Nature VS Modern Medicine and weeding out what truly works.

[Chthonic]

Each in their appropriate measure in their appropriate situation I say. Eating carrots won't staunch blood loss from a wound but by the same token there is also a modern culture of blindly abusing the body until it's in crisis mode then having to go down the road of surgery or medication because there is no other choice. Both sides (medicine and naturalists) are guilty of scaremongering, using dubious data and outright lying. Yes the health industry is a profit making machine and anyone who doesn't see that isn't doing themselves any favours. In all honesty if I was going down the naturalist road for something I wouldn't be stopping by a heath food store to pick up buckets of mass produced, processed, health products in plastic containers. That kind of flies in the face of the 'natural' aspect does it not? I don't think cave men ever had detox powders and bulk MSM and what not.

 

[Tellenbach]

Either way, the fact that no mercury related illnesses arised from it. It's distinct, and easily diagnosed.

You don't know this at all; it's a guess on your part.

Mercury wasn't even a problem in vaccines.

You don't know this either. The only way to tell if mercury is harmful is to do experiments with young primates (monkeys). At least one study has shown that the mercury, at the concentrations used in human vaccines, does cross the blood brain barrier of monkeys and accumulates in their brain.

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.

I support discovering the truth; you support sticking your head in the sand and pretending that problems don't exist.

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.

We can do it with baby chimps. The key word here is "most". Why wouldn't you want to make sure the vaccine is safe for "all" babies?

She doesn't want a 'safer product'. She wants attention and something to complain about in her perfect little world to keep herself viable.

How do you know that she's not just a concerned parent? You are aware that her son has autism, right?

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.

The difference is that aluminum poisoning shares many of the same symptoms as Alzheimers and produces the same tangles of brain proteins. Also, carbs are needed in the body and aluminum is not.

But why they developed it is unknown. Regardless of sodium intake, eating habits, culture--people all around the world develop it all the time.

We do know. Essential hypertension is caused by an imbalance of sodium to potassium which leads to increased calcium inside cells which then results in the contraction of smooth muscle cells in the arteries. You're wrong about the sodium intake. Go look up some of the studies. Populations that have a 1:2 sodium to potassium in their urine have almost no hypertension.

How does it account for the fact that NONE of these guys HAD alzheimers to begin with?

It's done using surveys. You ask people if they have Alzheimers.

But a large reason mercury is no longer used is because of technological advancements and discoveries.

Is that also why paint manufacturers don't put lead in their paints? No, that was done because lead in paint was banned due to public pressure.

 

[kyuuei]

We can do it with baby chimps. The key word here is "most". Why wouldn't you want to make sure the vaccine is safe for "all" babies?

Disregarding the whole animal PETA thing with chimps, since this subject isn't about them and their moral values... We're speaking in global terms. No medication, natural or modern, is safe for all. Ever. What is appropriate, even for the masses, isn't appropriate for some. That's why there is autonomy and privacy in health care, and why it's so important. We can't make blanket statements. We can't make people get live vaccines if they're allergic to eggs--its suicide/homicide, no matter how much we want to stop the flu. But the masses exceed the need of the individuals most of the time. And the masses die of the flu way more often than individual weak ass babies die from a vaccine.

I'm all about supporting the smaller groups of people, but the issue of health care is a global concern.. and needs a global mentality. Babies die all the time of natural causes, and no one gets all bitchy at mother nature--though they do blame doctors most of the time anyways lately. Some babies are weak.. and I guarantee you if they die of a vaccine for a disease, they would have died of the disease had they contracted it--which is far more likely since their immune system sucked when it came to protecting them.

Most of the people you see in the world had at least their first series of vaccines as babies. And almost all of them are fine, functioning citizens. There's hardly anyone alive now that didn't grow up with vaccines. Their effectiveness, and their safety, is seen in the very cities and streets you walk on.

But feel free to do that research for mercury that you admitted is no longer used, and see how that goes. No one's going to care about old science that's already been researched and improved upon. And I'm thinking them taking out mercury didn't satisfy you one bit.. which leads me to believe that nothing is really going to satisfy.

How do you know that she's not just a concerned parent? You are aware that her son has autism, right?

Autism that was not caused by vaccines. She wants something to blame.. and if anything, her son having autism makes her even LESS bias and more subjective and emotional than before. She doesn't want to think that her son was just unlucky with the genetic and environmental dice... like most parents and people do. They want an answer that we don't have yet. So they make one up. It's a complex thing.. just like most disorders. I wish she had an answer for her son's illness, and I even would be okay with it being autism caused entirely by a vaccine.. but it just isn't. She's emotional.. and trying to hide behind pseudo science so that she doesn't have to admit she's just another irrational human seeking validation. (I don't judge her on that part of it at all.. everyone wants validation--and I'm certainly sensitive to it. But she's going about it in a dangerous, and unnecessary way.)

The difference is that aluminum poisoning shares many of the same symptoms as Alzheimers and produces the same tangles of brain proteins. Also, carbs are needed in the body and aluminum is not.

I'll give you a hint: MOST imbalances in the body (deficients of x vitamin, overabundance of x electrolyte) cause "Alzheimer's like symptoms" which can range to being confused (which you can get from a simple UTI as an elderly person) to being unable to process information and permanent brain shrinkage and/or damage (like recreational drugs and alcohol abuse). Alcohol isn't needed in the body at all, yet it's there and it's not going to harm you really in moderate amounts. Like most things in the world. And you'd need to consume a VAST amount of aluminum to get toxic levels enough to cause tangles.. I'm talking overdosing on medications on a daily basis over a long span of time.

We do know. Essential hypertension is caused by an imbalance of sodium to potassium which leads to increased calcium inside cells which then results in the contraction of smooth muscle cells in the arteries. You're wrong about the sodium intake. Go look up some of the studies. Populations that have a 1:2 sodium to potassium in their urine have almost no hypertension.

*almost*. Which means they do. Because they're genetically disposed to it. Somehow. We eat poorly in America--thus we have increased incidence of it. No one denies that part. But it CONTRIBUTES to it. It is not the main star of the show. Because we don't eliminate it when we eat right. It doesn't magically go away when everyone in the population eats right. People still develop it. I don't understand how you're totally okay with the explanation "almost all people don't have x, so its cool" but not "almost all babies are fine, so it's cool".

It's done using surveys. You ask people if they have Alzheimers.

Alzheimer's isn't diagnosed until death. So you can't just ask people if they have it. Also, people with it can't usually answer that question--or most questions. If any. These guys in the study did NOT have Alzheimers, they did not CURE the disease and make it regress and go away in the study... I promise you, it'd be all over the damn place if they did. People would be throwing money at them--particularly supplement companies. Vitamin C would go through the roof. It's a big deal curing diseases.. Trust me, people WANT cures. They'll look for them anywhere they can find them. This study's a quack.. I'm sorry. I wish it were true, though.

Is that also why paint manufacturers don't put lead in their paints? No, that was done because lead in paint was banned due to public pressure.

Public pressure based on studies showing that the paint may be causing x and y. People don't just decide things are bad--that's why things go years and years before they're discovered. Someone working in the industry gets the idea the shit's bad, eventually they bring labs into it, or tell doctors about it, more people complain of similar things, and studies are done.. No one yanked lead out of the paint until someone smart demonstrated WHY they had to do it. People complaining is hardly ever enough to get shit done. Sometimes, yes. But it's only one half of the coin.

And I really feel like we're going in circles here. I'm not here trying to convince you to magically like chemicals or anything.. but your logic, or lack thereof, is what causes a lot of these debates and sillyness.

There's a LOT of really great, good things that hippy foodies and anti-chemical people have going for them that's helping make this world a lot better to live in. And it's founded in good, solid science. Backed by doctors. And researchers. They just take those principles and try to make blanket statements all over the place--and that's where it starts to all go really wrong. Just like science ought not ever make blanket statements lest it be seen as for the birds and thrown out the window as quack.

 

[Tellenbach]

No medication, natural or modern, is safe for all. Ever.

Can you find me one death from taking vitamin C? Vitamin C is used to treat scurvy.

There's hardly anyone alive now that didn't grow up with vaccines. Their effectiveness, and their safety, is seen in the very cities and streets you walk on.

No one's arguing against vaccines; I just don't want neurotoxins put in them and I also want them spread out. Instead of giving kids 20 vaccines at once, why not spread that out over a year or two?

*almost*. Which means they do. Because they're genetically disposed to it.

When I say "almost", I mean less than 1%. Contrast that to the 30 percent plus that get hypertension in some populations.

Alzheimer's isn't diagnosed until death.

Did you watch "The Notebook"? I'm pretty sure the lady was diagnosed before she died. Anyway, nice talking to you.

 

[kyuuei]

Can you find me one death from taking vitamin C? Vitamin C is used to treat scurvy.

Yeah, I'm aware. That doesn't mean it is safe for EVERYONE to take all the time. Vitamin C - Vitamin C Toxicity - Health Encyclopedia

"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. "

There isn't a single thing that's universally safe for all people ever with no exceptions. And since there are always exceptions, I don't speak in absolutes. *Low doses* of aluminum and mercury have never shown to cause anything drastic either, yet you're all in a tizzy about that.

No one's arguing against vaccines; I just don't want neurotoxins put in them and I also want them spread out. Instead of giving kids 20 vaccines at once, why not spread that out over a year or two?

