The Saddest Calvin and Hobbes Sketch Ever
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Saturday, March 3, 2007 14:12
VIEWED: 22603
PAGE 13 of 16
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
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.
Unless the problem is an immediate serious concern. Question, let's say than in a few years your daughter becomes extremely depressed and attempts suicide, would you be willing to put her on anti-deps immediately and then later (once some other treatments have (hopefully) reduced the risk) try alternatives for a cure, or would you insist on trying alternatives like homeopathy first?
Quote:
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.
But Big Brother only wants to protect us! I Love Big Brother!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
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.
Rue, if CTS was saying that her opinion should be followed by everyone then I would agree with you. But CTS isn't forcing her opinion here, and isn't saying that she knows the best way for everyone, merely that this is the way SHE wants to do things. I happen to agree with you more than CTS, but as long as she isn't trying to insist that everyone should do what she says I'm ready to let her do her own thing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is part of my question: HOW do you evaluate "risk"? Let's take a look at homeopathy: It's supposed to be "safe" because it's based on nearly infinite dilutions of something in water and water is generally thought of as safe. Once diluted, there is only a statistical chance that you will find a molecule of the active ingredient in a glass of water. The idea is that these compounds leave some sort of "imprint" in the water. So- what does homeopathy say about trace contaminants in water? Don't they have homeopathic properties as well? Don't they leave some kind of "imprint" in the water, but maybe not so beneficial? Aren't you at risk of poisoning yourself homeopathically just by drinking water, or by drinking the wrong kind of water? Or does "intent" count? And just out of curiosity, how long does that "imprint" last? Does it disappear on standing? Does it disappear when exposed to EMF?Does is persist through an entire water cycle? How do you know when you're using water for dilution that you're not recycling an accumulation of other homeopathic cures from 200 years ago?Since the mechanism is unknown the risk is also unknown, right?
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."
Quote:The inverse of trust is suspicion. Personally I don't think either one should have a large factor in a treatment decision because that places too large of an emphasis on factors outside of risk and efficacy.
It boils down to trust, as I said originally to 6ix.
-------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fredg- CTS is imposing her "thing" on her children. I suppose that's the parent's perogative but it may not be the best thing for her children.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:inconsistencies, not hypocracies
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,
Quote:I guess I'm still trying to clarify your position.
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?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Fredg- CTS is imposing her "thing" on her children. I suppose that's the parent's perogative but it may not be the best thing for her children.
I agree, IMO she is not doing what is in her kids best interests, but it would be hypocritical of me to say that she can't decide what is best for her kids while telling 6ix that parents should decide what medication to give to their kids. As far as I'm concerned until the question is one of life-or-death, if she wants to avoid drugs, fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fredg- Pretty much the same here. I understand that parents have the right- in fact, the duty- to make decisions for their child. There is wide latitude given to parents, since they have responsibility they also have authority.
CTS- Have you figured out how homeopathy can be both safe and effective, since it operates by unknown principles?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not that I want to derail the topic (And BTW- CTS, please don't get the idea that we're going to report you to CPS 'cause we're not) but I just happened to see this particular news item. It has everything you want! SEX! DRUGS! ROCK'N ROLL!
Here is the poster child for what is wrong with everything related to "alternative medicine", including "official" response to it:
---------------
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Antioxidant vitamins taken by tens of millions of people around the world won't lead to a longer life, according to an analysis of dozens of studies that adds to evidence questioning the value of the popular supplements. The large review of separate studies on thousands of people found no long-life benefit from vitamins A, E and C and beta carotene and selenium...
... last year, Americans spent $2.3 billion on nutritional supplements and vitamins at grocery stores, drug stores and retail outlets, excluding Wal-Mart, according to Information Resources Inc., which tracks sales.
The new study, appearing in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, was led by the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark. The Cochrane organization is a respected international network of experts that does systematic reviews of scientific evidence on health interventions.
For the new report on antioxidants, the researchers first analyzed 68 studies involving 232,606 people and found no significant effect on mortality -- neither good nor bad -- linked to taking antioxidants. When they eliminated the lower-quality studies and looked only at the most trustworthy ones, they actually found a higher risk of death for people taking vitamins: 4 percent for those taking vitamin E, 7 percent for beta carotene and 16 percent for vitamin A.
Those findings are based on an analysis of 47 studies involving 180,938 people who were randomly assigned to get real vitamins or dummy pills. Some involved superdoses far exceeding the recommended daily amount of the compounds; others involved normal doses. Some experts who reviewed the research were dismissive of the increased death risk and the analysis overall, saying it pooled studies that were too diverse.
However, the study's senior author, Dr. Christian Gluud of Copenhagen University Hospital, said, "The main message is that prevention by beta carotene, vitamin A and vitamin E cannot be recommended. These three antioxidant supplements may increase mortality." Gluud said most of the studies didn't reveal why those taking supplements died, but "in all likelihood, what they died from is what people normally die from, maybe accelerated artherosclerosis, maybe cancer."
