This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Biofeedback - Replacing Medicine?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Mousysqueak
Aww, what the hell - we may as well keep this going for a little while. It's fun at least, even though there's very little that I can say to explain
why
I'm coming up with these "radical" and "unscientific" thought processes.
As someone who has worked in the scientific community and been on the receiving end of medical treatment for over twenty years I can say this honestly: Never trust anyone who's pay check is reliant on you believing what they say.
This is basically the reason why I have an issue with the current system of scientific research. The researcher's paycheck can have an influence on his experiment. I don't feel like going into any detail of this. If you're interested in my view of the current scientific community and how it should change, read Michael Crichton's
State of Fear
. It basically gives an example (near the end of the book) of how the current scientific community is flawed and how it should change. Until this change happens, I'm skeptical of ANY and ALL "scientific" research done. (If a guys is testing a new drug, how do we know that a portion of his research money isn't coming from the pharmaceutics industry? Would it be beneficial to his paycheck for the drug to remain in testing for 10,000,000 years, or would it be beneficial for it to go to market before it is fully tested?)
This is contrary to Creationism, where there can be no possible evidence to support / deny it.
Oh goodness, please don't get me into Creationism and that. If we wanna debate that, let's make a separate thread.
If he's 'cured himself' 17 times, I'd suggest that the cure isn't terribly effective, no? More than likely, the cancer had simply gone into remission.
He was a soldier in Vietnam and was exposed to
Agent Orange
. I think the fact that he is still alive is a testament that his form of medicine has at least
some
merit, no?
I like your optimism, but what you're doing at the moment is saying "The sky is green!", and trying to defend your claim against all the evidence against you.
I am indeed questioning the established color of the sky, but is it accurate to say that the established science is accurate, when we don't know where the researchers' money came from?
Theorising is great and all, but at the end of the day, theories have to be put to the test in practical, scientific tests. You're saying that you can't scientifically prove it, but that's not true - you can test it the same way that drug researchers test their medicinal drugs. The problem for your argument is that such tests have been done already, and they've shown that it doesn't work.
It's not fair to test some form of alternate medicine via the same method of testing that is being currently used, is it? If the research turned out to be unsuccessful, where is the researcher's paycheck going to come from? It would be more beneficial for it to remain in testing/get put through the testing process as a "success."
The exploration of the possibility has been, and is being done. The problem is that you're exploring the 'definite' of getting somewhere, without accepting the (1-x) probability that your theory won't get you anywhere.
I consider getting nowhere as getting somewhere, especially when we're working with stuff that cannot be tested.
I'm going to be doing some further research into some other topics that I read about, so be looking for further threads from me. I can say that they won't be as informal or as poorly backed up/structured as this one is, and I apologize for the mess that this has become. Thanks for your continual responses.
Post by
Squishalot
Oh goodness, please don't get me into Creationism and that. If we wanna debate that, let's make a separate thread.
but it's similar to the Creationism/Evolution debate
*cough* You brought it up. I'm saying it's different. Yeah. You wanna debate that?
I think the fact that he is still alive is a testament that his form of medicine has at least some merit, no?
Do you know how many people exposed to Agent Orange are still alive? Without that number, you can't assess the value of his liveliness. For example:
Squishalot: I think the fact that I am still alive is a testament that my form of driving has at least some merit, no?
Just because I'm alive doesn't make running red lights, driving on the wrong side of the road and being incapable of parking any more meritable. (Note: I don't actually display any of those characteristics. This example is theoretical only.)
but is it accurate to say that the established science is accurate, when we don't know where the researchers' money came from?
Absolutely. It doesn't matter if a health study is being funded by McDonalds, as long as the actual study itself is conducted rigourously and is free of flaws.
But to respond to your concerns,
we do know where funding comes from
. When I get around to applying for my PhD, I will be applying for funding from my industry association, the government, the university I attend, and my current employer will foot my day-to-day wages while I study part time. Now you know where my prospective funding will come from. Does that make my study more or less accurate?
Answer - it doesn't change anything about the accuracy of my study.
It's not fair to test some form of alternate medicine via the same method of testing that is being currently used, is it? If the research turned out to be unsuccessful, where is the researcher's paycheck going to come from? It would be more beneficial for it to remain in testing/get put through the testing process as a "success."
If the testing is corrupt, then it wasn't rigourously controlled in the first place. If it wasn't rigourously controlled in the first place, then it wouldn't have been signed off by an independent regulator such as
the FDA
. If you like, you can now commence an unsupported claim on the corruption inherent in government organisations, but that will only ruin any credibility you have.
With that in mind, if the current medicines are being implemented correctly, then yes, the alternative medicine should be tested against them, since you're attempting to demonstrate that the alternative is better than the status quo. Proving that an alternative is better than 'rolling over and dying' isn't a "success."
I consider getting nowhere as getting somewhere, especially when we're working with stuff that cannot be tested.
Tell me. Where are you getting? What advancement have you made in your thinking in the last 30 hours of this thread's existence, other than the fact that we believe in the value of scientific testing?
When I say that you'll get nowhere, I mean that you'll never learn anything if you assume that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Post by
Mousysqueak
About the funding thing:
It's difficult to explain, as I'm working with a concept of theoretical physics.
The idea behind this (and I'm not going to cite any literature at the moment, as I'm planning to /thread about this) is that the thought process and thinking (about the results) of the experiment-performing-scientist can affect the results of the experiment itself. I think it's accurate to say that a scientist is going to have somewhat of an "idea" of the results of his experiment if he knows that his funding keeps coming in (when the experiment is still in testing "X" amount of time in the future). The part that theory takes over is whether or not this thought will affect the experiment itself.
/tin foil hat off for now
Tell me. Where are you getting? What advancement have you made in your thinking in the last 30 hours of this thread's existence, other than the fact that we believe in the value of scientific testing?
When I say that you'll get nowhere, I mean that you'll never learn anything if you assume that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
I'm interested to know where I stated that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. If I
did
, in fact say that, I apologize, as it was not my intent. My goal in life has/will continue to be as open minded as I am capable of being. Debating with the views of others is not the same as being close-minded, at least in my book.
Where have I gotten with this? About the topic itself, very little ground. It's difficult to explain the way that my thought process is forming when the principle idea hasn't being discussed . Yeah, it was somewhat of a dumb move to post something without the responding community knowing where your thought process comes from. On a number of other places that I have encountered, this is actually
acceptable and normal
. I don't know exactly why this would be, seeing as it produces something similar to the past 3 pages. It's led to some rather interesting discussions at least, especially when all parties of the conversation don't have the logic behind their argument.
Now, where I've gotten outside of the topic itself:
I have a rough idea of the way that the members think and react to certain circumstances.
I know a great deal more about post-formatting here than I did previously.
I know now how it would be in the topic's best interest for me to format my logic behind my post.
It's safe to say that this has sufficiently derailed itself, since you guys aren't aware of the fundamental logic that I've been using behind this whole thing. I'm going to spend some time formatting my topic about that logic, and once you guys have ripped that to shreds, maybe we can revisit this again.
Post by
Squishalot
The idea behind this (and I'm not going to cite any literature at the moment, as I'm planning to /thread about this) is that the thought process and thinking (about the results) of the experiment-performing-scientist can affect the results of the experiment itself.
Not if it's a good experiment. Although there is some anecdotal evidence of people being able to influence what should be purely mechanical events through sheer will (e.g. an experienced jet pilot taking almost exactly the same actions as an inexperienced jet pilot, but achieving better results), if the scientist designs an experiment in a rigourous manner, it will yield a rigourous result every time.
I think it's accurate to say that a scientist is going to have somewhat of an "idea" of the results of his experiment if he knows that his funding keeps coming in (when the experiment is still in testing "X" amount of time in the future). The part that theory takes over is whether or not this thought will affect the experiment itself.
This is a slightly misled view. 99% of good scientists will have a theory that they're testing, and will expect (X) result as a consequence of the application of that theory. That doesn't change when it's being funded from an interested party.
What may change is the rigour of the experiment. If scientists are asked to bias their experiment to yield a positive result, they can only do so by tampering with the methodology, either in the experiment itself or in the data analysis. Key point here - if a bias is included, then the experiment will no longer be rigourous, and may be challenged by the FDA and any research body (e.g. research journals which publish such articles).
The problem is, the majority of people will never see the academic criticism of such experiments. There was a
study
which found that more than 2 soft drinks a week increased the risk of developing pancreatic cancer. I spent 15 minutes browsing through the journal article, and found about half a dozen significant experimental design flaws that could have contributed to the result.
I'm assuming that the National Cancer Institute also considered that, and discounted any link between soft drinks and pancreatic cancer. But that doesn't stop the media from publishing flawed articles (and people like you from reading flawed articles and assuming that all research is biased like that).
I'm interested to know where I stated that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. If I did, in fact say that, I apologize, as it was not my intent.
The problem is that you're exploring the 'definite' of getting somewhere, without accepting the (1-x) probability that your theory won't get you anywhere.
I consider getting nowhere as getting somewhere, especially when we're working with stuff that cannot be tested.
