Anyone else interested in naturopathic/homeopathic "medicine"?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by Rothbard

I often wonder the same about many doctors.

How many doctors get the flu vaccine? How many recommend it to their patients?

I'm not a doctor, just a medical student. I can tell you that although it is required of me and all employees at the hospitals at which I've worked, I'd get it anyway. Not for my own health, since as a young person I have a relatively robust immune system, but because of the risk of transmitting a virus to a susceptible baby in the NICU or elderly patient in clinic.

As a person who is neither overtly malicious nor has pudding for brains, I find those to be unacceptable outcomes and try to reduce the frequency of their occurence.

Allow me to clarify my implication.

You are either overtly malicious or just plain dense if you do not do the same.

Since my generous view of human nature forces me to not attribute to evil what I can chalk up to stupidity...

But enough about things that make sense.

Let's talk more about homeopathy.

Why did you initially become interested in homeopathy? Was it due to one or a series of anecdotal events that lack generalizability and reliability? Why has the interest in homeopathy been sustained despite learning that metanalyses of the few relevant studies done on its efficacy have concluded it is not significantly different from placebo?

For that matter, why has your interest survived learning about general chemistry and physics?

Originally Posted by Rothbard

I often wonder the same about many doctors.

How many doctors get the flu vaccine? How many recommend it to their patients?

Statins offer no mortality benefit for high risk primary prevention. (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...ll/170/12/1024). How many doctors prescribe statins for primary prevention?

For every three people in whom cardiovascular events are prevented, one person will develop diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21693744



Explain.



I'll finish medical school, but I won't be applying for residencies because the system does little to help people.



Why?

See the line directly below bold text

nm

I will grant, though, that chemicals which have an effect on the body do tend to have more negative effects than telling someone to drink a bottle of tap water and muttering a prayer to Odin.

Originally Posted by Rothbard

What makes you think that I wouldn't get the flu shot?

"But I didn't say you wouldn't get the flu shot, I only said 'if you wouldn't get the flu shot'"

Ok...then how is this at all relevant to my post?

I was covering my bases to not have to post it later depending on how many crazy kinds of crap you believe in. More relevant stuff followed in another post

Originally Posted by Gigantron

Since you're talking about electives, which by definition are not required, then that is a completely different story. At least then the student has a choice whether or not they want to learn about it. On the other hand, if this was during a required rotation, I'd have my doubts.

This isn't something I was required to learn or taught, nor will I ever be tested on. It was something someone said. Listen, I understand you're still in high school and think you're a big shot (we get it), or that you're taking your first rhetoric class and feel the need to grasp onto specific words for dear life, but something you'll learn with experience is that you don't have to believe every opinion a professor expresses. You have your own autonomy to disagree, just as much as they have their own autonomy to express a belief that is not the official stance by an organization.

Originally Posted by Longshanks

This isn't something I was required to learn or taught, nor will I ever be tested on. It was something someone said. Listen, I understand you're still in high school and think you're a big shot (we get it), or that you're taking your first rhetoric class and feel the need to grasp onto specific words for dear life, but something you'll learn with experience is that you don't have to believe every opinion a professor expresses. You have your own autonomy to disagree, just as much as they have their own autonomy to express a belief that is not the official stance by an organization.

Cute.

Originally Posted by Rothbard

I often wonder the same about many doctors.

How many doctors get the flu vaccine? How many recommend it to their patients?

Statins offer no mortality benefit for high risk primary prevention. (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...ll/170/12/1024). How many doctors prescribe statins for primary prevention?

For every three people in whom cardiovascular events are prevented, one person will develop diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21693744



Explain.



I'll finish medical school, but I won't be applying for residencies because the system does little to help people.



Why?

Dude, I am going to call you out on that diabetes paper you quoted. The paper is comparing diabetes incidence in intensive-statin therapy and moderate-statin therapy. Ever think those getting the intensive-statin therapy are probably those who also have the most risk factors for developing diabetes in the first place? That paper does not establish a causative link between diabetes and stations, it just points out that those people who get intensive-dose statins are more likely to latter develop diabetes. It's like saying people who weigh 300 pounds are more likely to get diabetes than those people who weigh 200 pounds. Friggin' duh.

