51–60 of 116 posts
(It's a serious question, regardless of the fact that society has reached the point where we do not apply intristic value to a baby inside the womb, only outside the womb and "wanted", biologically speaking, that is still a human life)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing with inbred mice is that the results are more consistent (or at least more so) than with regular mice. This allows you to use less mice and get statistical significance. If you do not use those than the sample size you'd need drastically increases. Animal research is plenty expensive as it is.
Yes I know why inbred bred mice are used, but the end result is often a more accurate result that is meaningless. Use more outbred mice and do fewer experiements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a nice smackdown which I don't have the time or knowledge to offer myself: "He abandons [Dr. B.M. Hegde] all rational thinking and embraces fantastical belief systems. The sad thing is I personally know many people delaying cancer treatment being swayed by his speeches and ending up with incurable metastasis later." https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-with-the-controversial-vi...
Understood. May be the modern world needs another wim hof to become a subject to the existing science - validity though current limited existing medical tools to prove/validate that humans can get access to autonomous nervous system and heal themselves (which was thought to be impossible in modern days). The approach Dr. hedge took is not registering with the rest of the world according to the comments above. May be…
An appeal to the ancient wisdom of Ayurveda doesn't really stand on it's own until it's backed by solid peer reviewed science. It's really not that hard, a well designed set of trials proving your point will have the entire world at your feet. Modern science is extremely receptive of new ideas that way.
We discard aborted fetuses because they are "clump of cells" and Planned Parenthood already sells off their body parts, why not take the next logical leap and test in utero of a woman that doesn't want their baby? (It's a serious question, regardless of the fact that society has reached the point where we do not apply intristic value to a baby inside the womb, only outside the womb and "wanted", biologically speaking…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Understood. May be the modern world needs another wim hof to become a subject to the existing science - validity though current limited existing medical tools to prove/validate that humans can get access to autonomous nervous system and heal themselves (which was thought to be impossible in modern days). The approach Dr. hedge took is not registering with the rest of the world according to the comments above. May be…
It's not about giving confidence to people, the existing methods are part of the fundamental idea of the scientific method. Dr. Hegde's claim of body types doesn't really mean anything until there's evidence to back it up. And modern medical trials are crafted and investigated with a wide variety of statistical tools to determine the exact impact of a treatment method. Only if his claims can stand up to this rigorous…
We discard aborted fetuses because they are "clump of cells" and Planned Parenthood already sells off their body parts, why not take the next logical leap and test in utero of a woman that doesn't want their baby? (It's a serious question, regardless of the fact that society has reached the point where we do not apply intristic value to a baby inside the womb, only outside the womb and "wanted", biologically speaking…
This is completely false, and a typical mischaracterisation of abortion by anti-choice advocates. If what you said were true, abortion would generally be permitted up until the moment of birth. Yet virtually nobody wants that. Abortions are performed in extremely early stages of gestation. Where exactly to set the cutoff point is a touchy subject, but there’s a broad consensus that (with few exceptions) abortions are only permissible while the foetus hasn’t developed a connected central nervous system yet, has no functioning pain reception and no higher brain functions (in fact, in most countries the cutoff is considerably earlier than even that).
In other words, “society” does not apply an intrinsic value to a clump of cells (if it did, chemotherapy and amputation would be similarly ethically problematic). Instead, value is derived through tangible qualities, such as thought, and pain reception. Disagree all you want but don’t invent irrational reasons because they’re easier to attack. That’s deeply dishonest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about giving confidence to people, the existing methods are part of the fundamental idea of the scientific method. Dr. Hegde's claim of body types doesn't really mean anything until there's evidence to back it up. And modern medical trials are crafted and investigated with a wide variety of statistical tools to determine the exact impact of a treatment method. Only if his claims can stand up to this rigorous…
Agree. Unfortunately, this is never going to happen. The few still practicing Ayurveda properly come from a background where they learned it from their ancestors within their family and practicing it for free and never allow commercialization of their knowledge. But they can gladly share the knowledge to people who want to learn. Food, Education and Medicine/health are the 3 things the practitioners in Indian culture…
It’s true that industry is funding some (publicly published) research directly, and that some research publications fail to disclose their funding source and other conflicts of interest. But for the vast majority of biomedical research, especially fundamental research, this simply isn’t the case.
And it requires a complete suspension of one’s critical thinking capacities to imagine that some vast, weird conspiracy encompasses all of public research, to suppress the “truth” that Ayurveda works, contradicting everything we know from modern medicine as well as basic physics and chemistry. And all that just to make a few pharmaceutical company bosses rich? Why would I, lowly researcher on a sub-par salary, contribute to such a conspiracy? It’s completely irrational.
Any mice trial should use 4 different breeds: one of the academic hallmark (black6 or balb/c) for publication purpose, one that represent your model (or so you think) because that’s the logical thing to do, and a truly wild type one (captured in the wild) to capture the noise. Even this bias longevity piece needs to do that. This 4 breeds will all have different immune system, cognitive behavior and lifestyles, which…
"Only 14% of drugs that are tested on humans succeed in demonstrating effectiveness[1], and all of these are drugs that have been found efficacious in animals, so successful animal studies are very far from a guarantee by themselves." Regardless of the reason, this seems fine/workable. Animal studies are a step in the funnel. I assume the step from petri dish to mouse is similar. I wonder how many false negatives get…
And the pharmas would just add the cost of 86% failed trials to the other meds that do pass, so they effectively pass the cost of their bad decisions to us.
I worked in a lab that studies antibody therapeutics for almost a decade and can go on a tirade of all the shitty decisions companies seem to make in candidate identification, but fundamentally I really believe that this number won't be this low if the people making the decisions in pharma companies know what they're doing but then the CEO of gsk used to sell lipsticks so who am I to talk right?