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

151–160 of 205 posts

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

#151

Post by analog »

Nursie wrote: post #73
analog wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I know several people for whom the Paleo diet has worked, and also alt medicine. I don't know why it works but it's unscientific to ignore the evidence simply because you don't understand it.

Anecdotes != evidence. It's unscientific to elevate your anecdotes above actual studies because you subjectively feel there's something there. This is why we have studies. I don't know why it works but it's unscientific to ignore the evidence simply because you don't understand it. Classic. Homeopathy enthusiasts always wheel this out and it's hilarious. "Just because you don't understand how it works you shouldn't i…

I'm sorry but anecdotes are evidence, just with a very small sample size. You can keep saying "it doesn't work" as many times as you like but you'll still be wrong.

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

#152

Post by Nursie »

analog wrote: post #151
Nursie wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotes != evidence. It's unscientific to elevate your anecdotes above actual studies because you subjectively feel there's something there. This is why we have studies. I don't know why it works but it's unscientific to ignore the evidence simply because you don't understand it. Classic. Homeopathy enthusiasts always wheel this out and it's hilarious. "Just because you don't understand how it works you shouldn't i…

I'm sorry but anecdotes are evidence, just with a very small sample size. You can keep saying "it doesn't work" as many times as you like but you'll still be wrong.

I'm sorry but anecdotes are evidence, just with a very small sample size.

OK, anecdotes are not good evidence, and cannot be used as evidence because they suffer from nearly all the problems that a good study accounts for and real evidence gathering processes account for and mitigate. Anecdotal data suffers from confirmation bias, from selection bias, it has a small enough sample size to be meaningless, and is as a result worthless.

Better?

You can keep saying "it doesn't work" as many times as you like but you'll still be wrong.

[Citation Needed]

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

#153

Post by api »

nathan_long wrote: post #21
api wrote: post #12

I have a friend who's into homeopathy and such, and I normally keep my mouth shut. But I have done some thinking about why. This friend is very smart, very intellectual, very curious, and not overly credulous. She's really a bit of a nerd. From my few conversations on the matter, the thing that's jumped out at me is this: She's drawn to alternative medicine because it's open source. Like many nerds, she hates closed…

>> The physical design of the spaces is better too. Go into an alt-med clinic and it feels warm, welcoming, calming. Go into a hospital or a conventional doctors' office and it looks like a car repair shop. I'm sure the feel could be improved, but I bet the main design goal in conventional offices is "surfaces that can be easily cleaned." Not very unlike a car repair shop, really.

It's possible to combine practical with aesthetically pleasing. Again I reference Apple. And it does matter. Health is part body, part mind.

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

#154

Post by api »

robbiep wrote: post #134
api wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might find this quite interesting: http://programinplacebostudies.org/ http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/01/the-placebo-phenomenon His studies comparing fakes strike me as the most innovative thing I've heard about in medicine in years. A big problem with "conventional" medicine is this: the mind is off limits. This legacy I think goes back to the suppression of deep mind research following the psychedelics moral p…

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I agree that the mind's contribution has been shut out of things. I don't think it's right but I do think there has been sound reason not to: we just don't understand enough about how the interaction works. We are entering into a really interesting new era as investigation into these areas begins again

The "set and setting" hypothesis is strongly supported by the fact that in the studies I linked fake acupuncture outperformed a fake pain pill for the treatment of pain.

My current hypothesis on homeopathy is that it's a placebo surrounded by some interesting mythology and a good story that serves to enhance its placebo effect by priming the subject.

THAT is what really needs to be studied. If this could be understood, we could have a genuine complimentary medicine rooted in science that addressed the mind side of the equation coincidentally with conventional medicine addressing the body. I was ecstatic to learn about that Harvard Medical School program, which is looking at just those kinds of hypotheses.

The other thing though -- and this is the hard thing for skeptics -- is that if this is true, it means these things may not be 100% quackery and fraud. There is something happening here, just not what the practitioners think is happening. It's in the patient's head, but also "real" in the sense that front-loaded placebo outperforms a null treatment.

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

#155

Post by jimworm »

up_and_up wrote: post #102
jimworm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fallaciou…

I did not say that CAM practitioners do not want to be subjected to RCT, nor did I claim that it is acceptable for conventional medical practitioners to recommend practices and procedures that are not evidence-based.

Make no mistake, I'm not conflating conventional medicine with evidence-based medicine (EBM). Statements like "get some rest and drink some fluids" must be backed up by evidence to be considered EBM, and there have been cases where that very statement was proven false.

In medicine there are also assertions and predictions based on theory instead of direct evidence, lest we be hamstrung by cases not specifically studied. Conventional medicine has an advantage here, because the many theories it collectively adopts on the human ecosystem (physiology, biochemistry, germs, and others) are generally backed by scientifically rigorous studies. This leads to a model that is very well described, often down to the molecular level, and correlates well with other branches of science. This makes its assertions a lot more plausible, if only indirectly evidence-based. Compare that with the theories of the schools of CAM, many of which are based on nothing but tradition, with many others already having been debunked. This lack of plausibility plays a part in limiting the resources available for CAM research, and is the cause of the general sense of incredulity at the CAM community's claims by the scientifically literate.

This relates to the OP, where a theory poorly backed-up by evidence is used to create a large body of assertions, leading to doubt and incredulity over its claims.

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

#156

Post by Nursie »

up_and_up wrote: post #70
Nursie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything in 'high doses' is a poison, even pure, distilled water. Herbs either contain active chemicals or they're a placebo. If they're a placebo they're as good as taking a sugar pill. If they contain active chemicals they contain unstandardised amounts and probably in concert with all sorts of other things that may or may not be helpful or harmful. Ayurveda is bullshit. QED.

> 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…

I would add to my other response that your wife is probably a very caring and patient person, and by listening to people with trouble, taking time to understand them, and doing whatever it is she does with ayurveda, I have no doubt at all that she helps people.

I wouldn't even rule out that ayurveda itself is helping them as well as just spending time being listened to and relaxing as a result. I don't know much about it and if there are dietary, meditative and exercise aspects then it's probably doing her patients a power of good!

I just think the other poster's talk about poisons is rubbish :)

My 'bullshit' comment was a sort of a logical construction. If some of the 'facts' upon which Ayurveda is predicated can be shown to be wrong, Ayurveda as a thought system is wrong (it produces incorrect results). Doesn't mean everything about it is wrong, just that it doesn't always make good predictions/proclamations. A bit like... I don't believe in Jesus but the whole 'do unto others' line is awesome :)

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

#157

Post by ericb »

papsosouid wrote: post #142
ericb wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I am stating is limited in scope, and your response is as disingenuous as it is snarky. Your example likely demonstrates selective pressure within species--specifically urushiol in plants as a protective mechanism against herbivores. But you are arguing against the relevance of selective pressure. So you have beat up a straw man in which all things natural are better, but of course, I never argued that. Do you b…

>But you are arguing against the relevance of selective pressure. No, I am arguing against pretending there is a correlation between "natural" and "good" when there is not. Like I very clearly said.

On a different note. I'm interested in a link to the study where where they studied my hypothesis and disproved it like you say. I've never seen a serious study attempt to disprove this. So, citation please?

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

#158

Post by analog »

Nursie wrote: post #152
analog wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but anecdotes are evidence, just with a very small sample size. You can keep saying "it doesn't work" as many times as you like but you'll still be wrong.

I'm sorry but anecdotes are evidence, just with a very small sample size. OK, anecdotes are not good evidence, and cannot be used as evidence because they suffer from nearly all the problems that a good study accounts for and real evidence gathering processes account for and mitigate. Anecdotal data suffers from confirmation bias, from selection bias, it has a small enough sample size to be meaningless, and is as a r…

Right, but if you've tried doctors and they haven't been able to help, and if you have heard of a treatment which anecdotally works, and has no reported side effects, then why wouldn't you try it.

If it works for you then you still have a sample size of one but this would be good enough.

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

#159

Post by analog »

Nursie wrote: post #152
analog wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but anecdotes are evidence, just with a very small sample size. You can keep saying "it doesn't work" as many times as you like but you'll still be wrong.

I'm sorry but anecdotes are evidence, just with a very small sample size. OK, anecdotes are not good evidence, and cannot be used as evidence because they suffer from nearly all the problems that a good study accounts for and real evidence gathering processes account for and mitigate. Anecdotal data suffers from confirmation bias, from selection bias, it has a small enough sample size to be meaningless, and is as a r…

Citation provided.

You'd be crazy to only use alt med for cancer treatment, but as an addition studies have shown it to be effective.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/com...

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

#160

Post by Nursie »

analog wrote: post #158
Nursie wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but anecdotes are evidence, just with a very small sample size. OK, anecdotes are not good evidence, and cannot be used as evidence because they suffer from nearly all the problems that a good study accounts for and real evidence gathering processes account for and mitigate. Anecdotal data suffers from confirmation bias, from selection bias, it has a small enough sample size to be meaningless, and is as a r…

Right, but if you've tried doctors and they haven't been able to help, and if you have heard of a treatment which anecdotally works, and has no reported side effects, then why wouldn't you try it. If it works for you then you still have a sample size of one but this would be good enough.

That depends on what the condition is, how trustworthy the anecdotes are and how much someone was trying to charge me for it.

For instance in the case of terminal cancer, some people get ripped off by charlatans to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The anecdotal data around these assholes is all overwhelmingly positive and claims no side effects, because people who are ripped off and then die tend not to talk about it but the very few who survive for reasons unknown shout a lot. The reason you might not try it is because you'd be bankrupting the family you're going to leave behind, or funneling good-will donations to a conman.

There are numerous examples of alt-med 'cures' that are dreadfully harmful (black salve, sodium hypochlorite enemas). This idea that CAM is fine to try if you're out of options because it has no side effects is itself very dodgy. Hell, even acupuncture carries some elevated risk of infection because you're pushing needles through the skin.

But if it was something minor, cheap and there really were no side effects, sure - why not?

--edit-- But telling if there really are no side effects does require some basis in provable fact, or you're just necking unknown quantities of unknown stuff, which may not be a great plan.

Post reply on HN