Nature VS Modern Medicine and weeding out what truly works.

[Tellenbach]

double post, pardon

 

[Tellenbach]

The consensus is simply an expression of what hypothesis is most supported given the current picture of experimental data.

There are many exceptions to this: global warming hysterics, cold fusion or low energy nuclear reactions, saturated fats cause heart disease; cholesterol causes heart disease; vitamin c doesn't help with cancer. There are many consensus opinions that lack support from empirical evidence.

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.

You didn't mention the percentage of consensus in your first post.

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.

I don't agree; it's wisest to question everything. Go watch Lorenzo's Oil with Nick Nolte for an example of what a layman can do. In the internet age where the layman has easy access to scientific journals, there is no need to submit to orthodoxy.

 

[Tellenbach]

I'll try posting a 3rd time.

Laymen, lacking both information and understanding, are not in any position to engage in this correction themselves.

Have you seen the movie Lorenzo's Oil with Nick Nolte? You really are underestimating the ability of the layperson; that movie is a great example of what a layperson with motivation can do.

 

[Elocute]

I'll try posting a 3rd time.



Have you seen the movie Lorenzo's Oil with Nick Nolte? You really are underestimating the ability of the layperson; that movie is a great example of what a layperson with motivation can do.

I haven't seen this movie, but from reading the Wiki, it sounds quite interesting and related to another movie I adored. There's a movie called, "Awakenings" which is also in the same vein, except it has to to with catatonic schizophrenics. L-Dopa (the left "handed" form the compound) seems to help them, with some gaining full fledged wellness. Unfortunately, it doesn't last very long. I'm not certain, but I think this man's research could have catalyzed the movements towards dopamine antagonistic drugs for psychosis. Don't quote me on it, however, as I'm not entirely certain.

I do think the layperson today, especially those in generation Z, is more adept on science; however, without some official knowledge base, it's easy to get swept into jargon. I'm slowly working my way through a pharmacology book that's used in med schools, and although I have some chemistry knowledge, it takes a while to convert medical speak to chemical speak. I'd say I'm not more than slightly above-average intelligence, and the material does get hefty. I'm not too sure most laypeople could really learn from it, off of lack of exposure alone. It goes directly into acid-base chemistry on the first page with lots of "jargon."

And I don't mean to put you on the spot, but if asked how the psoriasis-cure you linked me to in this thread worked at a tissue/cell level, would you be able to tell me? I'm pretty sure I'd not be able to , given how complex biochemistry is, without at least a few days of learning how the compounds were absorbed and why. Normally that's something doctors entrust the chemists and biologists to do, so by the time they write the book, this gritty stuff has been handled but not spoken of much in their books because it's esoteric to most.

Also, why do you think, if this knowledge is so accessible to laypeople, that many are misinformed? Do you think its mainly laziness or a lack of comprehension?

 

[Tellenbach]

And I don't mean to put you on the spot, but if asked how the psoriasis-cure you linked me to in this thread worked at a tissue/cell level, would you be able to tell me?

It's not a cure; the protocol is a change in eating habits, specifically the avoidance of the nightshades (tomato, potato,chili peppers,eggplants), sugar, beef and pork. The theory is that some people have food sensitivities and the combination of that and a leaky gut results in these food particles entering the blood and causing an immune response. The author describes psoriasis as the skin's method of ejecting toxins. If the patient returns to the bad eating habits, the psoriasis returns as well.

Also, why do you think, if this knowledge is so accessible to laypeople, that many are misinformed? Do you think its mainly laziness or a lack of comprehension?

The media doesn't report on it and many, many people hate to read. When was the last time you heard a news reporting urging people to consume more potassium? You won't hear it from most doctors because they don't learn about the biochemistry of nutrition. They see a patient, identify the symptom and match the symptom to the drug; that's how most doctors practice medicine.

You won't hear it from government agencies because they are wedded to bad theories like the cholesterol theory of heart disease. In fact, the current obesity epidemic is the fault of stupid government officials who urged people to eat less meat (the saturated fat scare). Since the 70s, Americans have eaten 20% less meat and increased carb consumption by 11%. Are we healthier because we eat less meat?

 

[Elocute]

It's not a cure; the protocol is a change in eating habits, specifically the avoidance of the nightshades (tomato, potato,chili peppers,eggplants), sugar, beef and pork. The theory is that some people have food sensitivities and the combination of that and a leaky gut results in these food particles entering the blood and causing an immune response. The author describes psoriasis as the skin's method of ejecting toxins. If the patient returns to the bad eating habits, the psoriasis returns as well.



The media doesn't report on it and many, many people hate to read. When was the last time you heard a news reporting urging people to consume more potassium? You won't hear it from most doctors because they don't learn about the biochemistry of nutrition. They see a patient, identify the symptom and match the symptom to the drug; that's how most doctors practice medicine.

You won't hear it from government agencies because they are wedded to bad theories like the cholesterol theory of heart disease. In fact, the current obesity epidemic is the fault of stupid government officials who urged people to eat less meat (the saturated fat scare). Since the 70s, Americans have eaten 20% less meat and increased carb consumption by 11%. Are we healthier because we eat less meat?

It's not a cure; the protocol is a change in eating habits, specifically the avoidance of the nightshades (tomato, potato,chili peppers,eggplants), sugar, beef and pork. The theory is that some people have food sensitivities and the combination of that and a leaky gut results in these food particles entering the blood and causing an immune response. The author describes psoriasis as the skin's method of ejecting toxins. If the patient returns to the bad eating habits, the psoriasis returns as well.

Why doesn't this just cause general dermatitis? Why doesn't it cause acne? I'm not sure if the book answers this; if it does, can you provide a breif summary? As interesting as it seems, I don't suffer from psoriasis and don't really have an intention on reading the book among my other reads for work.

You won't hear it from most doctors because they don't learn about the biochemistry of nutrition. They see a patient, identify the symptom and match the symptom to the drug; that's how most doctors practice medicine.

So what makes you so sure that this doctor understands the biochemistry? Does he also hold a degree in biochem? Sorry, I didn't read it.

You won't hear it from government agencies because they are wedded to bad theories like the cholesterol theory of heart disease. In fact, the current obesity epidemic is the fault of stupid government officials who urged people to eat less meat (the saturated fat scare). Since the 70s, Americans have eaten 20% less meat and increased carb consumption by 11%. Are we healthier because we eat less meat?

Well, I was about ready to start talking of how this only applies to low-density cholosterol (LDC). It was something I learned in college as well, but it seems that there's differing ideas now.

The LDC type seemed to fit well in chemistry. A, fluid, fatty substance would get into many places and deposit after a certain concentration in an insobule medium. People thought this for years until science, as it does, corrects itself.

I just don't get what the difference in reading books on lowering LDLs in the past and reading those of psoriasis doctor? Isn't he making bold dietary changes without much long-term study, as was the case with LDLs, without much extensive research?

Also as an aside, why do those extrusions of toxins result in psoriasis and not acne? It seems to be even more questionable than the LDC denunciation of the 00s.

 

[Tellenbach]

Why doesn't this just cause general dermatitis? Why doesn't it cause acne?

Pagano thinks eczema, which is a type of dermatitis, is caused by the same problem with food sensititivy. As I understand it, acne is caused by a bacterium on the skin.

As interesting as it seems, I don't suffer from psoriasis and don't really have an intention on reading the book among my other reads for work.

The book has a 4.5 rating with 179 reviews on Amazon. For someone like me, this amount of anecdotal evidence, is very convincing. You may have very different standards.

So what makes you so sure that this doctor understands the biochemistry? Does he also hold a degree in biochem? Sorry, I didn't read it.

I don't think he does understand, since that would require research, and this guy is a medical doctor.

I just don't get what the difference in reading books on lowering LDLs in the past and reading those of psoriasis doctor?

I don't know what you're talking about. I brought up the psoriasis book as an example of someone who's successfully treated hundreds, maybe thousands, of people and there are many testimonies from people who've used his methods on the internet. The consensus opinion on psoriasis is that it's incurable and it's not related to the foods you eat.

 

[kyuuei]

I don't know what you're talking about. I brought up the psoriasis book as an example of someone who's successfully treated hundreds, maybe thousands, of people and there are many testimonies from people who've used his methods on the internet. The consensus opinion on psoriasis is that it's incurable and it's not related to the foods you eat.

Because it is not curable. People develop psoriasis for all sorts of reasons. It's a group disease. That means the same disorder can be caused by so many different things that it is impossible to say any one thing is wrong. So yeah, hundreds of people can realize their body was reacting badly to their diet, and change it, and fix it. But that's 178 people out of the hundreds of thousands that suffer from the disease. That's only 7% even if only 100,000 people had the disease--and many more than that have it. If that were like.. The black plague's stats instead of psoriasis, I'd say that's a lousy cure rate, and I wouldn't bet my life on a 7% success rate. You can't blanket statement stuff like that. Cancer is cancer.. but not all cancers are the same. Almost all diseases are like that. They're each unique even if they have the same markers. Which means SOME people CAN cure themselves with diet and exercise.. and some people, no matter how hard you try, won't be cured by being healthy alone. Some people have weak immune systems.. some people are genetically predisposed to mental and physical illnesses. It's all far more complex than food and what people think is toxic or not. Those are only two elements in a large, complex equation.

 

[Tellenbach]

But that's 178 people out of the hundreds of thousands that suffer from the disease.

That's 178 people who took the time to write a review on Amazon. We really don't know how many people have tried this method and what the success rate is.

That's only 7% even if only 100,000 people had the disease

It's not 7%. I believe Dr. Pagano claims a 95% success rate with his patients.

Here are some before and after photos of Dr. Pagano's patients:

Patients Who Have Been Treated By Dr. Pagano

 

[Elocute]

Pagano thinks eczema, which is a type of dermatitis, is caused by the same problem with food sensititivy. As I understand it, acne is caused by a bacterium on the skin.



The book has a 4.5 rating with 179 reviews on Amazon. For someone like me, this amount of anecdotal evidence, is very convincing. You may have very different standards.



I don't think he does understand, since that would require research, and this guy is a medical doctor.



I don't know what you're talking about. I brought up the psoriasis book as an example of someone who's successfully treated hundreds, maybe thousands, of people and there are many testimonies from people who've used his methods on the internet. The consensus opinion on psoriasis is that it's incurable and it's not related to the foods you eat.

Pagano thinks eczema, which is a type of dermatitis, is caused by the same problem with food sensititivy. As I understand it, acne is caused by a bacterium on the skin.

Inflammatory acne is, but sebum blockages are also to cause, and it seems that they are more prominent. P Acnes bacteria lives off of this surplus of sebum. Some treatments treat it with antibiotics, while others attack over-production of sebum.

The point here was that there are tons of inflammatory diaereses of the skin; I happened just to mention acne because I was in the middle of putting on my retin-a on for it

Why do these foods selectively cause this type of dermatitis? "Leaky gut;" this is far, far from the tissue/cellular level I requested. I expected more science on why and how these toxins were being extruded via the skin. I have not read the book, so I asked you to explain it. I'm not trying to be mean, but the "leaky gut/toxins" aspect can take on many superficial "explanations." It's so vague and systemic that pretty much anything involving skin inflammation can be substituted into it.

The book has a 4.5 rating with 179 reviews on Amazon. For someone like me, this amount of anecdotal evidence, is very convincing. You may have very different standards.

Really? I can find similar diet reviews with even more plentiful reviews that have been scientifically shown to be ineffective or even dangerous. The placebo effect is so strong that most studies that are taken seriously in medicine are double blind.

I don't think he does understand, since that would require research, and this guy is a medical doctor.

So you've decided that doctors don't understand something, which previously, was a reason for distrust. Yet somehow these amazon reviews, from people likely to not have much knowledge on the subject, are trustworthy. Surely you're seeing some contradiction here.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Let me try a more direct approach: You've previously stated you were apprehensive of doctors, yet this one who hasn't much concurrent scientific research has won you over with 179 reviews on amazon. I've asked, in my opinion, very legitimate questions. Why does this selectively cause psoriasis? There's no real mechanism other than a leaky gut and toxins from foods that are a mainstay in the American diet? This man is suggesting systemic changes (food intake), and it's somehow more trustworthy to you than peer-reviewed journals?

Also, statistics play a role here. We can say "look at all those people; it must be right."
We know two things to be mostly true:
1) People are saying it works (179 results)
2) The Placebo effect is strong.

So the chance of people saying something works (especially if it's "natural"), given the placebo effect is quite high. Again, this is the reason for much larger sample sizes and double-blind studies. Also, you can't be sure of other correlates. There's no isolating the variables here. If you asked each person what their sex life consisted of (which can lower cortisol, an inflammatory chemical), their living climate (also a big contributor to skin), their stress levels (cortisol again), and other factors, you'd likely find that this population is not very homogenous. In this case, whatever effects present may have large relations to other variables.

And since the strength of these variables is probably unreported by these people, you can't really be sure. Since cortisol is linked to inflammation, perhaps the sheer fact that they believe they've found treatment lessens their stress and thus cortisol level.

4.5 and 179 reviews on a site also known to have paid shills would get you a very skeptical look from a statistician, who are often elected to interpret data such as this because of how entrenched other variables are.

I don't see where you have much room to talk of those relying on science when you may be arguing a common trick of statistics--"lumping," in layspeak (I forget the actual term myself). It's easy to go out and say something is 90% caused by X when you leave out A B C and D. It's the down-trodden look on many novice scientists when they find out that they over-correlated something.

 

[Tellenbach]

You've previously stated you were apprehensive of doctors

Where and when did I state this? I don't think I said such a thing.

yet this one who hasn't much concurrent scientific research has won you over with 179 reviews on amazon.

I care about results, not how many scientific papers you've churned out. If this book is a pile of crap, where are all the negative reviews? (see Hillary's Hard Choices, for an example of dog poop)

We know two things to be mostly true:
1) People are saying it works (179 results)

That's just from Amazon reviews. You'll find other testimonies on various psoriasis forums, but if you don't care for anecdotal evidence, then you won't find that convincing either.

2) The Placebo effect is strong.

The Placebo effect maxes out at around 30%.

So the chance of people saying something works (especially if it's "natural"), given the placebo effect is quite high. Again, this is the reason for much larger sample sizes and double-blind studies.

If the only truth you recognize are double blind studies, then I shouldn't have even bothered. See ya.

 

[Elocute]

Where and when did I state this? I don't think I said such a thing.



I care about results, not how many scientific papers you've churned out. If this book is a pile of crap, where are all the negative reviews? (see Hillary's Hard Choices, for an example of dog poop)



That's just from Amazon reviews. You'll find other testimonies on various psoriasis forums, but if you don't care for anecdotal evidence, then you won't find that convincing either.



The Placebo effect maxes out at around 30%.



If the only truth you recognize are double blind studies, then I shouldn't have even bothered. See ya.

No problem. It's grown titing. At the end of the day, no study will be published based on amazon reviews, which are known to have shills. The population is heterogenous and no factors can be isolated. You have not given me reason to believe any reason why this causes psoriasis selectively. Also, the placebo effect has varying degrees of effect; it's inherently a psychological factor. Even with this, you have still not accounted for other variables, something a statistician will frown upon. If you think you've said something, cool beans. All I heard was reasons why people should have a firmer grounding in statistics.

 

[johnnyyukon]

I'm all herbal, I smoke my steak.

 

[Elocute]

I'm all herbal, I smoke my steak.

Are you one of those guys that's used to tell if something is indica or sativa dominant by looking at it alone?

 

[johnnyyukon]

Are you one of those guys that's used to tell if something is indica or sativa dominant by looking at it alone?

I smoke it first.

If my heart races, Sativa. If it's a body stoned, Indica.

 

[Elocute]

I vape it first.

If my heart races, Sativa. If it's a body stoned, Indica.

Fixed for health. Gotta keep it on topic

 

[johnnyyukon]

Fixed for health. Gotta keep it on topic

Duh.

 

[kyuuei]

That's 178 people who took the time to write a review on Amazon. We really don't know how many people have tried this method and what the success rate is.



It's not 7%. I believe Dr. Pagano claims a 95% success rate with his patients.

Here are some before and after photos of Dr. Pagano's patients:

Patients Who Have Been Treated By Dr. Pagano

Psoriasis affects like 2 or 3% of the WORLD population. Of all different diets, lifestyles, and such. I'm not saying this doctor didn't do great work, or that it doesn't help some people.. Absolutely it does. But his basis is on the fact that it's leaky gut syndrome. I have a hard time believing that's the sole cause of it.

 

[Elocute]

Psoriasis affects like 2 or 3% of the WORLD population. Of all different diets, lifestyles, and such. I'm not saying this doctor didn't do great work, or that it doesn't help some people.. Absolutely it does. But his basis is on the fact that it's leaky gut syndrome. I have a hard time believing that's the sole cause of it.

Have you ever had a patient diagnosed with leaky gut? Like does this happen in medicine?

 

[kyuuei]

Have you ever had a patient diagnosed with leaky gut? Like does this happen in medicine?

I'm still new to medicine, but I can't say I have seen it yet.