Mriana, it's like the Borg. Resistance is futile! It's like one mind. :-):lol: Never liked the Borg, because they didn't allow people to think for themselves or to question anything. Almost as bad as Fundamngelicalism, if not as bad.
Mriana, it's like the Borg. Resistance is futile! It's like one mind. :-):lol: Never liked the Borg, because they didn't allow people to think for themselves or to question anything. Almost as bad as Fundamngelicalism, if not as bad. Once again the two of you fail to understand the arguments. Our disagreement with you is not that you disagree with me or asanta or McKenzi, its that you don't address our points. At least if we assimilated you your thoughts might be more organized..turns to face you with that blank Borg expression as he extends his assimilation tubules and inserts them into your neck. resistance truly is futile for both of you ;-P
I’m ashamed of you, Vyazma and Mriana. Surely you have to recogmize that Mckenzie and Macgyver have authority on their side. :lol:
Occam
(Hmmm, didn’t I see a similar approach by Lily?)
I'm ashamed of you, Vyazma and Mriana. Surely you have to recogmize that Mckenzie and Macgyver have authority on their side. :lol: Occam (Hmmm, didn't I see a similar approach by Lily?):lol: Thanks for the laugh, Occam. :)
And I’m embarrased for you, Occam. Surely you recognize that no one is commiting an appeal to authority fallacy here. Acknowledging that there is such a thing as expertise and specialized knowledge and that an hour on Google doesn’t replace thoughtful consultation with someone who has such expertise is not tantamount to claiming expert opinion as definitive evidence.
The real problem is that detailed, thoughtful arguments are put forward which are not responded to or rebutted but simply ignored. Mriana has repeatedly challenged me to defend positions I’ve never taken, and you and VYAZMA haven’t even tried to respond with any substance in this thread, just cute little quips. If this is the best quality discussion we, as mods on a forum dedicated to skepticism and rationalism, are capable of here, it doesn’t give one much hope for the value of this kind of public discussion forum. No wonder Popular Science magazine gave up on its public comment forum, with the following rationale:
A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.
Well, McK, I get a kick out of your frequent flaunting of expertise. Just because I have a PhD in biochemistry doesn’t mean I can claim to outrank you and Macgyver. (I do recall biochem graduate students laughing at medical residents {and that would, I think, include DMVs,} who thought they were experts in chemistry.) While you do post references to published data, I’ve seen research results tilting in a different direction. However, the whole area is of low enough interest to me that I’m not going to bother digging them up or even enter into the discussion.
Occam
Well, McK, I get a kick out of your frequent flaunting of expertise. Just because I have a PhD in biochemistry doesn't mean I can claim to outrank you and Macgyver. (I do recall biochem graduate students laughing at medical residents {and that would, I think, include DMVs,} who thought they were experts in chemistry.) While you do post references to published data, I've seen research results tilting in a different direction. However, the whole area is of low enough interest to me that I'm not going to bother digging them up or even enter into the discussion. OccamOccam when discussing a subject of a biochemical nature I would certainly give deference to your opinion if the subject lay beyond the realm of my own knowledge. If I stated that electron chain transport was part of the Krebs cycle I would expect that you would point out my error. Since none of you are experts in medicine, when you or anyone are discussing medical issues you shouldn't be surprised if we chime in to keep the conversation from jumping off the rails. This post is the second time you have commented that you dont have the time to dig up citations to support your point of view and there in lies the real problem. You accuse McKenzie, Asanta, and myself of committing an appeal to authority yet we have taken the time to cite references and you ( and Mriana and Vyazma) are the ones who have offered nothing in terms of science to support your views. You also fall into the same trap that we constantly rail about when the media does it. You believe that simply because you have heard two opposing viewpoints that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Just because one person says the word is nearly round and another says its flat doesn't mean its shaped like an egg.
