Posted by baseball55 on September 24, 2015, at 21:08:57
In reply to I'll ask you the same » hello321, posted by hello321 on September 23, 2015, at 21:57:56
> Do any of your thoughts/stances on anything go against "science"? Are you a christian? Do you believe any higher being created the Universe?
I am not Christian and do not believe in a sentient creator. I am sympathetic to Buddhism and meditate daily. I do not believe in an afterlife.
Do you buy into the thought of humans causing global warming?
I don't "buy into" this. I think it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. The IPCC consists of hundreds of scientists, none with an ax to grind. The causal links are clear. CO2 traps heat. This is an established fact. CO2 levels have increased due to fossil fuel use. This is an established fact. The planet has been warming. This is an established fact. Connect the dots. The ONLY scientists who reject this are bought and paid for by the coal and oil industry.
Or flouride causing health problems?
I am unfamiliar with the science here.Hormones injected into cows not causing any health difference in the consumer when consuming products that come from cows?
I don't know much about this. I think scientists believe it is a problem. I have read that girls are entering puberty at earlier ages than in the past and some believe hormones in the diet cause this. Others think the picture is muddied by girls weighing more and having a more secure food supply. I don't read up on this. For myself, I only fed my daughter organic, hormone free meat.
"Experts" always go on about whole grain bread basically being the best choice for consumers. But what about the phytates ("antinutrients") that whole grains contain in higher amounts that inhibit absorption of certain minerals.
I am not knowledgeable about nutrition science. I myself avoid bread and, when I eat it, eat whole grains. Maybe this is wrong. I don't know. The anti-refined grain stuff is more about glucose spikes and how that might affect insulin levels. I find nutrition information confusing. It seems like every couple of years, new studies come out questioning the claims of previous studies. But this is fine. This is the scientific method at work. Science is fluid and dynamic. If one scientist says A causes B, others try to replicate or falsify the result.On a topic concerning psychiatry, what about when an expert, such as a psychiatrist, prescribes amphetamines to elementary school children on a regular basis? Do you agree with this?
It bothers me. Prescribing any psychoactive drug to small children bothers me. And it bothers me that ADHD diagnoses skyrockets and the age of diagnosis has fallen. On the other hand, I was at a party once and this woman started talking about how ADHD was just a wastebasket diagnosis for children who were rambunctious and couldn't sit still in school. After all, she said, what did they do with high-energy children before ritalin and adderall. A child psychiatrist at the party replied, before ritalin and adder all, they had corporal punishment. And I am old enough to remember when teachers routinely beat and humiliated children who couldn't sit still.
> Maybe there are topics where you'd disagree if you understood them more?
Well, that goes without saying.
>
> If you've any stance that goes against widely publicized "science", I'm curious about what it is.
I try to keep up with things, but I can't know everything. I have faith in the scientific process and I know that widely publicized "science" is often cautious, tentative conclusions seized upon by the media and presented as "facts". I am always skeptical of what the mass media says. It is almost never what scientists themselves say. Good scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals and make their data available to other scientists. I am also skeptical about scientific studies done by drug companies for drugs still under patent or recently developed. The entire medical profession, psychiatrists included, is corrupted by this. Even when individual practitioners are not themselves corrupt, they read journals whose articles have been financed by big pharma, without this being sufficiently disclosed. Marcia Angell wrote a very good book about this several years ago. She was a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.I had a conversation about this with my p-doc a few years back. He said that he tries to be skeptical, but most of the educational resources and journal articles are paid for by drug companies. That no matter how hard they try to be absolutely ethical, they are influenced by drug companies. He actually tried to organize events in his home that were not funded by drug companies and to get speakers who were not paid by drug companies, but he complained that few people came. Many people come when the event is being held at an expensive restaurant and paid for by a drug company. It's sad and worrisome. But it is not unique to psychiatrists.
poster:baseball55
thread:1082509
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20150901/msgs/1082903.html