I am not even going to start on vaccines. They have done a ton of good for mankind with a small trade-off in risk.

Who does help people? Lawyers? Politicians? Chiropractors? You're telling me modern allopathy does zero good for anyone? What about the eradication of smallpox? Orthopods fixing a broken bone? CT guy replacing a valve? Come on....

nm

Originally Posted by Rothbard

Anyone want to practice allopathic medicine? Look at the millions of people killed and maimed by medications each year. One picture of a blue dude doesn't prove much.

Outside of the management of acute conditions, allopathy is a joke. This is well understood by anyone who gives the subject a bit of thought.

Statins? LMAO. If someone prescribes statins for any but the most extreme cases, my respect for them is immediately lost.

Cancer chemotherapy? Maybe it will add a few months to your life. Chances are it will shorten your life, and it will certainly trash the quality of whatever life you have left.

DM, HTN, cancer, autoimmunity? To a significant extent a result of exposure to toxins, toxins ignored by most doctors. Vaccines? Don't get me started.

Modern allopathy is predicated on poor statistics, deception, and shortsightedness.

IAMA practicing homeopath currently in medical school. AMA.

Lets just do a breakdown.... for input I googled "how many people killed...." and got autocorrected to "cougar", "illuminati", and "vending machines". So subjectively allopathic medicine is safer than these things using an approach with equally valid logic to the points you made.

it baffles me that, with as selective as the system is, people like you can slip through. conspiracy theorists with a jaded agenda who just like to bitch and undermine the only toolset that offers any hope at all for any truly sick person.

and let us just get something straight - allopathic medicine is SUPPOSED to be interventional. the notion that it is somehow inferior because it doesnt emphasize the preventative aspects as much as some pseudo treatments is completely absurd. I will even give you a numbered list as to why

1. prevention oreinted systems measure success by showing a lack of disease that was not there nor was it expected to show
2. acute care systems measure success by restoring health from tangible illness
3. preventative techniques in practice are just grownup renditions of kindergarten wall posters. "don't eat fried butter and I should get up off my ass? WHY WASNT I TOLD THIS?!?!?"
4. modern medicine is continually having to stress prevention - something it shouldnt have to do- because most people are irresponsible with their health

your article is so irrational im actually a little worried I will incur some harm by considering it. am i bleeding from the ears yet?

as for the specific drugs....

Statins
by your own link's admission, they are shown to decrease mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. At this stage, this is still prevention, not acute management (so you've contradicted yourself).
The paper finds that use of statins for prevention does not a health benefit in high risk individuals - i.e. individuals who were not guaranteed to develop the condition in the first place. worst thing your link shows is that the healthy people remained healthy on statins (in fact... the absolute figures for statins were lower in nearly every catagory.... but not statistically significant... SOUND THE ALARMS!)

chemotherapy
This is the reason why I am officially calling you out... this is one of the single worst arguments any naturopath, homeopath, chiropractor, JuJu doctor, or celebrity persona has every used. People who go on chemotherapy do so because they will very likely die of their disease. cancer is not a glamorous death. You suggest that the side effects of chemo detract from the resort holiday lifestyle that is cancer... SND doesn't have a smiley to convey how completely foolish that is....

furthermore, you mention that while it can increase life expectancy, its problems outweighs the benefits. How the hell arrogant are you that you think you can swoop in and tell someone dying of cancer "nope, sorry! while this drug may add months to your life (which is common even for really bad cases.... 6months to GBM on average with gliadel for a reference point) I dont think you have anything worth living for and I cant see why you would want to endure some nausea, discomfort, weakness, ect... in order to live longer and I am going to make the executive decision that you and the world as a whole are better off if you die now rather than some undetermined time in the future".

