Note added 6/16/2011: The author of the target--I mean subject--of this piece of insolence has responded in the comments.
Note added 6/17/2011: Steve Novella has also commented. He is unusually harsh (for him).
What is it with The Atlantic lately? It used to be one of my favorite magazines. In fact, I was a subscriber for something like 20 or 25 years. Then, back in 2009 at the height of the H1N1 frenzy, The Atlantic published what can only be described as an execrable bit of journalism lionizing the brave maverick doctor Tom Jefferson and arguing, in essence, that vaccinating against H1N1 was a horrendous waste of time and effort. The article was so bad that I applied a characteristic dose of my not-so-Respectful Insolence, while the ever-inimitable Mark Crislip did a complete annotated rebuttal. Even revere (who is, alas, no longer on ScienceBlogs) was most definitely not pleased.
I also let my subscription to The Atlantic lapse and have not to this day renewed it.
Then, last year, The Atlantic published an article that wasn't nearly as bad but was nonetheless pretty darned annoying to anyone who takes the perspective of a science-based physician. Entitled Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science, it was an article lionizing John Ioannidis (whom I greatly admire) while largely mangling the context behind his work. It was written by David H. Freedman, a writer who, it should be noted, also got it so wrong that he wasn't even wrong, so to speak, about Andrew Wakefield. Basically To him the discovery of Andrew Wakefield's scientific fraud was nothing compared to what he saw as the corruption and level of error present in the current medical literature. To Freedman, Wakefield is representative of the system. The bottom line is that the article featuring Ioannidis seemed to confuse what is the strength of science-based medicine with a weakness and garbled a lot of the significance of Ioannidis' work along the way. Freedman's article ended up being depressing to read, because it could have been so much better. Instead, it was a mess.
Now, Freedman's back again, this time with a much, much, much worse story in The Atlantic in the July/August 2011 issue under the heading "Ideas" and entitled The Triumph of New Age Medicine. Yes, I suppose that's an idea. A bad idea. An awful idea. A terrible idea. But it is an idea nonetheless.
Speaking of bad ideas, in contrast to his previous article, in which he managed at least to get the gist of what Ioannidis teaches but merely spun it in what I considered to be an annoying fashion, the entire idea behind Freedman's new article channels the worst fallacies of apologists for alternative medicine. The whole idea behind the article appears to be that, even if most of alternative medicine is quackery (which it is, by the way), it's making patients better because its practitioners take the time to talk to patients and doctors do not. In other words, it's a massive "What's the harm?" argument. Yes, that's basically the entire idea of the article boiled down into a couple of sentences. Deepak Chopra couldn't have said it better. Tacked on to that bad idea is a massive argumentum ad populum that portrays alternative medicine (or, as purveyors of quackademic medicine like to call it, "complementary and alternative medicine" or "integrative medicine") as the wave of the future, a wave that's washing over medicine and teaching us cold, reductionistic doctors to care again about patients and thus make them better. Freedman even contrasts this to what he calls the "failure" of scientific medicine. I kid you not. Worse, Freedman makes this argument after having actually interviewed some prominent skeptics, including Steve Salzberg and Steve Novella, in essence, missing the point.
Let's dig in, shall we?
You know the article's going to be dubious when it starts out with a sympathetic profile of Brian Berman. Regular readers of this blog might remember Dr. Berman, who is what I like to call the head of quackademic medicine at the University of Maryland. In fact, I just wrote about him a mere week ago because of an announcement that he had been appointed to the advisory council for the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Less than a year ago, I wrote about him in the context of his having managed to infiltrate the pseudoscience of acupuncture into the hallowed pages of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Then, not unlike the vast majority of the evidence that CAM practitioners prefer over basic science and clinical trials, Freedman segues right into an anecdote about a man named Frank Corasaniti, a 60-year-old retired firefighter who had injured his back falling down a steel staircase at a firehouse some 20 years earlier and had subsequently injured both shoulders and his neck in the line of duty. Corasaniti was suffering from chronic pain due to his old injuries and at the urging of his wife tried acupuncture at Dr. Berman's clinic under the direction of an acupuncturist named Lixing Lao:
His wife, a nurse, urged him to try acupuncture, and in February, with the blessing of his doctor, he finally met with Lao, who had trained in his native China as an acupuncturist. Their first visit had lasted well over an hour, Corasaniti says, time mostly spent discussing every aspect of his injuries and what seemed to ease or exacerbate them, and also other aspects of his health--he had been gaining weight, he was constipated, he was developing urinary problems. They talked at length about his diet, his physical activity, his responsibilities and how they weighed on him. Lao focused in on stress--what was causing it in Corasaniti's life, and how did it aggravate the pain?--and they discussed the importance of finding ways to relax in everyday life.
Then Lao had explained how acupuncture would open blocked "energy pathways" in his body, allowing a more normal flow of energy that would lessen his pain and help restore general health. While soothing music played, Lao placed needles in and around the areas where Corasaniti felt pain, and also in his hands and legs, explaining that the energy pathways affecting him ran throughout his body. The needle emplacement itself took only about three minutes. Lao then asked Corasaniti to lie quietly for a while, and Corasaniti promptly fell asleep, awakening about 20 minutes later when Lao gently roused him. Corasaniti continued to come in for 40-minute sessions twice a week for six weeks, and since then had been coming in once a week.
In other words, acupuncture works because Mr. Corasaniti feels better now.
I wonder how closely Lao is supervised by Dr. Berman or what the formal arrangement is, because, quite frankly, from the description I see here it sure sounds as though Lao is practicing medicine without a license. What are his qualifications in nutrition? Is he a dietician? What are his qualifications as a counselor? In the article, Lao is described as a physiologist with Dr. Berman's center, which to me sounds as though he has zero legitimate qualifications to be discussing diet and counseling Corasaniti how to deal with his injuries. Yet there he is, practicing what sounds like dietetics, counseling, and even medicine without a license at a major academic medical center.
Truly, Freedman strikes me as obliviously out of touch when he pontificates, "Concerns of outright malpractice or naked hucksterism seem grossly misplaced when applied to a clinic like Berman's." Really? I wouldn't so blithely dismiss the possibility when practitioners at Berman's clinic, by Freedman's own report, are telling patients that there is a magical life force whose flow acupuncturists can rearrange by sticking little sharp objects into their bodies and thus heal them. If you start with a completely unscientific premise like that, it infects everything else. Indeed, if there's one thing I've found about alt-med, it's that the supposedly "sensible," science-based advice about diet and exercise that it's co-opted as somehow "alternative" and pointed to as being better than what physicians offer often turns out not to be so sensible or science-based when you look at it more closely. Fad diets, supplements, various "detox" diets are all par for the course. I've pointed out numerous examples right here on this very blog of pure pseudoscience in medical schools and academic medical centers. What makes Freedman think that nutritional advice given out by "integrative medicine" centers affiliated with such institutions is somehow immune from pseudoscience?
Freedman then delves into what he apparently views as the failure of scientific medicine (or what he has imbibed from the promoters of quackademic medicine whom he interviewed as the failure of scientific medicine), beginning by proclaiming that "on balance, the medical community seems to be growing more open to alternative medicine's possibilities, not less." Unfortunately, I can't actually argue with this assessment; thanks to the infiltration of unscientific CAM into former bastions of science-based medicine like the University of Maryland, quackademic medicine is indeed coming to the fore, but Freedman seems to be arguing that this is a good thing rather than a bad thing because somehow, some way to him scientific medicine has "failed." This leaves Freedman making this argument as to why quackademic medicine is so popular:
That's in large part because mainstream medicine itself is failing. "Modern medicine was formed around successes in fighting infectious disease," says Elizabeth Blackburn, a biologist at the University of California at San Francisco and a Nobel laureate. "Infectious agents were the big sources of disease and mortality, up until the last century. We could find out what the agent was in a sick patient and attack the agent medically." To a large degree, the medical infrastructure we have today was designed with infectious agents in mind. Physician training and practices, hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance all were built around the model of running tests on sick patients to determine which drug or surgical procedure would best deal with some discrete offending agent. The system works very well for that original purpose, against even the most challenging of these agents--as the taming of the AIDS virus attests.
But medicine's triumph over infectious disease brought to the fore the so-called chronic, complex diseases--heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and other illnesses without a clear causal agent. Now that we live longer, these typically late-developing diseases have become by far our biggest killers. Heart disease, prostate cancer, breast cancer, diabetes, obesity, and other chronic diseases now account for three-quarters of our health-care spending. "We face an entirely different set of big medical challenges today," says Blackburn. "But we haven't rethought the way we fight illness." That is, the medical establishment still waits for us to develop some sign of one of these illnesses, then seeks to treat us with drugs and surgery.
This is pure piffle. Note how Elizabeth Blackburn's Nobel Laureate status is touted. Note that what she won her Nobel Prize for (shared it with Carol Greider at Johns Hopkins and Jack Szostak Harvard, actually) for the discovery of telomeres. That's great and was a very important discovery, particularly for cancer research. Believe it or not, however, a Nobel Prize doesn't give Blackburn any particular insight into how medicine is practiced that is any greater than that of any other prominent basic scientist, although she does appear to have been palling around a bit too much with the CAMsters at UCSF Osher Center. Basically, when you boil it all down, her assessment is nothing more than the same old complaint against "reductionistic Western medicine" that CAM supporters trot out again and again. It's just tarted up with a "just so" story about how modern medicine supposedly evolved. It's also presented as though physicians haven't advocated healthy lifestyle interventions for many decades now, and I don't mean the radical low fat diets of the sort touted by Dean Ornish, whom Blackburn's teamed up with. In Freedman's narrative, cribbed from Blackburn, and placed on steroids by Freedman, in come CAM and "integrative medicine" to deal with chronic disease, after, of course, cherry picking examples of conditions against which current treatments have disappointed and reiterating a favorite CAM trope about how the U.S. spends more on health care and has worse outcomes:
All of these shortcomings add up to a grim reality: as a prominent 2000 study showed, America spends vastly more on health as a percentage of gross domestic product than every other country--40 percent more than France, the fourth-biggest payer. Yet while France was ranked No. 1 in health-care effectiveness and other major measures, the United States ranked 37th, near the bottom of all industrialized countries.
This observation is utterly irrelevant to the central thesis of the article implying that CAM can somehow improve health care in the U.S. The reason is that France, just as much as the U.S., uses science-based medicine, not CAM, as its preferred system of health care, nor does France, as far as I can tell, "integrate" quackery with its science-based medicine any more than the U.S. does. Rather, France is just apparently better at providing its science-based care at a lower cost than we are here in the U.S. CAM has nothing to do with it. Yet Freedman deceptively conflates two unrelated issues to imply that CAM can show us the way out of the "failure" of science-based medicine because of its emphasis on "prevention" and the closer, more caring relationship between provider and patient.
The one part of the article that comes closest to making sense is when Steven Novella is quoted thusly:
Steven Novella calls the notion that alternative care's benefits are rooted in closer practitioner-patient interactions the "touchy-feely defense." Novella is a highly respected Yale neurologist, and the editor of Science-Based Medicine, an influential blog that has tirelessly gone after alternative medicine. I met with him in his home outside New Haven, Connecticut, where he argued that claims about the practitioner-patient relationship are only intended to draw attention away from the fact that randomized trials have by and large failed to show that alternative treatments work better than placebos. And while he concedes that sham treatments can give patients a more positive attitude, which can confer real health benefits, he is adamant that providing sham treatments at all--essentially fooling patients into believing they're being helped--is highly unethical. "Alternative practitioners have a big advantage," says Novella. "They can lie to patients. I can't."
And lie to patients they do, such as telling them that sticking little tiny needles into their skin will "unblock" the flow of their life energy, that diluting a remedy containing a substance that causes a symptom will make it stronger at relieving that symptom, or that they can manipulate energy from the "universal source" to make them feel better. But apparently to Freedman it's all good because of placebo effects, which he proceeds to use and abuse in the same way that Mike Adams did when he was seemingly amazed enough to discover that there are placebo effects in medicine that he tried to argue in a massive tu quoque argument that "Western medicine" is every bit as much a placebo as alt-med. He even pulls out an argument that I like to call, "Your Western science can't study my woo because it's 'individualized,'" which is much favored by woo-meisters:
Randomized controlled trials, the medical world's gold standard for assessing the efficacy of treatments, cannot really test for this effect. Such studies are perfect for testing pills and other physically administered treatments that either have a direct physical benefit or don't. (In its simplest form, a controlled study randomly assigns patients to receive either a drug or the equivalent of a sugar pill. If the real thing doesn't bring on more improvement than the placebo does, the drug is a washout.) But what is it that ought to be tested in a study of alternative medicine? To date, the focus has mostly been on testing the physical remedies by themselves--divorced from any other portion of a typical alternative-care visit--with studies clearly showing that the exact emplacement of needles or the undetectable presence of special ingredients in homeopathic water isn't really having any significant physical effect on the patient.
But what's the sham treatment for being a caring practitioner, focused on getting a patient to adopt healthier attitudes and behaviors? You can get every practitioner in each of the study groups to try to interact in exactly the same way with every patient and to say the exact same things--but that wouldn't come close to replicating what actually goes on in alternative medicine, where one of the main points is to customize the experience to each patient and create unique bonds.
This is, of course, utter nonsense, as I and others have pointed out time and time again. For example, I blogged about just such a study that studied the practitioner interaction with the patient compared to the actual acupuncture, and this was published over two years ago. The bottom line is that science-based medicine can and does study the question of how much of an effect is due to the actual intervention and how much is due to nonspecific effects, placebo effects, and practitioner interaction with the patient. If Freedman couldn't find at least a few of these studies, he wasn't looking very hard. Of course, the CAM practitioners he interviewed wouldn't be very likely to point him to them because they are very strong evidence that the vast majority of CAM relies on nonspecific and placebo effects.
The bottom line is that Freedman's article is built on a false dichotomy. Basically, he seems to be arguing that because conventional doctors are constrained by the system of reimbursement from spending a lot of time with patients to get to know them better, empathize with them more, and deal with psychosocial issues we should cede that aspect of patient care to quacks, letting them step into the breach, so to speak. No, that's not a straw man position; that's really what one can reasonably conclude from Freedman's article. He just wouldn't call it "quackery." I would in many (but not all) cases. The reason I would is because what comes in with all the caring attention to patients is often pure pseudoscience based on prescientific vitalism. That's what homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, and various forms of "energy healing" popular today are. There has to be another way to bring back the "personal touch" and more attentiveness to patients besides telling them that if they want that personal attentiveness they have to go to a quack.
Finishing his article, Freedman looks to the future, proclaiming that the next generation of physicians will determine whether alternative medicine takes hold. Unfortunately, he is probably correct about that. There's a reason why promoters of unscientific medicine are focusing so heavily on medical education, particularly at the medical school level. They're playing for the long term; there's no doubt about that. Right now, they're succeeding, too. The infrastructure is rapidly being built to subvert science in the bastions of academia and replace it with quackademic medicine. The difference between Freedman and me is that he appears to view this mostly as a good thing. I do not.
- Log in to post comments
TO: WinterMUTE [NOTE: Heh!]
RE: Testing for Oneself
[#409]It's blatantly obvious to the most casual [and objective] observer, as you won't test anything for yourself.
...And if you do test it for yourself, you m,ust have done it wrong, because only positive tests count. -- WinterMUTE
Such an idiot.....
I get the symptoms mis-matched with the materia medica. Especially with flues.
What's your point? I'm lying? That's got to be one of the stupidest 'args' I've seen around here. And your obviously falling back on the 'success rate'.
Take the cantharis....or get out of my 'face'. You're making a fool of yourself. And I'll point that out repeatedly from here on.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
Mr. Pelto, please have your discussions with us, not the people you think we are. When you accused the FDA of lying, you assumed we were saying, like good sheeple, "The government doesn't lie!", when we were, in fact, asking "We know the government has lied, but can you prove that in this instance they were lying?" Your implied argument was that since they lied in one instance, they must be lying in an entirely unrelated case. I responded by pointing out the absurdity of your fallacious reasoning, by showing what happens if you apply it elsewhere.By the way, just because you suspect something doesn't automatically make it true. You're not omniscient, please stop acting that way.
Yeah, I've had a busy weekend, which cuts down on the time I can spend making fun of morons on the intertubes.
Just out of interest, does it only work on cuts from gardening accidents, or does it work on any cut? If so, why does it work so univerally, when homeopathic remedies are so unpredictable?
But you're afraid to use it for burns? Too scared of what you might discover?
Also, you're aware that Neosporin contains actual medicine approved by the ADA, right? I thought you claimed that everything they touched was poison, and that they deliberately lied about everything? Doesn't it make your skin crawl to know that you're slathering yourself in Big Phama?
Ah, truth in advertising. It's a beautiful thing.
TO: All
RE: Case In Point
Excellent troll, Chuck! Tenacity, refusal to cite, anecdotal evidence and a sharp finish with the lymph node.
I wonder if we'll ever know who it really is that trolled this thread?
Bravo, sir. Bravo. -- JayK
You 'see'? JayK, having no 'gonads' to try something for himself. Even 'something' as innocuous as a 'homeopathic dilution' can only go the 'third option' of the Lawyer's Rule.
He/She can't cite the 'Law', as the only 'Law' allowed by our government vis-a-vis medicine is dictated by the medical-industrial complex, which won't stand up for itself.
Nor can they cite the 'facts', as the only 'facts' that are allowed are those presented by the very same medical-industrial complex 'approved' sources.
So.....
.....I'm not particularly 'surprised' at the 'opposition' I encounter here when I ask the 'reasonably prudent individual' â vis-a-vis legal parlanceâto actually test the hypothesis for themselves.
The viament opposition expressed in all of the posts above speaks for itself.
THEY are DEATHLY AFRAID....of what some people might discover for themselves.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
TO: All
RE: Wintermute
I notice he/she don't respond to my query about their being Airborn-Ranger qualified.
Why IS that?
Talk about 'stupid'......
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You haven't lived, until you've almost died. -- LTC Johnson, XO, 2d Brigade, 82d Airborne Division ~1977]
TO: All
RE: Heh
Anyone else here noticing how the 'args' have being going more-and-more to the ad hom form?
I'll reply, in kind, when applicable. However, I with the opponents would 'refrain' from personal attacks and focus more on the 'reality' of the situation.
After all.....
....all I ask is that....
.....PEOPLE TEST A HYPTHESIS FOR THEMSELVES!
Get a vial of cantharis and 'keep it handy' against a burn.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
No, I'm sure you're telling the truth. You took a worthless medicine, you got better, therfore the worthless medicine is actually effective! That's pretty much how the human brain works, and I'll extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have a human brain.
My point is that, given an expert homeopathic doctor, providing a detailed diagnosis and "prescription", homeopathy doesn't work. You keep claiming that I need to keep on taking different remedies until it does go away, but guess what: If I don't do anything it will go away by itself anyway! Therefore, there's no way of telling whether or not the medicine du jour did anything. You have no way of knowing how competent / thorough he was, but you just can't accept the fact that homeopathic medicine could fail to work any better than nothing at all, so you have to claim some secret knowledge about how they acted, and how qualified they are in order to rescue your ptet hypothesis. This is what we call special pleading, and it's generally frowned upon.
I chose that as a test because I get headaches quite frequently, and from the same cause. The problem with taking your canathis is that I don't burn myself often enough to conduct a proper test. Your only measured outcome is if the burn heals better than you think it might maybe have done, if you'd not done anything. I'm sure you'll agree that you really have no way of knowing if that guess is correct or not, which renders your results meaningless.
Believe it or not, everyone here started with your best interests at heart, explaining how easy it is to fools oneself, what steps researchers take to prevent that, and what careful study teaches us about homeopathy. As you prove determined to remain ignorant, despite our best efforts, a few people have hung around to laugh at you, bet everyone else has gotten bored.
Because it has no bearing on self-deception, research procedures, chemistry, physics or any other topic even remotely under discussion?
A betetr question is: Why do you think that playing with guns qualifies you to be taken seriously on this subject? Is it a not very subtle attempt at intimidation, or are you really stupid enough to think it's relevant?
He's like the kitchen table. No matter what you say, he simply does not listen or understand a single word.
No, no-one else has noticed that, because everyone else knows what an ad hominem is. Using to mean "insult" doesn't make you sound clever.
An ad hominem is when someone says you're wrong because of some unrelated belief or quality. For example, if someone were to claim I must be wrong about homeopathy because I'm not an airborn ranger, that would be an ad hom. On the other hand, saying that you're wrong because you're capable of self-deception, or saying you're wrong and therefore you're an idiot, are not ad homs.
TO: All
RE: Chuck's Challenge
I accidentally burned my right hand while frying bacon this weekend. So I decided to take Chuck's challenge. Immediately upon burning myself, I held my hand under running cold water to 2 minutes (taking just long enough to start a timer). There were two splotches where I had been burned. I treated the larger (jelly-bean shaped, about the same area as a nickle) with fresh aloe vera cuttings (grown for that purpose). The smaller one, roughly dime sized, I gave no other treatment. The treated one was painful for 8 minutes, whereas the untreated burn was painful for 15 minutes. I marked the temperature setting on the stove, and went out and bought a tube of cantharsis for a bit over $7.00. Note that the dilution is 3X, or about 0.1% active ingredient - barely homeopathic.
Sunday, the treated spot was slightly sensitive, whereas the untreated spot was still inflamed. I cooked the remaining half pound of bacon, this time allowing my left hand to be spattered once the bacon reached full temperature. Again, I held my hand under cold water for two minutes, then placed 4 pellets under my tongue until they fully dissolved. The single burned spot was roughly penny sized. The pain lasted for 17 minutes. The inflammation the next morning was roughly equivalent to the untreated spot the day before. None of the burn marks show any sign of blistering.
Conclusion: 0.1% active ingredient "homeopathic" cantharsis is not effective for first degree burns
Actually, the conclusion is that this test was useless, because it is, at best, n=2 and highly subjective.
Regards,
Kevin
PS The remainder of the tube is residing where it belongs: in the dumpster.
[The plural of anecdote is not data]
TO: All
RE: The 'Insensitive'
No, no-one else has noticed that.... -- wintermute
Yeah...Sure....
Regards,
Chuck Pelto
[The Truth will out......one way or another....despite the 'ignorance' of one-side of the 'discussion'.
Chuck, do honestly think that it's honest to use part of a sentence out of context in a discussion?
Trolls tend to starve if you forget to feed them.
TO: All
RE: Talk About 'Projection'
He's like the kitchen table. No matter what you say, he simply does not listen or understand a single word. -- Beamup
This is what the likes of Beamup are ALL ABOUT. Open discussion has nothing to do with his/her 'mentality'. After all....why do they hide behind a nom des blogs?
Honest discussion has nothing to do with their mentality.
It's blatantly self-evident to even the most casual observer.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. If you wish to discuss this in more personable surroundings, I'll be happy to do so at my residence.
If you have more than two synapses to resolve that 'address', good for you....
....call me to arrange an 'interview' over good scotch and fine tobacco.....
Chuck's latest silly tagline is really rather hilarious. Largely because it's so completely accurate, though not in the way he meant...
"The evidenceâprovided in this threadâis blatantly obvious to the most casual, objective observer. "
It's very obviously anecdotal evidence, which is regarded as the lowest form of evidence on the hierarchy of evidence.
If you're going to claim people aren't being scientific because of how they treat your evidence, then at least try to find out how your evidence is supposed to be treated in the first place.
You will find that we are actually being rather considerate to you to have engaged you for this length of time and to this level.
"Nor can they cite the 'facts', as the only 'facts' that are allowed are those presented by the very same medical-industrial complex 'approved' sources"
You see, you expect us to dismiss the 'medical-industrial complex' on little more than your say so, yet we are expected to trust a person that doesn;t even have any form of quality control or proper proceedure in place, nor has he established any reason why we should trust his honesty or competance in the first place.
How very meek of you to put yourself above and beyond the international medical community.
TO: All
RE: The 'Clowns'....
....will continue to obfuscate without actually trying the 'test' themselves. And insisting that no one else take the 'test', themselves.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth is self-evident.....]
will continue to obfuscate without actually trying the 'test' themselves. And insisting that no one else take the 'test', themselves.
Chuck, if you didn't have what's left of your brain swimming in a vat of Scotch, you might have strapped on your balls and responded to those for whom your "test" has failed.
TO: All
RE: Narad
Chuck, if you didn't have what's left of your brain swimming in a vat of Scotch, you might have strapped on your balls and responded to those for whom your "test" has failed. -- Narad
What a 'boob'.
Can't quite 'understand' that the individual is what drives the materia medica. Not the proverbial 'round peg' that the AMA thinks we all are.
Oh well....
....he/she is welcome to their own discomfort when the time arrives.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
"And insisting that no one else take the 'test', themselves."
Totally false, you have been repeatedly told that you are more than welcome to spend your money and risk your health testing it for us.
It is a totally different arguement to say that you are foolish for doing so, and to say that you are prohibited from doing so.
Stop lying about the people you are lying too, you will be caught out in a second. Fool.
TO: All
RE: What's 'False'
"And insisting that no one else take the 'test', themselves."
Totally false, you have been repeatedly told that you are more than welcome to spend your money and risk your health testing it.
Chuck, is there any reliable way of telling which homeopathic remedy will work for a person without having to try them all each time, like with you and gout? Most modern doctors will run tests and check family history to see which treatment to use, rather than just take shots in the dark. My doctor's recommendation for my recent issues was to get outside and exercise more. Very common remedy these days.
TO: All
RE: Matthew Cline....
The government told a huge lie for a long time, so it always lies about everything? -- Matthew Cline
....couldn't recognize a 'lie' if it bit him in his forth-point-of-contact.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Recognition of a 'government lie' comes with 27 years of personal experience. Something I doubt Matthew 'lacks'. Or maybe something much worse....
Quoth Chuchk:
Oy vey...
TO: Gray Falcon, et al.
RE: A Good Test
Chuck, is there any reliable way of telling which homeopathic remedy will work for a person without having to try them all each time.... -- Gray Falcon
As far as I've 'experienced', the cantharis test I've proposed.
So....
....why are you so 'opposed' to such a simple test?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
P.S. WHY do you THINK I PROPOSED IT?
@Chuck:
You've uncovered my identity as a government paid shill! Curses, foiled again!!!!
Several points, Chuck. First of all, I said without testing them all beforehand. Your proposed test was of that form (it didn't work, try something else!). Second, We're not arguing that homeopathy is a deadly poison, we're arguing that it's useless. The risk in using it is in avoiding proper treatment. Third, how can you tell that the government's lying, precisely? You haven't even given us a plausible motive for lying about eggs and alcohol. Finally, try to accept that the world is not as you imagine it. Doctors don't just toss out a script for whatever the hot new drug is to whoever comes in, despite what you've been told by the alternative medicine folks.
TO: All
RE: The Truth....Will Out....
Quoth Chuchk:
The Truth is self-evident.....
Oy vey... -- Matthew Cline
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. The problem is overcoming one's personal prejudices to recognize God 'at work'.
TO: Gray Falcon
RE: Heh....
Several points, Chuck. First of all, I said without testing them all beforehand. -- Gray Falcon
....PUHLEASE....
....TRY....
....NOT to be a total FUBAR, e.g., incompetent with respect to reading simple ENGLISH.
The test is of YOU to test it for YOURSELF....bozo....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Is EVERYONE who graduated from high school after 1980 TOTALLY 'incompetent' of reading and comprehending ENGLISH??!??!
"People like Dedj, can't have it BOTH WAYS. Either homeopathy is 'totally ineffective' because it is so 'dilute'. Or it is a 'deadly poison'. "
I've never said such a thing, nor is it reasonable to claim I have done so.
The risk comes from the lack of effectiveness of the treatment meaning you will have to suffer your self-limiting condition until it passes by itself (which, ironically, may be why you think the treatment worked in the first place and thus continue to use it) as opposed to getting symptomatic relief from mainstream meds with known effectiveness.
This has already been pointed out to you by multiple people. That you wish to claim that your opponents say otherwise indicates either a lack of comprehension on your part, or a deliberate willfull misrepresentation.
So, are you trolling or just stupid?
TO: Matthew Cline
RE: Heh.....
You've uncovered my identity as a government paid shill! Curses, foiled again!!!! -- Matthew Cline
...thanks for self-identifying. Too bad it was so blatantly obvious to the professionally trained observer.
P.S. Thanks for paying for my training at the Army Command and General Staff College....
....the IPB has proven particularly useful.
TO: Dedj
RE: Never 'Been There'
I've never said such a thing, nor is it reasonable to claim I have done so. -- Dedj
Probably 'not'. But I took your post to infer such.....having encountered similar args as you were beginning to present.
What's my point?
That people LIKE you can't have it 'both ways'. One time they argue homeopathy is '[totally ineffective'. Next they argue it is a 'deadly poison'.
I guess I'm just waiting for you or some other bozo to make the same contrary arg. Call it a 'pre-emptive strike'. And when you see or try it yourself, you'll recognize what a lie it is.
Hope that helps....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Sooooo.....
....does your stock portfolio involve any Big-Pharm material?
P.S. Is EVERYONE who graduated from high school after 1980 TOTALLY 'incompetent' of reading and comprehending ENGLISH??!??!
Speaking of which, could we get a scanned copy of your ASVAB results?
Also, I'm the liaison between the shapeshifting reptilian aliens and Cthulhu. Let me tell you, the medical benefits are amazing!!
McVeigh was into homeopathy and wanted to be a ranger.
You know, I'm just sayin'.
Because your test is useless. Someone performing your test runs the risk of permanent injury, without the test actually demonstrating whether the treatment actually works.
In short, it is unethical.
"That people LIKE you can't have it 'both ways'. One time they argue homeopathy is '[totally ineffective'. Next they argue it is a 'deadly poison'."
Thank you for confirming that you made my arguement up and put words in my mouth.
Now, go back and directly qoute me on the sentence that lead you to think I would ever argue such a thing.
You appeared to be presenting the concept of 'risk' as being one of active harm. I would suggest that no-one has actually said to you that homeopathy is 'deadly poison' and that this is merely your misinterpretation of thier arguement.
The fact that you appear unable to tell the difference between the types of risk would suggest that you are not a reliable person when it comes to accurately recounting the arguements of past opponents.
Now, please deal with what has been actually said to you and not just words inside your head that no-one else can read.
Sheesh! Are you guys baiting the troll? A battle of wits with an unarmed man [ sigh! ]
Well, as long as you're having fun...
TO: Narad
RE: Heh
Speaking of which, could we get a scanned copy of your ASVAB results? -- Narad
You put your money where your mouth is and I'll give you my biosumm from my military career.
On the other hand, you can ask American Mensa about my membership....for FREE, as far as I care.
Put up or Shut up......
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Talk about 'mental midgets'....
TO: All
RE: Heh
Because your test is useless. -- W. Kevin Vicklund
Thus speaketh the gutless wonder of us all.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. As if rational people can't believe that which they experience for themselves....
Chuck
The problem is, we don't know if it's the remedy working or just our body healing itself. This is why we have more thorough tests. Chuck, you still haven't answered one question: Do you believe that you are infallible?
Put up or Shut up......
"Put up" what? You were whining about people not being able to comprehend "ENGLISH??!??!" while doing a really poor job of actually using it. Maybe you could ask your pals in the MENSA HJE SIG the difference between 'infer' and 'imply'.
TO: All
RE: 'Giving Up'
Sheesh! Are you guys baiting the troll? A battle of wits with an unarmed man [ sigh! ]
Well, as long as you're having fun... -- Yojimbo
Having been properly 'identified' in all of this matter, I'm not surprised that someone who fashions himself as a star in a Toshiru Mufuni/Clint Eastwood/Burce Willis 'hero' roll can't quite 'hack it' in a REAL WORLD 'engagement'. Admittedly, I appreciate his 'individuality' vis-a-vis non-Star Wars/non-Star Trek personna selection. But, still and all, there IS a difference between reality and fantasy. And as much as I'd enjoy living in the world of Star Trekâwhere I don't have to crouch on a mound of skulls whirling my bloody battle-axe over my head.
Hope that helps....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
P.S. Take the proposed 'test' and see for yourself.....
What is it that makes me "gutless?"
TO: All
RE: See?
Cretins like Narad don't have what it takes to (1) ask simple questions to verify reports or (2) put their life on the 'line' to defend US.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Am I challenging their 'manhood'....
Cretins like Narad don't have what it takes to (1) ask simple questions to verify reports or (2) put their life on the 'line' to defend US.
Chuck, nobody that I know who has served would give you the time of day. You're merely disgracing yourself by bringing it up over and over.
TO: All
RE: Apparently....
....naiad doesn't know many people worth 'knowing' in the first place.
Maybe. Just MAYBY....if he had the 'courage', e.g., gonads, to go down to a local Army reciter and go Airborne-Ranger, most intelligent people migt agree with him/her.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....one way or another.....]
Just MAYBY [sic]....if he had the 'courage', e.g., gonads, to go down to a local Army reciter [sic] and go Airborne-Ranger, most intelligent people migt [sic] agree with him/her.
Asked and answered, Chuck. Bullying is the lowest form of cowardice. And you're not even accomplishing that particularly well.
Dear Chuck(le)s,
if your definition of "intelligence" relies on deciding to jump out of perfectly good airplanes, I doubt that you and I can ever come to terms. Jumping out of airplanes makes you intelligent? Are you serious?
I've stayed out of this because your commenting style is rambling and does not encourage interaction with you. But, frankly, I'm tired of you disparaging everybody else in the universe because they're not you. We cannot measure up to the Almighty Chuck(le)s. Fine.
But allow me to ask you a question: when will you have the courage to read and understand a randomized, blinded clinical trial of homeopathy? And if you do, will you have the courage to accept the results?
jesus wept, Chuck, do you even have the basic honesty to respond to W. Kevin Vicklund in #511, or are you just going to keep pretending that doesn't even exist? While telling everyone else what cowards they supposedly are?
Orac called me out on my blog for being thin-skinned and nasty in responses to his critiques of my Atlantic article, and for saying without good cause that he was writing in anger and even "rabidly." I conceded he was right in saying so, and I apologized, but it occurs to me the apology properly belongs here, so here it is. I was also a bit nasty to commenters here, so I apologize for that, too.
I take it that was a ratorical (as Upchuck would undoubtedly spell it) question, Chemmomo? Even after W. Kevin Vicklund showed he had the "gonads" to try Chuckle's experiment in post #511, You'll notice he's still saying we're all too lily-livered to try it.
Couldn't be we don't want to burn ourselves in a drunken stupor like he's always doing just to try out water as a curative (especially when we can get water right out of the tap that surely retains a "memory" of whatever you want, since it's been around for 4 billion years or so?)
Oops! Sorry for stepping on your comment, LunaâI should learn to refresh before posting anything.
No worries, Reverend. I just want to see if Chuck ever does acknowledge the existence of that post.
I have my predictions about that, but I'm keeping them to myself for now.
.....Aaaaand speaking of refreshing, I just noticed Mr. Freedman's post at #552. I think *that* is worth acknowledging.
It's a bit peely-wally, as the locals here would say, but I think it's a gracious step in the right direction. However, it isn't my own primary concern; in the larger scheme of things, whether or not Mr. Freedman is rude to commenters and bloggers doesn't make as much public difference as what he writes in his articles, and so I'm most curious as to whether he has read and thought about the criticisms presented of his pro-CAM position. Mr. Freedman? Have you?
@Luna_the_cat:
Well, truth is self-evident, at least if you've overcome your personal prejudices like Chuck has. Thus, it's self-evident that cantharis works. Since W. Kevin Vicklund says it didn't work, Vicklund must be lying. I can confirm that Vicklund is lying, since as a government shill I have access to the spy cameras hidden in Vicklund's house.
Tsst, Matthew, you're giving the game away.
Mr. Freedman:
Thank you, sir. Do you see what we sometimes must contend with?
Anyway, have you read the book Snake Oil Science? It has an interesting look at why certain practices like acupuncture seem to work.
@ David H. Freedman:
Thank you. It may be a harsh world- which makes gestures of decency all the more appreciated.
Very Reverend and Luna_the_Cat:
Yes, I expect the question is rhetorical; most of my comments here seem to be above the heads of their targets. Iâll admit I skipped reading each and every comment by/to Chuck in the last couple of days (due to the reasons stated above) and Iâd like to thank Luna for pointing me to evidence for why I was staying out of this.
David H. Freedman @522: Iâm not one the commenters owed an apology, but I want to express my appreciation for it anyway, especially as this comment thread has spawned a life of its own that has nothing to do with you.
If only we all could be this gracious.
Heh, I've been Chuckling all evening. Maybe Tony's right after all: Chuck can't see the evidence of my comment because he can't conceptualize one of us calling his bluff. [insert philosophical bafflegab as appropriate]
Oh, Lordy! Don't do that! We'll get Tony the postmodernist germ-theory denier over here from the "Gobsmacked" thread!
Ah, chuck's never ending ineptitude, in his scientific thinking and his argumentative style, never fails to amuse me.
If I put my Th1Th2 symbol over a flood light, will it call Th1Th2 to this thread? I'm pretty sure the interaction between that and mensa's illiterate debate team captain woulc save the rest of us some trouble.
If that fails, Orac needs to unban he who shall not be named.
Does he actually ever interact with anybody? I've never seen anything but his insane spam posts, but I'm a latecomer.
@Reverend Battleaxe:
He did interact before he got banned, after which he occasionally left single comments when he managed to get around the ban.
Oh Cripes, he who shall not be named is back, posting on "Expelled!, anti-vaccine style..." and I blame John V. for conjuring up that.
I've asked this before, but I'll ask it again: Do you really think that your military history has any bearing on your ability to conduct medical research? Does it provide any reason why we should take your claims more seriously than if you were, for example, a realtor, or an oiljack? If a fellow airborn ranger tried to get you to go to the doctor for your gout, would you realise that they must be right, because they can jump out of an aircraft?
Because either you're a complete moron who honestly thinks that it's a compelling argument, or you're a bully who knows he's got no better argument than "say I'm right or I'll break your knees".
Which is it?
(And please shut up about it; I think we've eked all the comedy out that that we can; now it's just tedious)
Frankly, I don't buy the whole Airborne Ranger thing anyway. I grew up military, and in my experience the guys and gals that walked the walk never bothered much with talking the talk.
Chuck(le) PFC, Airborne Ranger
To Kevin @571.
Thank you for that! As soon as I saw Airborne Ranger, I thought I wonder if he means the game. Excuse me while I enjoy the bit of C-64 nostalgia you generated.
Ah, Microprose...
Chuckie, baby? Take a look at @511. Your bluff has been called. Lord what a coward you are.
I'm afraid Chuck(le)'s "gonads" have retreated into his body cavity now that he's seen that.
TO: All
RE: Sorry....Buckies.....
....but I've been on 'vacation'. A reunion with my comrades-in-arms. [NOTE: Something mostâif not allâ of you poor souls would have no concept of.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. As for @511....
I have no idea why they went through all that 'trouble'. Nor do I have any trust in their veracity...not having known them for any length of time. [NOTE: Something to do with training I received from the US Army, courtesy of you all paying for it. We evaluate information based on past experience (see US Army Command and General Staff College, Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield). Where there is none, not much credence is given to a source for (1) accuracy and (2) reliability.]
Heck....
....the FDA spend decades telling US lies about alcohol and eggs. Why should I trust one who trusts THAT organization?
TO: W. Kevin Vicklund
RE: Heh
Chuck(le) PFC, Airborne Ranger. -- W. Kevin Vicklund
More like LTC, buckie.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. When you make COL, I just MIGHT call you 'sir'....
....but we'll BOTH have to be under the UCMJ.
On the other hand, I doubt if you have the gonads necessary to even 'enlist' in the first place.
TO: WinterMut
RE: Really....
Do you really think that your military history has any bearing on your ability to conduct medical research? -- WinterMut
Do you have a problem with reading English? A tertiary language, perhaps?
My undergrad work, as I've stated earlier and you either can't read or choose to ignore or have issues with memory loss....
....is microbio. Premed sort. Emphasis on pathogens.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pastuer]
TO: All
RE: On the Other Hand.....
Trolls tend to starve if you forget to feed them. -- Chris
....people tend to respond rather vehemently if they aren't 'trolls' and are touching close to a 'nerve'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You know you're getting close to the target, because they start throwing more 'flak' at you. -- US Air Force Axiom]
P.S. By 'flak', in this environment, they mean 'allegations' and 'ad homs'.
....but I've been on 'vacation'. A reunion with my comrades-in-arms.
Just remember that there's no time like the present for a weeklong bender, Chuck.
Four posts in less than half an hour after several weeks of silence, and not once does Mr. Pelto address any of the points made. Kinda sad, really.
TO: Nard
RE: Benders
Just remember that there's no time like the present for a weeklong bender, Chuck. -- Nerd
Fine scotch. Great tobacco. Excellent food. Superb company.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[You haven't lived until you've almost died.]
P.S. Eat your heart out.....
P.P.S. Remember US tomorrow, buckie......
....we and our ilkâbeforehand, today and in the futureâgave you the freedom you enjoy today to call me names. Without fear of retribution.
TO Gray Falco
RE: Heh
Care to be my 'secretary?
The pay 'sucks'. Especially if the Fed 'defaults'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Did you have a particular and 'specific' point? Or are you just being s wus who can't 'shoot', i.e., 'think', straight enough in your current 'condition'?
Citation needed - How does invading third world countries protect free speech in the USA? In fact, the "War on Terror" has been accompanied by presidents ignoring the constitution and a loss of rights by Americans. I doubt that you were in WW2 if you were in the military at all.
I have known a number of people with real military experienceâone of whom was still, 20 years later, being debriefed periodically about secret missions he'd been on behind the lines in Cambodia. His wife told me thisâI never heard a peep from him about it. Several others had really hairy experiences, which again, I've had to either drag out of them or got the story from third parties. I have known several others who brag about their military credentials, like Chuckles here, and the three or four I've been able to check up on have turned out to be egregious liars. Who'dathunkit?
Chuck, W. Kevin Vicklund had the "gonads" to take your challengeâhe tells the story in post #511. Are you ever going to acknowledge that, or are ya yella?
As an Army brat from a family who have had many members serve in the American Armed Forces (some in the war that the 4th of July events started): I would like to remind others that demographic includes lots of people. They have the whole range of intelligence, education and levels of problems that the rest of the country.
Please do not think Mr. Pelto is representative of those who have served their country. What "The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge" said is true, you cannot drag anything out of my father or brother (what is funny is that brother has tried to find out what our father did in the CIC!).
Americans: Happy Independence Day!
Venezuelans: The same to you on the 5th of July!
TO: Chris
RE: Being a 'Brat'....
....myselfâalbeit of the Air Force persuasion, did the Cuban thing at Ground Zero Offutt AFB, i.e., SAC HQâI applaud your family history in the Armed Services of the United States on THIS day of days. Four of my six unclesâpaternal and maternalâserved in WWII and Korea. My FatherâGod rest his soulâwas involved in Nam as well. His unit created the ArcLight attacks.
Have a glorious Independence Day celebration, whatever you think of me.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. That's 'colonel Pelto' to you Chris.....
P.P.S. So....
....why is it that you're so proud of your filial military service and you didn't follow their lead?
If you're still under 40, I think you can still 'catch up'.....
TO: All
RE: Questioning Veracity
I have known several others who brag about their military credentials, like Chuckles here, and the three or four I've been able to check up on have turned out to be egregious liars. Who'dathunkit? -- some dweeb who can't use his real name for fear of whatever
I can appreciate their personal lack of 'confidence' in what I say about my professional aspects. But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Rather, it is a manifestation of someone(s) not being able to cope with professionalism.
NOT MY PROBLEM. I could probably release my DD records to them in toto and they'd STILL refuse to accept the evidence presented. I've seen this sort of mentality before.
Indeed.....I see it HERE on this blog for skeptics. Science has little, if anything, to do with this lot.
Ask them to perform a simple experiment in the safety of their own home and you get ad homs as counter arguments.
Silly people. You find them everywhere.
As for @511, I'd like to know more about what EXACTLY was done. Specifically the store he purchased the materia medica at. The EXACT cost, too. I have my reasons. And those question their veracity. [NOTE: I spent too long working divisional and higher staff to accept an unknown source as completely (1) reliable and (2) accurate. Let alone encountering the sort of liars on the internet that 'some dweeb who can't use his real name for fear of whatever' is worried about me being.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Give me $1000 and I'll release my version of the form that former Senator Kerry (D-MA) refused to provide in his run for the presidency.
Then let's see how 'laughs'.....
Chuck(les), why not go over to the newest homeopathy thread and explain how it can work for malaria, instead of going on and on about your irrelevant military career or your apparently inadequate undergrad experience on this thread.
TO: All
RE: Interesting....
....that NOW my comments are being 'monitored' into 'disappeared'.
Not to be unexpected from this sort of 'blog'.
You're welcome to your 'echo chamber', people.
After all, the old adage applies.....
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make 'mad'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Do not cast your pearls before swine...... -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago]
P.S. It's a good think that I capture as much info, e.g., total page downloads and screen-shots as I do. They'll come in handy at some future date for referential purposes.....
TO: blogmeister
RE: Heh
I just captured a screen-shot of your info about how my comment was going up for 'moderation'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....not that skeptics will appreciate it.....]
TO: Composter99
RE: Why?
instead of going on and on about your irrelevant military career or your apparently inadequate undergrad experience on this thread. -- Composer99
Oh....
....it probably has something to do with proving the non-'scientific' bias of this particular blog site.
This place makes as good as any to stand upon and prove that this place is nothing more than politically-correct bias than anything else. And the squelching of my comments here, be it relating to the topic at hand or the ad hom attacks on my credibility from different aspects makes sufficient evidence to my allegation that this blog is not about 'science', per se. Rather, it's about upholding the hide-bound beliefs of whatever institution this blog tends to support.
Hope that helps....
....but I have SERIOUS doubts.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
P.S. I posted something before YOUR latest comment....and yet YOUR comment appears and mine doesn't.
Care to explain that?
TO: All
RE: And NOW....
....some of my comments begin to 'appear'.
In the Army, we call this something of an 'indicator'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Looking forward to the rest of my comments 'appearing'......
TO: All
RE: Heh
Complaining about and capturing evidence of information suppression seems to help in certain circumstances.
I've done as much in other venues and the blogmeisters have proven themselves to be so vehemently interesting in political agendas that they go ahead and 'kill' the dissident factor.
Maybe this one is a tad different.
Let US all 'hope'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
P.S. BUT....it does help to 'document' evidence.....one way or another.....
TO: All
RE: Soooooo.....
...how many posting on this blog see the message from the blogmeister....
Thank you for commenting.
You comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.
WITH EVERY ITEM THEY POST?
Just asking....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
As for @511, I'd like to know more about what EXACTLY was done. Specifically the store he purchased the materia medica at. The EXACT cost, too. I have my reasons.
*plonk*
TO: Nard
RE: Sooooo.....
*plonk* -- Nard
...out of professional interest.....
....just WHEN did you graduate CGSC?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I can't find "*plonk*" in my dictionary of officially recognized acronyms.....
And I wonder where @511 got the materia medica. I have reasons for asking. And you apparently have nothing to offer.....other than twaddle.....
Chuck, you're not being moderated out of censorship, you're being moderated because you're posting large numbers of comments in a short span of time. Try to post more carefully, less impulsively, and you should have fewer problems.One more question for you, Chuck. If you were recommended you buy a model of car, purchased one, and found out it lacked brakes, and then learned from the person making the recommendation that depending on where you got it, you might not buy a working car? You wouldn't trust anything else built to such low standards, so why should we trust homeopathy if the quality is so spotty?
I guess when people are used to places that regularly censor comments that disagree with the author they expect to be censored. It never seems to cross their mind that the reason might simply be a spam filter and we see accusations of censorship. Anyone who had been around this blog for a few days should realize that dissenting opinions are allowed and that they are not regularly removed.
TO: Gray Falco
RE: Yeah...Right....
Chuck, you're not being moderated out of censorship -- Gray Falco
That's why YOUR post shows up and my several such posts between Narad at 7/4/11 1344 hours don't....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....but only if the blogmeister permits....]
P.S. Screen shots collected.....
You're a very silly and pathetic man. Do you really think I care if you take screenshots? Screenshot away, you silly person.
You have no "right" to bury a comment thread in drivel. That's why filters are triggered, and you end up having to wait a bit for your nonsense to appear. But appear it eventually does. Keep it up, and the delay will only get longer. Keep your postings to a reasonable number per unit time and the delay will go away. It's that simple. Notice that content (i.e., what you say) has nothing to do with it.
Orac: How to you justify allowing a government agent like Chuck to post here, when he has proven (through repeated assertion) that all agents of the government do nothing but lie.
TO: All
RE: More Ad Homs, Anyone?
You're a very silly and pathetic man. Do you really think I care if you take screenshots? Screenshot away, you silly person. -- Another gutless wonder who can't/won't reveal his/her personal identity
'nuff said.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The truly 'gutless' will 'out'. Unfortunately for them....]
P.S. I have to 'wonder' at his/her 'commitment' to this country on this, the day of days....
.....but not too much. As if they can't (1) profess/substantiate their 'integrity' or (2) relate to this thread.
TO: All
RE: By the Way....
....how many of YOU are experiencing the....
...."Your comment has been sent to the blog owner" before showing up here?
Something, as we call it in the Army, an 'indicator'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....one way or another....]
@Chuck:
Ad hominem isn't a fancy term for "insult", it's a type of logical fallacy of the form "John Doe is X (or has done X), therefore his argument is wrong". Or, as other people have put it: "You're stupid, therefore you're wrong" is an example of ad hominem. The following are not examples of ad hominem:
* "You're wrong, therefore you're stupid."
* "You're stupid and you're wrong."
* "You're stupid."
(Please note that the "you" in these examples is not Chuck, but just a random hypothetical person)
I've had it happen to me a few times, once even when I had no links in my comment.
1) It's really easy to find out Orac's personal identity if you put any effort into it.
2) When arguing about something like medicine or science, the identity of the person making the argument shouldn't matter.
@Andrew:
Hey, hey, hey! I'm the government shill around here, not Chuck!!
TO: All...Especially the 'blogmeister'
RE: This 'Scienceblog'....
....is about as much about 'science' as the Spanish Inquisition was about Christianity.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Call that a 'parthian shot' and have done with it.....
What about Integrative medicine? Too many of you seem to be caught in a sort of right/left black&white paradigm. I know that acupuncture has had a positive effect on me, but that doesn't mean i completely give up on scientific medicine.
Alex,
Our host has described integrative medicine as "integrating quackery into scientific medicine". I agree with him.
What is wrong with rejecting treatments that have been tested scientifically and found not to work in favor of those that do work? At what point do you give up on treatments that have no scientific plausibility, and in clinical trials have no effect compared to placebo? What other paradigm do you suggest? Keeping an open mind in the face of more and more evidence that the vast majority of alternative medicine simply doesn't work?
With respect, you don't know that. The best designed studies show that acupuncture doesn't work, at least it doesn't matter where the needles are placed, or if they penetrate the skin at all. If you look into the history of acupuncture as currently used you will find the meridian system was invented in the 1930s, and previous to that it was a system of bloodletting almost identical to that used in medieval Europe.
The very idea that there's "alternative" and "conventional" medicine, whether or not you think they can be "integrated" is a false dichotomy (the fallacy of black & white thinking) that we rail against, Alex.
I'm in favor of medicine that has been shown to work with good evidence and such. Anecdotes aren't good evidence because you can't perform a statistical analysis with a sample of one, and you can't rule out alternative causation without controls. You are not the god of your body. You do not have infallible perceptions about which events affect it in what ways.
That's why science exists: Careful experimental design counteracts those human biases.