Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sequel Thread To Holistic Doctors, and medicine
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 286 of 307 (427623)
10-12-2007 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Kitsune
10-12-2007 9:08 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
LindaLou writes:
Not going to happen, so matter how many lessons in skepticism people give me here. The scientific consensus underpinned by the best studies available can still be wrong, and I believe it is in many different ways.
No one is claiming that science can't be wrong. But the answer is not to return to methods proven to be even more wrong.
As has been said here many times, you're not wrong to use your own experience to decide your course of action for entire mainstream medical treatment. Where you're wrong is to generalize your experience into a condemnation and rejection of the medical establishment from drug companies to research facilities to practitioners. In the case of depression you're accepting only the evidence of those with negative experiences that correspond to your own, and rejecting the evidence of those that traditional medicine has helped because you would be unlikely to hear from them.
Those like my wife who have tried anti-depressants and found them to work (and work so incredibly well it's like magic) do not go to websites and complain. How many times do I have to tell you that valid conclusions do not derive from the experiences of a self-selected group who, even worse, are self-analyzed. If there are a thousand women at such websites, but 15 million women in the US take anti-depressants, how can you believe that that tiny self-selected subset can tell you anything reliable about the experience of the other 15 million women?
Let's assume your experience and the experience of all the other women at anti-depression websites are real, and that there are many more who don't go to websites, and that the total is 15,000 (I'm trying to be generous). That's only .1% of the 15 million total. If the ill effects are real but only one in a thousand, that doesn't justify rejection of the entire traditional medical establishment.
What you're doing is just incredibly wrongheaded.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 9:08 AM Kitsune has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 287 of 307 (427624)
10-12-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Kitsune
10-12-2007 9:08 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
LindaLou, do you think that the nonscientific approach to making claims about reality that Creationists use is sometimes the best way to determine something reliable about the natural world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 9:08 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 9:48 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 288 of 307 (427627)
10-12-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Kitsune
10-12-2007 9:08 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
quote:
If I were to decide to think like this, it would mean putting my trust in mainstream doctors again.
What you are falling into the trap of, LL, is the "team mentality". You think it is an all-or-nothing equation, which is isn't.
What you have been asked over and over again to address and what you have failed to do so as many times is the following;
Let us for the sake of discussion accept that mainstream medicine has all the flaws and nefarious, evil motives you say it does, right down to the not-for-profit physicians of Doctors Without Borders.
How does this lamentable situation make unscientific, untested medical practices any more valid?
You are making exactly the same argument as the Creationist who says that Evolution is false, therefore Genesis must be true.
You know that is a false dichotomy. You see it with the Creationists, but you are blind to it in your own dearly held beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 9:08 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 9:52 AM nator has replied

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


Message 289 of 307 (427628)
10-12-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by nator
10-12-2007 9:39 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
LindaLou, do you think that the nonscientific approach to making claims about reality that Creationists use is sometimes the best way to determine something reliable about the natural world?
Let me put it this way. Fossils exist. Biological processes can be seen to work and are understood. We can study DNA. These are all about as factual as you can get. A creationist has to deny the reality of all this, or claim that all scientists are liars.
Now let's look at the claim that most drugs are safe and effective. This is by no means supported by the same kind of incontrovertible evidence. It assumes that the germ theory of disease and everything else we think we know about the human body is correct. That drugs are usually the best way to treat a condition. That if we look hard enough, we can produce better and better drugs that target specific symptoms. That the studies carried out on the drugs are by and large unbiased, fair, and accurate. And that no other method of treatment is going to be better because no other method of treatment is as tried and tested.
It requires a person to have faith in mainstream opinion simply because it is mainstream opinion. In a way I'd say that this is an appeal to authority. There are facts that support other opinions, it's just that there aren't as many studies and the mainstream often does not want to listen.
The evidence for the efficacy of drugs is not of the same nature as the evidence for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 9:39 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:12 AM Kitsune has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 290 of 307 (427629)
10-12-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Kitsune
10-12-2007 9:08 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
Remember the story I told you about my mother in law who is suffering from Altzheimer's and Bipolar Disorder? Remember how she waspsychotic and violent before diagnosis and going on medications, and now that she is on that evil, allopathic medication she is pretty much back to being her old loving, funny, happy self? You never replied the first time I posted it.
My anecdote is different from yours. Now what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 9:08 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 9:57 AM nator has replied

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


Message 291 of 307 (427630)
10-12-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by nator
10-12-2007 9:48 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
How does this lamentable situation make unscientific, untested medical practices any more valid?
It means that people who have failed to find help in the allopathic system must find that help elsewhere, even if it means putting faith in a less-tested system. With the hope that in the future, that system will become more mainstream. How else is it going to happen if people are not trying it and saying it works? Look at the mainstream scientists here. How many of them are willing to consider any idea at all that deviates from the mainstream? This kind of system makes it extremely difficult for new ideas or innovations to take hold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 9:48 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:30 AM Kitsune has not replied

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


Message 292 of 307 (427631)
10-12-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by nator
10-12-2007 9:51 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
OK, yes I remember reading this. I'd say I'm honestly very glad that you sorted the problem. I'm after what works, not "alt med at all costs."
If it were me, then if she were as out of control as it sounds, I'd probably have her tranquilised to the point where she wasn't a danger to herself or others. I would then look into alt med therapies. Maybe by the time the disease had progressed that far, there wouldn't be a lot I could do. But I would try. I would try a diet and vitamins approach first.
I think the key here really is in prevention, but you can't get the past back. There are a lot of things associated with risk of alzheimer's that could be avoided.
If the drugs are working for you, then that's great. Point being-? I never said that all drugs should be dispensed with. Sometimes they are necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 9:51 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:18 AM Kitsune has replied

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


Message 293 of 307 (427632)
10-12-2007 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by Percy
10-12-2007 8:29 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
quote:
As the presentation on longevity I attended yesterday indicates, there are legitimate medical doctors out there who integrate naturalistic approaches into their practice while not going overboard to the point of rejecting the findings of traditional medicine or advocating quackery.
Thank you.
There are also naturopathic doctors who don't reject the findings of traditional medicine or advocate quackery.
She advised against the gallbladder flush that is advocated on the web.
She also doesn't advocate megadoses of Vitamin C or anything else.
My MD has checked out her credentials and talked with her and trusts her judgment within the scope of naturopathy.
As I keep saying. Yes, there are quacks, but they aren't all automatically quacks. There are uses for naturalistic approaches that work. Hopefully guidelines will be put in place to make it difficult for the quacks and easier for us laypeople to know who to trust in the absence of first hand evidence.
My issue was with the all or nothing statements from either side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 10-12-2007 8:29 AM Percy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 294 of 307 (427634)
10-12-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Kitsune
10-12-2007 9:48 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
quote:
Now let's look at the claim that most drugs are safe and effective.
That is misleading.
All drugs, including "natural" or herbal drugs with known effects, are on a sliding scale of effectiveness and safety depending upon the individual and a host of other complicating circumstances. All drugs are a tradeoff, since all drugs powerful enough to have a positive effect are powerful tenough to have a negative effect as well. That's what those inserts that come with your prescriptions (and are conspicuously absent from most herbal drugs) very explicitly state.
quote:
This is by no means supported by the same kind of incontrovertible evidence.
Since nobody is claiming such a simplistic thing, one wouldn't expect to find evidence for it.
quote:
It assumes that the germ theory of disease and everything else we think we know about the human body is correct.
Why wouldn't we accept this as correct to the best of our current scientific knowledge?
quote:
That drugs are usually the best way to treat a condition.
I don't know where you get this idea that all medical doctors think this. I have never had a doctor that acted like this.
Just becasue you had a bad experience and you ONLY speak with others who have had similar experiences doesn't mean that most people have doctors like yours.
Again, even if most people DID have doctors like yours, it STILL doesn't mean that anecdote is better than the scientific method at figuring out natural phenomena.
quote:
That if we look hard enough, we can produce better and better drugs that target specific symptoms.
This has been demonstrated to be the case over time, for some conditions. Of course, not without side effects, which are documented in that package insert.
quote:
That the studies carried out on the drugs are by and large unbiased, fair, and accurate.
Again, you call into question the integrity of thousands of scientists.
Again, you ignore the fact that if scientists can be biased, unfair, and inaccurate, so can promoters of alternative medicine. Furthermore, you continue to ignore the fact that peer review and the scientific method itself is designed to correct for inaccuracy, bias, and unfairness, whereas there is nothing in place to correct for such problems that are surely also present in the promoters of alternative medicine.
quote:
And that no other method of treatment is going to be better because no other method of treatment is as tried and tested.
The more accurate thing to say is that we don't know if the other treatments are better, worse, about the same, or ineffective unless they are tested.
Again, you assign nefarious motives to the entirety of one group, yet do not even consider that those same motives might be present in the group you personally identify with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 9:48 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Buzsaw, posted 10-12-2007 11:51 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 295 of 307 (427636)
10-12-2007 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Kitsune
10-12-2007 9:57 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
quote:
I would try a diet and vitamins approach first.
Why make her suffer with so much anxiety when the drugs she was prescibed worked so incredibly well?
She has Altzheimer's, LindaLou. Her brain is deteriorating. Rapidly.
Eating broccoli and taking Vitamin C would do fuck all to help her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 9:57 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 10:25 AM nator has replied

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


Message 296 of 307 (427637)
10-12-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by nator
10-12-2007 10:18 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
I'm not telling you what to do in your case; that is entirely your decision, and you know all the factors. I was saying what I myself would probably choose to do.
If we are trading anecdotes, you might be interested in some of the cases cited on this site. Scroll down and read "Freedom Beyond Hopelessness." It's about a daughter who helped her mother back to health when her mother had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and was close to death.
Mental illness is a symptom of an underlying problem. If the problem can be corrected before too much damage has been done, health will return. Drugs treat symptoms not root causes of illness. This is why I personally would choose to pursue some kind of nutritional therapy before I resorted to drugs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:18 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:42 AM Kitsune has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 297 of 307 (427639)
10-12-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Kitsune
10-12-2007 9:52 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
quote:
It means that people who have failed to find help in the allopathic system must find that help elsewhere, even if it means putting faith in a less-tested system.
Untested, you mean.
What you have done, LL, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You say that you don't think traditional western medicine is all bad, but you make it clear that you mistrust all scientific results, all doctors who prescribe meds, etc.
Instead of using your bullshit detector on alt med like you do for Creationism, you have simply swallowed pretty much everything that your ND has told you. What tests has your ND run on you to determine what has been damaged? You say your adrenal function is abnormal, but how do you know that? Blood tests?
Sometimes, bad shit happens and there's nothing anybody can do. Turning to untested, unreliable methods out of desperation is undrestandable, but it still means that the methods aren't reliable and are likely to be wrong.
quote:
How many of them are willing to consider any idea at all that deviates from the mainstream?
Scientists are made famous by deviating from the mainstream. Einstein comes to mind as a good example. Darwin is another.
quote:
This kind of system makes it extremely difficult for new ideas or innovations to take hold.
Yes, and this is as it should be.
New ideas must be thoroughly put through the wringer of critical review and replication to see if they hold up before they are granted provisional acceptance in the greater scientific community.
This has proved to be the best way we know to avoid making mistakes, since mistakes, especially in the medical field, can be costly.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 9:52 AM Kitsune has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 298 of 307 (427644)
10-12-2007 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Kitsune
10-12-2007 10:25 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
quote:
Mental illness is a symptom of an underlying problem.
That is true, but it is also incredibly vague.
quote:
If the problem can be corrected before too much damage has been done, health will return.
Sure.
quote:
Drugs treat symptoms not root causes of illness.
(like your herbal drugs, right?)
And drugs alone are not typically the preferred treatment for mental illness. Talk therapy is always a preferred component. Usually, it is the patient which refuses the talk therapy and goes with the drugs-alone approach.
quote:
This is why I personally would choose to pursue some kind of nutritional therapy before I resorted to drugs.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that nutritional therapy is effective in elderly people with rapid-onset Altzheimers and severe Bipolar disorder?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 10:25 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Kitsune, posted 10-12-2007 11:46 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 299 of 307 (427681)
10-12-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by nator
10-12-2007 10:42 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
Do you have any evidence to suggest that nutritional therapy is effective in elderly people with rapid-onset Altzheimers and severe Bipolar disorder?
Yes, if you are willing to have a look at the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine:
Alzheimer's Dementia: Some possible mechanisms related to vitamins, trace elements and minerals, suggesting a possible treatment
Nutritional Aspects of Senile Dementia of the Alzheimer Type
DoctorYourself.com: Alzheimer's Disease
nutritional studies on patients with bipolar disorder
An article in Discover Magazine which talks about EMPowerplus, a dietary supplement for bipolar with an interesting history
Another article from Discover Magazine, titled : Can common nutrients curb violent tendencies and dispel clinical depression?
One reason that orthomolecular psychiatry was treated with such derision in the 1960s and early ’70s was that biologists had only a faint understanding of the physical effects that nutrients had on the brain. In the past two decades, however, researchers have begun to gain a better understanding of the brain’s biochemical machinery. Psychiatrists now know that nutrients are the brain’s backstage crew, endlessly constructing and maintaining cellular set designs, directing players to their marks. They also play important roles in the creation of chemical messengers thought to mediate mood, such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:42 AM nator has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 300 of 307 (427682)
10-12-2007 11:49 AM


Summation Time
We're very near the 300 message limit. People should post summations if they're so inclined, but discussion should cease. Please, no replies to summations. I'll leave this thread open until tomorrow morning.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024