Nature VS Modern Medicine and weeding out what truly works.

[Ivy]

While it's true that milk can aggravate acne in those prone to it, research doesn't back up the commonly-held idea that milk produces mucus.

REALLY? - New York Times
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/common-cold/expert-answers/phlegm/faq-20058015
Milk, Mucus and Cough - Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy (ASCIA)
Relationship between milk intake and mucus production in adult volu... - PubMed - NCBI

And some of the studies I posted above noting health benefits from full-fat dairy are from this year. The research is not conclusive about whether dairy is poison or awesome. My takeaway from that is that it's neither- so if you like it, you should include it in your diet in moderation, and if you don't like it, you shouldn't.

 

[Thalassa]

In the world of science group consensus IS important. I have said this several times to several people so far and it seems like it just doesn't want to be accepted. That is how science works. Period. End of story. No ifs ands or buts. It's not a matter of opinion at all. It is how we validate research, it's how we support findings. It's how ALL fields use it. For this reason, your comparison to hitler doesn't apply. Also, just because the FDA says something, doesn't mean that they personally did it. Quite often, they act as an aggregate and pull from research done throughout the country and sometimes through the world. I am also not blindly trusting them. I have trust in them for a reason, but it is not full faith and trust of course. It's not the only major research institution. We also have the CDC, NIH, ACS, APA, there are tons of groups. The scientific community at large has a collective voice, and they use a channel when data is collected from multiple independent sources.

You seem to have completely confused your personal interpretation and preferences with fact. The PCRM and NRDC are also groups, you just don't prefer them.

 

[Ivy]

One of the most reliable sources on the vegan diet from a nutritional angle is Vegan for Life and they do not rely on the China study, in fact they mention it for precisely that reason.

And again the paleo diet also eliminates dairy.

A source called Vegan for Life couldn't possibly be biased in any way? Also- paleo is pseudoscientific trash, IMO.

 

[á´…eparted]

You seem to have completely confused your personal interpretation and preferences with fact. The PCRM and NRDC are also groups, you just don't prefer them.

No, I have not. That's because I am not familar with them. From what I can tell they are ethics group and not part of the research community. You simply have a complete lack of understanding of what the scientific process is, and it appears like you will never grasp it either.

 

[Ivy]

I also read recently that some bigwig in the paleo community reversed his position on dairy and it's okay now, and a lot of people are super mad about that. But the paleo community is very contentious, from what I've seen- they don't actually agree on much. Some say legumes are okay, some say not; some say dairy is okay, some say not. None of them seem to understand that paleolithic humans ate whatever they could find and that probably didn't include a lot of hemp milk and almond flour pancakes.

 

[Thalassa]

Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant in debate.



This is not how to debate, you don't tell people to trust you, you provide sources to support your argument.

You continue to generalise. Pseudoephedrine is not Amphetamine ("legal speed"), the structures are similar, they're in the same chemical class however they're not the same drug.

Here is Pseudoephedrine:

Here is Amphetamine:

Note the difference? The extra methyl (CH[SUB]3[/SUB]) groups and the hydroxyl group (OH)?




Good for you but this is irrelevant to the debate.





Did you ignore what I previously wrote? Certain formulations help with the heeling process. People need their symptoms cleared because (and I don’t advocate this, I believe they should rest during that period) they have careers and family to attend to. Natural remedies don't treat symptoms.

Deceptive is a perfect name for you since your post largely says nothing. You didn't bother to correct Hard on his or her anecdotes about natural practitioners, just my comment that a licensed M.D. actually advised against using it, not for me as an individual, but for anyone, since it dries you out and keeps you sicker longer. You also didn't bother with many people here and their anecdotes, just me, wonder why that is, possibly only because you disagree with me.

Secondly, your speed example is totally B.S. since you are making a weak semantics argument, they are the same class of drugs.

Furthermore, you actually agree with me that people mostly take cold medicine to push through illness instead of resting because they are mostly treating symptoms. No, Sudafed will never actually kill the illness the way Zicam (actually proven to reduce time and severity) or natural antibiotics and antivirals like garlic will. Good night.

Oh and P.S. if you like hard need FDA approval, even medline.gov agrees with me that Pseudoephedrine treats symptoms but not the underlying cause.

 

[á´…eparted]

I also read recently that some bigwig in the paleo community reversed his position on dairy and it's okay now, and a lot of people are super mad about that. But the paleo community is very contentious, from what I've seen- they don't actually agree on much. Some say legumes are okay, some say not; some say dairy is okay, some say not. None of them seem to understand that paleolithic humans ate whatever they could find and that probably didn't include a lot of hemp milk and almond flour pancakes.

Diets will forever be this haze of confusion, they always have been too. It's FILLED with so much pseudoscience. The only people who'd I'd honestly take seriously would be respected registered dietitians if I were to go on a diet or have an issue that could be connected to diet.

 

[Ivy]

Yeah. And even some RDs are pretty orthorexic. I'm trying to move away from that stuff, not towards it.

 

[á´…eparted]

Yeah. And even some RDs are pretty orthorexic. I'm trying to move away from that stuff, not towards it.

I am a TA for organic chemistry at my university and those who are planning to become dietitians are required to take it for their major so I always get a bunch of them, and have gotten to know a number of them over the years. Some of them have been pretty uppity and preoccupied with food/diet in general and I wondered if some were going into it because they had issues themselves and it was sort of channeling it (parallel to them saying psych majors become psych majors because they're nuts). It's pretty easy IMO to see if one is neurotic over stuff though, and if they are move on.

Luckily I haven't personally met any that are wacko. I go on a discussion/rant about anti-vaccine and anti-gmo groups when I do my lecture on carbohydrate chemistry so I was expecting to get a few to challenge me later but it's never happened.

 

[Thalassa]

No, I have not. That's because I am not familar with them. From what I can tell they are ethics group and not part of the research community. You simply have a complete lack of understanding of what the scientific process is, and it appears like you will never grasp it either.

You are right I will never understand anything if I don't agree with you right now, that's such a factual statement, and I love how you ignore that both of these "ethics groups" are backed by scientists and doctors.

 

[Thalassa]

I am a TA for organic chemistry at my university and those who are planning to become dietitians are required to take it for their major so I always get a bunch of them, and have gotten to know a number of them over the years. Some of them have been pretty uppity and preoccupied with food/diet in general and I wondered if some were going into it because they had issues themselves and it was sort of channeling it (parallel to them saying psych majors become psych majors because they're nuts). It's pretty easy IMO to see if one is neurotic over stuff though, and if they are move on.

Luckily I haven't personally met any that are wacko. I go on a discussion/rant about anti-vaccine and anti-gmo groups when I do my lecture on carbohydrate chemistry so I was expecting to get a few to challenge me later but it's never happened.

I wonder sometimes if people become scientists because they are neurotic about ambivalence and subjectivity in the human condition. How convenient to dismiss dieticians as people who had eating disorders and psychologists as crazy people, but to think being a chemist makes you infallible in objective thought.

 

[á´…eparted]

You are right I will never understand anything if I don't agree with you right now, that's such a factual statement, and I love how you ignore that both of these "ethics groups" are backed by scientists and doctors.

It's not because you don't agree with me. It has to do with you not understanding how all of this works. I don't give a shit if anyone personally agrees with me, never really have. What I do care about is whether or not fact and logic is adhered to and respected, which here that has largely not been done. I am not ignoring them nor the fact they are run by scientists and doctors. I am simply unfamiliar with them.

I wonder sometimes if people become scientists because they are neurotic about ambivalence and subjectivity in the human condition. How convenient to dismiss dieticians as people who had eating disorders and psychologists as crazy people, but to think being a chemist makes you infallible in objective thought.

So now we're going into personal insults eh? Lovely. I have wanted to be a scientist since I was a small child, and have wanted to be a chemist since I was 10 years old.

I actually meant that in a light hearted manner. Psych majors poke fun at themselves over the idea that they're all secretly nuts and want to figure themselves out. The dietician majors I have met were actually all really lovely people. I meant uppity as in high strung, and very focused on their diet because it goes with their major when I brought the topic up. Some perhaps may have neuroses, and if they do that's fine. It's not fine when it impacts others through their profession. That can happen in any profession.

Me being a chemist though does give me more authority than you over these matters.

 

[Raffaella]

Wait a second… I quote you telling you to stop generalising, you quote me back with more generalisations and in this response you decide to take what I wrote personally. I’m debating against people who write erroneous posts on modern medicine, it’s not my position to defend alternative remedies since I have little interest in them. That’s your position. Why am I required to point out Hard’s anecdotal references? I’m not debating him.

Deceptive is a perfect name for you since your post largely says nothing. You didn't bother to correct Hard on his or her anecdotes about natural practitioners, just my comment that a licensed M.D. actually advised against using it, not for me as an individual, but for anyone, since it dries you out and keeps you sicker longer. You also didn't bother with many people here and their anecdotes, just me, wonder why that is, possibly only because you disagree with me. .

Can’t attack my argument so you attack my character. Good job. If you care to notice I’ve disagreed with Tellenbach and Small.Wonder, too. I’m not sure why you’re taking this personally.

Secondly, your speed example is totally B.S. since you are making a weak semantics argument, they are the same class of drugs.

What semantics? You’re generalising. Do you know about drugs? Do you know how they work? This distinction matters in the pharmaceutical field since their differences affect their absorption, distribution, metabolism, elimination, efficacy and potency.

Furthermore, you actually agree with me that people mostly take cold medicine to push through illness instead of resting because they are mostly treating symptoms. No, Sudafed will never actually kill the illness the way Zicam (actually proven to reduce time and severity) or natural antibiotics and antivirals like garlic will. Good night.

I don’t think pseudoephedrine is necessary if you can afford the time to rest. In fact, we sell more of its weaker alternative since it's strictly regulated. Some people need it, I’m not going to judge them because I recognise they have lives to attend to and will do so regardless of what a health practitioner advises.

As for Zicam, thank you, I will read into it and get back to you.

Oh and P.S. if you like hard need FDA approval, even medline.gov agrees with me that Pseudoephedrine treats symptoms but not the underlying cause.

I have nothing to do with the FDA, my country has an equivalent that I watch carefully. Also, I know that, I’m well aware it only treats symptoms, however I keep repeating that certain formulations help the healing process.

 

[Thalassa]

Wait a second… I quote you telling you to stop generalising, you quote me back with more generalisations and in this response you decide to take what I wrote personally. I’m debating against people who write erroneous posts on modern medicine, it’s not my position to defend alternative remedies since I have little interest in them. That’s your position. Why am I required to point out Hard’s anecdotal references? I’m not debating him.



Can’t attack my argument so you attack my character. Good job. If you care to notice I’ve disagreed with Tellenbach and Small.Wonder, too. I’m not sure why you’re taking this personally.



What semantics? You’re generalising. Do you know about drugs? Do you know how they work? This distinction matters in the pharmaceutical field since their differences affect their absorption, distribution, metabolism, elimination, efficacy and potency.



I don’t think pseudoephedrine is necessary if you can afford the time to rest. In fact, we sell more of its weaker alternative since it's strictly regulated. Some people need it, I’m not going to judge them because I recognise they have lives to attend to and will do so regardless of what a health practitioner advises.

As for Zicam, thank you, I will read into it and get back to you.



I have nothing to do with the FDA, my country has an equivalent that I watch carefully. Also, I know that, I’m well aware it only treats symptoms, however I keep repeating that certain formulations help the healing process.

I shredded your argument by quoting medline.gov. I should have just done that in the first place. You responding to me was utterly pointle ss since you were wrong not only imo but in the FDAs opinion. In fact the entire purpose of your responses to me seemed to be to show me up in some way or simply criticize my posting style, but not the actual argument I made. Funny though that when I question your posting style you deem it an "attack on your character" which is a total exaggeration, I never said you were immoral or stupid. Deception is a common tactic used by long winded debaters online, and imo also in academics.

Pseudoephedrine does not cure colds. Or anything for that matter.

 

[Raffaella]

I shredded your argument by quoting medline.gov. I should have just done that in the first place. You responding to me was utterly pointle ss since you were wrong not only imo but in the FDAs opinion. In fact the entire purpose of your responses to me seemed to be to show me up in some way or simply criticize my posting style, but not the actual argument I made. Funny though that when I question your posting style you deem it an "attack on your character" which is a total exaggeration, I never said you were immoral or stupid. Deception is a common tactic used by long winded debaters online, and imo also in academics.

Pseudoephedrine does not cure colds. Or anything for that matter.

Shredded what argument?

I keep saying it doesn't cure colds, I even say it in my original response to you. I'm trying to debate against you reasonably, trying to point out your faulty logic in areas since you keep generalising. I've done this to other posters against modern medicine if you care to notice.

 

[Thalassa]

It's not because you don't agree with me. It has to do with you not understanding how all of this works. I don't give a shit if anyone personally agrees with me, never really have. What I do care about is whether or not fact and logic is adhered to and respected, which here that has largely not been done. I am not ignoring them nor the fact they are run by scientists and doctors. I am simply unfamiliar with them.




So now we're going into personal insults eh? Lovely. I have wanted to be a scientist since I was a small child, and have wanted to be a chemist since I was 10 years old.

I actually meant that in a light hearted manner. Psych majors poke fun at themselves over the idea that they're all secretly nuts and want to figure themselves out. The dietician majors I have met were actually all really lovely people. I meant uppity as in high strung, and very focused on their diet because it goes with their major when I brought the topic up. Some perhaps may have neuroses, and if they do that's fine. It's not fine when it impacts others through their profession. That can happen in any profession.

Me being a chemist though does give me more authority than you over these matters.

Over what matters? Seriously? You have more authority than my doctor or the 12,000 doctors in the PCRM? My sister has credentials in Biology and probably would make similar or more extreme arguments than mine on diet and nutrition. I don't know if you realize how comical it sounds for you to call yourself objective because of the manner in which you debate. ...it's cool for you to call my opinion vacuous, and to tell me I won't understand anything, and to call dietitians psychos, but as soon as I question the possibility that even scientists have opinions and ethics, your self included, suddenly it's a personal insult on YOUR childhood dream...i mean you totally missed my point over and over again, like when I pointed out that the PCRM is run by doctors, and the NRDC is backed by scientists and yet you still miss my tongue in cheek obvious point now.

 

[á´…eparted]

Over what matters? Seriously? You have more authority than my doctor or the 12,000 doctors in the PCRM? My sister has credentials in Biology and probably would make similar or more extreme arguments than mine on diet and nutrition. I don't know if you realize how comical it sounds for you to call yourself objective because of the manner in which you debate. ...it's cool for you to call my opinion vacuous, and to tell me I won't understand anything, and to call dietitians psychos, but as soon as I question the possibility that even scientists have opinions and ethics, your self included, suddenly it's a personal insult on YOUR childhood dream...i mean you totally missed my point over and over again, like when I pointed out that the PCRM is run by doctors, and the NRDC is backed by scientists and yet you still miss my tongue in cheek obvious point now.

Ah, no, it's you who sounds comical. Because you're missing my point over and over (though it's partly because this has gotten very derailed from the original discussion). I was speaking to you. I don't care at all what your sister is; you're not her. I am speaking about the discussions held on previous pages (which has gotten lost and we're away from the point now). It really all started with your assertion that dairy is bad and should be eliminated, and that it's illogical to take lactase. Of which, I and several others quite cleanly displayed that you're wrong, but you refuse to accept this. You're the one missing the entire point of this.

What I saw as a personal insult (which incidentally don't bother me, but I pointed it out because it's a tactic you very frequently use on a lot of people here), was the fact that you insinuated that I'm not being objective and used a patronizing tone behind it when I meant absolutely no harm with what I stated, I was not quoting you, and the entire point of it seemed as to scold. Objectivity has nothing to do with what I was referring to with the original points several pages back; calling "drug culture" (not a thing) crazy, making broad stroke generalities that mean nothing, and not correcting supporting your arguments. Not for everything, but for some there ARE definitive right and wrong statements, you refused to accept it.

 

[kyuuei]

1. This thread is about the discussion "Have You noticed a trend that hippies being totally 'Us vs Them' and using pseudo science and all that, and claiming 'Doctors backed me up on this opinion! So it's a fact!' and yet dismiss other doctors, no matter how many, as quacks because they aren't doctors agreeing with them, etc. etc."..

I don't mind having debates about the merits of hippy medicine, since I use them and my philosophy is that things should work together because a big part of medicine and treating patients is a holistic perspective--respecting their boundaries, no matter how ridiculous they are (sorry Mormons, you're all fucked up to me medicine-wise) to you (/nakedgunmoment), and getting the patient to do something in the right direction of health, including teaching them things they might not know about.

However. The discussion is not about personal attacks. The discussion was never meant to BE a debate about modern vs natural, I indulged in it because I wasn't getting much response either way, but I'm regretting that now. So much of medicine is PHILOSOPHY and beliefs regardless of science.. So if you want to keep defending the merits of whatever side you're on, Fine, but I'll just keep reporting posts that are attacking people and their credentials. If you don't want yours attacked, don't attack theirs. Because for every person that's had a quack modern doctor there's a person who's dealt with a quack natural one.



With that said. I'm going to go back to complaining about natural medicine a little bit, regardless of if people are all frowny faced that I don't agree that treating symptoms is useless. (BTW, it isn't. Saline wash is a natural symptom relief of allergies, and I highly prefer it to allergy medicine simply for cost reasons. No, it doesn't cure my allergies, but I don't really need it to... Colds don't need to be cured, they go away in such a ridiculously short amount of time, and no medicine you post is going to cure colds and kill the virus because it doesn't exist--in natural or modern medicine. Make the body more efficient at killing it? Sure. Other than that, you're reaching for beans if you think anyone's found magic pills to kill a virus.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqOMHOgt3JQ

Amethyst Richway Bio Mat | Amethyst Crystal Bio Mat | Infrared Biomat - The Original Bio-Mat

Why I’m Not Dismissing the Latest “Animal Protein is Bad” Study (But Not Losing Sleep Over It, Either) | Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? | Raw Food SOS

RawfoodSOS is a great writer, and I think she does a bang-up job of letting people decide for themselves, being objective, but exposing facts that neither support or offend either side and only show that, again, philosophy of the people shapes what is healthy or not just as much as science.. I mean, technically science can say all it wants "X will produce Y" but if the path isn't to people's liking they won't do it all day...