And you forget to mention that the alternative is to do nothing - something that is well within the ability of the patients to choose for themselves.

everything else
the crap you spat about toxins are largely speculative, and the vaccines... good thing you didnt start on about them - you would have embarrassed yourself.

Originally Posted by Rothbard

I often wonder the same about many doctors.

How many doctors get the flu vaccine? How many recommend it to their patients?

Statins offer no mortality benefit for high risk primary prevention. (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...ll/170/12/1024). How many doctors prescribe statins for primary prevention?

For every three people in whom cardiovascular events are prevented, one person will develop diabetes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21693744






Explain.



I'll finish medical school, but I won't be applying for residencies because the system does little to help people.



Why?

most doctors recommend flu vaccines. most also get them themselves. many hospitals require or strongly urge it of their employees and most would get it regardless of outside pressures.

you also seemed to miss the commentary attached to your article about statins and diabetes. here are a few gems.


both analyses clearly demonstrate
that the benefit of cardiovascular risk reduction by
statin therapy far exceeds the risk of diabetes development.

Therefore, statin therapy should remain a cornerstone of
cardiovascular risk reduction in both patients with high cardiovascular
risk in primary prevention as well as patients
with established cardiovascular disease


your cited study also doesn't seem to account for selection bias due to common risk factors between diabetes and coronary heart disease. The selection criteria between high and moderate dosing was based on other studies on the basis of being called "aggressive" in the workup. We need to know that the decision to treat "aggressively" is random and not due to the patients physical health suggesting need for more radical treatment. The correlation could be completely coincidental (and likely is.... direct relationship between statin dosage, fat-assedness, and likelihood to develop diabetes....)

Originally Posted by Rothbard

What makes you think that I wouldn't get the flu shot?

Let me anticipate your response, "But I didn't say you wouldn't get the flu shot, I only said 'if you wouldn't get the flu shot...'"

Ok...then how is this at all relevant to my post?

if you would get a flu shot.. why do you not want to "get started" on vaccines.... and why did you bring up flu shots at all? it is relevant to your post regardless because either A. you were making a counterpoint with your rhetorical question and suggesting flu shots are somehow bad or B. you were not making a counterpoint making your statement wholly irrelevant so anything Ape might have said which was also irrelevant is in effect relevant to your post.


and how exactly do you justify homeopathy with all of your ill founded complaints with allopathy? it does NOTHING nor has any study ever suggested it does anythign without being VERY poorly designed. in effect.... every study has claimed that men as a whole prefer women who are 600lbs+, but the study only accepted data points involving a circus fun mirror. ya... that's helpful....

The greatest irony in this is that the people who support this crap rely on two major arguments

1. modern medicine bad - "We dont KNOW all of the potential bad side effects and negative JuJu from what we are pumping into our systems, duuuuudeee!1!"
2. Alternative good - "But like..... there are just so many mysteries out there that we still dont KNOW about, we cant just dismiss it!"

anyone see a problem here? It's the same logic my gf uses on me when shes mad about something

nm

*facepalm*you are delusional

A good deal of your arguments really only indicate I'm above your head here. But it's Friday night. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Rothbard

However, when you're giving a population of 300 million a vaccine for a disease that kills a handful of people every year, you've got to reassess the risk benefit analysis - you need to establish a much, much higher degree of safety.

nm

Like when you grasped at straws and came after me for an editing error you finally got something right!!!

nm

Originally Posted by Gigantron

Cute.

I know, most girls think I am. Thanks for the compliment and for playing.

Let us know which high school you go to, so we know to never send our children there.

Originally Posted by Rothbard

Sure, modern medicine helps some people. So does homeopathy, you can't deny that either (not all homeopathic treatments rely on succussation/dilution).

The important question is whether the net effect of a system is positive or negative. The jury is out on that one.

So, I read through a few of the "Principles of Homeopathy"..

1. Law of Similars? Has this actually been demonstrated in a controlled way? I read about that dubious quinine example.. Seemed like cherry-picking to me.
2. Single remedy? What about herbal medicines with multiple active components of unknown efficacy/purity? I wouldn't think one of those would count as a "single remedy".
3. "Minimum dose" sounds a lot like a serial dilution study. Don't clinical trials establish the effective dose for medicines?
4. Direction of Cure: healing goes from head to foot, inside to out, major organ to minor organ... Really? It just seems a bit ambitious to generalize disease patterns like that.

Here is one of your fellow homeopathic practitioners. Her credentials section does not inspire great confidence:
http://www.janethull.com/about/index.php
http://www.janethull.com/newsletter/...homeopathy.php

Originally Posted by Rothbard

You're not like me, right? You knew before entering med school that allopathy was the only toolset that offers hope to the sick, right? How did you know this, was it through rigorous study? I don't think so. It seems like you're admitting that your belief in allopathy was a matter of faith. I went ot medical school to learn about the practice of medicine; looks like you went to reaffirm your faith.

Def ready for next installment of this series.

took another look at the paper. you are right, they used randomized trials to compile their data. started with 753 papers, and excluded down to about 20 full text articles from 10 trials (not sure why they excluded placebo controlled trials... I feel like that would be useful information, but whatever)

looks like out of 32,752 non diabetic patients starting the trials, 2749 developed diabetes at some point during the trial (8.4%). At this point, this alone isnt enough to say statins cause diabetes (remember, we excluded placebo controls, so since we don't have a valid comparison we could also say involvement in random control trials cause diabetes). They DO go on to break down between "moderate" and "intensive" statin treatment (these criteria were not defined)

So out of 2749 new diabetes cases, 1449 were intensive and 1300 were low dosage. So on an absolute scale, 149 more cases with intense vs moderate treatment. they calculate an odds ratio of 1.12 with a confidence interval of 1.04 and 1.22. A statistically significant odds ratio is one that does not include 1 in its interval, so this thing is just BARELY statistically significant. I wont split hairs about that though. There is a chance that doing more to account for selection bias (randomization can reduce but does not eliminate.... the population did not include marathon runners.... these were people at high risk of CV events and there is a pretty good overlap between that and diabetes already) would reduce significance further. I back this up by looking at their subgroup analysis where many of the factors lose significance and their p values all suck.

Interestingly the highest subgroup odds ratios were for young people with increased BMI, increased average fasting glucose, and increased triglyceride levels before developing diabetes.

the decrease in CVD in all of these subgroups were more reliable and constant.

I still say you are reacting strongly to the wrong information in this paper. and it is ironic that you rail about how allopathic medicine is based on poor evidence and shoddy research and then cite a shoddy paper to support your claims.

Originally Posted by Rothbard
Sure, modern medicine helps some people. So does homeopathy, you can't deny that either (not all homeopathic treatments rely on succussation/dilution).

The important question is whether the net effect of a system is positive or negative. The jury is out on that one.

The only people that benefit from homeopathy are the practitioners who can pay their bills... so I suppose I cannot argue with this one, it definitely helps SOME people.



as for the rest of the crap you posted:
the google search was meant to highlight the subjective and irrational interpretive approach you are taking to your arguments. you not getting that was also why i just assumed this conversation is somewhat beyond you. the "ALLOPATHY KILLZ PEOPLE!!!!1!" argument lacks context to the point of almost making it childish. i just figured id approach you on the level you brought into the discussion.

i never put words in your mouth. the only practical meaning of your comment:

Cancer chemotherapy? Maybe it will add a few months to your life. Chances are it will shorten your life, and it will certainly trash the quality of whatever life you have left.

is that you would oppose chemotherapy. unless you are in favor of trashing quality of life.... but either way the statement is factually incorrect. the ODDS are that you will extend your life. yes, there are side effects, but people tend to live longer on chemo when they have cancer - that is a well established fact, so I can only assume your thought process was something like "chemo make people sick. sick make people die!" and really just didnt flex any more neurons on that one..... your statement was simply ignorant and arrogant - please don't insult anyone's intelligence with this crap about "well i didnt technically say that!" or "why do you think I believe this?"

Originally Posted by Gigantron

Tell us which medical school you go to, so that we may avoid it.

you have no idea what you're talking about

also, re: homeopathy, there are dilution factors in homeopathy that are literally impossible given the number of atoms in the observable universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopa...Potency_scales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number

Originally Posted by eHombre

So, I read through a few of the "Principles of Homeopathy"..

1. Law of Similars? Has this actually been demonstrated in a controlled way? I read about that dubious quinine example.. Seemed like cherry-picking to me.
2. Single remedy? What about herbal medicines with multiple active components of unknown efficacy/purity? I wouldn't think one of those would count as a "single remedy".
3. "Minimum dose" sounds a lot like a serial dilution study. Don't clinical trials establish the effective dose for medicines?
4. Direction of Cure: healing goes from head to foot, inside to out, major organ to minor organ... Really? It just seems a bit ambitious to generalize disease patterns like that.

Here is one of your fellow homeopathic practitioners. Her credentials section does not inspire great confidence:
http://www.janethull.com/about/index.php
http://www.janethull.com/newsletter/...homeopathy.php


Def ready for next installment of this series.

Originally Posted by RogueUnicorn

also, re: homeopathy, there are dilution factors in homeopathy that are literally impossible given the number of atoms in the observable universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopa...Potency_scales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number

Lol really lovin' this link. The article is...umm...a bit critical of dilution:

The molar limit
If one begins with a solution of 1 mol/L of a substance, the 10-fold dilution required to reduce the number of molecules to less than one per litre is 1 part in 1×10^24 (24X or 12C) since:
6.02×1023/1×1024 = 0.6 molecules per litreHomeopathic dilutions beyond this limit (equivalent to approximately 12C) are unlikely to contain a single molecule of the original substance and lower dilutions contain no detectable amount. ISO 3696 (Water for analytical laboratory use) specifies a purity of ten parts per billion, or 10×10^-9 - this water cannot be kept in glass or plastic containers as they leach impurities into the water, and glassware must be washed with hydrofluoric acid before use. Ten parts per billion is equivalent to a homeopathic dilution of 4C.

Analogies
Critics and advocates of homeopathy alike commonly attempt to illustrate the dilutions involved in homeopathy with analogies. The high dilutions characteristically used are often considered to be the most controversial and implausible aspect of homeopathy.

1 bottle of poison in Lake Geneva
Hahnemann is reported to have joked that a suitable procedure to deal with an epidemic would be to empty a bottle of poison into Lake Geneva, if it could be succussed 60 times.

1 Pinch of salt in the Atlantic Ocean
Another example given by a critic of homeopathy states that a 12C solution is equivalent to a "pinch of salt in both the North and South Atlantic Oceans", which is approximately correct.[12]

1/3 of a drop in all the waters of the Earth
One third of a drop of some original substance diluted into all the water on earth would produce a remedy with a concentration of about 13C.[13][14]

Duck liver 200C in the entire observable Universe
A popular homeopathic treatment for the flu is a 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum. As there are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire observable universe, a dilution of one molecule in the observable universe would be about 40C. Oscillococcinum would thus require 10^320 more universes to simply have one molecule in the final substance.[15]

Originally Posted by RogueUnicorn

also, re: homeopathy, there are dilution factors in homeopathy that are literally impossible given the number of atoms in the observable universe....

"Dilution advocated by Hahnemann for most purposes: on average, this would require giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient."




Impossible to get that pure water. There may be some molecules of heavy water there; is that allowed by homeopathy?

Originally Posted by Longshanks

I know, most girls think I am. Thanks for the compliment and for playing.

Let us know which high school you go to, so we know to never send our children there.

sweeping generalizations based on an hSDN alumni badge

teach me more, wise one

Originally Posted by RogueUnicorn

you have no idea what you're talking about

you often post ad libitum, i've noticed

Originally Posted by bassvp

Ultimate homeopathic pre-med gunner: My copy of First Aid is trashed now, but that's ok...I poured water over it and drank the water. Step 1 is mine. pwned.

Water's too weak. Much too weak. You need to dilute it, shake it, dilute it again, shake it again, dilute it some more, shake it some more... At that point, not only will you know FA, but also the Bible and a number of long-lost nautical charts.

Originally Posted by Gigantron

sweeping generalizations based on an hSDN alumni badge

teach me more, wise one



you often post ad libitum, i've noticed

don't we all? you often post ad absurdum, i too have noticed and have pithy latin phrases to describe my observations

Originally Posted by RogueUnicorn

don't we all? you often post ad absurdum, i too have noticed and have pithy latin phrases to describe my observations

I lol'd

Originally Posted by RogueUnicorn

don't we all? you often post ad absurdum, i too have noticed and have pithy latin phrases to describe my observations

how wide can you open your mouth? you should make a picture of yourself raging at me and photoshop razor sharp teeth onto it. that would be funny huh

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

and honestly gigantron can you put that ur in a bsmd program in a post signature or something? its almost like you enjoy when people ridicule you for being in hsdn just so you can say that you're in a combined

Originally Posted by Double Trouble

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

and honestly gigantron can you put that ur in a bsmd program in a post signature or something? its almost like you enjoy when people ridicule you for being in hsdn just so you can say that you're in a combined

i did that once. people raged even moar.

Originally Posted by Gigantron

i did that once. people raged even moar.

lol why

Originally Posted by Gigantron

how wide can you open your mouth? you should make a picture of yourself raging at me and photoshop razor sharp teeth onto it. that would be funny huh

ran out of latin so soon?

Originally Posted by Double Trouble

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

and honestly gigantron can you put that ur in a bsmd program in a post signature or something? its almost like you enjoy when people ridicule you for being in hsdn just so you can say that you're in a combined

doesn't change the fact that he's a teenaged punk who somehow thinks he knows more than he does

All of this arguing I don't care about is diluting the interesting mockery of homeopathy that I actually wanted to read.

As a result, this topic is now an irresistible page-turner.

nm

Originally Posted by Rothbard

Because they were comparing intensive therapy with moderate therapy.




You've got to break that up by statin dosage and compare the two groups, which is what the authors did.



?




Table 1 provides this information.



Valid objections, but objections that could be leveled at a good fraction of clinical research published in reputable journals today. There are also other articles evaluating this hypothesis and reaching similar conclusions.

"A recent meta-analysis of 13 randomized placebo and standard care controlled trials involving 91 140 individuals reported that among patients treated with statins, the risk of developing diabetes was 9% higher (95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-17%) over a 4-year period compared with patients randomized to placebo or standard care.4​ Recently, findings of 3 large end-point trials comparing intensive- to moderate-dose statin therapy have suggested an excess risk of incident diabetes among those treated with intensive statin regimens.5,6​ However, 2 of these trials used nonstandard diagnostic criteria previously used to define incident diabetes.7 Additionally, published data from a fourth large clinical trial suggested the possibility of a deterioration in glucose control in patients receiving intensive statin therapy,8​ and a recent report of 220 patients with hypercholesterolemia treated with placebo or different doses of atorvastatin and followed up for only 2 months found that those receiving the highest dose developed greater insulin resistance, higher insulin levels, and higher hemoglobin A1c levels compared with those receiving the lowest dose or placebo,9 suggesting a potential dose effect."



And a study looking at how much these people benefit from statins would also show less significance. Risk:benefit

The point of this study is to look at how statins affect people who are commonly prescribed statins. It would be silly to recruit marathon runners, since marathon runners are not usually prescribed statins.



So what? The purpose of that section was hypothesis generation. Similarly, the p values for cardiovascular risk also "all suck" - does that mean that statins didn't reduce cardiovascular risk? Of course not.


"To ascertain whether any specific patient subgroups were at greater risk of developing diabetes while receiving intensive statin therapy, we collected data on the key end points among those with data for body mass index (BMI), highdensity lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, age, and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (where available) above and below the trial medians, as these factors are associated with diabetes risk."



On a side note, you're assuming that these variables are independent. But I see your point:



Sure. Risk:benefit




This analysis is pretty much on par with other meta-analyses in the field. There are also a number of other studies (see the paragraph above) drawing similar conclusions.

I'm not sure why I've spent so much time discussing this one article. The fact that statins cause insulin resistance is no longer controversial among leading researchers, it's pretty much accepted fact. The only controversial points are: At what point does the risk:benefit ratio tips in favor of statins? What other side effects do statins have?





Yea, as opposed to the sophisticated discussion of homeopathy found in this thread.



I don't "oppose chemotherapy. Instead, I understand that science is somewhat more complicated than such silly generalizations. What I do oppose is biased research and the delivery of misinformation to patients.



This is far from well established. What evidence do you have to support this statement?

Did you just want to find a topic to argue about instead of arguing about a topic you really believe in? Why don't you move on to creationism.

Originally Posted by QuizzicalApe

All of this arguing I don't care about is diluting the interesting mockery of homeopathy that I actually wanted to read.

As a result, this topic is now an irresistible page-turner.

Your inability to follow me doesn't really instill much confidence....

guy, you're obvs. trollin' hard.

Some specialities in medicine do less obvious, quantifiable good, ok. Most procedural and surgical fields do tons of good, I could throw out an infinite amount of examples displaying so. I could find TENS of thousands of papers in pubmed saying so and you can't argue with that. Are there side-effects to every treatment, yes, absolutely for sure.

Just because you're disillusioned with the field doesn't mean the field is broken. Find me, I dunno, ten research papers displaying homeopathic medicine's dominance over allopathic medicine.

thats the most ridiculous part in all of this. He said point blank that allopathic medicine was based on crappy and biased research and therefore shouldnt be trusted.

he then turns around and says we cannot argue that homeopathic medicine has helped people, when the research supporting it is so biased and poorly facilitated that journals were reluctant to publish the research

basically,
Bad research = allopathy bad
bad research = homeopathy good
what the fu.....


he also says

These trials bring up a larger issue; what are the other side effects of statins? We didn't know that statins cause diabetes until recently, so what other side effects do they have? How many years will it be until we know? How many millions of people will be prescribed a medication that does them more harm than good?

The research is biased and clumsy, so the answer is probably "a f*ckload".

It takes a special sort of person to... no.... wait... I said that wrong. It takes a speshul sort of person to look at a body of evidence, and simply infer the answer you want based on a perceived problem in the work (one you cannot establish aside from personal feeling and anecdote).

saying "probably a f*ckload* based on some "absence of evidence/evidence of absence" clause is a direct insult to the scientific method you pretend to hold in such high esteem while bashing allopathic EBM. This sort of thinking is worse than a slap to the face for the scientific method. you basically raped it and pissed in its mouth.

nm

Originally Posted by Rothbard

Participation in randomized trials increases the risk of diabetes? Really?

no. not really. that was the point, and the fact that you are unable to follow is a little worrisome. I feel like I would be doing you a disservice if I hold your hand through this one, so go read it again (out loud if you have to)


I'll give you a hint though... We recently went through a paper in journal club which focused on gender differences in patients receiving PCI for coronary artery syndrome. They wen't through a pretty neat co-morbidity match algorithm and in the end the paper challenged the current notion that women suffer higher mortality from heart attacks. The fact that men lack the cardio protection from estrogen adds a convoluting factor of average age (10+ for women) which contributed to this though. when accounting for age and other comorbidities, the mortality of men and women is essentially the same.
now, this spawned a discussion in our group. Say that we did see a difference between men and women still. Women still died more often after an MI when receiving PCI as compared to men. One student said the question of the paper was bad, and suggested that in such a situation, the papers would be better at showing whether or not PCI was harmful to women. That is essentially what you are doing drawing these conclusions from the paper you cited. Because, without a valid negative control, ANY set of variables are equally comparable. Yes, Men Vs women with PCI is a valid comparison. Perhaps PCI is detrimental to women. ALSO, perhaps women don't respond as well as men to PCI (without the control we cannot claim there is HARM. we can only claim not as much benefit as a compare group). Perhaps pci has nothing to do with it, the paper analyzed ER admissions, all of which get the standard of care (ASA and sublingual nitrogen). Since it is every bit as common to the groups as PCI it is just as valid to say that women die more often when receiving chewable aspirin. Mathematically, without a control group, any common factor between two groups can be used to arrive at the same conclusion - hence participation in an RCT carries with it the same OR for diabetes as statin use according to the paper. The absurdity of the notion was supposed to highlight the severe lapse in logic used to arrive at your conclusion. but apparently you don't really grasp hyperbole so i guess I kinda went against what i said at the top of this post :-/.... sorry.

oh, btw, I agree with your sentiment about how we shouldnt trust tenured faculty just because they are our seniors. I mean... how dumb did schroedinger have to be and how many innocent cats had to die just because he didnt think to put a viewing window in the box?

nm

Allopathic medicine isn't perfect but I would say it's much better than any of the alternatives...

Originally Posted by tantacles

Best gif ever!

Originally Posted by mmmcdowe

Best gif ever!

Confession: Stolen from loungers.

But that game was awesome.

Originally Posted by Rothbard

Most leading researchers today acknowledge that statins cause diabetes; this is not controversial. Why won't you?

who are these people? most leading researchers won't even say being fat causes diabetes.

Originally Posted by tantacles

hell no if anything this gif is me diving the fck in

Originally Posted by Rothbard

I honestly have no idea what your point is. That you need control groups? Yea, control groups were present.



Your failure to properly interpret biomedical research, as you've demonstrated in this thread, is what is truly frightening. People like you are running the NIH, the CDC, and the FDA. It's no wonder medicine is the clusterf*ck it is today.

Dude, you can't tell a randomized trial from an observational study. You don't understand the concept of subgroup analysis. You can't properly interpret p values. I've been holding your hand this entire thread, but I'm done being polite.



No, this conclusion is in part a result of discussion with people of modest intelligence and with large egos (sort of like you), who refuse to believe something if the "standard of care" says otherwise. I've provided plenty of evidence that statins cause diabetes but for some reason this is difficult for you to acknowledge. Most leading researchers today acknowledge that statins cause diabetes; this is not controversial, but you won't believe this until the ADA et al change their treatment protocols. You think that your opinions are evidence based, but you're only regurgitating whatever factoids you've been taught.

I know I'm wasting my time on you, but these posts aren't really for you anymore. Hopefully some open minded med students and pre-meds will see this and give some serious thought to the things I'm saying.

I'm not saying homeopathy is the answer. But allopathy often does more harm than good.



No, I don't piss on the scientific method, I piss on the modern system of ineptitude/indoctirnation (alias "evidence based medicine") that passes for "medical science". There's nothing wrong with genuine evidence based medicine, but you won't find such a system used in medicine today.

Lastly, just to reiterate: Most leading researchers today acknowledge that statins cause diabetes; this is not controversial. Why won't you?

You just dont understand numbers. yes, allopathic approaches often do more harm than good. but the MUCH MORE OFTEN to the point of drowning out the alternative do more good than harm. it is relative. and what i have been addressing is your claim that statin use is so intrinsically evil and that any physician who prescribes them "except in the most extreme circumstances" is a quack when the literature you yourself have provided does not indicate this. at most they give us something to look out for and a cause for caution and finesse. I'm still going to give patients with dangerously high LDL levels statins because I would rather risk them ending up with a forced diet plan than risk them ending up with a dead section of heart. I havent said that metabolism modulating drugs cannot give adverse effects. What I have said is that without an effective control the perceived effect will ALWAYS be inflated. that is just intrinsic to the math.