Mark Probert, David Wright, where have you been?

In article <[email hidden]>,

soft-eng said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Having seen AD/HD kids, I do not personally agree that it is a real disease in any way, shape or
form. Mercury-impact is, and some mercury-impacted kids may have been diagnosed as AD/HD.
Otherwise, AD/HD is simply a _psychological_ label.

So are depression and schizophrenia and paranoia. Do you feel that these are just "normal
variation" and should be ignored?

Like I said, psychology is not an exact science. It's at the level of medical sciences of a few
centuries ago. Did they have some remedies that worked? Yes, definitely. Were all their remedies
and theories valid? Not at all.

Does the foregoing verbiage prove anything at all? No.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But this is a personal observation, those who have bought into the ease of Ritalin of course
will have other observations.

The "ease of Ritalin" is just another myth. It's not a miracle cure.

Now you are being disingenuous.

Not hardly. Just pointing out where you're doing a little sleazy implication.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A complicating factor is the tremendous "natural" parentage issue in the US. My personal feeling
is that natural parents will go the extra mile before putting the kids in danger. Others will be
quick on the easy solution.

God, it is just *so* easy for the uninvolved, like you, to dismiss ADHD as simply due to lazy
parents. It would be amusing to stick you in their situation and watch you fail to remedy the
situation in spite of your enormous moral superiority.

If you had read earlier messages, you would have noticed I have my own share of burdens. But yes, I
do feel it is superior to actually think about the issues rather than just take authority-viewpoint
as the final truth.

Try to avoid dislocating your shoulder as you pat yourself on the back over your vast intelligence.

Quoted message said:

In fact, I think that's true for all endeavors of life. Authority-repetitioners do not
significantly advance knowledge. Questioners do. That's always been the case. Always will be.

However, the mere fact that you set yourself up as a wonderful, authority-questioning figure does
not make you correct, or even interesting.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Having seen AD/HD kids, I do not personally agree that it is a real disease in any way, shape
or form. Mercury-impact is, and some mercury-impacted kids may have been diagnosed as AD/HD.
Otherwise, AD/HD is simply a _psychological_ label.

So are depression and schizophrenia and paranoia. Do you feel that these are just "normal
variation" and should be ignored?

Like I said, psychology is not an exact science. It's at the level of medical sciences of a few
centuries ago. Did they have some remedies that worked? Yes, definitely. Were all their remedies
and theories valid? Not at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But this is a personal observation, those who have bought into the ease of Ritalin of course
will have other observations.

The "ease of Ritalin" is just another myth. It's not a miracle cure.

Now you are being disingenuous.

[censored]. NO ONE I know of claims that methylpheindate is a cure, miracle or otherwise. It is a tool
which helps the patient deal with the problems caused by the disorder.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A complicating factor is the tremendous "natural" parentage issue in the US. My personal
feeling is that natural parents will go the extra mile before putting the kids in danger.
Others will be quick on the easy solution.

God, it is just *so* easy for the uninvolved, like you, to dismiss ADHD as simply due to lazy
parents. It would be amusing to stick you in their situation and watch you fail to remedy the
situation in spite of your enormous moral superiority.

If you had read earlier messages, you would have noticed I have my own share of burdens. But yes,
I do feel it is superior to actually think about the issues rather than just take authority-
viewpoint as the final truth.

Answer this:

What makes you think (a term I use loosely with your ilk) that we parents who have chosen to
medicate have done that?

The parents I have dealt with over the past 15+ years were anything but that.

In fact, I think

Quoted message said:

that's true for all endeavors of life. Authority-repetitioners do not significantly advance
knowledge. Questioners do. That's always been the case. Always will be.

That is nice, and you have absolutely no basis to think (note the loose use) that parents who have
chosen to medicate are not questioners.

However, if you wish to continue in your delusional world, so be it. One day you may get a clue,
and be cured.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Shewmaker said:

May I add the discovery of prions to your list of examples? Dr. Stanley Prusiner prevailed with
his theory of "protein only" prions against stubborn resistance from the scientific establishment.
Yet his hypothesis built on prior understanding of the structure and nature of neuronal proteins
(authority repetition). In science, the truth prevails, and in 1997 Dr. Prusiner received the
Nobel prize in medicine.

