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
Replies
-
MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
"The results were adjusted for variables such as age, sex, caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity and smoking. (For those seeking more detail, the study is downloadable in its entirety.)"
LOLOL. Cohort studies have been misused in the media for so many things that it's laughable.
The correlation of any finding in any of these studies is meaningless and doesn't show causation, which is what you're trying to show here, and this doesn't do that. There are so many confounding factors involved in cohort studies and the state of media reporting on those things is so abysmal, that linking to a WaPo article on a study is just useless.
Aspartame is two amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein.
11 -
100% wrong. Ever hear of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health? NCCIH is a division of the NIH has wasted over $3 billion taxpayer dollars studying alternative medicine. In 20 years it has turned up nothing. Zero. Zilch. $3 billion wasted.MikePfirrman wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
@MikePfirrman thanks for the current medical link. It seems some may be posting using dated medical sources perhaps. I know my autoimmune issues started to resolve in just 30 days after I cut out all added sugar and all forms of all grains Oct 2014.
Like me three years ago some still do not want to accept their health issues may be from the way they eat. A leaky gut can lead to premature death I now understand. What I was eating clearly was a cause of my failing health since three years later after stopping sugar and grains cold turkey my health continues to improve.
Most Holistic therapies have no money to support their research. There is just simply nuggets you have to pick and choose. It's pathetic that our government can't support more research for the common good and leaves it up to the pharmaceutical companies to pay for all the R&D. When that happens (most of the time), the research we see is cherry picked and favorable to expensive drug intervention.France's Meterone just declared that France will ban Round-Up within 2 years. I guess their scientists are seeing things that our American scientists aren't seeing. Anthony Samsel / Stephanie Seneff (the two MIT researchers that have put together a lot of information on how potentially bad Round-Up is) are being attacked by Monsanto (and many paid professional writers) as whackos. They never seem to attack the science, but the individuals. There is a ton of money going into discrediting/condemning these two. When you really look at what they've put out (along with Seralini from France, who won a libel suit against Monsanto in Europe), there's a lot of smoke out there. Perhaps why Monsanto is being sold to Bayer?? Only scientists near retirement take on Monsanto. They know if they do, it can kill your career (Monsanto is so powerful in the US).
You can tighten the tin foil hat all you want, Seneff, Samsel, and Serilini are discredited for good reason. Their research is a joke. Serilini's mouse study was retracted. Seneff is a computer scientist at MIT and has actually never studied glyphosate, somehow that makes her an expert on the subject. You should really quit dumpster diving in the cesspool of pseudoscience, its not helping your case at all.13 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.10 -
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049
"Out of the 730,447 articles labeled as “clinical trial” in PubMed as of May 26, 2016, only 18,231 were published in the major medical journals".
So if no studies are "quashed", what happened to the other 710K clinical trials??
It's such a common problem that the tin foil wearing WHO (World Health Organization) addressed it.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/withholding-results-clinical-trials-unethical-says-who
I'm done.10 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049
"Out of the 730,447 articles labeled as “clinical trial” in PubMed as of May 26, 2016, only 18,231 were published in the major medical journals".
So if no studies are "quashed", what happened to the other 710K clinical trials??
I'm done.
Wait, your argument is based on your assumption that anything not published in a major medical journal has been deliberately "quashed" because it had findings that were unfavorable to the medical establishment?
You don't think there are reasonable and legitimate reasons why a study might not either be appropriate, ready, suitable, or of high enough quality for publication in a major medical journal?11 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049
"Out of the 730,447 articles labeled as “clinical trial” in PubMed as of May 26, 2016, only 18,231 were published in the major medical journals".
So if no studies are "quashed", what happened to the other 710K clinical trials??
I'm done.
Well... do you know how articles are selected for publication in any of the major medical journals?
Hint... they have to meet a certain scientific standard. Meaning the results need to be properly documented and reproducible. Make a study about your highly beloved leaky guts that meets those requirements and it's likely that it will be published. The fact that peer-reviewed medical journals don't publish such quackery should tell you something about the quality of the so called 'research'.12 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002049
"Out of the 730,447 articles labeled as “clinical trial” in PubMed as of May 26, 2016, only 18,231 were published in the major medical journals".
So if no studies are "quashed", what happened to the other 710K clinical trials??
It's such a common problem that the tin foil wearing WHO (World Health Organization) addressed it.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/withholding-results-clinical-trials-unethical-says-who
I'm done.
When did you start?7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
17 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
When did I insult you? I'm truly sorry that I did because that is something I try to avoid in debates. I would appreciate it if you let me know where it was so that I can edit my post (if still possible) and avoid it in the future.10 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
Ah... so people disagreeing with you is insulting you. Gotcha.10 -
Maybe the idea that the medical community is "dead set against" genetic testing comes from this:
https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/genomics.html
I can think of a few genetic tests that absolutely make a difference. The need for the test however, is determined from family history.
The BRCA 1 and 2 gene. Men don't need this test.
Cystic Fibrosis.
Huh? Men do get breast cancer, and more of them (percentage wise) die of it because they think men don't get breast cancer, so they often get diagnosed later, at a more advanced stage.
The link even talks about men in your family who've had breast cancer as a factor in who should be tested for BRCA 1/2. Maybe I missed it, but I saw nothing suggesting men should not be tested, if they met the criteria.7 -
TIL: it's apparently insulting to see others look at your evidence and show you that the evidence doesn't really back up your claims.7
-
MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
Have you considered trying to discuss this without insults?
Do you avoid everything with a strong correlation to potential harm even when the causation is unclear or not established? I would think it would be very difficult. Equating correlation with causation is such a well-established and frequently referenced logical fallacy that I'm wondering if you're deliberately rejecting it or if you just haven't encountered it before. Could you clarify which it is?
If this isn't how you live, why would you say only a "fool" would disregard this particular study?
And again, what does this have to do with the quashed studies claim that was the focus of the post you were responding to? This is -- clearly -- a study that wasn't quashed because you made us aware of it via reporting in a major newspaper.
I've been insulted every way under the sun, so I'll be rude right back to you...
You can be as rude as you like to me because your opinion has been proven to be worthless, your entire stance on this thread has been one of a false superiority complex when in fact you are spouting tin foil hat mumbo jumbo
met your type on hundreds of courses over 30 years in medicine and I'm rude to them too
Go on, defend the school (in the OP) and what it teaches I double fricking dare ya
I could do with a good laugh10 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Or other suitable "B" words of your choice.7 -
Ha, you're not done.4
-
Maybe the idea that the medical community is "dead set against" genetic testing comes from this:
https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/genomics.html
I can think of a few genetic tests that absolutely make a difference. The need for the test however, is determined from family history.
The BRCA 1 and 2 gene. Men don't need this test.
Cystic Fibrosis.
Huh? Men do get breast cancer, and more of them (percentage wise) die of it because they think men don't get breast cancer, so they often get diagnosed later, at a more advanced stage.
The link even talks about men in your family who've had breast cancer as a factor in who should be tested for BRCA 1/2. Maybe I missed it, but I saw nothing suggesting men should not be tested, if they met the criteria.
"Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1 percent of all breast cancers in the U.S., and it is most common in men with a family history of the disease."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127171305.htm
The relative risk is very low.1 -
Sooooo.......leaky gut believer comes in telling us we're all sheeple to big pharma, posts some links and a Mercola video with a follow up defending those sources as easy to understand for us simpletons. Is asked for proper references. Attempts to provide them but the actually surprisingly (to him if he'd admit such a thing) clever folks of MFP with science degrees and beyond show the problems with said references.
Leaky gut believer gets more and more annoyed at the calm taking apart of assertions about misinterpreted studies and so throws insults around because apparently point out inaccuracies and plain wrongness is insulting too.
And then we came full circle in mean people and big pharma vs those who really know what's up by throwing in aspartame is going to kill us all.
Did I get it right?21 -
Maybe the idea that the medical community is "dead set against" genetic testing comes from this:
https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/genomics.html
I can think of a few genetic tests that absolutely make a difference. The need for the test however, is determined from family history.
The BRCA 1 and 2 gene. Men don't need this test.
Cystic Fibrosis.
Huh? Men do get breast cancer, and more of them (percentage wise) die of it because they think men don't get breast cancer, so they often get diagnosed later, at a more advanced stage.
The link even talks about men in your family who've had breast cancer as a factor in who should be tested for BRCA 1/2. Maybe I missed it, but I saw nothing suggesting men should not be tested, if they met the criteria.
"Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1 percent of all breast cancers in the U.S., and it is most common in men with a family history of the disease."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127171305.htm
The relative risk is very low.
Of course. It's rare. Most men don't need the BRCA 1/2 test. Neither do most women. But, as your link says, people who meet certain criteria should be tested.
Only a small percent of breast cancers (5-10%) are linked to known genetic factors, even among women.
I hope you may understand that I find it difficult to let slide any implication that men don't have to worry about breast cancer. (I know you didn't outright say they don't get it.) I don't think they need to fret obsessively over it - rare, as you say.
But men who get a chest or underarm lump need to get to a doctor, and many men need help to realize this.
Apologies to all; I'm off topic, and will get off the soapbox now.8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Sooooo.......leaky gut believer comes in telling us we're all sheeple to big pharma, posts some links and a Mercola video with a follow up defending those sources as easy to understand for us simpletons. Is asked for proper references. Attempts to provide them but the actually surprisingly (to him if he'd admit such a thing) clever folks of MFP with science degrees and beyond show the problems with said references.
Leaky gut believer gets more and more annoyed at the calm taking apart of assertions about misinterpreted studies and so throws insults around because apparently point out inaccuracies and plain wrongness is insulting too.
And then we came full circle in mean people and big pharma vs those who really know what's up by throwing in aspartame is going to kill us all.
Did I get it right?
You forgot the part where he supported the claim that aspartame-critical studies were quashed by linking to an article in a major publication publicizing a study that was critical of aspartame.5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »And as someone who lives in a country with nationalised healthcare which, for now at least, is part of the wider EU which also has nationalised healthcare, this notion that all healthcare and big pharma care about is the bottom line is absolute bullpoop. Do you know how much innovation and technological advancement comes out of Europe alone?
More broadly we have Canada, Australia, New Zealand, countless other research leading countries with nationalised healthcare. They are not for profit. It is in fact, in their interests to treat people as swiftly and as effectively as possible in order to keep healthcare costs down and society as healthy as possible (though there are some politics which can get in the way but that's another discussion not relevant to this).
And guess what? Vast majority of conditions are treated in the same way all over the world, insured or nationalised. Go figure. And here in the UK, you cannot access treatment for free that has not proven itself to be of value/effective. And that's most holistic medicine. Again, go figure.
Perhaps when telling others to broaden their horizons it would be helpful if those hell bent on looking inwardly at their own corner of the world and how the healthcare system is used there to denounce western medicine cast their eyes outwards to see what other countries are doing.
Not every system is perfect but if I get cancer I know where I'm going.
Thank you for your insights.
We are all the centre of our own universes.
My point was, I hope, that our bodies react differently to the same stimullii.
Modern pharmacology developed from concentrating the active chemicals found in traditional medicine.
Our Australian aborigines have a culture of 50,000 year old tried and tested herbal remedies that science is starting to appreciate and exploit.
Only closed-minded people dismiss the points of view and hardwon experience of others.
There are too many examples in medical history to give links to here.
You seek knowledge...go look for it...there is no easy 'forum' for profound knowledge seekers.
More power to all you curious people!18
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions