Call Out: PsychOUT: A Conference for Organizing Resistance Against Psychiatry

315 posts / 0 new
Last post
Goggles Pissano

Sineed wrote:

Rather, he formed his own fringe journal and fringe community where he can brood about the conspiracy of mainstream psychiatry and rail against the dogma of rigorous scientific research.

I think the most important issue here is the blatent hypocracy with your "scientific research" argument.  While you are so critical of orthomolecular medicines' perceived lack of empirical evidence, you remain conspicuously complacent with the very same lack of it in the mainstream medical community. RDA's were not based on any empirical evidence, just to use one example.

As for conspiracy theories...what about political lobbying?  In the United States, three of the five biggest political lobbyists in terms of dollars spent are pharmaceutical companies, private hospital insurance companies, and the American Medical Association.  This alone speaks volumes about them pushing their agendas forward at the expense of those whose views conflict with their profit motives.

And, I am very sorry if you trivialize this as being a mere conspiracy theory. The reality is that vitamins are safer, cheaper, and more effective than the toxic, patented alternatives forced through the regular channels.  Otherwise, they would not be spending the volumes of money they do in the United States alone.  Just perhaps, these organizations see Orthomolecular Medicine as a genuine and sincere threat.

.................

And, as for Dr. Hoffer being a quack,,,

He is the only doctor known who has had an undergraduate degree in Agriculture Nutritional Sciences. He said himself in his video, Feed Your Head, that I have met many other doctors from all around the world.  I cannot say that no one else has ever had an undergraduate background in nutritional sciences, but I have never met anyone,

Dr. Hoffer never treated people with psychotherapy. He said that when people get well, they don't need psychotherapy.  He would see people on average about 2 - 3 times.  The first time was the original consultation.  The second one was a 6 week follow up.  If someone was not good after 3-6 months, they were to come back.  Many did not need that many treatments.

Having said this, he had a 2 1/2 year waiting list to get in to see him.  I don't know of any other psychiatrists who have these kinds of waiting lists to get in.

Dr. Linus Pauling is a Nobel Laureate in medical research.  Perhaps he is more up on empirical evidence and the rigours of scientific protocol than most other doctors and medical researchers in their fields.

Thier names and their records speak for themselves.  So does the amount of political lobbying by the AMA, the private hopital insurers, and the Pharmaceutical industry who would actively censor, and be allowed to censor anything that worked contrary to their corporate interests.

Goggles Pissano

Have you ever heard of cold uticaria? I haden't either until I met one. They are allergic to cold temperatures. They have antibodies against cold anything.  Many cannot go outside without wearing thermo space suits.

There are three people in my province who have this...maybe 50-100 in total in Canada.  It is a serious problem for those who have it, but there is no money for drug companies to look for a cure.  There is nothing in it for them.

BTW, Dr. Hoffer does have a remedy for it that works. Go figure.

jas

Sineed wrote:

Dr. Steven Novella wrote:
...

Oh, look. Another innocent bystander "skeptic".

No, wait: he's the president and co-founder of the New England "Skeptical" Society, and even has his own "skeptic's" blog. He must be one of that new breed of scientist/"skeptics" who just happen to have tons of personal time to investigate and hunt down "quacks". No agenda there, no sirree.

(Do you ever wonder why so much "debunking" comes from self-professed "skeptics" rather than from the actual scientific community? I don't.)

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

jas wrote:

Sineed wrote:

Dr. Steven Novella wrote:
...

Oh, look. Another innocent bystander "skeptic".

No, wait: he's the president and co-founder of the New England "Skeptical" Society, and even has his own "skeptic's" blog. He must be one of that new breed of scientist/"skeptics" who just happen to have tons of personal time to investigate and hunt down "quacks". No agenda there, no sirree.

(Do you ever wonder why so much "debunking" comes from self-professed "skeptics" rather than from the actual scientific community? I don't.)

http://medicine.yale.edu/neurology/people/steven_novella-2.profile

He's an MD. A board certified neurologist. Part of the Faculty of Medicine at Yale. Perhaps he feels that the promotion of evidence based medicine is important and that people shouldn't be subjected to treatments that have no evidence in their favour.

Such a monster.

jas

Timebandit wrote:
He's an MD. A board certified neurologist.

And he's a "skeptic".

Timebandit wrote:
Perhaps he feels that the promotion of evidence based medicine is important and that people shouldn't be subjected to treatments that have no evidence in their favour. Such a monster.

Perhaps he does. So much so that he writes a blog and co-founds a society, dedicated to rooting out "quacks." Such a hero.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

So why does looking at a claim, seeking out evidence for and against and deciding the veracity of that claim rub you the wrong way so much?

I wouldn't necessarily characterize Novella as a hero, but he is a highly qualified medical professional who is passionate about his field and seeks to promote treatments that can really be shown to work. Why does that make him such. A bad guy, in your estimation?

oldgoat

This reminds me a bit of the vaccination debates, and the great chiropractic imbroglio Michelle and I had the fun of moderating (not!) years back.  It will stop when everyone gets tired or the universe gives way to entropy, whichever comes first, and not an inch will be given on either side.

Sineed

I'll start some fresh vaccination and chiropractic threads if you want, oldgoat Laughing

jas wrote:
(Do you ever wonder why so much "debunking" comes from self-professed "skeptics" rather than from the actual scientific community? I don't.)

Many skeptics are from the scientific community, like Timebandit mentioned about Dr. Novella.

At Science Based Medicine:

Quote:
David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS is asurgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer Liaison Physician as well as an Associate Professor of Surgery and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University.

Quote:
Joseph Albietz, M.D. is an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Colorado, Denver, and The Children’s Hospital. In addition to his service in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, his time is divided between translational research in the field of pediatric pulmonary hypertension and medical education where he acts as the pediatric intensive care associate fellowship director.

Quote:
Kimball Atwood IV, MD is a practicing anesthesiologist who is also board-certified in internal medicine. He had been interested in pseudoscience for years, but became active in 2000 after a nursing conference at his own hospital advocated Therapeutic Touch, Guided Imagery, and several other implausible practices as effective treatments for pleural mesothelioma. Shortly thereafter he became a member of the Massachusetts Special Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medical Practitioners, and subsequently wrote its Minority Report opposing licensure for naturopaths.

Quote:
Harriet Hall, MD also known as The SkepDoc, is a retired family physician who writes about pseudoscience and questionable medical practices. She received her BA and MD from the University of Washington, did her internship in the Air Force (the second female ever to do so),  and was the first female graduate of the Air Force family practice residency at Eglin Air Force Base. During a long career as an Air Force physician, she held various positions from flight surgeon to DBMS (Director of Base Medical Services) and did everything from delivering babies to taking the controls of a B-52. She retired with the rank of Colonel.  She recently published Women Aren’t Supposed to Fly: The Memoirs of a Female Flight Surgeon.

etc.

As for me, I'm not a scientist but I've been a practicing pharmacist for 26 years. I have been dismayed by the rise of complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM, for short), and have seen people come to harm from its use. For instance, I encountered a woman in hospital who didn't believe in modern medicine, and refused dialysis for her kidney failure, instead asking for "holistic" medicine that "treats the whole patient" (whatever that means). She quickly died. Then there was a neighbour, an elderly woman who slipped and fell on the ice, fracturing her wrist. She believed in homeopathic remedies and scorned "allopathic" medicine, and didn't seek treatment. Her wrist healed crooked and she couldn't use her hand properly for the remainder of her life.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine is big business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiron

Quote:
Boiron (EuronextBOI) is a manufacturer of homeopathic products, headquartered in France and with an operating presence in 59 countries worldwide. It is the largest manufacturer of homeopathic products in the world. In 2004, it employed a workforce of 2,779 and had a turnover of  313 million. It is currently a member of the CAC Small 90 stock index.

jas

Timebandit wrote:
So why does looking at a claim, seeking out evidence for and against and deciding the veracity of that claim rub you the wrong way so much?

It's partly the debunker/"skeptic"'s impatience to label things and people they don't like. My experience reading or encountering self-described "skeptics" is they often have a personal chip on their shoulder and seem more interested in discrediting than in "deciding the veracity of claims" as you put it. For example, Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch, who turned out to be a quack himself. There's also a really annoying tendency among debunker/"skeptics" to validate their own anecdotal evidence (see Sineed just above) and to discount that of others. But mostly it's their adherence to this narrow and utterly unfounded idea of what is valid knowledge and experience.

I am not here to defend Hoffer. I am here because I'm interested in Goggles' statement that she experienced success with vitamin therapy for schizophrenia. And that she is not the only one. If you're so interested and so anxious to label something quackery, then your next debunker task should be to investigate why quackery works in so many cases. And to compare the success/failure rate to that of the medical approaches that you claim are the only valid ones.

 

Goggles Pissano

Thanks Jas.

Sineed

jas wrote:

I am not here to defend Hoffer. I am here because I'm interested in Goggles' statement that she experienced success with vitamin therapy for schizophrenia. And that she is not the only one. If you're so interested and so anxious to label something quackery, then your next debunker task should be to investigate why quackery works in so many cases. And to compare the success/failure rate to that of the medical approaches that you claim are the only valid ones.

That work has been done. When I was a graduate student at U of T and gained access to medical databases, I discovered a wealth of information on all sorts of alt med treatments: homeopathy, chiropractic practice, traditional Chinese medicine, ayurvedic, vitamins for various things, etc. In my research I found that alt med treatments were either weakly positive with small groups of subjects, or were not statistically significant from placebo.

Things get debunked over and over, and proponents of wacky theories move the goal posts by fabricating more "evidence." It's like playing Whack-A-Mole with the entire internet. 

The only people benefitting are those selling alt med products. Through blogs where they present discredited or pre-scientific views of human physiology, they offer theories of disease whose remedies happen to match the products they sell. And I suspect we've had a few of them around babble over the years.

Orthomolecular treatments for schizophrenia have been studied and found to be ineffective. When Dr. Hoffer proposed the pyroluria hypothesis upon which orthomolecular treatments are based, it was an interesting idea whose merit was unknown. He studied it, and it turned out to be invalid. But instead of moving onto other things, he cooked up a whole conspiracy theory around Mainstream Psychiatry trying to discredit him and founded a journal based on his discredited hypothesis.  

I mean, if your idea doesn't work out, you move on. But Dr. Hoffer wouldn't or couldn't do it.

 

jas

Sineed wrote:

That work has been done. When I was a graduate student at U of T and gained access to medical databases, I discovered a wealth of information on all sorts of alt med treatments: homeopathy, chiropractic practice, traditional Chinese medicine, ayurvedic, vitamins for various things, etc. In my research I found that alt med treatments were either weakly positive with small groups of subjects, or were not statistically significant from placebo.

And did you publish this anywhere? Or do we just take your word for it?

Sineed wrote:
The only people benefitting are those selling alt med products.

And the people benefiting from the treatments. Did you forget that part? Or do you think they are just imagining it?

Sineed wrote:
I mean, if your idea doesn't work out, you move on. But Dr. Hoffer wouldn't or couldn't do it.

Neither, apparently, could the people lining up to enter treatment with him.

Just curious: if Hoffer was universally declared a quack, wouldn't he have lost his licence?

Goggles Pissano

Someone brought up the issue of HIV and AIDS on this thread, which is getting off topic, but I would like to comment. 

I commented on another thread about 'Someone Finding a Cure for AIDS". If I hurt or offended anybody with my viewpoints on HIV, then I am truly sorry.  I never at any time meant to be hurtful or offensive to anyone.  I am beginning to believe that this backlash from some of you stems from my statements I made on that other thread.

I brought up the issue of Peter Duesberg on that thread because if people are making claims that they have a cure for HIV, then perhaps it is a good idea to look at other ideas like his to determine whether HIV was the cause of AIDS to begin with.  If Duesberg is correct in his theories, then the door is open for all kinds of opportunists to make bogus claims of having found a cure and raking in the profits at the expense of innocent people.  That was my only reason for commenting on that thread.  I don't want to see people get hurt.  I always encourage others to examine as many avenues as possible to avoid being victimized or revictimized.

I am aware that there are people who are HIV positive or others who have friends or loved ones who are HIV positive and are on these anti-retroviral medications, and that they believe that these medications are their lifeline.  I don't want to interfere with any of that.

And, if I man went to South Africa and started raking in huge sums of money selling his line of vitamins, then that is very highly unethical.  I do not approve of that any more than most people would.

One has to also be very careful going on an anti psychiatry thread and talking orthomolecular medicine.  It works fine if you are not on medications like I was.  If you have a doctor that will taper you off the medications as you get well, then that is fine too.  However, almost all psychiatrists will not taper people off medications, so as a person gets well with the vitamins and change in diet, the medications start having a reverse effect.  People start getting very ill on the medications because they don't need them. The doctors then tell the patients that they are sick and it is the vitamins and not the drugs, and people then are trapped within the medical system that wants them kept there for life.

I ran underground.  Most people are not so lucky.  People wanting to get off the medications have to figure out that they need to taper themselves off themselves and do so discretely, or stay within the system.

Goggles Pissano

jas wrote:

Just curious: if Hoffer was universally declared a quack, wouldn't he have lost his licence?

Exactly!

He also worked full time at his practice until his late 80s, and wrote many books in his late 80s. He practiced what he preached and took his vitamins religiously. I think he knew what he was doing.

Goggles Pissano

It is very easy to set up orthomolecular studies to fail. 

It took me 5 1/2 months to fully recover, and despite my wishing to think otherwise, I was not a severe case when compared to very severe cases.  The boy who was paralyzed from the neck down in the hospital, the one who I told his mother to sneak the vitamins in and to not tell anyone about, he took 8 weeks, from mid April 2009 to mid June 2009 to get his nervous system back.

It is like if you have a cold, you know that you are going to be sick for one week to ten days.  If you have the flu, then you are going to be sick for 2 to 3 weeks, maybe more.  If you have pneumonia, you can expect to be sick for 6 weeks.  The body takes time to heal.

Prescription drugs often have an immediate effect on people.  People can observe the difference right away.  You do not get that with vitamins.  The body ALWAYS takes time to heal and everyone heals at a different rate.

Dr. Hoffer successfully treated very chronic and serious cases.  Many of them had to be worked with for years.

So...if you want to debunk orthomolecular treatments, then set up the tests for short term intervals.  You are guaranteed to see them all fail. I can personally guarantee it.

If a drug company puts a patent in on a drug, and they have invested huge sums of money to secure that market share for themselves, they don't want a temporary short term market base for their product.  That would severely cut into their profit margins.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Jas, the studies Sineed is referring to are published and peer reviewed. Many of them are available in journals - much of the time you can find the abstracts in online databases.

About the quote about Barrett - that quote is used out of context on innumerable alt med sites. What it doesn't make clear is that when Barrett entered his profession in 1961, there was no such thing as a board certification exam. He was in active practice for 33 years. He was over 60 and an experienced physician when he retired, and his medical license was never revoked, but was put into "active retired" status when he decided to leave his practice and focus on what he refers to a his journalistic work.

It's not that Barrett never makes a mistake - he has at times been too hasty in some of his research in his writing, although not often. But you can't say that he hasn't had a long medical career that seems to have been without major blemish.

It's possible that some who are skeptical of alt med are favoring their own anecdotes, although I can't say I have observed this without those anecdotes being backed up by additional data.

Are people who use these remedies and claim cure imagining it? That's a difficult question. I think it is more complicated than imagining. The placebo effect does have an effect, but it tends to be fairly short term, so
While the patient may feel better for a time, it isn't reliable as a treatment for ongoing conditions. I made a doc on MS a while ago and it was interesting how placebo manifested in patients with that disease.

Goggles Pissano

Sineed wrote:

I discovered a wealth of information on all sorts of alt med treatments: homeopathy, chiropractic practice, traditional Chinese medicine, ayurvedic, vitamins for various things, etc. In my research I found that alt med treatments were either weakly positive with small groups of subjects, or were not statistically significant from placebo.

First of all, I went to a chiropractor regarding my car accident, and I swear by them.  I never used to, but I know that they work from personal experience.

I also had three long sessions with an accupuncturist.  After the third treatment, I felt an energy field open up on my left side. I could actually feel it.  I went home to visit my mother for the weekend, and her cat would not leave my left side of my body alone.  Whenever I sat in the recliner, she was there.  I finally had to push her off because I was getting sore, and I moved her to my right side.  She got right back up and went back to the left side.  She even slept with me that night, on the left side of my chest.  She never sleeps with people aside from this.

I went to work perplexed and told them about the accupuncture and how my mother's cat was so sticky.  They told me that they didn't want to hear about my sticky kitty.  They said it sounded like a personal problem. But I told them that she was so sticky.

And she was...

So there.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

You know, there just isn't a civil way to respond to that last comment, so I don't think I will.

If you're asking me to accept what you're saying completely uncritically and against good evidence, then no, I don't think I can entirely.  I wouldn't call you a liar, either.  I'd just chalk it up as an unknown.

 

Goggles Pissano

Timebandit wrote:
Are people who use these remedies and claim cure imagining it? That's a difficult question. I think it is more complicated than imagining. The placebo effect does have an effect, but it tends to be fairly short term, so While the patient may feel better for a time, it isn't reliable as a treatment for ongoing conditions. I made a doc on MS a while ago and it was interesting how placebo manifested in patients with that disease.

You are going to have to operationally define then short term.  I started my self-prescribed treatment program in Feb 1998, and was symptom free in July 1998.  You are then telling me that 14 1/2 years is short term?

You have never met me personally, so if not a placebo, then I am a liar? 

Now, let me get this correct...You are a film maker, and your graduate studies were in Fine Arts?  That over-rides Dr. Hoffer's qualifications as a psychiatrist for 65 years, and an undergraduate degree in Agrigultural Nutritional Sciences and Dr. Linus Pauling, a Nobel Lauriate in Medical Science? Personally, I think you like to flatter yourself and hear yourself talk.

Before you proceed any further, how many biological science courses have you taken, and how many classes have you taken in the ethics of medical research?  I think we have a right to know. Simply having access to databases during graduate studies does not qualify you for understanding the substance of those databases nor the politics of medical research or anything for that matter. You had access to databases.  Wow!

Goggles Pissano

Again, what are your qualifications in medical research beyond having access to databases?

Goggles Pissano

Timebandit wrote:

I'd just chalk it up as an unknown.

 

Just like your qualifications in medical research.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Ah, you've changed your last line.  The convention is to use "ETA" (edited to add) when adding after the fact so the thread still makes sense if you've been replied to in the meantime.

I am indeed a documentary filmmaker.  I make docs in the areas of social/political, environmental and science, including medical science.  Prior to this I worked as a claims adjudicator for a WCB.

Now, since I'm not proposing to mount any studies or treat anyone myself, I don't think I need a science degree.  However, over a period of years where reading and reviewing medical reports was part of my job, and over several years as a researcher (ETA to clarify: researching documentary, not conducting scientific research) and writer of content communicating science, I've learned how to read studies and having interviewed and spent time with people who have greater expertise in their fields as contributors to my docs, I've learned a few things.  Many people who communicate science are not scientists themselves.  It doesn't mean they can't read - and you will note that I haven't denigrated anyone's ability to read or understand any of the information posted here. 

I don't claim that my work or ideas override Hoffer's or Pauling's (as a physicist he was brilliant, the vitamin stuff... not so much).  Not at all.  It's the other professionals that have tested the claims made by both, their peers (which I do not claim to be), and found that they did not hold up under scrutiny.  The databases show that the work looking into these hypotheses was done.  It didn't work out. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Goggles Pissano wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

I'd just chalk it up as an unknown.

 

Just like your qualifications in medical research.

And yours, I presume.  Stalemate?

 

Goggles Pissano

Timebandit wrote:

Many people who communicate science are not scientists themselves.  It doesn't mean they can't read - and you will note that I haven't denigrated anyone's ability to read or understand any of the information posted here. 

I have not accused anyone of being unable to read nor understand. I have accused people of REFUSING TO READ and refusing to examine alternative arguments and for hastily spouting the same old crap over and over and over again ad nauseum without doing primary research when challenged to do so.  And, there is a difference.

And, for not having a science background, you have very definite ideas on what works and what doesn't. Legal arguments with WCB used to discredit WCB claimants somehow does nothing to reassure me of your unbiased depth on these issues.

You don't think you need a science degree since you are not mounting any studies or trying to treat anyone yourself.  However, you are working overtime with zeal to discredit me, to discredit my life basically, and to discredit the work and successful treatments of people who devoted their lives to see things work. I think you need to be more than a film maker, and to have a much broader range of the subject matter  and a deeper knowledge of those studies to be able to make those determinations beyond your former capacity of trying to save money for the WCB.

I also think that when you start making authoritive assertions about the placebo effect or illusions, then you have over stepped your boundaries as a filmmaker, a filmmaker without a science degree.

 

6079_Smith_W

Without getting into the specific case here, I think it is with good reason that some people are highly mistrusting of the medical establishment (at least those within it who are scornful of things which fall outside the scope of their research). 

I don't think quacks can hold a candle to them when it comes to spinning things, frankly. The most recent case that raised my eyebrows - when Manitoba and Labrador shut down breast thermography clinics a few months ago.

The quote from the head of the Canadian Association of Radiologists (via CBC):

"These women have a significant number of false positives, so then they are coming and they are clogging up my ultrasound list and my mammogram list and then displacing the people who really need to have the test, who are waiting there,” Wadden said.

Sure makes it sound like snake oil. But how is it different from other screening tests which can have great numbers of false positives? And as for clogging up the line, my partner's obstetrician bullied and shamed us into her getting an amnio (using this same abolutist language - that only that test would tell the truth) even though several ultrasound technicians saw nothing to be concerned about.

Just one example of many.

Sorry for the diversion. But to hear some you'd think there wasn't a doctor or nurse in the world who would go anywhere near any alternative therapies. And sorry, I know enough of them to know that is not true, and I don't think that can be put down to placebo. Bottom line for me is that I do pay attention to medical research. But frankly, if I see something that falls outside of that but which seems to work, I don't see the problem.

I for one am glad midwives, denturists, and many others bucked the system long enough to see their practices accepted (and in some cases found to be superior to) the standard medical model.

(edit)

Actually, that wasn't the latest time I heard something eye-raising. That was this afternoon on Cross Country Checkup when a woman talked about her mother's long and painful death, and how doctors advised against an end-of-life agreement between the two of them because they said her experience had a lot to teach others going through the same condition.

Just in case there was any doubt that some medical professionals can put self-interest above the interest of their patients just as much as quacks and con-artists.

 

 

 

 

jas

Timebandit wrote:
Jas, the studies Sineed is referring to are published and peer reviewed. Many of them are available in journals - much of the time you can find the abstracts in online databases.

Then it shouldn't be hard to cite one, right?

Sorry to play this game, but you and Sineed rather started it, didn't you? You can't discount someone's first hand experience, which is corroborated by others' first hand experience, refer vaguely to "studies that were done" to imply why those first hand experiences must be wrong, and then hide behind anonymous authority. If you want to play the credibility game, pony up.

Timebandit wrote:
The placebo effect does have an effect, but it tends to be fairly short term, so While the patient may feel better for a time, it isn't reliable as a treatment for ongoing conditions. I made a doc on MS a while ago and it was interesting how placebo manifested in patients with that disease.

How did the placebo effect manifest in patients who were taking non-alternative treatments? You researched that, right?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

jas wrote:

Timebandit wrote:
Jas, the studies Sineed is referring to are published and peer reviewed. Many of them are available in journals - much of the time you can find the abstracts in online databases.

Then it shouldn't be hard to cite one, right?

Sorry to play this game, but you and Sineed rather started it, didn't you? You can't discount someone's first hand experience, which is corroborated by others' first hand experience, refer vaguely to "studies that were done" to imply why those first hand experiences must be wrong, and then hide behind anonymous authority. If you want to play the credibility game, pony up. 

Right.  And we can't be sure evolution is true because nobody was there to see it happen.  And quantum physics?  I'd go do the math myself if I were you, don't go trusting those pointy-headed charlatans in their ivory towers.

The fact is, there are things that we accept from authoritative sources all the time.  We have to.  There is no possible way to empirically test everything yourself and you shouldn't need to.  If multiple groups of qualified individuals with the means and access to test a hypothesis and consistently find it doesn't work, I'm going to go with that rather than the creator of the hypothesis who takes his marbles, goes home and refuses to revise or show us differently. 

Sineed pointed out two studies and IIRC, she provided links.  Have a boo.

Quote:

Timebandit wrote:
The placebo effect does have an effect, but it tends to be fairly short term, so While the patient may feel better for a time, it isn't reliable as a treatment for ongoing conditions. I made a doc on MS a while ago and it was interesting how placebo manifested in patients with that disease.

How did the placebo effect manifest in patients who were taking non-alternative treatments? You researched that, right?

Placebo can manifest in any treatment.  Usually there is a small but measureable response whether the medication is working or not.  How they determine that it's not placebo is by waiting until the placebo wears off.  If the medication isn't working, it wears off at about the same point and level as the placebo group.  If it is working, you will eventually see results in the group that are different and/or of higher frequency than the placebo group - and both groups will show different results than a control group, who do not get the medication or placebo.

Anyway, placebo itself can be a very complicated subject and is off topic.  I'd encourage you to go read up on it, it's quite fascinating.  Especially as it complicates diagnosis and assessment in an intermittent disease like MS.  But again, off topic.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

ryanw wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Many people who communicate science are not scientists themselves.  It doesn't mean they can't read - and you will note that I haven't denigrated anyone's ability to read or understand any of the information posted here. 

actually that's exactly what has happened for several pages, apparently its not enough for some people to shout SCIENCE!! and be done with it. we have seen aggressive persons unwilling to recuse themselves from the discussion, patronizing eyerolling to others persons first hand experiences. This behavior would never be allowed in any of the other Charter protected topics.

members by all means continue to dictate there can be no higher hope for the psychological unwell than to have some 54.2% chance for moderate improvement while accepting the 80+% risk for damaging side effects

 

Interesting stats.  Where are they from?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Okay, GP, you're now engaging in personal attacks.  When I was with WCB, my job was not to save anyone money nor was it to "discredit" injured workers.  As an adjudicator, I accepted about 95% of claims because they were clear cut.  Brick falls on foot, fracture, 8 weeks off, done.  The other 5% were more difficult - no specific injury, so repetitive strains, etc, where more information was needed.  I would say that only about 2% at most of what went across my desk were denied.  I very much resent the implication that because I did a particular job, I performed it with malice and calculation to hurt people.  Again, I only mentioned it as my intro to reading and analysing medical studies and reports.  I left that job a long time ago.  What I do now, as a filmmaker and communicator, is very different.

I have read your links.  The sources are biased and the claims they make have not stood up elsewhere. 

I'm not working to discredit you specifically - I have no reason to do that.  I've been reading posts and answering in my spare time, so no, not working overtime. 

I have been researching alt med for a couple of years now with a mind to approach the subject as a project.  So you're correct that I have a pretty clear idea of what stands up and what doesn't.  I don't claim any medical expertise, but I have had many conversations with experts on both sides of the question, and I've formed some clear ideas on how it shakes out.  Corroboration from other sources is really, really important.   

And you can hold the opinion that I've overstepped as a filmmaker, and welcome to it.  From my perspective, if a subject I'm covering involves placebo, then I have to explain it in the film.  In order to do that, I have to understand it.  And so I go and find out, and part of that is finding credible sources who can help me do that, then cross-referencing and fact checking those sources as well.  Being wrong can mean being sued and put out of business, so I work very hard not to be.

But again, this is about me, which is really off topic.  Really, I think paragraph 2 pretty much sums it up.

jas

Timebandit wrote:
  Sineed pointed out two studies and IIRC, she provided links.  Have a boo.

Here's what Sineed claimed, with you backing her up:

Sineed wrote:

jas wrote:

your next debunker task should be to investigate why quackery works in so many cases. And to compare the success/failure rate to that of the medical approaches that you claim are the only valid ones.

That work has been done. When I was a graduate student at U of T and gained access to medical databases, I discovered a wealth of information on all sorts of alt med treatments: homeopathy, chiropractic practice, traditional Chinese medicine, ayurvedic, vitamins for various things, etc. In my research I found that alt med treatments were either weakly positive with small groups of subjects, or were not statistically significant from placebo.

Have a boo.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Sineed wrote:

Dr. Hoffer was a quack.

Dr. Steven Novella wrote:
The story is told by Dr. Abram Hoffer himself, the originator of the pyroluria hypothesis. It started with a reasonable idea – since LSD mimics some of the clinical findings of schizophrenia, perhaps we can learn something about the biology of schizophrenia by studying the effects of LSD on the body. He specifically looked at the urine of patients given high doses of LSD before and after treatment.

...

Pyroluria (which has various spellings, but this seems to be the most common in current use) did not survive replication. A number of studies in the 1970s failed to confirm the presence of kryptopyrrole in the urine of patients with schizophrenia or prophyria. For example, Gendler et al found no hemopyrrole or kryptopyrrole in the urine of healthy subjects or schizophrenics.Jacobson et al found similar negative results.

...

In this case Hoffer decided that he was not the victim of a failed hypothesis, but rather the victim of a conspiracy of mainstream psychiatry that was simply closed to his revolutionary ideas. He founded the journal Orthomolecular Psychiatry, now the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine – a fringe journal in which he could continue to publish his ideas.

...

The bigger picture here (as with psychomotor patterning) is that it is a fundamentally flawed and failed strategy to essentially take your ball and leave the playground when mainstream science does not support your theory.

...

Hoffer has had 40 years to do more and more rigorous research, to produce the data that would convince even a skeptical mainstream scientific community that his ideas are correct. If he truly believes that he is right, then this is the path that would help the most patients by changing the standard of care. Rather, he formed his own fringe journal and fringe community where he can brood about the conspiracy of mainstream psychiatry and rail against the dogma of rigorous scientific research.

There you are, jas, it was in the body of the quote by Novella.

jas

Timebandit not only cannot seem to understand what claim of Sineed's she was backing up, but she thinks citing professional "skeptics" is the path to credibility.

Anyhow, I'm allowing myself to get sucked in by obvious trollery. Neither Timebandit nor Sineed have any credibility in speaking for "science" on this matter.

Goggles Pissano

Timebandit wrote:

Okay, GP, you're now engaging in personal attacks...I very much resent the implication that because I did a particular job, I performed it with malice and calculation to hurt people. 

I do not think that I am engaging in personal attacks.  I also did not imply that you used malice and calculation to hurt people.

I was in a car accident, and I needed chiropractic treatments.  There was a time when my auto insurer would never have even considered the idea of funding chiropractic treatments since chiropractic treatments were not deemed by the CMA to be effective in treating people.  They disclosed this information to me themselves about their history.  I am confident that claimants would have had trouble getting funding for other alternative treatments through auto insurance as well in the past. Work related injury vs. auto related injury. These insurance organizations have near identical histories in how they have viewed alternative treatments and whether they would compensate for them or not. 

I am merely saying that a former WCB desk job worker and a plumber would have identical qualifications for speaking with authority on the value and success of alternative medical treatments, especially ones with no formal background in the biological sciences nor in the ethics of medical research. I doubt that very many plumbers would elevate themselves to the status of being able to dismiss others' successes using non-mainstream treatments as being either illusion or placebo effect.  Your blatent level of gaul is very rare indeed.

Thats all.  And this is nothing for you to take personally.

ryanw

statistics don't carry very far in Psychiatry

that's why there are first line, secondary, tertiary treatment plans for every major presentation

people smoke cigarettes as treatment!

others here have chosen to voice their own presumptions for alternative treatments use from non-psychiatric settings and they are not comparable; the contempt exemplified in Sineed's "Holistic" remark is typical of the health care system and its unwillingness to relinquish (or even share) control of the individual's health once they show up at the door.

Other community groups which require the integration of cultural needs into their healthcare meet similar scorn

ryanw

Timebandit wrote:

Many people who communicate science are not scientists themselves.  It doesn't mean they can't read - and you will note that I haven't denigrated anyone's ability to read or understand any of the information posted here. 

actually that's exactly what has happened for several pages, apparently its not enough for some people to shout SCIENCE!! and be done with it. we have seen aggressive persons unwilling to recuse themselves from the discussion, patronizing eyerolling to others persons first hand experiences. This behavior would never be allowed in any of the other Charter protected topics. Edit:forgot cis dominant feminism

members by all means continue to dictate there can be no higher hope for the psychological unwell than to have some 54.2% chance for moderate improvement while accepting the 80+% risk for damaging side effects

 

Goggles Pissano

ryanw wrote:
Other community groups which require the integration of cultural needs into their healthcare meet similar scorn

Dr. Bonnie Burstow, a professor of Psychology at OISE elaborated on this very issue in her documentary, When Women End Up In those Horrible Places,  In this video, she interviewed a lady from Africa who said to the effect of, 

"In Africa, where I come from, it is customary when a loved one dies to have a ceremony and call up the spirits of the dead, people who were your ancestors. and to speak to those dead people.  In our culture, that is what we do, and it is considered a good thing to do.  Here in North America, to a psychiatrist, that is a bad thing.  They tell you that you are having a hallucination or a delusion that is to be corrected with chemical treatments.  That is why it is so easy for people from our cultures in Africa to fall victim to psychiatrists when we come to North America." 

Goggles Pissano

Timebandit wrote:

ryanw wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

... 

members by all means continue to dictate there can be no higher hope for the psychological unwell than to have some 54.2% chance for moderate improvement while accepting the 80+% risk for damaging side effects

Interesting stats.  Where are they from?

THEY ARE FROM RYAN~!

Most people would be able to see that Ryan is telling you that the benefits of psychiatric drugs are marginal at best, and for all that marginal benefit that they come with huge toxic side effects.  These are toxic side effects which cause long term irreversible neurological damage.

He speaks from experience.  Why aren't you listening? More importantly, why don't you care?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I don't even know where to start Googles Pissano. There is a broad deconstruct in peer reviewed psychiatry. People can push their "science" here all they want. There is no "evidence based science" on psychiatry as far as I'm concerned. We'll have semantic games up our ying-yang.

 

Your lead on nutrition was my trigger. I'm fully on board. Not so much with the vitamins. Nutrition is the key to balance, we weigh things.

 

I'm so into questioning things but the anit-science like Timebandit and Sineed are bothering me. They only quote science that agrees with them.

 

Google is not a valid reference. What a fucking joke (pardon my language) You really think google is a valid argument Sineed & timebandit? They're trolling us and good. Their minds are made up. They have interests to protect and we have to see if we can keep up with their (seemingly paid) positions.

 

I have no clue otherwise, why they're so vociferous in their denouncements of lived experience. It really does boggle the mind. You gonna try to paint me as some tinfoild dude?

 

Nutrition is HUGE Goggles. Like mentioned above, the scrips they have fail A LOT. And there's even more lived experience there.

 

I don't even know if I agree with more than 20% of what you posted Goggles. But you know what, the "scientific" ones are the "quacks"

 

Why must we disparage each other to try to foster discussion?

 

 

Goggles Pissano

LACK OF SCIENCE IN THE CREATION OF MAJOR TRANQUILIZERS FOR SCHIZOPRHENIA...

Chlorpromazine, if you scan down to the History section, it will show you that it was designed to be used as an anti-histamine. They later used it as an anesthetic booster for surgeries.  Someone decided afterwards to try it on psychotic patients in mental hospitals because of its sedative effects.

Mainstream science.

1. Design drug for purpose one. When it doesn't work.

2. Find another market for drug.

3, Expand market for drug.

4. Use chemical changes in brain due to new drug as scientific basis for the cause of that disease.

This is very deep and oh so profound.

And the deep thought provoking empirical studies in such a case.

Take say 70 patients who are psychotic in a mental hospital.  Test a drug on patients which has a powerful sedative effect. Give 35 of them the drug.  Let the other 35 not have the drug. Check to see if the first 35 are heavily sedated.  Check to see if the other group are not heavily sedated.

Conclusion...the drug heavily sedates people who are psychotic.  Lets chemically lobotomize them for life.

Psychiatry gets its own drug to use on people.  They are legitimate scientists just like all the other doctors in the other fields of study.  They can pee with the big boys now.  Thats what its all about...they can pee with the big boys.  They have a pill.  They are legit.

Goggles Pissano

RP, I am glad that I at least reached you on nutrition, even though vitamins are nutrition also.  If you can clean out things in your diet that are hurting you, that is HUGE.

Goggles Pissano

Check your local library and see if they can find for you the book, Hoffer's Laws of Nutrition. It is a very good book which explains why our existing diets are failing us, and how to change that.  He will talk about the vitamins, but you can discount that if you want.  He talks about food intolerances and how to go about checking for them and getting your eating straightened around that works for people.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Goggles Pissano wrote:

Conclusion...the drug heavily sedates people who are psychotic.  Lets chemically lobotomize them for life.

Psychiatry gets its own drug to use on people.  They are legitimate scientists just like all the other doctors in the other fields of study.  They can pee with the big boys now.  Thats what its all about...they can pee with the big boys.  They have a pill.  They are legit.

 

Todays the day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs

 

I'll never take another pill butI'll  be happy to have broken bones healed FREEE!

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

You really need to watch and listen to this...

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

If you listen, you'll understand why we've made no progress?

 

Dude got killed shortly thereafter. C'est la vie....

 

Trust that science folks.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Happy MLK DDay! >(

Goggles Pissano

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Why must we disparage each other to try to foster discussion?

RP,

I guess the reason why I haven't been letting it drop is that I felt TB went way too far by speaking with so much absolute authority that my success was either illusion or placebo effect.  TB could have said, "in my opinion." but he didn't.   I wanted to get TB's credentials firmly established after he stepped way too far past the boundaries of respectability with such a tone of expertise in this case.  It turns out that it was just an opinion after all.

To me, absolute diagnostic conclusions like that should only be made by people who are specifically trained to so such as a medical doctor, a psychiatrist, etc., people who have been trained to make such diagnostic conclusions. TB could have still said what he said, as long as he admitted that it was his opinion only, and there is a difference.

Goggles Pissano

RP, are you ok?

Goggles Pissano

Here is a list of Orthomolecular doctors in different areas...

If you want to get off medications, it is very important to do so with the direct supervision of a trained medical professional, especially one trained in orthomolecular medicine.  They will taper you off your medications properly. Mainstream doctors are much less inclined to cooperate.

Naturopathic doctors do not have the ability to take you off medication.  So if you find a choice between a naturopath vs a medical doctor, go with the MD to get off the drugs.  ND's are not allowed to do so by law.

Goggles Pissano

RP, if you are on any medication and are considering dropping your medication, please don't.  It can take a long time to heal on nutrition. It took me 5 1/2 months.  I mentioned this.  Medication is there for you until you start to really feel better with a change in diet. Medication needs to be gradually tapered off.

6079_Smith_W

I think it is best to focus on the argument.

Frankly, if I had information which challenged someone's ideas or values, and I thought might be of good to them, I'd feel compelled to speak up about it too.

I don't cast suspicion on anyone for doing that. It's not the same as ridicule.

 

Pages

Topic locked