Indeed. That is an example I was less familiar with.

Quoted message said:

Conventional knowledge of the nature of the world is often shown to be incomplete and occasionally
shown to be wrong. But the brave people who challenge and change that knowledge are, without
exception, starting from a position of thorough education in and understanding of what is known in
their field.

Exactly. This is in marked contrast to pseudoscientists and many "alt med" practioners, who seem
to think that anything discovered by science before that contradicts their ideas can be thrown out
and doesn't need to be studied. The truly great scientists who challenged the current scientific
dogma of their day (the ones pseudoscientists and alties like to compare themselves to) did so
based on a very solid understanding of the science of their day. They used this strong
understanding as a basis to build on. Their understanding of the science of their day allowed them
to identify its deficiencies in explaining natural phenomena and thereby design experiments, make
observations, and/or design equations to correct these deficiencies. They acknowledged their debt
to those who came before. As Isaac Newton put it: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on
the shoulders of giants."

These pseudoscientists and, alas, all too many altie practitioners seem to have the conceit that
they are beyond needing to acknowledge what has been learned before.

Quoted message said:

The smug notion that because science is often proved wrong one need not study science to "think"
of better ideas is arrogant and wrong.

If science weren't proven wrong on a regular basis, there would be no scientific advancement. To
someone who doesn't understand science, this process is messy and often contentious (scientific
rivalries are among the most heated of academic rivalries), but it is how science advances.

Quoted message said:

It is easy to spout pontifically that "ADHD is not a disease" and then argue silly semantics, when
one has no knowledge of the research that has been done on the nature of ADHD and associated
pharmacology, and the base of understanding that has resulted.

Correct. It is even easier to spout about how some remedy or other "strengthens the immune system,"
without being able to explain exactly HOW it might do so because there is no understanding of the
current state of the science of immunology behind the assertion!

Quoted message said:

In other words, "softeng" has a stooloma.

Well, that much is obvious.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Try to avoid dislocating your shoulder as you pat yourself on the back over your vast
intelligence.

I do try to be humble.

Then, I read your posts.

What can I say?

In article <[email hidden]>,

soft-eng said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Try to avoid dislocating your shoulder as you pat yourself on the back over your vast
intelligence.

I do try to be humble.

You're doing a poor job.

Quoted message said:

Then, I read your posts.

What can I say?

Whatever you decide to do, a less self-congratulatory tone would be welcome. Not to mention less
arrogance.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, soft-eng

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Try to avoid dislocating your shoulder as you pat yourself on the back over your vast
intelligence.

I do try to be humble.

You're doing a poor job.

Quoted message said:

Then, I read your posts.

What can I say?

Whatever you decide to do, a less self-congratulatory tone would be welcome. Not to mention less
arrogance.

Um, It was a joke. I guess I didn't make it come out too well...

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, soft-eng

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

> Try to avoid dislocating your shoulder as you pat yourself on the

back

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> over your vast intelligence.

I do try to be humble.

You're doing a poor job.

Quoted message said:

Then, I read your posts.

What can I say?

Whatever you decide to do, a less self-congratulatory tone would be welcome. Not to mention less
arrogance.

Um, It was a joke. I guess I didn't make it come out too well...

Parents of AD/HD kids tend to not havce a sense of humor when some uninformed cretin comes along and
tells them it is their weaknesses.

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Is your mind open enough to admit when evidence shows a particular "alternative" remedy to be
ineffective?

What does labelling have to do with it? It either works, or it does not work. It doesn't matter if
you call it "alternative" or "scientific" or whatever.

Many methods of modern medicine are in fact good methods to determine if something does or
does not work.

But I think you missed the part about a profit-motive existing in modern medicine, which is
independent of the medical-motive, and may or MAY NOT be aligned with the medical-motive.

If it happens to NOT be aligned, the holders of that motive must and do use various untruths to
pretend to alignment.

What part of that perception do you find close-minded?

Quoted message said:

conceit you seem quite susceptible to, given your clear contempt for the grind of real science.)

You misunderstand. Any contempt I have would be for pretend scientISTs, not real science at all. The
relative importance of science and the resulting science-factory methods, in my view, attract a lot
of people who make their living by science, while holding a non-questioning, authoritarian mindset.

