Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 127 posts

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#101

Post by carbocation »

jonnathanson wrote: post #99
carbocation wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather, I think's saying that there are interactions and compounds in drugs we use that we don't (yet) fully understand. Unless there is evidence to support that position, that's indistinguishable from magical thinking rephrased to sound scientific.

Errr, no. Examples abound in the history of medicine of breakthroughs that were deemed effective before they were fully understood. Penicillin was shown to be an effective antibiotic agent long before science had a complete grasp on exactly why. Even basic sanitation (washing hands between surgeries) was a breakthrough that occurred before the germ theory of disease, and was originally believed effective for entirely…

So the argument is that because there are historical examples of the active ingredient of an herb being extracted into a useful drug, therefore the OP's personal belief that "constellations of chemicals in these concoctions which, in concert create an altogether particular and unique effect" is now a scientific claim?

There is no scientific basis for that. It's just one guy's opinion. Could he investigate it in a scientific fashion? Sure. Could he convince me? Easily. Does asserting it to be scientific make it so? No.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#102

Post by ht_th »

yareally wrote: post #96
ht_th wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European using the extended latin alphabet, setting your keyboard up to easily type é, is easy: use a modifier key. Then, for example, MOD + ' followed by e becomes é. Similarly you can make à, ô, ĩ, œ, ů, and so on. I even believe this is the default setting (as I cannot remember setting it manually). But I agree that if you don't use these characters, setting it up to type one or two odd characters isn't worth…

I do something like that. My right alt key set to do alt+e for é or alt+u for ú. Also works nice for doing things like ³ and π with the number 3.

I use the Windows keys for that as I have no other use for them.

Now you've mentioned it, I can make easily a lot of symbols I've never used as well: ₈8⁸ǫẹ. That might come in handy writing formula in plain text.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#103

Post by DanBC »

megablast wrote: post #85
DanBC wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is a very safe drug if you do not take too much. Being in pain when there is a simple, cheap, safe, effective medication is a bad way to live.

The problem I have with it is that it lowers the bodies natural ways of dealing with pain. You become more reliant on it, rather than just handling the pain yourself. This works for non extreme pain, of course.

People in pain tense their muscles, they walk in a different way, they stop exercising, they stop moving around so much.

All of these things help keep pain going on longer.

For long term pain with no worrying cause you should carefully take pain killers and keep moving. Things like lower back pain (which can have serious causes, so get it checked) get much worse if you stop exercising, but get better if you get appropriate exercise.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#104

Post by yareally »

ht_th wrote: post #102
yareally wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do something like that. My right alt key set to do alt+e for é or alt+u for ú. Also works nice for doing things like ³ and π with the number 3.

I use the Windows keys for that as I have no other use for them. Now you've mentioned it, I can make easily a lot of symbols I've never used as well: ₈8⁸ǫẹ. That might come in handy writing formula in plain text.

That's sort of why I have them as well. I used π or µ as a variable constant before in a script I was writing or use ² and ³ in documentation for something.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#105

Post by Alex3917 »

carbocation wrote: post #98
Alex3917 wrote: post #6

"Another common chemical name for methotrexate is amethopterin, which comes from the roots meth, Greek for wine, which I might stretch to spirits, and pterin, Greek for feathers." Except for it's ameth, which would mean lack of intoxication, a la 'amethyst'. In fact the whole article is complete BS as it doesn't even remotely align with the views the author presents in the original article -- nowhere does the author…

Is there objective evidence that any element of naturopathic medicine has consistent, reproducible, positive value?

By element do you mean a specific plant or the broader principles of naturopathy?

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#107

Post by graeme »

Camillo wrote: post #53
leoh wrote: post #18

"We are a chemophobic culture." I take great issue with this statement. We are most decidedly not a chemophobic culture. People are more than willing to take medicines that are artificially synthesized and, as the author mentions, with good reason. I, for one, am not chemophobic. I personally know an individual who developed one of the first total-syntheses (i.e. "artificial" chemical synthesis) of a very important a…

The hope, then, is that when taking something more "natural" as opposed to man-made is that that natural product will inherently contain a wider variety of compounds that taken together create a more potent, but gentle effect on the patient. And why would they? You are pretty much literally assuming an intelligent design behind the mate plant or Meadows's Montmorency cherry juice. But from an evolutionist perspective…

Because the farmers can select for effects, not the reasons for the effects.

You've just argued against animal husbandry, by the way.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#108

Post by reasonattlm »

Camillo wrote: post #53
leoh wrote: post #18

"We are a chemophobic culture." I take great issue with this statement. We are most decidedly not a chemophobic culture. People are more than willing to take medicines that are artificially synthesized and, as the author mentions, with good reason. I, for one, am not chemophobic. I personally know an individual who developed one of the first total-syntheses (i.e. "artificial" chemical synthesis) of a very important a…

The hope, then, is that when taking something more "natural" as opposed to man-made is that that natural product will inherently contain a wider variety of compounds that taken together create a more potent, but gentle effect on the patient. And why would they? You are pretty much literally assuming an intelligent design behind the mate plant or Meadows's Montmorency cherry juice. But from an evolutionist perspective…

What evolutionary reason? See here:

http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/03/theorizing-more-b...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3299529/

Various organisms (i.e., bacteria, fungi, plants and animals) within an ecosystem can synthesize and release into the environment certain longevity-extending small molecules. Here we hypothesize that these interspecies chemical signals can create xenohormetic, hormetic and cytostatic selective forces driving the ecosystemic evolution of longevity regulation mechanisms. In our hypothesis, following their release into the environment by one species of the organisms composing an ecosystem, such small molecules can activate anti-aging processes and/or inhibit pro-aging processes in other species within the ecosystem. The organisms that possess the most effective (as compared to their counterparts of the same species) mechanisms for sensing the chemical signals produced and released by other species and for responding to such signals by undergoing certain hormetic and/or cytostatic life-extending changes to their metabolism and physiology are expected to live longer then their counterparts within the ecosystem. Thus, the ability of a species of the organisms composing an ecosystem to undergo life-extending metabolic or physiological changes in response to hormetic or cytostatic chemical compounds released to the ecosystem by other species: 1) increases its chances of survival; 2) creates selective forces aimed at maintaining such ability; and 3) enables the evolution of longevity regulation mechanisms.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#109

Post by Alex3917 »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #42
Alex3917 wrote: post #6

"Another common chemical name for methotrexate is amethopterin, which comes from the roots meth, Greek for wine, which I might stretch to spirits, and pterin, Greek for feathers." Except for it's ameth, which would mean lack of intoxication, a la 'amethyst'. In fact the whole article is complete BS as it doesn't even remotely align with the views the author presents in the original article -- nowhere does the author…

Except the NYT magazine article author makes it quite clear that she is chemophobic, with repeated statements about her fear. Here's a direct quote: "It reinforced an image of Shepherd as sick, forever dependent on a drug I felt afraid of, however unreasonable a doctor might tell me that fear was." Similarly, when a doctor suggests increasing the dose of methotrexate she panics.

I guess I still don't see anything there that could be construed as 'chemophobia'. She doesn't want her kid to self-identify as sick or to die of liver failure. I don't see how either of these concerns are crazy or anti-technology or whatever. Especially since in the beginning she says she was excited about the diagnosis because it meant they could try different drugs.

Re: Don’t Take Medical Advice From the New York Times Magazine

#110

Post by Camillo »

reasonattlm wrote: post #108
Camillo wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hope, then, is that when taking something more "natural" as opposed to man-made is that that natural product will inherently contain a wider variety of compounds that taken together create a more potent, but gentle effect on the patient. And why would they? You are pretty much literally assuming an intelligent design behind the mate plant or Meadows's Montmorency cherry juice. But from an evolutionist perspective…

What evolutionary reason? See here: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/03/theorizing-more-b... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3299529/ Various organisms (i.e., bacteria, fungi, plants and animals) within an ecosystem can synthesize and release into the environment certain longevity-extending small molecules. Here we hypothesize that these interspecies chemical signals can create xenohormetic, hormet…

That's the saddest paper I've ever seen. Some student did a paper review, tacked on a hypothesis, did no research on it, and came up with something that looks more like a homework assignment than a research paper. Dose Response must have a negative impact factor!

Anyway, South America was colonized by humans around 15 millennia ago. Does that look like a reasonable time frame for humans to evolve a positive reaction to the specific blend of chemicals in the mate plant? Does that sound like it would have any impact at all on a white North American child with no indigenous American ancestry? Of course not.

Post reply on HN