Misunderstanding Empiricism

quote:

---

That's an unusually defensive response if you're not actually against vaccines.

---

Ah the old if-you-weren't-against-vaccines-you'd-answer trick. Classic.
My personal choices are not the issue of the topic.

quote:

---

I didn't have to search long, it's your first message in the prior thread.

---

Just as I thought, comprehension problems again.The first few words tell you that I'm interpreting something else. In this case the position of those naturopaths against vaccines. Just like the sentence above it. I expressed no personal skepticism.

quote:

---

Yet you defend herbs while questioning vaccines.

---

Again, the first few words tell you that I'm presenting the position of the naturopathic field. BTW, I'm not in the naturopathic field. And when you asked: It is appropriate to ask how they come by this feeling that herbs aren't untested, or aren't harmful if used correctly, or even how they know what "used correctly" means., I gave you another answer based on how I interpret the position of the naturopathic field. Then you went off on an herb tangent.Why do you feel these translate into personal skepticism on my part?I don't feel that I've strayed from my general position on healthcare. Neither of my comments made a case against vaccines or that everyone should stop getting vaccines nor does my final comment (Message 48). The point of the thread was to discuss whether vaccines were consistent with nathropathic philosophy. Again I don't see that this presents any undo skepticism, personal or otherwise.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo repair

PD, you're not making any sense to me. If what you actually mean requires the kind of Talmudic exercise you just went through, then you're rarely going to be understood. For example: You wrote a paragraph skeptical of the safety of vaccines, but you have no "personal skepticism"? Say what? I don't know if the skepticism you expressed is "personal" or not, and I don't care, but it was certainly skepticism of the scientific studies demonstrating the safety of vaccines.Here's another example from your Message 34: That sure reads like skepticism, even hostility, toward science and scientists. It is contradictory behavior to say that traditional and naturopathic medicine should be treated equally, then continue on to treat traditional medicine skeptically and naturopathy credulously.Anyone else out there, if PD is making sense to you, if you believe she's actually treating traditional and naturopathic medicine with equal skepticism, please step in and explain.--Percy

IMO, it's not making sense because you are trying to attach whatever I say to my personal life, instead of keeping the discussion emotionally uncommitted or detached.While you may be emotionally uncommitted or detached from my personal life, I am not. See the imbalance?
By making it about me, you're not allowing me to be emotionally uncommitted or detached.

quote:

---

You wrote a paragraph skeptical of the safety of vaccines, but you have no "personal skepticism"?

---

If you're talking about this paragraph... Those are some of the thoughts and questions expressed within the naturopathic field. You know, questions to spark discussion.Again the discussion was about whether vaccines are consistent with the naturopathic philosophy. To have a discussion someone needs to present the other side of the issue. Message 24 is just reality, Percy. Experience. My main issue is with the perfect world impression given by some on the science side of the discussions.If one side gets to present their position from an ideal standpoint minus all the human foibles, then the other side should also have that option. Not really fair to make one side subject to the real world and not the other.Implying that all CAM should be abolished until the appropriate tests are done, is unrealistic. Admittedly I could have gotten the wrong impression. You know how those pesky comprehension problems are.Look how many times I've mentioned politics and money. My guess is that you assume it is only aimed at traditional medicine. Neither side is lily white.Javaman addressed the reality very nicely in Message 55.This week on the news we now have counterfeit prescription drugs to deal with and they are getting into the pharmacies and hospitals. Bad MedicineNo this isn't a jab a traditional medicine, it is reality. We are at the mercy of those who prepare our medicine, supplements, herbs, OTC, food, etc. Reality isn't a clean room.

No one's interested in your personal life, least of all me. It isn't a personal question when I ask, "Aren't you against vaccines?" Everything I post here is in the context of the discussion, and in this case I was just asking for verification that your position in these discussions is to question the safety of vaccines.Anyway, you keep insisting that you don't hold the positions I think you do and that you're not doing what I think you're doing, so let's proceed as if that's so and see what happens.So you expressed an interest in looking at the studies (the empirical studies, to give a nod to the topic) showing the safety and efficacy of Midol, but as I've said, since it predates the FDA it is likely grandfathered, and it is easily possible that any gold-standard studies predate the Internet by too long a period of time to be found, so let's focus on Alleve (naproxen). The original studies were probably 15 to 20 years ago, let me see what I can find...Wow, the oldest studies listed at PubMed were 36 years ago, let me see if any are actually online...Here's the oldest one I could find online from 1974, it requires a free registration to gain access: Naproxen. A new non-hormonal anti-inflammatory agent.Take a look, let us know what you think.--Percy

My position concerning the topic of whether vaccines are consistent with the naturopathic philosophy is as I quoted earlier. Concerning vaccines in general, understanding the need for some vaccines doesn't mean I won't take a position to question the necessity of another or the method of application. My position is gray, not black or white.

quote:

---

So you expressed an interest in looking at the studies (the empirical studies, to give a nod to the topic) showing the safety and efficacy of Midol...

---

I have been told many times by nator that I had not shown her that castor oil packs work. My interest was in being shown how to demonstrate on a written forum that something actually works. It does what the promoters claim.Midol is probably a fairer example since it does predate the FDA just like castor oil packs. Although I really figured the specific one I gave was a newer combination. Description for Midol: This is the description for Aleve: Aleve isn't really claiming the same thing as Midol.Pamprin seems to claim the same type of results as Midol and it came out in 1962. I'd prefer using something that addresses camps, bloating, fatigue, backache and headache, mainly because bloating and fatigue aren't really pain related in my mind. Aleve is just a pain reliever.Anyway that was my request. For someone (nator) to demonstrate the acceptable manner in which to show on a written forum that something works. I chose something that deals with menstrual issues.I did read the rheumatoid arthritis article.

Didn't Nator already do that by citing scientific studies demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of the ingredients of Midol? And doesn't this stand in contrast with castor oil packs, for which there are no studies supporting any of the claims? What more is needed?One other thing you've said several times, so let me finally comment, is that each person should judge what works for him. I haven't commented because I think everyone would agree with that, but only to a point. For example, there are many studies showing the efficacy and safety of Tylenol, but it doesn't work for me, so I use Alleve.But there are no studies showing the safety and effectiveness of castor oil packs. I guess they seem harmless enough, so those who find they work for them should continue to use them, but not for any serious medical condition.Drugs approved by the FDA have been studied for safety and effectiveness, but their utility will vary from person to person, and so people should decide for themselves whether any particular drug works for them. Many drugs have long lists of side effects, and the fact that the drugs were approved anyway means that the side effects were very mild or only affected a very small subset of the study populations.Herbs are dirty drugs of questionable content without many formal studies and certainly without anything as demanding as the FDA approval process and should be avoided. And what did you think?The current message subtitle, "Reality Isn't a Clean Room", is actually particularly apropos for the entire discussion. It is obviously true, but it applies to all of reality, not just science. Reality is messy and complicated, and the best method we have for figuring out reality is the scientific method. Nothing else comes close.--Percy

quote:

---

Didn't Nator already do that by citing scientific studies demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of the ingredients of Midol?

---

Nator's response was Message 58.She provided links (which didn't work so I can't comment on them) concerning the testing of the individual ingredients in Midol. Her conclusions: By itself Acetaminophen works for pain better than a placebo.
Her comments don't cover whether caffeine (stimulant) deals with the fatigue.
Pyrilamine maleate which is supposed to be the diuretic she didn't find enough info.So the cramps, headache, and backache are covered; but not so clear on the bloating and fatigue.In Message 69 she covers a study that combines acetaminophen and caffeine. Even in this study bloating and fatigue aren't covered.My eventual response in Message 75: I didn't receive a response to the question.I also had another question:

quote:

---

And what did you think?

---

Nice. So where does one get financing for a study like that?

Pyrilamine maleate is an antihistamine. Antihistamines are diuretics. Midol contains 60 mgs of caffeine -- the same as a cup of coffee.Caffeine is also a diuretic.So there's your "bloating and fatigue" relief. Are you suggesting that 3 effective ingredients, when combined, are somehow rendered ineffective?

I wouldn't call it an extrapolation but an unanswered question. Drug interaction issues should have studies, too. But as I've said several times now, since Midol predates the FDA the studies might not exist, or they might have occurred too long ago to be findable online. That's why I suggested Alleve. What you want is an example of the best science can do for proving the safety and efficacy of a drug, and you're probably unlikely to find that for drugs that are just as old as castor oil packs. MBG would likely have better information, but I would think that medical researchers apply for funding from a variety of sources, such as hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH). I found a report from a 1999 workshop titled How to Fund Science: The Future of Medical Research, and it says federal funding for medical research in 1999 was $16 billion dollars, and that NIH was the primary funding agency. It also says that funding also comes from "for-profit and non-profit sources; trust funds and entitlements; and research funding through private and public payer insurance, Medicare, and tax credits."The paper you said you looked at, Naproxen. A new non-hormonal anti-inflammatory agent, actually mentions where it's outside support comes from on the last page: If other support was provided the paper doesn't say. Britain does have a nationalized health care system, and did 30 years ago, so if outside funding was necessary it might have come from there.Why do you care how studies are financed?--Percy

quote:

---

I wouldn't call it an extrapolation but an unanswered question.

---

What's the difference in relation to showing that something works?

quote:

---

The paper you said you looked at, Naproxen. A new non-hormonal anti-inflammatory agent, actually mentions where it's outside support comes from on the last page

---

I saw that, but wasn't really clear about overall funding.

quote:

---

Why do you care how studies are financed?

---

It takes money to get it done. Why not?

I stopped pressing you, and now I feel I'm being taken for a ride again. There's really no point in discussing things with you if pressing you causes you to get upset, and not pressing you causes you to avoid the topic.If you're really interested in research financing then you should probably propose a new thread. If you'd like to explore how empirical studies can provide assurance of the safety and efficacy of drugs then you need to address something I actually said, or at least that somebody said, about those issues.--Percy

I've e-mailed Midol re: clinical studies. Should they take more than a day or two to respond, I'll call their toll free number to get the info.

Sorry, just a curiosity question.

If you'd like to explore how empirical studies can provide assurance of the safety and efficacy of drugs then you need to address something I actually said, or at least that somebody said, about those issues.--Percy

All nator wanted to know in the Castor Oil Thread is "Do they work?"Given what has been shown in this thread, I feel that Dr. William McGarey's work shows that they work. From the book: The Oil That Heals, A Physician's Successes With Castor Oil Treatments; William A. McGarey, M.D.They surveyed 81 documented cases using castor oil packs. 57 used only castor oil packs and 44 used castor oil packs in combination with traditional methods.Of the 57 using only castor oil packs 47 had excellent results, 4 had good results and 6 had poor results. I made my limitations very clear before the castor oil thread was opened. So does the lack of double-blind studies negate documented results?The castor oil thread is closed and I have nothing more to add to it anyway, so this post is not an effort to continue that discussion.It is more about the information provided and why it is or is not acceptable as evidence that castor oil packs work.