About Uplift

Recent posts

• Comment on LMNOP's answer…

  0 0 Heart Tango. Uplift commented about 1 year ago

• Comment on Dan Savage's answer…

  0 0 It's just you. It's the most commonly used word, so it's the least connotative. It's a pure descriptor. Whereas, as you observe, "friend" may be accurate, but feels deceptive to the new sweetie. So just use ex. But! Do NOT mention exes until at least the second date, maybe later. Mentioning an ex- on the first date is a big warning flag for "I'm not over him (her) yet." Even if you are, that's why (some) people might bristle or whatever. When you do bring up an ex - say, on the third date - and the new person bristles at the mere mention, then that too is a warning sign: that they are very likely too crazy and insecure to keep seeing. Uplift commented about 1 year ago

• Comment on Arsenic7's answer…

  0 0 To be fair, Arsenic7, this statement -- "Many alternative medicine practices have not undergone significant scientific testing." -- applies to "Western" medicine as well. There are significant areas of Western medicine that are not based on any significant scientific evidence. Many surgeries, for example, have never been subjected to double-blind placebo (sham surgery) trials. Uplift commented about 1 year ago

• Comment on Barak Gaster, MD's answer…

  0 0 Dr. Gaster, thanks for this. I really appreciate your time, and think that you've made a lot of good points in both posts. Still, I essentially disagree with you. Let's take the couple positive meta-analyses at face value. If they are right, then either some significant things about our current understanding of physics and chemistry are wrong; or homeopathy works in some way that is both different than practioners claim while avoiding the essential problems physics and chemistry. In addition, if these few meta-analyses are right, then the much larger mountain of evidence showing that homeopathy doesn't work is also wrong. The chances are much better that these couple of (in your words) cherry-picked meta-analyses are wrong (for any number of reasons); and that chemistry, physics, and the rest of the meta-analyses are right. I think we agree on that point, actually, as you keep emphasizing your skepticism - which I appreciate. Here's where we differ: the chances that physics and chemistry are right are so much better - this is physics and chemistry! we're talking many orders of magnitude better - that I honestly can't see where it is valuable to keep an open mind about homeopathy itself. I acknowledge that logically there is literally no way to prove in a final mathematical-logical sense, that homeopathy does not work. But in practice, why is the subject not utterly closed? I wonder if you are drawing the distinction sometimes drawn between agnostics and atheists. The argument goes that it is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of god; therefore, atheism is a position of faith just as much as religion. The true skeptical position, it is argued, is agnosticism. In practice, though, you cannot find an atheist who states that there is 100% for sure no god - what they do state is that the chances of god are so low that there is no real uncertainty there. People do not view themselves as agnostics about the existence of fairies or goblins, nor about the existence of the ancient gods of Greece - though these are equally disprovable in any final sense. We simply do not believe in them - no one hesitates before stating flatly that goblins do not exist. The situation is no different for atheists with "god". Nor with homeopathy. So I don't see where I should keep an open mind on the subject of homeopathy itself; and indeed given my above argument, why I should keep an open mind about the commitment to evidence-based medicine among people who actively promote it (let me be clear that I am _not_ questioning your commitment to EBM). I absolutely disagree with you that "bigger, better, more expensive studies" are warranted "before we completely dismiss it". However, I absolutely do keep an open mind about the total character and person of those who use it, even while it affects my opinion of how rationally they approach the world. Again, thanks so much for participating in the thread. Uplift commented about 1 year ago

• Follow Following 1

  Am I Railing Too Hard Against Alternative Medicine?

  3 0 For reference, here are the QL terms of use: -- Questionland is a tool for people who have honest questions, intelligent answers, and meaningful things to contribute. Questions, answers, and comments that are hateful, abusive or bigoted, trolling, deceitful, vague, confusing or nonsensical will be removed. We're also going to delete personal attacks and spam and any other crap that we deem to be inappropriate. -- In my small experience, when you explain to someone why his or her belief is nonsensical because it is based on things which are not true - which is something you and I both did on the homeopathy thread, for example - it frequently doesn't go well. Obviously, what a person believes reflects on who they are, and so it's not crazy to take it personally when I dismiss your beliefs. That said, pointing out that a belief held by an individual is false is NOT an ad hominem attack, in and of itself. Nor is it intrinsically mean or rude to do so. It can be; I think it's mean/rude when you're pointing the thing out to a small child and the stakes are low (i.e., it's mean to tell a three year old that there's no Santa Claus), or when it's not invited and has no effect on you (i.e., walking into random churches and lecturing people in them about how creationism is lies). There are probably other situations, as well. But Questionland is a public forum where people are supposed to ask questions, give intelligent answers, and contribute meaningful things. Asking and answering questions in a public forum that allows comments is a setting where it's neither mean nor rude to point out relevant facts, no matter how disturbing they may be to the deeply held beliefs of people reading the forum. That last bit bears repeating: just because someone's deeply held beliefs have been challenged by something you said, does not mean you were rude or engaged in ad hominem. No one has the right NOT to have one's beliefs challenged in public. Nearly everything you've posted in this thread (that I've read) meets my definitions of "intelligent answers and meaningful things to contribute". I also do not think that repeatedly and stating facts - even forcefully and/or snarkily - constitutes "abuse". The only question, then, is one of tone. Your tone may have veered close to the snarky from time to time. If you feel unsure, then do an editing pass through your posts to tone down snarkiness before posting - I try to, although I don't always succeed. I would challenge anyone to point out something hateful, abusive, or bigoted that you've stated, however. Moreover, you've at least once gone out of your way to show respect for people with whom you have fundamental disagreements: you were specifically respectful of sphinxemmashade's personal experiences in the Nurse thread on cranio-sacral therapy. So I think you're doing great, and keep it up. Uplift answered in Alt Medicine about 1 year ago Answer, comment & read 12 more answers »

• Comment on Sphinx's answer…

  0 0 First, you seem to be blurring together Arsenic7's comment on your answer, and HIS ANSWER to Nurse. "blood letting" and use of the word "enlighten" were both in HIS ANSWER. In fact, even if we could find some fault with his comment on your answer, he was also deliberately respectful of you: for example, he stated clearly "I'm not trying to deny your experience...". And if you read Nurse's comment again, Nurse led with "The philosophy behind it is bullshit". Arsenic7's tone and language was entirely appropriate to that kind of question. Nurse's sensibilities are unlikely to be THAT delicate, although Nurse should feel free to weigh in. Moreover, Arsenic7 stated "Basically I'm wondering if I should tone it down or if I'm being unreasonable." Your response to this question - asked with apparent honesty and concern about his own behavior - included an ad hominem attack: "like you're some genius who's read a history textbook". Perhaps this is because you seem to view his comments in general as ad hominem attacks? For example, you claim that Arsenic7 views you (among others) as "incapable of analytical thought". I don't see where Arsenic7 has made this claim either implicitly or explicitly; can you provide any evidence of such a blanket disrespectful statement? Even if Arsenic7 HAD made such ad hominem attacks, however, you are also launching ad hominem attacks. This means, in answer to Arsenic7's essential question, and somewhat contrary to the text of your answer, that you think it's okay to be vitriolic and aggressive in this forum. Uplift commented about 1 year ago

• Comment on DrSomol's answer…

  0 0 There are a lot of things to respond to, here, but I'll concentrate on where you make my argument for me: your analogy to palliative care. In your analogy, palliative care equates to homeopathy. You claim that palliative care has "nothing to do with battling disease, extending life, or creating better health on a scientific/biological level." Therefore, either (1) you believe homeopathy likewise has nothing to do with battling disease, extending life, or having any biological effect at all, or (2) your analogy is some combination of sloppy, inaccurate, and misleading. Regarding (1), it should go without saying that Bastyr does not require THREE COURSES in homeopathy from their four-year ND students because they believe homeopathy to be of absolutely no use (beyond a placebo) in "battling disease, extending life, or creating better health on a scientific/biological level." They believe it works, for actual, in some or all these ways. Unless some ND on this thread would like to specifically disavow that? Which is all I'm asking for, here. Regardless, the analogy is flawed. The correct analogy is more like, if UW Medical School started implicitly or explicitly claiming that palliative care cured disease, even though there were many trials and meta-analyses showing this was false, AND the proposed mechanism of action by which palliative care was supposed to cure disease was in direct contradiction of laws of physics and chemistry - then yes, I would be outraged and question the School's basic commitment to evidence-based medicine. I would likewise question the commitment to evidence-based medicine of a graduate of UW Medical School who did not specifically disavow this position. Show me a topic on which UW Medical School is currently doing this and I WILL be outraged. If you actually frame the analogy in a fair, not-misleading way, it's really not very difficult. And it is not nearly as hard as you seem to think to apply the same standards fairly to all parties. What does seem to be hard, for defenders of homeopathy and of naturopathy's endorsement of homeopathy, is the forthright and unequivocal acknowledgement of simple fact, namely that homeopathy does not work better than placebo, and is based on lies about how the universe (physics and chemistry) functions. So to Rev. Smith and the two NDs on this thread: do you acknowledge this simple fact, or not? Please give a yes or no answer. Uplift commented about 1 year ago

• Comment on DrSomol's answer…

  0 0 DrSomol, your response perfectly illustrates why I and many other people are deeply skeptical of the commitment of both Bastyr and naturopathy to evidence based medicine. You say that "While EBM is the cornerstone of our education at Bastyr, there is also an understanding that science has not yet provided all the answers to life, health and healing." Of course this is true, in the most general and trivial sense. Science has not provided "all" the answers to life, health, and healing - and is unlikely EVER to provide "all" the answers. That's irrelevant to the present discussion. What's relevant is that science HAS provided the answers regarding homeopathy: homeopathy does not work, and is based on lies about how the universe functions. That's it, that's the whole story. Notice, I'm not claiming that homeopathy can't provide comfort to individuals who believe in it - I've never disputed that homeopathy may provide a robust placebo effect for those who believe it works. So your point that "Many methods have not yet passed the standards of EBM, yet still have provided healing, or at least comfort, for those who sought them out." is partially correct with regard to homeopathy. Of course, it is INCORRECT inasmuch as it is not the case that homeopathy has simply "not yet passed" the standards of evidence-based medicine. Homeopathy has FAILED those standards, repeatedly and completely. (Edited to redact somewhat irrelevant part about herbal medicines in South Africa. Although making a point I would stand behind, it was snarky - sorry about that.) Homeopathy does not work, and is based on lies. Why won't you acknowledge this simple, scientifically undisputed fact? As with your colleague's answer, you are demonstrating my claim that naturopathy is fundamentally unserious about evidence and science. Uplift commented about 1 year ago

• Comment on CMDodgeND's answer…

  0 0 The debate of evidence based medicine versus empiric medicine may be raging all over health care now, CMDodgeND, but there is, in fact, a right answer here: that is, homeopathy does not work, and it is based on lies about the way the universe functions. It is snake oil. That's the actual right answer, and no amount of obfuscation about clashing medicinal paradigms is going to actually change that fact. Any more than repeatedly claiming that god created man on the sixth day (and woman from a man's rib!) is going to change the fact of evolution. Let me quote the most troubling section of CMDodgeND's reply: Empiric medicine which may lack rigorous controlled studies (either because there is no money to fund such research, or we haven't figured out how to study it appropriately) remains open to criticisms like the ones you brought up above in your indictment of homeopathy... It seems as if you're implying here that homeopathy remains open to criticism because we lack rigorous controlled studies. (If you're doing something else, you're not doing it very clearly.) Of course, there have been numerous meta-analyses of randomized trials in a variety of well-respected peer-reviewed journals, concluding overall that homeopathy does not work. So while I could be reading you wrong, your statement is not only incorrect, but also clearly demonstrates my claim that "a field which so-endorses homeopathy is fundamentally unserious about evidence-based medicine". Equally puzzling is what reads as your leap from my statement ("fundamentally unserious about evidence-based medicine") to your claim that I have engaged in "wholesale dismissal of a system of medicine [naturopathy]". Those two statements don't remotely equate, and your misinterpretation of my words reflects your defensiveness and bias, not mine. Finally, while doctors likely do need to find a balance between evidence-based medicine and empiric medicine, this point is somewhere between comic and tragic when applied to homeopathy as a treatment for anything serious. We could, likewise, propose that doctors really need to find a balance between using antibiotics and using excessive bacon intake as cures for sepsis. Again, homeopathy (all together now) does not work/based on liesTM - the correct balance is to not use it. The idea that challenging a dubious medical practice with well-understood science and numerous well-conducted randomized trials makes one a "dogmatic and inflexible ideologue" is astonishing and would be insulting if it weren't so silly. Homeopathy is faith-based medicine - what's more dogmatic than that? Uplift commented about 1 year ago

• Follow Following 1 Homeopathy and evidence-based medicine? Uplift asked in Alt Medicine about 1 year ago by Barak Gaster & 3 other answers by Barak Gaster, MD , CMDodgeND…

• See all of my 1 Question , 3 Answers and 13 Comments