Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sequel Thread To Holistic Doctors, and medicine
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 256 of 307 (427109)
10-09-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Kitsune
10-09-2007 5:21 PM


Re: Staying alive to 100: Living longer, living stronger
LindaLou writes:
What exactly are her methods?...Does she practice orthomolecular medicine?
Would it really be very useful to know these things, since she isn't someone from your neck of the woods and so isn't a practitioner that you'd ever consider seeing, even if her methods were exactly what you're seeking?
Anyway, she'll probably give a pretty good idea of her methods during her presentation. I'll pass the information on.
I'd like to see an example, for instance of her cancer protocol.
Not sure I understand this one. Shouldn't the "cancer protocol" for any family physician be referral to a specialist? Or did you mean something else?
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of questions about alternative medicine rather than about the person giving the presentation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Kitsune, posted 10-09-2007 5:21 PM Kitsune has not replied

JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 257 of 307 (427165)
10-10-2007 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by molbiogirl
10-05-2007 12:04 PM


Re: Vitamins and Optical Isomerism
What surprises me is that, generally, a Vitamin isn't a particular chemical structure, but a group of related compounds.
Only when industrially produced on the cheap, Java.
Naturally occurring vitamins that are simply extracted and then packaged for sale are not "more than one structure (enantiomer)". It's the process used to synthesize vitamins that results in a racemic mixture.
Molbiogirl, I'm a trained chemist. Don't patronise me.
Vitamin A, Vitamin K, and a good number of the B vitamins aren't even optically active, so how can you have racemic mixtures of them?
Note that I said 'a group of related compounds', not 'a mixture of related compounds'.
If you'll take the trouble to look up the structures you'll find that, just as I stated in my previous email, most vitamins (Vitamin C is an exception) are ranges of similar organic compounds differing in carbon chain length or substitutions on an aromatic ring.
It's not that Vitamin E, for example, is a mixture of different compounds, but that several different compounds can be described as 'Vitamin E'.
Edited by JavaMan, : No reason given.
Edited by JavaMan, : Changed example to vitamin E, for clarity

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by molbiogirl, posted 10-05-2007 12:04 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by molbiogirl, posted 10-10-2007 12:49 PM JavaMan has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 258 of 307 (427214)
10-10-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by JavaMan
10-10-2007 4:07 AM


Re: Vitamins and Optical Isomerism
Note that I said 'a group of related compounds', not 'a mixture of related compounds'.
You're right. I assumed you meant mixture.
If you'll take the trouble to look up the structures you'll find that, just as I stated in my previous email, most vitamins (Vitamin C is an exception) are ranges of similar organic compounds differing in carbon chain length or substitutions on an aromatic ring.
Do you meant to say that vitamin A is "similar" to vitamin B or do you mean to say that there are substitutions on the vitamin A ring?
It's not that Vitamin E, for example, is a mixture of different compounds, but that several different compounds can be described as 'Vitamin E'.
Comparison of supplementation of RRR-alpha-tocopherol and racemic alpha- tocopherol in humans. Effects on lipid levels and lipoprotein susceptibility to oxidation
Arteriosclerosis and Thrombosis, Vol 13, 601-608
wiki writes:
Synthetic vitamin E is now manufactured as all-racemic alpha tocopheryl acetate with three chiral centers, with only one alpha tocopherol molecule (moiety) in 8 molecules as actual R, R,R-alpha tocopherol.
Vitamin A, Vitamin K, and a good number of the B vitamins aren't even optically active, so how can you have racemic mixtures of them?
The Chemistry of Vitamin A and Vision
Volume 29, Issue 5, Date: May 1990, Pages: 461-480
A racemic mixture of [(I 5Q3H]- and [(15R)-3H]-all-trans-retinol plus [I 5-14C]- all-trans-retinol was administered to either rats or frogs.
Formation of hydroxyvitamin K by vitamin K epoxide reductase of warfarin-resistant rats
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 258, Issue 7, 4372-4380, Apr, 1983
Hydroxyvitamin K is formed from both enantiomers of racemic vitamin K epoxide with little stereoselectivity for the configuration of either the oxirane ring or the phytyl side chain.
Underreporting of Dietary Supplements to Health-Care Providers Does Great Harm
Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74:531-532
All vitamin supplements are chemically factory-synthesized, except for vitamin B12, which is biosynthesized. Chemical synthesis produces racemic vitamins, of which only the 1-form is natural (meaning it is the form present in plants and the form that is fully vitamin-active in humans)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by JavaMan, posted 10-10-2007 4:07 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by JavaMan, posted 10-10-2007 3:57 PM molbiogirl has replied

JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 259 of 307 (427247)
10-10-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by molbiogirl
10-10-2007 12:49 PM


Re: Vitamins and Optical Isomerism
You do like to argue, don't you?
If you'll take the trouble to look up the structures you'll find that, just as I stated in my previous email, most vitamins (Vitamin C is an exception) are ranges of similar organic compounds differing in carbon chain length or substitutions on an aromatic ring.
Do you meant to say that vitamin A is "similar" to vitamin B or do you mean to say that there are substitutions on the vitamin A ring?
Don't be silly. My original email was perfectly clear. 'Vitamin A' describes one range of compounds; 'Vitamin E' describes another, quite different, range of compounds.
javaman writes:
Vitamin A, Vitamin K, and a good number of the B vitamins aren't even optically active, so how can you have racemic mixtures of them?
molbiogirl writes:
The Chemistry of Vitamin A and Vision
Volume 29, Issue 5, Date: May 1990, Pages: 461-480
A racemic mixture of [(I 5Q3H]- and [(15R)-3H]-all-trans-retinol plus [I 5-14C]- all-trans-retinol was administered to either rats or frogs.
Here is the structure of retinol, the most common form of Vitamin A. Show me where the chiral centre is. (For everyone but molbiogirl , there aren't any chiral centres in this molecule, so it can't have enantiomers).
If you look closely at the quote you provided, you'll see that they're using tritium and carbon-14 to radioactively tag the molecule. It's the introduction of a tritium molecule at position 15 that creates a chiral centre.
Vitamin E
This is Vitamin E (the image is from the Wikipedia page on Vitamin E). As you can see, any one of these eight compounds can be called Vitamin E.
Vitamin K
And here is one form of Vitamin K known as phylloquinone:
Now this structure, like retinol, doesn't have any chiral centres, so how come your authors are dealing with a racemic mixture? Let's look at the quote again:
Hydroxyvitamin K is formed from both enantiomers of racemic vitamin K epoxide with little stereoselectivity for the configuration of either the oxirane ring or the phytyl side chain.
Ah, they're dealing with an epoxy derivative of Vitamin K, i.e. it's the derivative that has racemic forms not Vitamin K itself.
All vitamin supplements are chemically factory-synthesized, except for vitamin B12, which is biosynthesized. Chemical synthesis produces racemic vitamins, of which only the 1-form is natural (meaning it is the form present in plants and the form that is fully vitamin-active in humans)
I don't know why you've included that quote. I'm not interested in dietary supplements - I was just providing PurpleDawn with some neutral advice about vitamin structure. Personally I think dietary supplements are a waste of time .

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by molbiogirl, posted 10-10-2007 12:49 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by molbiogirl, posted 10-10-2007 5:06 PM JavaMan has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 260 of 307 (427257)
10-10-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by JavaMan
10-10-2007 3:57 PM


Re: Vitamins and Optical Isomerism
'Vitamin A' describes one range of compounds; 'Vitamin E' describes another, quite different, range of compounds.
That's just it. I know vitamin E is 8 different compounds (and is a racemic mixture) but I don't see how vitamin A is a range of compounds. Are you talking about beta-carotene v. retinol?
It's the introduction of a tritium molecule at position 15 that creates a chiral centre.
My bad. I was in a hurry this morning.
Here's vitamin B.
Woodward’s Synthesis of Vitamin B
Resonance June 2003
Vitamin B 12 is a large and complex molecule, containing 9 chiral centres (marked with an asterix), with 6 of the chiral centres linked together in a chain.
Here's vitamin K.
Food Chemistry
Hans-Dieter Belitz
2004, Springer
ISBN 3540408185
The K-group vitamins are napthoquinone derivatives which differ in their side chains. The structure of vitamin K1 is shown in formula 6.4. The configuration at carbons 7' and 11'is R and corresponds to the natural phytol. Racemic vitamin K is synthesized from optically inactive isophytol and has the same biological activity as the natural product.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by JavaMan, posted 10-10-2007 3:57 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by JavaMan, posted 10-11-2007 4:24 AM molbiogirl has replied

JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 261 of 307 (427335)
10-11-2007 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by molbiogirl
10-10-2007 5:06 PM


Re: Vitamins and Optical Isomerism
molbiogirl writes:
That's just it. I know vitamin E is 8 different compounds (and is a racemic mixture) but I don't see how vitamin A is a range of compounds. Are you talking about beta-carotene v. retinol?
Here's the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on Vitamin A:
Wikipedia writes:
Vitamin A is an essential human nutrient. It exists not as a single compound, but in several forms. In foods of animal origin, the major form of vitamin A is an alcohol (retinol), but can also exist as an aldehyde (retinal), or as an acid (retinoic acid)...All forms of Vitamin A have a Beta-ionone ring to which an isoprenoid chain is attached. This structure is essential for vitamin activity.
That seems pretty clear to me.
molbiogirl writes:
Here's vitamin B.
You're responding too quickly. I know that vitamin B12 is optically active. That's why none of my earlier posts claims that it isn't. Generally, I've avoided talking about the B vitamins, because that's a whole other level of complexity; the eight B vitamins are completely different structures, which is why they're given different numbers.
molbiogirl writes:
The K-group vitamins are napthoquinone derivatives which differ in their side chains. The structure of vitamin K1 is shown in formula 6.4. The configuration at carbons 7' and 11'is R and corresponds to the natural phytol. Racemic vitamin K is synthesized from optically inactive isophytol and has the same biological activity as the natural product.
My turn to admit a mistake. Yes, vitamin K1 is optically active. Can you see why I missed the two chiral centres?
Molbiogirl, can I give you some advice? We're just doing high school chemistry here. There's no need for literature searches. You could have cleared up your own misunderstandings just by looking up the chemical structures of vitamins, and you could have cleared up my mistake about the optical activity of Vitamin K just by pointing to the structure.
You might think that the literature searches make you look intelligent and professional, but they actually make you look as though you don't know what you're talking about.
Spend more time thinking, and less time trying to look superior.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by molbiogirl, posted 10-10-2007 5:06 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by molbiogirl, posted 10-11-2007 12:11 PM JavaMan has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 262 of 307 (427338)
10-11-2007 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Kitsune
10-08-2007 9:51 AM


Statistical Bias
Unfortunately for us (laypeople) testing for safety and effectiveness of medicines, food additives, supplements, etc. are done by people we don't know. We also don't have behind the scenes access.
A statistician in Lilly's research department used his own company as an example of statistical bias while teaching a class. This doesn't mean that those touting the natural don't do the same thing.
IMO, that's why laypeople turn to the experiences of others for additional input. Some women swear by Midol. I tried it and it didn't work for me. That's pretty much how we function.
Someone has a good experience similar to our need. We look into and possibly try it. If it doesn't work, we keep looking.
Even health practitioners vary due to experience. They can miss something or catch something based on their experience.
So while anecdotes are soft evidence and not viable for declaring worldwide edicts, they do give us (laypeople) insight closer to home.
An anecdote in Reader's Digest can help a stumped doctor help his patient.
An anecdote of a friend's cough can help another doctor find cancer in his patient.
Anecdotes are not useless. As I've said before, in the trenches we don't have time to wait for scientific tests to verify our need and determine an action.
The FDA has lists of those items determined to be GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe). There is also a list of requests to rate items as GRAS and what has been accepted.
We can choose to use traditional cancer treatments and still die.
We can choose alternative avenues and still die.
We can choose a combination and still die.
We can also make a wrong decision and die from something simple.
There are no guarantees.
Traditional cancer treatments aren't guaranteed to cure, they only claim to extend.
Yes, we have to beware of quacks; but that doesn't negate the concept of using natural means to enable our bodies to heal themselves. In complement with more traumatic issues it should give our bodies a greater chance of recovery.
I still feel that those methods that work for the layperson will find their place in healthcare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Kitsune, posted 10-08-2007 9:51 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Percy, posted 10-11-2007 10:23 AM purpledawn has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 263 of 307 (427384)
10-11-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by purpledawn
10-11-2007 7:46 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
The problem is not anecdotal data. When anecdotal data is all you have, then that's what you go with. Or when testing says that Midol works for about x% of women, then if you try it and find it doesn't work for you, then that's what you go with. Tylenol doesn't work for me, and there didn't need to be a double-blind placebo-based study for me to figure that out. But I wouldn't even consider Tylenol if it were a folk remedy instead of a carefully studied drug with regard to efficacy and safety.
But how to assess the available evidence? Ah, there's the rub! Though most people don't realize this, people in general are weak at informally assessing evidence except of the simplest kind, like whether Midol works for you. When the dataset is just yourself in the present, you can usually make a pretty good determination. But one can't measure longterm effects on oneself, or reach valid conclusions from a varied dataset, say of reports from friends. How many people have had a restaurant or a movie highly recommended by friends, only to discover they didn't like it at all?
And so the real problem is not anecdotal data, which is known to be unreliable but in some circumstances it is all you have, but of rejecting available scientific data in favor of anecdotal data.
Anecdotal reports should always be considered with a cake of salt. At a minimum you want reliable reports by trained observers (say, a doctor's experience in his practice), and ideally you want carefully conducted scientific studies. And you definitely should be skeptical of advice from someone who doesn't understand this, which would be most people.
Here's an example of the problem. You have two medications to consider, each recommended by a friend. One friend raves about his medication, saying how quickly it worked and how wonderful it made him feel. The other friend says his medication worked for him, but only after a week and only for the specific symptoms, and that there are possible side-effects, and that there were a number of other medications that it shouldn't be combined with, and that seeing a doctor before making a decision might be a good idea.
Which medication would you try? The first one, right? But the advice you received might say much more about your friends than it does about the medications. You'd have to take their reliability into account, too, and you can see how quickly it becomes very subjective, especially given placebo effects, common wisdom, cultural background information about known folk remedies, etc.
Bottom line: if there's scientifically valid information, go with that.
But even with scientific information there's a problem. Both you and LindaLou have been very successful at finding scientific views contrary to the mainstream, both in technical papers and, in LindaLou's case, also much older work, such as Breggin et. el., a book from 1912, testimony before Congress in 1962, etc. Those who want to believe something generally have no problem finding support for it, and experience tells us that talking someone out of a false belief is usually just not possible.
A different spin on the same problem is to put greater weight on evidence that agrees with what you already believe. Christopher Hitchens put it well when he recently said in an interview on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe that (paraphrasing), "Objectivity means that in a confrontation with the evidence I'm willing to change my mind." Naturally when he refers to evidence, he means all the evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by purpledawn, posted 10-11-2007 7:46 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Kitsune, posted 10-11-2007 10:49 AM Percy has replied
 Message 269 by purpledawn, posted 10-11-2007 1:27 PM Percy has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 264 of 307 (427394)
10-11-2007 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Percy
10-11-2007 10:23 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
experience tells us that talking someone out of a false belief is usually just not possible.
No chance of persuading you of anything then Percy
I enjoyed this post though. You come across with a very patient and logical style which is also entertaining. Everything you've said here is eminently sensible. I also appreciate the fact that you never lost your cool with me or tried any bating tactics, which is more than can be said for others elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Percy, posted 10-11-2007 10:23 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 10-11-2007 11:37 AM Kitsune has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 265 of 307 (427411)
10-11-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Kitsune
10-11-2007 10:49 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
LindaLou writes:
experience tells us that talking someone out of a false belief is usually just not possible.
No chance of persuading you of anything then Percy
But don't miss the main point. While one take on what I said is simply that people can be difficult to persuade, the fuller context points to significant differences in the types of evidence cited by the mainstream versus the fringe. For you, rejection by the mainstream is a plus, e.g., Breggin. Data from any era is significant if it agrees with you, such as your citations from 1962 and 1912. Data inconsistent with your view is minimized, such as the historical information I provided about epidemics that are now a thing of the past. The motives of those in the mainstream are questioned.
A scientific approach would stress the best and latest data as measured by how well well-established scientific protocols were followed, and would leave out subjective issues such as motive or whether the findings are consistent with what is already believed.
This is the approach taken to arrive at the current scientific consensus, which exists because scientists judged which were the best studies and accepted their findings. Fringe views are fringe because few scientists judge the studies supporting them to be of sufficient quality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Kitsune, posted 10-11-2007 10:49 AM Kitsune has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 266 of 307 (427425)
10-11-2007 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by JavaMan
10-11-2007 4:24 AM


Re: Vitamins and Optical Isomerism
Molbiogirl, can I give you some advice? We're just doing high school chemistry here. There's no need for literature searches. You could have cleared up your own misunderstandings just by looking up the chemical structures of vitamins, and you could have cleared up my mistake about the optical activity of Vitamin K just by pointing to the structure.
Little secret, Java.
I hate chirality.
I hated it when I took Organic, I hate it now.
I'm a biochemist, not a chemist.
So if I have a question, I just look stuff up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by JavaMan, posted 10-11-2007 4:24 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by JavaMan, posted 10-11-2007 12:14 PM molbiogirl has replied

JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 267 of 307 (427426)
10-11-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by molbiogirl
10-11-2007 12:11 PM


Re: Vitamins and Optical Isomerism
Little secret, Java.
I hate chirality.
I hated it when I took Organic, I hate it now.
I'm a biochemist, not a chemist.
So if I have a question, I just look stuff up
Yes, I guessed. Just teasing .

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by molbiogirl, posted 10-11-2007 12:11 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by molbiogirl, posted 10-11-2007 12:32 PM JavaMan has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 268 of 307 (427430)
10-11-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by JavaMan
10-11-2007 12:14 PM


Re: Vitamins and Optical Isomerism
Yes, I guessed. Just teasing.
Hells bells, man.
It's like asking a biologist to do math.
Srsly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by JavaMan, posted 10-11-2007 12:14 PM JavaMan has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 269 of 307 (427437)
10-11-2007 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Percy
10-11-2007 10:23 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
quote:
But even with scientific information there's a problem. Both you and LindaLou have been very successful at finding scientific views contrary to the mainstream, both in technical papers and, in LindaLou's case, also much older work, such as Breggin et. el., a book from 1912, testimony before Congress in 1962, etc. Those who want to believe something generally have no problem finding support for it, and experience tells us that talking someone out of a false belief is usually just not possible.
That's why at some point we have to get down to something more specific than general classification of either side.
Given that I personally don't have an all or nothing approach to my healthcare, what is wrong with approaching my health as naturally as possible?
Nutrition is important per traditional medicine.
So why is it wrong to give my body food with as little chemicals as possible?
Why is it wrong to give my body the vitamins it does need, when my food isn't providing enough?
Menopause and perimenopause are natural occurences.
So why is it wrong to prepare for the change naturally?
If a gallbladder is infected, it needs to be removed.
If it isn't infected, why is it wrong to maintain the health of the gallbladder as naturally as possible? (3yrs no problems)
Surgeons tell us that there is always a risk when one goes under anestheisia.
So why is it wrong to opt out if the situation is not life threatening and opt to try a more natural approach?
High cholesterol is bad and according to traditional medicine high cholesterol may be from food or genetics (maybe both).
If it's not sky high, why is it wrong to find out what makes my body produce more cholesterol and deal accordingly?
I don't see that the concept of giving your body a chance to heal itself naturally goes against mainstream science.
Now if you want to show me that giving my body what it needs to maintain and heal itself is wrong, then show me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Percy, posted 10-11-2007 10:23 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Percy, posted 10-11-2007 2:57 PM purpledawn has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 270 of 307 (427462)
10-11-2007 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by purpledawn
10-11-2007 1:27 PM


Re: Statistical Bias
Since you're making a similar misinterpretation as LindaLou, I can see I didn't word things clearly enough.
It isn't an issue of natural versus non-natural. And it's not an issue of how do you persuade people.
The issue is the selection and interpretation of evidence. Those determined to believe something will always be able to select and interpret evidence in supportive ways. Those infected by the "true believer" disease can rarely be convinced that their beliefs are coloring their selection and interpretation of evidence.
So what are the clues that one might have this disease? Well, citing data from 1912 is a good clue. Concluding that being part of the consensus is bad is another one. Calling people's motives into question is another good one. Avoiding mainstream peer-reviewed journals is another one.
Basically, if you're not seeking the most recent and highest quality data based upon how well established scientific protocols have been followed, then you're not really exercising good scientific judgement.
In the entire history of quackery, there is not a single instance of any of it ever moving into the scientific mainstream. ESP is a great example. The few early ESP studies of quality indicated that perhaps it was possible that there was an actual phenomenon lurking on the very edge of detectability, but after at least 50 years of study and after huge improvements in experimental and statistical approaches, ESP studies can still only indicate that perhaps there is a phenomenon lurking on the very edge of detectability. And of course, only true believers actually believe this. Most scientists conclude that all ESP research has succeeded in doing is demonstrating that the phenomenon does not exist. The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory (PEAR) closed its doors this year after 28 years of futility (A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close Its Doors).
And so it is with alternative medicine. Believers will continue to believe that if science would just study the claims of alternative medicine properly that it would be found valid, despite that the quality studies at best indicate that there may perhaps be an effect lurking around the edges of detectability.
And the same is true of the anti-vaccination crowd. No matter how many studies demonstrate that vaccinations don't cause autism or whatever the claim might be, they'll continue to believe that when the science is done right they'll find the effect.
And the true believers might be right! After all, science is tentative and will always change its views in light of new evidence or improved insight. But history is against them. It just doesn't happen. A hundred years from now there will still be believers in UFOs and ESP and Bigfoot and alternative medicine, just as there were a hundred years ago.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Missing "not".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by purpledawn, posted 10-11-2007 1:27 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by purpledawn, posted 10-11-2007 3:19 PM Percy has replied
 Message 272 by Kitsune, posted 10-11-2007 3:48 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024