How do we know what is true?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Kimmio said:
It does because you say homeopathy and naturopaths do the same thing (naturopaths are a different profession though).
Click to expand...
No, I am not saying that.

Look, this is pointless and pathetic. You've decided what I'm saying for me, and it sucks. I just demonstrated that I have been saying what I've claimed to be saying about science being the best method, for years. Inanna is chuckling above at how far I've gone to demonstrate what I've always said, and always meant, as a means to finally shut you up. So now you've now decided that I'm saying things about naturopaths that I've never said. f*** this. I want off this ride.

Stop telling me what I'm saying, Kimmio. I'm not going to respond to it any more. You lie. Constantly. If you quote me, I'll respond. But you lying about what I'm saying is pissing me off to no end.
 
Another thing I object to with loading people up with drugs and not listening to 'anecdotes' about things patients find otherwise helpful - is that they don't take into account how quality of life can suffer from side effects. Imagine you're a construction worker and you're so loaded up with drugs you can't operate machinery or go out for a beer anymore. Not the doctors' problem.
 
chansen said:
No, I am not saying that.

Look, this is pointless and pathetic. You've decided what I'm saying for me, and it sucks. I just demonstrated that I have been saying what I've claimed to be saying about science being the best method, for years. Inanna is chuckling above at how far I've gone to demonstrate what I've always said, and always meant, as a means to finally shut you up. So now you've now decided that I'm saying things about naturopaths that I've never said. f*** this. I want off this ride.

Stop telling me what I'm saying, Kimmio. I'm not going to respond to it any more. You lie. Constantly. If you quote me, I'll respond. But you lying about what I'm saying is pissing me off to no end.
Click to expand...

How am I lying?!!! You say they are snake oil salesman - anecdote is the domain of the scam artist - with no good evidence and that nobody gives a damn what my friend thinks about diabetes treatment (or any other anecdotal evidence for health treatment). I am saying that it's my opinion that doctors do often prescribe things based on anecdote and what their friends think - without evidence tailored to the individual because they simply can't know until the patient tries something.
 
Last edited:
OMG. Really kimmio!

Doctors do not prescribe things based on anecdotes.

Every med that is prescribed has been through at least a decade of research and study to determine its usefulness. Not anecdotal evidence

No science takes annecdotal evidence as fact because it simply isn't.

Where doctors do take risks is in trying a med off its normal use. That is where interesting things can happen. A med that is created for heart disease proves to be very useful , say, in the treatment of Parkinson's and things like that.

But even then, if you research through medical journals you will find lots of articles about that.

Even studies are done in real time. I have worked on studies where part way through , it is so obvious that the med is helping that the ethics committee stops the study so patients don't lose out on the med. however, the study still needs to be published in a peer reviewed journal to get any credence.

I believe that what most here are saying to you is that homeopath meds do not meet any standards of study. And it was me that used the term snake oil salesmen. There is no other logical phrase. They are selling weather and pipe dreams of cures.


Has a healthy lifestyle. Waste money on anything you want. But don't pretend it is at all scientific or logical
 
Quote me on naturopaths. Quote me.

Anecdotes are anecdotes. They work for religions and Amazon reviews. They aren't enough for medications, and it's a damn good thing they aren't. You devalue exhaustive studies that determine there are side-effects and rules that demand those side effects be listed in commercials, but you promote individual feedback.

Do you know what a clinical study partly involved? Personal feedback. From dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people. Tallied. Analyzed. Parsed into probabilities.

You don't understand the subject you rail against, at all. Not one bit. And when you get called out, you grasp at straws and say that people are saying things they are not saying.

You want to take exception to anything I've said? Quote me. I'm done with the "you're saying" shooting gallery. When you continue to claim I'm saying things I'm clearly not saying, by now I think you're lying. If you think I'm saying something, quote me. If you claim again that I'm saying something I'm not, I'm just going to bury you deeper with it.
 
chansen said:
Quote me on naturopaths. Quote me.

Anecdotes are anecdotes. They work for religions and Amazon reviews. They aren't enough for medications, and it's a damn good thing they aren't. You devalue exhaustive studies that determine there are side-effects and rules that demand those side effects be listed in commercials, but you promote individual feedback.

Do you know what a clinical study partly involved? Personal feedback. From dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people. Tallied. Analyzed. Parsed into probabilities.

You don't understand the subject you rail against, at all. Not one bit. And when you get called out, you grasp at straws and say that people are saying things they are not saying.

