--- Robyn Kozierok <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If someone wants to say "taking my kid of milk cured his
> asthma/bedwetting/excema/etc and it worked for 3 of my friends' kids too"
> that's great too.   It's only when someone says "80% of <whatever problem>
> in this society is caused by milk" that I start asking for "evidence".

I can understand how you see that. I guess to me, that all falls under
"someone's opinion" -- but I tend to see all sorts of things, including most
science and medicine today, as also just "someone's opinion". I'm guessing (?)
that the folks who come up with things like "80% of XYZ is caused by 123" are
also frustrated, because things that seem quite obvious to many people is
discounted because there is supposedly no/poor science to back it up. I mean,
where are the studies that have been done to say that milk IS safe? And when
those studies have been done, who ordered them? Were they biased (as if
everyone isn't)? And so on. 

I do agree with you that the other "alternative" side can ALSO go too far
sometimes. I think it's the same problem that science and medical science also
have. 

> When people start suggesting that other people are idiots for consuming or
> giving their children milk, when those individuals/children do not show any
> ill effects, then you are going to offend people.  And it would 

I agree - I tend to listen less when people (any people) make wide statements.
I guess for me, though, "proof" is also relative. So I don't tend to demand
it. It's like asking someone for "proof" that their kid is good looking.
Everyone (including science folks) are simply going to come up with what
supports their own position. I guess sweeping statements (from science or
alternative) tend to come across as philosophical arguments, rather than
anything more meaningful, to me. I still read them sometimes, and I do learn
(usually from both sides). But it's almost like watching 2 salespeople arguing
about whose product is "better". The best view is a little objective and
cynical about BOTH sides.

I myself more appreciate personal statements, as you said: "This worked for
me". That's the approach I take, when I see someone asking about something I
might have a help for. 

> really doesn't matter what works for others.  Even if the studies are "true=
> "
> for 99% of the population, they might not be true for you.  

I think that's the worst part of traditional medicine - it tends to assume
that what works for one works for all. Ugh.

> However, for
> things like deciding between chemotherapy and megadose vitamins, where you
> may only get one chance to get it "right", you might want to find out what
> worked for others first.

Sure, but even with chemotherapy and the like, there is growing dissension and
evidence that it's not always one's best bet, either. In ALL things, one has
to do one's own research, and take one's best shot. I don't tend to take
anything without researching pros and cons about them first. But I'm always
aware that I can still be wrong. The worst medical problem I ever had, in
fact, was from using a drug that was "proven safe" by medical science and yet
turned out to injure me so badly it took me 2 years to heal. Another time, I
was given a drug that after filling I decided not to take, and it turned out
to be the one raising heart attack risks in people. So even going to your M.D.
can be seriously injurious to your health, if you aren't careful. And being
careful, you can still get in big trouble!

> It's not that I disagree with your results, just that I don't believe they
> are *necessarily* generalizable to the general population.   If milk has a
> certain effect on your body, is that because milk always has 

I myself NEVER said that milk is wrong for everyone. I've only said what I've
discovered milk does to ME. Personally, if I were able to, I'd be back to
eating dairy all day long. What I DID discover, though, was a whole universe
of people on the internet who not only had all my same issues with dairy, but
who also couldn't get any doctor to pay attention to them. But that still
doesn't mean most people have this problem or these results. Just me and the
who-knows-how-many-others I've discovered and chatted with over the years
since. 

> When my own experience differs from yours, which of us is in the minority?
> If we care, we can look to other' experiences and other published studies t=
> o
> "break the tie".

I guess for me, I don't see a "tie". I only see individual cases. EVERY case
is relative, because every body is different. For instance, my mother has to
limit meat eating to keep her cholesterol down - and even then, she's also on
drugs for it. Me, I'm like my grandfather - no matter what I do, or how
unhealthy I live, I always have PERFECT cholesterol. So is meat eating bad, or
not? Depends on whose body you're asking for! And depends on whether you care
about cholesterol or not. And depends on.... (and no on). 

Jent

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commit random acts of literacy! Read & Release at 
http://www.bookcrossing.com/friend/Muckalucka 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com