 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe??
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Jan 05 - 08:42 PM I'm home-schooling my 15-yr-old stepson this year, and I'm finding it a particularly interesting challenge to teach biology to the son of a chiropractor. Apparently, immunizations are a chiropractic hotbutton, because I get a lengthy lecture from both son and mother, every time I get to anything that might give them a reason to expound on the Evil of Immunizations. I have to say that I do have some misgivings about immunizations and all medications, and I think we should seriously ponder any decision we make to inject any substance into our bodies. My doctor (MD) thinks the same. That's one reason why I have a reasonable amount of trust in the medical profession. I've come to trust chiropractors only after marrying one - they do great things to control the aches and pains that are common to my age, but I'm not sure I have much trust in their judgment on non-orthopedic matters. So, anyhow, the wife and her son use this book as their bible on the subject: The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination I$ Not Immunization, Eighth Edition (2004), self-published by author Tim O'Shea (note the dollar sign in the title). It's the kind of book that I ordinarily wouldn't even bother to pick up, because it smells like factoid journalism to me - you know, the kind of stuff you get on talk shows...and Internet Forums [grin]. The following "teaser" information is printed on the back of the book:
I've seen books like this before. My first experience was as a sophomore in high school, when a read a well-documented right-wing book called None Dare Call It Treason. It seemed to be a very factual accound of how all those Evil Liberals were leading the world to Communist Totalitarianism. Even at that age, I didn't believe the book, because I don't believe that people are so profoundly evil. So, that's the situation. I can tell books like this by their smell. How do I convince my wife and son to take such sensationalist "information" with a grain of salt? What are the telltale signs of questionable journalism? Or was I wrong to believe in vaccinations, bound to die tomorrow because of the vaccinations I received in the Army in 1970? -Joe Offer- (who feels very healthy) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 05 Jan 05 - 09:15 PM Given a scale of paranoia - I stretch off the scale.
Given the reality of the underworld (3rd and sewers) environment I allow myself to penetrate - I am FULLY vaccinated (but lack typhoid - the past side-effects ugh!!!) I know I NEED typhoid!!!)
The innoculation program for hepititus begins in the 6th grade....yes....many will NOT every require/contact the virus.... on the other-hand....reflect back on how many times you also "Shared a COKE with Smile?"
You do not need "sexual activity" to contract Hep-A..... all that is required is a non-SS-verified, non-resident-verified, non-driver-verified, employee who has a dig of dingus mined from his ass....lingering under his finger-nail. There is no "perpetrator" there are only victems....innoculated through other's rectums.
Let the wife and kid go....if they get sick they do....if they survive they do. Little things like "life and death" are not matters to be bothered with.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 05 Jan 05 - 09:20 PM You have to go to source materials, joe. As you know, this sort of blurbery is the province of anyone with a flair for rhetorical devices. The advice to give the kid is notice who is getting paid for what. In other words, ask yourself why it benefits an author to push things one way versus another. Follow the money. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Jan 05 - 09:53 PM Well, Amos - I can't say the outhor of the book is getting maony from anybody but the people who buy his books. There are lots of home-produced, sensationalist publications like this. I suppose the writer is a huckster - but I also suppose he's a true believer in his anti-immunization paranoia. And yes, I would suppose it's also quite true that the drug and vaccine manufacturers may often value profits over health. But in general, I think the medical profession is honorable. And Gargoyle, I think the wife and kid will survive - protected by the fact that most people around them have been immunized, reducing the rate of contagion. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST,heric Date: 05 Jan 05 - 09:58 PM This is a tough one. I don't know how to identify questionable journalism other than by a smell test, either. There are clear risks to vaccines, varying by product. Surely there are risks not yet documented, as well. I think that this could be an extraordinary education in research and critical thinking for the lad, but I can only see it being done piecemeal -- debunking extraordinary or unfounded claims by comparing the diverging views one issue at a time, and anlayzing the sources: their motives, as Amos said, and then the quality of the research evidence discussed. After a while one would build up a resistance to (or bias against) certain types of literature (such as trade rags.) But if it pits you against his Dad, well, maybe you had just better teach him research and critical thinking in other (less charged) subject areas first, and hope that he learns to apply it in all of his thinking. He's had his shots for the most part anyway, hasn't he? I thought this was a semantic thread about the word "factoid," which would imply something like a fact, therefore not being fact at all. I always say "factlet" for that reason. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Bobert Date: 05 Jan 05 - 09:58 PM Sorry, Joe, but you are screwed... There is no convincing folks like your wife or step-son... They are true believers.... Find some other battles to fight. You know, like wallpaper, or which way to hang the toilet paper... Buit, hey, nice havin' them back pains taken care of, ain't it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 05 Jan 05 - 09:59 PM Yeah...the thing is that science runs on statistics -- clearly formulated and honestly reported. They are the headlights by which the blind lead the blind! :D If he is not providing case histories but just asserting statistics baldly, he might as well be lying even when he is not. It is indistinguishable from rabid opinionation. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: mack/misophist Date: 05 Jan 05 - 10:06 PM Are the most unlikely claims footnoted? If not, that's interesting but not proof of anything. If they are, try to find the source. Is the cource credible? If it is, does it really say whay was claimed? The worst examples of junk science often have false references. If all else fails, tell the kid he may need to know this stuff in college some day. It doesn't matter whether or not he believes it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Jan 05 - 10:31 PM Just a point of clarification, heric - my stepson's parent who is a chiropractor is my wife. Bobert's got it right - it's nice having the back, neck, shoulder and wrist problems taken care of - but I see a medical doctor for other things, and stay away from her potions. Last month, she bought a $2,000 machine that's supposed to take care of diseases by sending electrical impulses through your body. I said that's great for her healing - and that a 42-inch plasma TV would give me a lot of healing.... -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST,heric Date: 05 Jan 05 - 10:55 PM aaarghhh. You ARE screwed! I somehow thought she was just a disciple, not a prophet. Maye you can out-do them at their own game, until they can't take it anymore? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: dianavan Date: 05 Jan 05 - 11:13 PM "Before 1991, there was no system for reporting adverse side effects whatsoever?" I find this very disturbing and believe it is probably true. I had a very negative reaction to the polio vaccine and to the more recent flu vaccine. For all I know, my doctor never reported it to anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Bill D Date: 05 Jan 05 - 11:26 PM oh, cripes! Machines that cure by electrical impulses are one step before investing in magnets that you wear in your shoes to cure cancer!,....and I knew a nice guy who died trying THAT. Vaccines STOPPED smallpox, and could stop Polio and several others with a little more care & cooperation between states and other countries. Every story about a rare, but possible bad reaction to a vaccine leads to 17 rumors and conspiricy theories and people willing to believe that Mango pulp diluted 1,000,000:1 and sold over the WWW is just as good as time-tested vaccines. I dunno...once a person's head gets set on that path of distrusting 'regular' medicine, it's a slippery-slope...and chiropractic, useful as it can be, is a common place to begin the downward spiral. Good luck! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine Date: 06 Jan 05 - 12:26 AM When I was little everyone in the state got vaccinated and I have never met anyone personally who ever even met anyone who suffered adverse side effects. I think the numbers are manipulated to infer a far greater incidence than there really is. It's a bit like shark attack. It happens, and when it does happen it's devestating, but when you consider how many people swim in the ocean, it doesn't happen very often. But yeah, if you're dealing committed enthusiasts... ...and then again, numbers don't mean anything if you happen to be one of them that does suffer from it. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: LadyJean Date: 06 Jan 05 - 12:44 AM Growing up, I knew a young man who'd lost his hearing as a result of the smallpox vaccine. (He could play chess and speak Latin, two things I have never learned to do, so I was impressed by him.) Of course smallpox could disable too, and kill. He had an allergic reaction to the vaccine. Allergies happen. There are people who die from eating peanuts, or honey. You should hear the legalize marijuanna people when I tell them I'm allergic to the stuff. But you might want to introduce your stepson to the history of Jenner and the smallpox vaccine. It's an interesting story all by itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 06 Jan 05 - 01:08 AM Joe: TENS (Transdermal electro-neural stimulation) therapy works by getting muscles to loosen up so the structure under them can get back to normal. It is effective in a significant per centage of cases. I do not have the numbers, but I know there have been case studies in chiropractic literature. It has been around for decades. There is nothing about chiropractic that disses normal medical practice; but any doctor knows there is a large boundaery layer where medical approaches of the traditional sort are only marginally useful. In past decades, for example, there hacve been far too many instances of disk surgery resulting from a belief that chiropractic was invalid; whereas those who took the same symptoms to a chiroparactor for a second opinion actually had them remedied. WHile you are correct that it is reckless to dismiss workable medical therapies without sufficient grounds, I submit it is equally reckless to accept the authority of medical practice when their remedies or conclusions are ungrounded in evidence and even contrary to evidence. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: robomatic Date: 06 Jan 05 - 11:57 AM A common misconception about modern society is that we register only gains with technology, whereas in truth what we generally do is make a calculated exchange: For instance, when we chlorinate water, we make the water far safer to drink vis-a-vis pathogenic organisms, but we are doing so by putting a poison in the water. Chlorine is also a carcinogen. We are balancing a safety measure for thousands against a danger factor of maybe tens. For most people this is a 'no-brainer'. The same is true with vaccinations. Look into the history of vaccines, which derive from the latin word for cow. It was noticed that people who contracted cowpox, a mild disease of milkmaids and dairymen, did not have the same morbidity rate as the rest of the population when smallpox swept across the continent. The concept of vaccinations date from these observations, way before the 'evil medical industry' got involved. It doesn't mean no one ever died of cowpox. I think that while this might be a losing cause AT PRESENT, it is important to introduce the concept that truth doesn't belong to those who propound bullsh*t the loudest, else we might as well all blithely believe the folks who own the biggest printing presses. Don't oppose your people on the very concepts that pay their bills, but introduce unto them gently the facts of life, that all 'facts' are not that 'factual'. In philosophy it's called epistemology: "How do we know what we know." And enjoy the back treatments! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 05 - 02:05 PM As a high school educator, I'm wondering why this is even an issue. I just looked in our school's biology textbook, and there is precious little mention of the topic. So unless this is a special assignment, this "problem" looks like it might be a bit of a "who is right" power struggle perhaps? As a school librarian that teaches kids how to tell legitmate information from poor quality information, might I suggest that you also point out to your student that the medical industry and govenmental agency information should be viewed with the same suspicion as you are projecting on the immunization information? Remember these salient "facts" about this particular topic: 1) Most information about drugs, including immunizations, comes from drug companies in the for-profit sector. Their first duty, as they see it, is to their stockholders, not the consumer. The recent debacle over Vioxx, Celebrex, etc etc is but a tip of the iceberg of misinformation produced and disseminated by the pharmaceutical industry as "fact". 2) The governmental agencies charged with disseminating factual information to health consumers are often guilty of providing biased information of one sort or another, particularly when it comes to "alternative medicine" they have never studied with the same rigor they study drugs, treatments, and other information regarding conventional medicine. 3) Doctors aren't taught a lot of things in medical school, so often physicians aren't informed either. Case in point. I recently had knee arthroscopy. I was shocked to find out that doctors don't receive ANY training in orthopedics in medical school. So next time you take your kid to the emergency room for a dislocated shoulder from falling out of a tree, realize that the resident who treats your child may have never touched a patient or performed an orthopedic procedure IN THEIR LIFE. Like they say, no system is perfect... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: mack/misophist Date: 06 Jan 05 - 02:53 PM Mr Offer: It's no longer clear what your question is. At first it sounded as if you were looking for information on vaccination or, perhaps, how to identify junk science. Now all is as clear as mud. BillD gave the example of smallpox. In general, that makes the case for vaccination. There's be a lot more Native Americans today if they'd been vaccinated against smallpox. So, what exactly are you asking? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 05 - 04:13 PM Thanks for the muddy analogy there mack/misophist. There were no smallpox vaccinations at the time of first contact between Europeans and Native peoples of the Americas. Oh, another thing you might want to take on board regarding childhood immunization: it is the bread and butter business of pediatric medicine. If it weren't for immunizations, most children wouldn't be seen by a physician unless they became ill/injured, and even then, many parents would go directly to the emergency room with their child. Food for thought, isn't it, when you consider that no immunization offers an iron clad guarantee of immunity to the disease the innoculation is given for! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: robomatic Date: 06 Jan 05 - 04:57 PM GUEST: The point mack/misophist was making was about whether or not smallpox vaccine has any efficacy, and I'll explain that since you don't seem to know what the word 'analogy' means. Europeans were less susceptible to smallpox than Native Americans because Europe had lost millions of people due to smallpox epidemics in earlier times. Thus by the brute forces of nature, those who survived passed on their greater resistance to their descendants, the Europeans who met the Native Americans. The Native Americans had no previous exposure to smallpox, hence died in droves. So to an unprotected population, the smallpox vaccine would save a large proportion of exposed souls. Assuming that vaccines have done their job and protected our children from disease, those who do not use them are getting a 'free ride' based on the low incidence of those disease BECAUSE of the use of vaccines by the majority of people. The free ride is without a protective rail because in the event of an epidemic, unvaccinated people will be victims and carriers. If GUEST you are the GUEST who claimed to be an 'educator' then I tremble for your students. You correctly mention the importance of distinguishing between legitimate and 'poor quality' information, then launch into your version of 'facts' which are, in FACT, your opinions. I don't trust every doctor I meet, but I question your assertion that "Doctors aren't taught a lot of things in medical school". Based apparently on your one visit for arthroscopy. I agree with you that 'no system is perfect', but after reading your note, I'm more worried about our educational system. And as for flawed logic, you opine that if it weren't for vaccination, our pediatricians might not see our kids at all. Gee, what if our kids get sick more often because they haven't been immunized? Think they'd go to a doctor THEN? Would you rather see a doctor to get a shot, or because you're coughing up blood? Your logic precisely matches that of the miser who fed his mule less and less, and after it died he cursed his bad luck: "I had that mule trained to eat almost nothin' and then it had to go and die on me!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST,heric Date: 06 Jan 05 - 05:04 PM Joe Offer wrote: "What are the telltale signs of questionable journalism?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: mack/misophist Date: 06 Jan 05 - 05:39 PM Well written "questionable journalism" can be almost impossible to spot. But not all lurid screeds are fraudulent. The only way to be certain is to check the references. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 06 Jan 05 - 06:30 PM Telltale signs: Misassessment of importances. Asserting as facts data which are not naturally or wholly consistent with the flow of events in time. Implying through rhetorical devices that certain facts reflect extremes of goodness or evil; on the particpants' characters. Leaving out key information which if known would substantively change the perspective of the story, or its impact. Implying associations not supported by the fact. For example, "He visiteds the home of a known communist until midnight", without including that it was a large cocktail party with over 100 guests. Including false data or leaving out germane, valid data. Implying or stating wrong targets or wrong sources of things (the local librarian being accused of having Hnery Miller's books in the library, for example). There are probably others but if you used just these you would be really sensitive to bad journalism. Amos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 05 - 07:15 PM Doctors also aren't taught nutrition in medical school, yet they and the AMA regularly dispense medical advice about nutrition to patients and consumers too. So, anyone ever actually READ the product insert information that comes with the vaccine, or the release form they make you sign when you allow them to vaccinate your child? I'm all for legitimate, quality information about medical issues. But that hasn't been forthcoming in the area of vaccines. The government is pro-vaccine and immunization. The efficacy of vaccines is largely being assumed by the medical community, because there isn't any long term research that has been done to prove their assertions that the risks are outweighed by the benefits. Studies to monitor reactions to new vaccines are very short-term, sometimes lasting only weeks after vaccination. And then it's up to doctors to report reactions to the FDA, which they do, of course, but this is voluntary and assumes physicians can actually make the connection between an illness and a vaccine. Each year, the FDA handles about 12,000 vaccine-related reports, but readily admits that this represents only a fraction of actual side effects. One of my own children had an adverse reaction to the 1st Hib vaccine that was put on the market, and pulled less than 30 days after it was administered to my doctor. Having always been very skeptical about new drugs, I had grilled the pediatrician about this vaccine. He INSISTED there had been no vaccine-related reports on that vaccine. He lied. He also refused, when I brought my child back in within 48 hours of the immunization, to file a vaccine-related report on my child's reaction, saying there was no proof her reaction was from the vaccine, and she had probably already been sick at the time she was vaccinated and just wasn't showing any symptoms. We filed complaints against him with our state's attorney general and our medical practices board. He was fined by the state, and disciplined and fined by the board. And like I said, the vaccine was pulled from the market less than a month later, for safety and efficacy reasons. In 1986, the first legislation ever passed to protect consumers from the risks and dangers of vaccination was passed: the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act. Now, if the vaccines are so safe, why was this national legislation required, hmmmmmm? Here is a link to the US Dept of Health & Human Services web page table on each vaccine. And your tremendously helpful "legitimate" information on this subject, robomatic is...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: PoppaGator Date: 06 Jan 05 - 07:27 PM Vaccinations/immunizations seem to work as advertised for the vast majority of people, and some diseases (smallpox, polio) are extinct, or nearly so, thanks to essentially universal immuization. However, *some* individuals are adversely affected by some standard vaccinations. My daughter has a form of epilepsy, which we discovered when she had a grand mal seizure as a toddler (about age 2). Her pediatrician immediately stopped her series of shots of one particular standard vaccination normally administered several times over a period of years. I think it may have been "DPT," which is mentioned in the book jacket blurb quoted in Joe's original post -- it was something called by three initials, I remember that much. Our next two children also skipped the same vaccination -- not the entire immunization routine, just the one most dangerous in connection with seizure disorders, which are genetic and therefore likely to run in families. The doc reassured us that our kids were still unlikely to contract the diseases against which they haven't been immunized, because so high a percentage of the general popultion *has* been immunized that these diseases have become rare. As for the conflict/debate between "conventional" medical science and chiropractic and other therapies, I think every individual has to make his/her own informed judgement on a case-by-case basis. In the case of back pain, etc., I beleive in chiro and feel that the surgical solutions I've seen other folks endure have often been useless at best and sometimes downright harmful. On the other hand, when I had cancer, I was very glad that mainstream medical science had developed treatments -- extremely non-"wholistic" ones like radiation and chemo -- that worked for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 07 Jan 05 - 01:56 AM This entire thread is, in one way or another, faith-based once again. Go with your brain to the extent that you can. After that, realize that it's a gamble, and do the best you can. You will live---or you won't. When Hemingway's Pilar and Robert Jordan felt the EARTH SHAKE they enjoyed the hell out of it---and there was no tsunami. The luck of the draw. Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jan 05 - 03:20 AM This is one of the joys of home schooling - you can take whatever comes up, and turn it into an opportunity for education. Our topic this week in Biology is viruses and bacteria, and that led my stepson Josh to bring up objections to immunizations, based primarily on his mother's book. This led to a writing assignment - Josh is to present a written argument to support his objections to immunization, aware that he's likely to undergo strong challenges from his stepfather/teacher. I call myself a "radical moderate," which means I'm cursed with compulsion to see both sides of most issues. This point of view rarely makes anybody happy. I can see points on both sides of the immunization issue - most of the time, immunizations seem beneficial, but there have been some real bloopers amongst the successes. Same with most of life. While I certainly think people should think twice before injecting things into their bodies, my wife the chiropractor's book is a travesty of sensationalist writing. I want to teach Josh how to recognize such trash so he can spend his time on more reliable sources of information. Amos posted some very helpful "telltale signs" above. And wouldn't you know it, our lesson in the Glencoe World History book today had a section on "detecting bias" in writing. Here are the tips they give:
It's an interesting debate. And no, Art, I hope it isn't all "faith-based." But the reason I got all those shots, is that the drill sergeant said I had to. Somehow, though, I doubt that 43% of Vietnam-Era veterans experienced side effects to vaccines, and that 80,000 Vietnam War vets have medical conditions as a result of vaccination. If that were the case, I think I would have noticed. That makes me question the data about Gulf War soldiers. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: robomatic Date: 07 Jan 05 - 03:25 PM GUEST: your thrid post a lot more helpful than the second. All you need now is a name so I know you're the same prison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: DougR Date: 07 Jan 05 - 04:04 PM I think the immunization of kids is a good idea. Sorry, Joe, but that new machine your wife invested in appears to be more voodo medicine than anything else. Chiropractors certainly have their place and dealing with sore joints is about it in my book. When they start claiming they can "cure" diabetes, cancer, etc. they have lost me. My dad was a diabetic in his late twenties when a Chiropractor convinced him he could cure him. He almost killed him. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 05 - 04:56 PM I repeat, there simply isn't any hard scientific evidence to back up the claims by the medical profession and the government, that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. If and when the long term studies on these vaccines gets done, I think we will find that many of them will not remain on the market. The number of serious adverse effects, especially deaths related to these vaccines, is something that if it were based upon hard science, may well not be acceptable to the consumer. So, again, the caveat isn't just to view the alternative medicine market with skepticism, but also to view the conventional medicine market and government claims with equal skepticism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 07 Jan 05 - 05:01 PM DougR: Is your condemnation of TENS therapy as "Voodoo" based on any facts? Or are you just holding up a cross and waving your arms around? Do you have any statistics on successful versus failed applications of it? I have had it applied in conjunction with physical adjustment to a number of ailments(sprung joints or twisted discs or whatever) and in each instance a recovery ensued; of course it might have ensued without the TENS as well. Given that all the communications across muscle tissues is electrical first, and only secondly chemical, it seems to me that TENS is a reasonable approach. What do you actually know about it? And I hacve never heard a chiropractor claim to be able to cure anything. It would be foolish. The most they can claim, as with almost any medical procedure, is a rate of past success. There are too many variables to claim more than that even for antibiotics, for example, given the hardiness and adaptability of some bacteria. A Amos |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: DougR Date: 07 Jan 05 - 05:50 PM Amos: My comment about the machine was a statement of opinion. It seemed to me that Joe, himself, had some doubts about its value. If you were helped by using the machine Joe refers to I think that's great. I have no personal knowledge of the machine myself. As to claims of Chiropractors (some), read my last sentence in that post. I know that to be a fact. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Jeri Date: 07 Jan 05 - 06:18 PM Better than teaching answers -- teach what questions to ask, and teach him to question everything. Too many people only 'question' what they don't want to believe. The real danger is in the stuff they want to believe. At the very least, one can end up looking quite stupid if they don't look for truth. Take ONE thing you listed in your first post, Joe: "80,000 Gulf War vets have medical conditions as a result of vaccinations" -- What percentage of veterans is that? Who are they classifying as a 'Gulf War vet'? How did they get that number -- where did it come from, who came up with it, is it verifiable? What qualifies as a 'medical condition'? Personally, I think the number is far higher than 80,000 - especially if one of the medical conditions is immunity. Sore or red arms is another 'side effect' that's listed in the circulars that come with most vaccines. (Mostly mild, but in my experience, the typhoid shot makes your arm feel like someone's hit it with a sledge hammer.) Some vaccines cause headache or MILD flu-like symptoms. These aren't unexpected or dangerous. All of the types of vaccines received by people in the military are also given to civilians when required by their lifestyles, occupations or travel - ALL of them! How did they determine the medical condition resulted from the vaccination? The bottom line is that when your trying to find truth, it pays to nitpick. Amos, Joe's description of the electrical thingie doesn't sound like a description of a TENS unit to me. TENS doesn't work on 'diseases' and doesn't send an electrical current 'through the body'. I've used a TENS machine - it works on nerves (very much like acupuncture, IMO, but a doctor may well not admit that). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Joybell Date: 07 Jan 05 - 07:07 PM Joe, without getting into the immunize/don't immunize debate (Actually I'm qualified to get into it because I immunized children for over 30 years and I've read all the information available to me. I've also been earbashed, with the use of questionable information, on the evils of vaccination - some of it REALLY weird - alien takeovers included.) I don't think you stand much of a chance. The only thing I would do is "speak my truth (as I see it ) quietly and clearly" and hope some of it gets through. "as far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with...." the wife and child. Good luck Joe. Cheers, Joy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jan 05 - 02:29 AM Well, if my wife believes the machine causes healing, that's nice for her. But if I think a 42-inch plasma TV will heal me, don't you think I deserve it? Actually, I have my doubts about the durability of those big TV's, so I'm waiting. They sure look nice in the stores, though. Jeri, I think you and I both think the same about the questionability of Gulf War data. Actually, though, I don't feel bad when stuff I disagree with is presented poorly. What bothers me is when people on my own side of the issure make our position look foolish - and then they claim I'm against my own side if I question their methods. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 05 - 11:28 AM That's the Cassandra Curse, Joe -- people who see and blow the whistle on logical omissions, distortion, wrong inclusions, distorted importances and the like have to be very diplomatic or they end up getting run out of town!! :D S |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Bill D Date: 08 Jan 05 - 12:36 PM what we need is for one of us to write a 'learned' article claiming that emissions from plasma TVs will cure various stuff...It would need to be 'published' at a website...but, *grin*...the cost of a website for a year would add very little to the TV cost. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 08 Jan 05 - 12:50 PM In addition to healing through belief, you might want to ask your wife for the background statistics informing her decision. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jan 05 - 04:01 PM My wife's machine makes use of theories developed by Dr. Royal Rife. Hmmmm. "Royal" as a first name??? Ever notice that quacks and television evangelists often have unusual names? There's a Website that gives a good overview of this Rife stuff, http://www.rife.org/. If you do a Google search for Royal Rife, you'll see that there's a whole industry built on variations of the guy's machines. My wife's Rife machine has digital programming, and it has a label on the back that says the the machine is booby-trapped so it will be permanently disabled if you dare to open it up to see what's inside. This doesn't bother my wife, since she sees it as a safety device. The $2,000 machine supposedly has a lifetime warranty, and users should have no need to open the magic box to see what's inside. All the gadgets of this ilk are accompanied by copious amounts of literature which purport to prove their effectiveness. The literature always has statistics - a mind-boggling quantity of statistics. The literature is always accompanied by an all-encompassing disclaimer. The disclaimer at rife.org is a good example: Permission to access these pages is given only with this disclaimer. It makes me feel bad that at least three other $2,000 machines have been sold as a result of my wife's interest. And last year, she had gatherings in the house for a guy did $100 blood analyses by use of a TV camera hooked to a microscope. When I overheard him telling people to stop using prescribed medications and replace them with dietary supplement pills, I got worried that somebody could have serious health problems due to his advice - and we could get sued for sponsoring him. My wife's only asset is the house (and some old magnetic mattresses in the basement). My assets are fairly liquid - so I imagine it could be my retirement that would pay off the lawsuits... So, anyhow, she stopped having the blood parties in the house after I went on a tirade about the 'blood jerk' who was using our house and my wife's reputation to make a tidy profit with no benefit to us other than free blood analyses. Most of these guys would be very effective as used car salesmen - or television evangelists. Oh - and other thing I find interesting with all of this quacker is that most of the sellers are men, and most of the buyers are women. And for the most part, these are women who consider themselves to be modern, educated, and "liberated." They also use pendulums to help them make buying decisions in the supermarket. Anyhow, all this stuff is fascinating to me. I do think that "alternative medicine" has some value in some situations - and Although I generally trust the medical profession over the alternative stuff, I think there is a lot of hooey in both. So, who can I trust? My big problem is that I'd really place my trust in the plasma TV because I know for certain that Lord of the Rings would look wonderful on one - but I've heard that a plasma TV lasts about 5 years in normal use, and loses half of its brightness halfway through those five years. I guess I'd better stick with folk music, huh? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST Date: 08 Jan 05 - 07:20 PM God Joe, you are such a close minded, ignorant bigot sometimes. And I'm not talking about yer wife's miracle man and his magic potions, I'm talking about this statement: "Royal" as a first name??? Ever notice that quacks and television evangelists often have unusual names?" Sigh. And you wonder why you get called on your over the top judmental attitudes all the time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST,heric Date: 09 Jan 05 - 02:06 AM The reason this topic interests me is an event from about thirty years ago, that frequently comes to mind. When he was Secretary of State, or soon thereafter, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book, and I read a book review about it. The author was extremely knowledgeable, and extremely critical. He provided citations directly opposite to what Brz had written. Then I read the book itself. The critic's astounding knowledge base had come entirely from Brzezinski's own footnotes, in which he had provided the contrary authorities. There was just no way to detect this fraud as a mere reader. I blame(d) the magazine editors. But I guess it leads to this simple fact: You always have to read original source materials for any matter of any importance. Perhaps that is another related indicator, though, in addition to dramatic language, stridency, and the use of superlatives: intense criticism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: robomatic Date: 09 Jan 05 - 02:40 AM There is nothing like real science to expose these frauds. But real science takes a bit of time, money, and effort. As physicist Richard Feynman said, "I know how really HARD it is to know something." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Bob Bolton Date: 09 Jan 05 - 09:51 PM G'day Joe, One line I notice running through this is "~ ... well, they might have some funny / dangerous / strange / wrong / ... ideas - but it is to get all those aches and pains fixed ...!" Unfortunately, that's where my experience of chiropractic diverges ... at right angles. I have always had a degree of scoliosis ... and in my first job (bank clerk / teller ... early 1960s) I copped a back injury as we were accepting a delivery of stationery ... from a ream of blotting paper thrown down from a loaded truck. During the time I worked in heavy construction this ebbed away ... but I "put my back out" when I started full-time photographic work - initially with a violent sneeze while I was up a step ladder focussing a 5" x 7" view camera that was pointed straight down, for a vertical view of something. The sneeze, while I leant right out and was supported only by a hand caused pain that wouldn't go away. I went to a number of chiropractors ... to no avail - and a distinct impression they were following blindly after the text of a book claiming miracles ... and telling me they had achieved them. Then I ended up bed-ridden, after a further aggravation that could be clearly work-related (very rugged 4-wheel drive trip to photograph a new electricity line route) ... and I was despatched to a physiotherapist. The Principal of that practice, when she checked over the work of her assistant, said she want ed to see my just three times ... and never need to see me again, and proceeded to tell me how to manage my own back ... for life. I still use her bracing and exercise techniques ... and have always been able to "pull my low back problems back in". I contrast this to the reactions of going into a chiropractor's office ... and being told, before any examination, that I had to keep coming back into the far forseeable future (after which announcement, I suspect he went out and ordered a new Mercedes!). I'll stick with honest science (that which is open to question, freely, by anyone). Nothing presented as "the truth" ever proves to be so. Science is a process of constant learning, questioning and evaluation. Hosts of the old treatments have been replaced as we learn more ... and what is working the very best right now will, undoubtedly, be replaced by some refinement ... but anything that claims infallible truth is, by those who claim that, never tested (they put all that effort into distilling and selecting statistics that seem to support their mono-vision. (Rant over ... pardon while I quickly untwist the knot that has crept up my back while just thinking about these bludgers!) Regards, Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jan 05 - 11:43 AM OK, I admit it. I'm a "close minded, ignorant bigot" when it comes to people whose names remind me of Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart. I confess that I've also made remarks about Engelbert Humperdinck, and I've sung some of his songs without proper respect. Dr. Royal Rife, I'm sorry. It really is too bad your mom gave you such a weird name, though. Probably scarred you for life. -Joe Offer- P.S. Bob, my wife started out as a massage therapist, and then took a 4-year course in chiropractic. She practices a very gentle style of chiropractic, and spends an hour with each patient. I don't think I'd have the courage to go to a traditional chiropractor, but Christina works wonders with people's aches and pains. Now, if she's only stay away from those quack pills and gimmicks... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Bob Bolton Date: 10 Jan 05 - 05:39 PM G'day Joe, I was thinking, as I signed off my last post, that I ought to have been a bit more balanced! I have a friend (we were in a 'Bush Band' together in the 1970s ... and now he comes along to my Monday Night Music Sessions - as do his daughter, two sons and daughter-in-law!) who trained in chiropractic ... and came out believing there was an extreme end that believed all sorts of dubious formulas and fixed dogma ... but that there was a wealth of good knowledge and technique embedded among the rest. I had a dramatic illustration of this late last year in respect of migraine headaches. I'm prone to a particularly "visual" type of migraine ... I first notice (often after I have suffered a flash of reflected sunlight or a bright artificial light) that a 'spot' appears to 'glow' ... then spread, like a fire in the middle of my vision. Left unchecked (if I notice early enough ... and apply some 'defocussing / mental relaxation .. I can stop the migraine) the "fire' spreads out, blacking out the central vision and spreading flickering, flame-coloured "jaggy" patterns until I can scarcely see... and I'm feeling physically drained (although without the intense pain of many migraines). One Monday Night Session, concentrating hard on getting the Concert Party Group up to scratch with a tight demonstration dancing set for our Dance Workshop, and probably accidentally catching the beam of a spotlight in our stage area, I realised I was well into the development of one of these 'visual migraines' ... too late for me 'turn it off'. I asked the Session to carry on without me, as I needed to drive home while my vision held out ... and I packed up to go. My friend John (who, these days, is in remission from spinal cancer ... but going well, post radiation & chemo- treatment ... and a spinal fusion!) intercepted me in the outer room and suggested he could fix the migraine by some 'gapping' and 'extension'. (I know that mainstream medical science has now identified nerve points that trigger migraines, so there is, now, agreement between the disciplines on this point.) Despite the effort and pain of his own condition, John arranged me in a chair so he could extend and 'gap' my neck vertebrae and I could immediately see the visual effects of this migraine stop ... and recede! John's training, in this respect, came from chiropractic ... and predates the identification and recognition of the technique in mainstream medicine. I should also say that, in the '70s, when I suffered back problems while playing accordion in our band on gigs, John straightened out some of the effects of bad work I had copped from much more "qualified" (and expensive) chiropractors! One of John's 1970s objections to his training was the disregard for the benefits of massage ... and a quasi-religious belief that making vertebrae 'click' magically cured everything. This was the characteristic mantra of those 'chiropractors' who did so little good for me in the '70s. Regards, Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Jan 05 - 06:09 PM Feel free to enjoy the medical protection method of your choice. I do. I laugh every year when I see those "Get your flu shots!" posters on the Toronto Transit vehicles. Uh..huh...right. I have not gotten a flu shot in the last 30 or so years. And I haven't had the flu either in the last 30 or so years! My mother got a bunch of shots before going to Pakistan in the 70's. She got sick from the shots. Seriously sick. Her health was never that good again, not due to Pakistan...due to the shots. Like I said, if you want 'em get 'em. Fine with me. My method for good health is simple: Eat good food, but don't overeat. Exercise. Get enough fresh air and sunshine. Drink fresh, pure water. Don't drink alcohol, eat junk food, or smoke. Don't take illegal drugs. Don't take legal drugs. Don't take stomach pills, antacids, or drugs that affect your bowels. Don't get shots. Think positive thoughts, and dispense with habitual negative emotional habits such as hatred, bitterness, anger, envy, self-pity, guilt, shame, and fear. Love yourself, respect others, love life. Do all of the above and I suggest that you will probably not need very many shots at all...if any. But like I said, your own path in Life is your own choice, so make it as you see fit and enjoy it as suits you, and I'll do likewise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Jan 05 - 06:14 PM Chiropractic, in the hands of a good practitioner, works reasonably well for treating a number of physical ailments. However, I have found a method that works far better. Very few of you would believe it, so I am not going to bother explaining it here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Jan 05 - 06:20 PM And here's another rule for good health: Don't surrender your own sovereignty, give up your own personal power, and let others think and make choices for you, whether they be doctors, priests, presidents, or whomever. "Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 10 Jan 05 - 06:36 PM Oh, for goodness sake, Joe, that' s not TENS at all. Rife's story took plac place back in the 1920's or 1930's and was based on finding resonant frequencies. The fgunny thing is that the machinery was destroyed at the time, by fire IIRC; but prior to that there were waves of scientific groups coming to his place in San Diego and attesting to the dissipation of various conditions, including viral and carcinomens, using his machine. But the documentation was lost at the time, as was the prototype, and I don't think his theories as such were published and I am certain they were not peer-reviewed. The only part of the puzzle hard to refute with a supercilious shrug of superior knowledge, of course, is those flocks of doctorsd and scientist who were confirming the claims by inspection and so on. I suppose they could have been made up, though. But ya wanna be careful about throwing out new ideas. Remember the sad tale of puerpal fever, which used to take the lives of large numbers of women in childbirth, and Doctor Semmelweiss, who cured it. Saved hundreds of lives and families by simply requiring doctors to wash up when attending childbirth. emmelweis took charge of the maternity ward of Pest's St. Rochus Hospital from 1851 to 1857. His hand- and equipment-washing protocols reduced the mortality rate from puerperal fever to 0.85% there, and his ideas were soon accepted throughout Hungary. He never saw the joy of his discovery, even though his practices became standard world-wide. He was run out of town by a disgruntled medical profession who didn't want to be told to change, and died a lunatic in an insane asylum from beatings sustained. I suppose the doctors did not like being told they were causing childbed fever by not practicing hygeine -- hell, they still believed in balancing humours in those days. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST,DD Date: 10 Jan 05 - 09:35 PM In the area I live is a small faith based college, who based on their religious beliefs does not believe in imunization, medical OR chiropratic interventions. In the 15 years that I have lived in the area there have been two outbreaks of measles at that college which have resulted in deaths. You rarely here of "outbreaks" of measles and deaths except for that type of situation. I would say that is a point on the side of voting for imunizations. I think that there are risk, just like with any other drug, food, or substance we use. The question is DOES the Benifit outweigh the risk. Depends on the vacine, and how well studied it is. Some are safer than others, and new ones may not be very safe at all. Seems like there have been more problems with the studies the drug companies do to gain FDA approval. Kind of like asking the wolves to guard the sheep. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 05 - 12:20 AM The drug companies ARE wolves, and the people are the sheep. As for doctors, most of them are highly motivated people who honestly want to help the public...but they are influenced by powerful moneyed lobbies and organizations. A doctor who opposes the current orthodoxy at any time is in great peril of having his career destroyed, and it has ever been so. In any given century, much of what was considered legitimate medical method at the time was later found out to be nothing more than unconscious or even deliberate quackery. Don't think the same thing isn't happening right now, BIGTIME, and much of it at the behest of the drug companies. People don't need drugs to be healthy, they need a healthy environment, diet, state of mind, and general lifestyle to be healthy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST,Wolfgang Date: 11 Jan 05 - 01:32 PM Teach him critical thinking, going to the sources and sound argumentation. That's the best you can do. It is often a very sobering and healthy experience to follow up what is given as facts in inconventional treatement books. I applaud you, Amos, for mentioning Semmelweis here. His story is very useful and sometimes only one part is mentioned. He was a good observer and he did trust personal experiences for getting ideas. But he did not trust personal experiences for testing ideas. He is also known for introducing control groups in clinical tests and for using statistics instead of personal single case anecdotes ("my grandfather has smoked all his life and..." "I never had a shot and..."). The part with the necessity of control groups and the usefulness of statistics is often left out when his story is told by alternative medicine proponents. His story is a good case to illustrate the opposition to introducing science and empirical argumentation into medicine when many practitioners still considered it being an art. But I cannot (that's a lie: want not!) end without a pun on Semmelweis: Would you trust a doctor practicing in Pest? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:07 PM Buddha might! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 11 Jan 05 - 02:24 PM Thanks, WG. I have always been especially touched by Ignaz S.' tale as an example of the intertia which so tragically meets new and workable methodologies in spite of evidence of thier workability. I believe (and I could well be wrong -- their aren't any authoritative sources I know of) that Royal Rife was in the process of accumulating evidence -- or at least reliable testimony -- when his lab burned to the ground. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 11 Jan 05 - 06:30 PM Joe, my latest MS newsletter had the following information. It may be transferable to answers to your original question about "telltale signs of questionable journalism." *************************************** The MS Society brochure Clear Thinking About Alternative Therapies lists these danger signals regarding treatments not prescribed by your doctor. These include: *If the alternative treatment is a cure for MS -- DANGER *If you must pay in advance -- DANGER *If the product is sold throught multi-level marketing organization (known a "pyramid marketing") -- DANGER *The alternative practitioner does not want to work with your medical doctor -- DANGER *If the treatment is illegal -- DANGER ******************************************** And at the QuackWatch site, here, there is a link to "25 ways to spot quackery." (But many Mudcatters will not agree with this...says Mary ducking and running.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 05 - 06:35 PM I would agree with those danger signs, Mary... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 11 Jan 05 - 09:08 PM You have to pay in advance for almost all prescribed medicines. Does that mean they are dangerous? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 05 - 09:11 PM Oh, yeah, probably about half the time they are... :-) Never forget, Amos, that people will adopt the most extreme prejudices and demands against things they already have an emotional bias against, while easily indulging things they are already biased in favour of. That's standard human behaviour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Jan 05 - 02:03 AM I wonder if I'll get a message from Geoff the Duck, objecting to the "quack watch" site link..... QUACK!!!! -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Jim Dixon Date: 14 Jan 05 - 02:16 AM I've been looking for materials and information you could use to teach skepticism. First, a brilliant documentary: An episode of Frontline from 1993 called Prisoners of Silence (click for a summary; from there, follow a link to a complete transcript). About "Facilitated Communication," a method that was believed (and is still believed by some) to enable severely autistic people to communicate, but which was shown to be bogus in a devastatingly simple experiment. It sympathetically shows how well-intentioned people can manage to fool themselves. Some organizations and publications: 'Skeptic' magazine and the Skeptics Society 'Skeptical Inquirer' magazine and the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal James Randi Educational Foundation Quackwatch (but I see this has been posted before) Bob McCoy and the Museum of Questionable Medical Devices - right here in Minnesota! This one is a lot of fun. The sheer number and variety of devices and theories is amazing. (It's been fun, and I'd love to find more, but I've got to get to bed!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 14 Jan 05 - 10:48 AM However one should take skepticism with a grain of salt. It isn't always everything it is cracked up to ne. It is always easy to nullify. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Jan 05 - 10:52 AM A skeptic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. He takes pleasure in making his World small, mean, and certain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Jim Dixon Date: 14 Jan 05 - 12:22 PM Ah, Little Hawk, I see you are skeptical about skeptics. Does that make you skeptical about yourself? I hope it does. We should all be skeptical about ourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Jan 05 - 12:26 PM Indeed, yes, I am exceedingly skeptical about skeptics! :-) I am skeptical of my own skepticism. So much so that I plan to give myself the cold shoulder the next time I meet on the street. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: GUEST,Jillian H Date: 01 Mar 05 - 08:48 PM In essence what is a vaccine? it's a bit of the actual virus that gets injected into you body so you can fight off the virus and create antibodies. I believe that some people do get sick from the vaccines but why?... could it be due to the fact that they are sensative to these things?.. possibly! Or it could be that they are slightly sick or just getting over a sickness, maybe something like a cold; anything. and their body is still weak from fighting off whatever thay had that it simply can't fight off the new sickenss introduced into their bodies. People could also be sick from the vaccinations because they are in general poor health from not taking care of themselves like they should be. Overall i believe that vaccinations are a good thing to have around they do prevent antibodies that will help you fight off a virus if you should ever catch it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Greg F. Date: 01 Mar 05 - 09:14 PM If you're going to plagiarize Oscar Wilde, LH, at least you could take the trouble to do it properly. That's a cynic, not a skeptic. [ Wilde himself was a pretty accomplished skeptic. ] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: heric Date: 02 Mar 05 - 12:58 PM That's the Dylan in him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Charmion Date: 02 Mar 05 - 01:25 PM Little Hawk, your advice for keeping healthy is all good, but it's a counsel of perfection; it works fine until you find yourself in an environment rich in virulent contagious diseases. A healthy immune system can handle the occasional sneeze from a flu-bearing fellow diner at a restaurant, or the colds and collywobbles that come home from school with most kids (the Canadian norm is two per household). It's quite another matter, however, to face the highly contagious people who parade all day through every doctor's office and emergency room. The people who provide the most intimate personal care services (think "bedpan" and you're in the ball-park) are in constant contact with the stuff of epidemiologists' nightmares. And then there are teachers and day-care workers, who spend each working day surrounded by the germs of dozens of kids, none of whom ever have a Kleenex. Bring on the MMMP, the flu shot, the gamma globulin! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: John Hardly Date: 02 Mar 05 - 01:40 PM Interesting thread -- especially relative to the original question (how do you detect the truth or falsehood of claims for which you have no empircal means to suss out?). We've all experienced the stink of writing meant to deceive. I know I rarely, if ever, see a mainstream publication (as happened when Acoustic Guitar Magazine did the story) that, upon stating that the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities accused Pete Seeger of being a Communist, ever, at the same time, mentions the truth of the claim. But the little side-tracked discussion RE: alternative medicine... ...I am a real skeptic when it comes to alternative medicine, but I've had two first-hand experiences that have made me at least a bit less dismissive. 