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

It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 205 posts

Re: It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream

#101

Post by Nursie »

stiff wrote: post #92
Nursie wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the main advantage of plants over modern medicine in its typical form is that they contain complex compounds of chemical substances which show a synergy in a certain direction" This is such unutterable nonsense. Take Aspirin vs. Willow Bark. Aspirin is derived from substances found in willow bark. Aspirin will cure your headache with a known dose of a substance with a well documented harm profile. Willow bark will c…

You are very aggressive while you clearly do not know what I am talking about and doing a complete straw men. In fact the very same page referenced in this post confirms what I said: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/scientific-evi...

Cool, you found one example where the compounds in plant potentiate each other in a useful way. I gave you an example of where this is absolutely not true, and there are likely many more on both sides.

This absolutely does not support the statement "the main advantage of plants over modern medicine in its typical form is that they contain complex compounds of chemical substances which show a synergy in a certain direction ".

In fact it doesn't support that there is an advantage at all, and it shows that by scientifically studying the plant we can figure out the substances responsible for the effect (if it's reproducible), purify them and make use of them in preparations that can be applied more effectively than a poultice.

I'm not sure how you think this is a straw man either.

Re: It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream

#102

Post by up_and_up »

jimworm wrote: post #90
up_and_up wrote: post #34

The problem with "Evidence Based Medicine" vs CAM are two-fold, according to my friend who is an MD in internal medicine at the local VA. 1. 'Evidenced based' medicine is not really 'Evidenced based' because (again this is according to an MD) 50% of what they practice has not been subjected to scientific study. 2. Also there is not the time nor funding to test every aspect and modality of CAM. So some CAM practice mi…

Just because current conventional medicine isn't entirely evidence-based does not excuse the claims of CAM from the requirement for evidence. Note that when an MD gives this statement: "take these antibiotics, then get some bed rest and take plenty of fluids", 2/3rds of the advice given is likely not based on evidence, yet there is a huge difference between that and a recommendation not based on any evidence at all.

> Just because current conventional medicine isn't entirely evidence-based does not excuse the claims of CAM from the requirement for evidence.

Who says CAM practitioners do not want to be subjected to RCT? Bring on the money and the time to do it!! Fact is very little money nor time has been spent on RCT for CAM. My wife who practices Ayurveda, is dying for there to be more studies.

Plus, your statement is fallacious since you are claiming it is OKAY for conventional docs to conduct "unscientific" practices and procedures, which is at least 50% of what they do, but it is NOT OKAY for CAM practitioners to do the same.

Re: It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream

#103

Post by Nursie »

amalag wrote: post #95
Nursie wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said that modern medicine is poison if taken in high doses. I pointed out that anything is a poison in high doses. You said that Ayurveda prefers herbs over 'poison' and lumped all modern medicine in with 'poison'. So I pointed out that this is nonsense too. If 'Ayurveda' makes these claims, then I'm sorry but it's full of bullshit. I'm sorry if this offends you, but it really is that simple. Maybe there are othe…

>Anything is a poison in high doses. I can see that is the limit of your intellectual presentation, good job. Nice to see your nuanced understanding of the health benefits of tylenol vs a bowl of hot cooked rice. I will remember that the next time I am munching on a bowl of tylenol.

WTF??

Seriously, just because "Anything is poison in high doses", it doesn't follow that a "high dose" is the same for everything.

Christ almighty you're dumb.

Re: It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream

#104

Post by tptacek »

bitwize wrote: post #57
Udo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really refuse to accept that women are just "wired for faith", it sounds too similar to the Victorian notion that somehow women are naturally wired for irrationality. There has to be a social reason why this spreads among women, there is a gap somewhere in science education that leaves women more vulnerable to this. And I actually watched it spread. The transmission seems to be helped by exploiting trusted relation…

Women are more prone to fall for BS because we enculturate them to believe that emotions and warm fuzzy feelings are a more reliable guide than science and logic. Third-wave feminism is partly to blame; the notion that science and logic are "patriarchal" and that not oppressing women entails a warm and fuzzy "feminine" replacement for disciplined thought is the third wave's doing. Thinking logically, critically, and…

science and logic. Third-wave feminism is partly to blame; the notion that

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

can just, like, the word "woman" land on an HN thread without it becoming an embarrassment?

Re: It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream

#105

Post by papsosouid »

JPKab wrote: post #20

I agree with a lot of what this article says regarding the "naturalistic fallacy",etc. However, this quote is an example of shallow thinking that drives me nuts: "Of course, it’s hard not to note that cancer and heart disease are primarily diseases of aging, and life expectancy was so much lower back in the day that a much smaller percentage of the population lived to advanced ages" Life expectancy FROM BIRTH has ris…

>Life expectancy FROM BIRTH has risen dramatically, but if you rule out those who died before they reached 5 years old, and rule out violent deaths and/or viral/bacterial plagues, you begin to realize that life expectancy is not much higher today.

That is a myth. Life expectancy is much higher at all ages. In ancient Rome, the life expectancy for a 15 year old was 52. In modern first world nations, life expectancy at birth is 80. That is a huge extension of adult lifespan. Just because infant mortality was part of the reason lifespans were lower in ancient times, doesn't mean it was the whole reason.

