'Alternative medicine'

[godfry n. glad]

In the process of following up on a warning from a teacher of massage therapy about massage in diabetes, I ran across this bit in Joslin's Diabetes Deskbook (2nd edition, Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkens, 2009, Boston, MA), a handbook guide for primary care physicians, by Richard S. Beaser, M.D., and the Staff of Joslin Diabetes Center, I stumbled across this statement (p. 679):

Many patients with diabetes combine alternative and traditional medicine. Alternative medicine has long been part of most cultures throughout the world. The most common forms of alternative medicine are herbs, chiropractic care, yoga, relatation, acupuncture, ayurveda, biofeedback, chelation, energy healing, Reiki therapy, hypnosis, massage, naturopathy, and homeopathy. A recent report showed that 2472 adults with diabetes included in the study, 48% used some form of alternative medicine. Interestingly, this study found that the use of alternative medicine was associated with increased likelihood of receiving preventive care service and increased emergency department and primary care visits. This association does not necessarily represent causality. In other words, alternative medicine may represent a factor that leads to a more proactive healthcare behavior and use of conventional medical services in adults with diabetes; conversely, high use of conventional medical services may lead to increased use of alternative medicine. Information on the effect of alternative medicine on diabetes care is starting to emerge. For instance, a recent study showed that yoga may have a positive influence on blood glucose and lipid levels in a short period of time in some patients with diabetes. Obviously, more research on alternative medicine use in patients with DM is needed. Health care providers should not forget to ask patients if they are using any form of alternative medicine. This question should be asked in a sensitive and respectful manner so that patients do not feel threatened.

Well, now....Would you lookit that...

Evidence-based medicine seems to indicate that diabetic alternative medicine users may be more likely to seek conventional medical care and engage in positive preventive health care practices.

[erimir]

What's your point?

As your quote notes, it doesn't necessarily indicate a causal relationship.

And it says nothing about the efficacy of alt med, except yoga. And I feel a little strange considering yoga to be "alternative medicine" - it's a form of exercise. Unless yoga practitioners make claims about things other than what you would expect from exercise and stretching. It's not surprising that exercise would be helpful, anyway.

[LadyShea]

I think the point is that not all those who utilize some alternative treatments rely on them to the exclusion of traditional medicine.

Some of the harder core skeptics dismiss all alternatives as quackery and all those who use them as fools.

[Dingfod]

In the process of following up on a warning from a teacher of massage therapy about massage in diabetes, I ran across this bit in Joslin's Diabetes Deskbook (2nd edition, Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkens, 2009, Boston, MA), a handbook guide for primary care physicians, by Richard S. Beaser, M.D., and the Staff of Joslin Diabetes Center, I stumbled across this statement (p. 679):

Many patients with diabetes combine alternative and traditional medicine. Alternative medicine has long been part of most cultures throughout the world. The most common forms of alternative medicine are herbs, chiropractic care, yoga, relatation, acupuncture, ayurveda, biofeedback, chelation, energy healing, Reiki therapy, hypnosis, massage, naturopathy, and homeopathy. A recent report showed that 2472 adults with diabetes included in the study, 48% used some form of alternative medicine. Interestingly, this study found that the use of alternative medicine was associated with increased likelihood of receiving preventive care service and increased emergency department and primary care visits. This association does not necessarily represent causality. In other words, alternative medicine may represent a factor that leads to a more proactive healthcare behavior and use of conventional medical services in adults with diabetes; conversely, high use of conventional medical services may lead to increased use of alternative medicine. Information on the effect of alternative medicine on diabetes care is starting to emerge. For instance, a recent study showed that yoga may have a positive influence on blood glucose and lipid levels in a short period of time in some patients with diabetes. Obviously, more research on alternative medicine use in patients with DM is needed. Health care providers should not forget to ask patients if they are using any form of alternative medicine. This question should be asked in a sensitive and respectful manner so that patients do not feel threatened.

Well, now....Would you lookit that...

Evidence-based medicine seems to indicate that diabetic alternative medicine users may be more likely to seek conventional medical care and engage in positive preventive health care practices.Emphasis mine. Emergency department visits are not preventative.

[godfry n. glad]

I think the point is that not all those who utilize some alternative treatments rely on them to the exclusion of traditional medicine.

Not only that, but evidences are that those who use alternative treatments increase the involvement of the patient in their own care, and the reliance upon traditional,as well as alternative therapies - highly desirable outcomes for conventional physicians.

Some of the harder core skeptics dismiss all alternatives as quackery and all those who use them as fools.

No massage for them.

[LadyShea]

Emergency department visits are not preventative.

I think wrt diabetics, it can be. I don't know a ton about it, but I am betting that timely emergency treatment can help prevent long term complications. I think maintenance is kind of an ongoing series of adjustments to meds and diet.

[Dingfod]

Okay, I should have said emergency department visits are not usually preventative.

[godfry n. glad]

Emergency department visits are not preventative.

I think wrt diabetics, it can be. I don't know a ton about it, but I am betting that timely emergency treatment can help prevent long term complications. I think maintenance is kind of an ongoing series of adjustments to meds and diet.

Ding is obviously unfamiliar with the uses of the article "and", as in, "receiving preventive care service and increased emergency department and primary care visits," which is what the text actually states.

But I think I understand. He's probably still got his knee lodged in his mouth from that last involuntary jerk.

[LadyShea]

Agreed Dingfod, this was specific to diabetes though, so I think "usual" is off the table a bit.

Godfry, step back and take a deep breath. Your OP already sounded a bit "put that in your pipe and smoke it". This can be discussed calmly. You seem to take this really personally.

[ITSOZAZ]

oh i fucking love alternative medicine.

[Ensign Steve]

You don't say! :stunned:

[godfry n. glad]

Agreed Dingfod, this was specific to diabetes though, so I think "usual" is off the table a bit.

Godfry, step back and take a deep breath. Your OP already sounded a bit "put that in your pipe and smoke it". This can be discussed calmly. You seem to take this really personally.

Actually, I initially misread that as erimir's kneejerk response. Still, to read the text and then point out that emergency visits aren't preventive....

Well, I suppose anybody could do that, huh?

As for my attitude on it, you're spot on. I love posting 'evidences' coming out of 'conventional' medicine research that fly in the face of the comfortable preconceptions of the skeptical dogmatists of invasive medicine.

[Dingfod]

I'm out. You will not be pestered by me any more.

[erimir]

Actually, I initially misread that as erimir's kneejerk response.Ha.
I love posting 'evidences' coming out of 'conventional' medicine research that fly in the face of the comfortable preconceptions of the skeptical dogmatists of invasive medicine.I do believe that most of what I've said on the subject has been about the treatments and practitioners, not so much the users of alternative medicine.

I may have said that it can lead to people eschewing traditional care, but that's not the same.

I don't really see anything there that flies in my face. Hence my "So what?" response.

[ChuckF]

Here godfry, have a cup of nothing and you'll feel better.

[Legs]

Speaking of alternative medicine, Suzanne Somers, who pops 60 pills a day (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/suzanne-somers-daily-rout_n_162342.html)and injects her vagina with stuff had some comments on Patrick Swayze's death.


The former "Three's Company" star, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1991 and rejected chemotherapy in favor of natural treatments, reportedly told Toronto-based columnist Shinan Govani that it was Swayze's chemotherapy treatments, not pancreatic cancer, that ended his life prematurely.

"They took this beautiful man and they basically put poison in him," she reportedly said. "Why couldn't they have built him up nutritionally and gotten rid of the toxins in his body? I hate to be this controversial. I'm a singer-dancer-comedienne. But we have an epidemic going on, and I have to say it."

Story (http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/18/suzanne-somers-chemotherapy-patrick-swayze/?test=faces)

:shrug:

[BDS]

If we define "alternative medicine" as "medical therapies for which there is little or no conventional scientific support" it is hardly surprising that there is little scientific support for alternative medicine.

I assume that ALL modern medical therapies were ONCE "alternative".

[ITSOZAZ]

they do do that. they do fill you full of poison and hope it cures the cancer. it's a roll of the dice that it actually works. doctors aren't always smart.

i'd stick something in suzanne somers vagina.

[Corona688]

they do do that. they do fill you full of poison and hope it cures the cancer. Chemotherapy uses drugs that attack or inhibit quickly dividing cells. It's not just known that it can attack some cancers, but why it does -- many types of cancer are quickly-dividing. They don't haphazardly prescribe "poison" to see if it helps, this treatment was designed around currently known characteristics of cancer cells(it has to be the right treatment too, just 'poison' doesn't cut it.) It's also known full well that it's dangerous and uncomfortable, and why it's dangerous and uncomfortable -- some important healthy cells divide quickly too.

This is not remotely the same thing as haphazardly prescribing "poison" in the "hope" it will help. The mechanism, risks, benefits, and odds can be described.

[ITSOZAZ]

poison...crapshoot...whatever.

[Kael]

And if only he'd taken more flaxseed oil he never would have gotten cancer in the first place, right? :rolls:

[godfry n. glad]

It depends upon the cancer. Some 'poisons' are known in terms of their efficacy with certain neoplasms. Other neoplasms are much less tractable and, consequently, in these areas research is a great deal more doubtful and the 'crapshoot' a lot riskier and the results far less reliable. That's why 'clinical trials' are so prevalent in the treatment of some cancers.

To date, I am unaware of any 'alternative therapy' having ANY efficacy at all with any kind of cancer.

[Leesifer]

poison...crapshoot...whatever.

poisons, schmoisons, right?

[ITSOZAZ]

poison...crapshoot...whatever.

poisons, schmoisons, right?


whatever gets you through the night...or the next few years.

[ChuckF]

oo i'd like some schmoison

[Leesifer]

I've got your schmoison right here.

[Corona688]

poison...crapshoot...whatever. I'm pretty sure they don't prescribe crap either.

Did you actually read my post, though? Including that bit about 'describing the odds'? I did not say it was a cure, and it's quite unfair to pretend anyone's trying to hide the odds. It's a last resort treatment.

Knowing as much about the subject as you do, I'm surprised you didn't pick on radiology instead. It's about as subtle a treatment as a pistol; "ready, aim, fire", its accidents far more quick, deadly, and memorable.

[Corona688]

And if only he'd taken more flaxseed oil he never would have gotten cancer in the first place, right? :rolls: We do get more cancer in the West than in places like Japan. It's probably diet-related, but pinning down the details is taking a long time.

[ITSOZAZ]

And if only he'd taken more flaxseed oil he never would have gotten cancer in the first place, right? :rolls: We do get more cancer in the West than in places like Japan. It's probably diet-related, but pinning down the details is taking a long time.

or maybe we're just more cancerous?

[BDS]

To date, I am unaware of any 'alternative therapy' having ANY efficacy at all with any kind of cancer.

Wasn't chemotherapy "alternative" quite recently?

[Corona688]

Wasn't chemotherapy "alternative" quite recently? No.

[BDS]

Wasn't chemotherapy "alternative" quite recently? No.

Why do you say that? It wasn't invented until the 1940s, and wasn't very effective until the 1960s (at least that's my rather undeducated understanding). It's only in the last 50 years that it's been a standard cancer treatment.

Are you saying that in 1950 (say), chemotherapy was not an "alternative therapy"?

[Corona688]

Wasn't chemotherapy "alternative" quite recently? No.

Why do you say that? It wasn't invented until the 1940s, and wasn't very effective until the 1960s (at least that's my rather undeducated understanding).

It's only in the last 50 years that it's been a standard cancer treatment. I'd assumed you could think it through yourself, but for the record:
1) Criticizing a treatment for not existing before it existed is silly.
2) 'Alternative' does not mean 'New'.
3) It began as medical research.
4) There's no forest of effective alternatives even now. There were even fewer then.
5) Its mechanism was grasped from the beginning. This treatment was designed as an application of a newly discovered drug effect.

It being more prevalent now would have more to do with more specific drugs and a better ability to monitor patients under drug therapy.

[Doctor X]

And if only he'd taken more flaxseed oil he never would have gotten cancer in the first place, right? :rolls:

In fact he would have broken all the home-run records. . . .

--J.D.

P.S. If it works it is not "alternative."

[Doctor X]

And if only he'd taken more flaxseed oil he never would have gotten cancer in the first place, right? :rolls: We do get more cancer in the West than in places like Japan. It's probably diet-related, but pinning down the details is taking a long time.

Though, oddly enough, there are other cancers such as stomach cancer, that are more prevalent in Japan--the basis of the film Ikiru.

When people emigrate, the prevalences tend take on the geography, to make a long story short.

--J.D.

[godfry n. glad]

P.S. If it works it is not "alternative."

And, that, folks, is how alternative becomes mainstream conventional medicine. This is because physicians began paying attention to alternatives like 'germ theory', 'sanitary procedures', and aspirin when they were shown to be much better than the prevailing 'theory of humours' and 'bleeding'.

It is merely a semantic game played by allopaths. Particularly sociopathic ones.

[rigorist]

'Evidences'

[Clutch Munny]

P.S. If it works it is not "alternative."

And, that, folks, is how alternative becomes mainstream conventional medicine. This is because physicians began paying attention to alternatives like 'germ theory', 'sanitary procedures', and aspirin when they were shown to be much better than the prevailing 'theory of humours' and 'bleeding'.

It is merely a semantic game played by allopaths. Particularly sociopathic ones.

Well, hang on -- think of the corollary. How does not using (some) treatments that aren't proven to work "merely a semantic game"?

D: "I'm going to treat your ear infection with antibiotics."
P: "Ah, conventional medicine, proven to work. Go ahead."
D: "You know, that is merely a semantic game."
P: "Uh, okay, whatever. I probably do just use 'conventional' to mean 'well-evidenced by scientific standards'. But I doubt that this is trivial, since it amounts to distinguishing reliable from unreliable treatments -- at least roughly and readily."
D: "Whatever. Anyhow, I'm also going to treat your ear infection by poking your feet and giving you a crystal to wear on a chain."
P: "No, you aren't; because there's no evidence that either of those things works."
D: "That too is merely a semantic game."
P" "Obviously not. I'm not exercising my fiat over the meanings of words; I'm exercising it over the treatments I accept. That's not semantics; it's evidence-based medicine. Which is not to say that allopathy is always evidence-based; not by a mile. But it's an obvious step in the right direction."

[godfry n. glad]

P.S. If it works it is not "alternative."

And, that, folks, is how alternative becomes mainstream conventional medicine. This is because physicians began paying attention to alternatives like 'germ theory', 'sanitary procedures', and aspirin when they were shown to be much better than the prevailing 'theory of humours' and 'bleeding'.

It is merely a semantic game played by allopaths. Particularly sociopathic ones.

Well, hang on -- think of the corollary. How does not using (some) treatments that aren't proven to work "merely a semantic game"?

D: "I'm going to treat your ear infection with antibiotics."
P: "Ah, conventional medicine, proven to work. Go ahead."
D: "You know, that is merely a semantic game."
P: "Uh, okay, whatever. I probably do just use 'conventional' to mean 'well-evidenced by scientific standards'. But I doubt that this is trivial, since it amounts to distinguishing reliable from unreliable treatments -- at least roughly and readily."
D: "Whatever. Anyhow, I'm also going to treat your ear infection by poking your feet and giving you a crystal to wear on a chain."
P: "No, you aren't; because there's no evidence that either of those things works."
D: "That too is merely a semantic game."
P" "Obviously not. I'm not exercising my fiat over the meanings of words; I'm exercising it over the treatments I accept. That's not semantics; it's evidence-based medicine. Which is not to say that allopathy is always evidence-based; not by a mile. But it's an obvious step in the right direction."

Don't forget to include all the time that 'conventional practitioners' spend savaging anyone using a methodology which is considered 'alternative'. Indeed, despite Doctor X's claims, many "alternatives" continue to be considered "alternative" even after they have been repeatedly shown to be effective in treating illness or disease. It took decades for physicians to finally accept that chiropractic, when used correctly, is a better, and more efficacious means of treating many sources of back pain which 'conventional' medicine required medicating with pharmaceuticals which made the user non-functional and demanded that those subject suffer more pain for longer periods of time. So much for evidences of effectiveness with the conventional medicos have not only ignored, but actively attempted to suppress and deny.

The same with massage therapy.

The same with acupuncture therapy.

It's nice to see allopaths finally accepting that alternative therapies have a place. Not all...but those which have been shown to help patients. It's nice to see institutions like mine, teaching and research medical institutions, working with alternative medicine teaching and research institutions in actually testing the claims of alternative practitioners.

Given the level at which 'conventional' medicine kills its patients, at least in the US, I'm not sure that it is 'better' than 'alternative' medicine.

[Clutch Munny]

Don't forget to include all the time that 'conventional practitioners' spend savaging anyone using a methodology which is considered 'alternative'.

Don't forget it... where? This has no bearing on anything I wrote. You're supposed to engage what people actually say, not just quote them and then recite a script.

It took decades...

Yes, mainstream medicine is imperfect. So is science itself. The movement for evidence-based medicine is not decades old, though.

...for physicians to finally accept that chiropractic, when used correctly, is a better, and more efficacious means of treating many sources of back pain

Set aside that the evidence for chiropractic's being better is dubious; the most optimistic meta-analyses, to my knowledge, support only that it's no worse on back pain. In any case, do you think this slow and partial acceptance had something to do with basing the practice on the theory of subluxions, and making all manner of wild claims regarding what else it might treat besides back and neck pain -- earache, menstrual cramps, you name it?* When it has a crank underlying theory and when most of its claims to cure various conditions are false, the general approach of being sceptical only seems sensible.

(Yes, yes -- a hundred and twenty years ago, some country doctors believed in bad humours. I understand that physicists of the same era believed in the luminiferous ether. Physics is bunk!)

* Indeed, FWIW, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Scope_of_practice) provides a source suggesting that some chiropractors are worried precisely about whether evidence-based standards "could limit the scope of chiropractic practice to treating backs and necks."

[BDS]

It's only in the last 50 years that it's been a standard cancer treatment. I'd assumed you could think it through yourself, but for the record:

1) Criticizing a treatment for not existing before it existed is silly.
2) 'Alternative' does not mean 'New'.
3) It began as medical research.
4) There's no forest of effective alternatives even now. There were even fewer then.
5) Its mechanism was grasped from the beginning. This treatment was designed as an application of a newly discovered drug effect.

It being more prevalent now would have more to do with more specific drugs and a better ability to monitor patients under drug therapy.

What does "alternative" mean, then? Obviously, if a "new" medical treatment is effective, and given a rational medical community, it won't remain "alternative" for very long. "Alternative medicine" generally suggests "an alternative to the standard treatment". Therefore, "alternative" DOES include (by this definition) "new treatments", although it also includes some that are not new, but are non-standard.

Of course I agree that "criticizing a treatment for not existing before it existed" is silly. But I'm not the one who wants to suggest that "alternative medicine" is a universally pejorative term. As far as I can tell, that's your bailiwick. So I agree with your point #1. I've covered point #2 ("alternative" means "new" + "other things"). Point # 3 is irrelevant. Point #4 is interesting, but also irrlevant. Obviously, since chemotherapy is a difficult, painful and often unssuccessful treatment option, it will be abandonned if we ever discover something that works better. Point #5 is also irrelevant. The "mechanisms" of some "alternative medicines" are grasped now (chiropractors yammer endlessly about the mechanism by which manipulations work, for example). And the "mechanisms" by which some standard treatments work are NOT grasped much of the time (aspirin is a classic example).

It seems clear to me that you want to dismiss "alternative medicine". Fair enough. 99% of it is ineffective. But the notion that anything that IS effective is not, and never was, "alternative" is simply silly. Penicillin was a natural mold. Vaccines sound whacky (inject someone with germs to keep him well.). Many medicines were derived from herbs originally. Although (as I said at the start) if some new technique or drug is effective it probably won't remain "alternative" for long, to suggest that it was NEVER "alternative" is simply a rhetorical tactic by which you are able to dismiss(unfairly) "alternative medicine".

[BDS]

P" "Obviously not. I'm not exercising my fiat over the meanings of words; I'm exercising it over the treatments I accept. That's not semantics; it's evidence-based medicine. Which is not to say that allopathy is always evidence-based; not by a mile. But it's an obvious step in the right direction."

Your patient is making a reasonable decision. However, we cannot infer that he is making the decision that will best serve his health. As in the case of new treatments that are eventually proved effective (but have not been proven yet), it is POSSIBLE that an unproven treatment is MORE effective than the standard, evidence-based treatment.

In addition, the patient might have access to evidence of which the medical community is unaware. For example, if every time a person gets a headache he gets rid of it by eating a banana, he'd be foolish to stop eating bananas for lack of double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials.

[Corona688]

What does "alternative" mean, then? Obviously, if a "new" medical treatment is effective, and given a rational medical community, it won't remain "alternative" for very long. Yes... Think about it.

Research converts alternative treatment to mainstream. (Or more frequently, discredits it. Research-derived ideas aren't immune to this either.) But it needs to be good research.It seems clear to me that you want to dismiss "alternative medicine". It seems clear to me you have a hobby-horse and are riding it to destruction. I have done no such thing.Fair enough. 99% of it is ineffective. But the notion that anything that IS effective is not, and never was, "alternative" is simply silly. Not really. As already repeatedly stated, it's not about effectiveness, it's about information. Even though it's possible for an alternative treament to work, little is known about its mechanisms, effectiveness, and risks, which makes it very difficult to make intelligent decisions about. And the question of how to cut up the limited pie of research money is a very, very hot topic...

[Corona688]

In addition, the patient might have access to evidence of which the medical community is unaware. For example, if every time a person gets a headache he gets rid of it by eating a banana, he'd be foolish to stop eating bananas for lack of double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials. It's important to remember that bananas are already known to be harmless. The treatment, even if ineffective, can't hurt. This is seldom so obvious.

[godfry n. glad]

It seems clear to me that you want to dismiss "alternative medicine". It seems clear to me you have a hobby-horse and are riding it to destruction. I have done no such thing.

That is one of the most laughable lies I've seen here for quite some time.

YOU are the one riding a hobby horse. YOU try to paint anyone who deigns to suggest that ANY form of ANY 'alternative' therapy is a whackjob. I don't go to chiropractors who promise to cure asthma or revive my chi; those are quacks set up for malpractice, just like surgeons who promise what they cannot deliver and hide behind expensive legal protection.

Some alternative therapies work for some conditions. One needs to pick and choose amongst those for their efficacy in threating whatever condition....even with the assistance of your physician's advice, like some in my community do.

Yes, there is quackery in alternative therapies...a fair amount, actually. But there is a shitload in what passes for 'conventional medicine', as well, and is largely denied. Skepticism should be used in assessing 'conventional medicine' practitioners as well. Ask questions. Assure yourself, to your standards, that your practitioner has YOUR interests as their interests, rather than making their interests yours ($$$).

Me? I came under the knife of a surgeon asshole, who promised results he could not deliver, and, despite his eminent reputation, botched the job, leaving me permanently disabled, then bilked my health insurance company of multiple thousands of dollars (for doing the procedure which disabled me), and then hid behind institutional barriers and legal threat, to walk away totally irresponsible. Now, I get everything in writing. If they promise...that is what I suggest: Get it in writing, with their signature appended.

Otherwise, the quacks lie their asses off. Also...Second opinions don't mean shit. Physicians with MD after their names cover each others' asses.

That's MY hobby horse.

[BDS]

It's important to remember that bananas are already known to be harmless. The treatment, even if ineffective, can't hurt. This is seldom so obvious.

Actually, it's often obvious. Herbal remedies, for example, are exempt from new drug safety testing if they are on the government's G.R.A.S. list (Generally Recognized as Safe -- based on centuries of use). Although dietary supplements CAN be dangerous, they are generally quite safe. If they are derived from food, there is an assumption of safety (just like there is an assumption for safety for bananas). Of course food can contain e-coli or other contaminants that make it dangerous, but it's reasonable to assume that it's generally safe.

Yoga, bio-feedback, and many other "alternative" techniques have this same advantage -- they may not work, but they probably won't do any harm, either. Chemotherapy, on the other hand, does lots of harm (although the benefits may be worth the risk).

No doubt information is the key to transforming an effective alternative treatment into a standard treatment -- as it should be. But the treatment was equally effective before the double-blind study as after it.

[Corona688]

No doubt information is the key to transforming an effective alternative treatment into a standard treatment -- as it should be. But the treatment was equally effective before the double-blind study as after it. Preaching to the choir here. I'm all for research. The G.R.A.S. list is a double-edged sword of course. Except for certain classes of drugs, things without significant effect on the body are unlikely to have an important therapeutic effect either...

And surgery in the US would sure seem to be a crapshoot all right. I know several people besides godfry who've been hurt now. They're closely related, so it'd be quite disproportionate for them to be singled out so much. Nor was it one bungling surgeon but several. I don't think they could get away with it up here. But their surgery to fix the problems of the other surgeries seem to have been done competently... It seems to all be who you know...

[erimir]

That's MY hobby horse.Oh don't worry.

We're well aware.

[godfry n. glad]

That's MY hobby horse.Oh don't worry.

We're well aware.

And you have a glowing career in front of you, as a health insurance salesman.

[Kael]

There being a great deal of overlap between the fields of linguistics and insurance sales...

[erimir]

That's MY hobby horse.Oh don't worry.

We're well aware.

And you have a glowing career in front of you, as a health insurance salesman.:wtf:

1. I'm a linguist

2. I'm no fan of insurance companies, and I support a single-payer system, or at the very least much heavier regulation like in Switzerland, Germany or Japan, etc.

3. I'd make a horrible salesman

[godfry n. glad]

There being a great deal of overlap between the fields of linguistics and insurance sales...

Oh...okay...health insurance coverage writer. A perfect place.

[erimir]

If you keep riding that hobby horse like that, it'll die of exhaustion.

[Kael]

Oh, right, I forgot. If you don't agree with godfry you must be in the insurance industry.

BTW, do you actually know what a linguist studies, godfry, or do you just assume it works well toward nefarious purposes?

[godfry n. glad]

Oh, right, I forgot. If you don't agree with godfry you must be in the insurance industry.

BTW, do you actually know what a linguist studies, godfry, or do you just assume it works well toward nefarious purposes?


Anything can 'work well towards nefarious purposes'. It depends upon the person and I adjudge erimir as sufficiently low in civility, compassion, and intelligence to do quite well twisting the definitions of words for his health insurance employers. He'd be quite the little prevaricating catch for them. He could be their little work twister for pay. What more could a professional linguist want? (To spend his time taking tongue samples off depressors? I think not...not when he could make beaucoup bucks fucking people over with arcane and obscure redefinitions of contract terms.)

Yes, I have a vague idea of what linguistics is and I know it includes semantics, which would be a superlative addition to the bastards writing the obscuritanist language of health insurance contracts and being able maintain the ability to argue how many meanings of any particular word can dance of the head of fine subcutaneous needle.

Hey...He's got the apologist thing for the medical quacks down pat. It can't be that far a reach. I think it's quite a neat fit.

[ChuckF]

Yes, I have a vague idea of what linguistics is and I know it includes semantics, which would be a superlative addition to the bastards writing the obscuritanist language of health insurance contracts and being able maintain the ability to argue how many meanings of any particular word can dance of the head of fine subcutaneous needle.
Yes because that is what semantics is all about. Jesus godfry you're a retard.

[erimir]

BTW, do you actually know what a linguist studies, godfry, or do you just assume it works well toward nefarious purposes?You know, I thought this was a silly question before I saw godfry's response.
What more could a professional linguist want? (To spend his time taking tongue samples off depressors? I think not...not when he could make beaucoup bucks fucking people over with arcane and obscure redefinitions of contract terms.)Ummmmm... being a linguist never involves taking samples off of tongue depressors. The lingu- element of linguistics only has to do with the metaphorical meaning of "tongue" - language.

Well, there is some discussion of physical tongues, but only in so far as tongues are necessary for producing the sounds of language.
Yes, I have a vague idea of what linguistics isApparently quite vague.
and I know it includes semantics, which would be a superlative addition to the bastards writing the [obscurantist] language of health insurance contracts and being able maintain the ability to argue how many meanings of any particular word can dance of the head of fine subcutaneous needle.Funny, we've never discussed anything of that sort in my linguistics classes.

Polysemy is an interesting phenomenon, but linguists aren't trained in arguing semantics, but the description of them, or how the mind constructs them, what sort of changes occur to them over time, etc. But sure, a background in linguistics would probably be helpful for that. It's hardly necessary tho.

But anyway, my specialization (and indeed the specialization of the entire linguistics department I'm part of) is sociolinguistics. The study of the interaction of language with sociology. How do people use language in different social situations? How is language used to mark national/regional/ethnic identity? How do men and women differ in language use? In what different ways do multilingual people use the languages they know? How are languages and dialects changing over time? How are speakers of non-standard dialects stigmatized and discriminated against? How are media depictions of speakers of particular dialects or with particular accents used to reflect and/or reinforce these forms of discrimination? How are these forms of discrimination used in essence as proxies for racist or classist, etc. discrimination?

For example, one of the things one of the professors in my department has been working on for a long time is creating a dialect/language variety curriculum (and getting it into use in schools) that teaches students about how all dialects follow systematic rules, and none is inherently superior to another, and also teaches the teachers to realize that their students home varieties are not indicators of intelligence or lack thereof and that they'll learn Standard English better if this is recognized and dialect features are understood by the teacher (it's easier to tell a child what to use instead of "He be running" if you understand what "He be running" means in the first place).

But yes, it's all very nefarious... teaching black and hillbilly kids not to be ashamed of the way they learned to speak at home. Pretty soon they might think that there's nothing shameful about being black and/or poor and rural.

(btw, if any of you remember the Oakland Ebonics controversy, it's this sort of program that people got all upset about)

I'm sure you'll still say some more stupid stuff about me being an insurance company apologist, but at least maybe you'll have a better understanding of linguistics.

[godfry n. glad]

Y'know, erimir, I don't give a shit what you waste your time at.

[Kael]

Unless, of course, it's working for a health insurance company. Then he cares very deeply.

[godfry n. glad]

Unless, of course, it's working for a health insurance company. Then he cares very deeply.

Who? Erimir? Yeah...I can see that disappointment of not being able to tell those who were incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with the people in the next town that they were still okay might be devestating.

Having read his description, I think he'll be lucky to get a job pushing fries for Micky D.

Yet another reason to not give a shit about erimir, or his opinions.

Back to ignore....

[ChuckF]

Yeah...I can see that disappointment of not being able to tell those who were incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with the people in the next town that they were still okay might be devestating.
Syntactician needed itt! :freakout:
Back to ignore....
You're such a silly liar godfry. And also a mouthbreather. No, really. lawl

[erimir]

Who? Erimir? Yeah...I can see that disappointment of not being able to tell those who were incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with the people in the next town that they were still okay might be devestating.Ummmm... what?

Sense make that doesn't sentence any.
Having read his description, I think he'll be lucky to get a job pushing fries for Micky D.And here I thought I was well-qualified to become a purveyor of semantic word-mazes to insurance companies. Now I find I'm barely qualified to serve fat-patties and HFCS packets.
Yet another reason to not give a shit about erimir, or his opinions.I don't see how that follows.
Back to ignore....Whatever you say.

Like I said at the beginning of the thread: the article in your OP doesn't actually contradict anything I've said or believe. That you would like to believe that it does is merely a reflection of the ways you demonize anyone who doesn't agree with you.

In your world, supporting evidence-based medicine is converted into supporting dishonest doctors, greedy pharmaceutical and insurance companies and treatments that aren't proven to work and are often harmful - as long as they're done by MDs. It's nothing but a completely distorted representation of my positions and the positions of other people on the board. I probably agree with you on the majority of health care issues.

Maybe someday, if you'd stop being a raging (and that's literally raging) crotchety old fucktard, you'd realize that.

[Naru]

Best rageout ever :rage:

[Naru]

Anything can 'work well towards nefarious purposes'. It depends upon the person and I adjudge erimir as sufficiently low in civility, compassion, and intelligence* to do quite well twisting the definitions of words for his health insurance employers.

All trolling aside, godfry, you are the biggest asshole I have ever met on the internet. Fuck you, you self-righteous, hypocritical fuckwit.

*Back to trolling: LOL irony.

[Smilin]

...............if you'd stop being a raging (and that's literally raging) crotchety old fucktard, you'd realize that.


Mind if I use this as my new user title?

[Adam]

:lol: This thread made my morning.

Who? Erimir? Yeah...I can see that disappointment of not being able to tell those who were incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation with the people in the next town that they were still okay might be devestating.Ummmm... what?

Sense make that doesn't sentence any.

Oh, stewardess, I speak Rage.

Godfry misinterpreted Kael's suggestion that he, godfry, only cares what you "waste your time" doing if you're working for an evil insurance company as a suggestion that you, erimir, would only consider your time wasted if you were unable to pursue your dream, which he believes to be falsely telling speakers of non-mainstream American English dialects (i.e. those incapable of "carrying on an intelligent conversation with the people in the next town") that they are "still OK".

[Crumb]

You shouldn't start or post in threads like these, gng. :nojustno:

[Naru]

You shouldn't post, gng. :nojustno:

fify

[erimir]

you, erimir, would only consider your time wasted if you were unable to pursue your dream, which he believes to be falsely telling speakers of non-mainstream American English dialects (i.e. those incapable of "carrying on an intelligent conversation with the people in the next town") that they are "still OK".Oooooh.

But I didn't even say what my research interests are.

I'm interested in researching which words will piss off old men on the internet the most.

[Adam]

Sorry, dude, I think you're going to have to go back to flipping burgers or writing insurance contracts. That's already been figured out.

"cell phone"
"national park"
"Merry Christmas"
"medical doctor"
"daffodil"

[Ensign Steve]

"California"
"bicycle"

[Crumb]

You shouldn't post, gng. :nojustno:

fify
I don't agree with that at all though.

I like godfry. :yup: I like to read his posts on subjects that don't make him go insane. :yup:

godfry: If you read what erimir wrote initially and how you responded without the anger or whatever it is that is clouding your judgment here, I think you might have a different view of what went on in this thread.

Just sayin'

[Clutch Munny]

Don't write them out like that! Jeez. Even just by accident. You never know what you could -- bicycle activist! -- set off unwittingly.



ETA: Beaten to the punch by ES, dagnabbit.

ETA: Agree with Crumb summat, but do expect that gng must have some sense of humour about his own obsessions and can take a ribbing about them.

[godfry n. glad]

You shouldn't start or post in threads like these, gng. :nojustno:

What?

If I have an opinion that the cumgarglers don't happen to cotton to, it's my job to stfu?

Sorry, but I hope your feelings aren't too hurt if I disagree with you.

[Crumb]

It doesn't hurt my feelings to be disagreed with. It might hurt them to have my position completely misrepresented simply because I disagree with you. It appears you have spared me that fate though.

[godfry n. glad]

It doesn't hurt my feelings to be disagreed with. It might hurt them to have my position completely misrepresented simply because I disagree with you. It appears you have spared me that fate though.

You don't dish it out, so you don't get it back in spades.

Unlike any one of the cumgarglers.

[Adam]

lolcumgarglers

Godfry, I sincerely hope that you someday figure out that people don't get on your case (or, in Crumb's case here, politely suggest you might want to back off) because you "have an opinion they don't cotton to" so much as because you have a habit, when discussing certain topics that appear to be hot buttons for you, of going into full attack mode and mischaracterizing other peoples' opinions in the course of delivering a one size fits all rant about the evils of whatever it is that's crawled up your ass.

[LadyShea]

Godfry, I have to agree. If the topic is one of your hot buttons, you tend to get nasty. As I urged on page one of this thread, this can be discussed calmly.

I use both regular doctors as well as some alternatives, they can be compatible.

[ChuckF]

It doesn't hurt my feelings to be disagreed with. It might hurt them to have my position completely misrepresented simply because I disagree with you. It appears you have spared me that fate though.

You don't dish it out, so you don't get it back in spades.

Unlike any one of the cumgarglers.
I'd like to point out that I dish it out but I don't get it back, thanks to the glory of pretend ignore. :yup:

Of course even when you "take me off of ignore" wink wink, the only thing I really "get back" is a helping of your weaksauce tantrum and maybe some lame-ass name burn. So whatever, asshole.

[godfry n. glad]

Oh, with this group, I've been nasty quite some time. This is ChuckF and his cumgarglers.

I just open these threads for the lulz...y'know, get'em all worked up....get me all worked up...and throw around some insults. They always accommodate and almost always start with their willful ignorance and physician-idolatry.

It would be nice if conventional medicine were "evidence-based", rather than "lucre-based", but that situation does not now prevail. It would also be nice that when the physician-idolators encounter evidence which counters their preconceptions, they might acknowledge the evidence and revise their over-general condemnations of anybody providing direct health care who doesn't happen to be a bona fide conventional physician (or designated underling stand-in who covers when the physican is on the golf course). Instead, they misrepresent me, and anyone who might use any form of health care of which they don't happen to approve.

The little condescending attempt by erimir to lecture me about linguistics was amusing, too. What a mewling pimple-faced little twerp.

[Adam]

:ohsnap:

We got told. Or something.

[BracesForImpact]

Who's scruffy lookin'?

[erimir]

They always accommodate and almost always start with their willful ignorance and physician-idolatry.Care to point out any instances of me engaging in physician idolatry, especially in this thread?

It'll probably be hard because it's just bullshit that exists in your head.
The little condescending attempt by erimir to lecture me about linguistics was amusing, too.I condescend to those who don't know what they're talking about and make idiotic, nonsensical statements that misrepresent my positions and my character.
What a mewling pimple-faced little twerp.:ohnoes:

Better to be a bitter angry old man, I suppose.

btw, shouldn't this thread be called alternative "medicine"?

[Adam]

If the topic is one of your hot buttons, you tend to get nasty.

While this is true, I feel like I should clarify that I, personally, would not give it a second thought if godfry were merely nasty when discussing his hot button topics. It doesn't really bother me when someone calls me an asshole or whatever in the course of making an argument. I think we all know I'm an asshole already. No, what I love about godfry rages is the fact that they rarely even pretend to be arguments, or even to address anything that's actually been said. They're all prepackaged screeds against something or other, and if you disagree with any facet of something godfry is claiming about Hot Button Topic X, you're getting the full rant about X, whether or not it even applies to what you've said.

My favorite example remains the cell phone thread in which I questioned the wisdom of instituting a regressive tax as an answer to a recession and was met with page after page of statistics about cell phones and driving, and I'm probably drunk right now, and sex chat lines, and you support manslaughter, and DID YOU KNOW THAT SOMETIMES CELL PHONES RING IN THE LIBRARY* RAWWRRRRR!!!!


* - library!

[Kael]

Indeed, and express skepticism about alternative 'medicine' (regardless of the specifics of your post and aside from the fact that godfry himself has stated skepticism of various alternative treatments) why, then you must be one of those liberal ninnies that holds absolute faith in the current medical system and blindly reject anything not endorsed by someone with a fancy piece of paper that says 'MD' on it. Also, you probably kick puppies or something, while talking on your cellphone.

[Corona688]

I just open these threads for the lulz...y'know, get'em all worked up....get me all worked up...and throw around some insults. Don't be so proud of your subtlety, even I could tell. We've managed some actual discussion here despite you, for the sheer hell of it, and I think we got the better part of the deal.

[JamesBannon]

godfry, you need to take a chill pill. As for medical accidents, I could tell you some horror stories that I have either heard or witnessed. Put it this way, if anyone is ever in need of intrathecal treatment for a malignant disease, insist that the trays are prepared separately from those using IV as a delivery system. Also insist on inspecting the needles and syringes. If they are not clearly and unambiguously labelled, then insist on getting someone that knows what the fuck they are doing.

[Watser?]

godfry, you need to take a chill pill.

I an' I has alternative medicashun fo' that
:rasta: