I'm curious how this sort of problem could be handled under a libertarian regime. How could we determine which contracts were coerced and which were freely agreed to, at least among the elderly? Children have similar problems with a lack of autonomy, but it's easy to tell them apart from autonomous adults. Not so with Alzheimer's victims.
To me this points to the fact that the "voluntary contract" is an over-simplified myth, rather than the sort of thing that should be fundamental to a society (as libertarians and capitalist anarchists would have it).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If it can be established that one of the parties to a contract was not competent to enter into a contract at the time the contract was entered into, it should obviously be void.
This isn't even an issue. Nor is it a common case. I've noticed that statists/collectivists like to find the most fringe situations to criticize.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I've noticed that statists/collectivists like to find the most fringe situations to criticize.
I've noticed that most people tend to do this, regardless of statist/individualist leanings.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I've noticed that statists/collectivists like to find the most fringe situations to criticize.
I've noticed that you do it all the time.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:If it can be established that one of the parties to a contract was not competent to enter into a contract at the time the contract was entered into, it should obviously be void.
I have a few questions about this.
First, whose responsibility would it be to establish that the Alzheimer's patient wasn't competent? How would the matter be investigated, ideally?
Second, how would you handle a case like some of the ones described in the article, where a sick person simply forgets to pay their debts (although these debts were incurred at a time when the patient was fully competent)?
Third, what are the criteria that make someone eligible to own property, as opposed to enter contracts? One might expect these criteria to be the same (something like personal autonomy and decision-making capability), but that can't be right if we want to allow Alzheimer's patients to retain their possessions after becoming ill. They must be unable to make contracts, but still able to own things. How is that supposed to work?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: This isn't even an issue. Nor is it a common case. I've noticed that statists/collectivists like to find the most fringe situations to criticize.
Persons being declared wards of the state and having power of attorney transferred to appointed legal guardians, and the subsequent issues of managing contractual and debt obligations especially in cases of no known or willingly involvable relatives, actually are quite a significant and taxing issue. You also spent an entire thread on intellectual property rights not too long ago finding, pretty much, the most fringe situations possible to say why things should be the way you wanted them to be. If you want to criticize the "statists/collectivists" for that, you should do a better job not painting the hyperlibertarian angle the same way.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
The problem of determining where coercion begins and ends is hardly a fringe issue when one recognizes the human mind's ability to act irrationally. Its a fairly important issue to determine when and how a person isn't "competent" enough to make a contract. I mean, lets take an uneducated person, who signs a contract with a credit card company but doesn't fully understand how interest works. Was he being coerced because he didn't have the education to grasp the math behind interest?
Who determines the competency of a person signing a contract?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, lest we forget; in a hypothetical libertarian society, determining competence for contractual obligations involving uneducated and illiterate peoples becomes much much more important, as there will be a great many more uneducated and illiterate people.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Lisa made an observation regarding a certain group of people who believe a certain idea, implying Destineer is a statist/collectivist. Parkour responded by turning it directly towards her personally.
This direction never leads to anything positive so please refrain from doing it. I'm watching the thread, please be respectful towards each other.
Also, I'm inclined to agree with what Jon Boy said.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Thanks, JB. I'd rather talk about Lisa's ideas on the topic of the thread.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Lisa made an observation regarding a certain group of people who believe a certain idea, implying Destineer is a statist/collectivist. Parkour responded by turning it directly towards her personally.
So now we're barred from anything that you subjectively consider to be implying things that we're not supposed to say?
Wow.
Are we still allowed to think things, or would it be better if we run them by you first?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Lisa: Your thoughts are outside the purview of my janitorial authority.
Implying things isn't right out. You implied that I'm the thought police just now. That doesn't bother me one bit, as at any time I can choose to just stop responding and leave the thread.
That dynamic changes with two other posters, as I cannot control either person's behavior. When two posters initiate a back and forth where ideas are discussed less and less while negative commentary on them as people increases that's when I step in. If your next post in this thread was simply ignoring Parkour's last, and continuing to discuss ideas, then I relax. If it's (and this had been the case many many times, I'm not singling you out on this) an angry retaliation where the poster is told to shove certain things in places they do not go, then the thread is doomed. If the thread evolved into a back and forth where both posters attempt to outdo the other in crafting flattering compliments I'd be delighted to leave them alone.
Again, what I described as intolerable hasn't quite happened yet, and perhaps I could have just sat back and watched to see if you would all be adults about this, but in this particular instance I elected to ask for respect sooner. I'll try not to step on every thread where things get tense or passion is displayed, but I will absolutely not countenance fighting or vitriol directed at you or from you. That goes for any poster.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Hmm. See, I would have looked at this and said, "Parkour attacked Lisa without any provocation, as he has done in thread after thread. Sometimes she attacks back and sometimes she ignores him, but he's always there with a personal attack. I wonder if I should do something about that." I don't think I would have said, "Well, let's treat an implication that someone is a statist (which I think is a bad thing, and you may think is a bad thing, but not everyone thinks is a bad thing) and a personal attack as being on the same level."
I guess that's just how you roll.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Hmm. See, I would have looked at this and said, "Parkour attacked Lisa without any provocation
He basically said to you forthrightly what you were (post edited by Janitor Blade. Really Sa'eed? Right after I just asked people not to attack other posters?) claiming about another poster. I mean what relevance would your observation have had if you weren't making that claim about the OP?
[ November 01, 2010, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Lisa, I'm still curious about what you'd say to the three questions I posted yesterday.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Hmm. See, I would have looked at this and said, "Parkour attacked Lisa without any provocation, as he has done in thread after thread. Sometimes she attacks back and sometimes she ignores him, but he's always there with a personal attack. I wonder if I should do something about that." I don't think I would have said, "Well, let's treat an implication that someone is a statist (which I think is a bad thing, and you may think is a bad thing, but not everyone thinks is a bad thing) and a personal attack as being on the same level."
I guess that's just how you roll.
Parkour's post was what motivated me to intervene. Your post by itself was sufficiently vague that I was willing to just let things slide. I wasn't trying to slap either of your wrists, just indicate that I was not pleased with where things where going in the thread in general.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
If you're not trying to slap wrists, don't slap wrists. if you don't have a problem with implications, don't pick at implications. Be a more coherent moderator. And lisa, I'm allowed to point out hypocrisy and oddities in your assessments of others. If you think that turns this into "oh, parkours always there with 'attacks', don't constantly display oddities and hypocrisies in the way you argue and you won't feel constantly attacked.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Will you guys quitcherbitchin and say something about the motherfracking topic of the thread??????
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: If you're not trying to slap wrists, don't slap wrists. if you don't have a problem with implications, don't pick at implications. Be a more coherent moderator. And lisa, I'm allowed to point out hypocrisy and oddities in your assessments of others. If you think that turns this into "oh, parkours always there with 'attacks', don't constantly display oddities and hypocrisies in the way you argue and you won't feel constantly attacked.
I didn't slap wrists, at least by my reckoning. If I am not coherent enough for you, email me and we will talk.
I'm not interested in allowing threads to turn into 2+ posters having a shouting match. Your post was pushing the thread strongly in that direction. When I am trying to slap your wrist personally I'll refer to you by name when I edit or post. I will also email you myself.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
What Destineer quoted, that one of the first signs of impending dementia is an inability to understand money and credit and contracts and agreements, was born out in the experience we had with my ex-wife's mother. She was a retired math teacher, and was very intelligent. Thus her mind could deteriorate quite a bit, and she was still able to cover it up. The point where we realized there was really something wrong with her was when she ceased being able to balance her check book. It became necessary for the sisters to divide up duties, my ex-wife who is a nurse, took responsibility for medical decisions. The older sister took responsibility for managing her finances.
I realize the issue here is the possibility of people being taken advantage of, or of being expected to handle complexities that they cannot, and how the law must treat past decisions made by a person who is discovered to be suffering from Alzheimer's or another form of dementia.
But if I might diverge just a little bit to a related topic, I came across this very interesting article recently, that suggests there may be a simple, relatively inexpensive treatment that can greatly help in such cases, not only halting the dementia, but even largely reversing it. I want to share this in case it could be helpful to someone.
quote:Mary Newport, MD, has been medical director of the neonatal intensive care unit at Spring Hill Regional Hospital in Florida since it opened in 2003. About the same time the unit opened, her husband Steve, then 53, began showing signs of progressive dementia, later diagnosed as Alzheimer’s Disease. “Many days, often for several days in a row, he was in a fog; couldn’t find a spoon or remember how to get water out of the refrigerator,” she said.
They started him on Alzheimer’s drugs—Aricept, Namenda, Exelon—but his disease worsened steadily....When Dr. Newport couldn’t get her husband into a drug trial for a new Alzheimer’s medication, she started researching the mechanism behind Alzheimer’s.
She discovered that with Alzheimer’s disease, certain brain cells may have difficulty utilizing glucose (made from the carbohydrates we eat), the brain’s principal source of energy. Without fuel, these precious neurons may begin to die. There is an alternative energy source for brain cells—fats known as ketones. If deprived of carbohydrates, the body produces ketones naturally.
But this is the hard way to do it—who wants to cut carbohydrates out of the diet completely? Another way to produce ketones is by consuming oils that have medium-chain triglycerides. When MCT oil is digested, the liver converts it into ketones. In the first few weeks of life, ketones provide about 25 percent of the energy newborn babies need to survive.
Dr. Newport learned that the ingredient in the drug trial which was showing so much promise was simply MCT oil derived from coconut oil or palm kernel oil, and that a dose of 20 grams (about 20 ml or 4 teaspoons) was used to produce these results. When MCT oil is metabolized, the ketones which the body creates may, according to the latest research, not only protect against the incidence of Alzheimer’s, but may actually reverse it. Moreover, this is also a potential treatment for Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease), drug-resistant epilepsy, brittle type I diabetes, and type II (insulin-resistant) diabetes.
So Mr. Newport, not being able to get into the drug trial, started taking the coconut oil twice a day. At this point, he could barely remember how to draw a clock. Two weeks after adding coconut oil to his diet, his drawing improved. After 37 days, Steve’s drawing gained even more clarity. The oil seemed to “lift the fog,” and in the first sixty days, Dr. Newport saw remarkable changes in him: every morning he was alert and happy, talkative, making jokes. His gait was “still a little weird,” but his tremor was no longer very noticeable. He was able to concentrate on things that he wanted to do around the house and in the yard and stay on task, whereas before coconut oil he was easily distractible and rarely accomplished anything unless he was directly supervised.
Over the next year, the dementia continued to reverse itself: he is able to run again, his reading comprehension has improved dramatically, and his short-term memory is improving—he often brings up events that happened days to weeks earlier and relays telephone conversations with accurate detail. A recent MRI shows that the brain atrophy has been completely halted....
