Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?

Options
1…1112141617…42

Replies

  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    But the advance of medicine and human knowledge is based on observation, experimentation, and recording and comparing results, not just "letting people do what works for them."

    It isn't a contest, but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as accurate information or that medicine is some realm where truth is impossible to determine.

    from a NYT interview with John Caputo, professor of theology and philosophy at Syracuse University:
    I think that what modern philosophers call “pure” reason — the Cartesian ego cogito and Kant’s transcendental consciousness — is a white male Euro-Christian construction.

    White is not “neutral.” “Pure” reason is lily white, as if white is not a color or is closest to the purity of the sun, and everything else is “colored.” Purification is a name for terror and deportation, and “white” is a thick, dense, potent cultural signifier that is closely linked to rationalism and colonialism. What is not white is not rational. So white is philosophically relevant and needs to be philosophically critiqued — it affects what we mean by “reason” — and “we” white philosophers cannot ignore it.

    That's the corruption resulting from an out-of-control postmodernism I mentioned earlier -- it comes from academia, but thanks to the media, we've all been affected by it. The claim of the postmodernists is precisely that "there is no such thing as accurate information". The insistence on observation, experimentation, and recording and comparing results is part of a dominating narrative constructed by white males to maintain their control. Here is the source interview in case you think I'm making this crap up:

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/looking-white-in-the-face/
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    vingogly wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    But the advance of medicine and human knowledge is based on observation, experimentation, and recording and comparing results, not just "letting people do what works for them."

    It isn't a contest, but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as accurate information or that medicine is some realm where truth is impossible to determine.

    from a NYT interview with John Caputo, professor of theology and philosophy at Syracuse University:
    I think that what modern philosophers call “pure” reason — the Cartesian ego cogito and Kant’s transcendental consciousness — is a white male Euro-Christian construction.

    White is not “neutral.” “Pure” reason is lily white, as if white is not a color or is closest to the purity of the sun, and everything else is “colored.” Purification is a name for terror and deportation, and “white” is a thick, dense, potent cultural signifier that is closely linked to rationalism and colonialism. What is not white is not rational. So white is philosophically relevant and needs to be philosophically critiqued — it affects what we mean by “reason” — and “we” white philosophers cannot ignore it.

    That's the corruption resulting from an out-of-control postmodernism I mentioned earlier -- it comes from academia, but thanks to the media, we've all been affected by it. The claim of the postmodernists is precisely that "there is no such thing as accurate information". The insistence on observation, experimentation, and recording and comparing results is part of a dominating narrative constructed by white males to maintain their control. Here is the source interview in case you think I'm making this crap up:

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/looking-white-in-the-face/

    It's what I call pop post-modernism. Very common and damaging, IMO.

    I am not so sure it's really from academia (I had issues with it in academia too). More often I see it from those who probably were not exposed to it in their educations and couldn't tell you any of the sources. But it is prevalent in the pop form.
  • Fyreside
    Fyreside Posts: 444 Member
    Options
    @Aaron_K123 & @jseams1234 Thanks for the info. Good reading.
  • 3bambi3
    3bambi3 Posts: 1,650 Member
    Options
    fitfreakymom wrote: »
    I will use what works for me and if smoking a plant takes care of my body pain and my head then I will do that before popping a pill made in a lab.

    Good for you. What does this have to do with your assertion that "Big Pharma" is in monetary danger from cannabis use?
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    Fyreside wrote: »
    @Aaron_K123 & @jseams1234 Thanks for the info. Good reading.

    Thanks @Fyreside, I think you made some good points and I do think there are opportunities for pharma to have poor buisness practices that can price gouge or are more profit motivated than they ethically should be. I think it would be foolhardy to claim otherwise, as for profit they are beholden to their share holders and there certainly are problems that go along with that. Cheers
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    From what I can see here in Canada, in the cusp of legalization, is that there is plenty of BIG MONEY lined up to supply demand. For a popular natural product. Is it any coincidence that within a ten block radius of my home there are TWO vape shops, with branding and flashy signage, all ready to go?

    https://www.alberta.ca/cannabis-legalization.aspx
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,178 Member
    Options
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    There actually IS something we can do about it. Each of us plays a small role, at the least, in determining whether the culture promotes woo or promotes more scientific approaches. Whether it's considered an "of course, it's responsible" to have children vaccinated or take them to a doctor when sick or whether "eh, I thought I'd have someone check their aura."

    In the OP's case, she's considering whether to become part of the system promoting woo or whether to question and rethink that.

    I would agree that absent really, really extreme circumstances adults have self determination and can make even decisions I consider really unwise or based in superstition about their health, of course, and with respect to most of the stuff on MFP the only harm is maybe delaying doing something that actually would be more helpful. But that does not mean that our only alternative is to actually encourage the idea that crystals are the same as medicine or that if I might be sick or have a weight problem I should detox, since it's the "toxins" causing it. Saying "no, that's wrong, that's not scientifically supported at all," especially on a forum like this where there may be lurkers actually looking for information. And, ideally, giving good reasons for our opinions or links to actual respectable sites is a positive step.

    Saying "no, that's mean, you should never question what someone else does, even on the internet in a general discussion about the merits of holistic medicine" is in reality encouraging and promoting a culture that does not respect science and is hardly the only alternate to legally forcing people to see doctors or take medication.

    My objections have had nothing at all to do with kindness. I have not said anything about anyone being mean. I'm suggesting that there are all kinds of options to western medicine, many of which are proven to work as you admit yourself. The anti-woo crowd is doing itself a disservice, in my opinion, by severely limiting their health options and doing others a disservice by trying to prevent alternative medicine from being available as an option.

    I don't want to get surgery on my back and I don't want to manage my pain with medications. I'm currently happy and able to do my job as a result of the alternative treatments I receive. My hairdresser was miserable for years but has finally lost some weight and is happier and more energetic than she's been in years with her (totally suspect but somehow effective) blood type diet. Why is this such an affront to the anti-woo crowd? What business is it of yours in the first damn place?

    See, this is what I was talking about earlier - anecdotal evidence vs controlled studies. I'd buy it if someone could show me a legitimate blind study where people with identical symptoms were divided into random groups and given diets either conforming to their blood type or not. If the results showed verifiable improvement in the symptoms of those who ate the diet consistent with their blood type, and little or no improvement in the other group I'd be completely convinced, and would be advising others to give it a try.

    I'm not convinced by the blood type diet either. I wouldn't do it myself and I wouldn't recommend to anyone. If it's the magic bullet my hairdresser needed, however, what the hell do I care?

    You don't have to see a chiropractor if you don't want to but you not wanting to doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to. I'm not trying to get western medicine shut down because I use chiropractic; many western medicine proponents, OTOH, are trying to prevent me from having access to a chiropractor. You don't have to follow a blood type diet if you don't want but my flaky hairdresser should be able to if she wants to.

    To the bolded:

    This surprises me. My Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance plan pays for chiropractic treatment. I can even self-refer.

    This seems like the very essence of acceptance by the mainstream medical establishment, to me.

    Things must be different elsewhere, I guess.
  • shaumom
    shaumom Posts: 1,003 Member
    Options
    Holistic places that I've seen have one problem: it is hard to trust that what they say is accurate. Mind you...sometimes it is. Sometimes they are absolutely right. But it always seems to be a mix.

    They often teach things that are not fully proven, or only have a study or two 'proving' them, or are more based on doctor discussion and articles re: their patients and personal experience. Which means they are MORE likely than medical schools to start teaching new information on the 'cutting edge,' as it were. Which means it has a higher chance to be partially or even fully incorrect.

    Although on the plus side, that means they may sometimes catch some new information that is completely true and just not accepted yet, or not studied enough to prove that it IS true (even if it is, in fact, true).

    So I'd say anything they teach - verify for yourself with outside sources and research and look up critiques, and then critiques of those critiques, and so on.

    Although to be fair, medical schools have the opposite problem than holistic ones, which can also lead to Incorrect information being taught. They are too slow to update their information, so outdated and wrong information is still taught for quite some time, in many cases.

    Medical knowledge in one country can seriously lag behind disseminating into the medical field in another country and so incorrect information is still taught for years, typically. Fructose malabsorption was treated for years in Australia, for example, when it was still viewed as imaginary here in the US. Now, it's completely accepted here and any GI doc can test you for it.

    Medical textbooks usually take 10-15 years to create, from start to finish, so doctors learning from them in school are typically that far out of date with current medical knowledge unless their professor has been keeping tabs on updated knowledge (will not all of them do. Possibly even most).

    Heck, I've gotten to experience this myself. My own disease has had previous knowledge of symptoms disproven, beyond a doubt, but it happened mostly in Britain. They were diagnosing the disease properly for at least 15 years before the USA started having doctors that were changing. The changes here started maybe 10 years back, and some medical schools are STILL teaching the outdated information.

    This is not new, nor unusual.

    And add on to this - the studies we are using to prove or disprove medical knowledge have been shown to be pretty unreliable for a while now. (This is a good summation of this particular problem http://nypost.com/2017/05/06/medical-studies-are-almost-always-bogus/ )

    So studies used to prove, or disprove, anything taught at your holistic school may not be accurate. But same goes for the medical schools.

    But as medical schools typically at least try to wait until there is a good body of evidence on new knowledge before they teach it, I think that they have less likelihood of teaching NEW incorrect information (one hopes). Holisitic schools don't seem to have that caution. So again...I'd verify anything you hear from the holistic school to double check, and triple check, that stuff.
  • Akariixo
    Akariixo Posts: 57 Member
    Options
    Conventional medicine (prescription medication, blood testing) vs. Alternative medicine (aromatherapy, acupuncture, massage therapy etc.)

    Conventional is backed by evidence, alternative is not.

    Alternative medicine can definitely work and is a great aide in treating whatever your symptom is however; it should be used alongside conventional methods for optimal benefits :)

    Not to say the holistic approach is a bunch of bs, I would recommend learning a lot about the subject before taking part in this practitioners recommendations.
  • BritishSpy007
    BritishSpy007 Posts: 431 Member
    Options
    Difficult to *kitten* to this... :/
This discussion has been closed.

Categories