I am resending this response in a slighty edited version, in case you
should wonder, should the first one that did not make it through to the
list on the first try show up anyhow:
> = Ward / >> = Peter
>Peter I have gone far out of my way to challenge dietary views based
>only on authoritarian tradition and to establish some accountability
>(scientific, if at all possible) with those making claims.
No need to defend your record. But you cannot run away from your
hygienic background. Natural hygiene is a very purist &
individualistic movement believing in as little intervention with the
processes of the body as possible included the use of methods of
verification. Your strong response seemed at least partially fueled by
your natural hygiene conditioning.
>I think biomarkers can be helpful in the quest for health as feedback
>devices, and if one has access to inexpensive testing they might want
>to consider making use of them. I have done on occasion myself.
I bet the results are locked up in a vault somewhere. ;-)
>However, my primary concern with biomarkers here is different: making
>them public, or at least trying to force people to make them public. I
>am concerned about the two-fold potential for their misuse, firstly,
>in character attacks--which is what Lee Hitchcox seems to be bordering
>on (impugning people's research or views based on the fact they
>.haven't made>their biomarkers public).
I might be missing something here as I have not read his book truly
thourougly. Where in his book does Hitchcox "border on character
attacks" on the issue of publishing biomarkers? From having had the
opportunity to hear him speak several times and having spoken with him
myself on the issue, I have never picked up on any mean-spiritness on
his side.
>I do not think that Hitchcox's aim is the researchers.
I agree.
>I personally do not care too much what someone's biomarkers are if
>they are performing research according to impeccable scientific
>protocol.
Ditto.
>True, it would be good to know if their research has influenced them
>to change their own personal habits, but in the end, research must be
>judged on its own merits.
Indeed, but on many of these issues it will take years before the
verdict is in. In the meantime, let's open up to as many avenues of
investigation as possible, so we can make the best choices for
ourselves & our health.
>I would be willing to hazard the guess there are plenty of
>university professors doing good research but who are probably eating
>hamburgers and french fries, or might be taking along C-rations or
>something of some such ilk to eat in the field on their archaeological
>or anthropological expeditions in Africa.
Among educated or adequately motivated people you will not find much
correlation between creativity and diet.
>Are we going to use such facts to impugn their scientific credibility?
>I think that would be ridiculous. And also mean-spirited.
May it never come to that.
>>Again, everything can be misused, but I am more concerned with all
>>the false health prophets, who refuse to back up back up their claims
>>with much more than anecdotes & wishful thinking and ruining many
>>peoples lives in the process.
>I am too, but the problem is these people are by and large not
>attempting to do any scientific research or other rigorous
>data-gathering TO BEGIN WITH. If this is the case, then we already
>have all we need to question their pronouncements.
Researchers as you define them are pretty much off the hook on this
issue. It is all the promoters of various diets and health practices
that stand up and proclaim that if I just do what they say I will get
well. I think that these are the target of Lee Hitchcox's aim, and you
seem to agree.
>Now an obvious exception where I think we would all agree the question
>of "walking one's talk" and the issue of hypocrisy is of prime
>relevance is where the dietary advocate in question is setting
>themselves up as a sort of test case and purposely staking the
>credibility of their arguments on the fact they personally are a
>living example constituting proof they are right. If they are claiming
>they are maintaining super-health eating nothing but buffalo grass or
>elm tree bark or something ;-) , then we have an understandable
>expectation and demand that they damn well better be able to show you
>in the absence of broad-based epidemiological studies that they are
>doing as they say, and not misleading people.
It should be required by law that anybody who in any way makes a living
advising people on health issues should have to publish their own
biomarkers - at least in my fantasy world. :-)
>I know that I earlier expressed the view to some here privately that I
>wished people weren't attacking T.C. Fry so much for not walking his
>talk; you know, give the guy a break, he's just a human being. Well, I
>will admit in this case I was probably wrong, and I'm beginning to
>change my mind in situations like this where people have depended on
>someone's advice based in large part on trust that they were a living
>example of something that science may not have taken the time to study
>yet.
No argument here.
>But for things that *are* being studied and if something has real
>science to back it up, then it means the information is being
>peer-reviewed and the tests and experiments replicated by others
>scientists in attempted corroboration. The very reason for this is to
>correct for individual biases or distortions, and it's built into the
>process of "doing science" itself. So when experiments are being made,
>and can or can't be replicated by others, you don't need to go around
>attacking people's personal characteristics. You attack their research
>instead.
Thanks for making this whole issue a lot clearer for me. Advocates and
researchers are often very different animals and when this is the case
it is important to make the appropiate destinctions.
>And to conclude here, the second reason I am concerned about the idea
>to exhort individuals to freely publicize their personal biomarkers is
>I think it would be naive not to recognize the large potential for
>invasion of privacy arising out of genetic testing and other such
>sophisticated tests.
It would seem that any information gathered from a print-out of the
results of a standard blood test would be very incomplete compared to
what can be concluded from a sample of actual blood. If you have been
drafted - been hospitalized or applied for a job your blood profile is
probably on file anyhow...
>These can reveal extremely sensitive facts about our personal biology
>that might go straight into databases without adequate confidentiality
>controls. If people WANT to do so of their own free will, fine, I have
>no problem with that.
If my HDL/LDL levels are filed in a some database somewhere I could not
care the less. The day that I feel I need to be concerned about that I
will take to the hills and join the Freeman - or have a session with my
therapist. Just because they are out to get me does not mean that I am
not paranoid. ;-)
>But it's interesting we get all bent out of shape about our finances
>being revealed to others because we know how the info can be used
>against us, yet we can be cavalier sometimes about the potential for
>misuse of detailed health information about us. I won't go into that
>here, but if you aren't yet aware of the huge ethical and social
>issues already facing us in this area, take a look at the article in
>the June 1994 issue of Scientific American, called "Grading the Gene
>Tests," (pp. 89-97) for a serious look at the problem.
These issues are real scary, which makes it even more important to try
to keep an even keel. By alluding to the dangers of modern genetic
science but not being specific about your fears, you might might be
letting loose an even greater monster by fueling the fear of the
unknown. No matter how real this fear might seem at the time, it has
always been a terribly destructive & dehabilitating force for
humankind. I can't help but wonder what exactly you are afraid might
happen to you, if you publish some of your blood work.
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
