2 of 4
2
Nurses and woo
Posted: 01 January 2010 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4108
Joined  2006-11-28

Sorry for the experience you’re having, Asanta. I run into the same thing all the time among my fellow vets. It is puzzling but true that intelligence and education offer precious little protection against false belief. We all carry the same cognitive blind spots around as a finction of how our brains are built, so “post hoc ergo propter hoc” reasoning and the emotional power (despite the low reliability) or anecdotes and personal experiences affect us just as strongly as those without a scientific education. James Randi has talked eloquently about how scientists are in some ways scientists are even more gullible than others because we tend to believe we are harder to fool and we tend to practice and expect honesty and care in the gathering and presentation of information.  If we’re lucky, at least we can learn to have a little humility and skepticism about our own experiences and how much weight they should be given. Still, I bang my head against te brick wall of clinicians’ belief about the value of their own personal judgement and experience over controlled research all the time, so I know how you feel. :-(

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2010 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4108
Joined  2006-11-28

skepticeye,

No, science and skepticism are not about dismissing or disproving things a priori. On the other hand, they are about recognizing the different value of different levels of evidence. Chiropractic has been studied in detail in terms of the underlying rationale and actual clinical effects for decades, and the bottom line is fairly clear: mild benefit in terms of subjective measures of outcome, namely discomfort, for patients with idiopathic lower back pain, roughly equivalent to conventional physical therapy, NSAIDs, and so on. I have listed some great and thorough resources below on the subject. So if you are suggesting your personal experience justifies questioning these conclusions or “further research,” I have to disagree.

The conclusions of most skeptics about the limited benefit and utter theoretical irrationality of chiropractic are not knee-jerk but are based on an abundance of sound reasoning and data and I’m afraid they should outweigh individual experiences and testimonials if we were strictly rational creatures. Of course, we aren’t, but since you clearly strive to be I’d encourage you to apply your skepticism as much to your on experiences as to anything else. That is, as Asanta illustrates with her OP, the hardest thing to apply skepticism to. To say that science canot explain everything is clearly true. to say that this and your own experiences justify a “what the heck, let’s give it a try” attitude towards medical interventions that are either unproven in terms of safety and efficacy, or largely disproven such as chiropractic and homeopathy, is not rational. It is not being skeptical, it is merely privileging your personal experiences over other forms of evidence. This is a natural human thing to do, but the history of medicine illustrates clearly why it is a mistake, and why true humility as well as true skepticism require we accept our own experiences as fundamentally inferior to controlled research and do our best to ignore the compelling but unreliable conclusions they lead us to.

Science-Based medicine-Chiropractic

Chirobase


Snake Oil Science by R. Barker Bausell
A thorough examination of the principles and pitfalls of scientific research into medical therapies and a solid review of the evidence for and against many popular CAM practices.

Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine by S. Singh and E. Ernst
An outstanding review of many CAM practices from and evidence-based perspective.

[ Edited: 01 January 2010 11:06 AM by mckenzievmd ]
 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 January 2010 08:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

One of the problems most people have with evaluating any treatment is the “I was sick, I took a pill, I got better -therefore, the pill cured me”  (post hoc ergo propter hoc) thinking.  Although there are chemical modifiers now, I recall a statement made by a psychiatrist in an unusually honest moment in the 1950s.  “Psychiatry can cure about two-thirds of depressed patients with two years therapy.  If untreated, it takes that same two-thirds of depressed people about twenty-four months to come out of their depression.” 

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2010 12:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6192
Joined  2006-12-20
Occam - 01 January 2010 08:51 PM

One of the problems most people have with evaluating any treatment is the “I was sick, I took a pill, I got better -therefore, the pill cured me”  (post hoc ergo propter hoc) thinking.  Although there are chemical modifiers now, I recall a statement made by a psychiatrist in an unusually honest moment in the 1950s.  “Psychiatry can cure about two-thirds of depressed patients with two years therapy.  If untreated, it takes that same two-thirds of depressed people about twenty-four months to come out of their depression.” 

Occam

Yes, what seemed to be an additional factor in this case was the nurse thought she had something she didn’t, that she knew doesn’t just go away, and that’s why she was convinced that when she had the “treatment” and it went away that she really was “cured”.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2010 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
StephenLawrence - 02 January 2010 12:20 AM

Yes, what seemed to be an additional factor in this case was the nurse thought she had something she didn’t, that she knew doesn’t just go away, and that’s why she was convinced that when she had the “treatment” and it went away that she really was “cured”.
Stephen

Yes, and as a nurse in our specialty, she should know that a person doesn’t get systemic fungal infection without immunosuppresion, and that type of infection makes you VERY ill and puts you into that hospital at the least, and usually in the ICU. It is very difficult to cure in people susceptible to it.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2010 02:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

While, as another nurse, even as a supervisor, you can’t say too much, you may want to point out to the doctors what she’s telling their patients.  Knowing the ego of the average doctor, they’ll probably be quite quick to stomp on her and tell her to shut her mouth around the patients.  And if she doesn’t, she may get formal hand slapping from the hospital administration.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2010 10:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
Occam - 02 January 2010 02:19 PM

While, as another nurse, even as a supervisor, you can’t say too much, you may want to point out to the doctors what she’s telling their patients.  Knowing the ego of the average doctor, they’ll probably be quite quick to stomp on her and tell her to shut her mouth around the patients.  And if she doesn’t, she may get formal hand slapping from the hospital administration.

Occam

I have not heard her espouse her pseudoscience to our patient’s families, only in reference to herself and her children’s ‘treatments’. Over the years I’ve had nurses try to do my astrology chart, read my palms, tell me they can see my ‘aura’, and an ‘angel’ who was ‘helping’ me.  I tell them up front that I do not believe in what ever they are pushing. In the ICU where I previously worked, one of the nurses ‘saw’ a ghost in one of the rooms and convinced a large number of the staff that the room was haunted by some unknown previous patient. That was difficult to combat. I should have gone to administration with that, but I wasn’t sure they would have been much better… Most of these nurses do their jobs well and I have never heard them discuss these whacky beliefs with patients or families (thank goodness!).

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2010 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17
mckenzievmd - 01 January 2010 11:00 AM

skepticeye,
No, science and skepticism are not about dismissing or disproving things a priori. On the other hand, they are about recognizing the different value of different levels of evidence. Chiropractic has been studied in detail in terms of the underlying rationale and actual clinical effects for decades, and the bottom line is fairly clear: mild benefit in terms of subjective measures of outcome, namely discomfort, for patients with idiopathic lower back pain, roughly equivalent to conventional physical therapy, NSAIDs, and so on. I have listed some great and thorough resources below on the subject. So if you are suggesting your personal experience justifies questioning these conclusions or “further research,” I have to disagree.

I don’t disagree with you essentially. I have simply said what you have said, that science is not about dismissing things as impossible or non existent. However this is quite a big concept for many people to get their heads around completely. The research you quoted is fine. I have no reason to question it. But it is only research carried out to date and limited by the natural limitations that all such alternative medicine suffer from.
Keep in mind things like the cause of Stomach ulcers. For decade upon decade of super modern, advanced, medicine all research supported the accepted ‘fact’ that it was caused by stress etc etc.  It wasn’t until an Australian guy popped up and proved that actually it wasn’t, and it is caused by a bacterial infection. Science is only about what we know ‘so far’.

The conclusions of most skeptics about the limited benefit and utter theoretical irrationality of chiropractic are not knee-jerk but are based on an abundance of sound reasoning and data and I’m afraid they should outweigh individual experiences and testimonials if we were strictly rational creatures. Of course, we aren’t, but since you clearly strive to be I’d encourage you to apply your skepticism as much to your on experiences as to anything else. That is, as Asanta illustrates with her OP, the hardest thing to apply skepticism to. To say that science canot explain everything is clearly true. to say that this and your own experiences justify a “what the heck, let’s give it a try” attitude towards medical interventions that are either unproven in terms of safety and efficacy, or largely disproven such as chiropractic and homeopathy, is not rational. It is not being skeptical, it is merely privileging your personal experiences over other forms of evidence. This is a natural human thing to do, but the history of medicine illustrates clearly why it is a mistake, and why true humility as well as true skepticism require we accept our own experiences as fundamentally inferior to controlled research and do our best to ignore the compelling but unreliable conclusions they lead us to.

Very well stated and argued. Honestly. However I disagree, though I doubt if I can express it as well as you.
Scepticism and rationality do not require us to refrain from any action that is not rationally logical and deterministic. Applying scepticism in our lives, I believe, does not mean applying these rigid demands for such rationality/logic/determinism on every choice we make or every interaction or every problem we try to solve. When we put cash into a drinks machine at a train station and nothing comes out, it makes sense to give it a kick. There is no scientific or controlled research justification for doing so. Only some anecdotal personal experience passed down to us by family and friends. What really matters in deciding to give it a kick is .. what are the chances it will work and what are the chances we will suffer any negative outcome as a result. As there is little chance of a negative outcome if we do it when the security people are not in earshot, we have nothing to lose and who knows it might just work and we’ll get our drink.
If we apply our scepticism to this situation it’s only relevance comes in when we decide to pass on this information to others and what we actually ‘believe’ ourselves. We don’t rally ‘believe’ or tell others that if ever such a machine doesn’t cough up, just kick it and it has a good chance of working. We don’t have any evidence to say that.

I don’t ‘believe’ in acupuncture or chiropracting or homeopathy. I have no theoretical or real mechanism for them or evidence to cause me to ‘believe’ them. However this does not mean that I cannot be a true sceptic if I take the same strategy as the drinks unit above. And if the chances of a negative outcome are either miniscule or non existent then it is actually perfectly rational and reasonable to take a chance and risk losing 50 euros by trying them if the gain is significant. When it comes to our health usually the gain is significant and the rational and logical action can very well be to proceed and try it.

You say “accept our own experiences as fundamentally inferior to controlled research”

I am extremely sceptical about this statement for the same reasons. Controlled research cannot an should never be placed on a pedestal as the ultimate ‘truth’. Controlled research is only as good as the researchers and the nature of their research. Too much research is agenda driven, financially driven and simply poorly executed. These are the facts of modern science. That is not to denigrate science ! only to point out that even science has flaws and it’s limitation. We only have to survey the state of “controlled research” into the use of mobile phones in cars to see the most appalling standard of research, and also to the state of research into the positive or negative affects of certain foods/ingredients/supplements. Both areas are riddled with all three of the flaws I stated.

As regards the links you offer. Thank you and I will give them a visit. However I am not a fan of agenda driven web sites either for or against such topics, I prefer to remain a ‘neutral’ sceptic. Sceptics that follow such a negative agenda have lost their scepticism in my personal view because a true sceptic should be sceptical about both sides of the argument.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2010 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4108
Joined  2006-11-28

scepticeye,

Thanks for a thoughtful and smart response. I imagine we’ll end up agreeing to disagree, but I’d like to respond since I think you raise good points.

Keep in mind things like the cause of Stomach ulcers. For decade upon decade of super modern, advanced, medicine all research supported the accepted ‘fact’ that it was caused by stress etc etc.  It wasn’t until an Australian guy popped up and proved that actually it wasn’t, and it is caused by a bacterial infection. Science is only about what we know ‘so far’.

This is a currently very popular example of the ultimate validation of an idea initially dismissed by mainstream medicine, and is usually applied, as I believe it is by you, as a caution against rejecting seemingly unlikely ideas out of hand. There is no question that scientists, being human beings, commonly do this and that true skepticism requires monitoring one’s own tendancy to knee-jerk rejection of the implausible. On the other hand, most seemingly ridiculous ideas turn out to actually be ridiculous, unfortunately confirmation bias blinds us to all the failures whereas the sucesses stand out brightly. What this suggests to me, is that keeping an open mind is compatible with arguing that implausible notions which contradict established knowledge are pretty unlikley to be true, that the proponets of such notions bear the burden of proof, and that when resources are limited preference should be given to the likely over the unlikely.

Scepticism and rationality do not require us to refrain from any action that is not rationally logical and deterministic. Applying scepticism in our lives, I believe, does not mean applying these rigid demands for such rationality/logic/determinism on every choice we make or every interaction or every problem we try to solve. When we put cash into a drinks machine at a train station and nothing comes out, it makes sense to give it a kick. There is no scientific or controlled research justification for doing so. Only some anecdotal personal experience passed down to us by family and friends. What really matters in deciding to give it a kick is .. what are the chances it will work and what are the chances we will suffer any negative outcome as a result. As there is little chance of a negative outcome if we do it when the security people are not in earshot, we have nothing to lose and who knows it might just work and we’ll get our drink.

Well, being a skeptic does not of course require us to be perfectly rational in word and deed. Honestly, my own skepticism is largely motivated by my belief, based on extensive scientific research as well as intuition and personal experience, that our assessments and interpretations of the world around us are riddled with flaws and blind spots of which we are not directly aware. Thus, such perfect rationality is an impossibility based on how we are fundamentally made.

That said, skepticism seems to me to require we accept the limitations of all epistemologies and rank them according to how effectively they compensate for the flaws we carry within us. In medicine, as in many other domains, history pretty clearly shows that personal experience, cultural tradition, intuition, and reasoning from basic principles in the immediate context of making a decision (such as whether or not to kick the vending machine) are all weak epistemologies which are emotionally compelling out of proportion to their reliability. We have used such approaches to knowledge for all of recorded history, and they have repeatedly supported widespread and long-enduring practices that are now recognized as utter failures. Science is certainly imperfect, like all human behavior, but in the short time we have employed it is seems to me manifestly superior to these personal and folk epistemologies, so I think it has earned a place a little ways above them.

Now, we rarely have good, properly designed and conducted scientific studies to determine the appropriate actions in our everyday life. We rely on our personal and received wisdom because it’s all we have most of the time, and it works well enough much of the time. If it wasn’t pretty good, we’d probably have gone extinct already (though it’s not a given we aren’t headed that way). However, this points out why I think the vending machine is a poor analogy for alternative medicine. We are far more likely to have a sound basis in scientific principles and scientific evidence (from relatively low levels such as in vitro and animal model work right up to the massive multicenter replicated controlled clinical trials that are as close as we are likely to get to definitive) for medical decisions than for all the little routine decisions in everyday life. And although I honestly do retain an open mind about new approaches and interventions, all the ones you mention have been the subject of decades of research and have suceeded only in terms of the least reliable forms of evidence (such as personal experience) while repeatedly failing the standards of higher levels. It is almost axiomatic that the popular CAM strategies examined so far do well in small, poorly designed and conducted trials and then grow in popularity only to later fail in more rigorous, independant research.

So I don’t think the “what have I got to lose” approach you seem to suggest is truly appropriate. I can easily point to much real harm done by many of these therapies, and I suspect even more harm is done by an acceptance of the logic using them requires, which is that what we don’t know is evidence of the overall unreliability of knowledge and thus it is appropriate to rely on hunches or personal experience despite the demonstrated weaknesses of these kinds of evidence. Scientific evidence is icomplete and imperfect, but it’s a damn sight more reliable in medicine than personal experience, it is eventually self-correcting in a way tradition and recived folk wisdom cannot be. Pointing out the flaws of mainstream scientific medicine is fair game, but the idea that it suggests alternative medicine does not have even greater flaws or that somehow the limitations of science justify turing towards non-scientific pratices is fallacious reasoning.

As for advocacy vs “neutral” sources of information, I don’t think anyone is truly neutral, though there are different levels of open-mindedness and committment to a narrow vision. The sites I rely on and refer to certainly have an agenda, and as always thinking for yourself means comparing what they say to the claims of others with a different agenda, but I don’t believe the links I posted refer to knee-jerk negative skeptics but to people who have come to their conlcusions through sound rational paths and who are passionate without being especially blind. I think neutrality sounds better than it really is, and to be neutral on some topics is just another way of being deliberately ignorant or apathetic. I’m NOT suggesting this is your stance, only that I see some self-proclaimed skeptics who claim dispassionate neutrality that ultimate prohibits any conclusion or any possibility of real knowledge, and I’m not impressed by their approach to skepticism. There is much we don’t know, but knowledge is possible and some take skepticism into the realm of postmodernism (all knowledge is opinion) or to the absurd extent of suggesting no real knowledge is possible. It’s a slippery slope, so I caution against going too far down it. grin

Thanks again for an interesting and thoughtful discussion!

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2010 07:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
asanta - 30 December 2009 04:02 AM

This is mostly venting, but any comments would be appreciated.

Asanta over Xmas we were visiting my sister-in-law who works for a pharmaceutical company, and she mentioned that a large number of the research scientists were reluctant to have their kids vaccinated!  (!@!@!@!)  I couldn’t believe it….I’d be interested if anyone sees anything published in this regard.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2010 06:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Jackson - 05 January 2010 07:45 PM
asanta - 30 December 2009 04:02 AM

This is mostly venting, but any comments would be appreciated.

Asanta over Xmas we were visiting my sister-in-law who works for a pharmaceutical company, and she mentioned that a large number of the research scientists were reluctant to have their kids vaccinated!  (!@!@!@!)  I couldn’t believe it….I’d be interested if anyone sees anything published in this regard.

They probably weren’t real research scientists Jackson.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2010 11:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
VYAZMA - 06 January 2010 06:12 AM
Jackson - 05 January 2010 07:45 PM
asanta - 30 December 2009 04:02 AM

This is mostly venting, but any comments would be appreciated.

Asanta over Xmas we were visiting my sister-in-law who works for a pharmaceutical company, and she mentioned that a large number of the research scientists were reluctant to have their kids vaccinated!  (!@!@!@!)  I couldn’t believe it….I’d be interested if anyone sees anything published in this regard.

They probably weren’t real research scientists Jackson.

There are nurses in my unit who, initially refused the H1N1 vaccination, on the grounds that it had not been tested for safety or efficacy. I convinced most of them and we ended up with pretty much a 100% vaccination rate. It is sort of like making an omelet. If I have made omelets for years and years, and I’ve learned to make good omelets, you should trust my omelet making skills. If I am trying to add a new ingredient, after testing the omelet around the corner, I should be able to get it right. If I am trying to make an educated guess on what the omelet maker down the street is going to do next year, to change his tony omelet, so I can compete, I can come up with a approximation based on experience. When it comes down to it, it is still an omelet, and not roast beef. (does that make any sense?)

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2010 11:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17
Occam - 01 January 2010 08:51 PM

One of the problems most people have with evaluating any treatment is the “I was sick, I took a pill, I got better -therefore, the pill cured me”  (post hoc ergo propter hoc) thinking. Occam

I’m afraid I really don’t buy into the mocking of personal experience.  Remember all science started and starts with observation.
We must also remember that ordinary people do not evaluate their day to day, minute to minute life’s experiences according to the principles of science. It is a very impractical way to live life.

The way I see it if a person received a treatment for an ailment and in the immediate aftermath they get better, then it is perfectly logical and rational of that person to say that this treatment contributed to their improvement. However we then get to the part that is important as a sceptic and rational person. Does the person stop further questioning and adopt a ‘belief’ that this treatment is a solution/fix and go and tell everyone this is so ?  if they do so then this is NOT a rational and logical action.
However if they embrace the experience that they have had as a positive personal experience, to be filed and commented on and perhaps tested another time and another time in the future, while telling others simply that it appeared to work for them, then I suggest this is a very reasonable and rational thing to do. If they or a close contact later repeat the treatment for a similar ailment and the result is also positive then I would also suggest that this is again very reasonable grounds for assigning a real and evident value on this treatment among this group of people.

What I am talking about is life and the act of living life and experiencing life with all of it’s unpredictabilities and decisions and alternatives etc etc etc. It is not science. It cannot be. Science is something completely different. So when we judge people who are not career sceptics, dedicated to living a life of pure rational thinking we should not be applying those standards and dismissing their actions in such a curt way.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2010 12:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4108
Joined  2006-11-28

The way I see it if a person received a treatment for an ailment and in the immediate aftermath they get better, then it is perfectly logical and rational of that person to say that this treatment contributed to their improvement. However we then get to the part that is important as a sceptic and rational person. Does the person stop further questioning and adopt a ‘belief’ that this treatment is a solution/fix and go and tell everyone this is so ?  if they do so then this is NOT a rational and logical action.
However if they embrace the experience that they have had as a positive personal experience, to be filed and commented on and perhaps tested another time and another time in the future, while telling others simply that it appeared to work for them, then I suggest this is a very reasonable and rational thing to do. If they or a close contact later repeat the treatment for a similar ailment and the result is also positive then I would also suggest that this is again very reasonable grounds for assigning a real and evident value on this treatment among this group of people.

I absolutely agree!

The only caveat I have to throw in, is that the personal experience is emotionally compelling to a greater degree than it is reliable. So while it is a form of evidence, and often a useful basis for provisional judgements, unfortunately when controlled research invalidates the conclusions of personal experience most people are unable to give up the beliefs based on the experience. This is normal and human, but unfortunately it leads to a lot of unecessary suffering and poor judgements about medical therapies. I think the project of promoting skepticism, which I believe means being willing to make the hard effort of giving up cherished beliefs when the evidence against them is strong enough, is a worthwhile one. Being a skeptic is not just a fun philosophical hobby, it is a way to live better and make fewer mistakes (though we all still make plenty!). I see so many patients suffering needlessly because of mistaken beliefs about medicine based solely on personal experiences and the opinions of others that I have to wish people could be more rational more of the time.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 January 2010 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  441
Joined  2009-12-17

Indeed mckenzievmd.  We essentially agree. It is a matter of degree and balance and common sense.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2