The implication is that you're not accepting the possibility that your theory is incorrect. Apologies if I've misinterpreted you, but you've given no other evidence to suggest that you'd be happy to concede that it doesn't work.
It's difficult to explain the way that my thought process is forming when the principle idea hasn't being discussed .
I'm happy to discuss the general principles of scientific research with you until the cows come home. The idea that there should be any tinfoil hats in discussing research is silly - everything is about as open and transparent as it can get. Whether you want to do that in this thread or another is up to you.
Post by
Mousysqueak
The idea behind this (and I'm not going to cite any literature at the moment, as I'm planning to /thread about this) is that the thought process and thinking (about the results) of the experiment-performing-scientist can affect the results of the experiment itself.
Not if it's a good experiment. Although there is some anecdotal evidence of people being able to influence what should be purely mechanical events through sheer will (e.g. an experienced jet pilot taking almost exactly the same actions as an inexperienced jet pilot, but achieving better results), if the scientist designs an experiment in a rigourous manner, it will yield a rigourous result every time.
This is going to be something that we need to put on hold until I can pull together somewhat of a formatted post on it (in another thread). Maybe I can change your mind on it. We'll have to wait and see.
This is a slightly misled view. 99% of good scientists will have a theory that they're testing, and will expect (X) result as a consequence of the application of that theory. That doesn't change when it's being funded from an interested party.
What may change is the rigour of the experiment. If scientists are asked to bias their experiment to yield a positive result, they can only do so by tampering with the methodology, either in the experiment itself or in the data analysis. Key point here - if a bias is included, then the experiment will no longer be rigourous, and may be challenged by the FDA and any research body (e.g. research journals which publish such articles).
The problem is, the majority of people will never see the academic criticism of such experiments. There was a
study
which found that more than 2 soft drinks a week increased the risk of developing pancreatic cancer. I spent 15 minutes browsing through the journal article, and found about half a dozen significant experimental design flaws that could have contributed to the result.
I'm assuming that the National Cancer Institute also considered that, and discounted any link between soft drinks and pancreatic cancer. But that doesn't stop the media from publishing flawed articles (and people like you from reading flawed articles and assuming that all research is biased like that).This is kinda the tin-foil-hat part of it, but again, there's not much I can do to change your mind until I get that thread going. I'm working on it as we speak, though it will probably take a few days to get it together.
I'm interested to know where I stated that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. If I did, in fact say that, I apologize, as it was not my intent.
The problem is that you're exploring the 'definite' of getting somewhere, without accepting the (1-x) probability that your theory won't get you anywhere.
I consider getting nowhere as getting somewhere, especially when we're working with stuff that cannot be tested.
The implication is that you're not accepting the possibility that your theory is incorrect. Apologies if I've misinterpreted you, but you've given no other evidence to suggest that you'd be happy to concede that it doesn't work.
Yeah, that was somewhat of a misinterpretation, but I can understand how you came to that conclusion. Once again, my fault for not clarifying:
No matter how absolute I state something or leave no room for debate, I am never stating that I am right and the opposition is wrong. I do my best to maintain an open mind, and I'd love outside intervention (tell me) when I fail to do this in any given situation.
It's difficult to explain the way that my thought process is forming when the principle idea hasn't being discussed .
I'm happy to discuss the general principles of scientific research with you until the cows come home. The idea that there should be any tinfoil hats in discussing research is silly - everything is about as open and transparent as it can get. Whether you want to do that in this thread or another is up to you.
I appreciate your continued willingness to discuss this, even thought it appears to you that I'm somewhat of a moron (You haven't stated this directly, but I'm implying it. I'm not offended, so I don't see it being a problem.) I look forward to discussing my future topic(s) with you. Until that point, I'd suggest that you read
State of Fear
, if you haven't already. The book had an extreme impact on my thinking process, and it might help you understand where I'm coming from. It's a damn good read, too. xD
Post by
Kalisha
The problem here seems to be that we have no clue what you actually want to discuss. I think maybe we
could
have an interesting discussion (about something other than the merits of the scientific method) if we knew what path you were trying to lead us down. So far people have made attempts to respond and have been met with, "Well maybe, but let me restate my original post/tell you that you're not following my train of thought."
So far I've gathered that you wonder if perhaps the training and use of biofeedback could replace medication. In a very limited number of cases it could - cases in which the physical symptoms of illness are brought about solely by the psychological state of the patient, the psychological state of the patient isn't brought about by a neurological disease itself (e.g. schizophrenia),
and
in which the patient is willing to admit this and take the necessary steps to combat the underlying problem. Even then biofeedback isn't necessarily the best or most effective method for everyone or even the majority -
Buddhist monks
have been capable of doing what biofeedback proposes to teach us for hundreds of years.
Biofeedback isn't going to morph into something capable of fighting off pathogens or disease. Though the human mind is a very powerful thing, it doesn't do that (despite what Tom Cruise and his merry bad of Scientologists might like to tell us). If it could? The world would be a much better place.
Post by
Mousysqueak
I guess the general idea of where I'm going with this is
why
can't this method be used for more?
I keep getting tossed around because I'm not clarifying myself - yeah, I haven't; I'm not used to creating this type of discussion with this particular crowd - but I'm not really seeing anything conclusive telling me
where
the limits of Biofeedback are. Is there any way you/others could show me something that says, "This is what this CAN do, and this is what it CANNOT do." I think that would be the easiest way of getting this back on track - we can discuss that, and maybe I can find some evidence that something on that list is flawed? Beyond that, I don't see what else we can do, as I seem to have managed to confuse all of you. The troll in me thinks that this is cool, but he admits that he had nothing to do with it.
Post by
Squishalot
No, not implying that you're a moron. A lot of people out there believe (rightly so) that research is being funded from dodgy sources, and by association, believe (wrongly so) that all research in that area must be inaccurate. That doesn't mean that they're morons, it just means that they haven't been taught any better.
My approach is to take everything on its own merits. Once you've actually participated in a research project, you'll see how easy it is to bias results to make them say what you want. By the same token, you'll also see how easy it is to tear apart biased research as garbage.
Reading the Wiki article on State of Fear is somewhat amusing. It stands to reason that researchers employed by corporations will release research in line with the corporations' aims. With the hopes of possibly dispelling some tinfoil hat theories before you finish your new post, consider the following process:
Suppose result 'Y' is true:
1) Corporation pays researchers to investigate X in the hopes of getting result Y.
2) Researchers will look at X, and achieve result Y.
3) Corporation publishes research paper showing result Y.
Suppose result 'Y' is not true:
1) Corporation pays researchers to investigate X in the hopes of getting result Y.
2) Researchers will look at X, and achieve result Z.
3) Corporation doesn't publish anything, because result Z will hurt their brand.
Suppose result 'Y' is not true, but researchers are biased:
1) Corporation pays researchers to investigate X in the hopes of getting result Y.
2) Researchers will look at X, and achieve result Z. Instead, they redo the experiment badly and achieve result Y.
3) Corporation publishes research paper showing result Y. Corporation gets bad publicity as other researchers savage the poor design of the experiment. Corporation fires the researcher as a scapegoat for screwing it up.
Assuming that every bit of research is conducted correctly and rigourously, the scientific method will still yield the same general result as 'biased research' - that researchers being paid by corporations will only ever release research that agrees with the corporations' aims. So this idea that McDonalds only ever releases research that says 'junk food isn't causing obesity' will be true, irrespective of whether the researchers do the dodgy or not.
I appreciate that some researchers may be dodgy. But to suggest that they all are, on the basis of an author's tinfoil hat, is illogical.
Having said that, spin it back around to your doctor. Where's he making his money from? Isn't he biased towards getting you to keep coming back to him? Why do you trust him?
Just a thought.
but I'm not really seeing anything conclusive telling me where the limits of Biofeedback are
Somewhere bound by the limits of conventional medicine. Hyper and I provided evidence for that earlier on the argument that placebos may be more/less effective than conventional medicinal drugs.
Post by
Mousysqueak
Having said that, spin it back around to your doctor. Where's he making his money from? Isn't he biased towards getting you to keep coming back to him? Why do you trust him?
Only addressing this because I need to get my 5 hour-meditation-that-allows-me-to-not-sleep in, as to not cause me to be extremely angry in the morning. I'll get back to you on the rest of it in the morning/when I finish that damned thread idea that I have 75% done.
Why I trust my doctor:
A couple years ago, I had a version of
this
. I wasn't exhibiting major symptoms, but I had fever/headache/body ache and the like. I went to a few "traditional" doctors, got told I had the flu, got some meds, and was sent home.
I went to this guy and diagnosed within 10 minutes. Now, I didn't take this as fact, so I went back to a doctor and had some tests run (I can't for the life of me remember the nature of these tests - I'll see if I can find some records on them tomorrow.), and guess what. I had WNV, and it wasn't dormant.
I went back to the "non-traditional" doctor shocked to hell. He gave me some stuff and treated me (some of the treatments would seem a little irrational to you, so I'll leave those out - nothing "unethical" or "voodoo"-ish, just not extremely well documented and tested). When he said that I was "cured," I went back to another doctor, had some more tests run... no WNV. Brought the results of that to the first "traditional" doctor (that diagnosed me), and he couldn't figure out how I had gotten rid of it.
