To add.... Why are the adding supplements to an already proven therapy (AREDS or AREDS 2) ? That is crossing the line between evidence-based therapy and selling snake-oil. One important part of the AREDS study is that it studied how all the components involved affected each other in the formulation they are in, that is not studied with the extra supplements she is being given.
BTW there is a new Vitalux formulation with Omega 3s added in, which is recommended to reduce the amount of pills someone has to take (increase compliance).
That is not an issue here. You assumed wrongly that it was and went so far as to say the patient is confused about their condition, which is absolutely false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesla
I think your friend may be a bit confused with what they have. [...]
An assumption is something required to hold an argument together. As in "There is a crowd. Assuming there are only Flames and Oilers fans, if someone is not a Flames fan, they must be an Oilers fan". The assumption there holds together the notion that non-Flames fans must be Oilers fans.
Hesla's statement was clearly written to say "based on what I can see on what evidence I have". He's diagnosing based on what has been provided with him and suggesting an alternative reason that, to him, makes more sense than what you've posted.
If you don't agree with him, you can reject his conclusions based on the fact that you may not have been able to fully describe your friend's condition in order for him to provide an educated opinion on the matter, that you have information that you haven't told us that would radically change the diagonstic, or believe that he shouldn't have posted his opinion at all (in which case, why go into detail in the first place on such a sensitive topic? The internet isn't exactly a nice place), but little of what Hesla wrote has anything resembling an assumption. Just an opinion formed based on what was stated.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to kirant For This Useful Post:
That is not an issue here. You assumed wrongly that it was and went so far as to say the patient is confused about their condition, which is absolutely false.
I have first hand information about this person, what do you have? Care to share?
They are taking supplements similar to what is being used AREDS2 study (but more comprehensive IMO), and so far they have been able to put the brakes on the progression of their vision loss, something that was not happening previously. They were going blind, and were told as much in so many words (I have sat in on several of the appointments myself, and will do in the future).
It has nothing to do with opinion, it has to do with first hand experience, real world.
Like I mentioned, IMO she is taking a more comprehensive approach than what I know of this study. She takes the following and other stuff I can't remember off hand (I had to look some of these up for correct spellings). She also eats foods that are known to contain the beneficial antioxidants and fatty acids.
There are products that are specifically formulated to contain the above and more, I suggested she try those but don't know at this moment if she went that route, it just seemed easier to me than taking separate products that contain the desirable ingredients (and usually have other stuff you might not need or want).
Now please share your first hand information that will help people with macular degeneration, it's an awful thing to have anything that can slow the progression is valuable.
I already linked to anti oxidants now likely being not effective to possibly harmful earlier in the thread. If shes having success it needs to be studied, good on her for doing all in her power to fight it.
This video is not for you specifically, just a reminded of how much bunk the vitamin and supplement industry is, and on a whole a great little talk on bad medicine in the world today.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
I already linked to anti oxidants now likely being not effective to possibly harmful earlier in the thread. If shes having success it needs to be studied, good on her for doing all in her power to fight it.
This video is not for you specifically, just a reminded of how much bunk the vitamin and supplement industry is, and on a whole a great little talk on bad medicine in the world today.
The AREDS2 trial was quite clear on its eye health benefits. The rest? Well....
I hate it when people post other peoples findings (yes, I am gulity of it too) - people need to start thinking for themselves and stop putting so much credit on other peoples word.
That would imply that everyone is an expert in every area of human knowledge and all views should be treated equally. I reject that notion utterly. Some people are more knowledgable about certain fields than others. I understand the scientific method and the value of peer review by other experts in the same field, so I'm going to give infinitely more credence to a study published in a reputable scientific journal than I am to a statistically-insignificant anecdote from some random person on the Internet.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
One thing I notice all the time on here and on other sites is that for every person that says "this is this" there is someone that can immediately post back "this is that". I think people take too much stock in what other people research and what other people think. Think for yourselves!!!!
I have read through this entire thread now, and as far as I can tell, the exchange is more accurately characterized as follows: For every person that says "I have a friend of a friend who tried this scientifically unproven health treatment and reported feeling better", there is an equal number of respondents who are insisting that they shift their faith from anecdotal reports to rely on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
What I really hate in these sorts of discussions is the idiotic notion that every single person's opinion carries equal weight, and that we are even capable of "thinking for ourselves."
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I already linked to anti oxidants now likely being not effective to possibly harmful earlier in the thread. If shes having success it needs to be studied, good on her for doing all in her power to fight it.
I went back to read your linked article, your wording is kind of misleading in your statement. It just suggested that supplements for anti-oxidents are harmful (which I already knew for years) since they are in high excess of what your body needs (too much nearly anything is bad). Anti-Oxidents are beneficial as long as your getting them via fruits, veggies, food as that would mean you're getting the regular amount in a form that your body can easily absorb. It never suggested that Anti-Oxidents are not effective or harmful if you received them via food.
One thing I notice all the time on here and on other sites is that for every person that says "this is this" there is someone that can immediately post back "this is that". I think people take too much stock in what other people research and what other people think. Think for yourselves!!!!
Just because I write on here that something works for me does not mean that it will work for anyone else. There is too much stock on what researchers come up with! There is bias even in that industry and I am sure there have been studies predetermined by things other than research. I decided about a year ago to live my life and not the way some person tells me I should because they wrote a book, are a self-proclaimed professional, or because something worked for them.
Recently I had an appraisal completed on a real estate project and the price came in at about $5 million dollars. The same company (using the same appraiser) came up with a $7.5 million valuation just 13 months ago. Did the market really drop 33% in a year? Fact is, the market (in my area) is better today than it was 13 months ago. My point is that people (who are professionaly trained) can stray from their beliefs and training to come up with certain findings that the person paying the money is looking for.
I hate it when people post other peoples findings (yes, I am gulity of it too) - people need to start thinking for themselves and stop putting so much credit on other peoples word.
Homeopathy/Naturalpaths may or may not be for everyone but those that want it and support it should not be made to feel like freaks if they do. Just like those that support traditional western medicine should not be told they are all being poisoned and that they are dying!! It like religion, political views, etc. - To each their own! Live you own life and stop be so judgemental of other peoples decisions - no one and no decision is perfect!
Look, live your life how you want, but don't act indignant when people tell you that your whole premise is illogical and innane. As others have pointed out, certain people have the training and qualifications to speak with authority on certain matters. Most people do not. I am not going to put the same weight on the opinion of someone with ancedotal evidence vs. empircal evidence obtained through peer reviewed research using proper scietific methods. if you don't understand what the scientific method is and how research works either (which I kind of suspect based on your comments on it) your own opinions on whether research is valid or not are entirely without merit.
"I decided about a year ago to live my life and not the way some person tells me I should because they wrote a book, are a self-proclaimed professional, or because something worked for them."
Thatm, in essence, in naturopathy. It is a faith based approach to medical treatment based entirely on self-proclaimed professionals who have usually written books and claim this stuff works for them and people they know. Entirely devoid of scientific basis. As in, religion.
Also, comparing real estate appraisals to clinical testing of medicine is so utterly ######ed I don't know where to begin.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to morgin For This Useful Post:
As a scientist, I find viewpoints like this incredibly insulting. Myself and everyone I have ever worked with, have so much integrity and honesty that it's painful. Very very few people falsify or misreport results, especially in medical sciences. Have you even seen how strict and difficult the peer review process is to publish in a reputable journal?
Also, why does the opinion of a layperson to a particular field count the same as an expert? Why do we even bother having experts if that's the case?
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Kybosh For This Useful Post:
...I was merely relating a story from something I personally just went through and was pointing out that some professionals will find different results depending on who is paying the tab. Just like Big Pharmacy! It doesn't matter the field, there is good and bad in all!!
Morgin was right to call your analogy ######ed, because real-estate speculation does not and cannot really operate according to the same extremely high standards as the scientific method, and thus it fails to compare to what happens in drug testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Karma
...You regurgitate "facts" read in a book, mix them with some of your own one-dimensional thoughts and bam - we have the gospel accordinging to Morgin!! Because some scientist (and Morgin) say they are speaking factual and have societys best interest at heart, we all need to jump on the bus without doing our own research tot he best of our own ability?? No, I am not discrediting the entire system and I know many of us do not have our own labratories but the basics are out there.
What??
What "basics" do you presume that we all have access to in order to "do our own research"? I really would like to know how you expect the general public to form their own intelligent opinions about scientific studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Karma
...In my first post in this thread, I posted a video from Youtube called "Making a Killing". And I concede and agree the video may be 0% factual and we have nothing to worry about! What if this is even 10% accurate? 50%? 90%? Would you not want to be in control of your own destiny - instead of some dude in a lab coat? If you put that much trust (with your life and those of your childrens/loved ones) in another human beings hands because they went to some fancy med school then this discussion is really over.
It seems to me that you are prejudicing yourself against medical experts precisely by their association with the pharmaceutical industry. This statement here seems to suggest that qualifications from "some fancy medical school" serve as a detractor to one's level of expertise. Do you not realize how backwards that is? Do you know how and why "fancy medical schools" achieve reputations for excellence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Karma
Lets hope for your healths sake you are right and these great big fancy "scientific findings" (or some of them) are genuine and not just fabricated so some drug company can make their next billion. And that the government is not just subscribing to lobbyists and their unlimited cash!
In the rare chance you are wrong and some of the health industry is made up of unethical scientist and/or government agencies who are rushing drugs to the market, I will gladly compare health records 30 years from now.
You seem to concede that the chances are "rare" that the health industry is irreparably corrupt. Does it not make the most sense for the public to put their trust here then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by West Karma
I did not come on here to fight and debate anything to death - I just wanted to encourage people to start thinking for themselves and stop being sheep! Just hoping that before any person has a drug put in their body (or a loved ones) they find out more about the drug and the company making it - there are some great people out there doing many great things in the health field but there are some that are not so great. If every drug was perfect they would not have 10 seconds of "risks" in a 30 second commercial. IMO, they are doing this to insure they dont get sued when one of thier "experiments" goes wrong!!
I just don't understand what you mean by the bolded part. You seem to think that anyone that endorses the scientific method is not "thinking for themselves". How exactly does this work, in your mind? Can you share with the rest of us your own methods for research that are so superior? What measures do you personally take in "thinking for yourself", and what controls do you have in place to ensure that your opinions are valid?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
In my first post in this thread, I posted a video from Youtube called "Making a Killing". And I concede and agree the video may be 0% factual and we have nothing to worry about! What if this is even 10% accurate? 50%? 90%? Would you not want to be in control of your own destiny - instead of some dude in a lab coat? If you put that much trust (with your life and those of your childrens/loved ones) in another human beings hands because they went to some fancy med school then this discussion is really over.
Here is another video from Youtube:
I concede and agree that there may be no factual basis for this video, but what if it is even 10% accurate? Would you not want to stay inside to protect yourself and your children from government chemtrails? If you are prepared to leave your house, and you put that much trust in your government not to systematically poison you, then this discussion is really over.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Last edited by Makarov; 07-28-2012 at 10:39 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
as others have noted, i believe your post reveals that you have no clue in how any medication/treatment comes to market and ultimately to being prescribed by health care practitioners. furthermore, you seem to have no understanding of scientific method or the role that peer reviewed journals play in medicine, or any science for that matter.
lastly, i have never understood why people discredit experts in any field. there is much to gain from taking the advice of people more learned than you in a particular subject/profession. for example, if i have a legal problem, i would seek out a lawyer. if i'm doing renovations on my house, i would seek out the help of a contractor. why people see it fit to attempt to discredit medical professionals, especially since your own health is likely the MOST important thing we have, is beyond me. wouldn't you want experts helping you make decisions when it comes to your own health? you would be shocked at just how poor of an understanding most people have about the inner workings of the human body and medicine in general.
The Following User Says Thank You to joe_mullen For This Useful Post:
Legislative alchemy, as faithful SBM readers know, is the process by which state legislatures and Congress take scientifically implausible and unproven treatments and diagnostic methods and turn them into licensed health care practices and legally sold products.
A goal of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) is “full scope of practice” in all 50 U.S. states. They’ve got a ways to go. Naturopaths are currently licensed to practice in only 17 states and the District of Columbia. Bills to expand licensure failed to make it out of committee again during the 2012 legislative sessions of two states, Iowa and Maryland. In Colorado and Virginia, where licensing bills failed to pass in previous years, no new legislation was introduced to license naturopaths in 2012. Bills to license naturopaths are still pending before legislative committees in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New York and Pennsylvania. However, in North Carolina and Pennsylvania these bills have been languishing in committee since 2011
Naturopathy, sometimes referred to as "natural medicine," is a largely pseudoscientific approach said to "assist nature" [1], "support the body's own innate capacity to achieve optimal health" [2], and "facilitate the body's inherent healing mechanisms." [3] Naturopaths assert that diseases are the body's effort to purify itself, and that cures result from increasing the patient's "vital force." They claim to stimulate the body's natural healing processes by ridding it of waste products and "toxins." At first glance, this approach may appear sensible. However, a close look will show that naturopathy's philosophy is simplistic and that its practices are riddled with quackery.
In 1968, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) recommended against Medicare coverage of naturopathy. HEW's report concluded:
Naturopathic theory and practice are not based upon the body of basic knowledge related to health, disease, and health care which has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Moreover, irrespective of its theory, the scope and quality of naturopathic education do not prepare the practitioner to make an adequate diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment. [29]
Although some aspects of naturopathic education have improved in recent years, I believe this conclusion is still valid. I believe that the average naturopath is a muddlehead who combines commonsense health and nutrition measures and rational use of a few herbs with a huge variety of unscientific practices and anti-medical double-talk.
What "basics" do you presume that we all have access to in order to "do our own research"? I really would like to know how you expect the general public to form their own intelligent opinions about scientific studies.
Wait a second. As an emergency physician, I've spent too much of my young adulthood enveloped (?shackled ?brainwashed) within the depths of Western Medicine (or, if you like, nestled in the warm busom of Big Pharmacy) to know what's really going on.
You mean to tell me that the general population doesn't have access to decades of medical records with which to conduct cross-sectional or cohort studies? That they don't have access to population groups that can be randomized towards either experimental or control groups, or have the tools to assess the results obtained from either group and monitor these results and groups over time? That the general population isn't heavily scrutinized by their peers (and the general public) when they come up with conclusions based on their research conducted (either positive or negative)?
News to me my friend, news to me
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Smilt For This Useful Post:
VITAL SIGNS: His temperature is 101.5° F (38.6° C), heart rate is 120 bpm, and respiratory rate is 60/min and gasping. 2. Which of the following homeopathic preparations would best address his clinical presentation? a. spongia tosta
b. aconitum napellus
c. cuprum metallicum
d. drosera rotundifolia
This child appears to have a moderate to severe case of croup: he has a fever and is gasping for air. This is a medical emergency. The correct answer is “call 9-1-1.” That is the standard of care.
Yet, for a child struggling to breathe, the naturopaths who wrote the NPLEX decided that homeopathy — an incontrovertibly debunked placebo therapy — is a valid choice. The naturopathic standard is to choose magic over medicine.
Overall, naturopathic students are required to get only 850 hours of clinical training on patients. Physicians earn tens of thousands of hours before practicing. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants get more than twice as much training as naturopaths by the numbers, and it is spent studying proven medicine, not imaginative treatments.
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
