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:   Holistic Doctors, and medicine
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 304 (417499)
08-21-2007 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by mike the wiz
08-21-2007 10:34 AM


Re: Wholistic The Only Safe And Effective Way
quote:
You can say nothing moe than yur results, but it won't prove that faith in these measures is false.
That's where replication comes in, mike.
Lots of different stabs at the issue by many researchers, and eventually a picture begins to form.
Is it perfect knowledge? No.
Is it proven to be a reliable way to figure out what generally works and what doesn't? Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2007 10:34 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2007 11:15 AM nator has not replied
 Message 83 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2007 11:23 AM nator has replied

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


Message 79 of 304 (417500)
08-21-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by riVeRraT
08-21-2007 10:41 AM


Re: Herbs, Medicine, or Natural
quote:
This whole holistic thing relies on you believing it will work, before you even get treatment. I just got off the phone with my holistic doctor, and that was her exact words.
She's a quack then.
What she just told you is that it is your fault the "treatment" she prescribed isn't working because you don't have enough faith in it.
She also just described her "treatement" as a placebo.
I hope you didn't drop too much cash on her herbs and appointment, rat.
Real drugs have an effect on the body regardless of if the person believes that they will work or not.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by riVeRraT, posted 08-21-2007 10:41 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by molbiogirl, posted 08-21-2007 1:06 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 80 of 304 (417501)
08-21-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by mike the wiz
08-21-2007 10:43 AM


Re: Wholistic The Only Safe And Effective Way
quote:
I have hayfever and take chlorphenamine maleate. Apprently works on hayfever, skin allergies, food allergies, pet allergies, mould spores etc.
Does this mean, in your opinion, it will certainly work on an individual with one of these problems?
No.
But it has been demonstrated that is will help a majority of people with these problems better than placebo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2007 10:43 AM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 97 of 304 (417659)
08-23-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by purpledawn
08-21-2007 11:10 AM


Re: Not a Contest
quote:
We don't have to choose only one type of health care to manage our health. We do what works for us, but proper nutrition is considered an important part of healing.
Sure, but proper nutrition isn't seperate from conventional medicine at all. In fact, the reason we know the "how and why" of antioxidants' healthful properties is through careful scientific study.
If there's anything that doctors and the government health agencies harp on constantly it is to eat properly, exercise, don't smoke, don't drink too much, get enough sleep, and manage stress.
Nobody needs an "alternative healthcare provider" to tell them any of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by purpledawn, posted 08-21-2007 11:10 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by anastasia, posted 08-23-2007 6:00 PM nator has replied
 Message 110 by purpledawn, posted 08-23-2007 8:41 PM nator has replied

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


Message 98 of 304 (417660)
08-23-2007 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by mike the wiz
08-21-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Wholistic The Only Safe And Effective Way
quote:
Think about it. You say you will only accept that which is evidenced, yet here, when somebody only has their testimony as evidence, even if their testimony is true, it is unacceptable.
There's no way of determining if their testimony is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2007 1:34 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 100 of 304 (417663)
08-23-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by mike the wiz
08-21-2007 11:23 AM


Re: Wholistic The Only Safe And Effective Way
quote:
The picture that forms.
What is that exactly?
It is kind of like this, Mike.
We observe that milkmaids that contracted and survived cowpox seemed to have gained the benefit of an immunity or resistance to the much more deadly smallpox.
It eventually occurs to people that maybe getting a weakened form of a similar disease makes a person immune or resistant to that disease.
That idea is tested, and it seems to work very well, although not perfectly.
Thus, the vaccination was born.
quote:
That under certain conditioned circumstances, you get certain results, based on the conditions ONLY. Anything outside those tests, are not under evaluation, nor are they regulated by potentially faulty implications.
In the above example, what are some "potentially faulty implications" that might occur?
Should we discount the effectiveness, overall, of vaccinations due to the exceptions, as you suggest?
quote:
Such as;
If God answered prayer, then he'd get better.
I am positive that lots of people, probably the vast majority, prayed to God to cure them of smallpox, or keep them from catching it at all. God ignored the pleas of around 600 million people who died from the disease from the 18th century into the 20th century.
Isn't it strange that people's prayers weren't answered until science developed a vaccine to prevent people from getting it?
quote:
What is actually proved, is that the experiments work under their own rules. But you Shraff, blindly treat them as some kind of unbreakable absolutely conclusive activity.
No, I don't. Stop erecting strawmen.
I'll repeat what I already wrote and you apparently never read:
Mike wrote:
quote:
Does this mean, in your opinion, it will certainly work on an individual with one of these problems?
Nator replied:
No.
But it has been demonstrated that is will help a majority of people with these problems better than placebo.
quote:
Science is tentative is it not? Even the scientists must agree with everything I have said. They know they have to.
They would not agree with strawmen and faulty logic, mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by mike the wiz, posted 08-21-2007 11:23 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by mike the wiz, posted 08-23-2007 7:38 PM nator has replied

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


Message 101 of 304 (417664)
08-23-2007 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Taz
08-21-2007 9:00 PM


allergies and heredity
quote:
I wonder... does anyone here know if being allergic to certain things, like strawberry and dog, is genetic or not?
Yes.
Allergies are an abnormal immune response, and the immune system can certainly be affected by heredity.
In fact, left-handedness is associated with a greater propensity to have allergies, so that tends to support the heredity idea, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Taz, posted 08-21-2007 9:00 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 102 of 304 (417665)
08-23-2007 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by mike the wiz
08-23-2007 5:42 PM


Re: Treat the CAUSE?
quote:
People like Shraff want you to be worldly - and accept those worldly toxins, and sin-agents so you can then go to the doctor, and shraff can say; "see - we can fix the problem, not God, he can't fix anything".
What kind of crap are you spouting about me now, mike?
That has to be one of the worst misrepresentations of my position I have ever read here on EvC, and that is saying a lot.
Clearly, being a believer makes you a really dishonest debator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by mike the wiz, posted 08-23-2007 5:42 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by mike the wiz, posted 08-23-2007 7:57 PM nator has replied

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


Message 103 of 304 (417666)
08-23-2007 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by anastasia
08-23-2007 6:00 PM


Re: Not a Contest
quote:
True, but the alternative health people somehow provide the mental support or whatever that gets people into action.
Really?
I'd like to see the stats on that.
Mostly, I think that the alternative health people are fleecing the public with expensive, mostly worthless (sometimes harmful, and very occasionally slightly helpful) quack remedies and a lot of woo-woo, feel-good, meaningless jargon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by anastasia, posted 08-23-2007 6:00 PM anastasia has not replied

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


Message 109 of 304 (417686)
08-23-2007 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by mike the wiz
08-23-2007 7:38 PM


mike's retreat into sophistry
Mike, it must be nice to be able to do the mental gymnastics neccessary to enjoy all the benefits of science and technology, and at the same time insist that we really don't have any idea whasoever if smallpox hadn't wiped out humanity due to the power of prayer.
What an intellectually bankrupt stance you have chosen.
If you weant to believe that God saved some people, but not those 600 million, then fine, believe it, but your belief doesn't equal truth or reality. That is not the point of this discussion.
The point of this discussion is the fact that the holistic practitioner riverrat went to is a quack who blamed him for his lack of success becasue he didn't have enough faith that the herbs she prescribed him would work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by mike the wiz, posted 08-23-2007 7:38 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by riVeRraT, posted 08-25-2007 10:41 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 111 of 304 (417688)
08-23-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by mike the wiz
08-23-2007 7:57 PM


Re: Treat the CAUSE?
quote:
I think God teaches the ways to avoid bad things that works effectively.
That's nice.
Are you saying that you have the authoritative word on the Word of God?
quote:
My point really, is that those of the Godless ilk, would prefer sin-then-fix-freedom.
And I think you are pulling this assesment out of your ass.
quote:
There are so many worldy poisons that the Godless are hooked on. Cancer causing fags for example.
Yeah, people should just consume the poisons that Jesus did, like wine.
Alcoholic beverages have never been known to hurt anybody, right?
quote:
What is your opinion? That preventing the cause is a better idea, or dealing with effects?
Of course, prevention is always best, but that is not always possible, so we need to develop ways to deal with effects, too.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by mike the wiz, posted 08-23-2007 7:57 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by anastasia, posted 08-23-2007 11:53 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 112 of 304 (417698)
08-23-2007 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by purpledawn
08-23-2007 8:41 PM


Re: Not a Contest
Sure, but proper nutrition isn't seperate from conventional medicine at all. In fact, the reason we know the "how and why" of antioxidants' healthful properties is through careful scientific study.
quote:
Proper nutrition is natural not a drug.
Conventional medicine isn't solely about drugs.
And something can be natural and also a drug.
quote:
An MD can say eat properly, but what does that mean. Yes, they have put out pyramids, etc.; but what is proper nutrition for me? What is proper nutrition for someone going through menopause or chemo, etc.
Consult a nutritionist. There are nutritional specialists for both oncology and women's nutrition.
quote:
No matter how much is based on science, we are still at the mercy of what a doctor has experienced. My MD had not had experience with this problem. Neither had my dentist or the nutritionist. The nutritionist said my diet was fine. Ultimately I had to figure it out myself (didn't have an ND yet) through reading naturopathic based books. I wasn't getting enough vitamin C.
I would say, then, that you had a bad nutritionist.
Insead of reading naturopathic (unscientific) books, you could have read science-based books on nutrition, or even done a google search.
I just did one on "Bleeding Gums" and the very first informational link was a National Institutes of Health Medical Encyclopedia that listed scurvy (vitamin C deficiency) as a major cause of bleeding gums. There's also a list of questions that the healthcare provider should ask. See more here
quote:
Please don't lump all alternatives in one quack box. There are quacks, just as there are MD's who are quacks or incompetent. There are also naturopatic doctors who have clinical experience and can and have helped people get healthier.
I don't lump all "alternatives" into one quack box.
I only consider something pseudoscientific or a "quack" practice if it isn't based upon good scientific evidence.
And regarding competence, there is a HELL of a lot more professional oversight and consumer protections of the conventional medical profession compared to the "alternative" and "natural healer"-type people.
There are competency and ethics review boards that can take away licences of incompetant and unethical MD's. The academic rigors of University and medical school are well-known.
Implying that there are a similar percentage of incompetent or quack MD's out of all MD's as there are incompetent or quack "natural healers" out of all "natural healers" is just unsupportable.
There are not anywhere near the same oversights and legal consumer protections for these "natural healers".
I am well-aware of the general limitations of the medical field, and that the individuals that comprise it are not universally competant and brilliant.
I don't think, however, that the answer is to abandon reason, science, and evidence in favor of less-rigorous methods or pseudoscience.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by purpledawn, posted 08-23-2007 8:41 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by purpledawn, posted 08-24-2007 12:28 PM nator has replied

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


Message 126 of 304 (417842)
08-24-2007 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by purpledawn
08-24-2007 12:28 PM


Re: Not a Contest
quote:
You say consult a nutritionist, but then you say I got a bad nutritionist. Doctor recommends them, how does one tell a good one from a bad one?
The same way you tell a good mechanic, or accountant, or contractor, etc., from a bad one. You get references from patients, you ask about their credentials and philosopy, you do as much research as you can on your particular problem(s), and you see how they are to work with, and if what they do and advise you to do works.
I have had to go through quite a few poor mechanics before I found a shop that I thought did a good job.
One thing I never considered doing is letting some person with little to no training in auto mechanics and who thinks that adding a lot of their own special mixtures to my gas tank will cure the problems with my brakes work on my car.
quote:
Why does it matter whether I found the answer from a naturopatic source or one you consider science? I came to the same conclusion.
One "I consider science"? I'm not the arbiter of such things.
It isn't difficult, if one is familiar with the basics of scientific method, to determine if a medical information source is science-based or not.
The problem is not with this particular problem but with the unscientific approach in general. Sometimes a "natural healing" source is accurate and uses science-based medical knowledge, and sometimes they aren't and don't. Sometimes, they claim things as fact or suggest certain treatments as effective that have no evidence to support them.
The rigors of science will simply not allow such things, but folklore and tradition will. The danger is that when they are mixed in a book, especially with no clear indication of which is which, many people begin to believe that the folklore and tradtional treatments have the same weight of evidence behind them as the science. That is simply not the case.
quote:
If you assume that because I found information in a naturopatic source that helped me find the answer that I didn't do any other checking, you'd be wrong.
I am glad.
There are competency and ethics review boards that can take away licences of incompetant and unethical MD's. The academic rigors of University and medical school are well-known.
quote:
Yes there are and there are still MD's that slip through the cracks.
Of course humans, and therefore human systems, are not perfect. I am not sure what your point is.
Science-based, modern medicine is responsible for the enormous improvement in longevity, general healthiness, elimination or prevention of disease and malnutrition, and plummeting mortality rates of the populations where it had been practiced over the last few centuries. Show me similar, or even marginally close, results for any of the folk and traditional "natural healing" or alternative medical methods, and then I will give them some more respect.
quote:
Just as it took time for those practices to be put in place, it will take time for the same practices to be put in place for the alternative medicines.
Why? Most of these "natural health" practices are far older than science-based medicine.
If we all agree that "alternative" healthcare is, indeed, healthcare, why shouldn't all such healthcare practitioners have to abide by the same laws, have to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of their methods, treatments and drugs, and have the same oversight as the rest of the medical profession?
quote:
Yes people fight against it, just as I'm sure there were those who fought against the practices for the medical profession. Change takes time and unfortunately money plays a big part in how fast some things change.
Until that time we have to be careful when dealing with alternative health care; but then we still have to be careful even when dealing with traditional health care.
Sure, but I think you are discounting how vast the gulf is between the liklihood that a given MD is likely to be a quack or incompetant compared to a given "natural healer" or alternative medicine practitioner.
Modern medicine is based in evidence. Most of the stuff that falls under "alternative medicine" is not.
I don't think, however, that the answer is to abandon reason, science, and evidence in favor of less-rigorous methods or pseudoscience.
quote:
I haven't abandoned reason or science.
Um, castor oil packs?
Just the fact that any "healthcare provider", or you, thinks they do anything is evidence of an abandonment of reason and evidence.
quote:
Just as there are good MD's and bad MD's, there are also good ND's and bad ND's.
But how do you know? How do you know which ND's are spouting pseudoscientific nonsense and which ones aren't when nothing they do has to be based in science?
quote:
Bottom line, I'm responsible for my health and I have to do what is right for me.
Sure. And what you think is right for you could very well be wrong.
Just so you know, that's what most people who buy into all sorts of pseudoscience and woo-woo say when they can't address the evidence.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by purpledawn, posted 08-24-2007 12:28 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by purpledawn, posted 08-25-2007 4:00 PM nator has replied

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


Message 127 of 304 (417855)
08-24-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by molbiogirl
08-24-2007 8:55 PM


well...
quote:
Nothing, absolutely nothing, can be inferred from a "study" whose sample size is 84!
That's not true.
You won't probably see small effects but you can certainly detect larger ones.
Emily Rosa, the little girl who tested the nurses who claimed to be able to feel people's "energy" (they were Theraputic Touch" practitioners) without touching them tested only 12 subjects, and her JAMA paper caused quite the stir.
It also depends a lot on what you are measuring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by molbiogirl, posted 08-24-2007 8:55 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by molbiogirl, posted 08-24-2007 11:48 PM nator has replied

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


Message 129 of 304 (417896)
08-25-2007 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by molbiogirl
08-24-2007 11:48 PM


Re: well...
quote:
I still maintain one would be hard pressed to consider 84 subjects an adequate sample and the findings statistically significant.
My husband is a cognitive psychologist and has a number of papers published in the professional literature.
None of them have anywhere close to that number of subjects.
I'll ask you, then, to tell us how many subjects is enough and how do you know?
And you know that the person you quoted as critical to Rosa's paper is the nurse who co-founded Theraputic Touch?
Of course she's going to attack it.
The point is, all of the nurses Emily tested said that they could feel a person's "enegy" without touching them.
The paper showed they couldn't.
And here's what another TT practitioner quoted in your source said about why Rosa's paper was flawed:
She also said a key element of the therapy -- having the intention of doing the greatest good for the person being treated -- was not present in a nonhealing task like choosing between two hands.
In addition, Hutchinson said, mainstream medical journals are grounded in money and power and not likely to publish research on alternative treatments that save consumers money.
Classic pseudoscience and the persecution complex that often accompanies it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by molbiogirl, posted 08-24-2007 11:48 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by molbiogirl, posted 08-25-2007 7:53 AM nator has not replied
 Message 136 by molbiogirl, posted 08-25-2007 5:59 PM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024