Do you get your health information from

[bloom]

Poll question: Do you get your health information from

the manufacturers and lobbying groups who are trying to sell products (food) to you? (Like aspartame manufacturers and companies that use it & companies that market and sell seafood/canned tuna, for instance)

ie.

http://www.nutrasweet.com/

http://www.equal.com/

http://www.aboutseafood.com/about_NFI/who_we_are.cfm

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ (a front group for Berman's lobbying company)


Do you expect to find their information to be reliable in regards to health risks of the products that they sell?

[uppityperson]

1. this is a question for : Obviousman!

[bloom]

2. yeah

but there are some people around here that just don't get it.

[trotsky]

3. The complimentary poll would be

Do you get your health information from people who bash all industry and government groups, and instead are trying to sell alternative treatments, books, or materials, such as removing your amalgam fillings, chelation, zappers, etc.?

There's a happy medium, you know. It's not all-or-nothing. If you analyze manufacturers' and lobbyists' information, you can tell if it's bad science.

Or do you think that no company, at no time, in no place, has ever said anything true about their product?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

6. Once again, it's all-or-nothing.

It's such a pervasive pattern in your posts. That, and the red herring. (The military? Where did that come from?) Oh, and the personal attack. (I can only assume it's an attempt to further brand me personally, and neutralize my opinions as someone who will trust the "powers that be" over anyone who dares question them.)

There is a lot of solid information questioning amalgams.

No, there's not. Not from people who don't stand to gain from removing them, at least.

Chelation is reasonable medical procedure for some people.

Yes, when there is significant heavy metal contamination. Not as it's currently being pushed by the quacks who, once again, stand to gain from pushing it, as a cure-all for everything.

There are always going to be people who are on forefront of questioning the status quo

The best response to that comes from the late Carl Sagan:
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

IMO - you are not adding anything useful to the discussion.

Well, IMO, I could say the same about you with your all-or-nothing mindset. Insult me as much as you want, call me arrogant, say I believe "crap." Doesn't bug me. It's just your opinion, and from your posts, we see that your opinion is quite frequently wrong. I'm not going away. Go find a safe Group if you don't want to hear opposing viewpoints.

You are suspicious of companies that gain financially from their claims. That's good. But you should be suspicious of the claims of ANYONE who gains financially from their claims. And if you dig deep enough, you will see that the anti-vaxers, the anti-amalgam brigade, etc. all trace their roots back to someone or some group that's benefiting financially too.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

14. Okey doke, thanks for not addressing any of my points!

:hi:

[bloom]

15. If I thought for a second that you really wanted

to discuss anything - I might. But I don't.

:hi:

[trotsky]

17. So you're assuming now, eh?

Hehe.

[Orrex]

25. I sense a pattern here

I notice that this makes two times in recent days that you've accused a person of not wanting to discuss an issue simply because that person doesn't accept your conclusions as valid. Rather than presenting arguments in support of your claims, you assume your conclusion outright and then post long exerpts of other people's work without ever subjecting that work to critical consideration.

If you are unable to articulate your views in a cogent manner, that doesn't mean that your opponent doesn't want to discuss it; it means that you have not demonstrated support for your arguments.

[RedOnce]

26. Well stated.

[Orrex]

10. Possibly, but "alternative practitioners" are an army, too

Practitioners of "alternative" "medicine" are strongly motivated to keep their activities free from regulation and oversight so that they can continue to reap billions annually from the uncritical and desperate victims upon whom they prey. In fact, their well-estalished history of bilking the vulnerable gives them all the more incentive to keep their profitable industry free from regulation. If they were regulated, they'd be required to produce actual results, unlike the way they do things now.

Anyone who questions an alternative practice--no matter how ridiculous that practice is--is accused of collusion with Big Medicine or Big Pharma or the like. That's classic cult-thinking and is nicely in line with the "true believer" mentality. It is entirely possible to examine and reject the claims of alternative practitioners based solely on their own shortcomings.

So where do I get my medical information? When possible, I research an issue to the extent that I am able through whatever means are available to me. When I reach the limit of my ability to research, I seek an expert--ideally an accredited one--in the subject. I do not, for example, go to the herbalist down the street, because I have no way to ascertain, short of personal testimony, that he has any qualifications for making his claims, especially when they are sharply at odds with established science.

[RedOnce]

11. Addressing your first point.

I'm not convinced that regulation would offer much comfort to the consumer. Medicine is regulated and there are many well documented problems up to and including unnecessary deaths. For instance, a Doc posted in this forum that because the system is so messed up, about half the tests he ends up ordering are CYA tests! Consider the risk and cost associated with that.

So, while you might succeed in weeding out some useless practices, the abuse would continue but in another arena. As you pointed out earlier alternative is relatively low cost and rarely causes harm. Perhaps this is the lesser of the two evils.

You certainly have passion for this issue.

[Celebration]

24. Regulation

Regulation=Much Higher Cost=Know it all politicos making decision=lobbyist money coming into play=paternalistic interference with personal choice=people actually relying on a corrupted system=less critical thinking by the consumer

[RedOnce]

27. Cute formula! Rings true to me.

[Warpy]

4. I get my information from the medical trades

from the CDC, from journals overseas, from articles published on Medscape, and occasionally from the alternative press.

I don't generally bother with paid corporate flacks or fad diet types who bash all standard medical treatment because they don't like feeling unknowledgable and out of control with it.

[RedOnce]

7. I get mine wherever I can Goggle them! Some sources are obviously

more biased than others so I try to avoid the worst, post links and let the reader decide. My goal is to stimulate thought and generate discussion on topics of interest.

However, I am learning that this forum can be a pretty confrontational place. Sometimes I get the feeling that discussing anything the least bit controversial or even "leading edge" is taboo here, enforced regularly by the "Science Police".

It might be useful to remember that before there is proof there was a hypothesis and before there was a hypothesis there was probably an observation or maybe even a hunch!

Let's lighten up and treat each other with a little more kindness.

[trotsky]

8. The problem comes in

when some people elevate the hypothesis, observation, or the hunch to the same level as the proof. Generally it comes from wanting to believe the claim.

With regards to your other point, I've been told I'm arrogant and contribute nothing to this forum. And it wasn't the "science police" who did it.

[RedOnce]

9. My post was not directed at you personally.

As you know, we have both supported and opposed each other on various topics and I have enjoyed most of that interaction. My impression is that you are a very bright guy. Even though I don't always agree, I respect much of what you have to say and I think that you do contribute to this forum.

I'm up to sparing with you on occasion, it keeps us both tuned up but, not everyone enjoys that type of play.

[bloom]

13. The problem also comes in when certain people hear an observation

and assume the person is stating that they have proof. (It's your own/their own all or nothing perception).


And "science police" is pretty accurate.

It's also funny that you call yourself skeptical - when you are mainly skeptical of non-mainstream information.

Maybe you could all have skeptical "science police" badges so that you can be identified.

[trotsky]

16. Are you kidding?

You, philb, etc. all post as if your information is known fact. Why, philb even claimed that lupus and MS can be cured, which is unknown to the formal societies and support organizations created for those illnesses.

This is not my assumption, this is simply reading your posts.

As far as what I'm skeptical of - how do you know? I assess every claim I hear. However, it is unwarranted to give the same credence to some rantings on a website as one would to a double-blind study - even if the study was commissioned by the organization whose product is being studied.

Let's think about a couple of the claims that have been made in this forum.

1) "Aspartame causes cancer, nerve damage, whatever." OK, so supposedly Rumsfeld and whoever else pushed this through KNOWING it caused cancer, but did so anyway because it was going to make them a lot of money. Let's assume that Rumsfeld & co. have families that they care about. Wouldn't they go and tell their families, "Hey, we got this stuff approved, but DON'T use it, because it will kill you."? And all their extended families would be able to KEEP that secret, pass it along, and keep it from the public? Does that make any sense whatsoever? How hard is it for TWO people to keep a secret, let alone hundreds?

2) "Amalgam fillings cause every malady known to humankind." Alrighty, you've got a national organization of dentists not only saying it's not, but also filling their cavities and their families' cavities with a substance they supposedly "know" is harmful. Why? Why would they do this?

Oh and please make me up a badge so you can identify us and dismiss our concerns. Maybe it can say something like, "WARNING: Critical Thinker".

[bloom]

19. It would be more like

"WARNING: (I can't post what I would warn people - because it's against the rules)"


Seriously - a "critical thinker" who posts things from the seafood industry as if those things are facts and anyone challenging them is nuts? A "critical thinker" who tries to find ways to agree with Berman's PR firm. That is just frigging ridiculous.

It might not be so bad if you just posted your opinions without pretending that you are somehow more of a "critical thinker" than other people.

Or if you could take part in discussions in a manner where it is not about winning and losing.

[trotsky]

20. I suggest you go back and read my posts on the seafood/Berman thread.

You are completely misstating what I said. I think that if you actually read what I am saying, rather than projecting your mistrust of corporations & lobbyists onto anyone who disagrees with you, you'd see I am far less of a foe than you think I am.

[RedOnce]

18. "...assume the person is stating that they have proof."

I think that this is a good point. I have seen posts in which people were clearly sharing their personal experience and they were asked for documentation of that experience! I think that approach just puts the poster on the defensive.

On edit:
Sorry I thought your comments were directed to me. But I will leave what I posted.

"It's also funny that you call yourself skeptical - when you are mainly skeptical of non-mainstream information." Now YOU are assuming. I seriously doubt that trotsky or Orrex would agree with you there.

Today's knowns come from yesterday's unknowns. Which means that at any given time there are hunches, observations and studies going on that are not yet proven. When proof exists I perfer that. But, for me that is usually not enough. I am curious, in the absence of proof I want to know what is going on in the grey areas. Science is a very powerful sorting tool but many things can happen that Science simply cannot explain...at least not yet.

[Celebration]

21. Would love to know who voted yes on this poll

I haven't followed the Berman's lobbying company stuff, but who would believe someone like Dupont about the dangers of Teflon? Did you believe Philip Morris about cigarettes in the 50s? Ok, maybe you don't like the way the poll is phrased but really, was the yes answer a joke?

There is a big difference between being skeptical of so called alternative stuff and being skeptical of mainstream stuff. If something is ALTERNATIVE, everyone KNOWS it. People are seeking it out of their own volition, know it isn't proven, and...........want to try it anyway!! Most likely they are skeptical of some alternative assertions, but not others. They pick and choose. In general I would rather spend my money on a deep tissue massage than an office visit to an MD and think it benefits me a lot more than getting a prescription for a muscle relaxer. What do I have to prove about that and to whom? The answer is nothing and nobody but myself, thank you. I would appreciate others NOT DO MY THINKING FOR ME.

But mainstream things have THE OFFICIAL STAMP OF APPROVAL. As an examply Vioxx had the official stamp of approval. Guess what? That stamp of approval means nothing to me personally anymore. I don't think it is worth the ink that prints it. People do tend to trust the official stamp of approval more than things that don't have it. I would say...........look at the agenda.......follow the money...........again, follow the money............stamp or no stamp. The stamp usually means MORE money is involved, but that is not always the case.

Oh, yeah, I know my massage therapist makes his living doing that. I always take that type "agenda" into consideration. LOL. And if you come back talking about possible tumors in my back that I could be missing, I will come back at you with my brother in law almost died of reactions to medications. I will take my chances. Please don't try to make YOUR CHOICES MY CHOICES.

[trotsky]

22. I'm sure the vote was tongue-in-cheek.

Because with the all-or-nothing thinking of the OP, if you accept just one thing that a company or lobbying firm says, then you must trust them completely and believe them on everything and you want to force everyone to drink a gallon of mercury yada yada yada.

I don't trust everything companies tell me, and I don't trust everything I read on the web, either.

The poll is bogus, and flamebait.

[bloom]

23. I don't know if some people just like to yank everybody's chain

by linking to the seafood industry to back up points about mercury or "approving" of links to the aspartame industry to back up studies about aspartame. (Or answering "yes" to my poll.)

If anybody is posting "flamebait" - I would it say it is posters who post thataways and then exaggerate what others of us say...

If I wanted to know what the mainstream thoughts were on things - that is easy enough to find.

It's not necessary to have a discussion forum for it - if everything were as black and white as some would like to think - there wouldn't be anything to discuss, anyway.

Follow the money is right. There may not always be "proof" - but when there is proof of a cover-up - it's enough to make people suspicious.

I like to know what people are questioning, myself.