Wanted - Dietician / Nutritionist (Lounged)

[indiepanda]

cdonline Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> indiepanda Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Jamma Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > As for the notion that conventional medicine

> is

> > the answer to everything... O don't buy it. My

> > sister suffered from eczema for years, the

> doctor

> > just gave her steroid cream - not great given

> it

> > thins the skin and hers was particularly bad

> round

> > the eyes where the skin is already thin enough.

>

> >

>

> That is rubbish. Is there anybody in the medical

> profession who believes that they have the answer

> to every medical condition. To compare the level

> of training gained with a 3 year degree in, as you

> call it "conventional", un-conventional medicine

> is absurd.

>

> When you find yourself with an illness that might

> posssibly kill you, rather than just having a skin

> rash, believe me, I would not put my medical

> well-being in the hands of anybody who was not a

> fully qualified doctor.

May I suggest you read what I said before telling me I am talking "rubbish"? I said conventional medicine was not the answer to everything, not that I am fool enough to say if you have cancer go and see a crystal healer and do a bit of chanting.

People seem to be taking the view that you either follow one route or the other. I'm simply expressing the view that where the medical profession has already failed to help you, it can be worth exploring other options. I've always tried a doctor first and will continue to do so. But I'm not going to automatically accept that if they say they can't help me that there is nothing that can be done.

[SeanMacGabhann]

If the person is intolerant to dairy produce and they stopped consuming them, resulting in skin condition improving - then that is medicine. Medicine is only that which works - there is no "alternative" or "conventional". Conventional medicine changes all the time to include latest knowledge - it is never a closed book

It sounds like the GP in question mis-diagnosed or didn't have sufficient time to deal with the patient - that's a compentence or resource issue however. Now if the doctor claimed there is NO SUCH THING as dairy intolerance, that might be a different story.

As has been suggested on here before, a bit more times and attention from our "carers/healers" is probably more beneficial than anything else

[Keef]

indiepanda Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not naive, sure there are plenty of charletans

> out there who do rob people blind with misguided

> notions that don't help anyone, but I wouldn't tar

> everyone with the same brush.

For me, this is the most sensible point on here.

[Jamma]

Moos - nutjobs and quacks don't listen to careful, reasoned argument. If they did then they would renounce the woo they follow because it simply doesn't stack up in the face of the facts. And that is a fact. A truth. Something that is entirely undeniable.

And indiepanda brilliantly proves my point by defending alternative medicine (I'm saying you're a defender but your anecdote is a defence of sorts) by coming up with a tale of personal experience. I love the idea that if you put enough steroid cream round your eyes the skin will break and disappear leaving you with massive eye holes. Science doesn't progress through anecdotes.

I really do despair that this is the 21st century and we're still arguing about whether sticking pins in your feet can make magic happen. But like I have said above, this matters and that's why I have to keep fighting.

[Moos]

So unreasonable people don't listen to reason, and therefore what? To whom, then, are you preaching?

For a scientist and someone supposedly keen on impersonal argument, you use a great deal of emotive and thus irrational language. If science is your religion, then you speak the language of the enemy.

[david_carnell]

I agree with you in principle Jamma, but Moos talks no woo or wibble here.

I know where you're coming from but it tends to get a bit sixth-form like on occassion. And I should know, I'm a prime culprit of that. Check out the long-running "Enemies of Reason" thread for this whole argument from last year.

[Keef]

And even Richard Dawkins would not dismiss all "alternative" therapies just like that.

As an aside, did anyone watch his Charles Darwin series over the last 3 or 4 weeks? Very good I thought.

[Jamma]

So I'm faced between walking away and allowing Monica (against whom I have nothing personal) and the other woo merchants to spout the dangerous guff that they spout or I try and challenge it and fight it aware that I'm unlikely to make much progress. I'll choose the latter on the off chance that something I say will stick.

Emotive language isn't necessarily irrational. And if someone is a nutjob it's not emotive or irrational to call them a nutjob. It would be irrational to tiptoe round them and respect their stupid beliefs. They have the right to believe in woo, I absolutely have the right to point out that their woo is utter tripe.

And Keef don't bring Dawkins into this. He tends to polarise opinion and distract from the real issues these days unfortunately.

[Moos]

Hmm, I wonder if there could possibly be a 3rd way.

Jamma, to put it politely, you would benefit from improving your listening skills. Not everyone who posts in response to you is against you.

Here's your post, with the potentially offensive words highlighted (my opinion, my highlights. Not fact)

So I'm faced between walking away and allowing Monica (against whom I have nothing personal) and the other woo merchants to spout the dangerous guff that they spout or I try and challenge it and fight it aware that I'm unlikely to make much progress. I'll choose the latter on the off chance that something I say will stick.

Emotive language isn't necessarily irrational. And if someone is a nutjob it's not emotive or irrational to call them a nutjob. It would be irrational to tiptoe round them and respect their stupid beliefs. They have the right to believe in woo, I absolutely have the right to point out that their woo is utter tripe.

And Keef don't bring Dawkins into this. He tends to polarise opinion and distract from the real issues these days unfortunately.

Do you see what I mean? It's not that I disagree with your stance per se. But if you put your case politely and listened to others you might not - er - polarise opinion quite so much. People might want to engage with you. They might listen to you, and there's a better chance that what you say might stick.

I've been trying my best to be polite in this exchange but I can no longer refrain from bringing emotion into it myself (that's what happens when strong and aggressive language is used.. it generates strong and aggressive language, and reduces listening on both sides). I dislike the tone of your posts, and it makes me dislike you. I'm sure you don't care and why should you, you don't know me. But this is why you should care - it makes me want to disagree with you, and it significantly reduces my respect for your opinion. So if you are trying to make converts - I use religious analogy once again, because it seems to me that you are a genuine evangelist, a believer - try using honey combined with steel. It's a powerful combination.

None of this is fact - it's just my opinion. But I've banged on long enough.

[indiepanda]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the person is intolerant to dairy produce and

> they stopped consuming them, resulting in skin

> condition improving - then that is medicine.

> Medicine is only that which works - there is no

> "alternative" or "conventional". Conventional

> medicine changes all the time to include latest

> knowledge - it is never a closed book

>

> It sounds like the GP in question mis-diagnosed or

> didn't have sufficient time to deal with the

> patient - that's a compentence or resource issue

> however. Now if the doctor claimed there is NO

> SUCH THING as dairy intolerance, that might be a

> different story.

>

> As has been suggested on here before, a bit more

> times and attention from our "carers/healers" is

> probably more beneficial than anything else

I think time available for GPs to deal with conditions is a huge issue - the NHS just doesn't have the funds available to deal with everything properly, so it tends to focus on the things that are more life threatening and some of the day to day ailments that can damage the quality of life without seriously disabling you don't get the same attention. I think that is why some people turn to other therapies for help, fed up of getting nowhere with the medical profession.

And Jamma, as for your scorn re my sister's case, love the way you've got from me saying it thins the skin to me implying you will get holes round the eyes. If you want people to take your point of view seriously, do them the courtesy of reading what was actually said instead of distorting it in an attempt to sound clever and belittling them. The only thing you are going to achieve is to make people even less inclined to listen to you.

Long term use of steriod cream is not advisable, take it from the BBC if you won't take it from me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/ask_the_doctor/steroidcreams.shtml. In any case ongoing use of steroid cream was clearly treating the symptom not the cause. Surely the logical thing to do is to get to the route cause of the issue?

Perhaps as Sean said, the doctor's competence or time available might have been the issue. However, the simple facts were my sister's GP failed her and one of your so called woo woo merchants helped. Should she have been preventing from seeing them because they haven't got lots scientific proof of their methods, or is it better that she was able to give it a try, and as a result she has got rid of her eczema properly and is now not an ongoing drain on the NHS, going back for repeat prescriptions and further consultations.

[Asset]

I've seen a person (on telly) having brain surgery using only acupuncture as anaesthetic. Makes me think there may be something in it.

A lot of 'conventional' medicine is taken from ancient 'natural' remedies: Aspirin from Willow for example. Herbalism is seen as an 'alternative' medicine yet herbs are extremely powerful and can assist lots of conditions. This kind of alternative medicine cannot be dismissed as quackery.

I think the main problem with conventional treatment is that in general it doesn't have a holistic approach and a remedy for one thing can lead to problems with other things.

[citizenED]

Jamma is completely right in the substance of the argument and yet has seemingly managed to lose it. Woo debating skills?

[Cassius]

Surely this is a matter of choice - if someone makes an informed choice that they would like to use an alternative therapy then they should be allowed too. It would appear from Jamma that there should only be one way - Jamma's way.

Science has been proven wrong many times in the past, as new knowledge is accumulated old practices die out - it used to be doctors that used leeches (now back in fastion I believe), it used to be doctors that bled people, etc etc etc - because at the time their knowledge was limited. Science is NOT infallible. It might be one of the best choices, but who is Jamma to insist that there should be no other choice.

[Jamma]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be choice. But there is only true choice when faced with full information. The facts of the matter are that alternative therapies (and I accept that's a rather broad term) don't work. Or at least not in the way their practitioners claim. Fact.

And Moos no I don't care if you dislike me (but be aware that your mind is made up by one forum thread, you might think differently if you met me if indeed we haven't met already) but to want to disagree with me on the basis of my language not my argument, that is irrational. And a nutjob is a nutjob.

[Keef]

You do make good arguements Jamma, but frankly you often come across a bit agressive, and that puts people aff of agreeing with you. I'm not saying everyone should be nicey nicey, but you seem to enjoy goading people a bit.

[Moos]

Jamma Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Moos ... be aware that your mind is made up by one forum thread, you might think differently if you met me if indeed we haven't met already

Quite right to pick me up on that, I should of course have said that I dislike your online persona, largely based on this thread. I hope and indeed trust that you are delightful and charming in person.

Jamma Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

- but to want to disagree with me on the basis of my language not my argument, that is irrational.

Couldn't agree more, I long to be able to think purely rationally, but sadly it seems to me most human decisions are made for irrational reasons, often retroactively justified on rational grounds. My point was made not at all to annoy or upset you (and I'm glad that you don't seem annoyed or upset) but to suggest that if you want to bring people round to your point of view, you might consider modifying your style.