Jordan Peterson, take 2, let's stay on point, please

October 14, 2020

Anybody that wants to continue this discussion about xenon or any other thing that might help feel free to pm me. Maybe we could start a little group where we CC each other in, or just go back and forth with different ppl. I wont be looking at this thread anymore.

Yeah, at this point, I feel like this board isn’t the right place for this topic any longer. I’m currently collating a list of alternative therapies with studies to back up their efficacy to perhaps start a thread in the alternative therapies board. Or maybe a support group thread is in order for experimental therapies?

Just some thoughts. I hate to say it, but I want a safe space!

You both might be interested in the Alternative Therapies & Supplements board. It was created specifically for such topics.

October 14, 2020

wrong. its the idea of evidence based medicine. medicine isn't a science, its an applied science which isn't the same thing. Xenon like anything else is fair game as long as it follows the evidence based medicine approach.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/

If you check out wiki pages for most drugs it says: How it works is not entirely clear. Even for the old drugs like paracetamol. Medicine really isn't a science. From anthropological standpoint it's far closer to superstition, a collection of ritual practices to deal with specific symptoms. Witch doctors gave you Ayahuasca, modern psychiatrists give you SSRIs, neither of them knows how it works.

this is very insightful. its amazing how most people who work or study medicine dont gain this insight until very late in life. I wish more people understood the limitations of western medicine and how flawed it really is. It didnt really sink in for me until this whole experience. I should of known when saw how "iatrogenic" was always a leading cause of death and disease in the 'causes' section for so many conditions. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease.

And I don't disagree with the point that we don't fully understand how drugs work. But medicine is a science. Just like in any science, we don't understand everything and we never will. Nevertheless, we strive to have an ever better understanding of the processes and mechanisms. Western medicine is mostly not flawed, but incomplete.

It would be appreciated if you could provide some support for your statement that medical errors are the third leading cause of death. I strongly believe that you won't be able to.

https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139.full - BMJ estimate that they have stood behind despite naysayers like yourself.

"I strongly believe that you won't be able to" this sentence in particular is very revealing. Your viewpoints are guided by your feelings and beliefs, not the evidence base. At best, you can dispute that 'medical injury' should be included in 'medical error'. or you can quibble over some other language distinction. But the estimates are legitimate. your flat out uninformed or wrong again, sadly. although its predictable at this point.

I say again. medicine isn't a science, its an "applied science". these aren't the same things. you need to educate yourself on this. medicine is a sub branch of engineering. remember STEM at university? "science, engineering, technology and mathematics". there's a reason these are distinct fields and they're not all just called SCIENCE. I can elaborate on this point if you need more help understanding the difference? this should help you. its a ncbi article so your mind can lower its belief system shielding to think through it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/

more links proving your wrong about main point:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Your contention is a myth: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-2019-edition/

No, there is no distinction between science and applied science. Science is based on the scientific method. Poor Francis Bacon is rolling over in his grave.

I don't see what STEM for high school kids has to do with the medical sciences.

wrong. the BMJ stands by their assessment despite the criticisms from this article and others which amounts to quibbles about language and how they measure "error" which i preemptivelyt shot down in my original post. So, just for the record, your now proactively switching from your first position which was 1) trust authoritative sources to 2) now arguing the same thing that everyone has been pointing out all along about how the mainstream has myths and can be wrong. which is it? you have literally painted yourself into a corner on this one. either way you lose cause your taking both sides now, well done. you've knocked yourself out by being intellectually inconsistent. the irony.

real STEM is university level - how do you not know this stuff if you went to uni. crying out to Francis bacon isn't going to bail you of the hole your digging for yourself lol.

whats next

Here is some info for you about STEM from US Dept. of Education website (https://www.ed.gov/stem).

In an ever-changing, increasingly complex world, it's more important than ever that our nation's youth are prepared to bring knowledge and skills to solve problems, make sense of information, and know how to gather and evaluate evidence to make decisions. These are the kinds of skills that students develop in science, technology, engineering, and math—disciplines collectively known as STEM. If we want a nation where our future leaders, neighbors, and workers have the ability to understand and solve some of the complex challenges of today and tomorrow, and to meet the demands of the dynamic and evolving workforce, building students' skills, content knowledge, and fluency in STEM fields is essential. We must also make sure that, no matter where children live, they have access to quality learning environments. A child's zip code should not determine their STEM fluency.

yeah thats baby stem. real stem that defines the fields happens at universities. what does this government slogan have to do with the discussion.

The word STEM refers to child education.

haha why would you believe that? who told you this?

I cited evidence from the US Dept. of Education website. Any argument against this needs to be supported by evidence.

you know education goes on AFTER high school right?.....you know what they call high school "STEM" when you get to university?

Answer: STEM

There is no STEM in universities because universities are itself STEM and have always been. There would be no reason to say that STEM is STEM. You probably have never seen a university from the inside. Again, you don't cite any evidence for your statement.

I didn't introduce the concept of STEM into this thread and don't understand why it's here, where we discuss the merits of xenon. I should say the lack of merits of xenon "therapy".

October 14, 2020

you do a biopsy for melanoma, and then a histopathology screen to look for malignant cells. theres a biological test for the disease presence, thats the point. that means its biologically constructed. not socially. theres no biological foundations to mental illness, its PURE social construct. Theres whole textbooks on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness. and thats not a laymen book, thats a foundational textbook for psychology and psychiatry. the profession openly acknowledges this. its astonishing you dont know what im talking about when you say your not a laymen. you certainly sound like one.

Thomas Szasz, the author of The Myth of Mental Illness, and his relationship with CCHR (Scientology):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Relationship_to_Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights

In 1969, Szasz and the Church of Scientology co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) to oppose involuntary psychiatric treatments. Szasz served on CCHR's Board of Advisors as Founding Commissioner.[32] In the keynote address at the 25th anniversary of CCHR, Szasz stated, "We should all honor CCHR because it is really the organization that for the first time in human history has organized a politically, socially, internationally significant voice to combat psychiatry. This has never been done in human history before."[33]

In a 2009 interview aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Szasz explained his reason for collaborating with CCHR and lack of involvement with Scientology:

Well I got affiliated with an organisation long after I was established as a critic of psychiatry, called Citizens Commission for Human Rights, because they were then the only organisation and they still are the only organisation who had money and had some access to lawyers and were active in trying to free mental patients who were incarcerated in mental hospitals with whom there was nothing wrong, who had committed no crimes, who wanted to get out of the hospital. And that to me was a very worthwhile cause; it's still a very worthwhile cause. I no more believe in their religion or their beliefs than I believe in the beliefs of any other religion. I am an atheist, I don't believe in Christianity, in Judaism, in Islam, in Buddhism and I don't believe in Scientology. I have nothing to do with Scientology.[34]

Make what you will of Szasz's attempt to explain his involvement with CCHR. But - at best - it demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills.

I also point to the reviews of Szasz ideas by Robert Evan Kendell and Edward Shorter detailed at the same Wiki page:

Kendell - (former) Chief Medical Officer of Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Kendell's_views

Shorter - historian of psychiatry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Shorter's_views

It is beyond unpersuasive to use the very old, and highly discredited ideas of someone deeply involved with Scientology's efforts to outlaw psychiatric practice (and to, incidentally, replace it with their own therapeutic practices: Dianetics).

this is classic guilt by association. he wasnt even a Scientologist and he distanced himself from them.

this is exactly how education at university works. they teach landmark controversial issues within the field and than you decide for yourself. what, you think they dont teach freud cause his ideas were discredited. or semmelweiss, or Jung or any of the thousands of doctors who created controversy in the field. this is the whole point of university, they 'teach the controversy'! they dont tell you what to think, are u crazy, thats straight indoctrination. They teach you to think for yourself and than show you all the points in favor and points against, all the critics etc. The myth of mental illness like many critics of medicine, raised valid points. He wasn't "debunked", thats like saying freud was "debunked" therefore why bother teaching about him, hes so fringe. Hes foundational to understanding psychology.

October 14, 2020

wrong. its the idea of evidence based medicine. medicine isn't a science, its an applied science which isn't the same thing. Xenon like anything else is fair game as long as it follows the evidence based medicine approach.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/

If you check out wiki pages for most drugs it says: How it works is not entirely clear. Even for the old drugs like paracetamol. Medicine really isn't a science. From anthropological standpoint it's far closer to superstition, a collection of ritual practices to deal with specific symptoms. Witch doctors gave you Ayahuasca, modern psychiatrists give you SSRIs, neither of them knows how it works.

this is very insightful. its amazing how most people who work or study medicine dont gain this insight until very late in life. I wish more people understood the limitations of western medicine and how flawed it really is. It didnt really sink in for me until this whole experience. I should of known when saw how "iatrogenic" was always a leading cause of death and disease in the 'causes' section for so many conditions. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease.

And I don't disagree with the point that we don't fully understand how drugs work. But medicine is a science. Just like in any science, we don't understand everything and we never will. Nevertheless, we strive to have an ever better understanding of the processes and mechanisms. Western medicine is mostly not flawed, but incomplete.

It would be appreciated if you could provide some support for your statement that medical errors are the third leading cause of death. I strongly believe that you won't be able to.

https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139.full - BMJ estimate that they have stood behind despite naysayers like yourself.

"I strongly believe that you won't be able to" this sentence in particular is very revealing. Your viewpoints are guided by your feelings and beliefs, not the evidence base. At best, you can dispute that 'medical injury' should be included in 'medical error'. or you can quibble over some other language distinction. But the estimates are legitimate. your flat out uninformed or wrong again, sadly. although its predictable at this point.

I say again. medicine isn't a science, its an "applied science". these aren't the same things. you need to educate yourself on this. medicine is a sub branch of engineering. remember STEM at university? "science, engineering, technology and mathematics". there's a reason these are distinct fields and they're not all just called SCIENCE. I can elaborate on this point if you need more help understanding the difference? this should help you. its a ncbi article so your mind can lower its belief system shielding to think through it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/

more links proving your wrong about main point:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Your contention is a myth: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-2019-edition/

No, there is no distinction between science and applied science. Science is based on the scientific method. Poor Francis Bacon is rolling over in his grave.

I don't see what STEM for high school kids has to do with the medical sciences.

wrong. the BMJ stands by their assessment despite the criticisms from this article and others which amounts to quibbles about language and how they measure "error" which i preemptivelyt shot down in my original post. So, just for the record, your now proactively switching from your first position which was 1) trust authoritative sources to 2) now arguing the same thing that everyone has been pointing out all along about how the mainstream has myths and can be wrong. which is it? you have literally painted yourself into a corner on this one. either way you lose cause your taking both sides now, well done. you've knocked yourself out by being intellectually inconsistent. the irony.

real STEM is university level - how do you not know this stuff if you went to uni. crying out to Francis bacon isn't going to bail you of the hole your digging for yourself lol.

whats next

Here is some info for you about STEM from US Dept. of Education website (https://www.ed.gov/stem).

In an ever-changing, increasingly complex world, it's more important than ever that our nation's youth are prepared to bring knowledge and skills to solve problems, make sense of information, and know how to gather and evaluate evidence to make decisions. These are the kinds of skills that students develop in science, technology, engineering, and math—disciplines collectively known as STEM. If we want a nation where our future leaders, neighbors, and workers have the ability to understand and solve some of the complex challenges of today and tomorrow, and to meet the demands of the dynamic and evolving workforce, building students' skills, content knowledge, and fluency in STEM fields is essential. We must also make sure that, no matter where children live, they have access to quality learning environments. A child's zip code should not determine their STEM fluency.

yeah thats baby stem. real stem that defines the fields happens at universities. what does this government slogan have to do with the discussion.

The word STEM refers to child education.

haha why would you believe that? who told you this?

I cited evidence from the US Dept. of Education website. Any argument against this needs to be supported by evidence.

you know education goes on AFTER high school right?.....you know what they call high school "STEM" when you get to university?

Answer: STEM

There is no STEM in universities because universities are itself STEM and have always been. There would be no reason to say that STEM is STEM. You probably have never seen a university from the inside. Again, you don't cite any evidence for your statement.

I didn't introduce the concept of STEM into this thread and don't understand why it's here, where we discuss the merits of xenon. I should say the lack of merits of xenon "therapy".

address the main issue raised, and then i will show you how your wrong on this too.

not moving on till you admit you were wrong on the key issue.

October 14, 2020

wrong. its the idea of evidence based medicine. medicine isn't a science, its an applied science which isn't the same thing. Xenon like anything else is fair game as long as it follows the evidence based medicine approach.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/

If you check out wiki pages for most drugs it says: How it works is not entirely clear. Even for the old drugs like paracetamol. Medicine really isn't a science. From anthropological standpoint it's far closer to superstition, a collection of ritual practices to deal with specific symptoms. Witch doctors gave you Ayahuasca, modern psychiatrists give you SSRIs, neither of them knows how it works.

this is very insightful. its amazing how most people who work or study medicine dont gain this insight until very late in life. I wish more people understood the limitations of western medicine and how flawed it really is. It didnt really sink in for me until this whole experience. I should of known when saw how "iatrogenic" was always a leading cause of death and disease in the 'causes' section for so many conditions. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease.

And I don't disagree with the point that we don't fully understand how drugs work. But medicine is a science. Just like in any science, we don't understand everything and we never will. Nevertheless, we strive to have an ever better understanding of the processes and mechanisms. Western medicine is mostly not flawed, but incomplete.

It would be appreciated if you could provide some support for your statement that medical errors are the third leading cause of death. I strongly believe that you won't be able to.

https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139.full - BMJ estimate that they have stood behind despite naysayers like yourself.

"I strongly believe that you won't be able to" this sentence in particular is very revealing. Your viewpoints are guided by your feelings and beliefs, not the evidence base. At best, you can dispute that 'medical injury' should be included in 'medical error'. or you can quibble over some other language distinction. But the estimates are legitimate. your flat out uninformed or wrong again, sadly. although its predictable at this point.

I say again. medicine isn't a science, its an "applied science". these aren't the same things. you need to educate yourself on this. medicine is a sub branch of engineering. remember STEM at university? "science, engineering, technology and mathematics". there's a reason these are distinct fields and they're not all just called SCIENCE. I can elaborate on this point if you need more help understanding the difference? this should help you. its a ncbi article so your mind can lower its belief system shielding to think through it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/

more links proving your wrong about main point:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Your contention is a myth: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-2019-edition/

No, there is no distinction between science and applied science. Science is based on the scientific method. Poor Francis Bacon is rolling over in his grave.

I don't see what STEM for high school kids has to do with the medical sciences.

wrong. the BMJ stands by their assessment despite the criticisms from this article and others which amounts to quibbles about language and how they measure "error" which i preemptivelyt shot down in my original post. So, just for the record, your now proactively switching from your first position which was 1) trust authoritative sources to 2) now arguing the same thing that everyone has been pointing out all along about how the mainstream has myths and can be wrong. which is it? you have literally painted yourself into a corner on this one. either way you lose cause your taking both sides now, well done. you've knocked yourself out by being intellectually inconsistent. the irony.

real STEM is university level - how do you not know this stuff if you went to uni. crying out to Francis bacon isn't going to bail you of the hole your digging for yourself lol.

whats next

Here is some info for you about STEM from US Dept. of Education website (https://www.ed.gov/stem).

In an ever-changing, increasingly complex world, it's more important than ever that our nation's youth are prepared to bring knowledge and skills to solve problems, make sense of information, and know how to gather and evaluate evidence to make decisions. These are the kinds of skills that students develop in science, technology, engineering, and math—disciplines collectively known as STEM. If we want a nation where our future leaders, neighbors, and workers have the ability to understand and solve some of the complex challenges of today and tomorrow, and to meet the demands of the dynamic and evolving workforce, building students' skills, content knowledge, and fluency in STEM fields is essential. We must also make sure that, no matter where children live, they have access to quality learning environments. A child's zip code should not determine their STEM fluency.

yeah thats baby stem. real stem that defines the fields happens at universities. what does this government slogan have to do with the discussion.

The word STEM refers to child education.

haha why would you believe that? who told you this?

I cited evidence from the US Dept. of Education website. Any argument against this needs to be supported by evidence.

you know education goes on AFTER high school right?.....you know what they call high school "STEM" when you get to university?

Answer: STEM

There is no STEM in universities because universities are itself STEM and have always been. There would be no reason to say that STEM is STEM. You probably have never seen a university from the inside. Again, you don't cite any evidence for your statement.

I didn't introduce the concept of STEM into this thread and don't understand why it's here, where we discuss the merits of xenon. I should say the lack of merits of xenon "therapy".

address the main issue raised, and then i will show you how your wrong on this too.

not moving on till you admit you were wrong on the key issue.

wrong. its the idea of evidence based medicine. medicine isn't a science, its an applied science which isn't the same thing. Xenon like anything else is fair game as long as it follows the evidence based medicine approach.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/

If you check out wiki pages for most drugs it says: How it works is not entirely clear. Even for the old drugs like paracetamol. Medicine really isn't a science. From anthropological standpoint it's far closer to superstition, a collection of ritual practices to deal with specific symptoms. Witch doctors gave you Ayahuasca, modern psychiatrists give you SSRIs, neither of them knows how it works.

this is very insightful. its amazing how most people who work or study medicine dont gain this insight until very late in life. I wish more people understood the limitations of western medicine and how flawed it really is. It didnt really sink in for me until this whole experience. I should of known when saw how "iatrogenic" was always a leading cause of death and disease in the 'causes' section for so many conditions. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease.

And I don't disagree with the point that we don't fully understand how drugs work. But medicine is a science. Just like in any science, we don't understand everything and we never will. Nevertheless, we strive to have an ever better understanding of the processes and mechanisms. Western medicine is mostly not flawed, but incomplete.

It would be appreciated if you could provide some support for your statement that medical errors are the third leading cause of death. I strongly believe that you won't be able to.

https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139.full - BMJ estimate that they have stood behind despite naysayers like yourself.

"I strongly believe that you won't be able to" this sentence in particular is very revealing. Your viewpoints are guided by your feelings and beliefs, not the evidence base. At best, you can dispute that 'medical injury' should be included in 'medical error'. or you can quibble over some other language distinction. But the estimates are legitimate. your flat out uninformed or wrong again, sadly. although its predictable at this point.

I say again. medicine isn't a science, its an "applied science". these aren't the same things. you need to educate yourself on this. medicine is a sub branch of engineering. remember STEM at university? "science, engineering, technology and mathematics". there's a reason these are distinct fields and they're not all just called SCIENCE. I can elaborate on this point if you need more help understanding the difference? this should help you. its a ncbi article so your mind can lower its belief system shielding to think through it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/

more links proving your wrong about main point:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Your contention is a myth: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-2019-edition/

No, there is no distinction between science and applied science. Science is based on the scientific method. Poor Francis Bacon is rolling over in his grave.

I don't see what STEM for high school kids has to do with the medical sciences.

wrong. the BMJ stands by their assessment despite the criticisms from this article and others which amounts to quibbles about language and how they measure "error" which i preemptivelyt shot down in my original post. So, just for the record, your now proactively switching from your first position which was 1) trust authoritative sources to 2) now arguing the same thing that everyone has been pointing out all along about how the mainstream has myths and can be wrong. which is it? you have literally painted yourself into a corner on this one. either way you lose cause your taking both sides now, well done. you've knocked yourself out by being intellectually inconsistent. the irony.

real STEM is university level - how do you not know this stuff if you went to uni. crying out to Francis bacon isn't going to bail you of the hole your digging for yourself lol.

whats next

You didn't shut down anything. You listed one article, and I countered with another.

I'm sorry the other things you said I'm not following. When did I say anything about authoritative sources? I don't remember using the word "authoritative". Please quote where I said this if you can. What I said is that only the scientific method can answer questions.

I'm not arguing what others argue. That makes no sense. What others? Who are you talking about? When did I say the mainstream can not be wrong? Again, please support by citing relevant text.

wrong. i referenced the BMJ review which is tier 1 of the level of evidence medical science

heres the levels: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/ see section 6

1. Evidences obtained by meta-analysis of several randomized controlled research (RCR). - THIS IS ME HERE!
1b.Evidences from only one RCR.
2a.Evidences from well designed controlled research RCR.
2b.Evidences from one quasi experimental research.
3.Evidences from non experimental studies (comparative research, case study), according to some, for example Textbooks.
4.Evidences from experts and clinical practice - THIS IS YOU!

you know whats not on that list - EXPERT OPINION! - which is what you referenced. your level of evidence isnt even considered. And this is me being kind and generous to your bad points, because your guy is a oncologist, hes not even an expert in this field so he doesnt warrant consideration at all.

WRONG AGAIN. Ive also demonstrated it using all 100% scientific method points and established norms. Some recognition of how wrong you are would be nice.

The clinical trials I saw all concluded there is no treatment for benzo withdrawal. Thank you for confirming this. That's where we started from and you came around.

Finally Exposed!!!! Hooray. You will not and you CANNOT dispute this point on its merits so you are de facto admitting 100% that you are wrong. so your brain panicked and went for another snide remark thats not on topic.

case closed. mission accomplished. roll out the banners. send out the marching band!!!

your not arguing in good faith, i knew that. but now Ive demonstrated it. you've also demonstrated your views aren't principled, reasonable, or logical.

as far as im concerned, your argument died on this hill. this is a fundamental pillar of the discussion and your whole point about the scientific method hinged on this. and you abandoned all your principles to ignore it and move on to make another snide remark thats not clever or useful or helps your case.

The problem is you're not remembering who said what. You said I talked about authoritative sources. Well, I didn't. You have not been able to confirm I said this. When I asked you to quote where I said this, you just skipped this whole point. In fact, another poster mentioned this but not me and in another context. You even argued with that poster about it.

In a 180 degree turn away from your original endorsement of a hypothesis based on an educated guess for the potential for xenon to help benzo sufferers, you are now suddenly a champion of the role of high level evidence based on scientific data. Yet, you don't accept the fact that there are no randomized clinical trials or metaanalyses to show that xenon or any other agent can help benzo withdrawal. This is what you said you believe in. This is what you said: "1. Evidences obtained by meta-analysis of several randomized controlled research (RCR). - THIS IS ME HERE!". Nevertheless, you still think that a hypothesis based on non-existing information from an anecdotal case (Jordan Peterson) is valid despite the fact that it is not based on metaanalysis or clinical trials.

You say that "medicine is a sub branch of engineering". What? Where do you get this from? Here is the definition of engineering: "the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures". And here is the definition of medicine: "the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease".

thats all wrong as well and i can easily address all that but im not letting you slip away again. Your very much like a politician, very slippery. and i want to point out what your doing. You made an assertion (arrogantly mind you), and i provided evidence to prove that was categorically false. and now you want to move on and rehash some other minor discussion point from the past. No!

Forget all that. Address the point. then we can move on and i can explain to you why your wrong, even when your trying desperately to change the subject.

oh and heres the verbatim quote so you cant wiggle out of this one:

"Your contention is a myth: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-2019-edition/

No, there is no distinction between science and applied science. Science is based on the scientific method. Poor Francis Bacon is rolling over in his grave."

e with Colin that this thread is veering very far away from its original post and that is not my fault. I always bring up xenon and you bring up STEM.

The main issue here is xenon according to the original poster. The one you brought up in this thread that again is irrelevant for xenon. I don't want to wiggle myself out. You said iatrogenic deaths are #3 and I cited evidence to the contrary. So 1:1. I will always find as many evidence against it as you for it. You question the validity of this reference because an oncologist provided it. This is ridiculous; anybody can investigate this issue who has medical knowledge. What you don't understand is that it takes long years of being immersed in a topic (in this case medicine and medical research) before you have an idea and I have that and you don't. You likely don't have a science background and therefore don't understand how it works. That's why you conflate medicine with engineering and talk about STEM where you introduce even math. Here is a teachable moment for you. Math is not a science in the Baconian sense. It does not use the scientific method of induction (proposing a hypothesis, which is then tested with experiments).

I'm also pretty well versed in the history and philosophy of science. As for your argument that there is a distinction between science and applied science let me bring up the very widely cited example case of James Clerk Maxwell who formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation. When he made his discoveries at the end of the 19th century, there was absolutely no use for his discoveries. So we can say his discoveries were basic science. Then when people realized what those discoveries really meant, they began to apply his basic equations to developing radios, lasers, cell phones, transistors, and so on. The same equations became applied science. I agree with Colin that this thread is veering very far away from its original post and that is not my fault. I always bring up xenon and you bring up STEM.

October 14, 2020

this is classic guilt by association. he wasnt even a Scientologist and he distanced himself from them.

this is exactly how education at university works. they teach landmark controversial issues within the field and than you decide for yourself. what, you think they dont teach fraud cause his ideas were discredited. or semmelweiss, or Jung or any of the thousands of doctors who created controversy in the field. this is the whole point of university, they 'teach the controversy'! they dont tell you what to think, are u crazy, thats straight indoctrination. They teach you to think for yourself and than show you all the points in favor and points against, all the critics etc. The myth of mental illness like many critics of medicine, raised valid points. He wasn't "debunked", thats like saying freud was "debunked" therefore why bother teaching about him, hes so fringe. Hes foundational to understanding psychology.

Szazs aligned himself with a religious cult (created by a science fiction writer as a joke / to prove a point) who wish to ban psychiatric practice (and replace it with 'Dianetcs') as part of their cultist doctrine. Worse, he even co-created the Scientology oganisation (CCHR) with this specific purpose/goal. This really does discredit him and his views, and makes him an unreliable source.

October 14, 2020

its just not sinking in. you need to read these things Im linking, they explain clearly, with steps how your wrong.

You: "there is no distinction between science and applied science"

okay great, we have a starting point for some learning. admitting ignorance is the first step. well done.

lets go...

"Basic Science develops basic information to explain and perhaps predict phenomena in the natural world.

Applied science is the use of scientific processes and knowledge as the means to achieve a particular practical or useful result. This includes a broad range of applied science related fields, including engineering and medicine.

so anyone who can use Wikipedia, is more informed than you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science. yikes!

heres a nice educational source with lots of pictures to help:

https://www.easyuni.com/applied-and-pure-sciences/

and look at all the uni degrees in this field. SO odd, cause according you, this isn't a thing and has no distinction from science. apparently its distinct enough to study at university. how strange? what are all those people doing studying something that doesn't exist.

Finally Exposed!!!! Hooray. You will not and you CANNOT dispute this point on its merits so you are de facto admitting 100% that you are wrong. so your brain panicked and went for another snide remark thats not on topic.

case closed. mission accomplished. roll out the banners. send out the marching band!!!

your not arguing in good faith, i knew that. but now Ive demonstrated it. you've also demonstrated your views aren't principled, reasonable, or logical.

as far as im concerned, your argument died on this hill. this is a fundamental pillar of the discussion and your whole point about the scientific method hinged on this. and you abandoned all your principles to ignore it and move on to make another snide remark thats not clever or useful or helps your case.

Robust debate is fine, Pinky. But you are being combative, even deliberately provocative. Enough.

Ironic, that.

we are at the end of a long discussion and i have demonstrated that maugham is arguing in bad faith and has made proven false claims, which he is so far refuseing to acknowledge. frustration is the 100% reasonable and normal reaction to this. what isnt reasonable is to ignore maughams role, and then to walk in and isolate my tone for policing as if its appearing in a vacuum. also why would you police my tone now, when his tone has been exactly like this since the start. he has spoken down to every single person he talks to. but your only stepping in now when i speak down to him?? can you elaborate?

October 14, 2020

its just not sinking in. you need to read these things Im linking, they explain clearly, with steps how your wrong.

You: "there is no distinction between science and applied science"

okay great, we have a starting point for some learning. admitting ignorance is the first step. well done.

lets go...

"Basic Science develops basic information to explain and perhaps predict phenomena in the natural world.

Applied science is the use of scientific processes and knowledge as the means to achieve a particular practical or useful result. This includes a broad range of applied science related fields, including engineering and medicine.

so anyone who can use Wikipedia, is more informed than you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science. yikes!

heres a nice educational source with lots of pictures to help:

https://www.easyuni.com/applied-and-pure-sciences/

and look at all the uni degrees in this field. SO odd, cause according you, this isn't a thing and has no distinction from science. apparently its distinct enough to study at university. how strange? what are all those people doing studying something that doesn't exist.

Finally Exposed!!!! Hooray. You will not and you CANNOT dispute this point on its merits so you are de facto admitting 100% that you are wrong. so your brain panicked and went for another snide remark thats not on topic.

case closed. mission accomplished. roll out the banners. send out the marching band!!!

your not arguing in good faith, i knew that. but now Ive demonstrated it. you've also demonstrated your views aren't principled, reasonable, or logical.

as far as im concerned, your argument died on this hill. this is a fundamental pillar of the discussion and your whole point about the scientific method hinged on this. and you abandoned all your principles to ignore it and move on to make another snide remark thats not clever or useful or helps your case.

Robust debate is fine, Pinky. But you are being combative, even deliberately provocative. Enough.

Ironic, that.

we are at the end of a long discussion and i have demonstrated that maugham is arguing in bad faith and has made proven false claims, which he is so far refuseing to acknowledge. frustration is the 100% reasonable and normal reaction to this. what isnt reasonable is to ignore maughams role, and then to walk in and isolate my tone for policing as if its appearing in a vacuum. also why would you police my tone now, when his tone has been exactly like this since the start. he has spoken down to every single person he talks to. but your only stepping in now when i speak down to him?? can you elaborate?

Because until now I have not said anything about you. You on the other hand make declarations about my ignorance and bad faith arguments, being frustrated and so on. You of course say this, but as usual don't cite evidence for it. You attack the person instead of the ideas.

October 14, 2020

you do a biopsy for melanoma, and then a histopathology screen to look for malignant cells. theres a biological test for the disease presence, thats the point. that means its biologically constructed. not socially. theres no biological foundations to mental illness, its PURE social construct. Theres whole textbooks on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness. and thats not a laymen book, thats a foundational textbook for psychology and psychiatry. the profession openly acknowledges this. its astonishing you dont know what im talking about when you say your not a laymen. you certainly sound like one.

Thomas Szasz, the author of The Myth of Mental Illness, and his relationship with CCHR (Scientology):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Relationship_to_Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights

In 1969, Szasz and the Church of Scientology co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) to oppose involuntary psychiatric treatments. Szasz served on CCHR's Board of Advisors as Founding Commissioner.[32] In the keynote address at the 25th anniversary of CCHR, Szasz stated, "We should all honor CCHR because it is really the organization that for the first time in human history has organized a politically, socially, internationally significant voice to combat psychiatry. This has never been done in human history before."[33]

In a 2009 interview aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Szasz explained his reason for collaborating with CCHR and lack of involvement with Scientology:

Well I got affiliated with an organisation long after I was established as a critic of psychiatry, called Citizens Commission for Human Rights, because they were then the only organisation and they still are the only organisation who had money and had some access to lawyers and were active in trying to free mental patients who were incarcerated in mental hospitals with whom there was nothing wrong, who had committed no crimes, who wanted to get out of the hospital. And that to me was a very worthwhile cause; it's still a very worthwhile cause. I no more believe in their religion or their beliefs than I believe in the beliefs of any other religion. I am an atheist, I don't believe in Christianity, in Judaism, in Islam, in Buddhism and I don't believe in Scientology. I have nothing to do with Scientology.[34]

Make what you will of Szasz's attempt to explain his involvement with CCHR. But - at best - it demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills.

I also point to the reviews of Szasz ideas by Robert Evan Kendell and Edward Shorter detailed at the same Wiki page:

Kendell - (former) Chief Medical Officer of Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Kendell's_views

Shorter - historian of psychiatry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Shorter's_views

It is beyond unpersuasive to use the very old, and highly discredited ideas of someone deeply involved with Scientology's efforts to outlaw psychiatric practice (and to, incidentally, replace it with their own therapeutic practices: Dianetics).

this is classic guilt by association. he wasnt even a Scientologist and he distanced himself from them.

this is exactly how education at university works. they teach landmark controversial issues within the field and than you decide for yourself. what, you think they dont teach freud cause his ideas were discredited. or semmelweiss, or Jung or any of the thousands of doctors who created controversy in the field. this is the whole point of university, they 'teach the controversy'! they dont tell you what to think, are u crazy, thats straight indoctrination. They teach you to think for yourself and than show you all the points in favor and points against, all the critics etc. The myth of mental illness like many critics of medicine, raised valid points. He wasn't "debunked", thats like saying freud was "debunked" therefore why bother teaching about him, hes so fringe. Hes foundational to understanding psychology.

They teach Freud, Semmelweis and Jung because some of their ideas are still valid. Szasz's never were.

October 14, 2020

you do a biopsy for melanoma, and then a histopathology screen to look for malignant cells. theres a biological test for the disease presence, thats the point. that means its biologically constructed. not socially. theres no biological foundations to mental illness, its PURE social construct. Theres whole textbooks on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness. and thats not a laymen book, thats a foundational textbook for psychology and psychiatry. the profession openly acknowledges this. its astonishing you dont know what im talking about when you say your not a laymen. you certainly sound like one.

Thomas Szasz, the author of The Myth of Mental Illness, and his relationship with CCHR (Scientology):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Relationship_to_Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights

In 1969, Szasz and the Church of Scientology co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) to oppose involuntary psychiatric treatments. Szasz served on CCHR's Board of Advisors as Founding Commissioner.[32] In the keynote address at the 25th anniversary of CCHR, Szasz stated, "We should all honor CCHR because it is really the organization that for the first time in human history has organized a politically, socially, internationally significant voice to combat psychiatry. This has never been done in human history before."[33]

In a 2009 interview aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Szasz explained his reason for collaborating with CCHR and lack of involvement with Scientology:

Well I got affiliated with an organisation long after I was established as a critic of psychiatry, called Citizens Commission for Human Rights, because they were then the only organisation and they still are the only organisation who had money and had some access to lawyers and were active in trying to free mental patients who were incarcerated in mental hospitals with whom there was nothing wrong, who had committed no crimes, who wanted to get out of the hospital. And that to me was a very worthwhile cause; it's still a very worthwhile cause. I no more believe in their religion or their beliefs than I believe in the beliefs of any other religion. I am an atheist, I don't believe in Christianity, in Judaism, in Islam, in Buddhism and I don't believe in Scientology. I have nothing to do with Scientology.[34]

Make what you will of Szasz's attempt to explain his involvement with CCHR. But - at best - it demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills.

I also point to the reviews of Szasz ideas by Robert Evan Kendell and Edward Shorter detailed at the same Wiki page:

Kendell - (former) Chief Medical Officer of Scotland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Kendell's_views

Shorter - historian of psychiatry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz#Shorter's_views

It is beyond unpersuasive to use the very old, and highly discredited ideas of someone deeply involved with Scientology's efforts to outlaw psychiatric practice (and to, incidentally, replace it with their own therapeutic practices: Dianetics).

this is classic guilt by association. he wasnt even a Scientologist and he distanced himself from them.

this is exactly how education at university works. they teach landmark controversial issues within the field and than you decide for yourself. what, you think they dont teach freud cause his ideas were discredited. or semmelweiss, or Jung or any of the thousands of doctors who created controversy in the field. this is the whole point of university, they 'teach the controversy'! they dont tell you what to think, are u crazy, thats straight indoctrination. They teach you to think for yourself and than show you all the points in favor and points against, all the critics etc. The myth of mental illness like many critics of medicine, raised valid points. He wasn't "debunked", thats like saying freud was "debunked" therefore why bother teaching about him, hes so fringe. Hes foundational to understanding psychology.

And this is what you never experienced. Ideas about medicine and science in a university.

October 14, 2020

we are at the end of a long discussion and i have demonstrated that maugham is arguing in bad faith and has made proven false claims, which he is so far refuseing to acknowledge. frustration is the 100% reasonable and normal reaction to this. what isnt reasonable is to ignore maughams role, and then to walk in and isolate my tone for policing as if its appearing in a vacuum. also why would you police my tone now, when his tone has been exactly like this since the start. he has spoken down to every single person he talks to. but your only stepping in now when i speak down to him?? can you elaborate?

You both have engaged in robust rhetoric. But some of it seems completely pointless to me (and I suspect most readers here). The debate might benefit from some heat being taken out of the discussion (from both sides). But this is only a simple observation and suggestion from me. However, what I highlighted from you were instances of you going over the line, so I addressed those specific instances. Comments from Maugham addressed to you were not personalised in the way as some of yours were to him.

For what it is worth, from my perspective, you have not at all demonstrated that Maugham has engaged in bad faith argument. Wind in some of your commentary and phrasing. It is not helping.

October 14, 2020

wrong. its the idea of evidence based medicine. medicine isn't a science, its an applied science which isn't the same thing. Xenon like anything else is fair game as long as it follows the evidence based medicine approach.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/

If you check out wiki pages for most drugs it says: How it works is not entirely clear. Even for the old drugs like paracetamol. Medicine really isn't a science. From anthropological standpoint it's far closer to superstition, a collection of ritual practices to deal with specific symptoms. Witch doctors gave you Ayahuasca, modern psychiatrists give you SSRIs, neither of them knows how it works.

this is very insightful. its amazing how most people who work or study medicine dont gain this insight until very late in life. I wish more people understood the limitations of western medicine and how flawed it really is. It didnt really sink in for me until this whole experience. I should of known when saw how "iatrogenic" was always a leading cause of death and disease in the 'causes' section for so many conditions. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease.

And I don't disagree with the point that we don't fully understand how drugs work. But medicine is a science. Just like in any science, we don't understand everything and we never will. Nevertheless, we strive to have an ever better understanding of the processes and mechanisms. Western medicine is mostly not flawed, but incomplete.

It would be appreciated if you could provide some support for your statement that medical errors are the third leading cause of death. I strongly believe that you won't be able to.

https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139.full - BMJ estimate that they have stood behind despite naysayers like yourself.

"I strongly believe that you won't be able to" this sentence in particular is very revealing. Your viewpoints are guided by your feelings and beliefs, not the evidence base. At best, you can dispute that 'medical injury' should be included in 'medical error'. or you can quibble over some other language distinction. But the estimates are legitimate. your flat out uninformed or wrong again, sadly. although its predictable at this point.

I say again. medicine isn't a science, its an "applied science". these aren't the same things. you need to educate yourself on this. medicine is a sub branch of engineering. remember STEM at university? "science, engineering, technology and mathematics". there's a reason these are distinct fields and they're not all just called SCIENCE. I can elaborate on this point if you need more help understanding the difference? this should help you. its a ncbi article so your mind can lower its belief system shielding to think through it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/

more links proving your wrong about main point:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Your contention is a myth: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-2019-edition/

No, there is no distinction between science and applied science. Science is based on the scientific method. Poor Francis Bacon is rolling over in his grave.

I don't see what STEM for high school kids has to do with the medical sciences.

wrong. the BMJ stands by their assessment despite the criticisms from this article and others which amounts to quibbles about language and how they measure "error" which i preemptivelyt shot down in my original post. So, just for the record, your now proactively switching from your first position which was 1) trust authoritative sources to 2) now arguing the same thing that everyone has been pointing out all along about how the mainstream has myths and can be wrong. which is it? you have literally painted yourself into a corner on this one. either way you lose cause your taking both sides now, well done. you've knocked yourself out by being intellectually inconsistent. the irony.

real STEM is university level - how do you not know this stuff if you went to uni. crying out to Francis bacon isn't going to bail you of the hole your digging for yourself lol.

whats next

Here is some info for you about STEM from US Dept. of Education website (https://www.ed.gov/stem).

In an ever-changing, increasingly complex world, it's more important than ever that our nation's youth are prepared to bring knowledge and skills to solve problems, make sense of information, and know how to gather and evaluate evidence to make decisions. These are the kinds of skills that students develop in science, technology, engineering, and math—disciplines collectively known as STEM. If we want a nation where our future leaders, neighbors, and workers have the ability to understand and solve some of the complex challenges of today and tomorrow, and to meet the demands of the dynamic and evolving workforce, building students' skills, content knowledge, and fluency in STEM fields is essential. We must also make sure that, no matter where children live, they have access to quality learning environments. A child's zip code should not determine their STEM fluency.

yeah thats baby stem. real stem that defines the fields happens at universities. what does this government slogan have to do with the discussion.

The word STEM refers to child education.

haha why would you believe that? who told you this?

I cited evidence from the US Dept. of Education website. Any argument against this needs to be supported by evidence.

you know education goes on AFTER high school right?.....you know what they call high school "STEM" when you get to university?

Answer: STEM

There is no STEM in universities because universities are itself STEM and have always been. There would be no reason to say that STEM is STEM. You probably have never seen a university from the inside. Again, you don't cite any evidence for your statement.

I didn't introduce the concept of STEM into this thread and don't understand why it's here, where we discuss the merits of xenon. I should say the lack of merits of xenon "therapy".

wrong. this is so silly and ridiculous of a point by you, i honestly cant believe your making it, or maybe your just trolling. as someone who spent years living at uni on campus, this is just puzzling to hear from you.

here: https://www.sydney.edu.au/study/study-options/undergraduate-courses/study-stem.html

https://www.studyinternational.com/news/top-universities-stem-2020/

https://www.crimsoneducation.org/au/blog/campus-life-more/top-stem-universities/

October 14, 2020

i took it PRN (as needed) in 2 week blocks spaced 6 months apart, as prescribed. the package insert said take PRN just like the doctor ordered. end of story.

I'm a little confused because in your profile you said on and off. I'm also confused about whether you went to the doctor because you wanted some treatment for your insomnia and whether you read the package insert.

Of course this is personal and I don't expect an answer. I would just think about this for myself.

October 14, 2020

wrong. its the idea of evidence based medicine. medicine isn't a science, its an applied science which isn't the same thing. Xenon like anything else is fair game as long as it follows the evidence based medicine approach.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/

If you check out wiki pages for most drugs it says: How it works is not entirely clear. Even for the old drugs like paracetamol. Medicine really isn't a science. From anthropological standpoint it's far closer to superstition, a collection of ritual practices to deal with specific symptoms. Witch doctors gave you Ayahuasca, modern psychiatrists give you SSRIs, neither of them knows how it works.

this is very insightful. its amazing how most people who work or study medicine dont gain this insight until very late in life. I wish more people understood the limitations of western medicine and how flawed it really is. It didnt really sink in for me until this whole experience. I should of known when saw how "iatrogenic" was always a leading cause of death and disease in the 'causes' section for so many conditions. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease.

And I don't disagree with the point that we don't fully understand how drugs work. But medicine is a science. Just like in any science, we don't understand everything and we never will. Nevertheless, we strive to have an ever better understanding of the processes and mechanisms. Western medicine is mostly not flawed, but incomplete.

It would be appreciated if you could provide some support for your statement that medical errors are the third leading cause of death. I strongly believe that you won't be able to.

https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139.full - BMJ estimate that they have stood behind despite naysayers like yourself.

"I strongly believe that you won't be able to" this sentence in particular is very revealing. Your viewpoints are guided by your feelings and beliefs, not the evidence base. At best, you can dispute that 'medical injury' should be included in 'medical error'. or you can quibble over some other language distinction. But the estimates are legitimate. your flat out uninformed or wrong again, sadly. although its predictable at this point.

I say again. medicine isn't a science, its an "applied science". these aren't the same things. you need to educate yourself on this. medicine is a sub branch of engineering. remember STEM at university? "science, engineering, technology and mathematics". there's a reason these are distinct fields and they're not all just called SCIENCE. I can elaborate on this point if you need more help understanding the difference? this should help you. its a ncbi article so your mind can lower its belief system shielding to think through it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/

more links proving your wrong about main point:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Your contention is a myth: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-2019-edition/

No, there is no distinction between science and applied science. Science is based on the scientific method. Poor Francis Bacon is rolling over in his grave.

I don't see what STEM for high school kids has to do with the medical sciences.

wrong. the BMJ stands by their assessment despite the criticisms from this article and others which amounts to quibbles about language and how they measure "error" which i preemptivelyt shot down in my original post. So, just for the record, your now proactively switching from your first position which was 1) trust authoritative sources to 2) now arguing the same thing that everyone has been pointing out all along about how the mainstream has myths and can be wrong. which is it? you have literally painted yourself into a corner on this one. either way you lose cause your taking both sides now, well done. you've knocked yourself out by being intellectually inconsistent. the irony.

real STEM is university level - how do you not know this stuff if you went to uni. crying out to Francis bacon isn't going to bail you of the hole your digging for yourself lol.

whats next

Here is some info for you about STEM from US Dept. of Education website (https://www.ed.gov/stem).

In an ever-changing, increasingly complex world, it's more important than ever that our nation's youth are prepared to bring knowledge and skills to solve problems, make sense of information, and know how to gather and evaluate evidence to make decisions. These are the kinds of skills that students develop in science, technology, engineering, and math—disciplines collectively known as STEM. If we want a nation where our future leaders, neighbors, and workers have the ability to understand and solve some of the complex challenges of today and tomorrow, and to meet the demands of the dynamic and evolving workforce, building students' skills, content knowledge, and fluency in STEM fields is essential. We must also make sure that, no matter where children live, they have access to quality learning environments. A child's zip code should not determine their STEM fluency.

yeah thats baby stem. real stem that defines the fields happens at universities. what does this government slogan have to do with the discussion.

The word STEM refers to child education.

haha why would you believe that? who told you this?

I cited evidence from the US Dept. of Education website. Any argument against this needs to be supported by evidence.

you know education goes on AFTER high school right?.....you know what they call high school "STEM" when you get to university?

Answer: STEM

There is no STEM in universities because universities are itself STEM and have always been. There would be no reason to say that STEM is STEM. You probably have never seen a university from the inside. Again, you don't cite any evidence for your statement.

I didn't introduce the concept of STEM into this thread and don't understand why it's here, where we discuss the merits of xenon. I should say the lack of merits of xenon "therapy".

wrong. this is so silly and ridiculous of a point by you, i honestly cant believe your making it, or maybe your just trolling. as someone who spent years living at uni on campus, this is just puzzling to hear from you.

here: https://www.sydney.edu.au/study/study-options/undergraduate-courses/study-stem.html
https://www.studyinternational.com/news/top-universities-stem-2020/
https://www.crimsoneducation.org/au/blog/campus-life-more/top-stem-universities/

You just cited STEM courses that universities give to kids.

October 14, 2020

The main issue here is xenon according to the original poster. The one you brought up in this thread that again is irrelevant for xenon. I don't want to wiggle myself out. You said iatrogenic deaths are #3 and I cited evidence to the contrary. So 1:1. I will always find as many evidence against it as you for it. You question the validity of this reference because an oncologist provided it. This is ridiculous; anybody can investigate this issue who has medical knowledge. What you don't understand is that it takes long years of being immersed in a topic (in this case medicine and medical research) before you have an idea and I have that and you don't. You likely don't have a science background and therefore don't understand how it works. That's why you conflate medicine with engineering and talk about STEM where you introduce even math. Here is a teachable moment for you. Math is not a science in the Baconian sense. It does not use the scientific method of induction (proposing a hypothesis, which is then tested with experiments).

I'm also pretty well versed in the history and philosophy of science. As for your argument that there is a distinction between science and applied science let me bring up the very widely cited example case of James Clerk Maxwell who formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation. When he made his discoveries at the end of the 19th century, there was absolutely no use for his discoveries. So we can say his discoveries were basic science. Then when people realized what those discoveries really meant, they began to apply his basic equations to developing radios, lasers, cell phones, transistors, and so on. The same equations became applied science. I agree with Colin that this thread is veering very far away from its original post and that is not my fault. I always bring up xenon and you bring up STEM.

"The main issue here is xenon according to the original poster. The one you brought up in this thread that again is irrelevant for xenon. I don't want to wiggle myself out. You said iatrogenic deaths are #3 and I cited evidence to the contrary. So 1:1." - this is completely wrong. read the following passage again, it shows you how i provided evidence, and you provided NOTHING. literally thats what happened. i provided a meta review analysis which is the gold standard of evidence, and you showed an article of a disgruntled individual who disagreed at "im right.com".

the rest of your comments were red herrings and mainly nonsensical. so they honestly seem like clever deflections cause you still will not address the fact that your were demonstrated to be 100%wrong within the evidence based medicine framework or modern medicine. i repeat, i provided level 1 evidence, you provided zero evidence that is the weakest thing possible. you cant rationalise away from that or change the topic. thats the scientific method. acknowledge it and admit error. or admit you dont care about intellectual consistency or being right. if your happy to argue when you know your wrong, its a bad faith discussion. bad faith changes everything, its not worth discussing anything with people in bad faith. below is the issue for you to revisit, take your time, take as long as you need to educate yourself. its spelled out simply and clearly and ive made it simple to see the steps of your mistake.

wrong. i referenced the BMJ review which is tier 1 of the level of evidence medical science

heres the levels: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/ see section 6

1. Evidences obtained by meta-analysis of several randomized controlled research (RCR). - THIS IS ME HERE!

1b.Evidences from only one RCR.

2a.Evidences from well designed controlled research RCR.

2b.Evidences from one quasi experimental research.

3.Evidences from non experimental studies (comparative research, case study), according to some, for example Textbooks.

4.Evidences from experts and clinical practice - THIS IS YOU!

you know whats not on that list - EXPERT OPINION! - which is what you referenced. your level of evidence isnt even considered. And this is me being kind and generous to your bad points, because your guy is a oncologist, hes not even an expert in this field so he doesnt warrant consideration at all.

October 14, 2020

The main issue here is xenon according to the original poster. The one you brought up in this thread that again is irrelevant for xenon. I don't want to wiggle myself out. You said iatrogenic deaths are #3 and I cited evidence to the contrary. So 1:1. I will always find as many evidence against it as you for it. You question the validity of this reference because an oncologist provided it. This is ridiculous; anybody can investigate this issue who has medical knowledge. What you don't understand is that it takes long years of being immersed in a topic (in this case medicine and medical research) before you have an idea and I have that and you don't. You likely don't have a science background and therefore don't understand how it works. That's why you conflate medicine with engineering and talk about STEM where you introduce even math. Here is a teachable moment for you. Math is not a science in the Baconian sense. It does not use the scientific method of induction (proposing a hypothesis, which is then tested with experiments).

I'm also pretty well versed in the history and philosophy of science. As for your argument that there is a distinction between science and applied science let me bring up the very widely cited example case of James Clerk Maxwell who formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation. When he made his discoveries at the end of the 19th century, there was absolutely no use for his discoveries. So we can say his discoveries were basic science. Then when people realized what those discoveries really meant, they began to apply his basic equations to developing radios, lasers, cell phones, transistors, and so on. The same equations became applied science. I agree with Colin that this thread is veering very far away from its original post and that is not my fault. I always bring up xenon and you bring up STEM.

"The main issue here is xenon according to the original poster. The one you brought up in this thread that again is irrelevant for xenon. I don't want to wiggle myself out. You said iatrogenic deaths are #3 and I cited evidence to the contrary. So 1:1." - this is completely wrong. read the following passage again, it shows you how i provided evidence, and you provided NOTHING. literally thats what happened. i provided a meta review analysis which is the gold standard of evidence, and you showed an article of a disgruntled individual who disagreed at "im right.com".

the rest of your comments were red herrings and mainly nonsensical. so they honestly seem like clever deflections cause you still will not address the fact that your were demonstrated to be 100%wrong within the evidence based medicine framework or modern medicine. i repeat, i provided level 1 evidence, you provided zero evidence that is the weakest thing possible. you cant rationalise away from that or change the topic. thats the scientific method. acknowledge it and admit error. or admit you dont care about intellectual consistency or being right. if your happy to argue when you know your wrong, its a bad faith discussion. bad faith changes everything, its not worth discussing anything with people in bad faith. below is the issue for you to revisit, take your time, take as long as you need to educate yourself. its spelled out simply and clearly and ive made it simple to see the steps of your mistake.

wrong. i referenced the BMJ review which is tier 1 of the level of evidence medical science

heres the levels: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/ see section 6

1. Evidences obtained by meta-analysis of several randomized controlled research (RCR). - THIS IS ME HERE!

1b.Evidences from only one RCR.

2a.Evidences from well designed controlled research RCR.

2b.Evidences from one quasi experimental research.

3.Evidences from non experimental studies (comparative research, case study), according to some, for example Textbooks.

4.Evidences from experts and clinical practice - THIS IS YOU!

you know whats not on that list - EXPERT OPINION! - which is what you referenced. your level of evidence isnt even considered. And this is me being kind and generous to your bad points, because your guy is a oncologist, hes not even an expert in this field so he doesnt warrant consideration at all.

Sorry, the score on the issue of iatrogenic deaths is 1:1. You said my comments are nonsensical, but this is not enough. You need arguments. You said my comments are red herrings. No, they are right to the point. Again, you just articulate your opinions about me and not my arguments.

The 6 tiers of evidence is a ridiculous point promulgated in a no name journal. Metaanalyses have proven wrong over and over again.

October 14, 2020

wrong. its the idea of evidence based medicine. medicine isn't a science, its an applied science which isn't the same thing. Xenon like anything else is fair game as long as it follows the evidence based medicine approach.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/

If you check out wiki pages for most drugs it says: How it works is not entirely clear. Even for the old drugs like paracetamol. Medicine really isn't a science. From anthropological standpoint it's far closer to superstition, a collection of ritual practices to deal with specific symptoms. Witch doctors gave you Ayahuasca, modern psychiatrists give you SSRIs, neither of them knows how it works.

this is very insightful. its amazing how most people who work or study medicine dont gain this insight until very late in life. I wish more people understood the limitations of western medicine and how flawed it really is. It didnt really sink in for me until this whole experience. I should of known when saw how "iatrogenic" was always a leading cause of death and disease in the 'causes' section for so many conditions. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease.

And I don't disagree with the point that we don't fully understand how drugs work. But medicine is a science. Just like in any science, we don't understand everything and we never will. Nevertheless, we strive to have an ever better understanding of the processes and mechanisms. Western medicine is mostly not flawed, but incomplete.

It would be appreciated if you could provide some support for your statement that medical errors are the third leading cause of death. I strongly believe that you won't be able to.

https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139.full - BMJ estimate that they have stood behind despite naysayers like yourself.

"I strongly believe that you won't be able to" this sentence in particular is very revealing. Your viewpoints are guided by your feelings and beliefs, not the evidence base. At best, you can dispute that 'medical injury' should be included in 'medical error'. or you can quibble over some other language distinction. But the estimates are legitimate. your flat out uninformed or wrong again, sadly. although its predictable at this point.

I say again. medicine isn't a science, its an "applied science". these aren't the same things. you need to educate yourself on this. medicine is a sub branch of engineering. remember STEM at university? "science, engineering, technology and mathematics". there's a reason these are distinct fields and they're not all just called SCIENCE. I can elaborate on this point if you need more help understanding the difference? this should help you. its a ncbi article so your mind can lower its belief system shielding to think through it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/

more links proving your wrong about main point:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Your contention is a myth: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-2019-edition/

No, there is no distinction between science and applied science. Science is based on the scientific method. Poor Francis Bacon is rolling over in his grave.

I don't see what STEM for high school kids has to do with the medical sciences.

wrong. the BMJ stands by their assessment despite the criticisms from this article and others which amounts to quibbles about language and how they measure "error" which i preemptivelyt shot down in my original post. So, just for the record, your now proactively switching from your first position which was 1) trust authoritative sources to 2) now arguing the same thing that everyone has been pointing out all along about how the mainstream has myths and can be wrong. which is it? you have literally painted yourself into a corner on this one. either way you lose cause your taking both sides now, well done. you've knocked yourself out by being intellectually inconsistent. the irony.

real STEM is university level - how do you not know this stuff if you went to uni. crying out to Francis bacon isn't going to bail you of the hole your digging for yourself lol.

whats next

Here is some info for you about STEM from US Dept. of Education website (https://www.ed.gov/stem).

In an ever-changing, increasingly complex world, it's more important than ever that our nation's youth are prepared to bring knowledge and skills to solve problems, make sense of information, and know how to gather and evaluate evidence to make decisions. These are the kinds of skills that students develop in science, technology, engineering, and math—disciplines collectively known as STEM. If we want a nation where our future leaders, neighbors, and workers have the ability to understand and solve some of the complex challenges of today and tomorrow, and to meet the demands of the dynamic and evolving workforce, building students' skills, content knowledge, and fluency in STEM fields is essential. We must also make sure that, no matter where children live, they have access to quality learning environments. A child's zip code should not determine their STEM fluency.

yeah thats baby stem. real stem that defines the fields happens at universities. what does this government slogan have to do with the discussion.

The word STEM refers to child education.

haha why would you believe that? who told you this?

I cited evidence from the US Dept. of Education website. Any argument against this needs to be supported by evidence.

you know education goes on AFTER high school right?.....you know what they call high school "STEM" when you get to university?

Answer: STEM

There is no STEM in universities because universities are itself STEM and have always been. There would be no reason to say that STEM is STEM. You probably have never seen a university from the inside. Again, you don't cite any evidence for your statement.

I didn't introduce the concept of STEM into this thread and don't understand why it's here, where we discuss the merits of xenon. I should say the lack of merits of xenon "therapy".

wrong. this is so silly and ridiculous of a point by you, i honestly cant believe your making it, or maybe your just trolling. as someone who spent years living at uni on campus, this is just puzzling to hear from you.

here: https://www.sydney.edu.au/study/study-options/undergraduate-courses/study-stem.html
https://www.studyinternational.com/news/top-universities-stem-2020/
https://www.crimsoneducation.org/au/blog/campus-life-more/top-stem-universities/

You just cited STEM courses that universities give to kids.

wrong. these are courses for adults at university. this is what i think is happening for you. in america, "STEM" is mainly associated with pre STEM education like a pipeline to university for kids. and alot of programs called STEM talk about an education pipeline to uni. In academia, and the rest of the world, including america. STEM is just a broad categoy or Science, Tech, Engineering and Mathematics. so all the profs of math at MIT are in stem at the same time the little kids at middle school are in STEM when they do math. and this is basic low level understanding and comprehension of the topic at hand. A basic low level and comprehension that you dont seem to have. and i cant figure out why. like this is really basic stuff for university level folks.

October 14, 2020

its just not sinking in. you need to read these things Im linking, they explain clearly, with steps how your wrong.

You: "there is no distinction between science and applied science"

okay great, we have a starting point for some learning. admitting ignorance is the first step. well done.

lets go...

"Basic Science develops basic information to explain and perhaps predict phenomena in the natural world.

Applied science is the use of scientific processes and knowledge as the means to achieve a particular practical or useful result. This includes a broad range of applied science related fields, including engineering and medicine.

so anyone who can use Wikipedia, is more informed than you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science. yikes!

heres a nice educational source with lots of pictures to help:

https://www.easyuni.com/applied-and-pure-sciences/

and look at all the uni degrees in this field. SO odd, cause according you, this isn't a thing and has no distinction from science. apparently its distinct enough to study at university. how strange? what are all those people doing studying something that doesn't exist.

Finally Exposed!!!! Hooray. You will not and you CANNOT dispute this point on its merits so you are de facto admitting 100% that you are wrong. so your brain panicked and went for another snide remark thats not on topic.

case closed. mission accomplished. roll out the banners. send out the marching band!!!

your not arguing in good faith, i knew that. but now Ive demonstrated it. you've also demonstrated your views aren't principled, reasonable, or logical.

as far as im concerned, your argument died on this hill. this is a fundamental pillar of the discussion and your whole point about the scientific method hinged on this. and you abandoned all your principles to ignore it and move on to make another snide remark thats not clever or useful or helps your case.

Robust debate is fine, Pinky. But you are being combative, even deliberately provocative. Enough.

Ironic, that.

we are at the end of a long discussion and i have demonstrated that maugham is arguing in bad faith and has made proven false claims, which he is so far refuseing to acknowledge. frustration is the 100% reasonable and normal reaction to this. what isnt reasonable is to ignore maughams role, and then to walk in and isolate my tone for policing as if its appearing in a vacuum. also why would you police my tone now, when his tone has been exactly like this since the start. he has spoken down to every single person he talks to. but your only stepping in now when i speak down to him?? can you elaborate?

Because until now I have not said anything about you. You on the other hand make declarations about my ignorance and bad faith arguments, being frustrated and so on. You of course say this, but as usual don't cite evidence for it. You attack the person instead of the ideas.

nice try. address the point. stop hiding from it and trying to flee it. this is so transparent dude.

October 14, 2020

Holy sh!t buddies. STOP. Look at the goddamn title of this thread that I started. This thread is now worse than the one from which I moved the topic.

I cannot even stomach to read the drivel to which this thread has descended.

Maugham. I have been too hard on you. You are entitled to post your opinions. If I am reading you correctly, the 10 second summary of your beliefs are that you do not want us to hurt ourselves chasing "unproven" treatments. Do I have that right?

Assuming I have that right, the 10 second summary for the rest of us is that we are beyond desperate and would try absolutely anything, even if there is a chance it could kill us or worse, if there is a chance it could end our misery. What we want is the opportunity to discuss the merits, pros, and cons of our desperate measures.

While you are entitled to post that a treatment is unproven or dangerous because it is unproven, it is not productive because we don't care. We know that. I am asking you, in the politest way I can, to please, please disengage from the discussion. I promise you we DO want constructive criticism, but we do not view, "this treatment has never been applied to benzo withdrawal" or any variation of that statement as constructive, and we never will. So all your comments do is make people angry and argue with you.

If you see a technical point, and by technical I mean discussion of the application of a treatment, preferably at the neurochemical level, then please post. For example, "I learned that the Vorobjev clinics use Ibogaine for benzo wd. Ibogaine is a powerful, SRI, opioid agonist, and I don't like it for benzo wd because . . . " you get the idea.

I want to start a new thread. But I am not going to bother if you cannot restrain yourself. For the record, I AGREE with you. Whatever we discuss is unproven and potentially harmful. We do not want to be reminded of how difficult this problem is to solve, and we sure as hell do not want to be told that it cannot be solved. If I ever get to the point where I determine that we are unable to solve it, I plan to blow my brains out in the middle of Times Square NYC with a note in my pocket that says, "I became benzodiazepine dependent and I never healed" hoping that someone smarter than me will be moved to do SOMETHING. Surely you can understand our desperation to do something.

Some of us have the ability to simply think, "He is entitled to his opinion. We will continue our discussion," but others obviously cannot and now we are at page 16, of which at least 12 have been wasted beating the "it is dangerous because it is unproven" argument to death, and our goal of discussing the treatments is completely lost.

So Maugham, can I move this thread and ask that you just leave it be? Please? I am literally begging you.

Ramcon1

October 14, 2020

wrong. its the idea of evidence based medicine. medicine isn't a science, its an applied science which isn't the same thing. Xenon like anything else is fair game as long as it follows the evidence based medicine approach.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/

If you check out wiki pages for most drugs it says: How it works is not entirely clear. Even for the old drugs like paracetamol. Medicine really isn't a science. From anthropological standpoint it's far closer to superstition, a collection of ritual practices to deal with specific symptoms. Witch doctors gave you Ayahuasca, modern psychiatrists give you SSRIs, neither of them knows how it works.

this is very insightful. its amazing how most people who work or study medicine dont gain this insight until very late in life. I wish more people understood the limitations of western medicine and how flawed it really is. It didnt really sink in for me until this whole experience. I should of known when saw how "iatrogenic" was always a leading cause of death and disease in the 'causes' section for so many conditions. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death after cancer and heart disease.

And I don't disagree with the point that we don't fully understand how drugs work. But medicine is a science. Just like in any science, we don't understand everything and we never will. Nevertheless, we strive to have an ever better understanding of the processes and mechanisms. Western medicine is mostly not flawed, but incomplete.

It would be appreciated if you could provide some support for your statement that medical errors are the third leading cause of death. I strongly believe that you won't be able to.

https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139.full - BMJ estimate that they have stood behind despite naysayers like yourself.

"I strongly believe that you won't be able to" this sentence in particular is very revealing. Your viewpoints are guided by your feelings and beliefs, not the evidence base. At best, you can dispute that 'medical injury' should be included in 'medical error'. or you can quibble over some other language distinction. But the estimates are legitimate. your flat out uninformed or wrong again, sadly. although its predictable at this point.

I say again. medicine isn't a science, its an "applied science". these aren't the same things. you need to educate yourself on this. medicine is a sub branch of engineering. remember STEM at university? "science, engineering, technology and mathematics". there's a reason these are distinct fields and they're not all just called SCIENCE. I can elaborate on this point if you need more help understanding the difference? this should help you. its a ncbi article so your mind can lower its belief system shielding to think through it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190445/

more links proving your wrong about main point:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Your contention is a myth: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s-2019-edition/

No, there is no distinction between science and applied science. Science is based on the scientific method. Poor Francis Bacon is rolling over in his grave.

I don't see what STEM for high school kids has to do with the medical sciences.

wrong. the BMJ stands by their assessment despite the criticisms from this article and others which amounts to quibbles about language and how they measure "error" which i preemptivelyt shot down in my original post. So, just for the record, your now proactively switching from your first position which was 1) trust authoritative sources to 2) now arguing the same thing that everyone has been pointing out all along about how the mainstream has myths and can be wrong. which is it? you have literally painted yourself into a corner on this one. either way you lose cause your taking both sides now, well done. you've knocked yourself out by being intellectually inconsistent. the irony.

real STEM is university level - how do you not know this stuff if you went to uni. crying out to Francis bacon isn't going to bail you of the hole your digging for yourself lol.

whats next

Here is some info for you about STEM from US Dept. of Education website (https://www.ed.gov/stem).

In an ever-changing, increasingly complex world, it's more important than ever that our nation's youth are prepared to bring knowledge and skills to solve problems, make sense of information, and know how to gather and evaluate evidence to make decisions. These are the kinds of skills that students develop in science, technology, engineering, and math—disciplines collectively known as STEM. If we want a nation where our future leaders, neighbors, and workers have the ability to understand and solve some of the complex challenges of today and tomorrow, and to meet the demands of the dynamic and evolving workforce, building students' skills, content knowledge, and fluency in STEM fields is essential. We must also make sure that, no matter where children live, they have access to quality learning environments. A child's zip code should not determine their STEM fluency.

yeah thats baby stem. real stem that defines the fields happens at universities. what does this government slogan have to do with the discussion.

The word STEM refers to child education.

haha why would you believe that? who told you this?

I cited evidence from the US Dept. of Education website. Any argument against this needs to be supported by evidence.

you know education goes on AFTER high school right?.....you know what they call high school "STEM" when you get to university?

Answer: STEM

There is no STEM in universities because universities are itself STEM and have always been. There would be no reason to say that STEM is STEM. You probably have never seen a university from the inside. Again, you don't cite any evidence for your statement.

I didn't introduce the concept of STEM into this thread and don't understand why it's here, where we discuss the merits of xenon. I should say the lack of merits of xenon "therapy".

wrong. this is so silly and ridiculous of a point by you, i honestly cant believe your making it, or maybe your just trolling. as someone who spent years living at uni on campus, this is just puzzling to hear from you.

here: https://www.sydney.edu.au/study/study-options/undergraduate-courses/study-stem.html
https://www.studyinternational.com/news/top-universities-stem-2020/
https://www.crimsoneducation.org/au/blog/campus-life-more/top-stem-universities/

You just cited STEM courses that universities give to kids.

wrong. these are courses for adults at university. this is what i think is happening for you. in america, "STEM" is mainly associated with pre STEM education like a pipeline to university for kids. and alot of programs called STEM talk about an education pipeline to uni. In academia, and the rest of the world, including america. STEM is just a broad categoy or Science, Tech, Engineering and Mathematics. so all the profs of math at MIT are in stem at the same time the little kids at middle school are in STEM when they do math. and this is basic low level understanding and comprehension of the topic at hand. A basic low level and comprehension that you dont seem to have. and i cant figure out why. like this is really basic stuff for university level folks.

Again, all universities are about STEM and have always been. Nobody calls them STEM, they are called universities. STEM is a concept for non-university educated people, be it kids or adults.

October 14, 2020

https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139.full - BMJ estimate that they have stood behind despite naysayers like yourself.

Going back a little, I just wish to point out that that is not a study, of course, but an article. It includes no new research and cites very little research from others. It does not even mention the average life-expectancy of those who died through a medical mistake if the mistake had not occurred. This information is vitally important, because medical treatment should be based upon a risk-benefit analysis. Part of the risks are medical mistakes resulting in injury or death. And when properly performing such an analysts, the potential for life extension forms part of the calculation. So, if without the medical intervention you will certainly die soon, but with the intervention (even if risky - and you might die immediately) you might be expected to live another 20 years, it is worth the risk. If you die because of something going wrong in treatment, the possible consequences of no action must be taken into account too.

It might seem rather cold to make such statistical calculations, but it is the only true way to asses the possible (probable) value of any particular treatment in any given situation. Inaction carries risks and consequences too. Patients are all too prone to not properly appreciate this, but is understandable. It is unforgivable that such analysis was not included in an article like that.

October 14, 2020

Holy sh!t buddies. STOP. Look at the goddamn title of this thread that I started. This thread is now worse than the one from which I moved the topic.

I cannot even stomach to read the drivel to which this thread has descended.

Maugham. I have been too hard on you. You are entitled to post your opinions. If I am reading you correctly, the 10 second summary of your beliefs are that you do not want us to hurt ourselves chasing "unproven" treatments. Do I have that right?

Assuming I have that right, the 10 second summary for the rest of us is that we are beyond desperate and would try absolutely anything, even if there is a chance it could kill us or worse, if there is a chance it could end our misery. What we want is the opportunity to discuss the merits, pros, and cons of our desperate measures.

While you are entitled to post that a treatment is unproven or dangerous because it is unproven, it is not productive because we don't care. We know that. I am asking you, in the politest way I can, to please, please disengage from the discussion. I promise you we DO want constructive criticism, but we do not view, "this treatment has never been applied to benzo withdrawal" or any variation of that statement as constructive, and we never will. So all your comments do is make people angry and argue with you.

If you see a technical point, and by technical I mean discussion of the application of a treatment, preferably at the neurochemical level, then please post. For example, "I learned that the Vorobjev clinics use Ibogaine for benzo wd. Ibogaine is a powerful, SRI, opioid agonist, and I don't like it for benzo wd because . . . " you get the idea.

I want to start a new thread. But I am not going to bother if you cannot restrain yourself. For the record, I AGREE with you. Whatever we discuss is unproven and potentially harmful. We do not want to be reminded of how difficult this problem is to solve, and we sure as hell do not want to be told that it cannot be solved. If I ever get to the point where I determine that we are unable to solve it, I plan to blow my brains out in the middle of Times Square NYC with a note in my pocket that says, "I became benzodiazepine dependent and I never healed" hoping that someone smarter than me will be moved to do SOMETHING. Surely you can understand our desperation to do something.

Some of us have the ability to simply think, "He is entitled to his opinion. We will continue our discussion," but others obviously cannot and now we are at page 16, of which at least 12 have been wasted beating the "it is dangerous because it is unproven" argument to death, and our goal of discussing the treatments is completely lost.

So Maugham, can I move this thread and ask that you just leave it be? Please? I am literally begging you.

Ramcon1

First of all, I truly sympathize with your desperation.

But I think you have previously been advised not to tell anybody where and when and what to post or not post. This is an open forum where you (not you and other people but you yourself) created a new thread. And listen to this. It's not just you who reads this thread but other people as well. Anybody can and will read this thread. I'm posting for those people.

October 14, 2020

The main issue here is xenon according to the original poster. The one you brought up in this thread that again is irrelevant for xenon. I don't want to wiggle myself out. You said iatrogenic deaths are #3 and I cited evidence to the contrary. So 1:1. I will always find as many evidence against it as you for it. You question the validity of this reference because an oncologist provided it. This is ridiculous; anybody can investigate this issue who has medical knowledge. What you don't understand is that it takes long years of being immersed in a topic (in this case medicine and medical research) before you have an idea and I have that and you don't. You likely don't have a science background and therefore don't understand how it works. That's why you conflate medicine with engineering and talk about STEM where you introduce even math. Here is a teachable moment for you. Math is not a science in the Baconian sense. It does not use the scientific method of induction (proposing a hypothesis, which is then tested with experiments).

I'm also pretty well versed in the history and philosophy of science. As for your argument that there is a distinction between science and applied science let me bring up the very widely cited example case of James Clerk Maxwell who formulated the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation. When he made his discoveries at the end of the 19th century, there was absolutely no use for his discoveries. So we can say his discoveries were basic science. Then when people realized what those discoveries really meant, they began to apply his basic equations to developing radios, lasers, cell phones, transistors, and so on. The same equations became applied science. I agree with Colin that this thread is veering very far away from its original post and that is not my fault. I always bring up xenon and you bring up STEM.

"The main issue here is xenon according to the original poster. The one you brought up in this thread that again is irrelevant for xenon. I don't want to wiggle myself out. You said iatrogenic deaths are #3 and I cited evidence to the contrary. So 1:1." - this is completely wrong. read the following passage again, it shows you how i provided evidence, and you provided NOTHING. literally thats what happened. i provided a meta review analysis which is the gold standard of evidence, and you showed an article of a disgruntled individual who disagreed at "im right.com".

the rest of your comments were red herrings and mainly nonsensical. so they honestly seem like clever deflections cause you still will not address the fact that your were demonstrated to be 100%wrong within the evidence based medicine framework or modern medicine. i repeat, i provided level 1 evidence, you provided zero evidence that is the weakest thing possible. you cant rationalise away from that or change the topic. thats the scientific method. acknowledge it and admit error. or admit you dont care about intellectual consistency or being right. if your happy to argue when you know your wrong, its a bad faith discussion. bad faith changes everything, its not worth discussing anything with people in bad faith. below is the issue for you to revisit, take your time, take as long as you need to educate yourself. its spelled out simply and clearly and ive made it simple to see the steps of your mistake.

wrong. i referenced the BMJ review which is tier 1 of the level of evidence medical science

heres the levels: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3789163/ see section 6

1. Evidences obtained by meta-analysis of several randomized controlled research (RCR). - THIS IS ME HERE!
1b.Evidences from only one RCR.
2a.Evidences from well designed controlled research RCR.
2b.Evidences from one quasi experimental research.
3.Evidences from non experimental studies (comparative research, case study), according to some, for example Textbooks.
4.Evidences from experts and clinical practice - THIS IS YOU!

you know whats not on that list - EXPERT OPINION! - which is what you referenced. your level of evidence isnt even considered. And this is me being kind and generous to your bad points, because your guy is a oncologist, hes not even an expert in this field so he doesnt warrant consideration at all.

Sorry, the score on the issue of iatrogenic deaths is 1:1. You said my comments are nonsensical, but this is not enough. You need arguments. You said my comments are red herrings. No, they are right to the point. Again, you just articulate your opinions about me and not my arguments.

The 6 tiers of evidence is a ridiculous point promulgated in a no name journal. Metaanalyses have proven wrong over and over again.

okay thats it. this guy just said the "6 tiers of evidence is a ridiculous point promulgated in a no name journal."

that journal is the British Medical Journal. That's one of the three world leading reputable gold standard journals and is rivaled only by the New England Journal of Medicine in America and the Lancet in France. They're the top three medical journals in the world and their meta analysis literally define medicine.

This guy has no clue what hes talking about. I can guarantee that if you actually went to university and studied epidemiology or clinical research - you would know that. I honestly think your lying about that now. theres no way you can have studied this at uni and be saying what your saying. its just not possible.

October 14, 2020

i took it PRN (as needed) in 2 week blocks spaced 6 months apart, as prescribed. the package insert said take PRN just like the doctor ordered. end of story.

I'm a little confused because in your profile you said on and off. I'm also confused about whether you went to the doctor because you wanted some treatment for your insomnia and whether you read the package insert.

Of course this is personal and I don't expect an answer. I would just think about this for myself.

more deflection, now your trying to deflect and distract. address the false claim you made. then we will move on.

October 14, 2020

https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139.full - BMJ estimate that they have stood behind despite naysayers like yourself.

Going back a little, I just wish to point out that that is not a study, of course, but an article. It includes no new research and cites very little research from others. It does not even mention the average life-expectancy of those who died through a medical mistake if the mistake had not occurred. This information is vitally important, because medical treatment should be based upon a risk-benefit analysis. Part of the risks are medical mistakes resulting in injury or death. And when properly performing such an analysts, the potential for life extension forms part of the calculation. So, if without the medical intervention you will certainly die soon, but with the intervention (even if risky - and you might die immediately) you might be expected to live another 20 years, it is worth the risk. If you die because of something going wrong in treatment, the possible consequences of no action must be taken into account too.

It might seem rather cold to make such statistical calculations, but it is the only true way to asses the possible (probable) value of any particular treatment in any given situation. Inaction carries risks and consequences too. Patients are all too prone to not properly appreciate this, but is understandable. It is unforgivable that such analysis was not included in an article like that.

Exactly.

Jordan Peterson, take 2, let's stay on point, please

Recommended Posts

[Co...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[pi...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[pi...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Co...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[pi...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Co...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[pi...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[pi...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[pi...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[pi...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[ra...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Co...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[pi...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[pi...]

Link to comment

Share on other sites

[Ma...]

Link to comment