Hi LindaLou,
I think it is possible that you still don't understand the point other people are trying to make to you. I also think you need to slow down and take your time. You keep complaining how much time and energy this is taking, how draining it is, so slow down. This isn't a race. Nobody cares if you don't reply until sometime next week, or even next month for that matter. Go at what seems like a reasonable pace for you, otherwise you'll flame out.
The evidence you seem to want is from clinical studies in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. There is little of this for vitamins and herbs, compared to drugs. I've given a number of reasons why this is.
No one is disputing this. You're presenting a position in the form of rebuttal as if it were something that wasn't accepted. I think you need to take more care to figure out what the other person is actually saying, then rebut that.
I've called into question the whole philosophy of diagnose-and-prescribe,...
Now you've hit upon what I'm actually questioning. You are using your own personal experience and anecdotal stories from others to indict an entire profession. You have presented no reliable evidence.
Why should I not make those kinds of arguments here?
What you should do is seek out valid evidence supporting your position that doctors are diagnose-and-prescribe machines. Your personal experience says yes, mine says no, both are anecdotal, so now what? The answer is actual scientific studies, LindaLou.
If you really are curious, however, about why intelligent people still choose naturopathy despite all the seemingly logical reasons not to, then that's what I'm trying to explain.
Since the evidence isn't there, it is already very clear why people choose naturopathy. It's the same reason they choose to believe in ESP, alien abductions and Bigfoot. Most people do not understand the difficulties inherent in making sound determinations of what's really going on amidst the raft of complicated and often conflicting data from a very complicated real world, especially when it concerns medical issues.
I see. So what is the best evidence? A lack of evidence? If I decided I wanted to be a hardline skeptic, I would have to say that vitamins and herbs on the whole are better left alone because there isn't enough evidence yet for their efficacy.
No one here is trying to talk you out of a diet regimen that is working for you. True, you're exposing yourself to unknown risks, probably more long term than short term, but you're the boss of you and so that is your right.
Where you go wrong is in generalizing from personal experience and anecdote, then giving that generalization greater weight than conclusions derived from scientifically gathered evidence.
Have you considered the possibility that they really can be efficacious, but there haven't been enough studies done yet?
Have you considered the possibility that they really can be dangerous, but there haven't been enough studies done yet?
Food, vitamins, herbs, drugs, they all have an effect on the body. They're all just chemicals that react with the chemicals in our body and cause certain effects. That's true of food, that's true of vitamins, that's true of herbs, that's true of drugs. There is nothing special about the chemicals in vitamins and herbs that makes them inherently safe. Herbs are natural, sure, but a harmful chemical is still a harmful chemical no matter what its source. Alternative medicine pushes this agenda that natural is better, but I'd bet they'd find few takers of a challenge to walk into the woods and eat the first mushroom or fern you find, both very natural. The impression of comfort and safety that people have about vitamins and herbs derives from long experience with many of them, not from science, but when you put "natural" in terms of unknown mushrooms and ferns most people recognize the difference with regard to safety.
For example, most people don't regard ginseng as safe because they're aware of scientific studies or because it has FDA approval (which it doesn't, since it doesn't need it), but because they're aware it's been used by people for centuries, and they figure that if it were harmful we'd have figured that out by now. In other words, ginseng is accepted as safe not because it's natural, but because of the long record of human experience with it. Natural is definitely not a guarantee of safety. There are scads of natural poisons. Hemlock is a famous one.
But as I've said, I think there's good evidence that the system is flawed, and this is the system that everyone presenting highly skeptical arguments here is basing them on.
Well, you've said this yet again, so I guess I have to rebut this yet again.
You are once again mischaracterizing the position of the other side. We're not saying there are no problems with big pharma or modern medicine. Like any human endeavor, they aren't perfect. They are, however, and unlike alternative medicine, highly regulated and embrace scientific methods. Any flaw in our system of mainstream modern medicine stems from the participation of people, a quality shared in spades by alternative medicine which is much less tightly driven by the requirements of scientific inquiry.
What we're supporting is the scientific method, as opposed to personal anecdote, as a means of reliably gaining knowledge.
I'm trying to work out the exact point you are making with the breast implants story. If you want me to see that a group of people can be wrong about the cause of their illness, then yes I accept that. It isn't going to stop me from at least listening to what groups of people have to say. My own large group has what I consider to be pretty good evidence.
Nowhere in this discussion have you been able to muster a successful argument for the value of anecdotal evidence. You've even said many times how much you would prefer evidence from clinical studies, so we know you do understand that scientific evidence trumps anecdotal evidence.
So what exactly do you mean by "pretty good evidence"? On a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is no evidence or useless evidence and 10 is a double-blind placebo-based study of a very large group with careful controls that has been successfully replicated several times, where would you place your "pretty good evidence"?
The proper value for anecdotal evidence is 0, worse than no evidence, because while having no evidential value is possible, it can also actually be misleading, counterinformative, the opposite of valid information.
Two of the people on my list successfully sued GlaxoSmithKline for the damage that Paxil did to them. This is not anecdote, it is fact.
Actually, given what you've provided, this is anecdote. You can transform it from anecdote into fact simply by providing documentation.
But for the sake of discussion let's accept it as fact. Since there is no scientific documentation for the kind of withdrawal symptoms you've been describing, that means these two people did the same thing the silicon breast implant people did, convince a jury using anecdotal evidence. Juries do not decide what is science and what isn't, indeed aren't even qualified to make that judgement, and juries are often sympathetic to parties claiming injury at the hands of big business.
So here it is. You and I choose to look at different kinds of evidence in different ways.
This is again a mischaracterization. There is a world of difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence, a difference that has been objectively established and is the reason scientific evidence carries infinitely more weight than anecdotal. This isn't a case of different strokes for different folks, but of you drawing insupportable conclusions on the basis of unreliable evidence that is subjective and personal and self-assessed.
There's nothing special or unusual about EvC Forum regarding evidence. The only reason the discussion has taken the turn it has is that you believe if you collect enough anecdotes that it trumps scientific evidence. This can never be the case. You don't seem to understand that anecdote is almost like negative evidence because it is so likely to be misleading and lead to false conclusions.
If I could add just one more thing in the nature of insurance to prevent going around the same mulberry bush one more time, please remember I'm not trying to talk you out of your current diet regimen, and I'm not claiming that big pharma and modern medicine is without problems. In the nature of full disclosure I admit that I believe your conclusions about these things are wrong, but those are not the points I'm making.
For me this discussion is all about the dangers of valuing anecdotal information over scientific evidence, and also about the dangers of drawing conclusions when anecdotal information is all we have. The information you have available to you so far is sufficient to raise concerns and act as the spur to scientific investigations to get to the bottom of things, but it is wholly insufficient for reaching conclusions.
--Percy
The cortisol problem is very slowly getting better and I think all I can do is be patient there, keep giving myself the nutrients I need to heal.
™ Version 4.2