If you discern that I feel these people are contemptible, in fact beneath contempt, you are right.
For they are being dishonest to their chosen profession. They give nothing to science, merely take
from the work of others.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Is your mind open enough to admit when evidence shows a particular "alternative" remedy to be
ineffective?

What does labelling have to do with it? It either works, or it does not work. It doesn't matter if
you call it "alternative" or "scientific" or whatever.

Actually, I agree. I believe that "alternative" treatments should be subject to the same rigorous
clinical testing as new conventional treatments before being adopted. The problem is, many alties
don't seem to agree. They seem to think that they should be held to a lower standard of evidence for
their therapies, a standard so low that no one would tolerate it for conventional therapies.

Quoted message said:

Many methods of modern medicine are in fact good methods to determine if something does or does
not work.

Indeed they are, and alternative medicine should be subject to these methods, just as conventional
medicine is.

Quoted message said:

But I think you missed the part about a profit-motive existing in modern medicine, which is
independent of the medical-motive, and may or MAY NOT be aligned with the medical-motive.

Are you saying the same is not true of "alternative medicine"? Alt-med is filled with hucksters
pushing various unproven remedies at inflated prices.

Quoted message said:

If it happens to NOT be aligned, the holders of that motive must and do use various untruths to
pretend to alignment.

Again, are you claiming this is NOT true of alt-med?

Quoted message said:

What part of that perception do you find close-minded?

Your apparent perception that alt-med advocates are any more pure in their motives than conventional
medicine advocates, for starters.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

conceit you seem quite susceptible to, given your clear contempt for the grind of real science.)

You misunderstand. Any contempt I have would be for pretend scientISTs, not real science at all.
The relative importance of science and the resulting science-factory methods, in my view, attract
a lot of people who make their living by science, while holding a non-questioning, authoritarian
mindset.

How is this different from various alt-med practitioners who so believe that their remedy is THE
remedy and who believe anything various alt-med gurus say about various "alternative" treatments? At
least in conventional medicine, we have to submit new treatments to testing, and the results of that
testing can be evaluated by our peers, some of whom will invariably be hostile to it and therefore
will at the very least give it a thorough going-over and challenging before accepting it.

[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

to be studied. The truly great scientists who challenged the current scientific dogma of their day
(the ones pseudoscientists and alties like to compare themselves to) did so based on a very solid
understanding of the science of their day. They used this strong understanding as a basis to build
on. Their understanding of the science of their day allowed them to identify its deficiencies in
explaining natural phenomena and thereby design experiments, make observations, and/or design
equations to correct these deficiencies. They acknowledged their debt to those who

Prior knowledge may or may not be relevant. For instance, in explaining lightning discharges, it is
not necessary to know the theories about Zeus and his thunderbolts.

Quoted message said:

came before. As Isaac Newton put it: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders
of giants."

There may be a lot of context to the quote. If you have some familiarity with the life and times of
Newton, the quote seems strange, because normally, Isaac Newton was not known to be a modest credit-
denying individual!

Quoted message said:

Correct. It is even easier to spout about how some remedy or other "strengthens the immune
system," without being able to explain exactly HOW it might do so because there is no
understanding of the current state of the science of immunology behind the assertion!

Are you saying people would float away if they didn't understand HOW gravity worked?

If a remedy is well known to work, and has no side effects, that's sufficient. Understanding can
come later.

Also, modern medicine, while advanced, doesn't yet have it down to the point where one could
theoretically predict the reactions of a certain ingestible. It's still a very empirical science.
Rather more art and engineering, than science yet. Though that's changing. But given the state, it's
unreasonable hubris to have had repeatedly dismissed things ranging from Pauling's "free radicals"
to chiropractic to accupuncture. Chiropractic theories about how it works may not be correct -- but
that doesn't invalidate any actual effects. It may simply mean that a better explanation may be
waiting to be discovered.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, "softeng" has a stooloma.

Well, that much is obvious.

That's uncalled for, and contemptible.

Do you feel I use contempt when it's unearned and unjustified?

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to be studied. The truly great scientists who challenged the current scientific dogma of their
day (the ones pseudoscientists and alties like to compare themselves to) did so based on a very
solid understanding of the science of their day. They used this strong understanding as a basis
to build on. Their understanding of the science of their day allowed them to identify its
deficiencies in explaining natural phenomena and thereby design experiments, make observations,
and/or design equations to correct these deficiencies. They acknowledged their debt to those who

Prior knowledge may or may not be relevant. For instance, in explaining lightning discharges, it
is not necessary to know the theories about Zeus and his thunderbolts.

No, but Zeus is mythology. It IS necessary to know about electrons and charge.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

came before. As Isaac Newton put it: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders
of giants."

There may be a lot of context to the quote. If you have some familiarity with the life and times
of Newton, the quote seems strange, because normally, Isaac Newton was not known to be a modest
credit-denying individual!

Quoted message said:

Correct. It is even easier to spout about how some remedy or other "strengthens the immune
system," without being able to explain exactly HOW it might do so because there is no
understanding of the current state of the science of immunology behind the assertion!

Are you saying people would float away if they didn't understand HOW gravity worked?

No, and their immune systems work just fine even if they don't understand how. But the supplement
quacks who are selling products to "strengthen the immune system" have no idea whether their
products do any such thing. Are you saying that pond-scum "blue-green algae" products and other
supplements actually DO "strengthen the immune system"?

Quoted message said:

If a remedy is well known to work, and has no side effects, that's sufficient. Understanding can
come later.

The whole point is that a remedy that is "well known to work" may not actually "work" at all.
Science is a method of preventing us from deceiving ourselves.

Quoted message said:

Also, modern medicine, while advanced, doesn't yet have it down to the point where one could
theoretically predict the reactions of a certain ingestible. It's still a very empirical science.
Rather more art and engineering, than science yet. Though that's changing. But given the state,
it's unreasonable hubris to have had repeatedly dismissed things ranging from Pauling's "free
radicals" to chiropractic to accupuncture.

Such things have hardly been "dismissed." They have been examined and researched.

Chiropractic theories

Quoted message said:

about how it works may not be correct -- but that doesn't invalidate any actual effects. It may
simply mean that a better explanation may be waiting to be discovered.

Step one is to determine what "effects" if any, occur. This can best be done through the application
of scientific method.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, "softeng" has a stooloma.

Well, that much is obvious.

That's uncalled for, and contemptible.

Do you feel I use contempt when it's unearned and unjustified?

Yes, I do. You do not hesitate to blame the suffering of ADHD on its victims and their parents. How
contemptuous (and contemptible) can you get.

--Rich

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

to be studied. The truly great scientists who challenged the current scientific dogma of their
day (the ones pseudoscientists and alties like to compare themselves to) did so based on a very
solid understanding of the science of their day. They used this strong understanding as a basis
to build on. Their understanding of the science of their day allowed them to identify its
deficiencies in explaining natural phenomena and thereby design experiments, make observations,
and/or design equations to correct these deficiencies. They acknowledged their debt to those who

Prior knowledge may or may not be relevant. For instance, in explaining lightning discharges, it
is not necessary to know the theories about Zeus and his thunderbolts.

I said SCIENTIFIC understanding. That would not be science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

came before. As Isaac Newton put it: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders
of giants."

There may be a lot of context to the quote. If you have some familiarity with the life and times
of Newton, the quote seems strange, because normally, Isaac Newton was not known to be a modest
credit-denying individual!

Even so, he said it, and it is a famous quote of his.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Correct. It is even easier to spout about how some remedy or other "strengthens the immune
system," without being able to explain exactly HOW it might do so because there is no
understanding of the current state of the science of immunology behind the assertion!

Are you saying people would float away if they didn't understand HOW gravity worked?

Strawman, to which I would answer: If you're going to postulate a different explanation as to why we
don't float away into space, you had better understand the current science that explains why we
don't float away. The same is true of anyone claiming to have a remedy that "strengthens the immune
system" by a mechanism not encompassed by current science.

Quoted message said:

If a remedy is well known to work, and has no side effects, that's sufficient. Understanding can
come later.

