RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Nieft / Secola <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:41:14 -1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
Hey Reggie

I'll let JL comment on some of the mathematical leaps of your article...but

The article is interesting in ways you may not have noticed:

Reggie quoted:
>But then something odd began to happen.  In 1995, the Lancet published
>the results of a huge international study of heart attack survival
>rates among 58,000 patients - and the amazing life-saving abilities
>of magnesium injections had simply vanished.  Anistreplase fared little
>better: the current view is that its real effectiveness is barely half
>that suggested by the original trial.

<snip>

>In the long war against Britain's single biggest killer, a few
>disappointments are obviously inevitable.  And over the last decade
>or so, scientists have identified other heart attack treatments which
>in trials reduced mortality by up to 30 percent.
>
>But again, something odd seems to be happening.  Once these drugs get
>out of clinical trials and onto the wards, they too seem to lose their
>amazing abilities.

This reminds me of the claims of the alternative diet folks. "Something
odd" seems to happen in the real world after time: alternative diets seem
to lose their amazing abilities. ;) Of course, we don't have hard-nosed
research (only anecdotal stuff) to justify either claim (that
instincto/frutarianism/NH/whatever works so great).

Reggie do you notice that the way science corrects its errors is by
doubting its own research conclusions, by making them concrete and
reproducable?

Again:
>In 1995, the Lancet published
>the results of a huge international study of heart attack survival
>rates among 58,000 patients - and the amazing life-saving abilities
>of magnesium injections had simply vanished.

This is precisely what is absent from all these flakey alternative diets
based on whatever theory sounds good. Science uses mathematical rigor to
explore the world and its own results, trying to separate the crap from the
useful. The irony to me is that you use such an example to dis research in
general, when it was research which  uncovered the falsity of conclusions
from earlier research. This is the nature of the beast as it fights the
human tendency for simplistic belief (which is exploited by alternative
diet promoters). Science is certainly not the be all and end all of human
inquiry, but it is the best method of crap-detecting I can see out there.

One alternative to the cautious use of research finding is to disregard
science altogether and believe anything you care to because it feels good
to have a certain belief regardless of reality. Much easier for many than
accepting that the world is dynamic, shifting, complex, and more or less
undefinable and unknowable. And then going with the flow.

Cheers,
Kirt

PS. It is of very questionable legality to post whole articles without
persmission from the author/publisher. I personally don't care, but you
should probably be aware of that if you're not.

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2