Macgyver, I posted at least one link to the Mayo Clinic, which was the most reliable source of all the links I posted and yet both you and McKenzie insist I’ve done nothing to support my arguments, insisting, from the way I read the posts, that you two are authorities on the matter. Quite frankly, I’m in agreement with Occam concerning the authority remark he made and I’ve gotten a kick out of his posts. He’s also right, IMO, that it would include DMVs. Granted, my degree is in psychology, neuro-psychology, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know squat about physiology. I do know this much, whatever you put into your body, it also affects the brain and not just the body. The same is true of whatever affects the brain, also affects the body. I also took Biomedical and chemistry courses too. I don’t think it takes a genius to figure out that there is a good possibility that radioactive iodine could have contributed to my mother’s Graves Disease, which makes it imperative, IMO, that we question modern day medicines as much as we do Alternative Medicines and folk medicines, because if we don’t, I don’t see how we will improve medical science. However, I can ask my son if he knows of any online references to some of the things he’s studied during his massage therapy training, which, in his opinion, shows that scientific studies have shown that some of these things do help some people, both in prevention and therapy. This doesn’t mean I don’t question some of what he’s learned also. I took a swing course (meant for exceptional upper underclass students and grad students) in biological psychology and my thesis paper, which involved a lot of research, was on how ECT does do damage to the brain, yet it’s still being used on people with depression. Despite going against current thought on ECT, I made an A on my paper and I am still convinced to this day that ECT isn’t a good thing to use as treatment on anyone. I did the research and I still do research. If you want me to give you a thesis paper to support my point of view, I can do that and it would be a lot easier for me than writing short paragraphs to support my point, but I really don’t believe you really want to sit and read thesis paper on the matter. I also think that even if you read a thesis paper, you’d still claim authority on the subject and insist you know far more, which you might, but it seems to me that you are stuck in one way of thinking, without questioning it, this would include adhering to the current support of ECT and the denial that it does damage, sometimes irreparable damage, despite that we develop new brain cells. Out of all the medical fields, my own major study is still deeper in the Dark Ages than any other field of medicine. So doctor, if you think I criticize internal medicine, you should see what I do to my own field of study and yet I still manage to make mostly A’s in my major, but I don’t claim to have any expertise in the matter, because I admit we are still in the Dark Ages of medicine and we still need to question everything. I got my A’s because I dared to question what was being taught and think for myself, like the professors encouraged and complained because most students didn’t know how to think by the time they got to college, but rather went according to what they were told to think. Thinking and thinking for oneself is an important skill and so is questioning, which should not be discouraged. Unfortunately, it’s also gotten my older son and me into a lot of disputes with those who believe they are authorities in said subject, unless they were also willing to think outside the box too.
I think what Occam is pointing out is that some people on this forum truly believe they are authorities on certain topics and don’t wish to think outside the box and question what they think they know or have learned ever. I wonder if Einstein, Hawkings, and others would have made such notoriety if they always went with the status quo, didn’t question current thinking, didn’t think outside the box, and didn’t even attempt to test their own thinking? I agree, there are some things one can’t question- like gravity and evolution, but IF Darwin hadn’t question the current thinking of his time, do you think we’d have the Theory of Evolution now?
The only question I purposed at the beginning of this whole thread was the use of willow bark tea if you couldn’t access modern medicine/aspirin and the whole thing gets blown up to willow bark is no good, but aspirin is and then some. Huh? Since it was obviously unclear, I even attempted to rephrase it, stating that there are some places to this day, far removed from medical facilities, in which folk medicine could/might help until one got to a medical facility, and there was still arrogance and refusal to think about the question, with the insistence that modern medicine is the only way to go, no matter what. I’m certainly glad not to be stuck out in the backwoods far removed from civilization, with a painful injury, with some people who are close-minded. I happen to be grateful that my grandmother and great grandmother taught me something about folk medicine, because it could come in handy, esp if that is all one has available at the time. I’m also glad that I do think and question things, including both modern and folk medicine, not accepting authority as the end all and be all gospel. As I said, many a woman has died from breast cancer following the demand of her doctor to let him worry about the lump, not allowing herself to “worry her pretty little head” about it. Such doctors should be disbarred, IMO, esp when they do not allow a [female] patient to question them or ask thoughtful questions, being pro active in his/her treatment, this last again digresses from the original question.
BTW, 911 is a luxury of the city and doesn’t exist is extremely rural areas, in which heart attack and stroke victims have to be air vac to this day. So, yes, I do ask myself if I would accept a folk remedy even for a painful injury if stuck out there in such a remote area. It could very easily happen and I know those areas very well in my area.
I quit. I see no point in continuing…
I quit. I see no point in continuing...No insult meant, asanta, but I didn't even know you had started debating the subject, unlike Mckenzie and Macgyver. Granted, you made brief comments, but that's about it and I agreed with you on a couple of things, but they had nothing to do with the original question. In fact, the subject derailed within the first few posts.
I quit. I see no point in continuing...You are wise beyond your years, Asanta. Lois
The only question I purposed at the beginning of this whole thread was the use of willow bark tea if you couldn't access modern medicine/aspirin and the whole thing gets blown up to willow bark is no good, but aspirin is and then some. Huh? Since it was obviously unclear, I even attempted to rephrase it, stating that there are some places to this day, far removed from medical facilities, in which folk medicine could/might help until one got to a medical facility, and there was still arrogance and refusal to think about the question, with the insistence that modern medicine is the only way to go, no matter what. I'm certainly glad not to be stuck out in the backwoods far removed from civilization, with a painful injury, with some people who are close-minded. I happen to be grateful that my grandmother and great grandmother taught me something about folk medicine, because it could come in handy, esp if that is all one has available at the time.Look at what you just wrote and then read my very first response (below) on this thread and you will see why McKenzie, Asanta and I are frustrated with you. You don't pay attention to what we are saying. Stop the "appeal to authority" nonsense. Its just an excuse you an Vyazma and Occam use when you can't argue the facts.
If the question is "given the choice would anyone object to taking willow bark tea instead of aspirin" for a fever I would say yes. I would disagree. Granted aspirin is a derivative of a chemical found in willow bark, but Aspirin is a regulated product. When you buy an aspirin tablet you know what you're getting. When you drink willow bark tea you have no idea what's really in there. I can't see any advantage at all to using a mystery product over something which has better purity and quality control and I can't imagine too many places in the world today where aspirin isn't readily and cheaply available. If on the other hand you are stranded in the wild (or live in some impoverished nation with an abundance of willow trees) and you have a fever that is dangerously high and you are sure you can identify the right tree and make the tea correctly then I would not object. I don't imagine that would happen very often though.
Once again the two of you fail to understand the arguments. Our disagreement with you is not that you disagree with me or asanta or McKenzi, its that you don't address our points. At least if we assimilated you your thoughts might be more organized..turns to face you with that blank Borg expression as he extends his assimilation tubules and inserts them into your neck. resistance truly is futile for both of you ;-P:lol:
The real problem is that detailed, thoughtful arguments are put forward which are not responded to or rebutted but simply ignored. Mriana has repeatedly challenged me to defend positions I've never taken, and you and VYAZMA haven't even tried to respond with any substance in this thread, just cute little quips.2 things: The detailed thoughtful arguments are coming from both sides. I wholeheartedly feel you and Mac and Asanta have ignored points we have made. Repeatedly. I think there is a touch of "expertise bias" going on in that regard. Your expertise is not narrow enough for me to take all of your comments as facts regarding vitamins. The second thing is, I'm not responding in this thread with any substance. This battle is waged across several different threads for 3 years now. p.s. I saw on Harvard's website that the use of multi-vitamin is an acceptable way to supplement one's nutritional intake. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/ Scroll down to number 10 on the site. Or read the whole thing. It's a great guideline.
edit out double.
p.s. I saw on Harvard's website that the use of multi-vitamin is an acceptable way to supplement one's nutritional intake. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/ Scroll down to number 10 on the site. Or read the whole thing. It's a great guideline.Vyazma even Harvard can have people who make poorly thought out and unsubstantiated statements. Harvard has not been tasked with the responsibility of making policy for the medical community or speaking for us as whole. I would pretty confidently suggest that this statement does not even represent the opinion of all doctors on the Harvard med school faculty or even the majority. That particular article does not even have an authors name or credentials so we don't know who is speaking or who they are speaking for. The statement they make is "A daily multivitamin is a great nutrition insurance policy. Some extra vitamin D may add an extra health boost." The science shows that if you are an American citizen who does not have some special needs the first half of that statement is false. The second half is true only because it doesn't say anything. Vitamin D might add an extra health boost. It just as easily may not, and furthermore it may be detrimental. The fact is we don't know. It is a bit irresponsible though for a respected institution to put something on their website that implies one should take vitamin supplements when they don't have good evidence to back that up. Harvard is a big institution with many departments so there is a very good chance one hand ( the Harvard medical community) doesn't know what the other hand (the doctor, nurse, nutritionist, or some premed student earning extra credit who wrote that article) has done. You have criticized us for appealing to authority and yet if we accept this anonymous statement attributed to an institution we would be doing just that. I don't care if the person making the statement is from Harvard, Stanford, Duke or the University of Gaudalajara School of Medicine. They have to have the data to back up their claims.
Jeez MacGeyver, it would help if you first understood what people are claiming wouldn’t it?
But you keep trudging along refuting claims about “health benefits” and “preventative medicine”.
I suppose you would equally refute the claims someone made about bananas being good nutrition too. Or no?
Your above post mentions “Health Benefits” several times. Is that just framing the argument so you can safely reside in the “no proof zone”?
Yes, yes it is.
I’m waiting for you to refute the fact that the ingestion of multi-vitamins doesn’t introduce needed chemicals and minerals into the body.
You also never addressed my points on the Food Pyramid or any other metrics on daily nutritional/food intake.
I suppose you want to continue refuting that multi-vitamins cure cancer? Although I don’t know who is making that claim.
Harvard is a big institution with many departments so there is a very good chance one hand ( the Harvard medical community) doesn't know what the other hand (the doctor, nurse, nutritionist, or some premed student earning extra credit who wrote that article) has done.I'm trying to counter-balance your "authority". Yes and I'm sure that Department of Harvard doesn't know what it's doing right? You should probably contact Harvard and let them know some Departments of their University are sub-standard. I guess the main overseer was asleep at the wheel.
I'm waiting for you to refute the fact that the ingestion of multi-vitamins doesn't introduce needed chemicals and minerals into the body. You also never addressed my points on the Food Pyramid or any other metrics on daily nutritional/food intake. .I will gladly state that vitamins do NOT introduce needed chemicals into the body if you will define what "needed" means. I keep pointing to the lack of health benefits because if a "needed" chemical does not exist in sufficient quantities there ought to be some health consequences as a result of that yet no one has been able to show on any level that people who take vitamins regularly are healthier. One can only conclude therefor that the average diet provides plenty of these vitamins and a supplement therefor does not provide needed chemicals. If one is not deficient in those chemicals then they are not needed. If your cars engine requires 4 quarts of oil and you add a fifth you are not introducing a needed ingredient. Since many vitamins catalyze reactions or are used in reactions, increasing the concentration of those substance in the body might push a reaction along in a way that could be harmful so there is good reason to assume that there might be a "Goldilocks" amount as there is with many other chemicals in the body ( potassium for example). If you add more of a chemical into the body than it needs it could potentially be harmful. People who take vitamins should be as concerned about excess as they are about deficiency but for some odd reason they aren't. The body is reasonably effective at getting rid of things it doesn't need when its healthy but there are limits and they are different for different substances and different states of health. I dont recall your comments on the food pyramid and this is a long thread so if you can point me to your comments I will try to address them.
Harvard is a big institution with many departments so there is a very good chance one hand ( the Harvard medical community) doesn't know what the other hand (the doctor, nurse, nutritionist, or some premed student earning extra credit who wrote that article) has done.I'm trying to counter-balance your "authority". Yes and I'm sure that Department of Harvard doesn't know what it's doing right? You should probably contact Harvard and let them know some Departments of their University are sub-standard. I guess the main overseer was asleep at the wheel. Harvard is a huge institution with thousands of employees. I guarantee you the university did not poll its physicians to get a consensus viewpoint on that issue. The hospital I work at certainly does not ask its physician body for its opinion before posting things on its website. it assigns one person to write an article. The people in charge of the website and PR have zero medical training and rely on the authors of any given article to do their homework. Hopefully its a physician or a nurse but even then its only the opinion of one physician or nurse especially when you are talking about something as mundane as the article you cited. That piece is not a scientific article, its a public relations piece. That was a comment by one single individual who did not even provide a name or title and certainly didn't provide justification for their position. As I said, without data to support their position their opinion is not worthy of consideration no matter what institution it comes from.