Re: It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream

#106

Post by Nursie »

amalag wrote: post #94
up_and_up wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ayurveda is bullshit My wife is an Ayurvedic practitioner, so yes I am biased, but I dont believe in every aspect of it. I can definitely say it is not "bullshit" and it is indeed helping many of her clients. She has people who come to her, that conventional docs have literally given up on. "We cant figure out what is wrong with your digestion, theres nothing more we can try" she hears stories like that all the tim…

It doesn't follow the western model of logic, which is why uninformed people who cannot understand subtleties insist on displaying their boarishness. For instance ayurveda says the stomach has digestive fire, it does not give you a list of chemicals which break down food. Rather it seeks to strengthen that digestive fire. If you want to peek in there with a catheter and say "Nope, there is no fire, ayurveda is bullsh…

"The human body was not evolved from some random processes for us to reverse engineer, rather there is an inherent design and ayurveda explains it."

Hooray, you've admitted you're peddling religion, and creationism at that. Well done.

Re: It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream

#107

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #104
bitwize wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women are more prone to fall for BS because we enculturate them to believe that emotions and warm fuzzy feelings are a more reliable guide than science and logic. Third-wave feminism is partly to blame; the notion that science and logic are "patriarchal" and that not oppressing women entails a warm and fuzzy "feminine" replacement for disciplined thought is the third wave's doing. Thinking logically, critically, and…

science and logic. Third-wave feminism is partly to blame; the notion that AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA…

[deleted]

Re: It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream

#108

Post by klodolph »

stiff wrote: post #89
klodolph wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can name a drug with bad side effects. FDA isn't 100% effective, my point is that the standards for herbal remedies are comparatively worse than those for "modern" drugs. Kava has been linked to liver failure, Comfrey causes liver damage, Chaparral causes liver damage, and Pennyroyal is basically toxic. St John's Wort has so many interactions it's basically unsafe to take in conjunction with anything. On top…

Then when you talk about the pull-out method of family planning, you say it's a good technique because you'll have kids. That's some impressive double-speak. Next you'll tell me that Caffeine is a good sleep aid because evolution wants you to be more productive. I didn't phrase it clear enough, I admit, but what I meant is only that avoiding contraceptive pills would free you from the exposure to the pretty bad side…

> You really seem to want to turn it into an X vs Y thing where there has to be one winner.

The only X versus Y here is scrutiny. Read my posts a little more carefully: my criticism of herbal remedies is not about the fact that they are herbal, but the fact that they are understood little and regulated poorly. That's not a problem with the remedies themselves, but with the laws and systems of incentives driving scientific research.

Re: It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream

#109

Post by rthomas6 »

Udo wrote: post #93
rthomas6 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment comes off as sexist to me. I don't think that more women being involved with C/AM means that a larger proportion of women are irrational. Different things are popular with women and men. A large portion of both men and women are irrational. Just because a larger group of irrational women like C/AM compared to men does NOT mean that there is a larger group of irrational women. Conspiracy theories are irra…

I'm not sure if you're just trolling or whether you're actually responding to the same comment I wrote. > I don't think that more women being involved with C/AM means that a larger proportion of women are irrational. At no point did I say or even imply that. In fact, I explicitly countered that notion as it was presented by another commenter. So my position is kind of the opposite of what you're alleging. Please take…

This is the part of your comment where I thought you were implying a more general irrationality of women:

>It feels like a big gaping hole in everything we achieved with women's rights and education. [. . .] It's like a large part of our women went to a parallel universe "girls school", whereas the men in the mean time learned about science and reasoning.

If you're not implying that a large portion of women are less rational than men, what does this section of your comment mean? That is how I interpret it. I guess I interpreted it differently than you intended.

Edit: Note that I am not saying you implied that women are inherently less rational than men, which is what I think you countered in another comment. Just that you said they are currently, due to some as-yet unknown reason. I'm trying to dispute this assumption.

Re: It’s a part of my paleo fantasy, it’s a part of my paleo dream

#110

Post by stiff »

papsosouid wrote: post #99
stiff wrote: post #9

Calling the "naturalistic fallacy" a fallacy is a bit of an overstretch IMO, sure natural=better is not a rule true 100% of the time, but nevertheless until sufficient evidence has not been accumulated that some of the adjustments we make to our lifestyle are not harmful to us health-wise avoiding them is not an unreasonable heuristic to follow. One example is how it became clear in the last years in nutritional scie…

>sure natural=better is not a rule true 100% of the time It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random. >One example is how it became clear in the last years in nutritional science that in general the more processed the food is the more harmful it is for us. That has not become clear at all, that is something people like to repeat, but is simply a misinterpretation of the recommendation that people "…

It isn't even a loose correlation. It is no better than random.

It depends what you mean by natural, I guess. Please read this in context, I am mostly talking about early adopting radical lifestyle changes vs. sticking to the status quo your ancestors followed, and the effects of doing so when employing exclusively one or the other strategy to all the choices.

That has not become clear at all, that is something people like to repeat, but is simply a misinterpretation of the recommendation that people "eat mainly unprocessed foods" to maintain a healthy weight. The recommendation is not due to some magical pixie dust inherent in unprocessed food, it is because processed foods are often very high in calories.

Oh yes, ridicule what I said to make your point, introduce the pixie dust despite me basing most of what I say on at least some evidence, this will make your reply so much more valuable. You are also actually only partially right, it is the amount of calories and the absence of fiber and vitamins and micronutrients (while those are used up during digestation) that makes processed foods unhealthy. I don't see how any of this has to do with what I said.

Except the article had no such attitude, and said nothing like what you are suggesting it says. ... It isn't ignored. It is studied, and if it is found to actually be effective, it is used. If it is found not to be effective, it is not used. The quack/fraud "medicine" crowd really need to grow out of lying about this. Scientists do not ignore old herbal remedies, they study them.

I didn't say any of this, this was a comment on the general attitude of some people.

Post reply on HN