|
|
|
|
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/4/2007 8:34:08 PM | I was just saying that Chiropractics works fine and has been tested and proven to help people. The AMA used politics to make them look bad. My grandfather practiced during that time and helped alot of people. Chiropractics saves lives  | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/4/2007 9:17:53 PM | Another example of a shyster who should be thrown in the clink: Robert Barefoot. This guy has gone from one "INCREDIBLE CURE!" to another, with none of them being effective, and sometimes actually being dangerous.
I think he was the one claiming that his supplements contained microbes that had developed in the oceans for "millions of years!" to help "YOU!" with your digestion, failing to mention that those microbes, if they were in the supplement at all, would be totally unprepared to deal with the environment they'd be thrown into inside our stomachs. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/4/2007 10:00:02 PM | OK, fine then I will purpose a hopefully new accupuncture theory right here and now for the very amusement of this conversation. I proclaim that the needle into any given region hits upon a C fiber nerve cell. Because this specific nerve cell has little to no myelin sheath it is not insulated well to pain. Even though we may barely be aware of the needle, because its about one tenth of the diameter of an average needle, its presence into this cell it sends a signal up the myotome and back to the brain. The brain registers it as an injury and sends all the good chemicals and hormone that it normally does to help cure itself. There is your science, Mike, now prove me wrong.
We talked about the definition of science in the first page or two of this thread and I thought we were generally in agreement as to what it is. You were not around in that time period, it would be worth your while to read it since we've built upon that foundation throughout this conversation. I might be putting myself out on a limb a little calling accupuncture a science. What I definitely mean is that it is scientifically reproduceable results. So that's sort of puts it at the first step of being science though obviously the thoughts of reason and rationale will be ones to follow. That is part of what is so exciting about science, particularly at this juncture.
Middle ground? Middle ground to WHAT exactly? That our two hundred year old medical system is choking on understanding a thousand year old medical system? Don't make me laugh!
Just because your mind cannot wrap around its ways does not make it any less valid. You expect science to be all spelled out for you in a neatly wrapped package (a textbook, perhaps?) but the real thing is far more nebulous and metamorphic. It is in a state of constant change, really. Science is a tool, and very much always a work in progress to add to the knowledge. Moreover what really makes me laugh about your approach, UrbanX, is how you can give details about Buddhism, a known eastern religion, but not accept accupuncture, a known eastern science. The religion is OK but not the science | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/4/2007 10:07:49 PM |
Another example of a shyster who should be thrown in the clink: Robert Barefoot. This guy has gone from one "INCREDIBLE CURE!" to another, with none of them being effective, and sometimes actually being dangerous.
So have you ever tried his product?
I took the coral calcium and went from having shooting pains through my neck and arms to having the worst of them disappear. This was after years of seeing doctors who, I think, made an abomination of science and should be thrown in the clink.
I think Bob Barefoot should be given the Nobel Prize. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/4/2007 10:24:48 PM |
You expect science to be all spelled out for you in a neatly wrapped package (a textbook, perhaps?) but the real thing is far more nebulous and metamorphic. It is in a state of constant change, really. Science is a tool, and very much always a work in progress to add to the knowledge.
Science as a tool is well put.
Many of our fellow POFers are of the mindset of "Imperical scientific empirism". Where these pious scientific zealots bandy about half comprehended hypothesis as if it were the holy grail. Heaven forbid should one question empirically whether there may be an alternative explanation, which would be blasphemous to their indignent selfrighteousness. argh!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's ok, I'm alright. I'll just get off this salt box. whew! I'm all better now. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/5/2007 1:45:20 AM | Naw, you're fine, what they need to realize is that just because our current mindset can not understand a particular item it does not mean there was not reason or rationale behind it forming. There is so many places I could go with this thought.
Specifically, though, that the eastern religions precluded the cutting of the flesh. So they meditated on it instead. Their approach, being more intuitive in foundation, is not seen as logical or rationale because our western science does not see mental energy as a source or resource. But if you self impose a set of physical restrictions it seems only logical your mind will develop other ways. Why is this just so hard for people to understand? Is is so hard to step out of the box of your current thinking?
