Sequel Thread To Holistic Doctors, and medicine

quote:

---

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.

---

The average person doesn't usually have access or doesn't know where to go. We can only interpret what we have access to.Where specifically would you have us go. (Be nice. )What is the highest quality data available to the average joe and his wife?

A hobby of mine: Bigfoot Field Researchers OrganizationTalking here has been teaching me a lot about myself. If I'm refuting a creationist then I've got my skeptic hat on with the best of them. In some other areas, as you've seen, I am driven by a different beat. It just seems to be how I am. I have a brain but it isn't a thoroughly scientific one -- though I admire people with scientific intelligence. If I were a scientist I'd be more like the inventor with the frizzy white hair, pulling wild ideas out of my hat and experimenting and finding one or two things that are maybe ahead of my time, as well as a lot of silly stuff that doesn't work so well. My sights are usually set on the future and what other people think doesn't really bother me.I thank you for helping to pin me to the ground a little more. But I'm never going to look at things 100% in a scientific way. There are times for that, and other times when it is perhaps more of a hinderance than a help.I hasten to add that by "unscientific," I mean thinking in a way that contradicts the rules you have set out here in some way. For me, in most cases the biggest contradiction I am guilty of is believing the consensus opinion to be wrong. Probability says that they are more likely to be right -- but there is no guarantee of that; and people have to question, especially when lives are at stake, and evidence is present to indicate that something is going wrong.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

I would suggest the following:1. In evaluating any study try to take into account the amount of background noise. That is, remember that the more hypotheses which are tested and the less selection which goes into choosing hypotheses the more likely it is that you are looking at noise.2. Bigger samples are better. (But note that even big samples won't help to solve the problems of observational studies which is a whole other problem).3. Small effects are to be distrusted.4. Multiple sources and types of evidence are desirable.5. Evaluate literatures not individual papers.6. Trust empirical papers which test other people's theories more than empirical papers which test the author's theory.7. As an editor or referee, don't reject papers that fail to reject the null.Especially numbers 4 and 5.Thanks to Orac for the list.Page not found | ScienceBlogsIn addition, I would suggest reading ScienceBlogs in addition to the "alternasites".ScienceBlogs - Where the world discusses science.Orac (mentioned above) is an oncologist and a surgeon who specializes in breast cancer. He is also a funny, vitriolic critic of woo. And he posts every day, so he keeps up with the medical news.Too often, ordinary media (newspapers, magazine, TV) do a truly pitiable job reporting medical and science news.A perfect example is the "childhood illnesses protect your child" quote I posted on the Vaccination thread.http://www.nywww.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10sachs.html It turns out (after 10 years of follow up work) that it is exposure to HARMLESS bacteria that strengthen the immune system. Not pathogens.Did this get reported in the media?No.Thank His Noodliness that there are bloggers like Orac to point this kind of stuff out.Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Today I went to Doctor Jane Sullivan-Durand's presentation titled, "Staying alive to 100: Living longer, living stronger". Because the announcement about the presentation mentioned "Nutritional, Behavioral, and/or Alternative & Complementary therapies" I assumed this would be a presentation from the perspective of alternative medicine. It was anything but.I entered the presentation prepared to exert much energy on self-control, but I needn't have been concerned. This doctor didn't say anything from woo-woo land. The conclusions she presented were that decreased caloric intake combined with a diet high in vegetables and soy products and with no meat (but fish is fine, nobody asked about chicken or turkey) appeared to contribute to extended life.The were a couple minor things I thought were off. Someone asked about the percentages listed on vitamin supplements, like 400% RDA. She said that RDA (Recommended Daily Allowance) was just the minimum to prevent ill health effects, such as rickets for insufficient vitamin D. I thought the minimum was actually MDR (Minimum Daily Requirement). Maybe someone here knows what the story is here.The other minor thing that seemed off was her answer to my question. I had decided to ask a question about vaccines, but since the talk was about longevity I didn't think a question about child vaccinations would be appropriate, so I asked, "Every winter another flu season arrives, and people are encouraged to take flu vaccines. As one gets older, is taking these vaccines a good idea?"Her answer was excellent, I'll mention the one thing that seemed off last. She said that healthy people are perfectly capable of fighting off flu viruses, so there's no short term necessity for taking flu vaccines. People who should take these vaccines are those already in ill health, or who live with someone in ill health who shouldn't be exposed to potentially dangerous viruses, or who work in the health industry and wish to prevent infection because of the certainty that they will be exposed.But even for very healthy people, suffering through a bout of the flu is not without danger. The problem with viruses is that they invade and take over the cell's reproductive machinery so that they can turn out copies of themselves. But not all virus invasions of cells are completely successful, and another common result is that the virus insinuates itself into the cell's DNA but fails to take over. In other words, infected individuals who suffer through a bout with the flu will have their DNA modified in some cells of their body. This is a type of mutation, and mutations are one contributor to shortened longevity.Viral illnesses can be prevented by taking vaccines, but the vaccines themselves are not without risk. One of the dangers she mentioned is that injected vaccines are normally carried in a compound that contains mercury, and that mercury is suspected of being associated with increased autism in this country. She recommended using a nasal spray version of vaccines.The mention of a possible link between vaccines and autism is the other thing that I thought might be off. I thought studies had shown no link. This has been discussed in this thread, and I thought the science side was pretty certain there was nothing to it. But this doctor seemed to have a lot on the ball. Was she wrong?--Percy

quote:

---

A hobby of mine: Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization

---

OK, so now you're just pulling our collective chains, right?

quote:

---

Talking here has been teaching me a lot about myself. If I'm refuting a creationist then I've got my skeptic hat on with the best of them. In some other areas, as you've seen, I am driven by a different beat.

---

May I make a suggestion about the cause of this, LL?You are deeply emotionally invested in your various beliefs, even though they are not, AFAICT, reasonable, reality-based beliefs. This completely inactivates your bullshit detector, rendering you apparently incapable of anything resembling rational or critical thought. You believe what you need to believe, or prefer to believe. You actively resist any evidence or critical examination of them in order to preserve the belief, even if it means that you are believing a lie.In other words, you have something in common with Creationists. The only difference is the particular beliefs that you each hold so dear that you protect them fiecely, even if it means you dispense with rationality. You just quietly unplug your bullshit detector and let your emotions rule the day.Can't you see how dangerous that is when your health is concerned?

And you are correct, sir. Studies have shown no link. The definitive studies were conducted in Canada and the Netherlands (where thimerosal has been absent from vaccines for over 10 years).Mercury, in the form of thimerosal, is no longer in vaccines here in the US.Autism continues to be diagnosed at the same rate as it was when thimerosal was in the vaccines.Therefore, mercury has no link to autism.If mercury poisoning were the cause of autism, the entire nervous system would be affected. Autistic children do not exhibit the movement disorders and peripheral nerve damage characteristic of mercury poisoning.Furthermore, mercury is found in the earth's crust and is ubiquitous in the environment. Thus, even without vaccinations (or amalgam fillings), everyone has small but measurable blood and urine levels.Funny. The woomeisters never mention that point!

Withdrawn, just noticed now wrong thread.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

quote:

---

But I'm never going to look at things 100% in a scientific way. There are times for that, and other times when it is perhaps more of a hinderance than a help.

---

When dealing with natural phenomena, when is the scientific method of inquiry a hinderance, exactly? Using it is the only way we have ever learned anything reliable about the natural world. Using our hunch or the testimony of other people or believing what we simply want to be true while ignoring or discounting contradictory evidence is proven to be a very, very unreliable way to discover anything about the natural world. You have, over and over and over, suggested that sometimes, going with the less reliable method is better.Well, when is it better? Give us examples. Show us the usefulness of this methodology and how it has benefitted inquiry.The following is so appropriate for this discussion and what we have been trying to get across to you that I thought I'd post it here: Edited by Admin, : Fix image width.

I can't even count the number of times when I decided that I'd take a spare half hour and investigate the scientific support for some claim, for instance the health benefits of megadoses of Vitamin C, and just thrown up my hands. I find tons of articles, and since I'm not familiar with the field I have to first investigate each and every journal to see if it's a legitimate peer-reviewed journal or just a refuge for fringe elements to publish low-quality papers. Going to each journal's website and reading their purpose and goals take time, and before I've even composed a list of articles to scan I'm out of time.Someone like Molbiogirl who is much more familiar with the field would have a big head start on me. And I have a big head start on you. In other words, you haven't got a prayer, and I often don't have much of one, either.So if you distrust the consensus, which has an absolutely remarkable record of success in the medical field over the past century, then all you've done is cast yourself adrift in a sea of charlatans. Laypeople researching on their own with the goal of forming their own conclusions are often on a fool's errand. It's one thing to want to know about a field, it's quite another to believe that having learned a little that you're qualified to draw conclusions.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.--Percy

I'm starting to feel like a hypocrite when I debate with creationists. And I hate that.Don't you think I also hate the fact that I have to look to places like Nexus Magazine to find information? That homeopathy appears to be nothing more than using water? That people think orthomolecular medicine is nonsense? That they want me to quarantine my child from infants because I don't want to vaccinate her? (For the record, it's hypotheitcal anyway because she's already received everything apart from boosters.) Do you think I like the fact that my introduction to this forum, which I admired so much while I was lurking, has essentially been an exercise in making 90% of the people here think I'm a fruit loop?Here's what is real for me. I know what happened when I tried to find help for my depression through the allopathic system. It made me sicker rather than better. I have met many other people who have experienced far worse, again at the hands of doctors who are supposed to be helping us. We have found help from my ND. I guess it's like the other people here who say they believe in ghosts or whatever because they had a personal experience. Only they know what the circumstances were, and how likely it was to have been a genuine experience rather than a hallucination or a mistake. But forevermore, they know that whenever they talk to a skeptic, they will never be believed. That's where I am. You will never believe me because I cannot present the evidence that you want. In your eyes that means I am likely to be mistaken. In my heart I know I am not.Everything else I've been saying here has been built up from that. It means I have to call the whole mainstream of medicine into question. And place my trust in a system that is ridiculed by many. It means I have to believe in some conspiracies. I hate conspiracy theories. But in the end I have to continue to stand up for what I know to be right, and take the heckling if I have to. To change my mind and think the way you want me to think means placing my trust in mainstream doctors and medicine again. Nator, they're hopeless in so many ways. I'm certainly not the only person who thinks that drugs are overprescribed, that they often don't work, and that they are likely to be more harmful than most people realise.BTW the Bigfoot stuff is probably in the same category as the poltergeist stuff. Maybe I was yanking your chain a little -- not yours personally -- but if people here think I'm such a fruit loop already, I figured why not toss it out. It's not particularly relevant to anything, just interesting. I'm interested in astronomy for the same reasons maybe -- that I can't wait to find out what intriguing discoveries are made next, what new things we can learn, and how they might change what we thought we knew.

As a response, here are som Feynman quotes for you.

The only time non-scientific approaches are preferred is when scientific data is unavailable and can't be made available within existing time constraints. In that case you go with what you got.Scientific methods are far and away the best and most reliable way of ferreting out information about the real world. Oftentimes other methods will give you the same answers. For example, you hear a funny noise in your car, and to you it sounds like a valve click. You tell the mechanic you think you've got a valve click. He shrugs his shoulders, puts your car on a scientific analysis machine, then says, "Yep, you've got a valve click."But when other methods give answers that don't agree with science, alarm bells should start going off in your head. For instance, say you took your car in, they put it on the analysis machine, then told you you had a valve click and that it will cost $1500 to rebuild the cylinder head. This is too much money, so you take it to another mechanic who's much cheaper but who has no analysis machine, but he listens to the car and tells you all you need is a new exhaust system. Time to back away slowly. I'd be backing away slowly because I trust the analysis machine, but it would also be valid to back away slowly simply to give yourself time to figure things out or to seek another opinion.In other words, when there's little to no congruence in the conclusions reached by different methods, the best answer is not to choose the one you prefer. The best answer is to figure out why there's a difference. And in the case of anecdotal evidence versus the scientific consensus underpinned by the best studies available, the reason for the difference is obvious: anecdotal approaches are an extremely poor way of figuring out complex relationships.--Percy

Bottom line Percy: If I were to decide to think like this, it would mean putting my trust in mainstream doctors again. They've got it wrong too many times for myself and people I know. There's also much wisdom in ceasing an activity if it has failed again and again in the past. Why on earth should I go back to the people who couldn't figure out my IBS and who threw drugs at my depression?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.

You know what scientists think about Bigfoot?They think it would be incredibly neat if Bigfoot actually existed. Even better, it would be an enormous boon to both anthropology and the search for human origins because of what it would tell us to not only discover a previously unknown hominid, but a living one at that!!!!You know what else scientists think about Bigfoot?That there's no reliable scientific evidence supporting its existence.What scientists object to about Bigfoot is not the idea that he might exist. What they object to is the bogus evidence and interpretations of evidence used to reach the conclusion that Bigfoot exists.Bigfoot as a possibility? Fine. Unlikely, but fine.Reliable evidence exists for Bigfoot? No way.That's how scientists see it.It's the same for alternative medicine.Alternative medicine as a possible source of viable medical approaches? Fine. Unlikely, but fine.Reliable evidence exists for the efficacy and safety of alternative medical practices? No way.That's how scientists see it.--Percy