The problem is, without careful clinical study, one cannot truly know whether a remedy "works." Just
because it is claimed to "work" does not mean it does in fact work. The history of medicine is
littered with examples of therapies that were "well known to work" in their time and then later
shown to be either useless or in some cases even harmful when studied carefully.

Quoted message said:

Also, modern medicine, while advanced, doesn't yet have it down to the point where one could
theoretically predict the reactions of a certain ingestible. It's still a very empirical science.

It's getting less empirical every year.

Quoted message said:

Rather more art and engineering, than science yet. Though that's changing.

More rapidly than you know.

Quoted message said:

But given the state, it's unreasonable hubris to have had repeatedly dismissed things ranging from
Pauling's "free radicals" to chiropractic to accupuncture.

No, it's not, particularly when the advocates of such things can't produce decent evidence to back
them up and the research that has been done on them by others does not back them up.

Quoted message said:

Chiropractic theories about how it works may not be correct -- but that doesn't invalidate any
actual effects.

No, the conflict is also over whether chiropracty actually works; i.e., whether there actually are,
in fact, any "actual effects." Its advocates have to show that first.

Quoted message said:

It may simply mean that a better explanation may be waiting to be discovered.

That's putting the cart before the horse. One has to show an effect before looking for a better
"explanation."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In other words, "softeng" has a stooloma.

Well, that much is obvious.

That's uncalled for, and contemptible.

Do you feel I use contempt when it's unearned and unjustified?

Well, you do to some extent heap contempt on ADHD parents, blaming them for their child's condition.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

"Mark ProbertJanuary 5, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Parents of AD/HD kids tend to not havce a sense of humor when some uninformed cretin comes along
and tells them it is their weaknesses.

My understanding was the vast majority of Ritalin pushing was done by teachers. While nobody can
blame a parent when the teacher and the doctor are both telling them something is good and even
necessary for the kid (and in fact the kid may not go to school without it!) I think parents can
certainly try to hold the teachers to higher standards.

I actually don't believe in government interference with anybody trying to party on Ritalin or
Cocaine (they are quite similar I understand) or whatever in a supposedly free country (unless it
involves a public issue e.g. driving a car or duty as a cop etc) -- but by the same token I don't
believe in governments requiring it either.

And in the case of minors, I do believe the government is obliged to *protect* them from such drugs.
IMHO, the adolescent growth period with heavy-duty hormones taking over the system, is a very touchy
period to mess around with mind-altering drugs.

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Actually, I agree. I believe that "alternative" treatments should be subject to the same rigorous
clinical testing as new conventional treatments before being adopted. The problem is, many alties
don't seem to agree. They seem to think that they should be held to a lower standard of evidence
for their therapies, a standard so low that no one would tolerate it for conventional therapies.

It's a new field with no established guidelines for testing. The established pharmas will not touch
it without patent protection, and will even denigrate it because they see no profits.

If you see my earlier posts, I have warned that the field of alterntive medicines is a natural
attractor for charlatans and fakes.

But that doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater, either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many methods of modern medicine are in fact good methods to determine if something does or does
not work.

Indeed they are, and alternative medicine should be subject to these methods, just as conventional
medicine is.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I think you missed the part about a profit-motive existing in modern medicine, which is
independent of the medical-motive, and may or MAY NOT be aligned with the medical-motive.

Are you saying the same is not true of "alternative medicine"? Alt-med is filled with hucksters
pushing various unproven remedies at inflated prices.

We agree. What I don't agree with, is the idea that "unproven by pharmacological standards" is
the same as "ineffective". It may be, it may not be. It simply means "unproven". But conventional
medicine folks tend to use "unproven" as a synonym for "proven to be ineffective". That, is
biased thinking.

In the lack of testing, folks are led to use other indications (testimonials that they might
reasonably trust, that are not from the sellers, for example) to make their own judgements.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it happens to NOT be aligned, the holders of that motive must and do use various untruths to
pretend to alignment.

Again, are you claiming this is NOT true of alt-med?

No. It's just not a serious problem yet. The problem with alt-med right now is, lack of serious
testing, and lack of standardized herbs (or algae, or whatever.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What part of that perception do you find close-minded?

Your apparent perception that alt-med advocates are any more pure in their motives than
conventional medicine advocates, for starters.

You pulled that "perception" out of thin air. You certainly didn't find it in any post of mine.

Quoted message said:

How is this different from various alt-med practitioners who so believe that their remedy is THE
remedy and who believe anything various alt-med

Same tune...

Quoted message said:

gurus say about various "alternative" treatments? At least in conventional medicine, we have to
submit new treatments to testing, and the results of that testing can be evaluated by our peers,
some of whom will invariably be hostile to it and therefore will at the very least give it a
thorough going-over and challenging before accepting it.

Skepticism is good. But there is a variety of hostility that ceases to be healthy skepticism and
starts to be pure turf-protection.

Rejecting alt-meds simply because of the "label" or because of names like "pond scum", etc is not
healthy skepticism. It's turf-protection.

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

No, and their immune systems work just fine even if they don't understand how. But the supplement
quacks who are selling products to "strengthen the immune system" have no idea whether their
products do any such thing. Are you saying that pond-scum "blue-green algae" products and other
supplements actually DO "strengthen the immune system"?

You are using negative wording to a-priori dismiss a claim. THAT is the essence of quackery.

It is indeed quite possible that blue-green algae, or whatever, may strengthen the immune system. If
somebody has used it and felt it has done that -- there is a medical lead. The next step is testing.
Not dismissing it by using the negative connotations of the word "pond-scum". (Any idea where
penicillin came from?)

Unfortunately in our current environment, there is a disconnect between a lead and the required
testing. If the product is not patentable, there will be no testing, leaving it for uninformed
individuals to pursuade others that something could not possibly be good because it is "pond-scum".

In article <[email hidden]>,

(soft-eng) said:

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<h5adnZLIdO6MEWSiRVn-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

No, and their immune systems work just fine even if they don't understand how. But the
supplement quacks who are selling products to "strengthen the immune system" have no idea
whether their products do any such thing. Are you saying that pond-scum "blue-green algae"
products and other supplements actually DO "strengthen the immune system"?

You are using negative wording to a-priori dismiss a claim. THAT is the essence of quackery.

No, he is using an example. Your transparet attempt to turn it around and accuse him of quackery is
transparent and laughable.

Quoted message said:

It is indeed quite possible that blue-green algae, or whatever, may strengthen the immune system.

That's not what he asked. He didn't ask if you thought it was "possible" that blue-green algae or
other products "strengthen the immune system." Of course such a thing is "possible." (It's also
"possible" that an asteroid will hit me in the next several hours.) He asked you if you think they
DO "strengthen the immune system."

Quoted message said:

If somebody has used it and felt it has done that -- there is a medical lead.

Not necessarily. It takes more than just "feeling" something worked. Anecdotal evidence worthy of
use to generate a hypothesis to test has to have some objective measurement to show that there was
an effect. Somebody using something and "feeling" that it "strengthened the immune system" is NOT
enough. That somebody has to have observed objective evidence that at least suggests that something
did, in fact, "strengthen the immune system." Any quack can "feel" that something he's used
"strengthened the immune system."

Quoted message said:

The next step is testing.

Testing is only worthwhile if there is objective evidence suggesting that something worked.

Quoted message said:

Not dismissing it by using the negative connotations of the word "pond-scum". (Any idea where
penicillin came from?)

And penicillin was discovered because of an OBJECTIVE observation by Alexander Fleming that the
bacteria on some of his plates that had become contaminated with fungus did not grow near the
fungus. This observation strongly suggested the possibility that the contaminating fungus was
secreting a substance that either killed the bacteria or kept it from growing. In other words, the
path that led to the isolation of penicillin from fungus started with OBJECTIVE evidence, NOT a
"feeling" that it "worked."

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately in our current environment, there is a disconnect between a lead and the
required testing. If the product is not patentable, there will be no testing, leaving it for
uninformed individuals to pursuade others that something could not possibly be good because it
is "pond-scum".

[censored]. Many of my colleagues pursue research that is not likely to lead to a patentable product,
because they want to find better ways to treat cancer. If it happens to be patentable, great--that's
an added bonus, but that is not the overriding motivation behind the research by any means.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark ProbertJanuary 5, 2004" <[email hidden]> wrote

in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Parents of AD/HD kids tend to not havce a sense of humor when some uninformed cretin comes along
and tells them it is their weaknesses.

My understanding was the vast majority of Ritalin pushing was done by teachers.

You understand wrong. I had a standing offer in alt.support.attn-deficit for years wherein I
offered my services as complainant to anyone who had a teacher try this. I NEVER had one person tak
eme up on it.

I am not denying it happens. However, in the AD/HD support groups I have been invovled with, I have
heard parents tell that their schools are pushing neurofeedback, diet, supplements, etc. which are
all disproven "treatments." Not one parent has ever said they have been pressured to use medication.
They have said, however, that they were advised to have their child checked out, and this is
appropriate.

While nobody can blame a parent when

Quoted message said:

the teacher and the doctor are both telling them something is good and even necessary for the kid
(and in fact the kid may not go to school without it!)

That CANNOT happen under the law in the United States. There is no legal authority for it. In fact,
the law says that she school smust accommodate the child as presented to the school. IOW, they have
the burden of coming up with an appropriate education plan.

I think parents can certainly try

Quoted message said:

to hold the teachers to higher standards.

I have no argument with this, when it happens. The approrpiate thing to do is ask the
teacher/administrator/etc. to place their suggestions in writing. This is usually a cause of
immediate writers cramp. You should have seen the face on the psychologist who suggested the
Feingold Diet to me.

Quoted message said:

I actually don't believe in government interference with anybody trying to party on Ritalin or
Cocaine (they are quite similar I understand) or whatever in a supposedly free country (unless it
involves a public issue e.g. driving a car or duty as a cop etc) -- but by the same token I don't
believe in governments requiring it either.

Government does not require it. this is a real red herring issue. If a licensed professional in the
school system suggest it, file a complaint with the licensing authority. I guarantee you will not
hear from them again.

Quoted message said:

And in the case of minors, I do believe the government is obliged to *protect* them from such
drugs. IMHO, the adolescent growth period with heavy-duty hormones taking over the system, is a
very touchy period to mess around with mind-altering drugs.

Learn more about the medications before you pontificate.

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is indeed quite possible that blue-green algae, or whatever, may strengthen the immune
system.

That's not what he asked. He didn't ask if you thought it was "possible" that blue-green algae or
other products "strengthen the immune system." Of course such a thing is "possible." (It's also
"possible" that an asteroid will hit me in the next several hours.) He asked you if you think they
DO "strengthen the immune system."

You have never come across the concept of an open mind, or forming judgements AFTER learning of the
evidence, have you?

Quoted message said:

Not necessarily. It takes more than just "feeling" something worked. Anecdotal evidence worthy of
use to generate a hypothesis to test has to have some objective measurement to show that there was
an effect. Somebody using something and "feeling" that it "strengthened the immune system" is NOT
enough. That somebody has to have observed objective evidence that at least suggests that
something did, in fact, "strengthen the immune system." Any quack can "feel" that something he's
used "strengthened the immune system."

Quoted message said:

The next step is testing.

Testing is only worthwhile if there is objective evidence suggesting that something worked.

You are making no sense. Testing is how we go about gathering objective evidence. As to what to
test, you can't test everything under the sun for every disease, so you need leads. If somebody says
he or she felt better after taking a certain substance, one researcher may decide that's a valid
lead, another may not. There is no objectivity at this point, but a judgement call, and it's what
makes one researcher better than other.

You are claining there is objectivity involved prior to doing the research. If you already have
objective proof something works, why would you need any testing?

Quoted message said:

[censored]. Many of my colleagues pursue research that is not likely to lead to a patentable
product, because they want to find better ways to treat cancer. If it happens to be patentable,
great--that's an added bonus, but that is not the overriding motivation behind the research by
any means.

In general, non-patentable medicines will not get funded and if a large body of anecdotal evidence
is to be believed, will run into huge obstructionism. (This has certainly been true of non-
patentable "alt-meds".)

But if "many of" your "colleagues" have logical capabilities similar to your own -- it hardly
matters what they do or don't do now, does it? If they had a cure under their nose, they would
decide there is no "objective evidence" that it requires testing.

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Correct. It is even easier to spout about how some remedy or other "strengthens the immune
system," without being able to explain exactly HOW it might do so because there is no
understanding of the current state of the science of immunology behind the assertion!

Are you saying people would float away if they didn't understand HOW gravity worked?

Strawman, to which I would answer: If you're going to postulate a different explanation as to why
we don't float away into space, you had better understand the current science that explains why we
don't float away. The same is true of anyone claiming to have a remedy that "strengthens the
immune system" by a mechanism not encompassed by current science.

The point was, even before current science explained gravity, people didn't float away.

This was in response to "...without being able to explain exactly HOW..." and was meant to clarify
that knowing HOW is not necessary in order for something to work. Usually, explanations of HOW come
AFTER observation of the phenomenon.

"soft-eng" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, I agree. I believe that "alternative" treatments should be subject to the same
rigorous clinical testing as new conventional treatments before being adopted. The problem is,
many alties don't seem to agree. They seem to think that they should be held to a lower standard
of evidence for their therapies, a standard so low that no one would tolerate it for
conventional therapies.

It's a new field with no established guidelines for testing.

So9rry, but that argument does not wash. The Feds have $$ available for clinical testing. Thus, they
can use the time honored and tested systems of RealMedicine at no cost to them.

Quoted message said:

The established pharmas will not touch it without patent protection, and will even denigrate it
because they see no profits.

Thefre are patents within alt med. They are touted by the shills as proof of wonderfulness.

Quoted message said:

If you see my earlier posts, I have warned that the field of alterntive medicines is a natural
attractor for charlatans and fakes.

And understatement, since they can lie and use false arguments, like no patent, no testing, etc.

Quoted message said:

But that doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater, either.

Recycle the bathwater.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many methods of modern medicine are in fact good methods to determine if something does or
does not work.

Indeed they are, and alternative medicine should be subject to these methods, just as
conventional medicine is.

Yes.

Good. And there is no reason why they do not test their alt meds, except, AFAIAC, fear that testing
will prove them useless.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But I think you missed the part about a profit-motive existing in modern medicine, which is
independent of the medical-motive, and may or MAY NOT be aligned with the medical-motive.

Are you saying the same is not true of "alternative medicine"? Alt-med is filled with hucksters
pushing various unproven remedies at inflated prices.

We agree. What I don't agree with, is the idea that "unproven by pharmacological standards" is the
same as "ineffective". It may be, it may not be. It simply means "unproven". But conventional
medicine folks tend to use "unproven" as a synonym for "proven to be ineffective". That, is biased
thinking.

Disagree. unproven is used for "unproven".

Quoted message said:

In the lack of testing, folks are led to use other indications (testimonials that they might
reasonably trust, that are not from the sellers, for example) to make their own judgements.

Thus, avoiding the use of real facts, and, this is *exactly* what the alt med shills want. They are
afraid that real testing will show their wares to be useless.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it happens to NOT be aligned, the holders of that motive must and do use various untruths
to pretend to alignment.

Again, are you claiming this is NOT true of alt-med?

No. It's just not a serious problem yet. The problem with alt-med right now is, lack of serious
testing, and lack of standardized herbs (or algae, or whatever.)

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What part of that perception do you find close-minded?

Your apparent perception that alt-med advocates are any more pure in their motives than
conventional medicine advocates, for starters.

You pulled that "perception" out of thin air. You certainly didn't find it in any post of mine.

Quoted message said:

How is this different from various alt-med practitioners who so believe that their remedy is THE
remedy and who believe anything various alt-med

Same tune...

Quoted message said:

gurus say about various "alternative" treatments? At least in conventional medicine, we have to
submit new treatments to testing, and the results of that testing can be evaluated by our peers,
some of whom will invariably be hostile to it and therefore will at the very least give it a
thorough going-over and challenging before accepting it.

Skepticism is good. But there is a variety of hostility that ceases to be healthy skepticism and
starts to be pure turf-protection.

Rejecting alt-meds simply because of the "label" or because of names like "pond scum", etc is not
healthy skepticism. It's turf-protection.

The alt med purveyors use the identical tactics to trash real medicine. What I would like to see is
someone making the same criticism of both.