity level. Then there's a low level of cutaneous diffusion etc.

    I'm the last person to recommend some "herb" without research. In my family, I'm normally asked questions about products (I have a chemistry degree; it helps a bit, but some of the compounds really can't be analyzed trivially by looking at structure or by a novice). For example, I loathe "natural" weight loss products, yet many ignore the caffiene being the first on the list of ingredients, which just speeds up their metabolism slightly but also causes agitation and sleep issues in high doses.

    It's a never ending struggle and battle. I mean, if you told a shaman to stay abreast with the latest findings, he'd say "Why? What I've been doing has been established for generations, why do I NEED this now?" You say you trust naturalists because they've been well documented for hundreds of years... Why would they ever need to learn or identify new things if what they're doing works in their lifetime? Going to school for 12 years as a doctor now-a-days.. what you started school with will be obsolete when you end it. There has to be some sort of system set up to establish increments because it's impossible for humans in general to keep up with the times lately. It just is.
    Ok. Again, I don't seek natural over chemical for any reason other than perhaps it is more well-documented. If having a choice betwen 5-isobutyl-2-methoxy-scary-sounding-to-most-people and some herb that a random person believes will work, I'm going with the IUPAC one.

    Shamnism isn't really based on science in the strict sense that medicine is. Medicine, nowadays, starts normally with biochemists. And in biochemistry, everything must be rigorous or close to it.

    Doctors, unlike Shaman, can make about a quarter million dollars in a good number of fields. I certainly expect them to keep abreast of latest literature, especially since it's free for most of them. Search engines make this easy. If I have a patient suffering from X, X likely has a few instant results in fractions of a second.

    In my example, again, I had some parkinonism for a good week, and the psychiatrist stated it was not medical--but rather, it was all in my head. I asked a highly-rated doctor about the issue , and he said it was possibly the combination, It was; neuroleptics today have far more serotonergic effects, and being on a cocombinant dose of a serotonergic drug (SSRIs) could confer a problem in a cross-mechanistic fashion, as apparently the dopamine and serotonin pathways, thought previously to be distinct, are interwoven. Once the dose of the SSRI was lowered by a factor of 3, the stuttering dissapeared.

    Yes, I expect doctors making more than enough money to keep abreast of important info like this. With the Shaman, there's an element of quackery inherent within the practice as it's far from standardized.

    I usually invite people who distrust doctors and their methods to go to medical school and change the industry. Most people don't feel that strongly about it.. and that's fine. But it's a long, hard walk in those shoes.. and there's very, very little consideration given to them and their miles in the process. It's a lot of thankless work.

    In all honesty, I think the chemists are more "thankless." Doctors make about 2-3 times what an average biochemist would make, although they are the people who synthesize the molecules. No one ever really mentions them, not even doctors. If they make a mistake and produce the wrong enantiomer of ibuprofen, people die. How often have you heard of people like Linus Pauling?

    I have had a biochemist explain pathways to me better than any doctor, and he made about $70, 000/ year, about 200k less than my psychiatrist who thought something was "all in my head." They also have about a 10 year reduction of life expentancy, likely because, even with all of the protective gear, exposure to byproducts and intiial ingredients does some damage, although I don't know if the answer has been definitive.

    And doctors aren't always open to hearing patients speak of this. I told one that the drug he was about to give me had near identical michales-menton kinetics as the previous one that caused stuttering. I tried it anyway. Same. Same stuttering. Still all in my head. And how dare I discuss chemistry with them?! was the basic response, even though I had the journal articles on my laptop ready to go.

    As with the diva crowned for her voice, many people become complacent. Unfortunately, medicine is always changing. If they have no intentions of noticing these changes, they should opt for another profesion.

    Computer scientists, who also make fractions of what doctors do, have to always be on their toes because a new class or framework may appear. And if you don't take the chance to learn it to some degree, it's easy to become obsolete, as we saw with the .com boom in the early 2000s.

    I don't see a reason to note hold Dr.s to this standard when change occurs in many other lower-paying fields, with the need to know to be functional.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • :hi:
  • :bye:
  • :)
  • :hug:
  • :happy2:
  • :smile:
  • :wubbie:
  • :D
  • :wink:
  • ;)
  • :newwink:
  • :(
  • :cry:
  • :mad:
  • :dry:
  • :doh:
  • :shock:
  • :huh:
  • :shrug:
  • :blush:

Similar Threads

  1. 8 Cognitive Processes Dominant and 2ndary Interactions: What They Look Like
    By Usehername in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-26-2012, 12:23 PM
  2. Mood altering medicine and MBTI
    By Poser in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-06-2008, 04:30 AM
  3. Greetings of an INxx (trying to figure out what I am)
    By TenebrousReflection in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-05-2007, 01:56 AM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-25-2007, 09:34 PM
  5. Has anyone heard of Global Dimming and if so what are your thoughts on it??
    By ladypinkington in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09-16-2007, 06:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO