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%
Page 4 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 343

Thread: Nature VS Modern Medicine and weeding out what truly works.

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array Adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    MBTI
    DEUS
    Posts
    162

    Default

    Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism
    "Thus, based on this body of evidence, the committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism."
    This is the current scientific consensus, and for the vast majority of people those words should be treated like they were written on the same tablet as the Ten Commandments.

    I wonder what goes on in the head of a layman when he actively dismisses a scientific consensus in favour of an alternative hypothesis. The reasoning behind such a decision is either based in an incorrect evaluation of the scientific results, or some irrational mistrust of the scientific community. Most people can't even apply basic source criticism properly, much less comprehend the meaning of findings from a primary research study (or even a secondary source) - so what makes them think they are in a position to question the scientific consensus of a field in which they are anything but experts?

  2. #32
    Emperor/Dictator Array kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    People aren't forced to eat eggs and egg sellers aren't able to remove the dangerous component. That's the difference.
    People aren't forced to get vaccines either. People can opt out of them--and opt their children out of them. But don't expect to work around sick people in a hospital or something if you're not immune. And don't expect to go to a face-to-face college. But whatever priorities you have are yours alone.

    Harmful is when you go from a healthy baby to an autistic baby or worse.
    Except that doesn't apply here because vaccines don't cause autism. Vaccines have been around a LOT longer than the autism diagnosis--and it is steadily increasing. Something else is the cause, and the explanation is more complex.

    All those concerns should be addressed because it's a public safety issue.
    Except what makes it a public issue?

    It all comes down to concentration with neuro-toxicity. If you spill some butane on your finger, it'll likely evaporate and cause little issue. If you sat in a tub of it, you're likely to die within minutes becaue of it being well-absorbed by fatty tissues.
    The amounts make a difference. A HUGE difference. Chemo therapy is an absolute toxin--and it has saved thousands of lives all the time. Because even bad things have good uses. Jenny McCarthy literally shoots her face full of botulism and has no problems with that despite it being a terrible, terrible bacteria's toxins. Why? Because the WAY they use it means she won't die of botulism--or be affected by it at all. So too with vaccines--at least as much as possible, with more work always being put into them. It isn't like people aren't addressing fixes in medicine--doctors are out all the time looking for cures and fixes to things without people up their asses all the time. Will this push more research about vaccines? Absolutely... But instead of a positive push, they're pushing it so that doctors and researchers are now literally working to make a product that they can convince people to trust again because people make false, uneducated claims about the product.

    A LOT of money was spent rushing to prove to people that autism is not caused by vaccines. The guy who started the whole claim has since redacted it--though the damage has been done long ago. I'm not saying it isn't a good thing to know for sure--sure it is... but all of that man power, time and money spent on proving that ONE guy wrong could have been spent literally doing anything productive for vaccines instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elocute View Post
    According to a cursory look, high potassium can lead to irregular heartbeat
    Not just with those people with bad kidneys--though good kidneys help. High potassium levels will hurt anyone's heart if they cannot flush the potassium out of their body faster than they're ingesting it. And at the rate we ingest sodium--... I'd rather the long, slow, chronic burn of sodium to the acute catastrophe that potassium has the potential of being.

    As to spreading out vaccinations. That's not always "harmless." Babies have lower immune systems; this is known. What happens when a person infected with a virus that does not harm them gets to the baby? 3rd world country infant death rates are exceptionally higher in places without vaccinations because the adults can carry diseases that are spreadable but not of issue to them themselves because their immune system is used to the pathogen and killing it off justly. Babies also have no built immunity.

    I'd say there's more danger in "spreading out," unless the parents were very, very adept on keeping living spaces clean and ensuring they do not have any viruses that are known to plague those with lower immune function.
    Precisely. They DO spread them out--as far apart as they can safely manage.. but the safety of the child comes first either way.
    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

  3. #33
    deplorable basketcase Array Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam
    This is the current scientific consensus, and for the vast majority of people those words should be treated like they were written on the same tablet as the Ten Commandments.
    I prefer to understand how that consensus was reached and what research was looked at and ignored. There have been multiple instances where the consensus opinion was the wrong opinion. The consensus argument is frequently made by people who don't understand science. In science, experimentation and empirical evidence is everything. You can have 100% consensus and all it'd take is 1 good experiment to render that consensus meaningless.

    I wonder what goes on in the head of a layman when he actively dismisses a scientific consensus in favour of an alternative hypothesis.
    How much of a consensus is there? Is it a 97% consensus or a 51% consensus? Your link doesn't mention this.

    Most people can't even apply basic source criticism properly, much less comprehend the meaning of findings from a primary research study (or even a secondary source) - so what makes them think they are in a position to question the scientific consensus of a field in which they are anything but experts?
    And it's also true that most people who blindly accept whatever the scientific orthodoxy tells them do so as a matter of faith, no? In fact, the skeptics are usually much more informed than the faithful.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei
    High potassium levels will hurt anyone's heart if they cannot flush the potassium out of their body faster than they're ingesting it.
    I said a lower sodium to potassium ratio. Yes, you should eat more potassium, but I'm not saying to swallow an entire bottle of potassium pills. The RDA for potassium is 3000 mg. Is that high? Will that give people heart problems? I don't think so.
    The problem the world over is the same: stupid idiots with weapons and in positions of power.
    Likes Thalassa liked this post

  4. #34
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    spso
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I prefer to understand how that consensus was reached and what research was looked at and ignored. There have been multiple instances where the consensus opinion was the wrong opinion. The consensus argument is frequently made by people who don't understand science. In science, experimentation and empirical evidence is everything. You can have 100% consensus and all it'd take is 1 good experiment to render that consensus meaningless.



    How much of a consensus is there? Is it a 97% consensus or a 51% consensus? Your link doesn't mention this.



    And it's also true that most people who blindly accept whatever the scientific orthodoxy tells them do so as a matter of faith, no? In fact, the skeptics are usually much more informed than the faithful.



    I said a lower sodium to potassium ratio. Yes, you should eat more potassium, but I'm not saying to swallow an entire bottle of potassium pills. The RDA for potassium is 3000 mg. Is that high? Will that give people heart problems? I don't think so.
    This is all true, but it doesn't really highlight the rarity of science being far from the truth, especially nowadays. Perhaps pre-FDA, pre-crytallography, pre-most of modern science, this was more true, but today, there are normally a lot more of people vying for their PhD. thesis' potency. In fact, there's a surplus of PhDs now, so the struggle to either prove or disprove something is pretty constant. Peer-reviewed means it was reviewed by a very discriminaing audience, one in which an at least a slightly innovative thought is needed to even get funded for research.

    No one can ever escape the possibility of failure, but to be more aligned with pop-sci as opposed to science is normally more destructive, even from a passive stance. Science has a better and repeatable track record. However, complacency will always lower the chances of either being correct by lack of perspectives. Wouldn't it be safer to err on the side that has a basis as opposed to solely anecdotes? While many anecdotes were right, as proven later by science, most have not been. We can find more clearer dangers in the majority of anecdotal therapies than actual scientific counterparts,

  5. #35
    deplorable basketcase Array Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elocute
    Peer-reviewed means it was reviewed by a very discriminaing audience, one in which an at least a slightly innovative thought is needed to even get funded for research.
    The peer review process is very frequently a joke. I would refer you to A. W. Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion" to see what peer review actually means as practiced.

    Wouldn't it be safer to err on the side that has a basis as opposed to solely anecdotes? While many anecdotes were right, as proven later by science, most have not been. We can find more clearer dangers in the majority of anecdotal therapies than actual scientific counterparts,
    I fully admit my weakness for anecdotal evidence. If a doctor who's been practicing for 40 years tells me he's able to eliminate psoriasis from hundreds of patients through diet and I find corroborating evidence on various online forums, I'm going to trust his expertise despite what the consensus opinion may be. (Go read some of the Amazon book reviews of John O.A. Pagano's "Healing Psoriasis"; also visit of the various online forums where people have used his approach). I can think of half a dozen or so such examples where the "consensus" opinion is at variance with what thousands of people say.
    The problem the world over is the same: stupid idiots with weapons and in positions of power.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    spso
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    The peer review process is very frequently a joke. I would refer you to A. W. Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion" to see what peer review actually means as practiced.



    I fully admit my weakness for anecdotal evidence. If a doctor who's been practicing for 40 years tells me he's able to eliminate psoriasis from hundreds of patients through diet and I find corroborating evidence on various online forums, I'm going to trust his expertise despite what the consensus opinion may be. (Go read some of the Amazon book reviews of John O.A. Pagano's "Healing Psoriasis"; also visit of the various online forums where people have used his approach). I can think of half a dozen or so such examples where the "consensus" opinion is at variance with what thousands of people say.
    What's even more of a joke are these diets that people cling to. I'd say there's a higher degree of bullshit in theorhetical fields, but with medicine, generally there has to be significant clinical trials. With something like particle physics, even though the people are highly intelligent, it's easy to make postulates because they can't really be tested currently.

