Flue anyone?

[cdmtdm]

What about an ignorant recommendation? Would that be okay or not?

that would depend on your level of ignorance .....

[wilcopops]

it doesn't matter what qualifications you have or awards - it's the actuality of what you propose that is important - and Linus's ideas on vitamins simply don't stand up to review.

Edited November 25, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

The worst possible medical advice you can get usually starts with

"In my experiece" or a simile thereof.

ignorance has killed far more people than a recommendation ......

I'm not sure what you mean by that - many people have died recently because someone "recommended" not using vaccines - but I suspect you don't understand how scientific process works - it's "scientific peer reviewed research"

the plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes" - NOT data

Edited November 25, 2014 by wilcopops

[cdmtdm]

and after the research the medical world do what ? recommend from experience !!! i would much prefer to super dose on something as simple as Vit C , the worst outcome maybe a little nausea .....Andrew Saul is doing great work with Vitamins and has done for more than 30 years .....

[wilcopops]

and after the research the medical world do what ? recommend from experience !!! i would much prefer to super dose on something as simple as Vit C , the worst outcome maybe a little nausea .....Andrew Saul is doing great work with Vitamins and has done for more than 30 years .....

I'd say now it's pretty clear you don't understand how science - in particular medical science operates....and your comments about Andrew Saul confirm it.

You are also making some warming assumptions - large doses of Vit C have been shown to interfere with other treatments, drugs and procedures - in some circumstances, without proper analysis these baseless "recommendations" can actually kill.

Edited November 25, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

It's difficult for us laymen to sort the wheat from the chaff - especially now we have the internet which although full of great stuff has given a new lease of lease to quacks, frauds snake oil salesmen etc - who all try to blind us with pseudo-science.

the trick is to apply some tests or criteria yourself....

here's a few tips to help spot the quacks...

How to spot quackery......

http://open.salon.com/blog/amytuteurmd/2009/10/26/

you_know_its_quackery_if....

The mainstream media, including otherwise reliable websites like The Huffington Post, is saturated with "alternative" medical quackery presented as news. There is no theory too outrageous or unsupported to merit media attention particularly if the purveyor is a celebrity of some sort. So how are lay people supposed to distinguish quackery from scientific medicine?

Rory Coker, professor of physics and University of Texas Austin, has written a very informative article for the website Quackwatch. The article, Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience, was not written with "alternative" health in mind, but accurately captures the essence of "alternative" medicine. Using these principles, the average person can distinguish quackery from scientific medicine.

You know it's quackery because:



1. "Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.

Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book remains in print for decades or even centuries..."

Homebirth advocates, both professional and amateur, routinely make up "facts" to suit themselves. For example, homebirth advocates routinely claim that the US does poorly on measures of obstetric care (false), that Cytotec was used "experimentally" for labor induction (false) or that homebirth is "as safe as life gets" (only if life is filled with easily preventable infant deaths).

Cory points out that pseudoscientists rarely revise their books even though new scientific studies are constantly published. Williams Obstetrics has been through 3 editions (20th, 21st and 22nd) since Henci Goer published "The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth" which represents itself as an analysis of the scientific evidence, yet she has not revised it.



2. "Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis ... and then looks only for items which appear to support it.

Conflicting evidence is ignored... [T]he aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings."

"Alternative" health doesn't merely appeal to widespread misunderstandings, it actively seeks to create widespread misunderstanding.



3. "Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.

Joe Blow puts jello on his head and his headache goes away. To pseudoscience, this means jello cures headaches... This phenomenon, called subjective validation, is one of the foundations of popular support for pseudoscience..."

Jenny McCarthy believes that her son had autism. She provided him with "therapy." He seems better. Jenny McCarthy believes that the therapy "cured" his autism.



4. "Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.

Pseudoscientists never carry out careful, methodical experiments themselves ... Pseudoscientists also never follow up. If one pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment ... no other pseudoscientist ever tries to duplicate it or to check him,.. Further, where a pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment with a remarkable result, he himself never repeats it to check his results and procedures..."

A corollary to this is also often found in vaccine rejectionism, the claim that the vaccine quack "hasn't had time" to publish the results.

"Alternative" medicine advocates are also very careful never to appear in any venue where they could be questioned by scientific peers, yet they speak extensively at gatherings of laypeople.



5. "Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.

Such logical contradictions are simply ignored or rationalized away..."

Childbirth is painless. Childbirth is very painful, but the pain can be managed with the right attitude. Not only is childbirth not painful, it is actually pleasurable. Homebirth advocates can't make up their minds which one of these claims is preferable.



6. "Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.

Anything can be made "mysterious" by omitting what is known about it or presenting completely imaginary details..."

Vaccine rejectionism relies very heavily on misrepresenting what vaccine rejectionists don't know as "unknown". Homebirth advocates prefer to claim that there is no scientific evidence for obstetrics practices when copious evidence exists and is easily accessible to anyone who bothers to look.



7. "Pseudoscience does not progress.

... within a given topic, no progress is made... New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely makes new "discoveries." ... No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists..."

"Alternative" medicine never changes. It always amounts to nothing more than rejection of conventional practice.



8. "Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.

A high-school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology ... A psychoanalyst is accepted as an expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and mythology, even though his claims are inconsistent with everything known in all four fields..."

Henci Goer and Ina May Gaskin have no training in their supposed areas of "expertise". Actors Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey are "experts" on autism.



9. "Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.

Thus, a procedurally invalid experiment which seems to show that astrology works is advanced as "proof" that astrology is correct, while thousands of procedurally sound experiments that show it does not work are ignored..."

Vaccine rejectionists cite poorly done or discredited research as proof of their claims, while routinely ignoring thousands of medical studies that thoroughly debunk their claims.

HuffPo presents Patricia Fitzgerald, its Wellness Editor, as "Dr." when her "doctorate" is in homeopathic medicine. 



10. "Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.

Magic, sorcery, witchcraft—these are based on spurious similarity, false analogy, false cause-and-effect connections, etc. That is, inexplicable influences and connections between things are assumed from the beginning—not found by investigation."

For example, birth "affirmations" can purportedly influence whether a baby will be breech or will fit.



11. "Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.

The older the idea, the more attractive it is to pseudoscience—it's the wisdom of the ancients!—especially if the idea is transparently wrong and has long been discarded by science..."

"Alternative" health practitioners love to claim that Chinese medicine or herbs are effective because they are ancient. Meanwhile, the Chinese die in droves of conditions that are easily treatable by real medicine, and herbs are less effective (or ineffective) compared to medication.

The Huffington Post has learned that presenting quackery as scientific medicine draws readers and perhaps that is why they promote quackery in their pages. Or perhaps Arianna Huffington is a devotee of "alternative" health quackery. Either way, Huffington Postand other media outlets are promoting pseudoscience as if it were science. The average person can use the above principles to tell the difference.

[cdmtdm]

we can all copy and paste all day long .....my summary of science/doctors in general is this , in my words ...

" treating the symptoms instead of the cause just generates more customers " its in the interest of both Doctors , Drug companies and Science to keep this door revolving .... they sold out to Wall Street a long time ago .....

[cdmtdm]

you obviously have strong opinions , what is your opinion of Cholesterol ?.....in your own words , no copy and paste this time ......

[attrayant]

What about an ignorant recommendation? Would that be okay or not?

that would depend on your level of ignorance .....

Ahem. The question was posed as a hypothetical. You would have been well advised to answer in the same vein. As for your beatification of Saul:

Andrew Saul is doing great work with Vitamins and has done for more than 30 years

A man who thinks that terminal hepatitis and cancers can be cured with vitamin C? Sounds like a Linus Pauling wanna-be. By the way, does anyone want to guess what Pauling died of?

[attrayant]

you obviously have strong opinions , what is your opinion of Cholesterol ?.....in your own words , no copy and paste this time ......

Check the thread title again - this has already gone too far off topic. Instead of hijacking this thread, open a new one of you want to discuss cholesterol or medical quackery in general.

Edited November 25, 2014 by attrayant

[cdmtdm]

ok yes back on topic .....tea spoon of sodium bi carb with the juice of half a lemon ...in a glass of water ... now that will relieve more than just your flu .... but the pharma crew will tell u otherwise ..

[h90]

It's not a discussion - Linus Pauling is accepted by no-one except the mentally challenged and the gullible.

his ideas on vitamins have been categorically discrete throughout the world.

there is of course a large number of people with a partial knowledge of this sort of stuff who erroneously believe that more is better - of course when it comes to your body this is stuff and nonsense. - especially with regards to antioxidants. - Vit C or otherwise.

So surely Wikipedia is also wrong:

"In humans, vitamin C is essential to a healthy diet as well as being a highly effective antioxidant, acting to lessen oxidative stress; a substrate for ascorbate peroxidase in plants (APX is plant specific enzyme);[5] and an enzyme cofactor for the biosynthesis of many important biochemicals. Vitamin C acts as an electron donor for important enzymes:[65]"

"Acute care

Studies with much higher doses of vitamin C, usually between 200 and 6000 mg/day, for the treatment of infections and wounds have shown inconsistent results.[61]

Treatment of the common cold

Further information: Vitamin C and the common cold

Vitamin C's effect on the common cold has been extensively researched. It has not been shown effective in prevention or treatment of the common cold, except in limited circumstances (specifically, individuals exercising vigorously in cold environments).[62][63] Routine vitamin C supplementation does not reduce the incidence or severity of the common cold in the general population, though it may reduce the duration of illness.[62][64]"

"A meta-analysis of 44 clinical trials has shown a significant positive effect of vitamin C on endothelial function when taken at doses greater than 500 mg per day. The researchers noted that the effect of vitamin C supplementation appeared to be dependent on health status, with stronger effects in those at higher cardiovascular disease risk.[55]"

At my University Linus Pauling was heavily discussed and most of the scientists took 500-1000 mg Vitamin C per day. His ideas have been discredited by everyone sponsored by the pharma companies.

But maybe they are all mentally challenged including the Nobel price committees who gave him 2 Nobel prices.

But the most important thing is, there is no negative effect from adding 500 mg Vitamin C per day and Vitamin C costs virtually nothing. It is added in large quantities to wheat powder, fruit juice from concentrate, sausage sometimes wine, sometimes beer, etc etc)

Vitamin C is unquestionably an antioxidant, but so far clinical trials hoping to demonstrate the beneficial effects of antioxidant supplementation on conditions that are triggered or exacerbated by high levels of oxygen free radicals (strong harmful oxidants) like heart disease have proved negative.

I agree with h90 that probably there is no harm in vitamin C supplementation: if you have a mild or undetected deficiency you could restore optimal health by vitamin C supplementation. However I think studies show that, as a water soluble vitamin, the vast majority of excess supplemental vitamin C is just pissed away in a few hours.

I don't think the fact that Linus Pauling claimed huge health benefits for vitamin C can be given much weight despite his Nobel prize winning status.

Many of Linus Pauling's vitamin claims originated when he was very elderly man well past his intellectual prime, Then, in his late 80's, he had a private research lab called the Linus Pauling Institute in Palo Alto, and there he fell under the sway of a charismatic and deluded German scientist called Matthias Rath, who strongly influenced him with very insane ideas, incorporating Pauling's obsession with vitamin C but adding more of his own.

[Googling Rath's subsequent career shows that he began selling his own supplements that he claimed could cure AIDS, and he got heavily involved in Africa with various governments who he persuaded to abandon health measures and trials devoted to controlling the HIV virus and instead concentrate on supplements, which he coincidentally manufactured]

In this period some of Pauling's friends on editorial boards began to reject the craziest papers he submitted to try to save his posthumous reputation.

So even Nobel prize winners in Chemistry can get emotionally attached to crazy ideas (think of Isaac Newton, arguably the world's greatest ever scientist, spending the last half of his life studying alchemy to find the elixir of immortality, or some such nonsense).

That seems very correct. When I was at university the recommendation was 70 mg in Europe but it was said that Eskimo can do with 7mg while Africans (most probably everyone who live in tropic area need 200 mg) because the northern people adjusted to the shortage of it.

So 500 mg per day sounds safe for everyone.

Pauling in what I read told that in case of big problems (chemo at cancer) need more, that also sounds reasonable. So why not take 2000 when you are sick. He took 18000. That really seems over the top.

But a 500 mg and when sick 2000 it may help or may not, but it won't harm.

just my idea....

[Sheryl]

Flamefest ends now.

Stay on topic.

Any further off topic posts will be deleted.

[wilcopops]

It's not a discussion - Linus Pauling is accepted by no-one except the mentally challenged and the gullible.

his ideas on vitamins have been categorically discrete throughout the world.

there is of course a large number of people with a partial knowledge of this sort of stuff who erroneously believe that more is better - of course when it comes to your body this is stuff and nonsense. - especially with regards to antioxidants. - Vit C or otherwise.

So surely Wikipedia is also wrong:

"In humans, vitamin C is essential to a healthy diet as well as being a highly effective antioxidant, acting to lessen oxidative stress; a substrate for ascorbate peroxidase in plants (APX is plant specific enzyme);[5] and an enzyme cofactor for the biosynthesis of many important biochemicals. Vitamin C acts as an electron donor for important enzymes:[65]"

"Acute care

Studies with much higher doses of vitamin C, usually between 200 and 6000 mg/day, for the treatment of infections and wounds have shown inconsistent results.[61]

Treatment of the common cold

Further information: Vitamin C and the common cold

Vitamin C's effect on the common cold has been extensively researched. It has not been shown effective in prevention or treatment of the common cold, except in limited circumstances (specifically, individuals exercising vigorously in cold environments).[62][63] Routine vitamin C supplementation does not reduce the incidence or severity of the common cold in the general population, though it may reduce the duration of illness.[62][64]"

"A meta-analysis of 44 clinical trials has shown a significant positive effect of vitamin C on endothelial function when taken at doses greater than 500 mg per day. The researchers noted that the effect of vitamin C supplementation appeared to be dependent on health status, with stronger effects in those at higher cardiovascular disease risk.[55]"

At my University Linus Pauling was heavily discussed and most of the scientists took 500-1000 mg Vitamin C per day. His ideas have been discredited by everyone sponsored by the pharma companies.

But maybe they are all mentally challenged including the Nobel price committees who gave him 2 Nobel prices.

But the most important thing is, there is no negative effect from adding 500 mg Vitamin C per day and Vitamin C costs virtually nothing. It is added in large quantities to wheat powder, fruit juice from concentrate, sausage sometimes wine, sometimes beer, etc etc)

Vitamin C is unquestionably an antioxidant, but so far clinical trials hoping to demonstrate the beneficial effects of antioxidant supplementation on conditions that are triggered or exacerbated by high levels of oxygen free radicals (strong harmful oxidants) like heart disease have proved negative.

I agree with h90 that probably there is no harm in vitamin C supplementation: if you have a mild or undetected deficiency you could restore optimal health by vitamin C supplementation. However I think studies show that, as a water soluble vitamin, the vast majority of excess supplemental vitamin C is just pissed away in a few hours.

I don't think the fact that Linus Pauling claimed huge health benefits for vitamin C can be given much weight despite his Nobel prize winning status.

Many of Linus Pauling's vitamin claims originated when he was very elderly man well past his intellectual prime, Then, in his late 80's, he had a private research lab called the Linus Pauling Institute in Palo Alto, and there he fell under the sway of a charismatic and deluded German scientist called Matthias Rath, who strongly influenced him with very insane ideas, incorporating Pauling's obsession with vitamin C but adding more of his own.

[Googling Rath's subsequent career shows that he began selling his own supplements that he claimed could cure AIDS, and he got heavily involved in Africa with various governments who he persuaded to abandon health measures and trials devoted to controlling the HIV virus and instead concentrate on supplements, which he coincidentally manufactured]

In this period some of Pauling's friends on editorial boards began to reject the craziest papers he submitted to try to save his posthumous reputation.

So even Nobel prize winners in Chemistry can get emotionally attached to crazy ideas (think of Isaac Newton, arguably the world's greatest ever scientist, spending the last half of his life studying alchemy to find the elixir of immortality, or some such nonsense).

That seems very correct. When I was at university the recommendation was 70 mg in Europe but it was said that Eskimo can do with 7mg while Africans (most probably everyone who live in tropic area need 200 mg) because the northern people adjusted to the shortage of it.

So 500 mg per day sounds safe for everyone.

Pauling in what I read told that in case of big problems (chemo at cancer) need more, that also sounds reasonable. So why not take 2000 when you are sick. He took 18000. That really seems over the top.

But a 500 mg and when sick 2000 it may help or may not, but it won't harm.

just my idea....

yes -it harms - it interferes with chemo

[tartempion]

5555, what a development.(the topic I mean)

It's day 10 and far from over, think it morphed into bronchitis, upper part of my chest makes noise and still lots of coughing.

I understand it's a virus, no meds to cure.

Have often a headache and take paracetamol.

Tried the hot lime juice without much results

Especially nights are bad, can't sleep from the coughing and sweating.

Curious how much more days/nights it will take, just didn't get outside the house.

Cheers.

[wilcopops]

It it is on your chest, its possible that you now have a secondary bacterial infection....you should see a doc....NOT a pharmacist. However even doctors in Thailand are notorious for prescribing antibiotics indiscriminately.

Edited November 27, 2014 by wilcopops

[Sheryl]

Agree, after 10 days a visit to a doctor is indicated and possibly a chest Xray and blood count.

[mommysboy]

Heck! Spare a thought for tartempion suffering a real belter. Doubt extra helpings of orange juice or cabbage will make the slightest difference.

For me it is all about to what extent my nose gets irritated, not too much and it's all over in a few days, anything else and I run the gauntlet of tonsilitis and perhaps the dreaded chest cough.

There are some bugs that target specific areas ,eg, bronchovirus but I reckon it is as simple as that for most of us.

Real flu is entirely different.

[papa al]

A flea and a fly in a flue

were imprisoned.

So what could they do?

Said the flea, "let us fly."

Said the fly, "let us flee."

So they flew through a flaw in the flue.

[wilcopops]

A flea and a fly in a flue

were imprisoned.

So what could they do?

Said the flea, "let us fly."

Said the fly, "let us flee."

So they flew through a flaw in the flue.

Ogden Nash

[papa al]

& my dad.