Health Extremists & Idiots

UL_heart_throb

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

For the vast majority of people it's the old 'eat a balanced diet' and don't pig out.

Some people - and screening would ID most - have to be very careful about what they eat, but for the rest of us there hasn't really been much improvement in life expectancy for an adult since they stopped adding arsenic to bread.

tonnes of studies have been done and it sorta boils down to

What it boils done to is that there are many many different causes of carcinogenesis. One of the reasons why America has a higher rate of cancer than others is because they have the best hospitals and the best oncologists with the shortest waiting time to see a consultant as long as you have insurance/money.

There are very strong links between colon carcinoma and diet.

Jimoslimos

I've said it before but modern medicine has controlled most of the major infectious diseases (to a point) where most people in the west will die from either one of the big two non-communicable diseases, cardiovascular disease or cancer. You want to know what the biggest risk factor for these two.......age.....and no amount of superfood fruit smoothies is going to cure that. Eat as healthily as you can and live a stress-free lifestyle - you'll still succumb in the end.

I also think people often confuse risk factors and causes. Eating unhealthily/obesity may increase risk for CVD and certain cancers - doesn't mean it causes cancer or indeed that the reverse, eating healthy will cure it, it will however reduce risk.

As Capt'n Midnight explained, we've being eating many different diets around the world for a long time now - our bodies are pretty amazing at being able to adapt without the need for overpriced 'superfood' fads.

Dangerous Man

flutterflye wrote: »

If people are stupid enough to believe that stuff, then maybe the world is better without them.

I think the world is better off without stupid opinions like yours. And if that means that the world can't have people like you - then I guess the world is better off.

Jester252

30 bananas a day Jesus Christ moderation
Also on the topic of cancer

flutterflye

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I think the world is better off without stupid opinions like yours. And if that means that the world can't have people like you - then I guess the world is better off.

Ohhhh... Did I hit a nerve?
Way to "attack the post, not the poster" there mate!

pragmatic1

KKkitty wrote: »

People often get cancer from a genetic disposition. That amount of bananas would kill you for sure. What about people who've never drank or smoked and still got cancer? You can't blame diet balanced or not for certain things happening to people. Nowadays people rarely have time to exercise, eat well and are stressed with work and financial worries and may not eat as good as they should but how many people whose diets are healthy and they're active get cancer. It's something that can happen no matter how we live our lives.

Actually you can blame diet. Its the number one cause ahead of even smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0528/poor-awareness-of-cancer-risk-report.htmlAnd in future this 3-5% can be screened by DNA sequencing

Scientists and the medical profession know very little about what causes cancer. I'm being monitored for precancerous cells and the doctors admit they're pretty clueless as to why I have them and most people don't. I eat well, I've never smoked and have almost none of the risk factors for this type of cancer. They say it's quite possible there is a genetic link - my aunt and three cousins are being treated for the same thing - but they just don't understand much about it at the moment.

Dangerous Man

flutterflye wrote: »

Ohhhh... Did I hit a nerve?
Way to "attack the post, not the poster" there mate!

Did you hit a nerve? Yes - because I've seen people who are dying, and desperate for any sort of help to get them out of a hopeless situation. They become vulnerable to abuse or manipulation - and will clutch at anything that offers hope, however threadbare. You're just callous and that's what I'm attacking. The world really doesn't need more callous people.

flutterflye

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Did you hit a nerve? Yes - because I've seen people who are dying, and desperate for any sort of help to get them out of a hopeless situation. They become vulnerable to abuse or manipulation - and will clutch at anything that offers hope, however threadbare. You're just callous and that's what I'm attacking. The world really doesn't need more callous people.

So have I.
The world doesn't revolve around you!

Dangerous Man

flutterflye wrote: »

So have I.
The world doesn't revolve around you!

Fuck this - you're worthless. You're on my ignore list now.

MisterCadbury

flutterflye wrote: »

So have I.
The world doesn't revolve around you!

Great contribution to the debate there. So the point being made is that vulnerable people i.e people with cancer are much more likely to be sucked in by the gilded lies spouted by these types of people. Besides that everybody believes lots of things they can't prove or haven't sufficiently read up on, like how many references or stats can the average person give as to why fruit is good for you? I'm assuming not alot off the top of ones head. The real danger I think is ideas spawned by this kind of idiot making their way into cancer support groups or therapy etc and people turning their back on proven medication in favor of of f*cking juice cleanse. Or at the very least wasting 300 dollars on a phone call with him so he feed you his bull$hit ideas one to one.

Scanlas The 2nd

Bookworm85 wrote: »

Thankfully I don't have cancer, but do take a drug call methotrexate for my psoriasis/artritis that is also prescribed to people with certain cancers. For all intents and purposes it is a mild form of chemo and it makes me feel like ****. I can totally understand why people who are suffering from cancer and are receiving aggressive treatment might turn to these kinds of people in the hopes of finding a more friendly alternative.

These people are charlatans, nothing more, nothing less. I have a very good friend who swears by homeopathy and other "natural" cures. She sent me a link to a documentary called 'Food Matters'...... What a load of horses sh*t! Fella's claiming that they can cure manic depressives, cancer, HIV/AIDS with high doses of vitamin C! Its worth a watch if you want to learn more about these new age weirdos.

I also recommend Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science. He does a great job at dismissing all these super food type people. Definitely worth the read.

Try the Paleo diet for a few weeks and your psoriasis will prob improve.

flutterflye

MisterCadbury wrote: »

Great contribution to the debate there. So the point being made is that vulnerable people i.e people with cancer are much more likely to be sucked in by the gilded lies spouted by these types of people. Besides that everybody believes lots of things they can't prove or haven't sufficiently read up on, like how many references or stats can the average person give as to why fruit is good for you? I'm assuming not alot off the top of ones head. The real danger I think is ideas spawned by this kind of idiot making their way into cancer support groups or therapy etc and people turning their back on proven medication in favor of of f*cking juice cleanse. Or at the very least wasting 300 dollars on a phone call with him so he feed you his bull$hit ideas one to one.

It wasn't a contribution to a debate - it was a response to that other poster.

I already said my piece on what I thought.
There's not much to say really.
I responded purely because someone got personal with me.

My mother died of cancer when I was 12 years old.
I do know one or two things about this you know!

christmas2012

whats worse is there are 'holistic herbalists' who say they can cure cancer anybody that makes wild claims like that should be made accountable,but then again people shouldnt be so naive..

Mr.Biscuits

Been watching a lot of this '30 Bananas A Day' guy's videos today and not once did he try to sell a damn thing. I disagree with a lot of what he says and he cherry picks a lot and will tar anyone who eats even fish into with same brush as someone who eats nothing but a slab of bacon three times a day, which is moronic but I have to say, he certainly doesn't just talk the talk, this guy is without question, walking the walk also.

He wins races regularly and he is far from alone in being a raw vegan athlete, there seems to be quite a few of them and I have to say, their results are quite impressive and inspiring in fact. Another one is this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tncjyjzR9g

KKkitty wrote: »

That amount of bananas would kill you for sure.

Eh, well how come Harely's still alive then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJueUbQVjLU

Dave!

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Actually you can blame diet. Its the number one cause ahead of even smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol.

Where you getting that? I'm only after listening to that nutritionist from UCC talking on the radio today, and she said that smoking is still by far the number one cause of cancer.

Jimoslimos

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Try the Paleo diet for a few weeks and your psoriasis will prob improve.

I've heard swallowing less bullsh1t works wonders too:rolleyes:

Scanlas The 2nd

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Try the Paleo diet for a few weeks and your psoriasis will prob improve.

I've heard swallowing less bullsh1t works wonders too:rolleyes:

I'd be fairly confident of improvements in the condition.

Jimoslimos

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Did you hit a nerve? Yes - because I've seen people who are dying, and desperate for any sort of help to get them out of a hopeless situation. They become vulnerable to abuse or manipulation - and will clutch at anything that offers hope, however threadbare. You're just callous and that's what I'm attacking. The world really doesn't need more callous people.

Dying doesn't make stupid opinions any less stupid.

More understandable perhaps, but no less stupid.

Jimoslimos

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Dying doesn't make stupid opinions any less stupid.

More understandable perhaps, but no less stupid.

What's your point? This kind of attitude just seems callous and heartless to me. If I were dying, I'd be clutching at straws and trying things that weren't totally logical as well. It's not as if modern medicine is all that great, in many cases, so who are you to say what is and isn't stupid?

I definitely don't believe in this 'eat your veg and you won't get cancer' mentality, which is rubbish spewed by people who are simply lucky enough not to have any serious medical concerns. However, I have seen for myself the drastic differences in people who made small lifestyle changes. People who were told by doctors that they would never get better and that their condition was untreatable. I've known quite a lot of people who improved when they came off their medication and started trying less traditional methods instead. There's a hell of a lot we don't know about medicine and I'd never blindly trust a doctor.

Mr.Biscuits

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Try the Paleo diet for a few weeks and your psoriasis will prob improve.

The problem with that statement is that it means something different to so many "nutritionists".

Some of these Paleo gurus say eat beans, other ones say beans contain lectins and cause auto-immune disorders. Then you have some that say eat fruit and others that define fructose in fruit as a poison (seriously) so it's no wonder people are fcuking confused.

For a while I had come to conclusion that at least everyone was condemning processed grains but no, the now celebrated Dr McDoughall promotes a starch based diet and regularly promotes white rice and white bread:

http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/may/healing.htm

Here's a good video which shows how much confusion there is amongst the so called experts out there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdxVfi632Xw

aaronjumper

humbert wrote: »

If we started banning people for being horribly misguided and vocal about it, what would happen to After Hours??

This:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19uYDDndvsM

InTheTrees

I read somewhere you can live on Malteasers.

:cool:

Scanlas The 2nd

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Try the Paleo diet for a few weeks and your psoriasis will prob improve.

The problem with that statement is that it means something different to so many "nutritionists".

Some of these Paleo gurus say eat beans, other ones say beans contain lectins and cause auto-immune disorders. Then you have some that say eat fruit and others that define fructose in fruit as a poison (seriously) so it's no wonder people are fcuking confused.

For a while I had come to conclusion that at least everyone was condemning processed grains but no, the now celebrated Dr McDoughall promotes a starch based diet and regularly promotes white rice and white bread:

http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/may/healing.htm

Here's a good video which shows how much confusion there is amongst the so called experts out there:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdxVfi632Xw

It's my understanding ( or at least what I think most likely) from the evidence I've seen that white rice is relatively harmless and all gluten is harmful to pretty much everyone. Dairy is harmful to some not harmful to others. I'm undecided on beans and I think potatoes are not harmful.

Having said all that I think it would be best for anyone with autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis to try a paleo diet in the strictest sense of the word and see if their condition improves. Then reintroduce some of the grey area foods and see how they get on.

pragmatic1

Dave! wrote: »

Where you getting that? I'm only after listening to that nutritionist from UCC talking on the radio today, and she said that smoking is still by far the number one cause of cancer.

My toxicology lecturer and cancer research.

Kidchameleon

Why was the OP on youtube searching for "guy shoving big bananas into his mouth"?

Jimoslimos

pragmatic1 wrote: »

My toxicology lecturer and cancer research.

Really? Cancer Reseach UK still lists tobacco smoking as #1.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/causes/comparing-causes-of-cancer/results/

Capt'n Midnight

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think potatoes are not harmful.

you can survive on just potatoes.

Having said all that I think it would be best for anyone with autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis to try a paleo diet in the strictest sense of the word and see if their condition improves. Then reintroduce some of the grey area foods and see how they get on.

'strictest sense of the word' would mean different things to different people

For a start to do things properly you would have to include the exercise level of a paleolithic lifestyle
next you have to reduce meat input a lot. An awful lot. Today's hunter-gatherers live on the margins, more or less driven from any area with rich agricultural produce.

Of course you'd also need to produce a diet that archeologists agree on

Scanlas The 2nd

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think potatoes are not harmful.

you can survive on just potatoes.

Having said all that I think it would be best for anyone with autoimmune diseases such as psoriasis to try a paleo diet in the strictest sense of the word and see if their condition improves. Then reintroduce some of the grey area foods and see how they get on.

'strictest sense of the word' would mean different things to different people

For a start to do things properly you would have to include the exercise level of a paleolithic lifestyle
next you have to reduce meat input a lot. An awful lot. Today's hunter-gatherers live on the margins, more or less driven from any area with rich agricultural produce.

Of course you'd also need to produce a diet that archeologists agree on

Ok my advice would be to only eat grass fed meat, fish, shellfish, eggs and veg. Don't eat grains, legumes, dairy, vegetable oil, potatoes or night shades.

Jimoslimos

Originally posted over on A&A, a cautionary tale for those who think offering false hope is largely harmless. A long read but worth it.

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2011/s3260776.htm

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78049735&postcount=1681

Pushtrak

dirtyden wrote: »

I agree totally with the point you are making. But that almost sounds too crackpot for anyone to believe. But it is a disgrace that people can actually earn from making these preposterous claims and damage peoples health at the same time. Homeopathy for one.

People will believe any manner of crazy things. Look at Peter Popoff.

Saw a mention of raw food in the thread. A great youtuber made videos worth watching on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKKvmFZBALo

As an aside, Opera has been acting up for me. Youtube videos not loading, and videos aren't showing up when linked in posts. Had to open up Chrome to watch the two Raw Diet videos above as a refresher. I know not many use Opera, but on the chance someone here reads this, just wondering if others are having the issue.

Mr.Biscuits

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Originally posted over on A&A, a cautionary tale for those who think offering false hope is largely harmless. A long read but worth it.

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2011/s3260776.htm

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78049735&postcount=1681

You post that on this thread as if someone here would support the person who offered that person the hope that they did regarding "velvet soap" and anal injections of "olive oil" - I haven't seen any.

This is the thing with such charlatans out there, people like your self use them as some sort of wielding axe to denounce all complementary medicine.

I have lost many people to cancer and had to watch them waste away in hospital beds many many months before some pup of an oncologist told them that some operation would give them a few years or a course of chemo would prolong their life exponentially, when it did anything but.

When you wear a white coat and your efforts to prolong someone's life shortens it instead, you'll still be hailed as a hero, fighting the good fight.

As I said in my earlier post: things are changing and finally diet is slowly been seen as a form of treatment rather that just something that can maybe prevent disease, but in fact, reverse it. Should have been happening on this scale forty years ago though. Billions and billions each year are spent on drug trials and yet researchers that want to further study the role of diet, have to fight for a few hundred grand here and there.

I am firmly convinced that had the same amount of money been available to researchers in the arena of diet and environmental causes of diseases, then we would have whipped cancer (and many other illnesses by now). Much is made of genetics role in disease states, but genes are just a loaded gun pointed at your head, it's diet, environment and life stye choices that pull the trigger.

Jimoslimos

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

You post that on this thread as if someone here would support the person who offered that person the hope that they did regarding "velvet soap" and anal injections of "olive oil" - I haven't seen any.

This is the thing with such charlatans out there, people like your self use them as some sort of wielding axe to denounce all complementary medicine.

Yes i do, and I make no apologies for it. The complimentary/alternative medicine crowd don't seem too keen to denounce the extreme type of practioner I gave in the example. Why? Probably lose most of their members as well as implying that a complementary form of medicine is nothing but bunkum.

Whether they give dangerous medical advice, or recommend wearing 'healing crystals' or other some sh1te it's all lies.

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

I have lost many people to cancer and had to watch them waste away in hospital beds many many months before some pup of an oncologist told them that some operation would give them a few years or a course of chemo would prolong their life exponentially, when it did anything but.

Right, I'm going to call bullsh1t on this. No oncologist would ever tell a patient that. Everyday they get asked one question above all - "how long do I have?" Not a question anyone can answer. They'll try explain, in as simple as possible - the risks and survival rates. Unfortunately facts come across dry and people are generally useless at understanding relative risk.

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

When you wear a white coat and your efforts to prolong someone's life shortens it instead, you'll still be hailed as a hero, fighting the good fight.

An agenda here? I don't know anyone who works in the medical industry who regards themselves as a hero. Doctors, nurses and other health professionals treat patients based on the best evidence available. Evidence-based medicine - and it's mighty effective, no heroism involved. The 'complimentary medicine' you seem keen on pushing can also become evidence-based, by undergoing reasonably simple to set up clinical trials. If it works, it becomes 'medicine' (if not continue but stick alternative/complementary/Chinese/etc in front)

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

As I said in my earlier post: things are changing and finally diet is slowly been seen as a form of treatment rather that just something that can maybe prevent disease, but in fact, reverse it. Should have been happening on this scale forty years ago though. Billions and billions each year are spent on drug trials and yet researchers that want to further study the role of diet, have to fight for a few hundred grand here and there

There's plenty of published research out there showing the benefits of a healthy diet, plenty of fruit & veg, cutting down on red meat intake, etc However there's not much profit to be made out of common sense advice, so the quacks turn to niche extreme diets and fantastical claims about their effects.

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

I am firmly convinced that had the same amount of money been available to researchers in the arena of diet and environmental causes of diseases, then we would have whipped cancer (and many other illnesses by now). Much is made of genetics role in disease states, but genes are just a loaded gun pointed at your head, it's diet, environment and life stye choices that pull the trigger.

To be blunt - no we wouldn't. To say so shows a gross misunderstanding of cancer (which won't ever be cured) and other diseases. What do you think will kill people instead? You ever wonder why people in the west have higher rates of cancer and CVD? We live LONGER. What do you propose will kill us other than cancer and heart disease?

Mr.Biscuits

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Yes i do, and I make no apologies for it. The complimentary/alternative medicine crowd don't seem too keen to denounce the extreme type of practioner I gave in the example. Why? Probably lose most of their members as well as implying that a complementary form of medicine is nothing but bunkum.

Of course they do.

As I said earlier, was watching many of those vids today and Harley rubbished half the bloody world and slates supplement sellers in almost everyone of his videos.

Whether they give dangerous medical advice, or recommend wearing 'healing crystals' or other some sh1te it's all lies.

I agree but that doesn't mean that all information out there is rubbish. You're tarring all complementary medicine with the one brush and you shouldn't.

Over a million people die each year worldwide as a result of medical malpractice. Should all the good that the medical profession does be ignored because of those numbers? Should we just look at the death rate and decide that all hospitals should be closed down? No, but yet that is what you are doing with regards to complementary medicine, you're taking the extreme examples and using it as a battering ram to dismiss everything but what is available from the medical profession.

Right, I'm going to call bullsh1t on this. No oncologist would ever tell a patient that.

Call "bulls1it" all you want mate but I have had family that asked oncologists should they go ahead with treatment and what would be the pros and cons and "worst scenario" they were told was that they would be looking at six months - they were dead in six weeks. I have many friends where similar stories to tell and trust me, a debate online does not mean enough for me to make **** up about people I have lost.

Everyday they get asked one question above all - "how long do I have?" Not a question anyone can answer. They'll try explain, in as simple as possible - the risks and survival rates. Unfortunately facts come across dry and people are generally useless at understanding relative risk.

Oh give me a break with the condescending ****e: "people are generally useless at understanding relative risk"? Seriously, get over yourself. Families understand basic English and that is all that is needed when you are told that someone has x amount of time and the risk is that this could be shortened to y if the treatment doesn't go well. I'm not saying that all doctors are guilty of this, but many are and some push treatment on people when it will usually will not be worth it when quality of life is taken into account.

An agenda here? I don't know anyone who works in the medical industry who regards themselves as a hero.

Where did I say that they regarding themselves as heros? I said they are regraded as heros -which is quite different.

The 'complimentary medicine' you seem keen on pushing can also become evidence-based, by undergoing reasonably simple to set up clinical trials. If it works, it becomes 'medicine' (if not continue but stick alternative/complementary/Chinese/etc in front)

Are you even reading my posts?

I have condemned many forms of alternative treatments and also pointed out how confusing it all must be for people as a result. I have also stated that I believe people should go the medical route first and follow whatever treatment it is that they are offered and then and only then should they try the alternatives. I have "pushed" nothing. If anyone here has a agenda, it is you.

Pushtrak

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

I agree but that doesn't mean that all information out there is rubbish. You're tarring all complementary medicine with the one brush and you shouldn't.

You have this vague wishy-washy defence of complementary medicine at the moment. Exactly what complementary medicines do you find to be effective? And what evidence is there to demonstrate the efficacy of your chosen complementary medicines?

Please don't give me "shur whats the harm, it might help or it might not... But it isn't going to harm on its own." I'd like you come up with something better than a non-effect, or a non-negative effect. Again, with proof.

Then, can you provide examples of complementary/herbal/crystal type healing isn't effective, and what is it that makes one effective in your mind, and the other not. Is it relating to the placebo effect? This is an important question.

What qualifications do the experts you would cite have? How many years of getting knowledgeable on human anatomy, genetics, in short matters medicinal. Or did they just come in from a field one day.

Your non arguments aren't really going to sway any minds here. It is basically a "Wah, you are being unfair tarring them all with the one brush" while not providing any real reason not to.

Over a million people die each year worldwide as a result of medical malpractice.

How would you suppose the statistics would look if surgeons were replaced by a plethora of alternative medicines, from crystals, herbal remedies, homeopathy and any other quackery that you can think of. Get all that alternative medicine stuff you want and take out the surgeon. You reckon you'd see an improvement or a decline?

Ok, that isn't a fair question because it is essentially saying operate in reality, or give the patient nothing. Obviously this isn't a fair critique of your position. So, let us get real. I imagine we would agree the best possible care is what would be ideal. It ought to be established that complementary medicine actually does this though. To my understanding, it hasn't.

Where did I say that they regarding themselves as heros? I said they are regraded as heros -which is quite different.

The amount of dedication they put in to get to where they are, and when they get there. I don't tend to think in terms of hero, or not. Certainly would grant a lot of respect to those in the profession.

Jimoslimos

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

I agree but that doesn't mean that all information out there is rubbish. You're tarring all complementary medicine with the one brush and you shouldn't.

Over a million people die each year worldwide as a result of medical malpractice. Should all the good that the medical profession does be ignored because of those numbers? Should we just look at the death rate and decide that all hospitals should be closed down? No, but yet that is what you are doing with regards to complementary medicine, you're taking the extreme examples and using it as a battering ram to dismiss everything but what is available from the medical profession.

Wow, some amount of backward logic there. If you could point me towards evidence where complementary medicine has worked contradictory to conventional medicine I'd be grateful.

As for medical malpractice, I'm not (and nobody from the medical profession would) claim they are infallible. At the end of the day there is a human element making critical decisions on people's health, through negligence and/or unfortunate combination of circumstances, people die. What medicine does do (which alternative med DOES NOT), is seek to greatly reduce this risk, tightly regulated membership to practice, coupled with tools such as evidence-based medicine, continual review of treatments and protocols, etc

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

Call "bulls1it" all you want mate but I have had family that asked oncologists should they go ahead with treatment and what would be the pros and cons and "worst scenario" they were told was that they would be looking at six months - they were dead in six weeks. I have many friends where similar stories to tell and trust me, a debate online does not mean enough for me to make **** up about people I have lost.

However unfortunate and I'm sorry you lost people close to you, the plural of anecdote is not data.

When a doctor gives a figure such as six months, it is usually with a disclaimer - say 95% with cancer at a similar stage lived that long. Doesn't mean everyone will.

Draw a standard distribution (bell) curve of survival time of cancer patients given 6 months to live, - you'll find 95% die around say 4-8 months. Approx 2.5% will be fortunate and live longer. However there will be the unfortunate remaining percentage who die sooner. It's nobodies fault.

What medicine and science does do is collect this information and use it to base the efficacy of current treatments as a baseline against further improvements. We can't improve medical care unless we know how well it currently works. Sounds cold and clinical but your family and friends deaths in some small way will help drive improvements in medicine potentially used to treat their children, grandchildren and other descendents. I'm sorry if that offends, but I think it's a positive way of looking at death.

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

Oh give me a break with the condescending ****e: "people are generally useless at understanding relative risk"?

People are notorious at judging risk, it's why we drink, smoke, take drugs, drive fast, have unprotected casual sex and all manner of dangerous (but fun:pac:) activities. Yet look at the furore papers like the Daily Mail can whip up around the issues of cancer and crime (to name two of their favourites)

Mr.Biscuits wrote: »

Are you even reading my posts?

I have condemned many forms of alternative treatments and also pointed out how confusing it all must be for people as a result. I have also stated that I believe people should go the medical route first and follow whatever treatment it is that they are offered and then and only then should they try the alternatives. I have "pushed" nothing. If anyone here has a agenda, it is you.

Yes, it is very confusing. That is why I've come up with a novel idea* to simplify matters. All claims by the alternative/complementary quacks undergo rigorous clinical trials - if they work we use them. Meanwhile everything else is discarded and we merge everything into one branch - medicine.
Why should they 'try' the alternatives after conventional treatments haven't worked? Is it because they haven't been lied to yet, given false hope? Why should the 'alternative' crowd be allowed to profit from lies and quackery?



*I may not have come up with this idea, but in the absence of a patent/copyright I'm claiming it!

theg81der

I was very sick few years back. Doctors couldn`t find out what was wrong with me and it got so bad if I ate anything I came out in a rash so I changed to a completely organic fruit and veg diet with no harsh chemical products etc got better and I`m still ok. Did it for about 2 years.

There is alot of quackery out there thou I tried so many things and they were all crap. I do believe food is medicine thou and I don`t think modern medicine has all the answers all the time.

Jimoslimos

theg81der wrote: »

I was very sick few years back. Doctors couldn`t find out what was wrong with me and it got so bad if I ate anything I came out in a rash so I changed to a completely organic fruit and veg diet with no harsh chemical products etc got better and I`m still ok. Did it for about 2 years.

There is alot of quackery out there thou I tried so many things and they were all crap. I do believe food is medicine thou and I don`t think modern medicine has all the answers all the time.

Regression to the mean?

Modern medicine doesn't have all the answers, however that doesn't mean that the gaps are filled by whatever a homeopath, faith healer or you choose to believe.

Scanlas The 2nd

Jimoslimos wrote: »

There's plenty of published research out there showing the benefits of a healthy diet, plenty of fruit & veg, cutting down on red meat intake, etc e?

Much of mainstream knowledge is wrong. Red meat for example is very good for you and highly nutritious, it does not increase risk of cancer. Modern medicine is quite retarded when it comes to examining data. They see correlation between red meat consumption and assume red meat causes cancer. There is a correlation between having a beard and getting cancer, that doesn't mean beards cause cancer.

Jimoslimos

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Much of mainstream knowledge is wrong.

Oh enlighten us wise one! Where have we been going wrong?

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Red meat for example is very good for you and highly nutritious,

Correct

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

it does not increase risk of cancer. Modern medicine is quite retarded when it comes to examining data. They see correlation between red meat consumption and assume red meat causes cancer. There is a correlation between having a beard and getting cancer, that doesn't mean beards cause cancer.

Incorrect, have a look up on risk factors, causes and how epidemiology stats are calculated. It's a lot more complex than a simple correlation.

Pushtrak

theg81der wrote: »

I was very sick few years back. Doctors couldn`t find out what was wrong with me and it got so bad if I ate anything I came out in a rash so I changed to a completely organic fruit and veg diet with no harsh chemical products etc got better and I`m still ok. Did it for about 2 years.

There is alot of quackery out there thou I tried so many things and they were all crap. I do believe food is medicine thou and I don`t think modern medicine has all the answers all the time.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Regression to the mean?

To clarify what Regression to the mean*, er, means is say you get, as an example a cold. You will have bad times of this cold while you have it. You'll also have bad days with it. And you'll have a time when it passes. We like to associate certain action X with outcome Y when it could just be the natural case of the illness. As in, a lot of illnesses that would only need time.

This isn't strictly related to healing, but I think it is a case that illustrates a correlation-causation idea that people can have. A friend of mine tries to pin things that happen to a God that is playing on a chessboard planning things out for us. There was a good friday, and he decided to go fish. Later that day he was feeling sick. I pointed out that if he'd had an actual burger that he'd attribute his sickness to god being pissed at him. He conceded the point. Even though I had no such illness despite not following some dietary advice from the bronze age.

Associating one thing with another is great for people. It makes us have explanations for things. Sadly, an explanation for us isn't necessarily an answer, or a realistic assessment of a situation. In scientific study, papers have to be very careful of bias. That is why one important consideration in scientific studies is to have double blind experimentation. As in, the researcher doesn't know, for instance which is the placebo as they might give off non verbal cues without intending it which might betray to the placebo group they are on placebos.

I asked in my previous about complementary medicine and if its efficacy in the mind of its advocates is related to the placebo effect. Case studies have been done with placebos. A pill isn't as effective as an injection, as one imagines the injection to be more effective at distributing the medicine. To apply this to crystals, et cetera, I would be interested in hearing how the complementary medicines might constitute an effective placebo. No more of this tarring all quackery as quackery.

* A source for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy

Jimoslimos

Pushtrak wrote: »

To apply this to crystals, et cetera, I would be interested in hearing how the complementary medicines might constitute an effective placebo. No more of this tarring all quackery as quackery.

* A source for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy

Oh I agree completely. The placebo effect is one of the most fascinating (and misunderstood) phenonemon in human health. However for complementary/alternative medicine to admit that homeopathy, faith healing, etc is having a real effect akin to a placebo would be an admission that their mumbo-jumbo pseudo-scientific explanations are incorrect.

Pushtrak

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Much of mainstream knowledge is wrong.

Hipsterism when life and death are involved isn't admirable.

Modern medicine is quite retarded when it comes to examining data.

What is your understanding of how data is examined? In what way is it flawed? And how might such flaws be corrected?

They see correlation between red meat consumption and assume red meat causes cancer. There is a correlation between having a beard and getting cancer, that doesn't mean beards cause cancer.

Do you know what confounding variables are? http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Confounding%20Variable

You aren't pointing out something that has been overlooked by science. You aren't going to bring about some shift in consciousness to research. Sorry.
Edit:

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Oh I agree completely. The placebo effect is one of the most fascinating (and misunderstood) phenonemon in human health. However for complementary/alternative medicine to admit that homeopathy, faith healing, etc is having a real effect akin to a placebo would be an admission that their mumbo-jumbo pseudo-scientific explanations are incorrect.

The only case that can be made as I see it isn't really the placebo one. It is more likely to be the expression of the emotions that one will naturally go through and the desire to try anything. It isn't rationally based at the best of times, and in trying times rationality is a hard commodity to grasp.

Edit: As is the custom, I'll link a video by Concordance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTCKuYKNqJc

desertcircus

"Modern medicine doesn't have all the answers."

This single sentence makes my blood boil. Of course it doesn't, if it did we'd be immortal. But just because our evidence-based system hasn't yet figured out a particular puzzle, that's no reason to decide that evidence doesn't matter anymore. The reason we run clinical trials is because without them, we simply don't know if a given treatment will be beneficial or harmful. Saying someone should follow diet X to treat a condition, in the absence of data on that diet's effects on that condition, is a worthless statement - and I mean in a literal sense. There is no value whatsoever in such a statement.

Scanlas The 2nd

Wheat and vegetable oils cause so much illness yet we are told to avoid red meat which is highly nutritious. It's ridiculous.

Remove grains from a persons diet and their health improves dramatically.

UL_heart_throb

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Wheat and vegetable oils cause so much illness yet we are told to avoid red meat which is highly nutritious. It's ridiculous.

Remove grains from a persons diet and their health improves dramatically.

Stop creating straw men. You are deliberately distorting the truth. I will tell the truth for everyone else's benefit.

All obese people are aware that too many calories in their diet is making them fat. All obese people know fats are big source of calories. Most obese people know if they cut out the trans fats in their diet they will make health gains.

All coeliac people know they are allergic to wheat and remove it from their diet. Most people with wheat or lactose or other intolerances know about it and make corrective measures to their diet to remove them.

Removing wheat or vegetable oil from my diet, for a significant majority of people on this island, will make negligible differences to our health.

With regard to red meat. Here are three reasons why it could be argued that it is unhealthy.

Undercooked red mean is a source of food poisoning.
Red meat is full of trans fats.
Red meat is 'difficult' to digest for many people, and it stays in the colon for long periods. Stasis in the digestive tract increases the absorption of toxins. Increased toxins can cause cancer. There is a definitive link between high red meat consumption and colorectal cancer.

Not all people that eat lots of red meat get colorectal cancer.
Not all people who get colorectal cancer eat red meat.
Not all people who get colorectal cancer are vegetarians.
Not all people who get colorectal cancer are omnivorous.

Not all people have allergies to gliadin.
Not all people have intolerances to lactose

etc.
etc.
etc.

Pushtrak

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Wheat and vegetable oils cause so much illness yet we are told to avoid red meat which is highly nutritious. It's ridiculous.

Avoid red meat? My understanding is that red meat is good for you, but not to excess. Have you seen something other than this? If so, I'd encourage you to provide a link to this.

As for wheat and vegetable oils, again, don't just make claims. Try to provide some basis from which you are holding a position.

Remove grains from a persons diet and their health improves dramatically.

I don't suppose you have any studies which will demonstrate this? You haven't even started to attempt to address my previous post here.

Scanlas The 2nd

Pushtrak wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Wheat and vegetable oils cause so much illness yet we are told to avoid red meat which is highly nutritious. It's ridiculous.

Avoid red meat? My understanding is that red meat is good for you, but not to excess. Have you seen something other than this? If so, I'd encourage you to provide a link to this.

As for wheat and vegetable oils, again, don't just make claims. Try to provide some basis from which you are holding a position.

Remove grains from a persons diet and their health improves dramatically.

I don't suppose you have any studies which will demonstrate this? You haven't even started to attempt to address my previous post here.

Check out the below links on wheat. Its accepted fact that hunter gatherers who lived side by side with farmers thousands of years ago were much healthier. They were bigger and had much less signs of illness on their skeleton, they even had better teeth.



Have fun

http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20Sword.pdf
http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/3/418.abstract
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00365520500235334?journalCode=gas
http://gut.bmj.com/content/56/6/889.extract
http://journals.lww.com/jpgn/Fulltext/2005/10000/Effect_of_Gluten_Containing_Diet_on_Serum_Zonulin.232.aspx
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/
http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0007114500000271
http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0033291700043312
http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0022172400016624
http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=fulltext&file=000220416
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=immune%20cross%20reactivity%20in%20celiac%20disease%20anti-gliadin%20antibodies%20bind%20to%20neuronal%20synapsin%20i.&cmd=correctspelling
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12409286?ordinalpos=&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.SmartSearch&linkpos=1&log$=citationsensor
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/39
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423158
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/9/2973S.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1774976/?tool=pubmed
http://www.jimmunol.org/content/176/4/2512.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2886850/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2653457/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21852815
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323203/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923621/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326203/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19332085
http://disweb.dis.unimelb.edu.au/staff/gwadley/msc/WadleyMartinAgriculture.html
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015213
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x2184e/x2184e05.htm#ant
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02506.x/abstract;jsessionid=BCB040A11084442B8198907569C101DE.d03t01
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20136989
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/116/11/2270.full.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1933252/?tool=pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

Pushtrak

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Check out the below links on wheat.

It'll take me a while to get to read all the links. Going to read the papers, and should have responded in the two hours if I can manage it. Apologies if its later than that. In the meantime, though, I'll ask do you trust the papers?

You see, you have put yourself in a somewhat awkward position. You rail against modern medicine and its methods. A silly approach in my opinion. It is good you will actually try to cite sources for your claims. It just doesn't seem sensible to play the game while trying to claim the game isn't efficient.

Could you say what it is about modern medicine that is flawed? Or in short, "What is your understanding of how data is examined? In what way is it flawed? And how might such flaws be corrected?" and if you understand about confounding variables and how studies set about trying to remove such things.

Also, specifically what complementary medicine/alternative medicine do you advocate, and for what reasons do you advocate same?

Scanlas The 2nd

Pushtrak wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Check out the below links on wheat.

It'll take me a while to get to read all the links. Going to read the papers, and should have responded in the two hours if I can manage it. Apologies if its later than that. In the meantime, though, I'll ask do you trust the papers?

You see, you have put yourself in a somewhat awkward position. You rail against modern medicine and its methods. A silly approach in my opinion. It is good you will actually try to cite sources for your claims. It just doesn't seem sensible to play the game while trying to claim the game isn't efficient.

Could you say what it is about modern medicine that is flawed? Or in short, "What is your understanding of how data is examined? In what way is it flawed? And how might such flaws be corrected?" and if you understand about confounding variables and how studies set about trying to remove such things.

Also, specifically what complementary medicine/alternative medicine do you advocate, and for what reasons do you advocate same?

On the whole modern medicine does fantastic things, and on the whole I think most alternative therapies are nonsense, but judging from various studies I've read and their methodology I wouldn't be so quick to blindly accept what im told from mainstream medicine.

There are still doctors for example who do cholesterol tests without giving a full lipid breakdown. They base their decision to prescribe statins on the overall cholesterol instead of LDL and triglycerides. It's shocking really. It wasn't long ago it was common knowledge to only eat three eggs a weak. With good studies and sound statistical inference behind the results we wouldn't have so many myths.