REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Why should we trust scientists, anyway?

POSTED BY: KPO
UPDATED: Thursday, June 26, 2014 19:11
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2553
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:29 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2014 10:29 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



No chance to view the vid now, but I like to throw a wrench into the equation when anyone asks me if I 'believe' in Evolution.

I tell them " No, I don't. ".

To those on either side, it often catches them off guard.

I promptly inform them that evolution is not a 'belief', but a conclusion, based on the available evidence.

I happen to conclude, based on this evidence, that evolution is a FACT.

It isn't a belief, what so ever.



The imminent head spinning is always a bonus to watch.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 25, 2014 10:57 PM

THGRRI


Very interesting



si shen



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:34 AM

BYTEMITE


As a scientist?

You shouldn't. Science isn't about "trust" or "belief."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:53 AM

THGRRI


Science is about hypothesis and theory. When one scientist makes a claim that something has been discovered or they have figured something out, other scientists check the research.

si shen



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 9:58 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Science is about hypothesis and theory. When one scientist makes a claim that something has been discovered or they have figured something out, other scientists check the research.

si shen





Exactly. See? Scientists don't even trust each other man.

Unless you impress some of them enough that they decide to give you a reward, then you're usually set in the credibility department. Only a few scientists get their award privileges taken away.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:14 AM

THGRRI


It is not an exact science. Nothing is perfect.

si shen



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:21 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Science is about hypothesis and theory. When one scientist makes a claim that something has been discovered or they have figured something out, other scientists check the research.

si shen





Was about to post that "science is reproducible." You can test it your self. Looks like you beat me to it.

Go to the top of a cliff, drop a rock off. Gravity works. Smack 2 pieces of U-235 together, BOOM!. Put the fungus from a moldy orange in a petri dish full of germs, they die. Smoke a bunch of cigarettes, you'll get lung cancer or emphysema.

Some practical science may require more refined testing, and some theoretical science, like climate change, astronomy, or evolution, may require longer term observation.

So maybe you can trust them. If they're wrong, or lying, they'll be caught out sooner or later.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 10:38 AM

CHRISISALL


YOU NEED SOME SMARTS & COMMON SENSE where science is concerned.
Some science is rushed out, some is bought & paid for.
Like, in the Seventies it was 'proven' that margarine was better for you than butter. I didn't buy that for like a nanosecond, even as a kid.
When my Son was born they wanted to Hep-B innoc him that minute. I said, look, he's not gonna start sharing needles for a couple years at least, you can do it then.
To climate change deniers in science, all I have to say is less ice + more water = something happening here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 11:57 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


To all those saying science is reproducible, you can test it for yourself, there's no need to take anything on trust...

What if the science in question is quite complicated, and not easy to test? What if you don't have the necessary equipment, or time? Or what if you're just an ordinary person who doesn't know how to conduct a rigorous scientific experiment anyway? The point is it's not always possible for people to test science for themselves. In fact it rarely is.

The system that we have is a large, global community of scientists who test and scrutinise each other's work, and then sometimes, if the evidence is clear enough, they reach a consensus. The question is not whether we citizens should check all their findings ourselves (that's not practical), the question is whether we should trust or doubt/ignore the conclusions of a community of scientists.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:12 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

What if the science in question is quite complicated, and not easy to test? What if you don't have the necessary equipment, or time? Or what if you're just an ordinary person who doesn't know how to conduct a rigorous scientific experiment anyway? The point is it's not always possible for people to test science for themselves. In fact it rarely is.


What? D: You seem to be suggesting that ordinary people don't find stuff like this fun and wouldn't attempt to rise to the challenge.

That would be very sad and makes me sad.

I don't always meet standards for rigour, that doesn't mean I don't try for the hell of it just to see what happens. And I enjoy watching science shows that don't really put a lot of effort into rigour because they're still doing interesting stuff.

The Mythbusters guys can and have made watching them launch pumpkins via catapults fun.

Quote:

The question is not whether we citizens should check all their findings ourselves (that's not practical)


nuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-

Quote:

the question is whether we should trust or doubt/ignore the conclusions of a community of scientists.


okay that's a little better.

Scientific consensus can be and has been wrong though, so be careful about that.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:38 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Hmm, not all science is catapulted pumpkins.

Take the example of vaccines that scientists have declared as safe. Should parents trust them, and have their children vaccinated? Or should they do their own investigations first? Some parents might enjoy poring over scientific papers, and conducting their own clinical trials, but not most. Many would not understand the science involved and wouldn't know where to start investigating - what should they do? Trust the scientists, and have their kids vaccinated? Or not trust the scientists, and keep their kids out of nursery, school for the duration of their childhood?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:43 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Trust the scientists, and have their kids vaccinated? Or not trust the scientists, and keep their kids out of nursery, school for the duration of their childhood?

Well, WE got my Son vaccinated well before pre-school. We just wanted him to be a little older than two minutes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 1:42 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Trust the scientists, and have their kids vaccinated? Or not trust the scientists, and keep their kids out of nursery, school for the duration of their childhood?


That's kind of a false dilemma.

And hell yes, people and parents should be researching vaccines. Not necessarily as a blanket refusal of vaccines and thimerosol in general, but what are the adjuvants, what specific strains do the vaccines cover? Has there been any reported issues with that particular batch? In the EU at least the big pharmaceutical companies are required to put out a fact sheet that specifies everything in a particular vaccine, so there's no excuse to not know what you're injecting.

Or even, "is this particular vaccine more effective/does it have less side effects as an injection or a nasal spray?" (hint the nasal sprays are usually pretty terrible in terms of prevention)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:57 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

Trust the scientists, and have their kids vaccinated? Or not trust the scientists, and keep their kids out of nursery, school for the duration of their childhood?


That's kind of a false dilemma.


I don't see how. You either get them vaccinated, in which case you're trusting the scientists, or you don't trust the scientists, and don't get your kids vaccinated. This is the reality for most people.

Quote:

And hell yes, people and parents should be researching vaccines. Not necessarily as a blanket refusal of vaccines and thimerosol in general, but what are the adjuvants, what specific strains do the vaccines cover? Has there been any reported issues with that particular batch?

Many people would not have a clue what you are talking about, and would not know how to go about checking scientific research for themselves. They either have to trust scientists, or not.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 3:27 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I don't see how. You either get them vaccinated, in which case you're trusting the scientists, or you don't trust the scientists, and don't get your kids vaccinated. This is the reality for most people.


Or, like I said, you research the vaccines and learn what places are offering what, or you get some vaccines but not others depending on your assessment of the actual risk posed by the disease in question (like say when the media is hyping up a particular strain of flu and you can already tell it's bullshit).

It is also worthwhile to consider that vaccines don't actually offer lifetime protection. A number of college campuses had breakouts of mumps in the US recently, not because the parents hadn't vaccinated, but because the old vaccine they got when they were ten was no longer effective against the new strain.

Quote:

A false dilemma (also called black-and/or-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either-or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.


There is in fact middle ground between GET ALL THE VACCINES TRUST THE SCIENTISTS and NO VACCINES SCIENCE IS EVIL STAY HOME FOREVER.

Quote:

Many people would not have a clue what you are talking about, and would not know how to go about checking scientific research for themselves. They either have to trust scientists, or not.


Then they are being foolish, and this is another false dilemma.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 3:51 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

There is in fact middle ground between GET ALL THE VACCINES TRUST THE SCIENTISTS and NO VACCINES SCIENCE IS EVIL STAY HOME FOREVER.

Any 'middle ground' that falls short of a thorough scientific investigation conducted by yourself, means to some extent, trusting the word of other people. Most parents might be able to do a little bit of research into the track record of a particular vaccine, and the basic science behind it (if put into a digestible form by some helpful third party). But they won't have the time/ability to conduct their own clinical trials, pore over scientific papers etc. etc. The reality is, if they're not an expert in that scientific field they have to, to a very large extent, rely on and TRUST the expertise of other people.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 4:16 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

But they won't have the time/ability to conduct their own clinical trials, pore over scientific papers etc. etc. The reality is, if they're not an expert in that scientific field they have to, to a very large extent, rely on and TRUST the expertise of other people.


If that had happened with my parents, I'd still be on schizophrenia medicine - when I don't have schizophrenia - that split open my skin due to water retention. And then my mom had to fight back against the psycho bitch psychiatrist who nearly reported her to CPS when she tried to take me off that medicine.

And they aren't very scientifically inclined and weren't even that attentive towards me.

Expertise means nothing unless you combine it with common sense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 4:19 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
The reality is, if they're not an expert in that scientific field they have to, to a very large extent, rely on and TRUST the expertise of other people.

I think I see what you're saying here.
Figuring out margarine is probably bogus is an easy one; determining the risk factors of a particular vaccine depends on OTHER peoples actual clinical works & opinions.
That it>?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 4:26 PM

BYTEMITE


>determining the risk factors of a particular vaccine depends on OTHER peoples actual clinical works & opinions.

Or news reporting. There's been some recent indications that some pharmaceutical companies pad the numbers in terms of vaccine efficiency - part of what may have led to the recent mumps outbreaks I mentioned.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganakoleva/2012/06/27/merck-whistleblow
er-suit-a-boon-to-anti-vaccination-advocates-though-it-stresses-importance-of-vaccines
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 4:35 PM

CHRISISALL


Oh yes, Byte, figuring out bad science isn't all that difficult, just look to who makes money & stories on detrimental effects. But efficacy is more difficult without REAL knowledge. That's where other people's opinions will have to weigh in without YOU being an expert yourself...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 4:42 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Oh yes, Byte, figuring out bad science isn't all that difficult, just look to who makes money & stories on detrimental effects. But efficacy is more difficult without REAL knowledge. That's where other people's opinions will have to weigh in without YOU being an expert yourself...


Hmmn. Personal experience has informed me that relying on expertise is exceedingly dangerous, as I already related. But, I'll admit that when I do research, I tend to have to use the clinical trials performed by the same companies that funded them. But it's also important when you're doing that to keep that in mind.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:49 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Interesting discussion, KPO. I pretty much agree with you. I am always amused when people say they do research on the Internet, because on the Internet you are likely to get access to a whole host of rubbish views, as well as factual information. In fact academic articles, and peer reviewed research isn't that easy to come by on the Net unless you are a student or have subscribed to have access. So in a way, the unresearched, unpeer reviewed gobbledegook of pseudoscientists is possibly easier to access that the more kosher stuff.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:55 PM

CHRISISALL


OTOH, my doctor could not tell me how to clear up my hearing a bit because the causes of Eustachian tube blockage are 'unknown' but online I found anecdotal stuff concerning lemon juice destroying bacterial ear infections and it worked. Cheaper than hearing a quack too.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 5:58 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

But they won't have the time/ability to conduct their own clinical trials, pore over scientific papers etc. etc. The reality is, if they're not an expert in that scientific field they have to, to a very large extent, rely on and TRUST the expertise of other people.


If that had happened with my parents, I'd still be on schizophrenia medicine - when I don't have schizophrenia - that split open my skin due to water retention. And then my mom had to fight back against the psycho bitch psychiatrist who nearly reported her to CPS when she tried to take me off that medicine.

And they aren't very scientifically inclined and weren't even that attentive towards me.

Expertise means nothing unless you combine it with common sense.


I think in special circumstances, like yours, people should be motivated to investigate the science of something as thoroughly as they can. But that shouldn't be the norm. When a parent rushes their child to the hospital for emergency treatment they don't stop the doctors and question them about every medicine that they plan to use, or forbid the use of them while they go away and do their own research into their child's ailment... If they're good parents, and sane people, they trust the doctors, and the established medical science. And there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe later, if the child doesn't fully recover, or experiences side-effects, or whatever, they can conduct their own research. But in standard cases it's ok to trust medical science. If I have a headache I'm not going to conduct my own clinical trials before I reach for an aspirin.

As an aside I would add that I think medical science is one of the most complex and imperfect sciences that we have (or most imperfectly applied). Because every person on the planet is biologically different, and the way that disease symptoms manifest themselves is different from person to person, and people's responsiveness to drugs and side-effects are different from person to person, etc. etc. Doctors do the best they can, but we're not all robots that came off the same production line.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:01 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Doctors do the best they can, but we're not all robots that came off the same production line.


I'm a Nexus 6.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:04 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
The reality is, if they're not an expert in that scientific field they have to, to a very large extent, rely on and TRUST the expertise of other people.

I think I see what you're saying here.
Figuring out margarine is probably bogus is an easy one; determining the risk factors of a particular vaccine depends on OTHER peoples actual clinical works & opinions.
That it>?


Yes exactly. That research needs to be done PROFESSIONALLY. If we relied on a system of citizens trialling medicines and vaccines for themselves, it would be a disaster. There has to be a system of professionals doing this work, which there is, for people who don't have the time/resources/ability to investigate important science in an in-depth way for themselves - which is the vast majority of us, in the vast majority of cases.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:17 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Interesting discussion, KPO. I pretty much agree with you. I am always amused when people say they do research on the Internet, because on the Internet you are likely to get access to a whole host of rubbish views, as well as factual information. In fact academic articles, and peer reviewed research isn't that easy to come by on the Net unless you are a student or have subscribed to have access. So in a way, the unresearched, unpeer reviewed gobbledegook of pseudoscientists is possibly easier to access that the more kosher stuff.


Yes, that too.

Having said that, I'm one of these people who falls through the cracks when it comes to medical science. For years I've had weird allergy-like symptoms (itchy eyes/skin, nasal congestion etc.) and for years the doctors were not really able to fix or diagnose the problem, but just gave me medicines to manage the symptoms. Eventually, with help from the internet, I figured it out for myself: I'm intolerant to grains: wheat, barley, oats - to a lesser extent corn and rice. In the past few years I've cut them out of my diet almost completely, and my symptoms are way down on what they used to be (they come back when I eat offending foods, which are sometimes very hard to avoid, or sometimes are worth the pain).

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:23 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


Yes exactly. That research needs to be done PROFESSIONALLY. If we relied on a system of citizens trialling medicines and vaccines for themselves, it would be a disaster.




waaaaaait. Sorry. This is actually where you lose me.

While I agree this is more convenient - although any research performed by a business is always going to have just a little bit of bias - there are actually citizen's research groups out there and they do some pretty impressive things.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:31 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

For years I've had weird allergy-like symptoms (itchy eyes/skin, nasal congestion etc.) and for years the doctors were not really able to fix or diagnose the problem, but just gave me medicines to manage the symptoms. Eventually, with help from the internet, I figured it out for myself: I'm intolerant to grains: wheat, barley, oats - to a lesser extent corn and rice.


Oh no...

I think I'm going to sound like a hypocrite here, but it sounds like you think you have a gluten allergy.

I'm all for people learning as much as they can, and I've self-diagnosed a number of things including a recurring chest pain I get, but this is the downside of self-diagnosis.

Gluten allergies are very serious, and they have major ramifications for the life of the people who have them. Gluten allergies like Celiac's disease results in symptoms like Crohn's, where you are constantly exhausted and you have anemia and feel weak in addition to the itchiness. They get ulcers in their mouths and they get bleeding and they have to go to the bathroom a lot, they feel bloated but they lose weight to a ridiculous degree, their abdomen is enlarged but the rest of them is very skinny. I've seen someone with Crohn's and they look dead on their feet most of the time, and they also had a bit of jaundice due to associated complications with their liver.

I'm glad that you think you have resolved your allergy related problem, but are you SURE it's the gluten? It's become kinda popular on the internet for people to talk about gluten like it is the devil, and there's a bit of exaggeration out there.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 6:53 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:


Yes exactly. That research needs to be done PROFESSIONALLY. If we relied on a system of citizens trialling medicines and vaccines for themselves, it would be a disaster.




waaaaaait. Sorry. This is actually where you lose me.

While I agree this is more convenient - although any research performed by a business is always going to have just a little bit of bias - there are actually citizen's research groups out there and they do some pretty impressive things.


Who said the research had to be done by business? :-/

And as for the citizens' research groups, do they employ well qualified scientists? Do they use expensive lab equipment? If so, who pays for this research? The government? Well government sponsored research is something that is already very common.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:01 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

And as for the citizens' research groups, do they employ well qualified scientists?


It's more people doing their own science for the hobby, but there is a support network out there for some of these groups. And they actually have produced some scientifically verified research. There's actually a sort of crowd-sourced protein modeling program out there on the internet, and by that there were some people who were able to figure out a protein structure that has long eluded us. Others are researching and producing their own medicine through biotechnology.

They don't tend to use any expensive equipment beyond what they can buy themselves, though like with many hobbies, that can be thousands of dollars.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:04 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

For years I've had weird allergy-like symptoms (itchy eyes/skin, nasal congestion etc.) and for years the doctors were not really able to fix or diagnose the problem, but just gave me medicines to manage the symptoms. Eventually, with help from the internet, I figured it out for myself: I'm intolerant to grains: wheat, barley, oats - to a lesser extent corn and rice.


Oh no...

I think I'm going to sound like a hypocrite here, but it sounds like you think you have a gluten allergy.

I'm all for people learning as much as they can, and I've self-diagnosed a number of things including a recurring chest pain I get, but this is the downside of self-diagnosis.

Gluten allergies are very serious, and they have major ramifications for the life of the people who have them. Gluten allergies is stuff like Crohn's, where you are constantly exhausted and you have anemia and feel weak in addition to the itchiness. They get ulcers in their mouths and they get bleeding and they have to go to the bathroom a lot, they feel bloated but they lose weight to a ridiculous degree, their abdomen is enlarged but the rest of them is very skinny. I've seen someone with Crohn's and they look dead on their feet most of the time, and they also had a bit of jaundice due to associated complications with their liver.

I'm glad that you think you have resolved your allergy related problem, but are you SURE it's the gluten? It's become kinda popular on the internet for people to talk about gluten like it is the devil, and there's a bit of exaggeration out there.


I'm a little confused by your response, but I've been tested twice for gluten intolerance (coeliac) and the results were negative. I had already ruled out gluten as the offending protein because gluten free products set off my symptoms, as do GF grains such as corn. No, it's something else in these grains that aggravates my symptoms.

As for self-diagnosis as a rule, I'm not really a fan... But in my case all it involved was cutting various foods out of my diet and seeing if there was any benefit. It's not like I diagnosed myself with something and started ordering myself drugs over the internet, which is where it gets dangerous imo. Also I've always acted in consultation with doctors, and to be fair to them they've been supportive.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 26, 2014 7:11 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I'm a little confused by your response, but I've been tested twice for gluten intolerance (coeliac) and the results were negative. I had already ruled out gluten as the offending protein because gluten free products set off my symptoms, as do GF grains such as corn. No, it's something else in these grains that aggravates my symptoms.


Huh. Okay then.

Sorry about that, my brother's wife convinced him for a while that he had a gluten allergy because he would get itchy skin sores (we have a family history of psoriasis) when he clearly didn't have a gluten allergy. They're both fad dieters and it frustrated me.

Is there a difference if it's processed/bleached grains?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 23:51 - 10 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL