The Saddest Calvin and Hobbes Sketch Ever
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Saturday, March 3, 2007 14:12
VIEWED: 22603
PAGE 12 of 16
"But they have measured electromagnetic fields in homeopathic remedies, and some hypothesize that it works electromagnetically"
So, best not experiment with psychoactive drugs b/c no one knows how they work - eh? Just pointing out your logic is so fractured it's biting its own ass.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And to disect one particular statement:
"I've been on forums that have attacked me viciously and actually kicked me off for defending the use of psychoactive drugs"
Now, this is a perfect example of triangulation.
One side supposedly says 'drugs are all powerful and good' (a straw-man argument in itself, but that is a point for another post)
The other side says drugs are totally bad (according to CTS)
Therefore, the 'reasonable' ground is to say that unproven vodoo should be given precedence over medication.
I'm curious. How many people here prefer Willard Water, holy water, or homeopathy?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There are testimonials here on this very board from people who take antidpressants (such as myself) and Ritalin and who know people who are on lithium and the only thing you can say about our testimonials is that we're selling our souls to big pharma. But since personal testimony from individuals with whom you have had something of a history doesn't seem to be enough, here's a testimonial for lithium orotate as a nutritional supplement. Does this work for you?
If you gave me testimonials from people who talked about how Lithium and Haldol saved their lives, I'd believe them too.
http://nutritherapy.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/lithium-orotate-%E2%80%93
-a-unique-safe-mineral-transporter/
Quote:If you mean that studies always show drugs to be effective and w/o serious side effects that's clearly not the case. Official studies recognize that there ia always a subset of population for whom the treatment or drug doesn't work or for whom the treatment is especially risky- or both.
"Official" studies, as you call them, on the other hand, do claim to be representative and generalizable to the population at large.
Quote:If only trying alternative treatments were like trying a restaurant. Going to a restaurant is optional. Treating a serious illness is not. Trying a restaurant is unlikely to create serious consequences. Some alternatives treatments are risky, and sometimes the risk is a risk of doing nothing effective.
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."
See, when you apply an alterantive treatment you ARE generalizing the data to a population- yourself and your family. And rather than allowing your family to choose from the entire range of options you're restricting them to the ones that YOU deem "useful" which seems to be based on a very slanted viewpoint.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Maybe it would be more accurate to say lifelong "reliance" on a drug.
Agreed.
Quote:
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.
Ah, that makes your arguement make a bit more sense.
Quote:
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.
Fair enough.
Quote:
That is correct. Nothing but water, which actually supports the argument that it is relatively safe.
That would probably depend on where they got the water from...
Quote:
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.
meh, I don't see it. But as long as you get the results you want...
Quote:
I appreciate your rational conversation.
Thank you. You have been quite pleasant as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you evaluate risk based on "word of mouth"? Also, AFA short trials are concerned I have one comment: If you have to look at it sideways and squint your eyes - or you have to keep a detailed diary to see if it's "working"- IT'S NOT WORKING. When you hit on a treatment that works it should REALLY work. I don't expect anything less than near-miracles.
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.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did I say that?
Originally posted by SignyM:
... and the only thing you can say about our testimonials is that we're selling our souls to big pharma.
(Tsk, tsk. You're getting as bad as Rue, Sig.)
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You DO have testimonials on this board as to the effectiveness and necessity of medications that you seem to be unwilling to try or even consider.
And you have not answered my question as to why you would try (generalize) something based on a testimonial (which may be fraudulent and doesn't address risk, let alone effectiveness) whereas you are averse to trying something which has broad-based studies behind it.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Thank you. You have been quite pleasant as well."
Yes, CTS can be quite pleasant as long as you agree with everything she says. If you don't you are a sad believer who doesn't mind being forced to be dependent, trusts the system with its bandaid solutions, and above all has faith and excuses.
Anyone who agrees with CTS that this is you because you have the idiocy to include modern medicine as an option, please stand up and be counted.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you go back and read my posts carefully, you'll see that I say those meds are on my list as a last resort. I'm sure you have treatments on your list that have higher priorities than others. It's just that your "last resort" treatments are probably my first, and vice versa--because of the way we weigh evidence differently and because of our different value systems. I don't have a problem with that.
Originally posted by SignyM:
You DO have testimonials on this board as to the effectiveness of medications that you seem to be unwilling to try or even consider.
Quote:At some point, these arguments are just rehash, and it's time to let go and agree to disagree.
And you have not answered my question as to why you would try (generalize) something based on a testimonial (which may be fraudulent and doesn't address risk, let alone effectiveness) whereas you are averse to trying something which has broad-based studies behind it.
But fine. First of all, if I do generalize based on a testimonial, I don't generalize to EVERYONE (or the population at large). I "generalize" only to myself and my family, if you wish it call it "generalization" (but extrapolation would be more accurate--generalization by definition means extending the results to a large population, not a few people). That's the difference--studies claim to be generalizable to the population at large have to meet certain standards. If they don't, they are as "generalizable" as anecdotal data.
Risk is definitely a very important part of my decision making, on what comes first in my list of things to try. Generally, the less risky and less costly (and I don't mean just financial costs) ones come first, and when they fail, then I'm more willing to take greater risks with the products with "broad-based studies." Those products are more directly and quickly effective, but also carry higher risks/costs. YOU don't think so, but I do (again because of the different weights we give to the same evidence and differences in personal values).
So why would I try homeopathy instead of Ritalin first? Because homeopathy is practically pure water, with no chemically active ingredients. It is relatively innocuous, very very cheap, has a 200 year clinical history which I researched, and is founded on healing philosophies that are compatible with my personal values. If it doesn't work, well, I haven't lost that much--at most a little time. As far as gambles go, it's a freebie.
Ritalin, on the other hand, has a history of potentially dangerous side effects, including death. It is chemically active on the brain in ways that are still poorly understood, and is in my opinion, largely still experimental in safety. Without knowing if my daughter would be one to react poorly, I believe the gamble would involve a larger risk, larger cost, for the "sure" benefit. So, I place it as a last resort treatment.
There are other methods such as diet changes and occupational therapy that are also relative innocuous that would precede Ritalin in priority. Less risk, you know.
It boils down to trust, as I said originally to 6ix. There are people who trust authorities when they say something is safe, and there are people like myself who don't.
I don't know, Sig. If this and all our past conversations don't clarify my position, and you still want to accuse me of sundry hypocrisies and what not, I don't really see any point in continuing our dialogue. If you really think that poorly of me, why bother talking to me? Surely accusing people of having slanted, inconsistent views and such can't be THAT entertaining, for a busy person such as yourself?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
--------------
Nullius in verba. (Take nobody's word.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently CTS didn't read my post where I said I'd tried everything else before Ritalin. But that I believe there is a quality if life issue for in-between-ers where ALL options should be considered. Because medication may actually provide the best quality of life overall.
Somehow these nuances evade her.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME