Dec 23, 2018 at 1:11 PM Post #11,776 of 19,070
Yes, I was referring specifically to supplements and herbs. You would need a comprehensive study to show that they’re net detrimental, and my sense is that they’re net beneficial, but we shouldn’t generalize too much about this stuff.

It would be hard to isolate any positively effective alternative drug/supplement vs all the negative ones. I already brought up B17: many have been selling it as a cancer cure, when it can contain cyanide. I recently became aware of a complete loon, Jillian Mai Thi Epperly, who preys on the sick by trying to sell a protocol of drinking cabbage juice with heavy doses of sodium (It's called Jilly Juice). She was on Dr Phil, and showed she has no medical background. She claims her protocol cures everything because she's riding the body of Candida fungus (and claims that Candida is the root of all illnesses: she even claims homosexuality is an illness). When Dr Phil asked what study she's done for her claim that Jilly Juice can even regrow limbs, her response was "I have all my limbs". Because her followers are exposing themselves to sodium toxicity, they get severe diarrhea and high blood pressure. Unfortunately, a lot of people who are preyed upon are in desperate situations. I've known a few people who decided to forego traditional medicine and try naturopath for curing their cancer.
 
Dec 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM Post #11,777 of 19,070
Wouldn't it be fun to test our equipment and ability to hear and determine where our thresholds of audibility lie?
 
Dec 23, 2018 at 1:14 PM Post #11,778 of 19,070
The term "theory", even in its proper scientific context, has a wide variety in it meaning.

Some theories, like the "theory of evolution", have lots of supporting evidence, and are widely believed to be true, or more accurately "to describe a model that represents the reality quite well". However, other theories are wildly conjectural, and seem quite unlikely to be true, and many have in fact been found not to be true.

The main issue, as I see it, is that many NON-SCIENTISTS insist on making some sort of differentiation between theories and facts - with the idea that "theories are less certain" - which is untrue. And, in fact, many use it in a diminutive sense - as "only a theory". The reality is that virtually everything we think we know is teory - but some theories are much better supported by evidence, and have been found to more consistently describe reality, than others.

The actual truth is that MOST of what we believe we know is a theory at one level or another.

No human being has ever left our solar system... therefore EVERYTHING we "know" about astronomy is "just a theory". Everything we see outside our solar system could really be a really cool moving painting on the inside of a giant glass ball. I doubt it, and I'm quite certain that most of the theories we have about whats going on out there will turn out to be reasonably close to the reality, but for now it is all "just theories".

Agreed that we should use the term "theory" only in its scientific sense around here, unless specified otherwise.

I don't hold homeopathy being developed in the 18th century against it, there are plenty of herbal things which work that go back many centuries. For example, go on pubmed and do a search on clinical trials for ashwagandha. In the past decade, clinical trials have demonstrated benefits which were known without clinical trials for centuries.

I encourage you to do some research on homeopathy, if interested. As I said, I have no idea how it could work, but there's empirical evidence that it may sometimes work for some people/animals for some conditions (though it may otherwise be bunk).

I'd still say that we have a huge problem in the US with the widespread use of pharmaceuticals and their often outrageous costs. It's no coincidence that pharmaceutical companies tend to be very profitable. But the problem isn't just with pharmaceuticals:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...er-countries-with-worse-results-idUSKCN1GP2YN

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...he-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/#item-start
 
Dec 23, 2018 at 1:23 PM Post #11,779 of 19,070
I agree.... and especially anything based on "extreme dilutions" and "water remembering chemicsls that it once contained but no longer does".

I am of two minds about regulation:
On one hand, here in the USA, we have the FDA, who "protects us from snake oil".
On the other hand, there have been cases where the red tape associated with the FDA has prevented or delayed legitimate and useful products from coming to market.
They also impose their views of chemical quality on us (they will not allow US citizens to purchase drugs from Canada based on the claim that "they're not sure the quality is the same" - rather than allowing people to make their own choice.)
Thres is the simple question of whether people should be "protected from the dangers of making their own decisions and possibly making stupid mistakes" or not.

However, it seems foolish to expect insurance companies to pay for things that may not be effective, and to raise all our premiums to cover the cost of doing so.
(Perhaps coverage of "homeopathic and other unapproved remedies" should be obtional - and only financed by those who wish to purchase it.)

I haven't seen much in the way of empirical evidence that medication directly billed as homeopathic being effective. At least "folk medicine" with herbs uses real substances (and chemicals modern medicine might find efficacy with). The theories of homeopathy (using "states" and "like cures") are completely irrelevant to modern medicine. It would be one thing if all of alternative medicine was just distilled water or sugar pills. But it's unregulated and some "medicines" being sold are even detrimental to your health (case in point hucksters selling B17 as a cancer cure).

You can't have a direct link with pharmaceutical costs and life expectancy or standard of life (your links also at least mention there are numerous factors). Besides the debate for universal healthcare vs regulated healtchare, I think one issue with the US system is more money is spent end of life instead of preventative medicine.
 
Dec 23, 2018 at 1:44 PM Post #11,780 of 19,070
There is a lot of quackery going on.... and people who are dying and have exhausted all the known legitimate options are especially likely to be desperate.
(Could we draw a parallel to audiophiles who are desperate to improve their systems - and feel nearly as strongly about the need to do so?)

As for cancer cures containing cyanide...
There is something deeper going on there...

Quite a long time ago there was a cancer cure called Leatrile which was a very popular subject of the conspiracy buffs.
Leatrile was very thoroughly outlawed in the USA after it was found to produce no useful benefits AND to be extremely toxic.
Fans claimed that "Leatrile would cure cancer but the government, or the big pharma companies, had conspired to suppress it".
Part of how it "worked" was that the chemicals it contained broke down in the human body to release cyanide.

Note that, by itself, the presence of cyanide is not necessarily bad, peach pits and apple seeds contain cyanide, and some chemicals may be poison in certain qualtities, but beneficial in others.
Therefore, the presence of cyanide in small quantities by itself doesn't mean much.

However, the "deeper aspect" I alluded to was this:
After Leatrile was banned, many quacks attempted to get around the ban by devising "other formulations that did pretty much the same thing but avoided the banned formulation".
So, the presence of cyanide in a quack cancer cure, beyond being unlikely to be beneficial, is often taken to suggest that "it's yet another Leatrile knockoff".

You will find similar, but probably harmless, cures based on the idea that "inflammation" causes most illnesses... and can be cured by drinking prickly pear cactus juice...
And, a few years ago, the big obsession was "antioxidants"...

It would be hard to isolate any positively effective alternative drug/supplement vs all the negative ones. I already brought up B17: many have been selling it as a cancer cure, when it can contain cyanide. I recently became aware of a complete loon, Jillian Mai Thi Epperly, who preys on the sick by trying to sell a protocol of drinking cabbage juice with heavy doses of sodium (It's called Jilly Juice). She was on Dr Phil, and showed she has no medical background. She claims her protocol cures everything because she's riding the body of Candida fungus (and claims that Candida is the root of all illnesses: she even claims homosexuality is an illness). When Dr Phil asked what study she's done for her claim that Jilly Juice can even regrow limbs, her response was "I have all my limbs". Because her followers are exposing themselves to sodium toxicity, they get severe diarrhea and high blood pressure. Unfortunately, a lot of people who are preyed upon are in desperate situations. I've known a few people who decided to forego traditional medicine and try naturopath for curing their cancer.
 
Dec 23, 2018 at 2:34 PM Post #11,782 of 19,070
It would be hard to isolate any positively effective alternative drug/supplement vs all the negative ones. I already brought up B17: many have been selling it as a cancer cure, when it can contain cyanide. I recently became aware of a complete loon, Jillian Mai Thi Epperly, who preys on the sick by trying to sell a protocol of drinking cabbage juice with heavy doses of sodium (It's called Jilly Juice). She was on Dr Phil, and showed she has no medical background. She claims her protocol cures everything because she's riding the body of Candida fungus (and claims that Candida is the root of all illnesses: she even claims homosexuality is an illness). When Dr Phil asked what study she's done for her claim that Jilly Juice can even regrow limbs, her response was "I have all my limbs". Because her followers are exposing themselves to sodium toxicity, they get severe diarrhea and high blood pressure. Unfortunately, a lot of people who are preyed upon are in desperate situations. I've known a few people who decided to forego traditional medicine and try naturopath for curing their cancer.

I think it's a complex and delicate issue, since health and lives are at stake. The bottom line, IMO, is than when conventional medicine can't provide effective treatment or has too many side effects (e.g., many chemotherapies for many types of cancers, especially late stage), people will consider other options. Some of those options will be net beneficial, and some net detrimental, and we need research to figure that out. Since many alternative treatments can't be patented, one option is for the government to fund the research. But of course the pharmaceutical companies will do what they can to prevent competition which cuts into their profits.
 
Dec 23, 2018 at 3:35 PM Post #11,783 of 19,070
Wouldn't it be fun to test our equipment and ability to hear and determine where our thresholds of audibility lie?
Talking about fun testing, I was on Youtube the other day and there was a 20Hz to 20kHz test tone. I had no issues hearing in the low 20Hz but I topped out at about 17kHz.
And before you ask, I was using my ATH-M40x to listen.
I’d be surprised if many people in these forums could hear far beyond that.
 
Last edited:
Dec 23, 2018 at 3:51 PM Post #11,784 of 19,070
The term "theory", even in its proper scientific context, has a wide variety in it meaning.

Some theories, like the "theory of evolution", have lots of supporting evidence, and are widely believed to be true, or more accurately "to describe a model that represents the reality quite well". However, other theories are wildly conjectural, and seem quite unlikely to be true, and many have in fact been found not to be true.

The main issue, as I see it, is that many NON-SCIENTISTS insist on making some sort of differentiation between theories and facts - with the idea that "theories are less certain" - which is untrue. And, in fact, many use it in a diminutive sense - as "only a theory". The reality is that virtually everything we think we know is teory - but some theories are much better supported by evidence, and have been found to more consistently describe reality, than others.

The actual truth is that MOST of what we believe we know is a theory at one level or another.

No human being has ever left our solar system... therefore EVERYTHING we "know" about astronomy is "just a theory". Everything we see outside our solar system could really be a really cool moving painting on the inside of a giant glass ball. I doubt it, and I'm quite certain that most of the theories we have about whats going on out there will turn out to be reasonably close to the reality, but for now it is all "just theories".
I don't think theory has a wide variety of meanings.
we have ideas and questions, we formulate hypotheses and test them to see which ones should be rejected and which ones seem to be relevant ideas. after a while when we come up with a way to predict accurately and consistently what happens in the objective world based on conditions, what we get is a law.
now if we come up with a model of why something happens that aligns with what we know and all the results of experiments, then we have a theory. there is nothing saying that a theory is complete and definitive, because it's a proposed model to explain the world. if new data helps improve on the old model or leads to a new theory, there is no reason not to do it. but a theory found to be untrue is not a theory. the moment something is disproved, it reverts back to no better than a failed hypothesis. it just took us longer than usual to disprove it.
 
Dec 23, 2018 at 3:52 PM Post #11,785 of 19,070
Talking about fun testing, I was on Youtube the other day and there was a 20Hz to 20kHz test tone. I had no issues hearing in the low 20Hz but I topped out at about 17kHz.
And before you ask, I was using my ATH-M40x to listen.
I’d be surprised if many people in these forums could hear far beyond that.


I would also recommend an age be added for thoroughness

At age 55, I can hear 13 kHz but not 14khz, which is about normal. On the low end anything below 40 hz is sporadic. I also do notice a 4K notch, which is also not unusual for my age. Testing with AKG K533, Bose Triports and Bose AE2, all give the same results.
 
Last edited:
Dec 23, 2018 at 3:55 PM Post #11,786 of 19,070
I would also recommend an age be added for thoroughness

At age 55, I can hear 13 kHz but not 14khz, which is about normal. I also do notice a 4K notch, which is also not unusual for my age.
Good point! I’m 43, and although my range is pretty good, I do have some blind spots around 6-7khz on my left ear and 15.5khz - 17khz.
 
Dec 23, 2018 at 4:27 PM Post #11,787 of 19,070
Ears have blind spots just like eyes do
 
Dec 23, 2018 at 5:09 PM Post #11,789 of 19,070

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top