Some flaws in the above:
The 3 doctors that gave me the flu meds could have been undereducated/dumb/making a mistake.
Blood-work could have been wrong.
Blood-work interpretations could be wrong (I've heard of food stains getting on X-rays, causing some really
funny
bad things.).
My doctor could have been wrong.
I could have somehow or another been "cured" independently of the treatments given to me by my doctor.
The virus could have "run its course" and left my body.
Some of these are probably inaccurate, but I wanted to cover all the possible flaws that I can think of.
Make of this what you will.
Post by
Squishalot
The linked website suggests that mild WNV improves by itself, and that it typically lasts from 3 days to a few weeks anyway. Judging from the wording of how it's spread and so forth, it's not something that lies dormant - it just is or isn't.
Anyway, it's up to you, of course. Just seems inconsistent that you're so distrusting of other paid-for studies, but perfectly trusting of your paid-for doctor, that's all.
Post by
Kalisha
Is there any way you/others could show me something that says, "This is what this CAN do, and this is what it CANNOT do." I think that would be the easiest way of getting this back on track - we can discuss that, and maybe I can find some evidence that something on that list is flawed?
The problem is that there is no such list. The "system" has been around since the early 60's, and yet there have been no amazing medical breakthroughs with it. Unfortunately the burden lies on you to find that one obscure study out there that shows there might be more promise to it.
And believe me, if there were promise? People would have picked this up and run with it, if for no other reason than to make a buck off all those people that hate doctors. There are
a lot
of people that hate doctors. The big, bad pharmaceutical companies aren't all powerful entities capable of squashing any hint of research worldwide for decades.
As much as I love Crichton (and I do!), he writes fiction. He was an exceptionally intelligent man that knew how to hook his audience and sell books. Those books contained just enough reality in them to capture the reader's interest and make the story seem plausible. If you're going to take
State of Fear
as proof of corruption in scientific research, you may as well take
Prey
as proof that the government is producing and releasing swarms of intelligent, killer nanobots in the desert. (
Prey
is another excellent book by the way, if you've not read it.)
He gave me some stuff and treated me (some of the treatments would seem a little irrational to you, so I'll leave those out - nothing "unethical" or "voodoo"-ish, just not extremely well documented and tested). When he said that I was "cured," I went back to another doctor, had some more tests run... no WNV. Brought the results of that to the first "traditional" doctor (that diagnosed me), and he couldn't figure out how I had gotten rid of it.
Were your treatments anything like all of those cures for the common cold out there? You know, the ones that promise to make you better in a week or so, when the natural course of the virus runs in about a week or so. Straight from the CDC page you linked,
"Milder WNV illness improves on its own, and people do not necessarily need to seek medical attention for this infection though they may choose to do so."
A man that I went to high school with is now paralyzed (likely permanently) after swatting a mosquito carrying West Nile Virus off of his daughter's arm and subsequently being bitten himself. Despite the horrible things he's been through, he remains optimistic about his life and future. And yet despite his optimism and determination to walk again, he hasn't been able to will himself better.
Do you think that biofeedback or your doctor's "irrational treatments" can fix him? And, taking that a step further, is preying upon this man's desperation to walk again, taking his money to train him and sell him a computer system that measures and spits out various biological readings, or taking his money and feeding him untested "cures" and personal theories with no scientific backing (which could possibly even exacerbate the problem) ethical? How is that better than a pharmaceutical company selling a drug that has likely been tested for
more than a decade
before being approved for use?
Post by
Mousysqueak
The linked website suggests that mild WNV improves by itself, and that it typically lasts from 3 days to a few weeks anyway. Judging from the wording of how it's spread and so forth, it's not something that lies dormant - it just is or isn't.
Anyway, it's up to you, of course. Just seems inconsistent that you're so distrusting of other paid-for studies, but perfectly trusting of your paid-for doctor, that's all.
I was exhibiting the symptoms for well over a month before I ended up in the part of the above story where I went to the "non-traditional" doctor - that's not normal.
I also partially believe that it could have been something to do with Biofeedback and psychologically-based medicine. Maybe I convinced myself that "traditional" doctors are evil - that their methodology and medicine is flawed, and that this guy is correct. That could have easily been a part of that.
As for the stuff relating to the Scientific Method, I'm compiling something to toss at you guys - I still need a day or two to dig up some articles that I have.
@ Kalisha:
See the part above about the Scientific Method. I may very well end up changing your mind about it.
I'm afraid that I'll have to get back to the rest of your post (and the previous posts that I wasn't able to get to) later today. I'm running 2 hours behind my normal schedule, and this is not a good thing.
I promise I'll give you a nice, juicy wall-o'-text to break down in a few (10ish) hours.
Have a good day, everone.
Post by
Mousysqueak
The linked website suggests that mild WNV improves by itself, and that it typically lasts from 3 days to a few weeks anyway. Judging from the wording of how it's spread and so forth, it's not something that lies dormant - it just is or isn't.
Anyway, it's up to you, of course. Just seems inconsistent that you're so distrusting of other paid-for studies, but perfectly trusting of your paid-for doctor, that's all.
I was exhibiting the symptoms for well over a month before I ended up in the part of the above story where I went to the "non-traditional" doctor - that's not normal.
I also partially believe that it could have been something to do with Biofeedback and psychologically-based medicine. Maybe I convinced myself that "traditional" doctors are evil - that their methodology and medicine is flawed, and that this guy is correct. That could have easily been a part of that.
As for the stuff relating to the Scientific Method, I'm compiling something to toss at you guys - I still need a day or two to dig up some articles that I have.
@ Kalisha:
See the part above about the Scientific Method. I may very well end up changing your mind about it.
I'm afraid that I'll have to get back to the rest of your post (and the previous posts that I wasn't able to get to) later today. I'm running 2 hours behind my normal schedule, and this is not a good thing.
I promise I'll give you a nice, juicy wall-o'-text to break down in a few (10ish) hours.
Have a good day, everone.
Post by
Kalisha
See the part above about the Scientific Method. I may very well end up changing your mind about it.
I seriously doubt that you're going to come up with something in a few hours, days, or even weeks or months that's going to make me suddenly doubt the validity of real, actual science. Funnily enough, you wouldn't be the first to try. Unfortunately when you start spouting things like, "all science is wrong!" or "all doctors and pharmaceutical companies are corrupt!" you start bordering on the zealotry of those who believe all medicine is wrong by nature and that we should rely solely upon faith and prayer for a cure. We might as well go back in time to the point where we believed maggots spontaneously came into being on top of rotten meat. At that point it becomes very hard to take you seriously and hold any semblance of a discussion.
There
are
corrupt doctors. Anyone in any sort of medical profession will tell you that and can tell you those few by name - those drug seekers versed well enough in how the system works can too. There are even doctors that don't really care, that are jaded or burnt out. But, by and large, people work in the medical professions or in the pharmaceutical companies (at least the research and development end of it) because they
do
care about people and want to make a meaningful difference in the world.
I was exhibiting the symptoms for well over a month before I ended up in the part of the above story where I went to the "non-traditional" doctor - that's not normal.
It depends entirely on your immune system. Again, the CDC page you linked says,
"even healthy people have become sick for several weeks."
Several weeks generally implies more than two or three.
Post by
Murrdurr
man I forget about this thread for a day and the last page and a half are huge walls-o-text XD
Post by
Mousysqueak
Bear with me, as I will be responding to a number of posts from the past few hours. This will be long.
No, not implying that you're a moron. A lot of people out there believe (rightly so) that research is being funded from dodgy sources, and by association, believe (wrongly so) that all research in that area must be inaccurate. That doesn't mean that they're morons, it just means that they haven't been taught any better.
My approach is to take everything on its own merits. Once you've actually participated in a research project, you'll see how easy it is to bias results to make them say what you want. By the same token, you'll also see how easy it is to tear apart biased research as garbage.
Okay, I’m listening.
Reading the Wiki article on State of Fear is somewhat amusing. It stands to reason that researchers employed by corporations will release research in line with the corporations' aims. With the hopes of possibly dispelling some tinfoil hat theories
before you finish your new post
, consider the following process:
Suppose result 'Y' is true:
1) Corporation pays researchers to investigate X in the hopes of getting result Y.
2) Researchers will look at X, and achieve result Y.
3) Corporation publishes research paper showing result Y.
I’m still with you here, but I’m curious how you would know that “Y is true, other than being the experiment-god in this analogy, and you happen to know this. =P Somewhat random, and it doesn’t pertain. Feel free to ignore this - just my random brain meandering of the day.
Suppose result 'Y' is not true:
1) Corporation pays researchers to investigate X in the hopes of getting result Y.
2) Researchers will look at X, and achieve result Z.
3) Corporation doesn't publish anything, because result Z will hurt their brand.
Are you saying that this will happen or that this will never happen?
Suppose result 'Y' is not true, but researchers are biased:
1) Corporation pays researchers to investigate X in the hopes of getting result Y.
2) Researchers will look at X, and achieve result Z. Instead, they redo the experiment badly and achieve result Y.
3) Corporation publishes research paper showing result Y. Corporation gets bad publicity as other researchers savage the poor design of the experiment. Corporation fires the researcher as a scapegoat for screwing it up.
I’m still confused as to why you’re using this.
Assuming that every bit of research is conducted correctly and rigourously, the scientific method will still yield the same general result as 'biased research' - that researchers being paid by corporations will only ever release research that agrees with the corporations' aims.
It depends on what you read. I’m currently exploring the possibility that our thoughts can, in fact, influence the results of an experiment. I have to go through more than 800 pages of literature to find the article that I’m looking for, though – I know it’s in there somewhere; I read it a few months ago. It’s going to take time. For now, let’s say that I agree with this.
So this idea that McDonalds only ever releases research that says 'junk food isn't causing obesity' will be true, irrespective of whether the researchers do the dodgy or not.
I appreciate that some researchers may be dodgy. But to suggest that they all are, on the basis of an author's tinfoil hat, is illogical.
Going to also agree with this, for the reason of you not having the literature that causes me to think otherwise.
Having said that, spin it back around to your doctor. Where's he making his money from? Isn't he biased towards getting you to keep coming back to him? Why do you trust him?
Just a thought.
but I'm not really seeing anything conclusive telling me where the limits of Biofeedback are
Somewhere bound by the limits of conventional medicine. Hyper and I provided evidence for that earlier on the argument that placebos may be more/less effective than conventional medicinal drugs.
Going to type a chapter of a book that I’m currently reading (+ the citations). It explains quite a bit about where I got the whole idea about Biofeedback being taken beyond the bounds of its definition. I had the book loaned out, and it took me 20 hours of badgering to get it back.
Phew, that was painful. Next quote:
The problem is that there is no such list. The "system" has been around since the early 60's, and yet there have been no amazing medical breakthroughs with it. Unfortunately the burden lies on you to find that one obscure study out there that shows there might be more promise to it.
And believe me, if there were promise? People would have picked this up and run with it, if for no other reason than to make a buck off all those people that hate doctors. There are a lot of people that hate doctors. The big, bad pharmaceutical companies aren't all powerful entities capable of squashing any hint of research worldwide for decades.
Understandable – I’m going through at least 8 different articles as I type this. I’ll get back to you on that.
As much as I love Crichton (and I do!), he writes fiction. He was an exceptionally intelligent man that knew how to hook his audience and sell books. Those books contained just enough reality in them to capture the reader's interest and make the story seem plausible. If you're going to take State of Fear as proof of corruption in scientific research, you may as well take Prey as proof that the government is producing and releasing swarms of intelligent, killer nanobots in the desert. (Prey is another excellent book by the way, if you've not read it.)
I’ve read
Prey
. I understand
completely
that Crichton is a fiction writer. However, if you look at the citation pages (and I mean PAGES) at the end of some of his books, you can find some interesting research that backs up some of what he puts in his books. I’ll add it to the growing list of research that I need to do, since you’ll probably want to see it.
Prey
didn’t have very many viable citations at the end of it, but I can’t verify it. My copy is loaned out, and I’m unable to get to the library for a few days. I really should stop loaning out books.
A man that I went to high school with is now paralyzed (likely permanently) after swatting a mosquito carrying West Nile Virus off of his daughter's arm and subsequently being bitten himself. Despite the horrible things he's been through, he remains optimistic about his life and future. And yet despite his optimism and determination to walk again, he hasn't been able to will himself better.
I’m not suggesting that it’s an instantaneous thing. We all don’t suddenly realize, “Hey, this Biofeedback thing can be used to cure ourselves.” IF it has merit, and this is still in the if stage, it would take a long time to extract and perfect a “training” process for this.
Do you think that biofeedback or your doctor's "irrational treatments" can fix him? And, taking that a step further, is preying upon this man's desperation to walk again, taking his money to train him and sell him a computer system that measures and spits out various biological readings, or taking his money and feeding him untested "cures" and personal theories with no scientific backing (which could possibly even exacerbate the problem) ethical? How is that better than a pharmaceutical company selling a drug that has likely been tested for more than a decade before being approved for use?
I don’t think that Biofeedback, in its current state, is capable of curing him. I believe 100% that my doctor could cure him, but there’s no real way for me to convince you of that – so let’s not debate it any more.
As for the ethical issue, you need to realize a conceptual difference between traditional medicine and the type of medicine that my doctor practices.
In traditional medicine, you’re tested for various things, and each one of those tests costs money. (They aren’t going to test you for free, are they?) Once you go through that testing process, and the doctor knows what you have, you’re treated – again costing money.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that the costs of my doctor’s treatments are the same as that of traditional medicine. (I think that he’s cheaper, but I’m already busy enough. I don’t feel like number cruching and accounting for the possibility that doctors you encounter charge differently than the “normal,” whatever that may be.) Even if he charged the
exact same thing
as a normal doctor, someone who went to my doctor wouldn’t be subject to the fees of being tested and such. So, I think it would be fair to say that my doctor is
cheaper
. Are you asking me if it’s more ethical to use a cheaper way of medicine that hasn’t been “scientifically proven” versus a method that
has
been “scientifically proven” but charges “X” amount of more money. Wasn’t your ethics question based on money?
I seriously doubt that you're going to come up with something in a few hours, days, or even weeks or months that's going to make me suddenly doubt the validity of real, actual science. Funnily enough, you wouldn't be the first to try.
I would ask that you try to keep an open mind. Arguing the evidence (that you will see soon) with an open mind is quite different than arguing it with a closed mind.
Unfortunately when you start spouting things like, "all science is wrong!" or "all doctors and pharmaceutical companies are corrupt!" you start bordering on the zealotry of those who believe all medicine is wrong by nature and that we should rely solely upon faith and prayer for a cure.
Ironically enough, this has a lot to do with the chapter of the book that I’m going to type. I don’t necessarily agree with the idea behind it, but my idea about Biofeedback is simply based upon it. I plan to explain at the end of the chapter.
We might as well go back in time to the point where we believed maggots spontaneously came into being on top of rotten meat. At that point it becomes very hard to take you seriously and hold any semblance of a discussion.
If you want to generalize me with that group of people, that’s fine. I can understand how you got to that, with my lack of an explanation presented thus far in this debate. Hopefully, I’ll change your mind on that in my next post.
There are corrupt doctors. Anyone in any sort of medical profession will tell you that and can tell you those few by name - those drug seekers versed well enough in how the system works can too. There are even doctors that don't really care, that are jaded or burnt out. But, by and large, people work in the medical professions or in the pharmaceutical companies (at least the research and development end of it) because they do care about people and want to make a meaningful difference in the world.
I’m with you on this one – I don’t think that
all
doctors are “wrong.” I may think that the methodology of the System is broken in a couple places, but that’s saying something completely different.
man I forget about this thread for a day and the last page and a half are huge walls-o-text XD
Have I scared you off yet?
Post by
Mousysqueak
Typing the chapter as we speak. Give me about an hour (going to get interrupted by my girlfriend). I'll also explain
why
it caused me to think the way that has caused this major debate. xD
EDIT: Gotta go into some of the copyright laws, to make sure I'm not going to get axed for typing a chapter of a book on an online forum.
Post by
Mousysqueak
Reserved in case this chapter suddenly adds 8,000 characters to it. I'll delete this post if it fits in the above post.
Post by
Squishalot
I’m still with you here, but I’m curious how you would know that “Y is true, other than being the experiment-god in this analogy, and you happen to know this. =P Somewhat random, and it doesn’t pertain. Feel free to ignore this - just my random brain meandering of the day.
When I refer to "Y is true", what I'm saying is that an unbiased experiment would generate this result.
Are you saying that this will happen or that this will never happen?
I'm saying that this will happen. If a company does research that will make it look bad, it'll bury it.
It depends on what you read. I’m currently exploring the possibility that our thoughts can, in fact, influence the results of an experiment. I have to go through more than 800 pages of literature to find the article that I’m looking for, though – I know it’s in there somewhere; I read it a few months ago. It’s going to take time. For now, let’s say that I agree with this.
I'd rather not, because it's the core premise of your argument. If you agree that research done rigourously will produce an accurate result, then your comments about researcher bias are irrelevant, as long as the FDA and other similar organistions do their jobs correctly.
I'd much rather you find the article you're referring to and present it as a formal argument towards the idea that a rigourously set up experiment can result in a flawed result.
Post by
Mousysqueak
I'd rather not, because it's the core premise of your argument. If you agree that research done rigourously will produce an accurate result, then your comments about researcher bias are irrelevant, as long as the FDA and other similar organistions do their jobs correctly.
I'd much rather you find the article you're referring to and present it as a formal argument towards the idea that a rigourously set up experiment can result in a flawed result.
It's not the
core
premise, but it keeps getting brought up, and it's pissing me off. I was hoping to keep the argument regarding the validity of the scientific method on a separate thread as this one. I think that the two would get horribly inter-twined, and that the argument couldn't be salvaged.
I'm typing the "formal" logic behind my every thought in this thread as we speak. See above. =P It's going to take me a while...
EDIT: GF found Jeff Dunham on a comedy network. Tack another hour or two onto the time it will take me to type this chapter. ^.^
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.