How do you feel about alternative medicine?

...and I believe, Singe, that to be taken seriously one's spelling should be up to snuff and sentences should make sense.

One of our basic rights, as intelligent human beings, is or certainly should be The Right To Choose without repercussion or judgment being passed. The medical industry IS evil just as an alternative treatment can be a scam.

Unfortunately most "Vitamin" makers import their products from China....so yeah...its a problem. We know pharmaceuticals produced in China have similar issues....If imported pharmaceuticals from China are escapeing FDA scrutiny....you know supplements are risky. Self help in the herbal/nutrient world is shaky at best. If one purhases supplements from a health food, grocery, or drug store.....you are taking an enormous risk.....Better to obtain assistance from a holistic healer who has the education to guide and assist in natural healing and herbal/nutrient sources that provide natural, pure substances.....like me.

Linda,

No one is saying you don't have the right to choose therapies that have not been proven to work. However your premise that a "basic right as an intelligent human being" is not to have repurcussions or judgements that stem from your poor choices is ludacris.

You are free to make make bad decisions. And the reality based community is free to call you on it... as I am here.

Linda,

This isn't an academic forum. Go read an academic journal if you want perfection in spelling and grammer (and you wont even find it there). These threads are quick ways of getting out a point and sharing ideas. The point is all that matters in this highly abbreviated and truncated forum. Get over it, stop criticizing, and listen to the point being made. The most important part of communication is LISTENING.

And, by the way, you are missing several comma's in your statement.

I worry that this trash science will get into ObamaCare, I really don't want my tax dollars funding this nonsence.

Singe:  What was it that Clinton signed?  You brought it up, but never said what it was.  It had better be good to support the rest of your rant. 

Since you brought up presidential signing of things, I am much more disturbed by the fiascoes and wars that the Bush / Cheney gang and their lawyers signed. 

Singe: What was it that Clinton signed? You brought it up, but never said what it was. It had better be good to support the rest of your rant.

Since you brought up presidential signing of things, I am much more disturbed by the fiascoes and wars that the Bush / Cheney gang and their lawyers signed.

You hit it right on the button Chris L. The combination of natural remedies can eradicate most illnesses out there but without patent rights nobody wants to persue marketing it.

Absolutely - and isn't it a cute coincidence, that they started these studies 10 years ago - and just came out with this article JUST when Baby Boomers starting to hit retirement age?? I am not saying that everything can be cured naturally, or that medical breakthroughs don't do any good - but have you ever sat through a medication commercial? the cure is worst than the symptoms most times.

If you think about it - much of what plagues society can be cured with good diet and exercise. But with all the hormones and pesticides in foods, and our lack of wanting to exercise in order to ward off depression and anxiety - we are probably just doomed.

All I know if that if I ever have to kill cancer in my body or in my family - it will probably be in India as a medical tourist for 10% of what American hospitals would charge to save my life. Yikes!

I have relied on "traditional" Western medicine to deal with chronic illness for over 40 years. It hasn't worked; furthermore traditional Western-trained doctors know NOTHING ABOUT alternative medicine. Not all supplements are worthless, only those that are badly compounded and contain precious little of the components that are needed for good results. The same is true of "traditional" medicine. Mass marketing and the profit motive damages ALL medicine. Finally, I am being treated by MDs who understand alternative medicine and have found excellent well-made supplements that have solved my problems without giving me horrendous side effects. Some of my worst medical experiences and chronic conditions occurred as a result of being dosed with prednisone and other "traditional" medicines, so respected by the FDA. The long-time effects of my "traditional" medical treatments are now being ameliorated with alternative natural medicine supplements.

Finally, how often have "double-blind clinical studies" conducted by the producers of traditional medicines convinced the FDA to approve medications and treatments that were later withdrawn from the market due to the tremendous damage they did to so many patients who took them?

I completely agree with you.....amazingly all the news is staying away from the topic of Antixidants such as OPC3, ORAC and Resveratrol and that is what is working for me and many others that I know that have been successful getting off regimens of multiple pharmaceuticals....one in mind a young girl of 15 that was on 23 different medications and now nothing but nutraceuticals......people really need to wake up and get educated. I congratulate you on your response - well said.

The double post wasn't the problem. The problem is that your message was incomplete. You wrote: "resulted in the signing of the by President Clinton in 1994." The signing of what?

I've done alot of reading and it seems to me most if not all Cancer treatments are no better than alternative medicine, both in practice and results.

Unless it's actually cutting out a tumor it all seems very much like snake oil and rattles.

Yours is one of the sanest arguments I have seen in a long while.

What concerns me about alternative "therapies" for various ailments is that many people use these for their babies and children without really knowing what the bottle contains.

I agree with you. However, there are plenty of alternatives that have been tested scientifically, and have proven to be effective. The biggest one is acupuncture. It's alternative, but it works. We've shown St. John's Wort to be an effective antidepressant-- as effective as Prozac, to be exact.

Nothing wrong with alternative solutions, it's more a matter of doing your homework. Look for studies that have shown it to be effective. How effective. What are possible side effects? Can it interact with something you're already doing? Too many people just blindly go into an alternative method, without doing any research.

Very few patients would ever be willing to actually make these kinds of tough lifestyle changes. A good physician will discuss these topics, but they also realize that the vast majority of patients will not act on the advice in the least.

Bingo, ct2446!

My ex has constant problems with back pain. Her doctor told her there were two choices... start taking massive painkillers that she would more than likely be addicted to all of her life, or start exercising. The doctor said he could almost guarantee that the pain would go away if she lost all of the excess weight that was making her obese.

Of course, she went with the painkillers. There was no way in hell that she was going to sweat for her health.

They do, but the patients don't listen. I can't make you eat a low calorie diet. I can't make you exercise.

It's become almost cliche' I really don't see how stopping smoking will fix my bad disks. I lost weight and every time I exercise I end up in bed for a week.. I'm not totally convinced they know what their doing.

But I have to go along otherwise they cut off my pain meds, Then all I have is suicide.

HazCats - Try starting slow. They probably have you doing what would be a reasonable workout for an athete, in terms of length and reps. If you've spent the overwhelming majority of your life being sedentary, it's not so reasonable.

Just do what you can without hurting yourself. If you feel like you were on the wrong end of a barfight when you wake up in the morning, you overdid it. Take a few days off, then start again with fewer reps. You'll find the "right" level for your current fitness, and when you do, just exercise maybe every other day or so at that level. As time passes and you become able to do more, slowly raise the amount of exercise you do.

If you are going to make these kinds of claims you should probably post some kind of source material that shows the data.

I second that, ct2446. People should third and fourth it too. I have yet to see any solid evidence of any squelching, and dear god, survival statistics of western medicine have improved! My mother's sister died of childhood leukemia in 1960, before chemo existed. The survival rate for childhood leukemia is now 85%, up from almost zero!

What are these good, statistically proven alternative therapies that have been scorned by the Cancer industry?

If they are proven then they are not alternative. That's how medicine works.

Science cannot "prove" anything, only disprove. It is a subtle difference, but an important one.

Additionally, speaking as someone who has been formally trained in statistics... if you give me a data set, I can manipulate it to make it "say" pretty much whatever you want.

Educate yourself. No, anatomy, physiology, chemistry, etc. might not be the most interesting reading out there for most people, but it is a worthwhile investment of your time. Learn to be a savvy consumer of information. Whenever anyone makes a claim, ask yourself, "Does this make sense? Does this square with my own observations? Is this how the world works, in my experience?" If the answer is no, then don't be afraid to walk away. People would be a lot better off if they stopped relying on "experts" (many of whom are ideologically biased, have an agenda they're trying to push, or both) and instead focused on becoming their own expert.

It is the attitudes of most posters in this thread that epitomize the reasons why Americans are dumb. You people steadfastly refute thousands of years of natural herbal remedies and the intrinsic balance of nature, and choose to instead put all your faith in "modern" medicine that is not conducive to proper health.

In other words, allopathic medicine has a great track record for handling emergencies and trauma, but has a terrible record when it comes to disease management and prevention. Why? Because of the money. Period. Allopathic medicine does not place any emphasis in disease prevention or cures, but chooses instead to manage the problem with dangerous pharmaceuticals. Remember, 100,000 people die every year from PROPERLY prescribed medications!

Besides, before you go lambasting natural methods, remember two things........One, natural remedies are very subtle, and take time to work. They are not a magic bullet and do not produce immediate effects like pharmaceuticals, so I question most research methods that negate their effects....and two, where do you think our pharma industries get the ideas for most of their products?....the natural environment...........

Rule of Thumb: Information on a website that is trying to sell you something may not be completely reliable.

I was referring more to peer reviewed journal articles that have a meta-analysis comparing different treatment options. This is what I would truly consider to be evidence.

Julian Whitaker is a snake-oil salesman of the highest magnitude. For every imaginary claim he makes, he has something he can sell that will miraculously cure you. It's amazing that people are so willing to believe that the pharmaceutical companies are only in it for the profit, but aren't willing to ascribe the same same motivation to people who sell them magic beans.

In this specific case, I would suggest that the original poster research non-profit status. It does not mean that nobody can make a profit, it just means that the non-profit entity cannot show a profit at the end of the fiscal year. In other words, if there is $2 million dollars profit in the books at the end of the fiscal year, they must allocate that money elsewhere... elsewhere almost always being to the pockets of whoever runs the non-profit.

As an example, the President of the non-profit I work for makes $750,000 a year. I'm sure Julian Whitaker is also doing fairly well. The only difference is we sell something with actual value, while he sells false hope.

I can see that by the term 'allo' you're a fan of homeopathy. You can keep your voodoo magic 'medicine' to yourself, thanks.

If you think the only options are "treatments that work, but not always" and "my alternative medicine which has NEVER been proved to work", you're a fool.

This post is so bizarrely paranoid that I can hardly respond. I do not know a single oncologist that would not welcome a cure for cancer. There is more work than doctors can handle.

Show me an alternative treatment that cures anything.

"The desire to take medicine is perhaps the greatest feature which distinguishes man from animals."
--William Osler 1849-1919 Canadian writer and physician.

...and he was wrong. Many animals will target specific plants or minerals that aid in digestion, provide certain not usually needed nutrients, or somehow inhibit parasites.

For example, many species of primates utilize plants in this way. There have been several published studies, which you can track down via resources like these:

btw, once an "alternative" treatment is scientifically tested and found effective, guess what?

It's no longer alternative.

hmm, it clipped out my link.

let's try this:

If that doesn't work, just google something like "chimps use plants as medicine" and it will likely pop up.

edit: nope, doesn't work. I guess you can't post links here? Well, there is an article about this in the Telegraph (UK) from 2000.

Ich, you boldy assert that Osler was "wrong" and expose your own ignorance in the process.

OK, I Googled up your hot lead and quickly discovered it derives from nothing more than one subjective article in New Scientist magazine (not exactly a peer reviewed journal or even on a par with Scientific American). The author embues chimpanzees with anthropomorphic traits and spins a fantastic tale.

Now I will be a little bit cruel to you because you wasted my time. You offer the chimpanzee farce in support of humans ingesting odd herbaceous nostrums, making you herbalists aspire to be no smarter than monkeys, at best.

Osler was (and is) quite correct. Animals do not self-medicate. Indeed, many textbooks are written on the subject of plants poisonous to livestock. In fact, for animals to learn to avoid plants that make them sick is an accomplishment.

"Alternative medicine" is a fraud and there is a sucker born every minute, obviously.

um, did you actually look at the sources for the New Scientist article? btw, it's just a pop science journal, exactly like Sci. American. Why didn't you look at the references directly?

There is a good case to be made that the use of medicinal plants evolved long before even before primates.

You offer the chimpanzee farce in support of humans ingesting odd herbaceous nostrums, making you herbalists aspire to be no smarter than monkeys, at best.

You assumed I'm an altie supporter?? Nothing I said there in any way supports the idea that altie meds are the way to go. In fact, let me go on record right now as saying the scientific method is the ONLY way to resolve a particular treatments safety and effectiveness.

That said, many modern medicines have their roots (pardon the pun) in plant extracts found to have bioactive properties long before they were actually tested scientifically. Things like what we see with primates, and many other animals, btw, are only suggestive as things that are worth looking at scientifically.

Animals do not self-medicate.

and again, I have a graduate degree in zoology, published papers on animal behavior in the primary lit., and have a good grasp of what animals do and do not do.

...and they DO self medicate. Try looking up elephants for another popular example.

Why is it so hard for you to think that behavior that would lead to, for example, lower parasite loads would NOT evolve in any given species?

Indeed, many textbooks are written on the subject of plants poisonous to livestock. In fact, for animals to learn to avoid plants that make them sick is an accomplishment.

Funny then, that you wouldn't conclude that animals, if they have the ability to evolve avoidance to poisonous plants, wouldn't similarly have evolved an ability to recognize other bioactive properties within plants?

"Alternative medicine" is a fraud and there is a sucker born every minute, obviously.

Bottom line, I think that in mistaking me for an altie, you assumed that what I was saying was altie nonsense. If so, you might at least want to look again at the literature. Here's an open access primary journal article that not only studies one specific instance, but the cites summarize some other recent work in the area as well:

(I'll try to make this work by substituting dashes for slashes)

www.plosone.org-article-info:doi-10.1371-journal.pone.0004796

edit: yay! the above works, just substitute slashes (/) for dashes (-) in the above.

If that doesn't work, then look up the open-access journal "plosone" as a search term in google, and when you get there, search for "Self-Medication as Adaptive Plasticity".

Seriously, self-medication has evolved in many different animals groups, even insects, and this is not an attempt at promoting altie crap, it's an attempt to educate about science itself. Using the quote you did is incorrect, but that doesn't mean that it isn't just as easy to show how nonsensical altie thinking is without it.

btw, before you concluded I was an altie, you might have tried reading my response to #16.

It's not clear what you are, Ich, except that you sure as hell aren't much of an applied zoologist.

Anthropomorphism, mate.

Need to stick with the scientific method.

Are you really that attached to a hundred year old quote that you wouldn't even bother to educate yourself as to the reality?

I suppose a quote from Lamarck on heritability would be considered accurate by you as well, if you ignored the entire science of genetics?

seriously, get a grip man, this has NOTHING to do with altie crap, nothing to do with anthropomorphism and everything to do with me trying to educate you that animals do indeed self medicate. It is a trait that evolved LONG before primates did.

read the @!$%#ing article in the primary lit that I cited!

here's the abstract, since you seem to be too lazy to even bother:

Self-medication is a specific therapeutic behavioral change in response to disease or parasitism. The empirical literature on self-medication has so far focused entirely on identifying cases of self-medication in which particular behaviors are linked to therapeutic outcomes. In this study, we frame self-medication in the broader realm of adaptive plasticity, which provides several testable predictions for verifying self-medication and advancing its conceptual significance. First, self-medication behavior should improve the fitness of animals infected by parasites or pathogens. Second, self-medication behavior in the absence of infection should decrease fitness. Third, infection should induce self-medication behavior. The few rigorous studies of self-medication in non-human animals have not used this theoretical framework and thus have not tested fitness costs of self-medication in the absence of disease or parasitism. Here we use manipulative experiments to test these predictions with the foraging behavior of woolly bear caterpillars (Grammia incorrupta; Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) in response to their lethal endoparasites (tachinid flies). Our experiments show that the ingestion of plant toxins called pyrrolizidine alkaloids improves the survival of parasitized caterpillars by conferring resistance against tachinid flies. Consistent with theoretical prediction, excessive ingestion of these toxins reduces the survival of unparasitized caterpillars. Parasitized caterpillars are more likely than unparasitized caterpillars to specifically ingest large amounts of pyrrolizidine alkaloids. This case challenges the conventional view that self-medication behavior is restricted to animals with advanced cognitive abilities, such as primates, and empowers the science of self-medication by placing it in the domain of adaptive plasticity theory.

Moreover, there are over 50 references cited in that article that trace back the history of the research regarding self-medication in animals, should you care to avail yourself of any of them.

Which of them do you think DIDN'T apply the scientific method? Which of them would you actually think would survive peer review if they didn't?

don't be a moron.

Ich, exercise some care lest you herniate yourself in "empowering the science of self-medication". You're off topic here, and much too eager to burden me with your exhuberant youthful ignorance (you moron).

Anthropomorphism is shading your interpretation. That is because you are lazy - the intricacies of host-parasite relationships in the context of ecology are mundane enough, I suppose to entice you to settle (you moron).

Odd that you should mention Lamarck. He figures more prominently in the development of evolution theory, juxtaposed to Darwin, than he does in genetics science (you moron). And it is selection pressure and response that your self-medication fanatics are witnessing, not any sort of reasoning on the part of Grammia (you moron). You are clearly wading, or swimming out of your depth, Ichthy (you moron).

Yeah, I will continue to respect Sir Willam Osler, over a century later. He was instrumental in debunking your quack remedies (you moron) the first time around. He was, by the way (you moron) remarking about human nature and the remarkable tendency toward hypochondria, self-diagnosis and self-medication (you moron). He was (you moron) not particularly commenting on zoologic phenomenon (you moron, you).

Hype your whacked out pseudo-science of self-medication to someone else, someone who gives a sh*t, you f*cking moron. Grow up and learn your trade, jackass.

...and now you've convinced everyone you ARE a moron.

"empowering the science of self-medication"

I hate to break it to you, but YOU'RE the one anthropomorphizing here. I'm merely stating a fact:

animals have been documented (READ THE PAPER) to utilize poisonous plants to reduce parasite loads. That IS medicine, in a nutshell.

That is because you are lazy - the intricacies of host-parasite relationships in the context of ecology are mundane enough,

Actually, it's because I simply know more than you do. Do tell me what I mean if I mention the Red Queen hypothesis, eh?

He figures more prominently in the development of evolution theory, juxtaposed to Darwin, than he does in genetics science (you moron)

what is the Lamarckian mechanism of heritability? Now tell me what the actual mechanism of heritability is. Still think it irrelevant?

And it is selection pressure and response that your self-medication fanatics are witnessing, not any sort of reasoning on the part of Grammia (you moron)

wut? this doesn't even make sense. Moreover, as I said, you are mistaking me for an altie again, when this has NOTHING TO DO with herbalism, or any other kind of altie-med crap.

You are clearly wading, or swimming out of your depth, Ichthy (you moron).

You should look up what the term "psychological projection" means sometime.

Grow up and learn your trade, jackass.

I'm 44 and have a graduate degree in zoology from Berkeley, have published on animal behavior in the literature, and taught marine biology, animal behavior, and ichthyology at the college level for 4 years and at lower levels for 6 more. I rather think I know my own profession quite a bit better than yourself.

If you wish to remain wrong in utilizing that quote from Osler, so be it, but don't for one second attempt to claim you have science on YOUR side. I just posted the abstract of an article (that has nothing to do with "herbalism", btw) that simply shows that utilization of plants as medicine evolved not just in primates, but insects as well.

Again, and for the last time, since you seem denser than dirt, it has NOTHING to do with "herbalism". I simply thought you might like to know that Osler was wrong.

Guess what? Darwin himself was wrong about the mechanims of inheritance too. Nobody knew about genetics back in Darwin's day. Nobody had studied medicinal use in animals until fairly recently, either.

I really don't understand why you are having such a problem with this; it's hardly incongruent with what one would expect selection to favor as a trait in animals that are at risk of heavy parasitization or disease.

I rather think you've just decided to be childish and throw a tantrum because your hero just happens to be wrong about one issue, and it's not even his fault.

Frankly, I think Osler would be ashamed of the irrational hero worship you're showing here.

Like I said, grow up and finish learning your trade, Sonny. 44 going on 16.

reparsing this:

And it is selection pressure and response...

This is exactly (without your inane rhetoric that follows) what I was telling you all this time. There is significant selection pressure to evolve mechanisms to recognize and utilize chemical defenses against diseases and parasites in many species of organisms.

It is this very thing that lead to the evolution of self-medication in that particular species of lepidopterid I cited for you.

gees, talking about wasting someone's time.

You aren't interested in science at all, far as I can tell.

Like I said, grow up and finish learning your trade, Sonny. 44 going on 16.

You're completely irrational.

ah, are you having a problem with the terminology of "self-medicating"?

Is that it? Frankly, I've never seen the alt-med folks ever utilize this term, or even the overall issue at hand, for that matter.

If so, what term would YOU use to succinctly describe the behavior of an animal that utilizes a toxic (to itself) plant in order to reduce parasite loads?

Once you come up with a term you're happy with, simply substitute that wherever you see "self-medicating" and maybe you'll be able to actually look at the research then?

that's about all I can suggest for you, really.

btw, just to take a further poke at Osler, having studied the evolution of traits in animals for 25 years, I'd have to say there really isn't much of ANYTHING that "distinguishes man from animals"

Not cognition, not altruism, not parental care, not tool use...

In fact, dualism is dieing out, or did you miss that while screaming for the kids to get off of your lawn?

Ichthyic- Don't let them get to you. You can fix simple ignorance, by supplying facts. However, you can't fix stupid. If someone is already dogmatically committed to falsehood, step back, and look at all the bad choices their belief in falsehoods prompt them to make. Then, watch the perpetual trainwreck that stands them in place of "a life" due to all those bad decisions, and laugh at them while they proceed to blame it all on everyone but themselves.

Now that's entertainment.

LOL....after reading this thread (actually a darn good debate, imho)...I have to side with Ichthyic's argument. I admit I'm not nearly as well versed in this field as the both of you......I am a chiropractic physician afterall, my expertise is otherwise.....I still find Ichthyic's argument much more sound and better supported.

Just my 2 cents, thanks for reading.......

Hypochondria, self-diagnosis and self-medication. Uniquely human traits that leave us vulnerable to quacks and charlatans of all sorts.

True a century ago, true now, probably will be true a century from now.

Science education has certainly been a failure, as evidenced by so many ardent believers in quack cures among otherwise educated people.

Science posers.

Believers who "know"...Bwaaahaahaahahahahahahahaha...hahahahahaha...haha!

meh. I tend to think that the only real disagreement we actually had in the end was just the terminology of "self-medicated". I think PR had it firmly in his head that this was a case of projecting cognitive issues of medicine use (the animals deliberately "thought" to choose a specific plant) rather than merely a label chosen to describe a behavior that, since it actually happens with insects, has no need to invoke any kind of conscious choice on the part of animals that exhibit this behavior.

In fact, that was one of the reasons I specifically chose the butterfly reference; because PR seemed to think that the entire issue was one of anthropomorphizing chimp behavior, based on the first link.

It was an attempt to educate that evidently failed miserably. Not sure where I went wrong, but at least I tried.

Science posers.

did you ever look up the meaning of the phrase "psychological projection"?

True a century ago

Man, you really ARE old. When you get done telling all us kids to get off your lawn, you might actually TRY reading the lepidopteran cite I posted for you (it's open access), study the methods and results, and THEN tell me it has anything at all to do with quackery or anthropomorphism.

Hypochondria, self-diagnosis and self-medication.

For the last time, please, try to separate this out. the term "self-medication" in the primary lit has NOTHING to do with any alt-med issues. It's simply a term used to describe a set of behaviors in animals relating to the animal's use of plants that by defnition, reduce the probability of disease or parasitism within those animals.

Don't get hung up on the damn terminology!

Your bug fetish has nothing to do with quackery. That's the point. It's off topic.

Quacks prey on humans who are all too eager to be flim-flammed. Has nothing to with lepidoptera or chimpanzees. Nothing at all. Move along, nothing to see here.

You went wrong on so many levels - keep trying, you'll learn. Mind that you do stay well off my lawn. And no cherry bombs in my mailbox, either, you young vandal.

That's the point. It's off topic.

Red Herring. You attempted to defend your position, I merely attempted to show you some actual science to update Osler. You were the one that got bent out of joint, making false accusations.

Indeed, it has NOTHING to do with quackery, but you made the contention over and over again that it DID.

You were wrong, now admit it like a gentleman.

You went wrong on so many levels

There's that projection again.

Why not defend that position, if you're serious, and not just trying to save face?

Otherwise, you should just quit while you're behind.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

-Mark Twain

A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way.

-Mark Twain

Good, reliable old Osler calls your bluff from the grave. To wit: hypochondria, self-diagnosis and self-medication foster quackery. Icythyic takes umbrage, must discredit Osler's all too correct observation of human nature. There is an agenda hidden ther somewhere.

Ichthyic works his panties into a bunch over Publius' use of the term "self-medication", invoking entomology to deflect the popular definition:

self-medication

n.

Medication of oneself without professional supervision so as to alleviate an illness or a condition

-The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Thwarted, Ich turns to bashing Osler as obsolete in a desperate attempt to distort the point of Osler's timeless observation. Poor Osler has been dead 90 years, and doesn't care. So, back to ranting about bugs.

Ich finally descends into long-winded verbal flailing. When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t. Offers his CV to suggest accomplishment and keeps prattling on...and on...and on...and...

Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she laid an asteroid.

-Mark Twain (again)

you absolutely INSIST on being a dumbass, eh?

popular definition

I suppose you've NEVER seen a term utilized within the scientific literature that had a different usage than the popular one defined by a dictionary? Oh, wait, you likely haven't, since you haven't a clue and haven't actually read any scientific literature.

again, what does the phrase "Red Queen" mean to you? Do you really think that the way they use it within evolutionary biology is literally the way Lewis Carol used it? That they are actually speaking of the fictional character, instead of the analogy it represents?

must discredit Osler's all too correct observation

you mean INCORRECT, as i have been repeatedly saying to you for several posts now, and damn well proved it by showing you that he, while having no reason to know better at the time, is wrong about animals not self-medicating, regardless of his being right about human gullibility and quackery. Exactly the same way Darwin was incorrect about the mechanism of inheritance (because there simply WAS no knowledge of genetics at the time), but was absolutely dead on wrt to selection as a mechanism of evolution.

Ich turns to bashing Osler

I'm NOT bashing Osler, you ossified cretin, I'm bashing YOU.

Poor Osler has been dead 90 years, and doesn't care

I'm sure he's "rolling in his grave" listening to you try to irrationally defend him for no reason than to hear yourself talk.

Ich finally descends into long-winded verbal flailing

projecting again I see.

I can keep this up longer than you, and with each new post you make, you simply dig yourself deeper.

Admit defeat like a gentleman. It was not my original intention to insult Osler, nor you for that matter. I simply thought you would like to know that science has indeed progressed on that issue, and you might want to rethink about using that quote as you did. Now, however, I'm quite happy to show you up as the patronizing, cretinous, arrogant ass that you have so vehemently proved yourself to be.

over to you, Re-Do.

All that squawking and still no egg.

all that stupidity, and you're still able to form words. I can only assume you must have a ghostwriter?

Yeah, two of them. Sir William Osler and Samuel Clemens in ths case. They both are real ghosts, not fakers like you.

' She was a subscriber to all the "Health" periodicals and phrenological frauds; and the solemn ignorance they were inflated with was breath to her nostrils. All the rot they contained about ventilation, and how to go to bed, and how to get up, and what to eat, and what to drink, and how much exercise to take, and what frame of mind to keep oneself in, and what sort of clothing to wear, was all gospel to her, and she never observed that health journals of the current month customarily upset everything they had recommended the month before. She was as simple-hearted and honest as the day was long, and so she was an easy victim. She gathered together her quack periodicals and her quack medicines, and, thus armed with death, went about on her pale horse, metaphorically speaking, with "hell following after." '

- Mark Twain, again, describing Aunt Polly in Tom Sawyer, Chap 12.

Oh, I am so tempted to just start posting random irrelevant quotes, just like you do.

fortunately, I rather think I have more respect for anyone who happens to be wading through this.

I've asked you this before, but since you act as if you actually know something about science I'll ask again:

What do I mean when I say "Red Queen", if I'm talking about evolution, you patronizing senile asshat?

"Always running", not to be confused with always running off at the mouth. Both are obtuse.

Your hidden agenda is hanging out, mate. You are an 'altie', as you put it.

Cackling frantically now. Still no egg. You are gonna be soup, Ich. Keep squawking.

"Always running", not to be confused with always running off at the mouth.

and that means what, exactly, wrt selection?

come on, moron, meter's running.

Spit it out, if you can.

Ich,

I enjoyed that paper immensely!! Don't let him get to you... he is making you emotional and pulling you away from your rational self. Don't let him do that. He can't stand that you proved him wrong. I doubt he has as much scientific education as you. Judging by the idiotic replies he has posted, I would believe that to be true.

Trust me, he's pwned....... that is why he is acting like a 3rd grader.

The "debate" was over before it began. I'm really just pushing his buttons for fun at this point.

glad you enjoyed the paper though, it was significant as it does a good job of documenting what is necessary to counter accusations of anthropomorphism applied to the observation of this behavior to begin with (which was actually a legitimate concern in many of the early studies done on primates). in short, you first have to show that the organism's fitness is reduced by eating the toxic plant, outside of being parasitized, and THEN show that the organisims fitness is increased by consuming the plant while parasitized. Also, then show that the organisms clearly only consume the plants when they are parasitized.

Seemed pretty clear to me.

last comment on this from me, if Mr. "get off my lawn you crazy kids!" wants to actually have the last word.

hey, I wonder if publius redux might actually be this guy:

bench.nationalreview.com-post-?q=OTlmMzkyMzA1NDVkYjdiMjgyMDlhYWE0NzRkZWY1ODc=

again, just replace the dashes with slashes.

Is publius redux actually "publius", the online handle of John F. Blevins (law professor)??

I actually hope not.

No, it's not. I apologize for even beginning to confuse the two.

And we all had hoped that your comment 12.32 was your last, as you had promised, finally, you insufferable blowhard.

Your 'science' is garbage, hardly fit for a middle school science fair. A grand total of 80 worms who proved nothing more than physiologic requirements for nutrient intake.

Once again, grow up and learn your trade, you blind jackass. I did make one mistake in judgement - I thought you might have the aptitude of a 16 year old, but I was wrong. More like an 11 year old.

Post your ridiculous excuse for scientific accomplishment on a thread of your own, and we will be happy to dismantle your flawed construction and take you to the woodshed for a right proper thrashing.

What a disappointment you are, Ich.

LOL it really is funny, we have the greatest life expectancy in the world yet fools are always trying to tell us to chuck our diet and way of life for foods and practices from some 3rd world hole where most people rarely live past 30

does this make sence to anyone?? well it must as look at all the fools who follow alternative medicne.

OK....I'm offended here, Haz. As a chiropractor, I spend my entire day teaching patients about proper nutrition and wellness lifestyles. Why? Because it's the ONLY way to prevent the potential onset of debilitating disease. It's a lot easier and less expensive to prevent disease, rather than to attempt to regain health once it has been lost.

You make the argument that the "fools" who are promoting natural diets are persuading you to live the way people do in 3rd world countries? Frankly, that's a very narrow view of healthy eating. Yes, we Americans live past 30, but that's because we have access to better emergency care, cleaner water supply, and have much lower population densities (which reduces infection communicability), etc. So yes, we live LONGER...but do we live BETTER? To this I would say, NO!

Actually, Americans do not have the longest life expectancy (it's Japan), and we are quite far down the list on mortality/morbidity comparisons. Most Americans are extremely unhealthy, as evidenced by obvious factors like obesity, debilitation, and the sheer amount of healthcare dollars that are spent per capita.

Now, as a chiropractor, do you consider me "alternative"? That's been the pigeonhole we been forced into for decades now, but considering that since 1996 there have been more visits to a chiropractor every year than those logged to an allopathic doctor, it's obvious that we're no longer "alternative", but instead quite mainstream. We have THE best record for patient satisfaction and efficacy (feel free to factcheck this!), so do you feel my patients are fools, too?

As far as herbal remedies go......it is not about voodoo or magic, it's just simply a back-to-basics approach to maintaining health. Anyone well-versed in these natural remedies should understand and teach to others that they are subtle in nature, and are not a fast-acting magic bullet. Can you cure cancer with herbs?......well, probably not in the majority of cases.....but don't automatically rule out the potential beneficial effects of herbs, either separate or in conjunction with western medicine. God knows our medications don't do a whole lot for cancer, either, so where's your argument? Of course, not all herbs are healthy, some have dangerous risks, and some can interfere with pharmaceuticals (and vice-versa)......but you would choose to ignore the potential benefits of certain herbs because they have not "been proven" in a Big Pharma-sponsored research article? As a healthcare "insider", I can tell you the research out there is extremely biased, and in many cases not reliable at all. I don't care what journal they are found in, it's all the same. Use common sense.

I hope this helps, though. Enough ignorance has been spewed about my profession because it "didn't have the research" in the past. Now we do have the evidence to support our therapies, and now it's the allopathic community that's fighting to catch up. Some day I predict the same will occur with natural remedies.......nature isn't imperfect, it's just not convenient enough for you.

Now we do have the evidence to support our therapies,

Then why not post links to the peer-reviewed scientific studies supporting it?

Wouldn't that be a far better way to support your contention?

but considering that since 1996 there have been more visits to a chiropractor every year than those logged to an allopathic doctor, it's obvious that we're no longer "alternative", but instead quite mainstream.

Argumentum ad Populum, and a strawman to boot.

There are a ton of Young Earth Creationists in the US, too. Does that mean the earth really is 6000 years old? Moreover, the definition of "alternative" has nothing to do with the relative OR absolute numbers of adherents, but rather whether the methods/treatments have actually been scientifically tested (repeatedly, within the peer-reviewed literature) for both safety and efficacy.

check out:

www.simonsingh.net

Ichthyic, now considering I supported your nauseous argument with PR above this thread, you could do better to support mine........even if only for the sake of being a gentleman.....

Speaking about chiropractic......YES! I could post numerous links to peer-reviewed scientific literature, but I don't have the time to sit here and do this for every single person who wishes to discredit my post for "having a lack of supporting evidence". Bottom-line- I work for a living. I don't have the time. But if YOU do, then by all means, use your brains and spend some time looking it up yourself. For someone who prides himself in his own narcissistic intelligence, you shouldn't have any problems researching this on your own.....

As far as it being an 'argumentum ad populum', normally this fallacy holds true. But you missed the point. I was giving an example of something that society still considers alternative, but has become mainstream (hence, "normal") because of it's popularity. It was an issue of semantics over the use of the term, not the definition itself. I wasn't making an argument for the legitimacy of certain therapies due to its popularity, only the terminology itself. The rationale for chiropractic is not based upon its popularity, but rather the other way around......i.e., it is an effective form of healthcare, that's WHY it's so popular! You tried to use the ad populum fallacy against me, but that can only be legitimately used when someone tries to support that rationale for something based upon the idea "that since everyone else is using it, it must be true". That was not my point at all. Thanks for being so understanding. And you call me a strawman?

The definition of "alternative" has EVERYTHING to do with relative and/or absolute numbers of adherents! Since we're talking about healthcare, if a certain therapy is used often in society, then it can be considered mainstream. If it is not used within a broad scope, and therefore fewer people are using it, then most people would be inclined to call it "alternative", since it is the alternative to what is considered mainstream. This was an issue of alternative versus mainstream, not alternative versus legitimacy. Your argument is therefore false because you can find evidence of both alternative and mainstream therapies that do/do not have the supporting evidence.

Besides, as for your statement about safety and efficacy being used as the standards to determine if something should be considered alternative versus traditional, then you may be suprised to know that chiropractic care has long had some of the highest measures of safety and efficacy amongst all forms of healthcare. Now I know, I know.....in your pompous, egotistical mindset you feel the need to berate others for specific research articles and supporting evidence- again, I dont have time...but you can start by looking up articles in JMPT, JACA, Spine journal, the Lancet, etc........pretty much anything outside JAMA, which wouldn't publish a non-antagonistic article on chiropractic if their profession depended on it.......

So, Ichthyic, you would serve yourself and others better if you concentrated more on substance than semantics. Being intelligent doesn't give you the right to argue with others if you're not willing to apply a little more margin to other viewpoints, and have a little more humility.

Ichthyic, now considering I supported your nauseous argument with PR above this thread, you could do better to support mine........even if only for the sake of being a gentleman.....

If only science worked that way...

no, wait, that would be bad.

the rest of what you say is a continuing attempt to redefine what "alternative" actually means, and you're still wrong.

Being intelligent doesn't give you the right to argue with others if you're not willing to apply a little more margin to other viewpoints

shall we apply more margin to the idea that the world is flat, or maybe the idea that the world is only 6000 years old, or the idea that the moon landings were faked, you think?

no?

because otherwise, what you have there is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, STILL, to support the efficacy of chiropractic. Which, btw, is pretty much the same argument creationists trot out to support their ideas, too.

sorry, I calls em as I sees em. Got nothing to do with friendship, or who supports who.

humility too, has nothing to do with it.

If you actually had the science on your side, you'd be able to link to it directly, and nobody would even be having this argument. In fact, if you could do that NOW, you'd still win this argument.

again, recommend you spend time arguing with the likes of Simon Singh.

Course it might not hurt NOT to have your breasts irrated every year for no good reason, last I checked excessive radation caused cancer.

And it's been shown that those excrutiating mammograms can actually cause cancer cells to spread. I'll take my chances instead. I haven't been to an OB/GYN in 22 years, and that last time was to have a tubal ligation. My stepfather had skin cancer and went through massive amounts of radiation treatments, chemo and surgery. It wasn't the cancer that killed him, it was the MRSA infection he got in the hospital. Like I said, I'll take my chances and stay away from the doctor.

bull@!$%#.

www.msnbc.msn.com-id-5261683

substitute (/) for (-) to read the article.

Women who screen annually and are diagnosed with breast cancer die from the disease half as often as those who do not get annual exams

there is ample anecdotal evidence

The plural of anecdote is not data. You're right that lots of anecdotes suggest an area that might be worthy of actual research, but it isn't research in and of itself, and is even less relevant than correlational data. Just to be clear, there is only ONE way to be sure something is safe and effective or not, and that is with rigorous scientific testing.

anything else is just a crap-shoot.

Testing costs money, a lot of money, paid for by the folks making the medicine. That's why the alt med people aren't having their stuff tested. They either won't or, more usually, can't afford to have their therapies tested.

That, and the fact that many alternative modalities have been studied. Most of those studied modalities have neither a plausible mechanism of effect, nor a efficacy measured to a significance beyond that of placebo or statistical noise.

Try to find an alternative modality, and search for it on pubmed, you'll very likely find it.

Proper studies are double-blind, placebo, controlled and independant. Some smaller very preliminary studies might be useful for plausability, but are only good teasers and then, only if they show some actual correlation indicating the null-hypothesis is not supported.

Most common herbs have a lot of large studies.

Oh, and to those of you that say herbs can't be patented, it's kinda wrong. Look at asprin (sort of). Companies make lots of money on that.