    You will certainly find wild claims made by PhDs, but for every one of those, I'd imagine there are 30 or so other anecdotes that didn't work or were harmful. It may be very well that he found a natural cure, but this hasn't been as researched as the substances he claims to rid of. In many cases, because of lack of specificity (e.g. instead of a chemical made to go through one or two layers of skin) other problems may arise. The diets I mention, prior to some investigation, were thought anecdotally to be healthy, but many weren't.


    I can also think of lobotomies as an example of when anecdotes trumped "peer-review." In fact, many question if the creator's Nobel Prize should be revoked. There was no real research for its benefit at all, but a couple of doctors believed it worked, going by anecdotes of a few "40+" year practicing doctors. It went on for years, purely by anecdote, until studies started showing that it really just removed all but most of psychic life. This went on for a decade or so, with anecdotes of calmer, "happier" patients. Blood-letting, at a time where significant studies were not done, was also at once anecdotally linked to curing disease.

    Also, some of these natural products are unregulated. Some may contain high degrees of "natural" compounds at contaminating doses because there's no real restriction on them.

    Sometimes all there is is anecdotal evidence, but I'd sway in the direction of more research, even with people armed with some morre initials behind their names. I suppose we are just of differing opinions, however, as I think we've gotten each other's points by now.

  7. #37
    deplorable basketcase Array Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei
    "For people with a condition called hemochromatosis, vitamin C toxicity may be serious. Hemochromatosis causes the body to store too much iron. High doses of vitamin C could worsen iron overload and cause damage to body tissues. "
    I was skeptical of this claim so I actually looked up the study on which it was based. It's not based on any studies with actual hemochromatosis patients (less than 0.5% of the population) but rather on a study showing how vitamin C enhances iron absorption. In other words, there are no studies that show vitamin C doing actual harm to hemochromatosis patients. That is why the health encyclopedia says "Vitamin C could worsen" instead of "Vitamin C does worsen"; it's purely speculative.

    Source: Interaction of vitamin C and iron.
    The problem the world over is the same: stupid idiots with weapons and in positions of power.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Array Adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    MBTI
    DEUS
    Posts
    162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I prefer to understand how that consensus was reached and what research was looked at and ignored. There have been multiple instances where the consensus opinion was the wrong opinion.
    The consensus being wrong is an integral part of scientific progress, given the absolute reliance of our scientific method on falsification. The consensus is simply an expression of what hypothesis is most supported given the current picture of experimental data. It changing is to be expected. What I am saying is that the scientific community will self-correct - i.e. the consensus will change - if an alternative hypothesis has gained enough leverage through experimentation or a paradigm shift in the field. Laymen, lacking both information and understanding, are not in any position to engage in this correction themselves.

    The consensus argument is frequently made by people who don't understand science. In science, experimentation and empirical evidence is everything. You can have 100% consensus and all it'd take is 1 good experiment to render that consensus meaningless.
    That experiment would have to be ground-shatteringly good to render a 100% consensus meaningless, in which case the consensus would shift to reflect the new information. There is no problem here.

    How much of a consensus is there? Is it a 97% consensus or a 51% consensus? Your link doesn't mention this.
    This is the only factor that a layman should take into consideration: How general is the agreement within the scientific community? Much like the law of large numbers, the broader the experimental agreement, the more likely the hypothesis is to be true. This is absolutely not an infallible assumption, but, other than donning the hood of agnosticism, it is generally the most sensible from a position of ignorance.

    What constitutes a consensus is pretty fluid, but a community with a 49/51 split would be said to lack a consensus. Usually some supermajority threshold has to be met. If there is no consensus, the individual should, if possible, remain undecided, or otherwise go with the hypothesis which has the largest potential reward.

    And it's also true that most people who blindly accept whatever the scientific orthodoxy tells them do so as a matter of faith, no? In fact, the skeptics are usually much more informed than the faithful.
    Yes, it is true of faithful and skeptics alike. But it is wiser to passively accept the consensus of a group of experts, than to actively wield your suboptimal amount of knowledge in the fight for an alternative hypothesis.

  9. #39
    Male Array johnnyyukon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,880

    Default

    Someone say weed?
    I've had this ice cream bar, since I was a child!

    Each thought's completely warped
    I'm like a walkin', talkin', ouija board.
    Likes Bush Did 9/11 liked this post

  10. #40
    i love Array skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,836

    Default

    Sometimes the alternative medicine movement is just blatantly uninformed - and, worse, fear-mongering.

Page 4 of 35 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

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
  •