The Saddest Calvin and Hobbes Sketch Ever
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Saturday, March 3, 2007 14:12
VIEWED: 22603
PAGE 11 of 16
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
However, I HAVE read a lot of medical studies, and I haven't seen one that is well designed YET
Just out of curiosity, how do you determine which studies are and aren't well designed?
Quote:
I don't claim that my interpretation is absolutely right
Then what are you doing in RWED?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS,
How's this for aspersions and attacks?
People who have no problems being dependent on medication ultimately have trust and faith in "the system" created by govt and the pharm industry. They trust ... this system, and see nothing wrong with dependence on it anymore than a child would see anything wrong with dependence on a parent.
You can't convince someone who believes NOT to believe. They will not become disillusioned unless they suffer injury or death because of the system themselves, and even then, they are likely to make excuses for it. It is the nature of faith.
They will always attack.
-----------
Yeah. We're all stupid sheep, trusting with blind faith in government and business, just waiting for our turn to be addicted. THAT'S an ad hominem attack and complete misrepresentation of everything we ALL have said.
Screw YOU and YOUR arrogance and lies. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Whew, this can be a long post. But the short answer is, a well-designed study has to be as close as possible to a laboratory experiment with rigid controls. The farther the departure, the more limited the interpretation.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Just out of curiosity, how do you determine which studies are and aren't well designed?
Medical studies are inherently limited because of ethical constraints on human experimentation. To compensate for those constraints, they need to control the hell out of their studies, and interpret results very cautiously. However, most medical researchers don't do this. They are happy with one control group (with sloppy controls to boot), and then they generalize the results liberally. It's crazy. Every graduate level scientist I know who has actually read a medical paper responds with, "Yikes!" The standard of publishing in medicine is what other scientists consider "junk science."
Medicine also uses bogus statistics invented by the pharmaceutical industry that allows for a lot of fudging, like "relative risk" and "person-years." Results based on these statistics are simply not credible.
The best medical studies are double-blind placebo controlled trials. *As long as the placebos are inert,* those tend to demonstrate that a drug is effective, which I usually don't dispute. A lot of times though, they don't use inert placebos, but use placebos that can mimic both the intended effects and the side effects of the drug.
What I find especially flawed is they then tack on uncontrolled follow-ups of side effects. They claim that the drug is safe as well as effective because the controls don't show any different effects than the study group. While the rigid controls of the study may prove it effective, there are no such controls to prove the drug safe. I think they piggy-back safety dishonestly that way.
Here is a recent example. The HPV vaccine trial gave the control group aluminum in its placebo, because the vaccine itself has aluminum. Now aluminum is known to be neurotoxic. So if a neurotoxic substance in the vaccine is also in the placebo, both groups might have neurological side effects. When both groups have the same side effects, they can claim that there was the vaccine group was no more likely to get neurological symptoms than the control group, and make it out to be safer than it might really be. The study is flawed, and the conclusions are scientifically dishonest.
The HPV vaccine group was less likely to get certain precancerous conditions. Then they extrapolate that to the vaccine can help prevent certain types of cervical cancer. The truth is, they have never followed up the subjects long enough to know if preventing certain precancerous conditions actually leads to a decreased rate in cervical cancer. The conclusions are unwarranted by the actual data.
Flawed studies, flawed conclusions. I hope that helps explain my perspective.
Quote:To get insulted, of course.
Then what are you doing in RWED?
I have enjoyed a lot of very intelligent insights and humor here.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS- May I point out that you then cite testimonials (possibly even fraudulent ones) as proof that alternative treatments "work"? Why is it that you hold "official" data to such a higher standard than "unofficial" data?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
Lets' see who is responsible for what's gone wrong.
Now, here ... the VERY first attacks came from 6-string whose opening salvo began ...
This infuriates me to no end and I'm starting to feel there is no point debating it anymore because there is simply no talking sense into anybody who is pro-mind altering drugs. You all want to be slaves to the pharmacuitical companies, who am I to stop you?.
... and went on from there
After that the very worst thing I personally called him was potentially 'oppositional' and 'predictable'.
Despite his post several discussions continued on amicably and quite on topic.
Then someone (who could that be) decided to dismiss everyone one the board who didn't agree with her very self saying things like:
People who have no problems being dependent on medication ... They will always attack. etc
That nameless person's entire and very first post was devoted to an at-large ad hominem attack on everyone who dared disagree. And then said unnamed person complained about being attacked. Hmm ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you gave me testimonials from people who talked about how Lithium and Haldol saved their lives, I'd believe them too.
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS- May I point out that you then cite testimonials (possibly even fraudulent ones) as proof that alternative treatments "work"? Why is it that you hold "official" data to such a higher standard than "unofficial" data?
I don't have problems believing anecdotal data or testimonials. Their veracity is not the problem.
The question is, do these testimonials represent the population at large? Can these results be generalized? Obviously not. I never claimed that they should be generalized to everyone and touted as fact. I thought I made it quite clear that there were definite risks involved in pursuing treatment supported only by anecdotal data.
"Official" studies, as you call them, on the other hand, do claim to be representative and generalizable to the population at large. There is where my disagreement lies. I do not believe they meet the rigorous scientific standards necessary to be as generalizable as they claim.
See, anecdotal data doesn't make that claim. It doesn't pretend to be scientific. It's more like, "I tried that restaurant, and I really like it. Maybe you'll like it too, who knows?" There's nothing wrong with replying, "Yeah, I'll give it a shot, and maybe I'll mention it to my neighbor too." You don't need science to justify word of mouth.
Testimonials are not proof that alternative treatments work for everyone. If you believe them to be true, they worked for the people in the testimonials. If you don't, well, they don't mean anything at all.
I did not cite those testimonials as "proof" of anything. I cited those testimonials to SigmaNunki as examples of alternative treatments that have been successful for some people, because he asked what they were.
If you want to call me on using the word "successful" when there hasn't been any actual proof, I'll grant you that. I can qualify more carefully, that these are examples of people whose recovery was correlated with alternative treatments, although that itself is not proof of causation. That would be more accurate. But the point is still made, that it is possible (cases exist) to recover in absence of psychoactive medication.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I do.
I don't have problems believing anecdotal data or testimonials. Their veracity is not the problem.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I respect that. It is definitely a big confounder, whether a testimonial can be corroborated to begin with. Then even after that, there is no proof that the treatment CAUSED the results, and that it wasn't some other factor that coincided with the treatment. Scientifically speaking, anecdotal data is completely meaningless.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:I do.
I don't have problems believing anecdotal data or testimonials. Their veracity is not the problem.
Practically speaking, I don't need scientific standards in order to give a treatment a short trial, provided there are no known toxic ingredients. (It is like not needing a scientific study to try a restaurant once.) Word of mouth is good enough for me. This goes for both alternative and conventional treatments.
Now, if YOU need official endorsement before trying treatments, that is your choice to make.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Flawed studies, flawed conclusions. I hope that helps explain my perspective.
I see, I personally think that dismissing tests because they aren't perfect isn't really the best way to go, but if the flaws are great enough then I guess it makes sense.
As for the rest of your posts...
I think you are a bit too quick to call using medication "drug dependancy", to me that means addiction or loss of life if the drug is taken away, where in the context that you are using it simply provides a means of controlling a problem that comes back if the medication is stopped, same as most alternatives.
I personally would want to go first for the treatments that are proven reliable and effective and if the side effects prove too much THEN resort to alternatives that are unproven and likely to be less reliable and effective. But I guess if you are willing to put the time an effort into alternatives first then more power to you.
Regarding your daughter, have you tried medication to see if it allows her to be brilliant and calm? I respect your opinion that meds should be a last resort but IMO you should try every option before you decide to stop trying new things.
I am also interested in your use of homeopathy given that from what I have seen (admittedly not much) there hasn't been any tests that prove it as effective and chemists and physicists both seem to be of the opinion that there is essentially nothing in the treatments but water.
All in all, I think that you are not neccesarily wrong in seeking alternatives before traditional medication. However if dependance on alternatives results in not even considering regular medication then IMHO that's a mistake. I also appreciate the fact that you aren't interested in rabidly declaring that drugs are evil and anyone who gives them to kids is evil, unlike some people here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Fair enough, though "substance dependence" does often apply to people on psychoactive drugs (withdrawal symptoms, increasing tolerance for the drug, etc.). Maybe it would be more accurate to say lifelong "reliance" on a drug. BTW, the alternatives I listed do NOT require the same lifelong reliance. I would be interested only in alternative *cures* as substitutes for conventional meds. According to the testimonials I've read (if you choose to believe them), a number of people appear to have been cured and do not need further treatment to maintain their symptom-free functioning.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I think you are a bit too quick to call using medication "drug dependancy", to me that means addiction or loss of life if the drug is taken away, where in the context that you are using it simply provides a means of controlling a problem that comes back if the medication is stopped, same as most alternatives.
Quote:No I haven't. Of all the medications out there, I am most suspicious of vaccines (because of listed ingredients) and psychoactive medication(because authorities do no know exactly why those drugs work or how, and I don't think the brain, of all organs, is a good choice for experimentation). So, last resort for these, even if it isn't for chronic use. And my daughter is functioning well enough with the stuff I am trying.
Regarding your daughter, have you tried medication to see if it allows her to be brilliant and calm?
Quote:That is correct. Nothing but water, which actually supports the argument that it is relatively safe. But they have measured electromagnetic fields in homeopathic remedies, and some hypothesize that it works electromagnetically, not chemically as we are accustomed in the pharm paradigm. It would work more along the same venues as acupuncture, which also has demonstrable electromagnetic fields around the points and meridians.
I am also interested in your use of homeopathy given that from what I have seen (admittedly not much) there hasn't been any tests that prove it as effective and chemists and physicists both seem to be of the opinion that there is essentially nothing in the treatments but water.
The problem with homeopathy is that there are 3000 remedies, and only one of them will work in any one situation. So if you pick the wrong 2999, it's not going to work. It takes a very skilled and experienced homeopath to narrow it down to 5-10 remedies that might fit, and then it is a lot of patience with trial and error. The process is not conducive to clinical trials as we know them. Most clinical trials change the application of alternative remedies to fit the conventional meds paradigm, and they don't work that way. It is no wonder the results of the few studies we have are negative.
Quote:Agreed. I don't see that lifelong reliance on an "alternative" treatment is significantly better than reliance on a conventional one.
However if dependance on alternatives results in not even considering regular medication then IMHO that's a mistake.
Quote:Believe it or not, I've been on forums that have attacked me viciously and actually kicked me off for defending the use of psychoactive drugs when one chooses to do so. So, yeah, people hate me everywhere.
I also appreciate the fact that you aren't interested in rabidly declaring that drugs are evil and anyone who gives them to kids is evil, unlike some people here.
I appreciate your rational conversation.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME