Science & Mathematics The Future of Medicine

[perthblue]

"never take an antibiotic"

that is terrible advice from whoever gave it to you

 

[Exe Gesis]

.

 

[little graham]

The best is raw honey

Real garlic ranks higher.

 

[little graham]

You know when "What Big Pharma doesn't want you to know" is in the title you are truly reading a credible source and not the bias of a madman...

Also written by joe, who has stopped people from viewing his profile.

What you've just said is that the chemical imbalance theory of depression is scientifically validated.

If you're not a feeble troll, you would provide the peer reviewed data to back up your absurd claim

 

[Golumless]

What you've just said is that the chemical imbalance theory of depression is scientifically validated.

If you're not a feeble troll, you would provide the peer reviewed data to back up your absurd claim

What i said is the author is a mad man, based on how he constructed this article.

That is my claim, no more, no less and it's easily proved.

 

[GreyCrow]

Why eat grapefruit for blood pressure, why not eliminate the toxin in your system that causes it? the gluten and chemicals in you sausages and bread sanger you buy from the cancer council barby out the front of woolies, to raise money to find a cure for bowel cancer are massive contributors to blood pressure problems.

Can you post your diet regime for a week please. Also I have a family member about to undergo chemo. Will you treat them with hemp oil with the understanding you will die if they do.

Do you believe this much in your cure.

 

[little graham]

What i said is the author is a mad man, based on how he constructed this article.

That is my claim, no more, no less and it's easily proved.

Seems I was right about the feeble bit. If you think I'm wrong, just post the peer reviewed science that validates the chemical imbalance hypothesis of depression. I'm actually being serious here since you tried destroying the character of the author of GG.exe link. I would like to see the science behind your opinion. Your opinion is validated by science right? Which means you're not a raving lunatic then? I've read a lot of studies and alot of articles, from professionals, university's and organizations studying mental health that say otherwise.

http://www.cchr.org/sites/default/files/Blaming_The_Brain_The_Chemical_Imbalance_Fraud.pdf


http://davidhealy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/When-doctors-mislead-the-chemical-imbalance-lie.pdf


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/

Some antidepressants increase serotonin levels, some decrease it, and some have no effect at all on serotonin. Nevertheless, they all show the same therapeutic benefit. Even the small statistical difference between antidepressants and placebos may be an enhanced placebo effect, due to the fact that most patients and doctors in clinical trials successfully break blind. The serotonin theory is as close as any theory in the history of science to having been proved wrong. Instead of curing depression, popular antidepressants may induce a biological vulnerability making people more likely to become depressed in the future.

 

[Golumless]

Seems I was right about the feeble bit. If you think I'm wrong, just post the peer reviewed science that validates the chemical imbalance hypothesis of depression. I'm actually being serious here since you tried destroying the character of the author of GG.exe link. I would like to see the science behind your opinion. Your opinion is validated by science right? Which means you're not a raving lunatic then? I've read a lot of studies and alot of articles, from professionals, university's and organizations studying mental health that say otherwise.

As a note I instantly dismissed it based on language that was used, which is fair enough as you know when you're looking at a piece of garbage when you see it. Presentation is incredibly important when dealing with anything.

This is actually an interesting one, and despite GG.exe intentions to use this article as a means to correctly state that chemical imbalance isn't a thing (which is scientifically proven it isn't), he has posted an article that is the work of a raving lunatic looking to point score. This article's intentions is not to state that chemical imbalance is flawed thinking, but to use that as a means to say "Big pharma is lying to you, and trying to control your life".

One way you can get a feel for the validity of the science presented is to look into the writing style and author, which is the easiest way to determine what is good and what isn't. Seeing on a quick skim:

"What Big Pharma doesn't want you to know..." in the title is a red flag. It's actually more of a sales pitch than anything as it's designed to give the impression that this information was kept secret, and giving the impression it's important enough to be kept secret (Reality is, from a quick scholar search this has been well proven science for a while).

First paragraph again alludes to this Joe fellow for some unknown reason knowing more than an average fellow and having these magical secrets. Again he's trying to make it seem like he is a credible source, and to make you trust him.

Reading the article there are a whole lot of quotes from people. This is an appeal to authority instead of this author actively using researched material. No actual scientific piece worth it's salt is going to have a quote. This authors serious reluctance to quote scientific papers (Instead directing to some websites) is also a red flag.

He then states in big letters that "Unpublished data was hidden by the drug companies", again another red flag in the same vein of "What big pharma doesn't want you to know".

Joe then finishes this article by stating about how drug companies and big pharma play a part in this idea that chemical imbalance is the publicly accepted opinion (Which is worth about nothing to be honest), despite there is science stating otherwise. This shows the main point of the article which is you shouldn't trust "Big Pharma" due to them giving out anti-depressants. Not actually arguing the validity of that science.

I.e. It was the article version of the "1 weird trick doctors don't want you to know" add. It's a sales pitch, and has the long term goal is to make you believe there are people are out to get you... i.e. the author is not crazy.

Another thing is a quick look into the author. Displaying nothing about him and having pieces on the website attributed to Joe that include: Why the moon landing is fake, and Illuminati being real also give a very quick impression we're dealing with the writings of a madman who is believing everyone is out to get him; not a well thought out piece.

So tl;dr you are right about chemical imbalance being a disproved theory, but you actually failed to see that wasn't the point i was arguing. This piece is written by a raving lunatic who thinks everyone is out to get him, and like all of these theories, there is a basis of truth that has been horribly mis-interpreted.

 

[Exe Gesis]

.

 

[little graham]

As a note I instantly dismissed it based on language that was used, which is fair enough as you know when you're looking at a piece of garbage when you see it. Presentation is incredibly important when dealing with anything.

This is actually an interesting one, and despite GG.exe intentions to use this article as a means to correctly state that chemical imbalance isn't a thing (which is scientifically proven it isn't), he has posted an article that is the work of a raving lunatic looking to point score. This article's intentions is not to state that chemical imbalance is flawed thinking, but to use that as a means to say "Big pharma is lying to you, and trying to control your life".

One way you can get a feel for the validity of the science presented is to look into the writing style and author, which is the easiest way to determine what is good and what isn't. Seeing on a quick skim:

"What Big Pharma doesn't want you to know..." in the title is a red flag. It's actually more of a sales pitch than anything as it's designed to give the impression that this information was kept secret, and giving the impression it's important enough to be kept secret (Reality is, from a quick scholar search this has been well proven science for a while).

First paragraph again alludes to this Joe fellow for some unknown reason knowing more than an average fellow and having these magical secrets. Again he's trying to make it seem like he is a credible source, and to make you trust him.

Reading the article there are a whole lot of quotes from people. This is an appeal to authority instead of this author actively using researched material. No actual scientific piece worth it's salt is going to have a quote. This authors serious reluctance to quote scientific papers (Instead directing to some websites) is also a red flag.

He then states in big letters that "Unpublished data was hidden by the drug companies", again another red flag in the same vein of "What big pharma doesn't want you to know".

Joe then finishes this article by stating about how drug companies and big pharma play a part in this idea that chemical imbalance is the publicly accepted opinion (Which is worth about nothing to be honest), despite there is science stating otherwise. This shows the main point of the article which is you shouldn't trust "Big Pharma" due to them giving out anti-depressants. Not actually arguing the validity of that science.

I.e. It was the article version of the "1 weird trick doctors don't want you to know" add. It's a sales pitch, and has the long term goal is to make you believe there are people are out to get you... i.e. the author is not crazy.

Another thing is a quick look into the author. Displaying nothing about him and having pieces on the website attributed to Joe that include: Why the moon landing is fake, and Illuminati being real also give a very quick impression we're dealing with the writings of a madman who is believing everyone is out to get him; not a well thought out piece.

So tl;dr you are right about chemical imbalance being a disproved theory, but you actually failed to see that wasn't the point i was arguing. This piece is written by a raving lunatic who thinks everyone is out to get him, and like all of these theories, there is a basis of truth that has been horribly mis-interpreted.

Nice rant about Joe. its not about Joe, like its not about you. But you've managed to turn it into both. Congratulations for your immaturity and feebleness.

 

[little graham]

http://simplecapacity.com/2016/09/how-to-make-homemade-natural-viagra/

 

[Golumless]

Nice rant about Joe. its not about Joe, like its not about you. But you've managed to turn it into both. Congratulations for your immaturity and feebleness.

Maybe try reading the article next time instead of looking at the title, and getting seduced by the word Big Pharma.

 

[little graham]

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1.pdf

 

[Illinois Nazi]

When faced with scientific studies that disagree with them, many people are prone to claim that they don’t have to accept those studies because most scientific studies are actually wrong. They generally try to support this claim by either citing the work of John P. A. Ioannidis (especially his paper titled, “Why most published research findings are false”) or by quoting Dr. Richard Horton who said,

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

To the anti-scientist, these are “get out of jail free” cards that let them dismiss any study that they don’t like. In reality, of course, those who oppose science are grossly mischaracterizing and misusing Ioannidis’s work and Horton’s statements. Indeed, they seem to overlook the ironic fact that Ioannidis and Horton are among the world’s top scientists. So if their papers/comments actually gave us carte blanche to ignore any paper that we wanted to, then I could also blindly reject the papers in which they claim that many studies are wrong (hopefully you see the logical paradox there). Further, once you actually understand the arguments that Ioannidis and Horton are making, problems begin to emerge with many of the studies that anti-vaxxers, GMO opponents, naturopaths, etc. love to cite. Therefore, I want to take a look at what Ioannidis’s work and Horton’s statements actually mean and how they should be applied.

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/...but-that-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

 

[little graham]

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/...but-that-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means/

Can you provide me with their view of the science about psychiatry please.


I would rekon you won't. Which makes you chicken.


Prove me wrong.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Can you provide me with their view of the science about psychiatry please.

No I can't. I don't know if they even have a view on psychiatry.

I would rekon you won't. Which makes you chicken.

No it doesn't.

Prove me wrong.

On which of the many points that you are wrong about?

 

[Frank Bunn]

This article seems quite balanced.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-triumph-of-new-age-medicine/308554/

If tl;dr

Modern medicine was formed around fighting infectious diseases - and it's very good at that. However for many modern complex ailments without a clear causal agent, such as heart disease, prostate cancer, breast cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s it's not so successful.

For many people greater benefits can be had by choosing healty lifestyles - such as changing their diet, increasing exercise, lowering stress - than by taking drugs or having an operation. And it's much cheaper. GPs should do more in this regard.

Placebo effects can be significant and sometimes the healing effect is greater for alternative medicine than conventional. There could be some lessons to be learned for conventional medicine.

 

[Run n Spread]

Can you provide me with their view of the science about psychiatry please.


I would rekon you won't. Which makes you chicken.


Prove me wrong.

A lot of it I think is in fact to do with endrochronology and how certain chemicals/hormones namely react with out bodies to control actions and moods. You then look at how certain substances interact and it is fascinating. Cellular biology and DNA function is interesting especially combined with the above. Scary to think how little choice we have.

As for the actual profession of psychiatry? You ever met one or examined their theories. They are f**^ ing nuts themselves. Junk science on its own.

 

[Run n Spread]

This article seems quite balanced.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-triumph-of-new-age-medicine/308554/

If tl;dr

Modern medicine was formed around fighting infectious diseases - and it's very good at that. However for many modern complex ailments without a clear causal agent, such as heart disease, prostate cancer, breast cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s it's not so successful.

For many people greater benefits can be had by choosing healty lifestyles - such as changing their diet, increasing exercise, lowering stress - than by taking drugs or having an operation. And it's much cheaper. GPs should do more in this regard.

Placebo effects can be significant and sometimes the healing effect is greater for alternative medicine than conventional. There could be some lessons to be learned for conventional medicine.

Argument now is what is a healthy lifestyle.

1 day fat and meat is the devil. The next it is carbs. The next sugar.

Science simply doesn't know and can't build a consensus.

If we all know the basics it is up to each individual to work out what works best for themselves.

 

[Exe Gesis]

.

 

[Run n Spread]

A balanced diet -- not rocket science.

Carbs. No carbs.
Sugar no sugar.
Booze. No booze.

Enlighten us. Personally I don't eat before 3 than eat like a starving dog and drink like a fish and simply power through the weeks. Long hours (am tired Fri nights thou).

I will most likely die in <30 years but I have no interest in being old anyway.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

Carbs. No carbs.
Sugar no sugar.
Booze. No booze.

Enlighten us. Personally I don't eat before 3 than eat like a starving dog and drink like a fish and simply power through the weeks. Long hours (am tired Fri nights thou).

I will most likely die in <30 years but I have no interest in being old anyway.

Carbs give energy spikes. Fats give sustained energy.

 

[Run n Spread]

Carbs give energy spikes. Fats give sustained energy.

Great so when I need to get through a day I will forego the energy spike and fall asleep hoping the sustained energy will kick in.

 

[Jcpdragonx]

Great so when I need to get through a day I will forego the energy spike and fall asleep hoping the sustained energy will kick in.

With proper nutrition you don't need an energy spike from high gi carbs or sugar.

 

[Exe Gesis]

.