Hambone

What seperates science from religion is not that you can or can't ask questions. It is that the answers in science are quantifiable, measurable and repeatable. In religion the answers are based on faith.

531phile 

I'm reading this as I bit into my hundredth cashew of the day.

AnthonyG

I don't disagree with that.

When it comes to patented pharmasuetical drugs the results are NOT quantifiable, measurable, repeatable or subject to verification. We take it on complete FAITH that the companies have honestly reported the results without removing or altering evidence that doesn't support there case. One peer who is simply reading THEIR report does NOT make proper peer review.

Regards, Anthony

AnthonyG

I don't have to be an active scientist to be allowed to ask questions of science. Thats akin to saying that only preists can involve themselves in religious inquiry.

The case involving the Australian scientists and their work into stomach ulcers is a case in point. For many years they were derided by their peers simply based on their opinions but no one was in a hurry to repeat their work.

Regards, Anthony

magic8ball

I get it. You're actually Tom Cruise.
How's the baby?

AnthonyG

Well actualy if you follow my argument I'm claiming that the western public at large has a religious type following of science. Ie they believe in something they don't understand.

Now its a standard technique of political debate to simply try and turn the argument around but where's the evidence in what I have written that would support such a thing.

Regards, Anthony

Hambone

I'll freely admit I have little knowledge about how the Australian counterpart to the US FDA works, but what you are describing here has little resemblence to the system in the states. Even under our current president who has done much to limit the FDA and turn it into a political agency.

DrPete 

So I missed this thread the first time around, but I'd just like to add myself to the list of M.D.'s who agree that AnthonyG's comments and recommendations are irresponsible and dangerous. Goes well with a lot of medical advice on the web these days, though...

People love to believe that there's some massive conspiracy on the part of the medical community to push some agenda. I think part of it is that buying into all of the crap that's out there requires less understanding and makes people feel like they are better/smarter than people who have been fully educated in a field and understand the complexity of an entire question.

As if the problem is that we all need to get tan and eat unsaturated fats, and we just haven't figured it out yet. That demonstates a truly dangerous lack of understanding of cancer as a disease and the factors that go into its development.

If you were a physician telling this to patients in a professional capacity and one of your patients developed melanoma, you'd be facing a malpractice suit that would leave your great grandchildren broke.

DrPete

The Octopus 

I'll chime in as an attorney who spends a good deal of his practice representing physicians. The AnthonyG's of the world aren't medical doctors. If they ever were, they've probably lost their licenses. Not only would you get sued, your disregard of your duty to your patients would be so egregious as to cause the board to yank your license.

I know that hating science is really cool, avant garde, and post-modern these days, but guys, life isn't whatever you want it to be in your own little reality. I feel sorry for the folks who give equal weight to the crap they read on the internet or hear from their friends and to matieral that's printed in peer-reviewed journals. All information isn't equally valid. Reality isn't what you decide it is. Think for yourself, of course, but please make sure that your thinking is informed. Critical thinking and analysis isn't just calling everything that's in the mainstream bull****. Yeah, that's cool when you're 13 and reading too much Ayn Rand.... Grow up please!

Of course, if these folks actually practice their beliefs over a long enough period of time, then evolution will take care of them. Of course, that's just crap, too, right?

Hambone

The problem is people too frequently make these really stupid decisions after they have kids. Just look at the number of affluent people in the states who refuse to have their kids immunized.

terzo rene

The other evolutionary issue is the dumber ones breed starting at a younger age and more frequently so they can be quiet dim and still have excellent reproductive success. If humans were unable to largely escape serious consequence from their stupidity I doubt current events would look the way they do. As the Porno for Pyros song says "we'd make great pets".

kunsei83

I think there is a strong correlation of sunscreen users and skin cancer is because the people who are exposed to the sun use sunscreen. People who are not exposed to the sun will not use sunscreen and they are less likely to get skin cancer.

DrPete 

Reminds me of an example we got in biostats in med school. Someone had figured out that ice cream consumption caused increased rates of violent crime. Correlation does not imply causality...

You're totally right. People who sit indoors tend not to wear sunscreen when they do so.

DrPete

Hambone

funny how easy that trap is to get caught in.

In an earlier life I did health policy/medical analysis. The hardest thing to get people to do was stop believing things which made intuitive sense but were factually wrong.

Hambone

An ugly part of me agrees with you but I think this is a really dangerous "world" view. There is a lot going on here.

AnthonyG

OK more people disagreeing with me and that's fine but does anyone feel the need to link to some scientific evidence?

To Hambone I am talking about the American FDA approval proccess and pretty much all approval proccesses realy. The FDA has a LONG history of approving drugs that its own staff/scientists have reccomended not to approve. I was also talking about the concept of peer review. An important scientific principle is "Peer Review". The idea is that fellow scientists reconduct the experiments or at least re-assess all the origional data inorder to see if the conclusions of the study are supportable by the evidence. Unfortunately there has been some degredation in the standards of peer review. Now it simply means that ONE peer simply reads the origional report without anyway of knowing if the results are truely repeatable or whether they have been altered or been subject to selective inclusion.

To DrPete I'm an advocate of SATURATED fats not unsaturated fats. I can personaly attest to the health giving properties of saturated fat rich diets and the fact that I am now less susceptible to sunburn, not that I go out of my way to get copious amounts of sun exposure now that I have been on such a diet for a number of years.

Actualy DrPete and The Octopus put their fingers on the nub of the problem. Its about legal liability. If a case goes to court they're not going to realy debate the pro's and con's of current scientific evidence or the lack thereof. Its too dificult and beyond the time or role of the court.

What its going to come down to is did the practitioner follow the guidelines set by the powers that be. If the practitioner did then they will be protected from liability. If they didn't they won't be and will in all reality be scapegoated. There will be no assessment by the court of the rights and wrongs of the official guidelines. Thats beyond them. It will be a simple case of did they follow them or did they not and this is a VERY powerful incentive to follow official guidelines whether they're right or wrong. Our doctors aren't encouraged to think anyway.

DON'T start me on VACCINATION. By the way calling vaccination immunization is SOO wrong. Immunization is something you can ONLY gain naturaly. Vaccinations are a class of drugs that have NEVER been scientificaly trialed and even if you think they are useful the practice of adding heavy metals as preservatives is just criminal.

Regards, Anthony

DocRay

YEAH! bring back polio!

this guy is insane.
Rantings of an idiot.

regards, Ray

AnthonyG

Come on. Evidence, Evidence, Evidence. Your a doctor so you have easy access to it. Post some of it please.

EDIT: Actualy I thought I was taking it fairly easy on Vaccinations and only stating what was perfectly true yet my failure to be a "true believer" means that I have to be totaly against vaccines based on some unreasonable religious devotion. I have an open mind regarding Polio although when it comes to vaccinations for standard childhood diseases such as Chicken Pox, the Mumps and such then the risk doesn't justify the dubious benifit. I've had those childhood diseases, they don't present ANY threat to children and its VERY benificial to your future health to have them as a child.

Regards, Anthony

DrPete 

There are entire textbooks written on cancer and the body of work on melanoma is far too large to distill into a post on bike forums.

Enjoy your saturated fat--you may sunburn less, but your heart might not take the joke in the long run...

DrPete

The Octopus 

You are the one who is making a statement at odds with the body of work that is accepted in the scientific community. The burden of coming forward with evidence for YOUR position rests with you, as does the burden of pursuading the community to change its viewpoint. That's how our system works. Dr. Pete, of course, is correct. Pull any basic text on oncology or dermatology and you'll find support in the text and in articles referenced in the end notes to the pertinent chapters for the causal connection between sun exposure and melanoma. Or go to your local library and ask for help in running a Medline search. Plug in melanoma and "sun or UV exposure" and have fun sifting through the thousands of abstracts your search will yield. Knocking down your unsupported claims is not how the system works. The system works by you offering support for your contrarian positions. It's not the job of the rest of us to disprove the idle thoughts of those who still think the earth is the center of the universe.

It seems that the nub of the problem is that you question the very system. There aren't any "official" texts. There aren't any "powers that be." There is no scientific dogma. Who would be at the head of this vast conspiracy of which you speak?

Sorry, I'll stop poking at the caged animals now....

AnthonyG

Well my theory is that its not a vast conspiracy with anyone at the head of it. It's a religious devotion with its followers commiting the sin of pride.

There are official guidlines and powers that be. Thats how our societies work. Its not a conspiracy in that regard. The peer pressure to not rock the boat is HUGE.

My point is that the official line is SO sure of itself and SO dogmatic that it MUST have the evidence to back its point of view and if it doesn't have such evidence then it should realy be more open and more tolerent to alternative points of view. Now sure I'm not a supporter of every alternative view out there. I'm a strong supporter of the "Control" point of view. If UV radiation is realy so absolutely dangerous then how did we evolve out of the stone age?

Now there are many aspects to consider but some humility is deffinitely called for.

Regards, Anthony

cuda2k

Let me jog your memory in regards to early human history - the life expectancy wasn't exactly 60-70 years old. In fact, even through early recorded history many didn't live to see 30-40's. Add on top of everything else which led to the early deaths of men and women of the age, they didn't have factories and cars pumping gases into the air which harms the layer of the atomosphere which naturally filters out UV radiation. Simply put, we're living longer and being exposed to much more of the UV radiation than people were 100, 200, 500, etc years ago.

LilSprocket

Whew, finally finished reading this entire thread...

So, DocRay, what is the very best sunblock product (and uv blocker clothing) in your HO?
I use that neutrogena line Doggus linked

This 1/2 Irish FL resident really really wants to know

my fair Dad, poo-pooed sunscreen during his youth... was an avid scuba diver... has just had multiple precancer spots removed... I'd like to keep him around as long as possible

chromedome

So this has really become insane.

OK, so I said I wasn't going to engage in this again, but I can't help it.

When AnthonyG says OUR doctors aren't encouraged to think, does he mean Australian doctors, or all doctors? (Post 91.)

For AnthonyG to assume that DrPete is only concerned about legal ramifications in the care he gives to his patients is quite insulting. I certainly don't know DrPete from Adam, but I've read enough of his posts to have somewhat of a grip of what kind of man he is. And I get the idea that he's more concerned about doing what is right by his patients.

And to assume that the Octopus is only concerned about the legalities in health care, well hey! Guess what? He's a lawyer! That's what he's supposed to do.

There are so many patients and families that show up in clinics, offices and hospitals and one of the first things they say is, "I was reading up on this last night on the net. It said......." They look at one or two websites, or visit a chat room for and hour, and suddenly they are educated. But most of the time it's been education by sound bite. Factoids. Even though it's insulting to us, we need to smile and say something like, "Really? What article did you read? Who wrote it? Where are they from?"

Often I look at a patient on a bed or stretcher waiting for surgery. They complain about it all being too expensive. Too many people working there. Too many gadgets and gizmos. Too many drugs. Too many questions. They're fat, their blood work sucks, their blood pressure is higher than the national debt, they reek of tobacco, and they admit to two drinks a day (probably way more.) They complain about being old at 40 and not being able to do the things they did when they "were young." Then they tell me I wouldn't understand, that I'm too young. I tell them I'm 49.
In my 29 years of working in health care I've noticed this to be a commonality. People that don't take care of themselves, that disbelieve in modern health care, that distrust their doctors and careproviders, complain about all the money that's wasted on research (and that all research is corrupt) seem to do most of the complaining.

How many other occupations require continuing ed for licensure? How many other professions require so much education that the first day of working independently is generally at the age of 31? How many other professions have the expectation or regular journal reading and article writing? How many other professionals have spent the amount of money on their educations? How many other people are at work at 6am? Or all night, not because they want to, but because it's their turn. How many other fields have such a huge body of research and information as health care?

The US is one of the few countries spending a ton of cash every year on cancer research. (If it were strictly just a money-grubbing business, there are better ways of making a profit.) As WE do the work, and as WE spend the money, and as WE start to see a glimmer of hope for some people, WE provide the details and findings to ANYBODY else that may be interested.

ericgu

Well, sure, you can ask questions all you want.

But you made two claims:

1) The sunscreen doesn't work (I don't know if that's a claim that there's a different mechanism that leads to sun damage and skin cancer or not).

2) That saturated fat protects against skin cancer.

Why should anyone accept these without something other than your assertion that they are true. You can probably do some in vitro studies to get some data about #2, but my guess is that you'd need animal studies to get anything reasonable.

You just want people to accept your claims, which demonstrates the closed-mindedness that you claim exists among the scientists. Yes, it took a few years for the H. Pylori hypothesis to be accepted, but you won't find any holdouts.

My favorite part of this thread is where you tell the cancer researcher that he's wrong. From a pragmatic standpoint, what is the chance that a layman - even an educated layman - is correct and the expert is wrong.

Sure, it does happen, but I'd put the chances way below 1%.

One final point. What would it take for you to change your views?