I spent an hour the other day watching a big burly kickboxer who is now a licensed accupuncturist and sports massage therapist put his hands on a person in four regions with 5 grams of pressure, the weight of a nickel. He felt the bodies reaction. This was called Cranial Sacrial Release Technique or something like that. I tried to get the link but netflix is closed this time of the night. Anyway he claims this increases his success with atheletes. One marathon runner did it in 2 minutes less after his massage techniques with this added. I predict eventually this will fall under a larger field of new science, intuitively derived science. But maybe it will just integrate in as accupuncture is already doing.
If people forget that science can come from intuitive sources this is the worst possible thing, it is underestimating a key behavior of human living. We imagine, we intuit some knowledge.
But really I think we are reaching a time when the whole intuitive science possibilities are becoming much closer to the hardcore sciences. People are waking up to the science that Heisenberg laid down, and Einstein's Dark Matter... what if accupuncture worked by dark matter? You never know, anything may not be entirely probable but it is always possible. I mean that is a blatant exageration but I do see the sciences as getting closer to communicating face to face. That's my impression. They are getting closer to reinforcing each other.
10 widely-held, yet incorrect ideas about the nature of science.
Myth 1: Hypotheses Become Theories Which Become Laws
Myth 2: A Hypothesis is an Educated Guess
Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists
Myth 4: Evidence Accumulated Carefully Will Result in Sure Knowledge
Myth 5: Science and its Methods Provide Absolute Proof
Myth 6: Science Is Procedural More Than Creative
Myth 7: Science and its Methods Can Answer All Questions
Myth 8. Scientists are Particularly Objective
Myth 9: Experiments are the Principle Route to Scientific Knowledge
Myth 10: All Work in Science is Reviewed to Keep the Process Honest.
The National Science Education Standards strongly suggests that school science
must give students an opportunity to experience science authentically,
free of the legends, misconceptions and idealizations inherent in the myths
about the nature of the scientific enterprise.
http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/TenMyths.html
3 6 7 and 9 seem particularly important and relevant to this convo about accupuncture and I lift them from the first page of this thread. Some of them strongly allow for the use of intuitive knowledge.
UrbanX, you also need to go to the bottom of the page on wikipedia about accupuncture and watch the scientific american video. How does the accupuncture work on a dog who has no expectations or beliefs? The dog is not susceptible to placebo effect.
They disagree with your lack of logic about about accupuncture. The doctor there says that every meridian lines up with a nerve, except for a few. Now quit misleading us. So when are you coming to the middle ground? | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/5/2007 7:13:02 AM |
What I definitely mean is that it is scientifically reproduceable results.
Thank you. I've been saying all along that some of accupuncture's results are reproducible. If memory serves, since my first post on the subject.
I might be putting myself out on a limb a little calling accupuncture a science.
Thank you. That would be my point.
You are mistaking clarity for bashing accupuncture. The thread is on pseudoscience, which generally speaking involves scientific-sounding claims for things which are not scientifically based (usually in order to part people from their money.)
These claims can be anything from blatant lies to significant overstatements of the actual situation. Your claim that accupuncture is a science would generously fall into the latter category.
Only some of accupuncture's results are reproducible, many of its claims cannot be validated and results vary significantly between practitioners. That's what the data tells us. When people claim that all of accupuncture is scientifically proven and invoke studies that have found something much less than that, this moves in the realm of pseudoscience. It implies that all of accupuncture's traditional claims have been proven to be true, which would be false. It implies that all of accupuncture's treatments are reproducible, which would be false. It implies that it is on an equal scientific footing with Western medicine, which would be false. These statements are used by organizations and individuals as marketing to increase the penetration of accupuncture into different demographics (pun duly noted).
Thanks for providing this abject example that has helped us clarify where pseudoscience starts and stops.
Cheers,
Mike (and I'm so glad a chiro-head finally noticed my references to subluxation)
Thank you for coming to the middle-ground I've been patiently sitting on since my first post. | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/5/2007 11:48:56 AM |
So have you ever tried his product?
I took the coral calcium and went from having shooting pains through my neck and arms to having the worst of them disappear. This was after years of seeing doctors who, I think, made an abomination of science and should be thrown in the clink.
I think Bob Barefoot should be given the Nobel Prize. That may or may not have had anything to do with your pain going away, but, either way, it doesn't change the fact that he's made many false claims for his products. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/5/2007 10:00:35 PM | urbanX~
intelligent design isn't something i would classify as a psuedo science. it's more of a philisophical argument for the existence of an author, or creator, that's it. there are some good arguments along this topic going back to thomas aquinas, and of course, paley's watchmaker. the best refuttal of these arguments have been proposed by dawkins, imho.
i def think there is a place for studying these arguments, but it isn't in a science class. it belongs in a philosophy class... and they are fascinating and exciting fodder for thought and rigorous debate...
lar | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/5/2007 10:56:35 PM |
intelligent design isn't something i would classify as a psuedo science. it's more of a philisophical argument...
The leading proponents for ID, most or all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, bill Intelligent Design as being scientific and on par (or rather, superior to) natural selection.
So while you're right about it being essentially a philosphical argument, ID is rudely dragged into the pseudoscience category due to the efforts of those misguided souls in the Discovery Institute who make grand claims about it having scientific validity.
In other words, if you take a philosophy and claim that its scientific, you got pseudoscience.
Intelligent Design + claims that it is scientific = pseudoscience. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/6/2007 6:36:45 AM | mrguycaballero: ok, on that rationale you should join him. You said:
Another example of a shyster who should be thrown in the clink: Robert Barefoot. This guy has gone from one "INCREDIBLE CURE!" to another, with none of them being effective, and sometimes actually being dangerous.
"NONE OF THEM BEING EFFECTIVE"-- you claim -- I told you they were effective when I used them and asked if you had tried any of his products. You made false statements, too.
UrbanX:
Chi and meridians are non-observable, non-quantifiable and non-replicable explanatory models from traditional Chinese medicine. Your false statement, the doctor on the scientific frontiers says the meridians follow known nerve pathways, except a few. You must join mrguycaballero and bob barefoot in the proverbial clink, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
So Barefoot made a few overly enthusiastic comments, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater over that, especially after what I have experienced.
Sombient: Interesting link, I spent a lot of time reading it and the links from it. First plenty of the links from it did not work. Secondly the guy really took Barefoot's words out of context. I listened to his TV thing several times before I bought the product and I know those things were taken severely out of context. Granted, he probably got excited and stretched the truth a tad here or there but I don't find anything remarkably off base. I am a little more skeptical why this particular quackwatch MD has a license and is using it for this purpose rather than some good. He is just showing it is easier to be a cynic than a leader.
A lot of it is more up your lines of specialty than mine. For instance he admits coral calcium is basically the same chemical composition as limestone. Do we know this for sure? Does not appear so to my sight or sense of smell. He even says it is like farm limestone but then contradicts himself in the next sentence saying limestone is not fit for human consumption. THEN WHY MAKE THE COMPARISON, QUACKWATCH?
The article and its links several times tries to equate coral calcium with all its trace elements to straight out calcium carbonate and that simply is not true. That misleading info makes me skeptical of the way the quackwatch guy and others practice science -- or even critical thinking. What if the trace elements or magnesium is doing the healing and they are avoiding its existance almost completely?
Also, and its been a long time since I read it, but wasn't limestone a key ingredient in the invention of green vitrol?
But limestone does directly affect acidity, it reduces it. I spread a fifty pound bag of farm grade limestone on the shady areas of my property every year. Because shade builds up soil acid and the limestone reduces it which makes the favorable plants grow easier. I've seen it help change the soil such that grass grow where it would not before and also help sand burrs disappear where they were a huge problem before.
Here again, the quackwatch guy compares apples to oranges:
The calcium in coral calcium is far more absorbable (100%) than the calcium in milk (17%) , calcium citrate products (10%) and antacid products (1-2%). Experts interviewed by the Washington Post state that pure calcium carbonate products are 30-35% absorbable [10].
He should know better! Did this doctor lose his right to practice so he is writing this crap?
He knows they are not straight up comparisons. I am really not so interested in all those little issues because I experienced it helping me. If anything I would wonder why, obviously.
The only claim that Barefoot made that I really wonder about was his claim that DNA strands could be repaired in a petri dish when forms of calcium were added. That struck me as crucial. I'd be more interested in your opinion on that one issue than all of the rest of this put together.
The whole acid thing -- I read it in a book BY A MEDICAL DOCTOR from over half a century ago about the ACV and honey, he basically said the same thing. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/6/2007 7:58:15 AM | There is nothing 'special' about coral calcium. Its simple a DIRT CHEAP form of calcium carbonate, limestone. Roberts problem is that he claimed it was SPECIAL, a superior form.
Not! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate
However, if you spent a little time reading, you would find that it doesn't matter a DING DONG if you take calcium carbonate or calcium citrate or gluconate or many other forms of equally soluble calcium.
The uptake of calcium is VITAMIN D dependent.
Your problem was a bit of an uptake problem with calcium (low vitamin D status, a liver hydroxylation problem) plus another item, Sherlock. Your response from chomping on that delicious expensive limestone is this:
You're low on magnesium. Thats the OTHER divalent cation in limestone.
http://www.specialtyminerals.com/our-minerals/what-is-gcc-limestone
Magnesium is necessary for calcium ion balance in many cells, including brain and CNS and muscle. When you are low on magnesium, the symptoms include muscle cramps/knots and muscle pain from excessive tightness, a condition called hypertonus.
So you mistook your problem for calcium shortage, as many others do. In fact, your problem was magnesium ion balance - its low, and thats a problem of dysfunction in kidney maintaining correct balance with sodium. Thats why you responded to coral calcium and not to other calcium supplements that lack magnesium. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/6/2007 3:38:46 PM | There will always be examples of people who apparently benefited from taking supplements for which their claims are false. This is because some percentage of them would've gotten better anyway. Then you've got to throw in the placebo effect as well. I wasn't trying to tick you off and am honestly glad your pain has subsided, but I stand my ground re: Barefoot. I honestly believe he's just making up claims to make a bunch of money.
Oh, this thread reminds me, I need to post a new thread with a link to a possible (important word) real breakthrough in cancer research... un momentito...
EDIT: someone beat me to it in the Ontario section.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts6507846.aspx | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/6/2007 4:00:41 PM | I addressed this compounds effects months ago.
I know why it works and the natural compound that it mimics, and why its missing, as a result of lifestyle side effects.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts6388641.aspx
Its not a cure. Its simply one of several pathways to induce apoptosis in cells. No cell damage? Cells don't respond to the presence of the drug as an lysis inducers in mitochondria. There are other beneficial actions of the natural compound (not DCA). | |
|
| |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/6/2007 9:23:48 PM | rockondon~
i agree that this organization obviously has a political agenda regarding the issue of intelligent design...but having studied the various arguments on the topic i find it a fascinating debate... it does belong in a philosophy class but it does not make those arguments any less valid because they are outside the realm of hard science. and as far as your definition goes as to what constitutes a psuedo science, i would disagree...
philosophy is outside the realm of the hard sciences...but that does not mean that it does not rigourously adhere to logical principles... also, many of issues that crop up in the hard sciences do cross over into the realm of ethics and philosophy because with such specialized scientific knowledge, (ie: the molecular biologist who knows how to make some really scary biological agents) comes ethical dilemas of all sorts, and this is where these matters need to be addressed....
to in any way classify or attach philogophy as a field of study with that of a psuedo science is completely egregious in my book... and being someone with a penchant for philisophical discourse i take umbrage at that...
do you not realize that philosophy is probably THE most important field of study? that philisophical ideas bleed into everyother field and area of life?
lar | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/7/2007 3:52:31 AM |
So you mistook your problem for calcium shortage, as many others do. In fact, your problem was magnesium ion balance - its low, and thats a problem of dysfunction in kidney maintaining correct balance with sodium. Thats why you responded to coral calcium and not to other calcium supplements that lack magnesium.
Now wait a minute, that's wrong. I never diagnosed myself with a calcium shortage. I never had any exact thinking when I ordered Barefoots Coral Calcium beyond this:
I had bought the inexpensive $5/bottle Cal/Mag mix from Walgreens and I noticed it helped. At that point I was actually reasoning it to be more the magnesium than the calcium because I was a huge milk drinker so I was almost always getting lots of calcium. So I guessed if the cheap stuff helped me maybe it'd be worth trying the better source. It worked.
But does any of this explain it getting rid of shooting pains in my neck and upper arms? I also later on ended up showing to have low phosphorous levels on a blood panel. | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 95 | |
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/7/2007 5:35:14 AM | Milk is over-rated , many other foods are as high or higher in calcium.
No one needs some quack doctor supplements off the TV or internet !!
Almonds
Amaranth
Collards (raw leaves)
Kale (raw leaves)
Molasses (dark-213 cal.)
Sesame Seeds
Sardines | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/7/2007 2:11:35 PM |
... it does belong in a philosophy class but it does not make those arguments any less valid because they are outside the realm of hard science. and as far as your definition goes as to what constitutes a psuedo science, i would disagree...
my definition of pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method. When you claimed ID was a philosphical concept, I granted you your presumption and demonstated how such a concept could become pseudoscience - but I don't equate philosophy with pseudoscience. My 'philosophy + claims about it being scientific = pseudoscience' comment was meant to be an example of pseudoscience, not a literal definition. That was my bad, I should have been more clear.
This website http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm is an example of why ID is pseudoscience. ID claims to be falsifiable (and claims that Darwinism isnt), explanatory and predictive - all of which is untrue.
to in any way classify or attach philogophy as a field of study with that of a psuedo science is completely egregious in my book... and being someone with a penchant for philisophical discourse i take umbrage at that...
Have you ever noticed how so many philosophy students feel that its far more important to sound intelligent than it is to get their point across? I'm sorry for your taking umbrage at my egregious comments.
do you not realize that philosophy is probably THE most important field of study? that philisophical ideas bleed into everyother field and area of life?
Do you not realize that philosophy is probably THE best field of study for getting a job at McDonald's?
Whatever the importance of philosophy is, it is completely irrelevant to the conversation. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/8/2007 1:38:36 PM | Follow-up on my earlier post (78) on Eastern health practices that really do have a practical scientific basis:
Study: Tai chi may help prevent shingles 8 April 2007 AP Science News
LOS ANGELES - Tai chi is already known as a good low-impact exercise for older people. Now a recent study suggests it offers benefits beyond improving fitness and balance: It may help prevent shingles, a painful skin condition. Researchers found older people who performed the slow, graceful movements of tai chi had a better immune response against the virus that causes shingles than those who only got health education, according to the most rigorous test to date.
It's unclear how tai chi, an ancient Chinese martial art that has become increasingly popular in the West, affects the immune system. But health experts were encouraged by the positive results. "The message is that older people need to maintain healthy behavior," said Andrew Monjan of the National Institute on Aging, which helped fund the research. "It's nothing that our mothers haven't told us, but we're seeing it certainly holds up to scientific inquiry." The study appears in the April issue of the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society and was led by Dr. Michael Irwin of the University of California, Los Angeles.
Shingles is a painful skin rash that can pop up in people who have had chickenpox. The chickenpox virus can remain dormant in the body and resurface as shingles years later. It usually starts with pain and itching on the skin that later turns into an irritating rash. An estimated 1 million Americans are afflicted with shingles every year and it commonly occurs in people 50 years old and older.
The UCLA study involved 112 healthy adults, ages 59 to 86, who have had previous cases of chickenpox. Half of them took tai chi classes three times a week for three months and the rest attended health education classes where they were taught good diet habits and stress management. Then both groups were vaccinated with a chickenpox vaccine. Researchers took periodic blood tests before and after vaccination to determine their level of immunity against shingles.
After six months, the tai chi group had nearly twice the level of immunity against shingles than the education group. Those who performed tai chi before vaccination had an immune response that was similar to what a vaccine would produce in a younger population. Tai chi combined with the vaccine showed a 40 percent increase in immunity than the vaccine alone, researchers found.
The results weren't surprising to tai chi instructor Howard Chuck, who owns a tai chi academy in Sunnyvale, Calif. Although none of his students are trying to ward off shingles, Chuck said the exercise is popular among his older people who prefer tai chi's meditation aspects. "Tai chi requires a lot of mind power not just muscle power," he said.
So what is going on here?
Stress reduces immune health and increases cytokine and inflammatory response sensitivity. Tai chi is a form of active meditation that also strengthens muscle/brain feedback response - the same muscles that tighten down as a result of chronic stress, compressing the chest, raising blood pressure and reducing breath capacity and oxygen supply carried in the blood to the brain. By reducing CNS sensitivity to stress, a known inducer of shingles outbreaks (in the c-fiber nerve endings in skin), and by improving immune response (natural killer cells) to viral infected cells (a natural capacity further 'goosed' by vaccine administration), a person is less susceptible to stress-induced shingles outbreaks by regular practice of Tai Chi and other active meditation techniques.
Now this is not pseudoscience - its on the border of hardcore science, because Western biomedical research is still unraveling the complex biochemistry and its molecular biology controls with specific tissues of the human body (and in animal models, too). These indirect studies are useful. I would have added a few diagnostic tests alongside, but thats expensive, and the original research proposal and grant funding probably didn't allow for it. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/9/2007 1:04:47 AM |
Follow-up on my earlier post (78) on Eastern health practices that really do have a practical scientific basis
Just look at the number of things that have filtered their way into the western pharmocopia from the Chinese pharmocopia. This lumbrecin (sp?) pills some people take for heart are the western extraction of earthworm tea - the tradidional Chinese remedy for heart problems for example.
Ok so they were wrong about the cinnebar. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/9/2007 4:43:53 AM | Ditto with the Reishi mushrooms. A medical company is currently looking for a way to convert ingredients of that into a drug because they can sell and patent the drug. The mushroom is not patentable. I read about this stuff in big name magazines like Readers Digest all the time or see it on reputable shows like Scientific America where they talk about using the non clotting agents of a vampire bat's spit as the newest anti coagulant blood drug. Don't be so shocked. Most women who take estrogen and hormone replacement do not even know that most of that is concentrated and purified down from HORSE URINE. That has been on our local TV news.
If I have to condense all my past messages in this thread into one theme that is it. That I just want people to be a little more open minded about what might become hardcore science. That just because some thing is not science it does not mean it can not become science. Or be further refined to be a science.
Sombient, your comparison of Bob Barefoots Coral Calcium does not hold water because you are comparing it to one other item, limestone, and not all its trace minerals nor its added vitamins. 70 trace minerals. All I know was that something in it helped me, I spent less money than I spend on some prescriptions(like Vioxx or Celebrex, which killed a hundred or two hundred thousand people), and it was likely better for my body as well. It was no more expensive than any other good multivitamin on the market. Oozing cynicism does not increase your credibility as a scientist, in fact you have only hurt your own credibility on these forums.
As a side note I should also mention my experience with the company. They accidentally botched my order so when I called back in and had my check in my hand after getting it back from the bank I read off the pertinent information to the person on the line. I paid for two bottles, but because of the mixup the company sent me five bottles as an apology for my extended wait. Now if that is not great customer satisfaction I do not know what is.
Besides even at its regular price, about a dollar a day, it is not any more expensive than a lot of other vitamins on the market and it does have other stuff in it besides the calcium. It has vitamins added so it is more like a multi vitamin and it has trace elements.
No, I don't own stock in the company and know none of them and have no vested interests of any kind there. I am just saying these were my experiences.
*edit* It was about a dollar a day. I just checked and it is down to twenty for a months supply. Even cheaper for larger amounts. | |
|
| Pseudoscience - knowledge which masquerades as science
Posted: 4/9/2007 8:26:24 AM |
That I just want people to be a little more open minded about what might become hardcore science. That just because some thing is not science it does not mean it can not become science. Or be further refined to be a science.
I think some of the challenges you've been experiencing on this thread are semantic. Western medical science, especially in the areas of pharmaceuticals, have been assessing traditional folk medicines for decades. Studies determine what effects truly are happening, assess efficacy, side effects and contraindicated combinations through clinical trials and attempt to synthesize or industrialize the medicine or treatment.
This doesn't make the folk treatment a science, it applies scientific approaches to folk treatments that results in modern treatments. Does it make the traditional herbalist a doctor? No. Does it make the traditional accupuncturist a scientist? No.
Does it draw heavily on folk treatments to create modern treatments? Sure does. In the process it usually changes them substantially. For example, we generally don't chew willowbark but take aspirin. 'Pure' atropine is used in clinical doses for many classes of heart problems but not as a sleeping draught.
So you won't find anyone disagreeing with what I think the premise of your argument is, specifically that we can still learn things from folk medicine practices. Where you are running into problems is in claiming that as scientific medical approaches learn those things, the folk practices become sciences. Semantic, you see?
Cheers,
Mike (pharmaceutical purity is an interesting discussion ... another time) | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 22
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 |
|
Home
login 
