Menu Icon Search
Close Search

About the ads

Anyone else interested in naturopathic/homeopathic "medicine"?

Discussion in 'Pre-Medical Allopathic [ MD ]' started by dreamweaver1988, 02.17.12.

  1. QuizzicalApe

    QuizzicalApe

    Joined:
    03.28.10
    Messages:
    668
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    SDN 2+ Year Member

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

    QuizzicalApe

    Joined:
    03.28.10
    Messages:
    668
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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?
  3. SpecterGT260

    SpecterGT260 Catdoucheus

    Joined:
    02.01.12
    Messages:
    8,209
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    See the line directly below bold text
    Last edited: 02.24.12
  4. Rothbard

    Rothbard

    Joined:
    06.17.09
    Messages:
    282
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    nm
    Last edited: 02.27.12
  5. QuizzicalApe

    QuizzicalApe

    Joined:
    03.28.10
    Messages:
    668
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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.
  6. QuizzicalApe

    QuizzicalApe

    Joined:
    03.28.10
    Messages:
    668
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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
  7. Longshanks

    Longshanks

    Joined:
    04.04.09
    Messages:
    2,808
    Location:
    New York
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    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.
  8. Gigantron

    Gigantron Robot

    Joined:
    09.04.09
    Messages:
    1,067
    Location:
    Boondocks
    hSDN Alumni SDN 5+ Year Member
    Cute. :rolleyes:
  9. tiedyeddog

    tiedyeddog

    Joined:
    03.17.08
    Messages:
    7,033
    Location:
    in ur head
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    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....
  10. Rothbard

    Rothbard

    Joined:
    06.17.09
    Messages:
    282
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    nm
    Last edited: 02.27.12
  11. SpecterGT260

    SpecterGT260 Catdoucheus

    Joined:
    02.01.12
    Messages:
    8,209
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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.


    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....)



    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....
  12. SpecterGT260

    SpecterGT260 Catdoucheus

    Joined:
    02.01.12
    Messages:
    8,209
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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 :p
  13. Rothbard

    Rothbard

    Joined:
    06.17.09
    Messages:
    282
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    nm
    Last edited: 02.27.12
  14. SpecterGT260

    SpecterGT260 Catdoucheus

    Joined:
    02.01.12
    Messages:
    8,209
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    *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. :thumbup:
  15. plumazul

    plumazul ☮, ♥, & ♫ Gold Donor

    Joined:
    12.15.11
    Messages:
    1,896
    Status:
    MD/PhD Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    :wtf:

    :troll:
  16. Rothbard

    Rothbard

    Joined:
    06.17.09
    Messages:
    282
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    nm
    Last edited: 02.27.12
  17. SpecterGT260

    SpecterGT260 Catdoucheus

    Joined:
    02.01.12
    Messages:
    8,209
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    Like when you grasped at straws and came after me for an editing error :thumbup: you finally got something right!!!
  18. Rothbard

    Rothbard

    Joined:
    06.17.09
    Messages:
    282
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    nm
    Last edited: 02.27.12
  19. Longshanks

    Longshanks

    Joined:
    04.04.09
    Messages:
    2,808
    Location:
    New York
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    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.
  20. eHombre

    eHombre

    Joined:
    05.17.11
    Messages:
    482
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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/0905/the-four-fundamental-laws-of-homeopathy.php

    :corny: Def ready for next installment of this series.
    Last edited: 02.24.12
  21. SpecterGT260

    SpecterGT260 Catdoucheus

    Joined:
    02.01.12
    Messages:
    8,209
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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.


    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:
    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?"
  22. RogueUnicorn

    RogueUnicorn rawr.

    Joined:
    07.15.09
    Messages:
    9,354
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    you have no idea what you're talking about
  23. RogueUnicorn

    RogueUnicorn rawr.

    Joined:
    07.15.09
    Messages:
    9,354
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
  24. dreamweaver1988

    dreamweaver1988

    Joined:
    09.16.11
    Messages:
    393
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    Lol really lovin' this link. The article is...umm...a bit critical of dilution:

    Last edited: 02.25.12
  25. IMSingular

    IMSingular

    Joined:
    11.06.11
    Messages:
    447
    Location:
    Milky Way
    Status:
    Non-Student
    "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."

    :love::claps::bang::rofl:


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

    Gigantron Robot

    Joined:
    09.04.09
    Messages:
    1,067
    Location:
    Boondocks
    hSDN Alumni SDN 5+ Year Member
    sweeping generalizations based on an hSDN alumni badge

    teach me more, wise one

    you often post ad libitum, i've noticed
    Last edited: 02.25.12
  27. scarshapedstar

    scarshapedstar MD c/o 2016

    Joined:
    10.13.10
    Messages:
    1,130
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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.
  28. RogueUnicorn

    RogueUnicorn rawr.

    Joined:
    07.15.09
    Messages:
    9,354
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    don't we all? you often post ad absurdum, i too have noticed and have pithy latin phrases to describe my observations
  29. mmmcdowe

    mmmcdowe Duke of minimal vowels Moderator Gold Donor

    Joined:
    09.12.08
    Messages:
    8,970
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    Physician SDN Published Author SDN 5+ Year Member
    I lol'd
  30. Gigantron

    Gigantron Robot

    Joined:
    09.04.09
    Messages:
    1,067
    Location:
    Boondocks
    hSDN Alumni SDN 5+ Year Member
    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
  31. Double Trouble

    Double Trouble

    Joined:
    10.20.11
    Messages:
    310
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    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
  32. Gigantron

    Gigantron Robot

    Joined:
    09.04.09
    Messages:
    1,067
    Location:
    Boondocks
    hSDN Alumni SDN 5+ Year Member
    i did that once. people raged even moar.
  33. Double Trouble

    Double Trouble

    Joined:
    10.20.11
    Messages:
    310
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    lol why
  34. RogueUnicorn

    RogueUnicorn rawr.

    Joined:
    07.15.09
    Messages:
    9,354
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    ran out of latin so soon?
    doesn't change the fact that he's a teenaged punk who somehow thinks he knows more than he does
  35. QuizzicalApe

    QuizzicalApe

    Joined:
    03.28.10
    Messages:
    668
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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.
  36. Rothbard

    Rothbard

    Joined:
    06.17.09
    Messages:
    282
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    nm
    Last edited: 02.27.12
  37. Double Trouble

    Double Trouble

    Joined:
    10.20.11
    Messages:
    310
    Status:
    Pre-Medical
    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.
  38. RogueUnicorn

    RogueUnicorn rawr.

    Joined:
    07.15.09
    Messages:
    9,354
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    :rofl::rofl:
  39. SpecterGT260

    SpecterGT260 Catdoucheus

    Joined:
    02.01.12
    Messages:
    8,209
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    Your inability to follow me doesn't really instill much confidence....
  40. tiedyeddog

    tiedyeddog

    Joined:
    03.17.08
    Messages:
    7,033
    Location:
    in ur head
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    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.
  41. SpecterGT260

    SpecterGT260 Catdoucheus

    Joined:
    02.01.12
    Messages:
    8,209
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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..... :confused:


    he also says
    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.
  42. Rothbard

    Rothbard

    Joined:
    06.17.09
    Messages:
    282
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    nm
    Last edited: 02.27.12
  43. SpecterGT260

    SpecterGT260 Catdoucheus

    Joined:
    02.01.12
    Messages:
    8,209
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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?
    Last edited: 02.26.12
  44. Rothbard

    Rothbard

    Joined:
    06.17.09
    Messages:
    282
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    nm
    Last edited: 02.27.12
  45. tantacles

    tantacles Moderator Lifetime Donor

    Joined:
    09.28.09
    Messages:
    6,088
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
  46. sliceofbread136

    sliceofbread136

    Joined:
    11.05.11
    Messages:
    2,865
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    Allopathic medicine isn't perfect but I would say it's much better than any of the alternatives...
  47. mmmcdowe

    mmmcdowe Duke of minimal vowels Moderator Gold Donor

    Joined:
    09.12.08
    Messages:
    8,970
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    Physician SDN Published Author SDN 5+ Year Member
    Best gif ever! :laugh:
  48. tantacles

    tantacles Moderator Lifetime Donor

    Joined:
    09.28.09
    Messages:
    6,088
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    Confession: Stolen from loungers.

    But that game was awesome.
  49. RogueUnicorn

    RogueUnicorn rawr.

    Joined:
    07.15.09
    Messages:
    9,354
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 5+ Year Member
    who are these people? most leading researchers won't even say being fat causes diabetes.
    hell no if anything this gif is me diving the fck in
  50. SpecterGT260

    SpecterGT260 Catdoucheus

    Joined:
    02.01.12
    Messages:
    8,209
    Status:
    Medical Student
    SDN 2+ Year Member
    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.

// Share //

Style: SDN Universal