You want to take exception to anything I've said? Quote me. I'm done with the "you're saying" shooting gallery. When you continue to claim I'm saying things I'm clearly not saying, by now I think you're lying. If you think I'm saying something, quote me. If you claim again that I'm saying something I'm not, I'm just going to bury you deeper with it.
Click to expand...
I am puzzled by why you aren't more skeptical of science when nowdays it is so marketing driven - whereas some little naturopathic company with a hobby farm makes products because they've used them, their patients have used them, by choice, and they find they help. What is so bad about that?
 
chansen said:
But you lying about what I'm saying is pissing me off to no end.
Click to expand...

and when you start taking this too seriously, that's when its time to take a break imho?

one of your buttons imho is being pressed here?

then, when you take your break, spend quality time with your sweeties & what's important, then you'll be better able to suss out where your feelings & thoughts are coming from and such

i think its g_od that you are expressing your feelings and communicating your difficulties here :giggle:

i find Kimmio to be the type of writer who 'writes in the moment' -- a lot of what she writes are her immediate impressions--she writes her feelings. when i read her stuff, i try to stay aware that she is processing
 
Last edited:
Lastpointe said:
OMG. Really kimmio!

Doctors do not prescribe things based on anecdotes.

Every med that is prescribed has been through at least a decade of research and study to determine its usefulness. Not anecdotal evidence

No science takes annecdotal evidence as fact because it simply isn't.

Where doctors do take risks is in trying a med off its normal use. That is where interesting things can happen. A med that is created for heart disease proves to be very useful , say, in the treatment of Parkinson's and things like that.

But even then, if you research through medical journals you will find lots of articles about that.

Even studies are done in real time. I have worked on studies where part way through , it is so obvious that the med is helping that the ethics committee stops the study so patients don't lose out on the med. however, the study still needs to be published in a peer reviewed journal to get any credence.

I believe that what most here are saying to you is that homeopath meds do not meet any standards of study. And it was me that used the term snake oil salesmen. There is no other logical phrase. They are selling weather and pipe dreams of cures.


Has a healthy lifestyle. Waste money on anything you want. But don't pretend it is at all scientific or logical
Click to expand...
Not true. How many doctor parties have you sat around at? I've been at a few where some new wonder drug was discussed over beer. They are social beings influenced by their peers also. How often do you think the drug reps come around for visits and pass out free samples?

The ethics commities need to take into account that there may be at least naturopathic, if not homeopathic, treatments that are less invasive, that patients prefer - regardless of what the drug reps say. They need to take into account patient insight into their own lifestyle, culture, and decisions and be more patient centred. They also need to consider that their peer reviewed journals may not be the only credible ones and that other fields can be credible in their own right. Because looking at a problem from different angles is ethical.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
I am puzzled by why you aren't more skeptical of science when nowdays it is so marketing driven - whereas some little naturopathic company with a hobby farm makes products because they've used them, their patients have used them, by choice, and they find they help. What is so bad about that?
Click to expand...
Science itself is driven by marketing.
Many of the naturopathic companies aren't so little. They charge a ridiculous amount of a bottle of water with a fancy label on it, while making false claims. The quality control can be lacking, so the potential for contamination is higher than for drugs with more regulation.
 
Kimmio said:
Not true. How many doctor parties have you sat around at? I've been at a few where some new wonder drug was discussed over beer. How often do you think the drug reps come around for visits and pass out free samples?

The ethics commities need to take into account that there may be at least naturopathic, if not homeopathic, treatments that are less invasive, that patients prefer - regardless of what the drug reps say. They need to take into account patient insight into their own lifestyle, culture, and decisions and be more patient centred. They also need to consider that their peer reviewed journals may not be the only credible ones and that other fields can be credible in their own right.
Click to expand...

Many of these drugs ARE natural. How do you define a naturopathic drug from a conventional one (besides homeopathic)?
There wouldn't be a drug rep passing out a drug if there wasn't evidence for it's use in the first place.

I've come across some interesting case studies. Patients had issues with statins - known possible side effects. So they went off to a natural practitioner, they prescribed red yeast rice. Where do you think statins initially came from? So here, knowing they already can't be on these compounds, they are taking something containing not just one statin compound, but multiple ones, not knowing the dose of each, or even if it's the same from one batch to the next.
 
ChemGal said:
Many of these drugs ARE natural. How do you define a naturopathic drug from a conventional one (besides homeopathic)?
There wouldn't be a drug rep passing out a drug if there wasn't evidence for it's use in the first place.

I've come across some interesting case studies. Patients had issues with statins - known possible side effects. So they went off to a natural practitioner, they prescribed red yeast rice. Where do you think statins initially came from? So here, knowing they already can't be on these compounds, they are taking something containing not just one statin compound, but multiple ones, not knowing the dose of each, or even if it's the same from one batch to the next.
Click to expand...
Of course there's evidence for it's use. Naturopaths will say they same based on journals of holistic medicine which the medical community will brush off - too touchy feely, doesn't meet their methodological standards - and write it off. Not all natural remedies are good or honest but many are and should not be lumped into the same pile. I suppose the same can be said for drugs. So there's an element of preference involved that can be respected without berating both fields. A good andethically naturopath will be careful what brands they use.
 
Kimmio said:
Of course there's evidence for it's use. Naturopaths will say they same based on journals of holistic medicine which the medical community will brush off - too touchy feely, doesn't meet their methodological standards - and write it off. Not all natural remedies are good or honest but many are and should not be lumped into the same pile. I suppose the same can be said for drugs. So there's an element of preference involved that can be respected without berating both fields.
Click to expand...

I'm still confused, how are you differentiating between natural remedies and drugs?
 
Kimmio

If doctors are meeting up with friends and colleagues and discussing mew treatments and meds they are still talking about well researched drugs. One may say that he has had good results with patient A taking this but all the rest will still look at the info and decide


In your odd view, doctors and med companies are somehow the bad guys and poor little homeopathic companies are picked on. That is ridiculous

Go ahead and spend your money on whatever you want. You would be smarter to spend your money on good food and leave the fancy bottles of water to others. They will not help you. Water is water
 
I
Lastpointe said:
Kimmio

If doctors are meeting up with friends and colleagues and discussing mew treatments and meds they are still talking about well researched drugs. One may say that he has had good results with patient A taking this but all the rest will still look at the info and decide


In your odd view, doctors and med companies are somehow the bad guys and poor little homeopathic companies are picked on. That is ridiculous

Go ahead and spend your money on whatever you want. You would be smarter to spend your money on good food and leave the fancy bottles of water to others. They will not help you. Water is water
Click to expand...

I am not going to buy just anything. Don't worry. And doctors are not all bad guys they believe in what they're doing and i do have a modicum of trust in them still - especially ER doctors - i must - but in the last 30-40 years the field is increasingly marketing driven by big pharma - not by independent studies based on unadulterated science. So I do not have blind faith in it. And just from personal experience I know they're still an ol boys (and girls) club - so are many professional fields. That's the way it is. And all people are socially influenced by their peers. Docs and hippy dippies. The medical community is a culture and they will trust what they know by how they know it and the nuts n berries people will do the same. N'er the tween shall meet. Oh well....sometimes they do, though. Makes life interesting.
 
Kimmio said:
And just from personal experience I know they're still an ol boys club
Click to expand...
I think the homeopathic field is worse. I've had numerous encounters of mansplaining, about my health conditions and what homeopathic remedies I should be taking for them.

I've never experienced a doctor tell me how to treat my condition when they aren't even familiar with it in the first place. I also haven't had unsolicited advice from a doctor in a social setting. I can't say the same about homeopaths/naturopaths.
 
The thing I resent about the medical community most is how much control they have...eg. need this...get a doctor (who's never seen you at home) to fill out a long form...have a disability they don't have a lot of experience with? ...another form. Have them explain exactly how long you will be ill - as if they have a crystal ball. Want to go back to work? ....get the doctor to sign off that you're ready and what you're capable of even though they've never seen your workplace. Bureaucracy, business, and medicine are all tangled up and patients are at the mercy of decisions made during brief visits. And that is about money, not care.

They do not know you better than you know yourself. I really, really like a more holistic, less dehumanizing approach.
 
What on earth do you mean by

"In dependant studies based on unadulterated science"

All medical studies are funded. Of course they are . For millions of dollars. A lone doctor could not possibly fund a study.

My son participates in a study for the past 20 years. He started when he was 6. An asthma study run out of Atlanta With several thousand children around the continent.

But it cost millions. He was put on blind meds to assess their effect on asthma. He still has an annual checkup for long term effects.


It.is just an example of what is done to assess treatments. If this case, asthma meds had not yet been tested on children, just adults and so the study looked at all the growth parameters as well as effects of the meds.


Did money come from pharma? Likely. Did it affect how my son participated. No


You have some odd perception of medicine and scientific studies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top