Winter

[braineclipse]

The problem largely is the FDA & AMA are controlled by the executives from the pharma companies, they are not in the public interest. Funding for studies is controlled largely by the pharma interests.

I am not cherry picking something I don't believe in at all (as said in a fair world large scale studies would be done, and your framework would then work fairly and be the best way to find that which works best, this highlights the problem which makes me belittle 'science is best' as a defense), I read JTS's only defending article which said 'the treatments appear to have merit, but 'large scale studies have not been done' this is not a critique with merit, it lacks any real form of counter theory, which I am repeatedly asking for.

If the defense is 'not enough studies' have been done, yet medical authorities will not fund large studies in the face of overwhelming supportive data - It's a strawman.

I hope you can at least appreciate my position, if not agree with it.

Main point:

For me to appreciate your position you at least have to make your position clear. You say that in an ideal world large scale placebo controlled, double blinded studies would be the best way (slight paraphrase). Accepting that we don't live in an ideal world, you seem to think that there are better ways than the current scientific setup. Surely there must be some objective and consistent standard you use to separate truth from fiction here? What is it that standard? Presumably you have some standard you deem to be better than the current scientific one based on double blinded studies funded largely by the pharmaceutical industry, but also by other private and public interests.

Pointing out that there are problems with the current scientifically based setup is not an answer to this, it's changing the subject or dodging the question. Sorry to generalize, but your lack of an answer here seems typical for the alternative side of the debate.

----------------

Side points:

Funding for studies is controlled by big pharma, sure. They are the ones developing the drugs, thus they have to test it before it can be brought to market. I seriously doubt that the FDA are "controlled by the executives from the pharma companies". However, even assuming that this was true. What is better about the alternative side? What control agency is there?

One of us doesn't understand what a straw man is. From what I understand a straw man argument is when you incorrectly represent a version of the opposing argument that is easy to argue against. There is a way what you said can be seen as a straw man, but you're the one representing an opposing argument in that sentence so if there is any straw manning being done it's by you.

"Not enough studies have been done" is a very common part of the scientific language in most, if not all, disciplines. Understanding why this is needed is a pretty important part of scientific literacy.

 

[Gifter]

Main point:

For me to appreciate your position you at least have to make your position clear. You say that in an ideal world large scale placebo controlled, double blinded studies would be the best way (slight paraphrase). Accepting that we don't live in an ideal world, you seem to think that there are better ways than the current scientific setup. Surely there must be some objective and consistent standard you use to separate truth from fiction here? What is it that standard? Presumably you have some standard you deem to be better than the current scientific one based on double blinded studies funded largely by the pharmaceutical industry, but also by other private and public interests.

Pointing out that there are problems with the current scientifically based setup is not an answer to this, it's changing the subject or dodging the question. Sorry to generalize, but your lack of an answer here seems typical for the alternative side of the debate.

----------------

Side points:

Funding for studies is controlled by big pharma, sure. They are the ones developing the drugs, thus they have to test it before it can be brought to market. I seriously doubt that the FDA are "controlled by the executives from the pharma companies". However, even assuming that this was true. What is better about the alternative side? What control agency is there?

One of us doesn't understand what a straw man is. From what I understand a straw man argument is when you incorrectly represent a version of the opposing argument that is easy to argue against. There is a way what you said can be seen as a straw man, but you're the one representing an opposing argument in that sentence so if there is any straw manning being done it's by you.

"Not enough studies have been done" is a very common part of the scientific language in most, if not all, disciplines. Understanding why this is needed is a pretty important part of scientific literacy.

Dude, I can't get drawn deep into this side of the discussion, sorry.

But I will post again, then won't be drawn further.

I already said that controlled studies are best, I'm with you on that OK?

BUT, if that means (in this context) that only pharma drugs will ever be placed for serious tests, can you not see how flawed that model is? Really?

They can't patent this, so they will do all they can to slow it's rise to prominence, as it does though, more and more MD's with half a brain will flip-flop over, and claim they knew it as self evident (everyone knew the eskimo's studies from the 70's etc etc) but had to follow medical direction from NICE.

Science is then a prison where 'pharma truth' projects itself, not the breeding ground to actual truth, it becomes such that controlling interests are allowed to dictate the 'thinking of the day' by giving funding strongly for hypothesis they wish to become prevailing thought (with a very narrow field of focus, much like a sheldon cooper on caffeine).

14,000+ studies have been done on omega3 with countless different diseases, there are whole countries worth of empirical data which show remarkable difference in disease rates, but your 'science framework' deems that it is not worthy of large scale investigation? The same with the crohn's treatment link I gave, strangle acceptance by strangling funding.

I would like a complete overhaul.

Surely you get the gist!

 

[Gifter]

Please also do not forget 'licensing' in this equation, it always pays to follow the money...

So, now you also have a medical board (FDA) who happens to profit from every prescription filled.

When approval of nutrition as treatment would mean zero kick back.. is there no clear conflict? especially when they profit again and again and again from long term suffering, sadly.

 

[braineclipse]

Dude, I can't get drawn deep into this side of the discussion, sorry.

But I will post again, then won't be drawn further.

I already said that controlled studies are best, I'm with you on that OK?

BUT, if that means (in this context) that only pharma drugs will ever be placed for serious tests, can you not see how flawed that model is? Really?

They can't patent this, so they will do all they can to slow it's rise to prominence, as it does though, more and more MD's with half a brain will flip-flop over, and claim they knew it as self evident (everyone knew the eskimo's studies from the 70's etc etc) but had to follow medical direction from NICE.

Science is then a prison where 'pharma truth' projects itself, not the breeding ground to actual truth, it becomes such that controlling interests are allowed to dictate the 'thinking of the day' by giving funding strongly for hypothesis they wish to become prevailing thought (with a very narrow field of focus, much like a sheldon cooper on caffeine).

14,000+ studies have been done on omega3 with countless different diseases, there are whole countries worth of empirical data which show remarkable difference in disease rates, but your 'science framework' deems that it is not worthy of large scale investigation? The same with the crohn's treatment link I gave, strangle acceptance by strangling funding.

I would like a complete overhaul.

Surely you get the gist!

Giving your (or your side's) current objective and consistent standard you use to separate truth from fiction out of the currently rather long list of alternatives to science based medicine is being drawn deep into a discussion? "How do we evaluate evidence?" Why is there not a ready to go, easy to find, easy to copy and paste into a discussion, wide spread answer to this? How can anyone on your side of the debate expect to be taken seriously in a specific debate about for example omega 3 without answering this basic question?

I can see that the current model is flawed, like I have already said. Although I don't think it's as flawed as you claim it is. Pretty much stems from capitalism being a flawed system, but as flawed as it is it certainly seems to be the best model we've come up with so far.

You don't think there is money in omega 3? You don't think there is money being directed at funding studies from the companies making money from omega 3?

A large part of the problem is how little control agencies like the FDA have over supplements. Companies producing these can push their products to the market with fancy sounding slogans and nebulous claims like "Improves digestion" og "helps health" along with personal anecdotes. In some cases even supported by company generated claims about the effectiveness of said supplement on supposed 3rd party websites. If the rules for supplements were more similar to the rules for drugs, where you actually need some support for the claims you make about the product that would go a long way. However the control the supplement industry historically has had over politicians have prevented this unfortunately.