Antioxidant supplements have been tested repeatedly by many clinical trials with no consistent clear evidence for their health effects, Gluud said. "We have had this huge industry really wanting to demonstrate an intervention effect that has gone to lengths to do so," Gluud said. "Sadly enough for the industry, and for us as consumers, it has failed to do so."
Preliminary studies suggested antioxidants might block the heart-damaging effects of oxygen on arteries and the cell damage that might encourage some kinds of cancer. But some researchers now believe antioxidants work only when they are in food, or that people who eat vitamin-rich food are healthier simply because they take better care of themselves. And beta carotene supplements have been found to increase lung cancer risk in smokers.
... The complaints were echoed by Andrew Shao, a scientist at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a supplement trade association.
"Only when they included and excluded certain trials were they able to find this alleged increase in mortality, which they themselves can't explain," Shao said. "There is plenty of data out there that show regular use of antioxidant supplements help to maintain health."
Donald Berry, chairman of the department of biostatistics at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, said the analysis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If she were suicidal, I would definitely stay away from anti-depressants.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Question, let's say than in a few years your daughter becomes extremely depressed and attempts suicide, would you be willing to put her on anti-deps immediately and then later (once some other treatments have (hopefully) reduced the risk) try alternatives for a cure, or would you insist on trying alternatives like homeopathy first?
Anti-depressant use have been known to unpredictably precede inexplicable and sudden suicides. The FDA now issues a black box warning about this. Since we don't know exactly who might react to antidepressants this way, I would only use it, again as a last resort, with extremely close and careful monitoring during the first month of use.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepressants/SSRIlabelChange.htm
Suicidal ideation is usually a result of severe dysfunction in family and other support dynamics or some other mental health issue. If she were suicidal, I'd go straight for the root problem immediately. I'd probably put her in psychotherapy / family therapy and we as a family will do the hard work to change whatever we need to change.
When she is a bit more stable, I'd try homeopathy or other alternatives if there is chronic depression.
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 have an underlying assumption that risk is proportional to potency. Things that are more directly effective have a higher potential of doing more direct damage. This is pretty much common sense, which is why prescription meds require a prescription and oversight by a professional. Less potent meds are sold OTC.
Originally posted by SignyM:
This is part of my question: HOW do you evaluate "risk"?
Before trying a new product, I do as much research as I can on risk, cost, and effectiveness. I look not just for studies, but for testimonials of both benefit and damage. My 10 year experience with ME/CFIDS has trained me to put more "faith" in the experience of patients than the published papers of the establishment (in ME/CFIDS, most papers told you to exercise when most patients would tell you "don't!"--and of course, the patients were right, in my experience). Then I put it all together with my value system and personal experiences and decide.
When deciding to use homeopathy over Ritalin, for example, I researched philosophy and history of homeopathy. I talked to people who have used it to find out what was the worst complaint and what was the best benefit. Some said it didn't work at all and wasted their money and time. Some said it worked wonders. I couldn't find anyone (in person or online) who complained of any physical damage. I was very skeptical, and was pretty much leaning towards never bothering. But our family physician, an MD, was the one who actually insisted I make an appt with the local homeopath. (This was for our son's allergies.) With very compelling firsthand experience for my son, and later for my husband and myself, I decided to try it for my daughter. Risk/benefit assessment: very low risk, unknown benefits.
To research Ritalin, I start with the PDR.
http://www.ritalindeath.com/Ritalin-PDR.htm
I read testimonials of chronic use such as the above link (ritalindeath.com). Having been a mental health professional briefly in a former life, I know kids who have used it effectively and relatively safely for short periods, so I don't really have to read the actual clinical trials. Risk/benefit assessment: unknown risk, high benefit.
Then, based on my personal value system, I try the low risk first, unknown risk last. But then I have to factor in cost. Ritalin may cost chronic use of the drug, which then increases the risks significantly. This cost of chronic reliance is a cost I do not feel is worth the benefit, and I would rather search for a solution with lower costs. This puts Ritalin down further on the list.
I don't know if this is what you're looking for. If you are asking if I too use "faith" in my risk assessments, the answer is "Sure, I do." I just have faith in different things. My post about your faith in govt authority wasn't intended to be negative or condescending, as in "you're superstitious and I'm not." It was to point out that you have faith in govt and I don't. I have faith in other things. Remember I am a person of faith, so I don't see faith as a bad thing. I think we all have faith in some things more than others, whether we admit it or not.
Quote:
So- what does homeopathy say about trace contaminants in water? Don't they have homeopathic properties as well?
Homeopathic remedies are prepared in a very specific way that doesn't occur naturally. It is not just a matter of dilution, but also a matter of "succussions" (physically banging the dilution) in a systematic method developed by trial and error by Samuel Hahnemann, MD.
You see, he found that substances that mimic the symptoms of malaria in a healthy person can also cure malaria in a sick person. But the dilemma was how to administer the substance to cure malaria, without causing the symptoms of malaria. He started with simply diluting the substance, but of course, the more he diluted the solution, the less potent it was. If it had no side effects, it had no curative powers either. Then he discovered that succussions somehow retained the potency o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME