|
|
|
|
I went to the dr today and she gave me a prescription for lexapro 10 mg. Has anyone ever had it before?
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no can't say i have. but yet i don't even know what the name of the meds i take.
So say what you want
(You know I'm wasting all my time)
You've gotta mean it when you say what you want
(You're only safe when you're alone)
And everybody's on your mind
Saying anything to get you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is a serious antidepressent. Stay in touch with your Dr., Also Google it and read the side effects.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
What is the rationale for it, Andy?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anti depressant anti anxiety medicine
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Well, yes. It;s an ssri. what i mean is to ask if you are really depressed
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am, except the side effects are sucking ballz. it's 5:27 Am and so far I have been awake to see every hour this evening not to mention the explosive sickness that came the first three hours after taking the medicine.... I think I will call the dr tomorrow....
I have a test thursday thats like 1/3 of my grade and I think a little sleep would be helpful... this is so odd normally medicines make me pass out, I've never had this lay here staring at the cieling all night thing..
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
welcome to my world
So say what you want
(You know I'm wasting all my time)
You've gotta mean it when you say what you want
(You're only safe when you're alone)
And everybody's on your mind
Saying anything to get you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Andy,
I'm sorry to hear about the side-effects. The key thing, though, is not to give up: usually these will lessen after a while, and, more importantly, antidepressants sometimes take a few days to kick in.
I don't like them very much myself, but if you are truly depressed then they may help. If one medication does not help, then you could try others: I had some unpleasant experiences on other drugs, but eventually I found that Effexor (Venlafaxine) seemed to have the fewest side-effects.
What sort of doctor was this? I hope that you will be having follow-up therapy as well, as medication can only go so far: it treats symptoms rather than underlying problems.
Good luck, best wishes and hugs,
David
[Updated on: Wed, 11 October 2006 11:59] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy,
Sorry to hear that you're having a rough time.
Do give the doctor a call, and let him know both how the medicine has affected you and the importance of your test on Thursday.
Hugs,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just a dr dr not a psch, I asked about them up here and everyone told me not to go to them becuase they were really bad but to see someone at one of the regular dr offices because she would know best...Well see how it goes, I guess I will continue taking the medcine in the evening otherwise I'll never get to clas... I've been sleeping in like 30-40 minute intervals, I don't even know if sleeping is the right word dosing would probably be better.
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
Hi Andy.
This is a stong drug, which has withdrawal symptoms, if this is the first time on these, you should proceed with caution and be very sure that you need them.
you should talk to a specialist in the field, not just a ordinary doctor.
if you can move on with out drugs it is the way to go.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... 'cos there ARE times when you simply can't get by on your own. But I do agree with Deeej about Venlafaxine - I've been taking it for ages; it works, and it isn't addictive. (Main side effects: sweating and diarrhoea, neither of which are usually a long term problem.)
If you have a real problem, don't try to be a hard guy. Ask for help if you need it, but when it comes to antidepressants a second opinion is always a good move.
And, as a surviving depressive of many years experience, if I can help, I will!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The dr said that Effexor would be the last thing to give me because it tends to make anxiety worse. I don't care about the depression mostly there only treasting me for anxiety, I like to be able to leave my room...
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
There is no feeling worse in the entire world than when an anxiety attack looms........
I get them worse when in closed spaces, tight areas or in a press of a crowd.......
I begin to sweat, then breathing becomes hard and lastly I begin to literaly choke....
I can usualy pick up on the sweaty part and begin to find a way out of a bad situation.......
Sometimes if I have something to do that is out of my realm of experience I will just jump right to the choking part and that is alot like an asthema attack.......
believe me, i can sympathise.....
huggs..... and holds your hand the next time you have to go out and are anxious about it....
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah it's become rather unacceptable. I can't even go do things I enjoy without freaking out and doing the whole sweating can't breathe gonna be sick thing... So hopefully this shit will help a bit. I slept for most of last night so at least the side effects seem to be going down...
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Andy,
>The dr said that Effexor would be the last thing to give me because it tends to make anxiety worse. I don't care about the depression mostly there only treasting me for anxiety, I like to be able to leave my room...
I'm not sure where s/he got that, but it sounds to me like a gross simplification or perhaps even an error. I was treated using Effexor (an SNRI) for a specific anxiety disorder (obsessive compulsive disorder). When I was first put on it I was barely depressed but I was extremely anxious. It turned out to be much more effective than the SSRIs I had been on beforehand. I do not believe that I would have been put on it if that were the case, and I certainly would not have recommended it if it had not helped me!
When you talk to your doctor again, ask him/her whether s/he might have been mistaken, or at least ask him/her to qualify why it might be prescribed for OCD (and worked) but not anxiety attacks.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Have you any idea what caused the anxiety? The meds will give you a great chance to work on that and solve it.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have an idea but not a definite one. Your never online. Poo poo on you
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
Hi Andy, I was interested to hear of your anxiety problem so decided to give you this link to a technique which may be useful to you and help you to avoid becoming hooked on some nasty anti depressants.
I make no claims about the technique because I haven't tried it but it is something that you can try for yourself. It is free to download the instructions (pdf 87 pages)
http://www.emofree.com/default.htm?WT.mc_id=N_Oct9_Home
It may not be your cup of tea but I felt I would be doing you a disservice not to bring it to your attention.
It came to me on the recommendation of a friend.
I would be interested to hear your comments or those of anyone else who tries it.
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid it has seriously set off my bullshit detector -- it sounds very much like pseudoscience to me. There's nothing the matter with massage (which is what it sounds like) but it makes such absurd claims you can be pretty sure it has no scientific basis whatsoever.
For instance, the site says (http://www.emofree.com/newcomer.htm):
>And because our physical pains and diseases are so obviously connected with our emotions the following statement has also proven to be true...
> "Our unresolved negative emotions are major contributors to most physical pains and diseases."
>This common sense approach draws its power from (1) time-honored Eastern discoveries that have been around for over 5,000 years and (2) Albert Einstein, who told us back in the 1920's that everything (including our bodies) is composed of energy. These ideas have been largely ignored by Western Healing Practices and that is why EFT often works where nothing else will. It's not that EFT is so stunning (although it may certainly appear that way to you). Rather, it is because conventional healing methods have simply overlooked the obvious. You will see that clearly as you allow EFT to bring freedom into your life where you thought none was possible.
1. Conventional healing methods (especially psychiatry and psychology) most certainly do not overlook the fact that negative emotions hamper the healing process -- it is one of the most well-established effects.
There is also, even more notably, the placebo effect, which they don't mention, which means that if you think a process will work, it may well appear to. This is the basis for almost every single pseudoscientific treatment. I wonder why they don't mention it -- perhaps because if they did people would realise that this is the sole basis for their claims?
2. Whether or not atoms are made up of energy is entirely irrelevant, unless you are planning on splitting the atom or provoking a nuclear reaction of some sort: and if you can do that by rubbing yourself I do not want to be in the same continent as you at the time! This is precisely the sort of irrelevant science that should make anyone with half a clue run a mile. It's evidently there to impress and bamboozle people.
So, in summary, if you're still going to do something like this then realise:
i. that there's nothing wrong with massage, and that it does have certain minor therapeutic effects, but certainly nothing "magical",
ii. that *believing* that it will help significantly may mean that it does help to a certain extent,
but also
iii. their site is a load of claptrap, and you should certainly not give away large quantities of money to them in the pursuit of a cure.
David
P.S. Look at some of the grandiose claims on this site. That they can cure dyslexia in half an hour? Why is anyone still dyslexic, then? Why has this bloke not won a Nobel prize? http://www.emofree.com/articles.aspx?id=11
[Updated on: Fri, 13 October 2006 08:39] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Whether or not atoms are made up of energy is entirely irrelevant, unless you are planning on splitting the atom or provoking a nuclear reaction of some sort: and if you can do that by rubbing yourself I do not want to be in the same continent as you at the time!
When I and my fellow vikings were young and virile, it DID feel like an atomic explosion!
As to less common variants of massage, my physiotherapist tells me that if she had dressed in a sari, and had used subdued light, insence sticks, aromatic oils and soft music in her clinic, she would have had at least twice as many patients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
Sorry this link has seriously set off your bullshit detector but then I knew it would. Before I could reply to any of your claims it would help to know how well you researched it, how much you read and whether or not you actually tried it. As I said I haven't actually tried it myself but there may be some who would be willing.
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie said,
>Before I could reply to any of your claims it would help to know how well you researched it, how much you read and whether or not you actually tried it. As I said I haven't actually tried it myself but there may be some who would be willing.
I have not tried it. I see no need to try it, because if you read my post I am not trying to debunk the whole thing. My research extended to reading their FAQ page. This alone was enough to convince me that it is very likely that there is no scientific basis to the process. I have pointed out exactly why I think that, on the information these people themselves provide, so it should be a piece of cake for you to respond directly to the points I made if you disagree with them.
I admit that my final opinion, that the site is a load of claptrap, cannot be verified without an in depth investigation of every claim they make; I would have thought it was obvious that this was opinion, however, and not a "claim" that you need to refute. (Surely they are the ones making claims, so the burden of proof is on them, not me?)
Of course, if you have any scientific evidence to show that their system does work in the way they say it does then please feel free to provide it. Anecdotal evidence is not the same as a proper scientific study (therefore even if I did try it and it worked for me, it would not count as useful evidence): as I mentioned, ordinary massage can and does help people, and the placebo effect is very powerful. A person getting better via this method does not mean that the claimed science behind it even begins to make sense.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
I can agree with most of what you say axcept that I don't believe you can totally debunk something on the grounds of no scientific proof. I accept that that is where you and I differ.
On the anecdotal evidence, it can be used in this country as reason why a therapeutic procedure or substance can be made available to the public under approval by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (but not necessarily accepted by them).
My main point is that it can be learned and tried free of charge. If it doesn't work for the individual they then have the choice of seeing a practitioner to find out why it hasn't worked. There are thousands of practitioners worldwide and some will even give a 100% money back guarantee if not satisfied.
I would like to know of a medical practitioner who will do the same.
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... than are dreamt of in our philosophy!
I'm not really taking sides, here. I accept that the site is less than convincing and that some of the assertions it makes are not justifiable.
On the other hand, Western medical science is consistently smug and complacent in debunking therapies which do not conform to its accepted principles. More primitive societies have achieved considerable sophistication in medical treatments. Archaeological excavations in the relatively recent past have found clear evidence of trepanning (cutting a circular hole in the skull, usually to relieve pressure after a head injury) in ancient skeletons. At first such claims were ridiculed, but as forensic anthropology became more sophisticated it became possible to demonstrate conclusively that the holes were indeed the result of a surgical procedure, from which the patient had recovered. As late as the early twentieth century, country folk were treating painful joints with poultices made from shredded willow bark. Many doctors dismissed this as an 'old wives' tale' - until aspirin was discovered. Aspirin is salicylic acid, found naturally in willow bark; 'salicylic' is derived from 'salix', the Latin word for 'willow'. Maybe there are other 'old wives' tales' which we simply do not yet understand. Even the placebo effect is far from completely understood; it's certainly powerful, but much of our knowledge is empirical (based on observation) rather than theoretical.
We simply don't know enough about Chinese medicine. It seems to be almost wholly empirical, but based on many centuries of observation. And, for the Chinese at least, it works. The level of effectiveness suggests that it works in a physiologically valid way which we do not yet understand.
The boundaries of Western medical knowledge are expanding at a phenomenal rate. Treatments which are commonplace today were unimaginable half-a-century ago. It's a hugely complex subject and even the comments made above are simplifications. I'd suggest that alternative therapies which cost large sums of money are probably best avoided, but if it's cheap the patient has little to lose. If it works then, perhaps in another half-century or so, we may understand HOW it works.
To dismiss out of hand something which doesn't conveniently slot in to current thinking seems to me to be uncomfortably reminiscent of the medieval Roman Catholic Church!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no point in carrying on this conversation since you evidently haven't read my replies, or you don't understand them.
I said,
>I have not tried it. I see no need to try it, because if you read my post I am not trying to debunk the whole thing. My research extended to reading their FAQ page. This alone was enough to convince me that it is very likely that there is no scientific basis to the process.
Aussie said,
>I can agree with most of what you say axcept that I don't believe you can totally debunk something on the grounds of no scientific proof.
No... but then I didn't say that, did I?
There being no scientific basis means that it may work, it may not -- but if it does appear to, almost certainly the reasons are not those stated.
Would you employ an architect who told you, "I've never studied architecture, I don't have a clue how much load is on this wall -- but don't worry, mate, 'cos the energy locked up in the bricks will hold it up?" Maybe you would. I would not.
David
[Updated on: Sat, 14 October 2006 09:39] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not think it is smug and complacent to ask for evidence before accepting the validity of a treatment. Aspirin can easily be shown to have clear medical benefit. Surgical procedures on the head can indeed -- if done skillfully -- help people. If there is evidence in favour, a reasonable person (a reasonable sceptic) should have no problems accepting it.
If there is no evidence then the same sceptic will probably say, "I'm not convinced -- convince me." It is not true that there is nothing that will convince him, but the mistake that many people make is assuming that anecdotal evidence is clear proof, and that a sceptic is being obtuse for dismissing it and asking again for proper evidence.
I agree that many in the medical profession will not believe something even if they do see evidence for it. This is not my problem, though -- it is theirs. It is certainly not scientific.
Incidentally, if there was good evidence that many of these alternative remedies worked, you can be damn sure that they would cite it at every possible opportunity, whether they claim now (in the absence of any such evidence) "it isn't necessary" or not.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
Agreed
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.crazymeds.org/
interesting site for information on psych meds.
It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the sabre and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all
~Phil Ochs "I Aint Marching Anymore"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha! Thanks I rally liked that site, I just finished scrolling my way through it 
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I think one of the major things about both suffering from and being treated for a psychological condition is that one is happy with the treatment as the patient and that one knows one's treatment at least does no harm as the practitioner.
EFT is probably quackery. But it does seem to do no harm. It may also, if done in a caring and empathetic manner, do good simply by allowing that empathy to work. Touching and being touched is important for people. In some cases that contact may be a major component of what is needed.
Does it work in a regualr sense, a scientific sense? No idea. I also don't care. The thing is that it helps those who find it helpful - a truism.
[Updated on: Sat, 14 October 2006 20:42]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... and not just because your first paragraph suggests that you missed the point of my last post!
Of course aspirin has proven medical benefits - I didn't suggest otherwise. But before salicylic acid was identified and synthesised, the medical profession and the scientific community, almost without exception, dismissed willow-bark poultices as useless and akin to witch-doctoring. But they were wrong; they simply didn't then have the scientific knowledge to understand WHY the treatment was beneficial.
Again, with trepanning, I did not suggest that the treatment was in any way invalid. But when the archaeologists made their claims, the majority of the scientific establishment was dismissive - and the basis for dismissing the claims was the same smug complacency as was applied to the willow-bark poultice: of course it must be rubbish, because our primitive ancestors could not possibly know about such sophisticated procedures. On re-reading my previous post, I might have made my meaning more explicit - but, as with the willow-bark, it was subsequent scientific advances - this time in the field of forensic anthropolgy - that demonstrated that the claims were in fact correct.
So my underlying thesis is that it is reasonable to be sceptical, but it is not reasonably to be wholly dismissive. If you don't believe that a therapy is effective, you need not subject yourself to it. But you are simply wrong to argue that the absence of scientific proof in support of a therapy amounts to proof that it has no scientific basis. Think again of the willow-bark poultice. Before the active ingredient was identified, the treatment was dismissed - but although contemporary science didn't realise it, the treatment DID have a scientific basis - the poultice leached an analgesic into the muscles surrounding the joint.
Western medicine has moved forward at a phenomenal rate in recent years, but it still doesn't have all the answers. We are still a long way from a full understanding of the mechanics of the placebo effect. Perhaps when we achieve that understanding we will discover the value of some of what are, at present, 'alternative' therapies, or perhaps validation may come in some other way.
Let me state my case in straightforward terms.
- There are, have always been, and probably always will be charlatans in the field of medicine, offering quack remedies to gullible patients for easy profit. That does NOT justify the presumption that every alternative therapy is a quack remedy.
- History demonstrates that medical science is generally disposed to dismiss that which it does not understand. Fortunately, this is not a universal rule; a number of drugs have been discovered by seeking the active ingredient in ancient herbal remedies.
- It is statistically probable that a significant proportion of alternative therapies in vogue at a given time have no therapeutic value beyond the possibility that they may bring the placebo effect into play. There is no scientific evidence to support the argument that this is true of ALL such therapies. The historical record constitutes scientific evidence, and it clearly shows otherwise.
- It is for every individual to make his own judgement as to whether to proceed with a particular therapy. A convinced disbeliever such as yourself would not proceed, and in such cases that might be the right decision; there may well be a 'reverse placebo' effect sufficient to cancel out any benefit which might otherwise accrue. I have already suggested that expensive therapies are best avoided; those with the benefit of mankind as an object are less likely to be seeking personal riches!
- It is reasonable for someone such as yourself to be sceptical, and to emphasise the fact that there is no scientific evidence to validate a particular therapy. But you are taking a further step; you are asserting that in the absence of scientific proof a therapy is effectively useless. You even go so far as to dismiss anecdotal evidence; such evidence has led to several scientific discoveries, and it was of course anecdotal evidence which kept the willow-bark poultice in use from generation to generation. This isn't a personal attack - you should know well enough that I only attack opinions, never those who express them - but I see in your recent posts on this thread indications of the smug complacency to which I have already referred, and - perhaps more importantly - elements which amount to rudeness to those who have suggested otherwise. That disappoints me.
- And, finally, I should make it clear that - being fairly cynical myself - I have never become involved in an alternative therapy. But I am absolutely sure that if I, or someone dear to me, became terminally ill before reaching their life expectancy, I would not hesitate to consider any therapy which might be beneficial - even though I might suspect that the major benefit would be an improvement in mental wellbeing in the hope of a positive outcome. Science is not an absolute; it changes with time. Let every man enjoy such comfort as he can find.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are also missing the point of my posts, Cossie, so I will have to take issue with you!
You said,
>So my underlying thesis is that it is reasonable to be sceptical, but it is not reasonably to be wholly dismissive.
I am not being wholly dismissive. My original problem with the site was that they talk rubbish on their FAQ page. True, this alone makes it exceedingly unlikely that I would wish to have anything to do with them, but it does not mean that whatever process they expound has no medical value whatsoever.
>If you don't believe that a therapy is effective, you need not subject yourself to it.
Perfectly true.
>But you are simply wrong to argue that the absence of scientific proof in support of a therapy amounts to proof that it has no scientific basis.
I'm not saying that -- if that's what it sounds like I am saying then I have obviously failed to convey my thoughts on the matter. Let's take some of the things I have said on the specific example that Aussie gave:
>I am not trying to debunk the whole thing
I admit that I cannot say whether it works or it does not, because I have not tried it.
>it is very likely that there is no scientific basis to the process
I meant here that the scientific basis they supply is clearly very strange -- therefore for all intents and purposes there isn't a known one. I do not mean that their claims could not possibly be true (though I admit I seriously doubt it).
>There being no scientific basis means that it may work, it may not -- but if it does appear to, almost certainly the reasons are not those stated.
This is an extension of the same thought. There is no scientific basis that they can propose that makes sense within the boundaries of science as I know it. In other words, talking about "energies" and bringing Einstein into the matter does not help unless those doing so actually understand what they are talking about. If it does work, then I am perfectly happy to accept that it does work and that a real scientific explanation does exist. I do think it is very, very unlikely, in this case, that the actual explanation will correspond to their suggested "scientific" explanation.
>Anecdotal evidence is not the same as a proper scientific study
This is perfectly true. It does not command the same level of trust.
You said,
>Of course aspirin has proven medical benefits - I didn't suggest otherwise. But before salicylic acid was identified and synthesised, the medical profession and the scientific community, almost without exception, dismissed willow-bark poultices as useless and akin to witch-doctoring. But they were wrong; they simply didn't then have the scientific knowledge to understand WHY the treatment was beneficial.
I do not have to apologise for them. If there was convincing evidence to show that it did work -- whether they knew how the method worked or not -- then they should have accepted it as fact; and then formed theories to explain why. This would be scientific.
>But when the archaeologists made their claims, the majority of the scientific establishment was dismissive - and the basis for dismissing the claims was the same smug complacency as was applied to the willow-bark poultice: of course it must be rubbish, because our primitive ancestors could not possibly know about such sophisticated procedures.
Again, I do not have to apologise for the scientific community. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, science forms theories to suit facts, and should not twist facts (demonstrable evidence, if it exists) to suit theories. Scientific observations do not have to be understandable at the time they are observed to be scientifically valid. Scientific method is sound. Individual scientists (perhaps all scientists) have agendas.
>So my underlying thesis is that it is reasonable to be sceptical, but it is not reasonably to be wholly dismissive.
Absolutely right, but I was not being wholly dismissive. I did point out at a later stage that when I said "the site is a load of claptrap" I meant that only in my opinion it was -- neither I nor science cannot say with certainty that it is.
>Think again of the willow-bark poultice. Before the active ingredient was identified, the treatment was dismissed - but although contemporary science didn't realise it, the treatment DID have a scientific basis - the poultice leached an analgesic into the muscles surrounding the joint.
Okay, fine.
>- There are, have always been, and probably always will be charlatans in the field of medicine, offering quack remedies to gullible patients for easy profit. That does NOT justify the presumption that every alternative therapy is a quack remedy.
I do not disagree that quacks may come up with something that has actual medical benefit. I do think it harms their case significantly if they make silly statements about "energies" on their web site, because they are at serious risk of putting off anyone who has a slight understanding of any of the scientific principles they mention.
>- History demonstrates that medical science is generally disposed to dismiss that which it does not understand. Fortunately, this is not a universal rule; a number of drugs have been discovered by seeking the active ingredient in ancient herbal remedies.
It should not be disposed in such a way. The goal of science is to observe the world around us, and then provide theories to explain why it works that way. It is not the goal of science (or me) to dismiss everything that cannot be understood. Rather, it is the goal to make that which is not understood understood. Perhaps I have not been very clear on this, but then until your last post I was not aware that I was participating in a debate!
>- It is statistically probable that a significant proportion of alternative therapies in vogue at a given time have no therapeutic value beyond the possibility that they may bring the placebo effect into play. There is no scientific evidence to support the argument that this is true of ALL such therapies. The historical record constitutes scientific evidence, and it clearly shows otherwise.
Agreed. But again, you don't need to state this to me. We were talking about one particular case originally, so the scope was much smaller. I was not attempting to brand ALL alternative medicines rubbish. But it is very much up to the peddlers of these medicines to prove that they work, and not for those of us who are sceptical to prove that they do not.
>- It is for every individual to make his own judgement as to whether to proceed with a particular therapy. A convinced disbeliever such as yourself would not proceed, and in such cases that might be the right decision; there may well be a 'reverse placebo' effect sufficient to cancel out any benefit which might otherwise accrue. I have already suggested that expensive therapies are best avoided; those with the benefit of mankind as an object are less likely to be seeking personal riches!
Agreed. Though, for the reasons outlined above, I'm not totally convinced in my disbelief; I agree that for day-to-day purposes I probably am.
>- It is reasonable for someone such as yourself to be sceptical, and to emphasise the fact that there is no scientific evidence to validate a particular therapy.
Thank you.
>But you are taking a further step; you are asserting that in the absence of scientific proof a therapy is effectively useless.
No, I am not. I've said in a previous post that a particular therapy may work or it may not. Where there is good scientific evidence you can be fairly sure that it will, however. If there is not, you cannot be certain of anything. I do think that if a therapy does have a physical rather than psychological basis then it should be possible to observe it in test conditions, even if there is no known explanation.
>You even go so far as to dismiss anecdotal evidence; such evidence has led to several scientific discoveries, and it was of course anecdotal evidence which kept the willow-bark poultice in use from generation to generation.
Once there is anecdotal evidence, this is an opportunity to research further, isolate what it is that has caused the supposed effect, and then test again in controlled conditions. This will hopefully supply better evidence. It should not be discounted out of hand: anecdotal evidence is better than none at all. It is not always right, though: for instance, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that any number of varying and different gods, devils, demons, ghosts have existed over human history, yet many or most are mutually exclusive.
>This isn't a personal attack - you should know well enough that I only attack opinions, never those who express them - but I see in your recent posts on this thread indications of the smug complacency to which I have already referred, and - perhaps more importantly - elements which amount to rudeness to those who have suggested otherwise. That disappoints me.
I also see evidence in your own post for invalid assumptions about my perspective on this issue! I appreciate I was rude to Aussie, and I regret that. Beyond that I do not see my position as invalid.
>- And, finally, I should make it clear that - being fairly cynical myself - I have never become involved in an alternative therapy. But I am absolutely sure that if I, or someone dear to me, became terminally ill before reaching their life expectancy, I would not hesitate to consider any therapy which might be beneficial - even though I might suspect that the major benefit would be an improvement in mental wellbeing in the hope of a positive outcome. Science is not an absolute; it changes with time. Let every man enjoy such comfort as he can find.
Okay. Scientific method is absolute. Science is, of course, not. Science should always be able to take on new ideas and new theories when there is good reason to include them. But to do that, you have to subject them to scientific method otherwise you end up with a general mish-mash that is not self-consistent.
I don't deny anyone the right to follow whatever medicine they choose, but I would of course urge people to try proper medicine first. It is not always right, but at least it strives for scientific validity. Most alternative medicines are alternative medicines because they cannot gain the necessary evidence required to qualify as conventional (scientific) medicine. Those types you mention, like aspirin, have become part of conventional medicine because they can be shown to have a clear medical benefit. If they work, other, non-conventional therapies should be able to as well. If they don't, well -- perhaps there's a reason they still hang at the fringes of validity.
Finally, I ought to say again that science does not need to explain something for it to be accepted as true. This means that if evidence can be gained, an explanation is not required. Explanations can follow later.
David
P.S. James Randi (www.randi.org) is offering a million USD to anyone who can demonstrate anything that goes against established scientific principles (all sorts of alternative medicines included). He has never had to give it away. This would seem to indicate that it is not very often that science gets it utterly and totally wrong these days.
[Updated on: Sun, 15 October 2006 18:40] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie,
I'm sorry for sounding rude or arrogant in my last reply to you. I still stand by the meaning of the words, but I ought to have phrased them less aggressively.
Best wishes,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
Deeej, apology accepted. I also erred in not correctly reading your words before I replied, sorry also.
I hadn't realised the link would cause such a stir. As I explained I wasn't vouching for any of the claims merely that it was there for anyone to try if they so wished. To me if anyone gets help from the placebo effect then that is great.
BTW if you have the same model bullshit detector as me( model BD1796Y) you may like to know that the knob 3rd from the rhs is the sensitivity control and if you turn it 2 clicks to the left it cuts out most of the requirement for scientific proof. In your case you may only need to go 1 click. Also one of the knobs is the humour control but the labels have all worn off mine so you may need to try them all.
Hope you are having a great day and thanks for the time and effort you put into stating your case.
Aussie
[Updated on: Sun, 15 October 2006 21:54] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect my humour-response system is occasionally a little off-kilter -- sometimes I inadvertently turn the knob the wrong way and switch on the sarcasm emittor instead.
I will give your bullshit-detection knob a thorough and rigorous inspection for the purposes, of course, of personal calibration.
Best wishes,
Deeeeej
[Updated on: Sun, 15 October 2006 22:16] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
See, it's working better already , you must have hit on the right one.
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
BTW the correct spelling is atrophy, which is what happens if you don't use it.
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very clever.
[Updated on: Sun, 15 October 2006 23:03] |
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