Coconut oil can be found in many health food stores and even some grocery stores. One large chain sells a non-hydrogenated (no trans-fat) brand of coconut oil in a one-liter size (nearly 32 ounces) for about $7. It can be purchased in quantities as small as a pint and up to five gallons online. It is important to use coconut oil that is non-hydrogenated and contains no trans-fat. We would also strongly encourage the use of virgin oil (chemicals used to extract non-virgin oil are potentially dangerous, and better still, virgin organic, still quite reasonably priced.)
For more information, see Dr. Newport’s website [2]. Sadly, you will not find any information on ketones, or the use of coconut oil or MCT oil, on the Alzheimer’s Association website.
Since coconut oil liquifies at 77 degrees F and solidifies at 76 degrees F, it makes a great margarine, if you melt it then add some butter-flavored popcorn seasoning (I used Kroger brand). I like it better than Imperial Margarine. And who knows--maybe it will improve my memory, or have some other positive benefit.
[ November 04, 2010, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The Alliance for Natural Health is a completely worthless, pseudoscience organization that promotes ayurvedic and chinese folk medicine, hawk worthless cures, and are anti-vaccination.
Coconut oil is not going to reverse the amyloid buildup of alzheimers. It's currently incurable.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
So the answer given by a Libertarian to "who takes care of Alzheimer patients who lack the ability to think rationally" is to offer them medicine based on irrational non-science and assume they will then be able to take care of themselves?
I wonder if there is a connection to the anarchic anti-government theories behind Libertarian thought, and the anarchic anti-science theories that help support quack cures? If the story is good then the details and facts don't matter?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Coconut oil is not a "quack cure." It certainly is unlikely to hurt anyone. The method by which it works has been explained, and the article I quoted recounted trial results with a patient. Samprimary, your ethnic prejudice is showing. So is your lack of real respect for the scientific method. You reveal that to you, real science only consists of the current traditional thinking of those who consider themselves safely in the mainstream. People like you will be the last to board the Ark, if you ever do. Darth_Mauve, your insulting remarks are completely irrational and ignore what I actually said.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Yes, you defined Coconut Oil's story about how it cures Alzheimers very clearly.
Unfortunately it is not correct.
It assumes that Alzheimer's is caused by the brain cells being unable to gather energy from blood sugars. According to all current scientific studies, the problem is caused by plaques and tangles in the brain
From ALZ org--a good source of Alzheimer's information:
quote: Two abnormal structures called plaques and tangles are prime suspects in damaging and killing nerve cells.
Plaques are deposits of a protein fragment called beta-amyloid (BAY-tuh AM-uh-loyd) that build up in the spaces between nerve cells.
Tangles are twisted fibers of another protein called tau (rhymes with “wow”) that build up inside cells.
Though most people develop some plaques and tangles as they age, those with Alzheimer's tend to develop far more. They also tend to develop them in a predictable pattern, beginning in areas important for memory before spreading to other regions.
Scientists do not know exactly what role plaques and tangles play in Alzheimer's disease. Most experts believe they somehow play a critical role in blocking communication among nerve cells and disrupting processes that cells need to survive.
It's the destruction and death of nerve cells that causes memory failure, personality changes, problems carrying out daily activities and other symptoms of Alzheimer's disease.
Or another way that I predict a cure to be bogus is giving it the Capitalist Test. If it works why aren't more people making money with it. Right now our health insurance pays out big bucks for treatments. If they could be replaced with a few ounces of coconut milk every day--why aren't they demanding we drink it? Sure, big Pharm may have a reason to sell potions instead of cures, but big Insurance does not.
On the other hand the man selling Coconut Oil--which is high in saturated fats and can be deadly to those with high blood pressure--can make a quick profit by selling it as a cure.
A quick Google search, and Coconut Oil is featured not as a cure for Alzheimer's as you suggest, but as a cure for every common disease from Diabetes to Lupus. I call Quack Law #1--Any thing promising to cure everything will cure nothing.
What I find insulting is that one person on their computer can somehow find a cheap cure that researchers around the globe have been looking for. You are calling every person who had dedicated their life to finding a cure for Alzheimer's to be in reality either greedy little people feeding off the suffering of others or too stupid to think of this obvious solution. I know some of those people and I find that an insult.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Coconut oil is not a "quack cure." It certainly is unlikely to hurt anyone. The method by which it works has been explained, and the article I quoted recounted trial results with a patient. Samprimary, your ethnic prejudice is showing. So is your lack of real respect for the scientific method. You reveal that to you, real science only consists of the current traditional thinking of those who consider themselves safely in the mainstream. People like you will be the last to board the Ark, if you ever do.
Hahahahaha wait what? What does any of this even mean?
My "ethnic predjudice" is showing? When did that factor into this? Saying that coconut oil doesn't reverse alzheimers means I'm not boarding an Ark? Which ark? The new one? Ark 2: Electric Boogaloo?
It's like you've gotten kind of mentally muddled over your reflexive defenses of anything you believe is Absolutely True, and you've started to get confused and use the wrong talking point defenses just out of habit. It's like if we were having that argument about midichlorians again and then out of the blue you called me an antisemite against the jedi or something.
I mean
really now.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
This thread was the opposite of what I intended when I started it. Nothing posted here is of any interest to me.
Thanks a lot, New Hatrack.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... People like you will be the last to board the Ark, if you ever do.
... Saying that coconut oil doesn't reverse alzheimers means I'm not boarding an Ark?
I'm curious about this too. What ark, or rather Ark?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Discoveries can be made by nearly anyone at any time, and reports of effective results should at least be investigated, not dismissed contemptuously. This kind of reportage is not implying anyone is greedy or stupid. Where do you get off jumping to such a conclusion, Darth? Is this what you call reasoned discourse?
Samprimary, did you not equate "Chinese folk cures" with "worthless cures"? Why did you say Chinese folk cures? Why not just "folk cures" in general? What you said was an ethnic slur.
Obviously, Samprimary and Darth_Mauve, you did not get my reference to boarding the Ark. Those familiar with the church scene are aware that some Christians regard their church as "the Ark of Safety." That is not true, of course. But the Kingdom of Christ (comprised of faithful souls) is today the true Ark of Safety for the entire human race.
Noah's generation probably felt they had "scientific" reasons for deriding Noah and his predictions and refusing to enter the Ark. According to the Genesis record, it had never rained on earth before then. When it started raining, and the people could no longer live in denial, it was too late. This is the same attitude you display when you ridicule anything contrary to your apparent obsession with traditional thinking. Traditional thinking is not scientific thinking. It is only an attempted shortcut to wisdom that is in reality foolishness.
The Creator knows what foods and other lifestyle elements have healing and health-promoting benefits for specific maladies. Because He loves us, He freely makes such knowledge available to us. Through scientists who do responsible research. Through others just willing to pay attention to things His Spirit points out to them. Most important medicines in the modern medical pharmacopia were first found in nature.
What do you get by supposedly debunking the innocent and reasonable suggestion that coconut oil might be beneficial to some people, perhaps many people? What if you are wrong? What have you done then by discouraging people from checking into the effectivenss of coconut oil for themselves? What could possibly motivate you to do this?
Former Detroit Tigers manager "Sparky" Anderson died a few days ago of "complications" arising from mental dementia--diagnosed as Alzheimer's. I really wish he or someone in his family had heard about coconut oil, and that he had at least tried it, preferably a year or two earlier, when he began to show symptoms. Maybe it would not have helped. But maybe it would.
By the way, there are also reports that beet juice can improve circulation of blood to the brain. V-8 and other brands of vegetable juice contain beet juice, or at least beet concentrate. Here is something else it would be reasonable to try for anyone who might be concerned about their memory and clarity of mind. Since it would not be harmful or expensive to try it, and there are promising if preliminary indications of its efficacy, why not? (Just be careful not to get too much sodium in your diet--some brands of vegetable juice are very salty.)
[ November 06, 2010, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, did you not equate "Chinese folk cures" with "worthless cures"? Why did you say Chinese folk cures? Why not just "folk cures" in general? What you said was an ethnic slur.
Oh, so pointing out that they promote chinese folk cures when they promote chinese folk cures is now an 'ethnic slur?'
quote:The ANH runs campaigns in favor of dietary supplements, "sustainable healthcare", and traditional medicinal cultures such as Ayurveda and traditional Chinese medicine.[1] In its campaign for “Good Science”, it argues that the current risk assessment methodologies used by government agencies for the analysis of dietary supplements are flawed.[2]. It also campaigns against GMOs, fluoridation of drinking water, corporate control of the agro-industry, electro-magnetic radiation, and the global harmonisation of the food trade by the United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission.[3]
I guess bothering to note that the Ayurvedic medicine they hawk is also all pseudoscientific is an ethnic slur against indians, too!
But that's somewhat less important right now, since you've started on a completely unrelated tirade about your righteousness in the face of God that you run to when people disagree with you on ... practically anything.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, you are the one who is being self-righteous.
You are setting it up so that if I am right, you are lost. Do you really need to set it up that way? All I did was recommend use of coconut oil, for its possible and reported efficacy in dealing with maladies that may be related to inadequate nutrition of brain cells. Why must you make moral judgments about it, and cast insulting aspersions about something you have only the vaguest surface knowledge about?
Why are you trying to interfere with other people's freedom of thought--other people who are reading this? Have you no shame?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why are you trying to interfere with other people's freedom of thought--other people who are reading this?
I'm not sure where you're going with this. How can making a forum post interfere with freedom of thought? By what mechanism does the reader's thought become less free for being exposed to it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Why are you trying to interfere with other people's freedom of thought--other people who are reading this? Have you no shame?
I have no shame because I know and can point out that ketones from coconut oils can't cure the beta amyloid protein dysfunction which disables and kills people with alzheimers?
The article suggested heavily that it did. As someone who knows that this is false and who can get repeated medical confirmation of that fact, and someone who can look and see that it is a claim broadcasted by a pseudoscientific group that freaks out about flouride in water and vaccination and has no credibility as a medical source, I can say this. And, in your mind this suddenly becomes 'interfering with other people's freedom of thought' — what freedom are you talking about? The freedom for nobody to be allowed to contradict your often wantonly incorrect claims?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Why are you trying to interfere with other people's freedom of thought--other people who are reading this?
I'm not sure where you're going with this. How can making a forum post interfere with freedom of thought? By what mechanism does the reader's thought become less free for being exposed to it?
Ron just posted some alternative medicine method.
If you are like me, then in polite conversation, when someone suggests alt medicine, I nod politely, smile, and let them finish. Why? Because I guess it is important to have respect for the thoughts and opinions of others. I don't believe in alt medicine as a primary method of care, but there are definitely some benefits out there.
There is a great interchange between Richard Dawkins and Neal deGrasse Tyson. Tyson criticizes Dawkins for his methods of "delivering truth" - in that his message may be great, but his method of delivery, being as obnoxious as it is, effectively interferes with his ability to communicate.
In communication it is key to have sensitivity to the state of mind of the person you are speaking with. That means, recognizing that they have ego, and realizing that shouting facts snidely and sarcastically will only force up their shields, and not convince them of anything.
Samp, Lisa, and others do this on a daily basis. Largely because they post for their own egos. I'd venture to guess there are plenty of lurkers who are so grossed out by the ego dripping off of every post, they're not interested in the content of discussion.
It's kind of like when there is a fight that happens in a dinner party and it's really awkward and no one wants to get involved. Ever consider why? It's because the discussion is less about the discussion and more about maintaining, building, or saving ego.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: If you are like me, then in polite conversation, when someone suggests alt medicine, I nod politely, smile, and let them finish. Why? Because I guess it is important to have respect for the thoughts and opinions of others. I don't believe in alt medicine as a primary method of care, but there are definitely some benefits out there.
No one interrupted Ron.
The particular "treatment" suggested has not only been thoroughly debunked, it is potentially harmful.
And grouping all "alternative" therapies into one pot as though they were all equal does the ones that actually have some evidence backing them up a huge disservice.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: If you are like me, then in polite conversation, when someone suggests alt medicine, I nod politely, smile, and let them finish. Why? Because I guess it is important to have respect for the thoughts and opinions of others. I don't believe in alt medicine as a primary method of care, but there are definitely some benefits out there.
No one interrupted Ron.
The particular "treatment" suggested has not only been thoroughly debunked, it is potentially harmful.
And grouping all "alternative" therapies into one pot as though they were all equal does the ones that actually have some evidence backing them up a huge disservice.
Did I say someone interrupted someone else?
And who cares about grouping therapies. Ron establishes his own level of credibility. No one on this forum needs to help him out.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:And who cares about grouping therapies. Ron establishes his own level of credibility. No one on this forum needs to help him out.
Not challenging bunk medical claims when they are given (and you know better) is borderline unethical, IMO.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:And who cares about grouping therapies. Ron establishes his own level of credibility. No one on this forum needs to help him out.
Not challenging bunk medical claims when they are given (and you know better) is borderline unethical, IMO.
Agreed. But not in every situation. I think everyone who already relied upon alt medicine would have found the post interesting and everyone who already did not would have moved past it. My point is, if Samp or others wanted to move people from one camp to the other, there are better ways of doing that.
And its a larger issue of posting across our forums. I, personally, couldn't care less about this particular issue.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Objective historical fact: Society's knowledge of what foods are safe to eat and what ones are not, as well as many natural sources of medicines that seem effective for certain maladies, was developed over thousands of years, largely by trial and error, with the results shared with the community. In recent generations, we have begun analyzing the efficacies and hazards of various foods and the medical efficacies of various herbal and other alternative treatments (such as hydrotherapy) in a controlled, scientific manner. But not everything has been thoroughly examined this way. Willow leaves gave rise to asprin, and certain herbs that seemed to alleviate symptoms of what we now know to be scurvy gave rise to vitamin C. Herbal medicine texts from the time of ancient Rome which indicated certain herbs for the treatment of what we now know to be symptoms of lead poisoning (the Roman lined their aqueducts with lead, and did not know what they were doing to themselves), gave rise to modern treatments for lead poisoning involving chelating agents (and again, vitamin C).
I remember just 20 years ago, all the professional nutritionists with the most degrees and presumed authority, emphatically scolded those natural healing types for saying people need zinc in their diet. If they had had their way, the FDA would have banned zinc supplements from being sold in health food stores--presumably to save people from wasting their money. Now of course, it is well established that zinc is an essential dietary factor, especially for men.
Our knowledge of nutrition is not nearly as advanced as it should be. "Minimum daily adult requirements" for a great many nutritional factors have been officially accepted and published by the FDA--but little research has been done to determine what are the OPTIMUM dosages of each nutrient. All the Minimumn Daily Requiment figures signify is the amount needed to prevent overt symptoms of dietary deficiencies. The USDA regards 60 milligrams a day of Vitamin C to be adequate. That is the MDA for the average adult. Dr. Linus Pauling noted that apes--who like humans do not manufacture their own vitamin C--inbibe about 2 full grams (2000 milligrams) of vitamin C a day (based on body weight), and he recommended that as the optimum dosage for humans. Observations of the results indicated an improved immune system which resulted in fewer colds and flu episodes. Of course, Pauling later in life started advocating 10 or even 20 grams of vitamin C per day, and research has shown that high a level of vitamin C intake has a statistical correlation with increased incidence of various kinds of cancer. I stay with about 2 grams per day. I have experienced far fewer colds or flu episodes, especially since I also started taking a couple of capsuls daily of deodorized garlic tablets. Since I had childhood asthma, and was hospitalized with pneumonia four times before I was ten years old, this is especially important for me. One thing I noticed that no one else had mentioned, is that one month after I started taking 2 grams daily of vitamin C, my residual asthma symptoms went away. I used to choke up every time I engaged in any kind of exertion in cold weather--like shoveling snow. I could push through it, and after 15-20 minutes, the asthma would go away. But after taking vitamin C for a month, I no longer choked up when engaging in phyical exertion in cold weather. This was a major change in my life, and no one had led me to expect it would happen.
Some writers have noted that veterinary science is more advanced in its knowledge of optimum nutritional dosages for various animals, than is nutritional science for humans. Thus veterinary science can give us some general indications of what might be optimum dosages for human. For example, researchers found that animals given an eqivalent (based on body weight) of what would be 600 I.U. (International Units) of vitamin E, seem to extend lifespan by 50%. That should be of great interest to everyone. We know that vitamin E helps to keep arteries and veins clear of blockage. Not all the reasons why vitamin E should have such a life-extending effect are known. But I consider this enough information for me to make sure I take at least 600 I.U. of vitamin E daily. I believe we each have a moral responsibility for our own health, and seeking to know the optimum dosages of nutients and sticking to them, seems to me to be the responsible thing to do. In fact, it would be irresponsible for me not to.
For the past 20 years or so, I have focused on seeking to determine, as best I can, from all available indications, what might be the optimum dosages of all known essential nutrients. Not too much, and not just being content with the MDR.
I am also aware of the significant positive results reported by various self-supporting institutions that apply alternative lifestyle and healing methods including things like hydrotherapy, dietary and exercise reform (supervised by nurses and M.D.s), who report that they expect to be able to get 90% or better recovery of people with type II diabetes and other maladies, to the extent that people who used to take dozens of medications every day, after only a month of supervised lifestyle reform, are down to the place where they only need continue with one or two medications, and sometimes they can get off all medications entirely.
This is not just alternative medicine/healing, it is more advanced medicine/healing than mainstream traditional approaches to health. The real cause of almost all health problems (except of course those that result from actual genetic defects) is improper lifestyle practices. For example, if you are prone to headaches, be advised that headaches are not caused by an aspirin deficiency.
I know of several alternative healing institutions that offer training courses, and graduate people certified in lifestyle counseling. These are institutions such as Wildwood Health Center in Georgia, Euchee Pines Lifestyle Center in Alabama, Oak Haven Outpost Center in Michigan, and the Weimar Institute in California. These are all Seventh-day Adventist self-supporting institutions, which take as their guiding inspiration the extensive counsels on health by Ellen G. White, whom SDAs believe was a genuine prophet.
There is a whole other approach to health and healing than just the traditional mainstream approach. Of course, if I have an intense pain in my chest, I'll go to a hospital, and if I need surgery to correct a hiatal hernia that has become strangulated (which happened to me a little over a year ago), I will have that done in a hospital. But for general lifestyle choices, what some people call "alternative" approaches to health and healing and maintaining optimum health, to me are the course of wisdom. This is the responsible way to go.
[ November 08, 2010, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: If you are like me, then in polite conversation, when someone suggests alt medicine, I nod politely, smile, and let them finish.
And when someone suggests that coconut oil can potentially fix alzheimers, I nod politely, smile, and then point out that this is wrong. If not for the benefit of the individual transfixed by the claims, but for the audience.
If my 'ego posting' trips up some people, this is preferable to unethically letting quack science go unchallenged for the sake of harmony. Especially considering that this 'ego posting' is just 'no, they're wrong.'
quote:Ron establishes his own level of credibility. No one on this forum needs to help him out.
"Ron establishes his own level of credibility" is a weird way of stepping around the fact that, realistically, Ron frequently and spectacularly loses credibility. I like to discuss things on forums! Let's discuss the weakness of the coconut oil ketones versus amyloid protiens in alzheimers rather than bleeder seat commentary on my ego.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I prefer to talk about your ego. You could use a little bit of honesty about the fact that everyone on this forum can see through you, and that the only people you amuse are the people who already agree with you.
People like you think conversation is about rallying people to your point of view.
And let's be honest. You weren't being a humanitarian by saving everyone from falsely believing Ron Lambert's coconut oil cures for cancer or whatever it is we're discussing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Conversation can be about many things, armoth. Posting here, for instance, is not straightjacketed to one purpose. If I'm so easy to see through, you shouldn't be making the mistake of assuming I have no reason other than ego-flexing when it comes to consistently challenging bunk medical claims by bogus alternate medical operations.
That you want to bypass that and keep on fixating on this ego issue speaks more about you than it does me at this point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:People like you think conversation is about rallying people to your point of view.
Armoth, I don't think you're an authority on people like Sam.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:People like you think conversation is about rallying people to your point of view.
Armoth, I don't think you're an authority on people like Sam.
If you're equating me with Sam, then I'd say you're probably in the same boat.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not. I'm saying that you are sufficiently unlike Sam that any pronouncement you might make about "people like Sam" is suspect.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't understand.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In a nutshell: Tyson was wrong, because he misunderstands the point Dawkins is trying to make (and is fundamentally ill-positioned to understand that point, IMO.) In the same way, lecturing Sam the way you are is not going to work out, because you're assuming that you understand him well enough to question his motivations and are basing your criticisms of him on those presumed intentions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
To wit, armoth: Take a good look at my response to Ron on this thread. Look at my post in response to his. It's very straightforward. I am not insulting him. I am making a clear and unambiguous point. I am stating in a cursory manner my disagreement with the article's claim and the source's credibility. It's very clear that I both wanted to — and did — discuss the issue of his claim and his citation of the article.
The issue is important. I know a lot about Alzheimer's and bogus medical science, so I contribute. I have let him finish, and then I have challenged a bogus medical claim. This all becomes profoundly unimportant to you, in all appearances, to the extent that you'll toss it aside with a comment about how it's a discussion about 'coconut oil cures for cancer or whatever.'
Not only does this give me no reason to expect that there will be a fruitful sudden insight and self-analysis which will give me an 'honest' wake-up call about how I supposedly am, If you, or anyone, wants to bemoan how ego and personality issues on my part or anyone else's are overwhelming discussion, the best way to fight against that is not to subsequently then elect purposefully ("I prefer to talk about your ego" is so refreshingly straightforward an example of you doing so) to marginalize that discussion as you have, to ...fixate on personality issues.
This exchange:
quote:Let's discuss the weakness of the coconut oil ketones versus amyloid protiens in alzheimers rather than bleeder seat commentary on my ego.
quote:I prefer to talk about your ego.
sums it up rather nicely for me.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'll not deny the strategy in my argument. I don't think you were the humble protector of the ignorant when you were outraged about coconut oil.
My point is - I don't like to discuss substance with you, because I don't like the way you argue. I think others feel similarly. If I am wrong about that, then I will keep quiet and allow you to continue to dominate forum conversation.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I read through the thread a couple of times, and I think this is a poor place for me to whine about your method of posting. I don't think you were mean to Ron in presenting your point of view. For that I apologize.
I did make my post in the midst of reading through the Park/Samp thread, and others. My feelings on your posting are real though, and I know that if I don't agree with you in a particular thread, I know what argument style to expect, and what coalitions of opinion are about to be formed. It makes conversing a little unpleasant.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Did I say someone interrupted someone else?
Your analogy seemed to imply it.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: And who cares about grouping therapies.
Anyone who wishes to avoid tossing babies with bathwater, or who is aware that all too many people don't know the difference between herbal remedies and homeopathic ones (for instance).
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
What I was asking is why do so many Libertarians fall for Alternative Medicines which are of dubious nature?
The theory that Ron presents for why Coconut Oil works is flawed since it does not confront the cause of Alzheimer's, but a different issue of starving brain cells. It does not offer proven research into the cure, but just the single results of one test subject in a totally-non-blind study. It was done by people now selling the cure, but we are supposed to believe it is the cure because?????
Well, because it is a good story--one lone man facing disaster uses nothing but his rugged individualism to succeed despite the efforts of the East Coast Liberal Establishment.
This is Libertarian philosophy applied to medicine. Don't rely on education or economists or East Coast Liberal Establishment. Rely on one person's rugged individualism to solve their own problems and everyone with a little common sense will be saved.
My fear is that the Libertarian plan of no-government and property rights are always the rightest will be as effective as coconut oil for Alzheimer's.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
its hard to quantify 'so many' when you speak of libertarians who fall for alternative medicines of dubious nature. but if they do, rather, if a study is done and some sort of correlation does appear, it seems unlikely that such a trend would be attributed to 'rugged individualism' above other factors such as ignorance and/or misinformation, education, socio-economic status, etc. put simply, based on libertarian ideology, i dont think libertarians are more susceptible or prone to seek out and use homeopathic products and treatments. its also a false analogy to take an alleged libertarian proclivity to homeopathic therapies and then apply it to other beliefs held by libertarians concerning things such as the proper role of government and economic theory.
but your mention of rugged individualism gave me pause. it does seem that such independence is a quasi-tenet of libertarianism. a true libertarian would seek a solution which requires a minimal dependence on other individuals and maximizes self-sufficiency.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
1. This has nothing to do with homeopathy. 2. Libertarians are pretty notorious for exhibiting a bizarre proclivity to alternative treatments and home remedy, most notoriously colloidal silver (see in particular: Stan Jones, libertarian candidate who started espousing colloidal silver in 1999 due to fears of the Y2K bug. Of all the libertarians who take up advocacy of colloidal silver, he's most notable for having his skin turn totally blue) 3. That's all sort of irrelevant considering I don't think Ron can speak for Libertarians, or much of anyone else, at all. He's a fringe outsider among fringe outsiders.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Samp re: your number 2 point, I have anecdotally noticed that as well. It's rather disappointing, as a libertarian who's very skeptical of most alternative treatments. I don't really get the correlation. Do you know of any prevailing theories that don't just boil down to "libertarianism is absurd and ridiculous so they obviously tend to have other absurd ideas?"
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
First, I do want to point out that as a lurker, generally I find that what Samp does to be useful, even if he does seem fairly abrasive. As someone who only really has the time to lurk, not fact check, it helps to have people show me the flaws in someone's post.
Second, regarding Libertarians, my suspicion is that there are many libertarians who came to their position from a distrust of government and/or big business; considering those are two big sources of scientific progress especially in medicine, I would say that would be the reason it seems to be that there are a higher percentage of libertarians who support pseudoscience because much of that does not come from either of those big institutions.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
1.) I have never described myself as a libertarian, though some of what libertarians say makes sense to me.
2.) "Fear of big business," etc., is no factor at all for me. Rather, I am willing to consider indications of things that may be beneficial, even if they have not been rigorously proven, because none of us can wait that long--we have to live now, and the medical establishment has frequently been wrong in their prejudiced reactions against wholistic medicine, alternative medicine, natural healing, etc. Such as their original condemnation of zinc supplements, when decades later it was proven that zinc is an essential nutrient, especially for men.
3.) I have no respect whatsoever for "homeopathic medicine." It is based on theories that are sheer nonsense. Products like Zicam, which could never stand up to the rigorous testing required of real medicines designed to treat or alleviate colds and their symptoms, call themselves "homeopathic" products simply because the bar is set so low for FDA approval, and you don't really have to prove anything other than it won't outright poison you.
4.) I do not accept anything just because it may be presented as alternative medicine or wholistic medicine or naturalistic medicine, or some such. I go by the evidence in each individual case. For example, I see sufficiently convincing reason to take at least 600 I.U. of Vitamin E daily. I do not take what some have called "vitamin B-17." Though if I had cancer I might try it. I might even try running through plowed up earth with bare feet, like Adele Davis tried. It is better to try something than to try nothing.
5.) I do not propose that naturalistic or wholistic (etc.) medicines are to be resorted to INSTEAD of standard and proven medicines. If I know something works, I use it freely. If I think indications are that something MAY work, then I will consider using it, but only in a responsible manner.
6.) Samprimary, there are many officially approved medicines that are currently used in the treatment of Alzheimer's. They work via a variety of alleged mechanisms. Medical knowledge of Alzheimer's and all its causes is not yet perfected and settled. Some of them work in a way similar to the way coconut oil is supposed to work. Most of them are very expensive. Pure coconut oil can be purchased at Kroger's for about $6.00 per liter.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Samprimary, there are many officially approved medicines that are currently used in the treatment of Alzheimer's. ... Some of them work in a way similar to the way coconut oil is supposed to work.
I find this surprising. What medications are you referring to here?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Samp re: your number 2 point, I have anecdotally noticed that as well. It's rather disappointing, as a libertarian who's very skeptical of most alternative treatments. I don't really get the correlation. Do you know of any prevailing theories that don't just boil down to "libertarianism is absurd and ridiculous so they obviously tend to have other absurd ideas?"
I thought the explanation was clearly that the anti-authoritarian streak in some libertarians also gets manifested in their attitude towards science.
This is a common sort of equivocation that goes on in a lot of people's political thought. "No one has the right to force me to think X or do X" becomes "No one knows better than me whether X is right." Plenty of non-libertarians are also guilty of this.
This combines with the fact that sweeping environmentalism (for instance, recognizing global warming as real) doesn't fit very well with many people's brand of libertarianism. So they come to distrust the environmentalist scientific establishment.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I would like to re-evaluate my thesis.
After do consideration I can not say that a large percentage, or any percentage of Libertarians also support alternative medicines in general or one particular alternative medicine.
I just think its a large percentage of the loud outspoken ones.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
MattP, let me refer you again to this passage in my post from 11/04/2010 at 12:42:
quote:Dr. Newport learned that the ingredient in the drug trial which was showing so much promise was simply MCT oil derived from coconut oil or palm kernel oil, and that a dose of 20 grams (about 20 ml or 4 teaspoons) was used to produce these results. When MCT oil is metabolized, the ketones which the body creates may, according to the latest research, not only protect against the incidence of Alzheimer’s, but may actually reverse it.
As for Samprimary's "plaques and tangles in the brain," which he says is the "true cause" of Alzheimer's, perhaps these consitute the mechanism that tends to restrict and cut off sufficient nourishment to brain cells, so that not enough glucose can get through. Increasing the amount of ketones in the blood stream may get around these hindrances, so that adequate supplies of glucose can reach the brain cells.
You may prefer some medicine that will remove the "plaques and tangles." I don't know if this can be done, or if there are any medicines designed to accomplish this. But if the real negative is their effect in reducing the glucose that can reach brain cells, then any approach that might increase the amount of glucose reaching the brain cells would surely be helpful.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:MattP, let me refer you again to this passage in my post from 11/04/2010 at 12:42:
Yes, I read that. He was referring to a drug trial, apparently of a specific unnamed drug, while you later said that "some" "officially approved medicines" work by the same mechanism.
Is his reference to a trial for a single drug the source for your claim regarding multiple approved drugs?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I don't know what the mechanisms claimed are for all the drugs. But here was a serious drug trial for one that addressed the amount of glucose reaching brain cells. So apparently the idea is not considered "quack" science by serious researchers working under USFDA guidelines.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:6.) Samprimary, there are many officially approved medicines that are currently used in the treatment of Alzheimer's. They work via a variety of alleged mechanisms. Medical knowledge of Alzheimer's and all its causes is not yet perfected and settled. Some of them work in a way similar to the way coconut oil is supposed to work. Most of them are very expensive. Pure coconut oil can be purchased at Kroger's for about $6.00 per liter.
Remember that "medicine of the gaps" comment?
1. No alzheimer's medication cures alzheimers. Alzheimers is incurably degenerative.
2. The "expensive" medications, cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, are used because, when researched, they showed that they could be indicated for delaying the onset or progression of Alzheimer-related mental degeneration. This allows them to be medically indicated for use in managing quality of life issues.
3. Your first attempted coup is to say 'the science behind this is not perfected and settled.' You use this as a justification for claiming, essentially, the sanctity of equal time for the unverified claims of a pseudoscientific organization and their unverified 'cure.'
4. Your second attempted coup is to make a false comparison via your idle speculation, and 'oh, perhaps if this is true ..' and offer that one solution is cheaper.
This is all ridiculous, but I know you don't understand why.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Samp re: your number 2 point, I have anecdotally noticed that as well. It's rather disappointing, as a libertarian who's very skeptical of most alternative treatments. I don't really get the correlation. Do you know of any prevailing theories that don't just boil down to "libertarianism is absurd and ridiculous so they obviously tend to have other absurd ideas?"
I thought the explanation was clearly that the anti-authoritarian streak in some libertarians also gets manifested in their attitude towards science.
This is a common sort of equivocation that goes on in a lot of people's political thought. "No one has the right to force me to think X or do X" becomes "No one knows better than me whether X is right." Plenty of non-libertarians are also guilty of this.
This combines with the fact that sweeping environmentalism (for instance, recognizing global warming as real) doesn't fit very well with many people's brand of libertarianism. So they come to distrust the environmentalist scientific establishment.
Most of that makes sense to me, except the last part. My experience with environmentalism is that some of it's strongest proponents also have a strong tendency towards luddism, and actually frequently reject scientific advancement in any non-"green" areas. So I'm not sure how rejecting environmentalism and rejecting medical science would go hand in hand.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)