• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

The Science Thread

L K said:
hockeyfan1 said:
Bullfrog said:
hockeyfan1 said:
An excellent professional health product I can attest to.  Far superior to other conventional anti-clotting blood-thinning medications with all their due complications.
Click to expand...

I'll admit I'm not a physician, so my defense of science-based medicine is based purely on what I read as a layperson.

What's your basis for making the claim that it's far superior to other prescribed medicines? And how do you know you're taking the correct dose?
Click to expand...

Nattokinase vs Coumadin: benefits, side effects, etc.

http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/nattokinase_vrs_coumadin_.htm

How do I know if it works for me or that I am taking the correct dosage?  (My health care physician is an MD with a M.Sc in Biochemistry -- higher than an ordinary naturopath) with an interest in natural medicine.  He has studied both (mainstream & alternative) and is very discerning about many natural products (he has high standards).  If he is unsure about a particular supplement, or it's actual ingredients (if it actually does contain what it's supposed to contain), he won't endorse it. 

Lab tests analysis showcases the efficacy of the products that have been recommended/requisitioned for me.
Click to expand...

Peer reviewed evidence.  Learn what that is.
Click to expand...

Of course I know what that is.  Where in hell do you think my health physician gets information from?  References that refer the product's efficacy/testing /research etc. by other medical professionals, researchers, studies.
 
hockeyfan1 said:
L K said:
hockeyfan1 said:
Bullfrog said:
hockeyfan1 said:
An excellent professional health product I can attest to.  Far superior to other conventional anti-clotting blood-thinning medications with all their due complications.
Click to expand...

I'll admit I'm not a physician, so my defense of science-based medicine is based purely on what I read as a layperson.

What's your basis for making the claim that it's far superior to other prescribed medicines? And how do you know you're taking the correct dose?
Click to expand...

Nattokinase vs Coumadin: benefits, side effects, etc.

http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/nattokinase_vrs_coumadin_.htm

How do I know if it works for me or that I am taking the correct dosage?  (My health care physician is an MD with a M.Sc in Biochemistry -- higher than an ordinary naturopath) with an interest in natural medicine.  He has studied both (mainstream & alternative) and is very discerning about many natural products (he has high standards).  If he is unsure about a particular supplement, or it's actual ingredients (if it actually does contain what it's supposed to contain), he won't endorse it. 

Lab tests analysis showcases the efficacy of the products that have been recommended/requisitioned for me.
Click to expand...

Peer reviewed evidence.  Learn what that is.
Click to expand...

Of course I know what that is.  Where in hell do you think my health physician gets information from?  References that refer the product's efficacy/testing /research etc. by other medical professionals, researchers, studies.
Click to expand...

You post the equivalent of geocities pages.  The reason Nattokinase got pulled off the shelves is that anticoagulant therapies require clinical trials testing for efficacy in humans.  If there was data to actually support the use of Nattokinase for actual stroke prevention it wouldn't have been removed from the shelves.  Primary level studies aren't the equivalent of RCTs.  And natto as a product itself is not the direct equivalent to natto supplementation.  But hey, Coumadin is rat poison just mushed into pill form because it sounds scarier that way.
 
Well, I don't know about you guys but individual bits of nonsense are wholly ineffective on me. But if someone posts piece of nonsense after piece of nonsense in an attempt to bludgeon the conversation to death with links to things that aren't in any way scientific, I'm certainly convinced.
 
Nik the Trik said:
Well, I don't know about you guys but individual bits of nonsense are wholly ineffective on me. But if someone posts piece of nonsense after piece of nonsense in an attempt to bludgeon the conversation to death with links to things that aren't in any way scientific, I'm certainly convinced.
Click to expand...

It was all the exclamation marks that sold me.
 
So,  what you're all trying to say is that if something is actually proven to work and if it is natural, it's largely bunk.  If one cannot have it tested as one would a drug, it's bunk.  Studies, evaluations, etc, don't count in the least bit.  I, see.

I can see the bias on this board is very one-sided.  It is fruitless trying to a least present a balanced, fair viewpoint.  Fine.  I could care less about your opinions.  I don't need them.  There is plenty out there that attests to the efficacy and potential benefits of natural supplements.  What's the point of posting anything even from a scientific study when excuses are going to be made.

According to  Charles Weijer:
At Western University?s Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Charles Weijer sees opposition to science often, and says it?s not new, just more widespread.

?This skepticism finds root in a broader, actually long-standing, ambivalence that we have about science and technological progress,? says Weijer, a bioethics expert who holds a Canada Research Chair.

On one hand, science brings hope. But the side-effects? We?re not so sure.

Science rests on trust, on the belief that earlier scientists have laid a foundation for new work, but ?there have been a lot of real events that breed mistrust in the reports of scientists.?

Mad-cow disease, where the British government played down risks until people became sick. Stem cells studies with faked data. Advertisers with an influence over research journals. Drug companies hiding results of trials that go badly. And even governments muzzling their scientists.

?None of this is made up. These are all actual things, and these give people reason to ask themselves: Can I believe in what I am being told by scientists?? says Weijer.


http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/why-dont-people-trust-science
 
From the cmaj.ca (Dec. 1997):

Dr. Charles Weijer, a general practitdoner turned bioethicist Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital, says the best way to assess
complementary therapies is to stop trying to measure biologic effect.  Instead, researchers should a package of outcomes such as symptom improvements, pain control, and control over nausea and vomiting,  "Some treatments...lend then selves well to study", he says .  But with alternative medicine, the outcomes are holistic and diffuse.  It is much more difficult to measure holistic well-being."

Dr. Eric Meslin, former bioethicist Sunnybrook Hospital:
The question of what constitutes valid scientific evidence remains One of the biggest barriers in the battle for mainstream acceptance of complementary therapies.  However, Meslin says the argument that complementary therapies have not been validated "is not a strong one."

He says many mainstream treatments, both medical and surgical, have never beenvalidated by standard studies either.
 
hockeyfan1 said:
So,  what you're all trying to say is that if something is actually proven to work and if it is natural, it's largely bunk.  If one cannot have it tested as one would a drug, it's bunk.  Studies, evaluations, etc, don't count in the least bit.  I, see.
Click to expand...

No, what we're saying is what you're presenting aren't things that have actually been proven to work. They are capable of being tested like drugs, and, when they have been, they have - for the most part - failed those tests. Presenting biased "studies" and "evaluations" aren't going to help your point, because they're so blatantly biased. They're basically people saying "it works because I believe it works and I know people who have used it who have seen improvement - even though that improvement cannot be directly tied to the usage of whatever remedy I'm supporting."
 
bustaheims said:
hockeyfan1 said:
So,  what you're all trying to say is that if something is actually proven to work and if it is natural, it's largely bunk.  If one cannot have it tested as one would a drug, it's bunk.  Studies, evaluations, etc, don't count in the least bit.  I, see.
Click to expand...

No, what we're saying is what you're presenting aren't things that have actually been proven to work. They are capable of being tested like drugs, and, when they have been, they have - for the most part - failed those tests. Presenting biased "studies" and "evaluations" aren't going to help your point, because they're so blatantly biased. They're basically people saying "it works because I believe it works and I know people who have used it who have seen improvement - even though that improvement cannot be directly tied to the usage of whatever remedy I'm supporting."
Click to expand...

It's also completely unfair. For example, Aspirin is essentially a highly concentrated form of a natural remedy that was known to work. That's why we made aspirin. Chicken broth is widely known to aid in decongestion, that's why people still have chicken broth when they're sick. But just because it's natural doesn't mean it will work, let alone good for you! People complain all the time about artificial sweeteners but it's far easier to ingest too much sugar than it is to ingest artificial sweeteners before you suffer ill effects.
 
I'm really starting to question the quality of the medical care I'd receive at Alpha Moonbase.
 
Bender said:
bustaheims said:
hockeyfan1 said:
So,  what you're all trying to say is that if something is actually proven to work and if it is natural, it's largely bunk.  If one cannot have it tested as one would a drug, it's bunk.  Studies, evaluations, etc, don't count in the least bit.  I, see.
Click to expand...

No, what we're saying is what you're presenting aren't things that have actually been proven to work. They are capable of being tested like drugs, and, when they have been, they have - for the most part - failed those tests. Presenting biased "studies" and "evaluations" aren't going to help your point, because they're so blatantly biased. They're basically people saying "it works because I believe it works and I know people who have used it who have seen improvement - even though that improvement cannot be directly tied to the usage of whatever remedy I'm supporting."
Click to expand...

It's also completely unfair. For example, Aspirin is essentially a highly concentrated form of a natural remedy that was known to work. That's why we made aspirin. Chicken broth is widely known to aid in decongestion, that's why people still have chicken broth when they're sick. But just because it's natural doesn't mean it will work, let alone good for you! People complain all the time about artificial sweeteners but it's far easier to ingest too much sugar than it is to ingest artificial sweeteners before you suffer ill effects.
Click to expand...

Truth is, neither artificial sweeteners nor too much sugar is good for you.
 
hockeyfan1 said:
[youtube]97N18BTyj4w[/youtube]
Click to expand...

While I take the sincerity of the maker of that video at face value, if somebody told me that that was made as a comedy video to parody what appeals intellectually to some people when it comes to health care, I would 100% believe them.
 
The way medicine should be...the integrative approach:

A new study has shed light on how cancer patients' attitudes and beliefs drive the use of complementary and alternative medicine. Published early online in CANCER, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, the findings may help hospitals develop more effective and accessible integrative oncology services for patients.

...patients who were younger, those who were female, and those who had a college education tended to expect greater benefits from complementary and alternative medicine....Attitudes and beliefs about complementary and alternative medicine were much more likely to affect patients' use than clinical and demographic characteristics.

"We found that specific attitudes and beliefs -- such as expectation of therapeutic benefits, patient-perceived barriers regarding cost and access, and opinions of patients' physician and family members -- may predict patients' use of complementary and alternative medicine following cancer diagnoses," said Dr. Mao. "We also found that these beliefs and attitudes varied by key socio-demographic factors such as sex, race, and education, which highlights the need for a more individualized approach when clinically integrating complementary and alternative medicine into conventional cancer care.

...therapies such as acupuncture and yoga continue to demonstrate clinical benefits for reducing pain, fatigue, and psychological distress, the field of integrative oncology is emerging to bring complementary and alternative medicine together with conventional care to improve patient outcomes.

"Our findings emphasize the importance of patients' attitudes and beliefs about complementary and alternative medicine as we seek to develop integrative oncology programs in academic medical centers and community hospitals," said Dr. Bauml.

Read article here:

http://www.lef.org/news/lefdailynews?NewsID=23918&Section=Disease
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top