.. Hence why I feel (and modern hospital procedures now-a-days agree more and more) that natural medicine and modern medicine need to walk together.. and if something is shown to be off base, then it needs to be thrown out no matter what side it came from. And while I feel modern people that follow studies tend to do that, if I tell a hippy acai berries were sort of a quack, they get all up in arms. And they have all the vaguely written documentation to back them up on it.



Interactive: Snake Oil Supplements? The scientific evidence for health supplements | Information Is Beautiful

A really great infographic that leads to real sources, but I wish they'd lead to a list of sources on either side to show the weight of well established and good vs inconclusive and slight.

 

[kyuuei]

Personal complaint:

FB user: Omg look at this shit!

Please don't top your sweet potatoes with these! Don't you think it's kinda odd that Kraft has to use blue artificial food dye to make WHITE marshmallows?

Me: Actually, blue is used to make white all the time. I've used bluing since I was a kid to make white whites without laundry bleach because it's way cheaper.

FB user: I can see how that makes sense to you.
I like things that are not altered from their original form. Some people like chemicals in their food. I don't.

Me: Oh uh... I'm not fighting food semantics with you, we have very different opinions on that, just saying blue makes sense especially with things that are yellowed. (Whites tend to yellow.)

FB user: Blue and yellow make green.




... Wtf?!

 

[kyuuei]

I would never make an argument for a raw food diet, and yes certain groups benefit from slightly different diets, probably for evolutionary reasons, not just the ability to digest milk but other things as well (for example, alcoholics can't control their alcohol consumption as easily as people who are not genetically pre disposed to alcoholism). I am referring to recent studies on dairy products and already stated that my intent is not to "convert" but to challenge the widely held (and commercially endorsed) American notion that milk is a wonder elixir. The fact that it produces mucus and can aggravate acne isn't philosophical, and neither are the most recent medical findings as of 2014...philosophy is avoiding milk for animal rights or religious or environmental reasons.

The Japanese have a better diet than we do, as do Mediterranean people who consume dairy but in MUCH SMALLER quantities. Those are two of the best cultural diets found on earth for overall health and longevity.

Paleos as well as vegans cut out dairy, as do some other people who still consume meat or eggs.

They also have their issues too--mainly, that Japanese people (women particularly though) have TONS of bone issues in later life, and osteoporosis is a major thing being screened constantly in the asian community. That's nearly directly contributed to a low dairy diet without adequate supplementation. I've just spent all semester working with the chinese community center, And I had no idea it was a problem. But it is. Constipation and GI issues, herbal remedies mixing with modern medicines, and bone density issues were the three top complaints. Hardly no one had high blood sugar issues, which makes sense, but the bone aspect was clearly the biggest thing people were concerned about. People lined up out the door for that screening. No one diet is perfect in their approach.

I love the Japanese diet, I eat it weekly at least, and mediterranean food whenever I get a chance, I'm not so great at cooking that way. But even though they're great diets and have noted benefits, it doesn't mean the Americans are totally off base with nothing to offer. Demonizing American food lately is somehow equivalent to demonizing fast food.. Fast food is a modern phenomenon and has little relations to what Americans ate once and eat now on a daily basis.

Milk definitely creates mucus, that's well documented, but if you aren't currently suffering a cold, or respiratory distress of some sort, it really doesn't bother. I quit milk for 2 years, and my skin didn't clear, and my allergies didn't go away. Hormones and what time of the month it is had such a bigger influence on my acne. Saying "This could cause this" doesn't mean it's automatically to be avoided. Acne and mucus can also be easily alleviated with good hygiene (for the most part, acne is a whole other beast) and adequate hydration. So, if you hydrate and treat acne either way, why does milk sound like a bad thing? It doesn't. At least not to like a bazillion people out there.

Everyone has their elixirs. For me it's orange juice, pho vietnamese soup, saline, and hydrogen peroxide as a gargle. I think those things are magical for colds, and they work for me every time. They aren't science.. but they don't have to be really for me. Everything is a cost benefit ratio. I'd much rather drink milk than not. I'd much rather cook food than eat it raw. Yet, there are people who'd disagree with me all over the place. I don't mind, and their valid. Just no more valid than I am with my pho soup.