Why not give it to them as soon as they can handle it because the diseases are more readily caught the longer you wait to vaccinate? Vaccines are appropriately spread out based on age, benefit/risk ratios, and research-founded evidence. Waiting an unnecessary amount of time means more kids potentially exposed. That's like giving cough syrup to kids instead of washing your hands.

When I say "almost", I mean less than 1%. Contrast that to the 30 percent plus that get hypertension in some populations.

So which is it? Do you want to speak in absolutes or not? Is 1% sufficient evidence enough for you for something to be deemed scientifically sound? Because Gardasil is deemed like 99% effective.. and that one's on the chopping block with the rest of them in that vaccine clump.

Did you watch "The Notebook"? I'm pretty sure the lady was diagnosed before she died. Anyway, nice talking to you.

You diagnose it beforehand, sure. But you don't get an official diagnosis until death.. It's a dementia--assumed Alzheimer's based on predispositions and markers and scans. Until you see those tangles and plaques, which is impossible without autopsy, it could be any of the dementias.

 

[Tellenbach]

*Low doses* of aluminum and mercury have never shown to cause anything drastic either, yet you're all in a tizzy about that.

Have you looked at the EPA's drinking water standards lately? Most of the so called contaminants are in trace quantities.

"EPA has set an enforceable regulation for mercury, called a maximum contaminant level (MCL), at 0.002 mg/L or 2 ppb."

Why not give it to them as soon as they can handle it because the diseases are more readily caught the longer you wait to vaccinate?

Did you read that paper I posted on page 1? Some scientists think that giving too many vaccines at the same time can create too large of an immune response to the point where the immune system starts attacking itself and causing autoimmune diseases like type I diabetes.

So which is it? Do you want to speak in absolutes or not? Is 1% sufficient evidence enough for you for something to be deemed scientifically sound?

It's not a question of soundness. If we can reduce the incidence of hypertension 30 fold by lowering sodium and increasing potassium, then we should do it. If we can make vaccines safer by eliminating harmful substances in them, then we should do that as well. I'm all about practical solutions.

 

[kyuuei]

Have you looked at the EPA's drinking water standards lately? Most of the so called contaminants are in trace quantities.

Because drinking water is something you consume on a daily basis--not once every 10 years or in a lifetime. So yeah.. the standards have to be there.

Did you read that paper I posted on page 1? Some scientists think that giving too many vaccines at the same time can create too large of an immune response to the point where the immune system starts attacking itself and causing autoimmune diseases like type I diabetes.

Other people think autoimmune diseases are caused by poor diet.. and others by thyroid problems. and still others by chronic inflammation. So who's right? Because if it is inflammation, then diseases themselves will cause way more damage than vaccines will. And again, autoimmune disorders are poorly understood.. it's a loose, vague theory, at its best, with little evidence in comparison to the progress being made in inflammation studies on body degradation and kindling theories.

It's not a question of soundness. If we can reduce the incidence of hypertension 30 fold by lowering sodium and increasing potassium, then we should do it. If we can make vaccines safer by eliminating harmful substances in them, then we should do that as well. I'm all about practical solutions.

I was referring to the fact that if you're okay with <5% being evidence of success, that vaccines with all of their supposed harm are still qualifying as successful in your global definition. But since we're on this road now..

Eggs are harmful to some people--deadly even.. You say harmful substances still even when I say that if those are the only chemicals you would ever put in your body that you'd be perfectly fine--and protected, so to me they aren't harmful in the same way having an occasional drink of alcohol isn't harmful. You say increasing potassium is a good thing--and I find high potassium diets very dangerous because of the heart implications that are way more acute than high sodium in the diet. Hemp would kill me in large amounts, but some people swear hemp is God's gift to man.

Harmful is an ill defined term here. And no one in the anti-vaccine community is really agreeing on a clear definition. Is it just the aluminum which is used as an enhancer in some vaccines? Is it the mercury? Are those the only two things? What else do they dislike? All the things, is what I'm gathering. They want all natural ingredients--some magic leaf that will do the same thing, and they can't get them for vaccines. It just doesn't work like that. They want a miracle drug that doesn't exist--and likely never will. I invite them to try for a fair trade, organic, all natural, plant based vaccine that's viable for the world.. truly, it'd be far cheaper theoretically. but that isn't what works. and that doesn't protect anyone right now.

 

[Tellenbach]

I was referring to the fact that if you're okay with <5% being evidence of success, that vaccines with all of their supposed harm are still qualifying as successful in your global definition.

It depends on what we're looking at. To go from 30% plus hypertension to less than 1% is a huge success. Yes, vaccines are hugely successful, but that doesn't mean the concern of people like McCarthy aren't real. Most cars don't crash, but GM got nailed by Congress and fined for hiding a fault in some car part that killed a mere 14 people (I think). If GM can prevent such deaths in the future, why would anyone oppose it?

Eggs are harmful to some people--deadly even.

People aren't forced to eat eggs and egg sellers aren't able to remove the dangerous component. That's the difference.

You say increasing potassium is a good thing--and I find high potassium diets very dangerous because of the heart implications that are way more acute than high sodium in the diet.

I'm not saying it; every nutritionist is saying it. The only exception would be those people with failing kidneys; at that point, they have to watch the potassium levels.

Harmful is an ill defined term here. And no one in the anti-vaccine community is really agreeing on a clear definition.

Harmful is when you go from a healthy baby to an autistic baby or worse.

Is it just the aluminum which is used as an enhancer in some vaccines? Is it the mercury? Are those the only two things? What else do they dislike?

All those concerns should be addressed because it's a public safety issue.

They want a miracle drug that doesn't exist--and likely never will.

Most people like McCarthy want no mercury or any other neurotoxin and spread out the vaccinations. These are very reasonable requests.

 

[Elocute]

It depends on what we're looking at. To go from 30% plus hypertension to less than 1% is a huge success. Yes, vaccines are hugely successful, but that doesn't mean the concern of people like McCarthy aren't real. Most cars don't crash, but GM got nailed by Congress and fined for hiding a fault in some car part that killed a mere 14 people (I think). If GM can prevent such deaths in the future, why would anyone oppose it?



People aren't forced to eat eggs and egg sellers aren't able to remove the dangerous component. That's the difference.



I'm not saying it; every nutritionist is saying it. The only exception would be those people with failing kidneys; at that point, they have to watch the potassium levels.



Harmful is when you go from a healthy baby to an autistic baby or worse.



All those concerns should be addressed because it's a public safety issue.



Most people like McCarthy want no mercury or any other neurotoxin and spread out the vaccinations. These are very reasonable requests.

It depends on what we're looking at. To go from 30% plus hypertension to less than 1% is a huge success. Yes, vaccines are hugely successful, but that doesn't mean the concern of people like McCarthy aren't real. Most cars don't crash, but GM got nailed by Congress and fined for hiding a fault in some car part that killed a mere 14 people (I think). If GM can prevent such deaths in the future, why would anyone oppose it?

The fault was found here. This is the primary difference. As opposed to being due to novice drivers, drivers on medication, or otherwise, the fault was found. The fault with vaccines, per FDA, is currently somewhat dubious, but most official research has denied much correlation, much less causation, as would be with GM's fault,

People aren't forced to eat eggs and egg sellers aren't able to remove the dangerous component. That's the difference.

Agreed.

I'm not saying it; every nutritionist is saying it. The only exception would be those people with failing kidneys; at that point, they have to watch the potassium levels.

According to a cursory look, high potassium can lead to irregular heatbeat, which shouldn't be too surprising since the sodium-potassium channels are largely responsible for voltages that allow for heart beats and general homeostasis. As to whether it affects only those with compromised kidneys; I don't know. I'm not an MD, but from looking quickly on the net, it can place one at risk of heart disease in a much higher risk. Therefore, it isn't as easy, as heart disease isn't always predictable.

Harmful is when you go from a healthy baby to an autistic baby or worse.

But why is this not happening to more babies? It really isn't too known. I've heard that it could be the mercury and other heavy metals, The effects of mercury are well-known, dating back to the "mad-hatter," in which hat makers who used mercury in large concentrations were known to be a little off. I've also heard that in some cases, a hyper immune response to the dead virus can promote a seizure and fever that causes degradation of neurlogical proteins.

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

It seems to be more of a concern for those who do not read much scientific literature. I'm even surprised by how little the actual scientific community is listing this as an issue, in contrast to the general public.

Most people like McCarthy want no mercury or any other neurotoxin and spread out the vaccinations. These are very reasonable requests.

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.

I recall a math course in which we found out that in order to get poisoning from fish to a level of neuro-toxicity, one would have to eat something of the order of 2-4 pounds of raw fish for about 350 days. The Japanese diet is mostly fish, and they tend to have higher IQs than Westerners.

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.

 

[Jaguar]

Alzheimer's isn't diagnosed until death.

Tell that to Nancy Reagan.

 

[Adam]

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?

 

[kyuuei]

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.

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.

 

[Tellenbach]

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.

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.

 

[Elocute]

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,

 

[Tellenbach]

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.

 

[Elocute]

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.

 

[Tellenbach]

"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.

 

[Adam]

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.

 

[johnnyyukon]

Someone say weed?

 

[skylights]

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