1. After consulting with surgeons and physical therapists (and doing the therapy religiously), and getting cortizone shots to no effect, my wife finally got relief from plantar fascitis (that had become heel spurs) after a couple of visits to a massage/manipulation therapist. My skepticism was somewhat mollified as the massage therapist was also an MD, but it was a VERY strange experience. 2. I loosened some cartilage in my knee and found myself, after 25 years of daily running, unable to do it because of the pain. Upon conslutation with my surgeon (who advised that surgury was not called for at that point), I asked if there was any harm or benfit from Glucosamine. He said that there probably was no benefit, but that it most likely wouldn't cause harm either. Well, the knee ended up healing -- nothing extrordinary about that. In fact, I wouldn't have even connected that healing with the glucosamine except that I got a simultaneously benefical side-effect. The chronic shoulder pain I had suffered for 20 plus years almost disappeared. I'm still a skeptic -- just a bit more open to looking elsewhere. There's also the side-tracked discussion about unintended consequences. I find it interesting that we have, with the best of medical intentions, painted ourselves into a corner where the use of antibiotics is concerned. We're now madly in search of finding new ones to fight the newer antibiotic-resistant bacteria. I think I read once that one of the key causes for the polio outbreak mid last century was traced to the use of household disinfectants making a generation of weakened immune systems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Cod Fiddler Date: 02 Mar 05 - 01:50 PM It is incredibly easy to misrepresent fact by poor presentation of statistical results. The flip side of this is that it is incredibly easy to present statistics in a misleading way. If the information is important to you ALWAYS go back to the source. If the references aren't there DON'T trust it. If the references are there see who they come from. I'm sure you can find objective review papers in medical journals such as The Lancet, which are peer reviewed and only cite from legitimate, peer reviewed sources. These should sum up the available studies and provide a ligitimate answer to your questions, though the answer may be equivocal. At least you can trust the stats! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Amos Date: 02 Mar 05 - 02:46 PM As to how to know what to believe: you need a certain degree of familiarity with how things work in the realm of discourse. You can readily recognize patterns of data which seem consistent with that familiarity. If you're a farmer and you go to sea for the first time, everything may seem to be something amiss, with t he creaking and rolling and pitching. Conversely, a seasoned deckie knows what to expect, and will know what really is an anomaly when one appears. With a background off familiarity, you also know how to recognize distortions such as altered sequences, falsified data, exaggerations about time, and the most popular form of BS, distortions about what is important and what is not in a given field. There is a long list of typical patterns of falsification which you could draw up, ways in which people twist information to serve their own purposes, with little respect for the truth. But ther eis also such a thing as the truth, or at least a sufficient degree thereof. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: JohnInKansas Date: 02 Mar 05 - 05:17 PM Perhaps you could offer the kid an "extra credit" reading assignment, and give him a copy of Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Charles Mackay, LL. D. I've got my copy in "archive stacks" and can't find it for a proper citation, but my inventory shows it published as a reprint by Harmony Books. I got mine off a sale table at Barnes. It gets reprinted frequently, usually cheaply. Amazon has it now at about $10 (US). A web citation is: Author: Mackay, Charles (1814-1889) Title: Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds Published: London: Office of the National Illustrated Library, 1852. Second edition text. First published: 1841. From the Preface to the first edition: "THE OBJECT OF THE AUTHOR in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes." What appears to be the complete book is online at Online Mackay, although he's likely to do a more thoughtful reading with a "real" book in hand, IMO. I don't find a page count at the online book, but I'd guess it's 300 pages or more, but each "delusion" is treated more or less independently, so you could assign a chapter or two. The "learning theory" I'm suggesting is that you don't argue about his "present gullibility." You just show him that great bunches of people have often been easily misled. You can discuss with him how some of these things happened, but of course you'd need to read the book (or at least the assigned parts) too. A section I particularly recall is the history of the "Tulip Bubble" in Holland. Since that one did have some "positive results" it might be a good one to discuss regarding the "fragment of truth" that gets mixed in with the hype. Since teachers are allowed a bit of trickery when it's in a good cause, you can tell him it's a history assignment. If he's to grow into a person of true character, he should learn that sometimes "everybody" can be wrong; and that if you're careful and sincere, you can believe in your own judgement in spite of them. On the TENS subject, I have one of those. I got mine at an antique mall for $5, for the "nostalgia," because it's identical to one an aunt, who was a chiropractor, demonstrated to me and my family ca. 1944 or so. The one I came across probably had a similar origin, but I suspect that mine hadn't been used since 1945 or so. I violated the "don't open because this is a mysterious secret" warnings in the fragments of documentation that came with it, and managed to restore it to operation. Of course, it's not the $2,000 version – I think it only cost the aunt about $100 way back then. Unlike some of the other things she bought "for her practice" this one actually "does something," and the principle is fairly commonly used for a few specific kinds of problems, with some success. The problem is when "belief" that such a device has some mystical capability causes misuse in inappropriate cases, or discourages using more appropriate therapies. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: robomatic Date: 03 Mar 05 - 06:14 PM Another interesting topic of relevance is a philosophical treatise that has been knocking about the internet for years and is now being published by Princeton University Press The free version is complete but is rapidly disappearing as knowledge of the clearly copywritten version is being disseminated. I think it would be fun to have a hardbound serious looking book called "On Bullshit" on my shelf next to "When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden". Nevertheless, they took a 19 page essay and turned it into an 80 page book. I never did as much when I was in college! The most interesting point to me was the from the first page: That one who is lying pays more tribute to the truth than one who is bullshitting. The liar has enough respect for the truth to knowingly step away from it. The bullshitter has no reference to the truth whatsoever, the bs-er merely wants to convince the listener. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 03 Mar 05 - 08:03 PM John Hardly said, in part: I know I rarely, if ever, see a mainstream publication (as happened when Acoustic Guitar Magazine did the story) that, upon stating that the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities accused Pete Seeger of being a Communist, ever, at the same time, mentions the truth of the claim. Huh? I'm afraid that sentence throws me. I really don't understand what the meaning is. Could you expand and elucidate on it, please? Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Fact vs. Factoid: What to believe?? From: heric Date: 11 Mar 05 - 12:31 AM David Kirby |
