posted
What I was asking is why do so many Libertarians fall for Alternative Medicines which are of dubious nature?
The theory that Ron presents for why Coconut Oil works is flawed since it does not confront the cause of Alzheimer's, but a different issue of starving brain cells. It does not offer proven research into the cure, but just the single results of one test subject in a totally-non-blind study. It was done by people now selling the cure, but we are supposed to believe it is the cure because?????
Well, because it is a good story--one lone man facing disaster uses nothing but his rugged individualism to succeed despite the efforts of the East Coast Liberal Establishment.
This is Libertarian philosophy applied to medicine. Don't rely on education or economists or East Coast Liberal Establishment. Rely on one person's rugged individualism to solve their own problems and everyone with a little common sense will be saved.
My fear is that the Libertarian plan of no-government and property rights are always the rightest will be as effective as coconut oil for Alzheimer's.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
its hard to quantify 'so many' when you speak of libertarians who fall for alternative medicines of dubious nature. but if they do, rather, if a study is done and some sort of correlation does appear, it seems unlikely that such a trend would be attributed to 'rugged individualism' above other factors such as ignorance and/or misinformation, education, socio-economic status, etc. put simply, based on libertarian ideology, i dont think libertarians are more susceptible or prone to seek out and use homeopathic products and treatments. its also a false analogy to take an alleged libertarian proclivity to homeopathic therapies and then apply it to other beliefs held by libertarians concerning things such as the proper role of government and economic theory.
but your mention of rugged individualism gave me pause. it does seem that such independence is a quasi-tenet of libertarianism. a true libertarian would seek a solution which requires a minimal dependence on other individuals and maximizes self-sufficiency.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. This has nothing to do with homeopathy. 2. Libertarians are pretty notorious for exhibiting a bizarre proclivity to alternative treatments and home remedy, most notoriously colloidal silver (see in particular: Stan Jones, libertarian candidate who started espousing colloidal silver in 1999 due to fears of the Y2K bug. Of all the libertarians who take up advocacy of colloidal silver, he's most notable for having his skin turn totally blue) 3. That's all sort of irrelevant considering I don't think Ron can speak for Libertarians, or much of anyone else, at all. He's a fringe outsider among fringe outsiders.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp re: your number 2 point, I have anecdotally noticed that as well. It's rather disappointing, as a libertarian who's very skeptical of most alternative treatments. I don't really get the correlation. Do you know of any prevailing theories that don't just boil down to "libertarianism is absurd and ridiculous so they obviously tend to have other absurd ideas?"
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I do want to point out that as a lurker, generally I find that what Samp does to be useful, even if he does seem fairly abrasive. As someone who only really has the time to lurk, not fact check, it helps to have people show me the flaws in someone's post.
Second, regarding Libertarians, my suspicion is that there are many libertarians who came to their position from a distrust of government and/or big business; considering those are two big sources of scientific progress especially in medicine, I would say that would be the reason it seems to be that there are a higher percentage of libertarians who support pseudoscience because much of that does not come from either of those big institutions.
Posts: 76 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
1.) I have never described myself as a libertarian, though some of what libertarians say makes sense to me.
2.) "Fear of big business," etc., is no factor at all for me. Rather, I am willing to consider indications of things that may be beneficial, even if they have not been rigorously proven, because none of us can wait that long--we have to live now, and the medical establishment has frequently been wrong in their prejudiced reactions against wholistic medicine, alternative medicine, natural healing, etc. Such as their original condemnation of zinc supplements, when decades later it was proven that zinc is an essential nutrient, especially for men.
3.) I have no respect whatsoever for "homeopathic medicine." It is based on theories that are sheer nonsense. Products like Zicam, which could never stand up to the rigorous testing required of real medicines designed to treat or alleviate colds and their symptoms, call themselves "homeopathic" products simply because the bar is set so low for FDA approval, and you don't really have to prove anything other than it won't outright poison you.
4.) I do not accept anything just because it may be presented as alternative medicine or wholistic medicine or naturalistic medicine, or some such. I go by the evidence in each individual case. For example, I see sufficiently convincing reason to take at least 600 I.U. of Vitamin E daily. I do not take what some have called "vitamin B-17." Though if I had cancer I might try it. I might even try running through plowed up earth with bare feet, like Adele Davis tried. It is better to try something than to try nothing.
5.) I do not propose that naturalistic or wholistic (etc.) medicines are to be resorted to INSTEAD of standard and proven medicines. If I know something works, I use it freely. If I think indications are that something MAY work, then I will consider using it, but only in a responsible manner.
6.) Samprimary, there are many officially approved medicines that are currently used in the treatment of Alzheimer's. They work via a variety of alleged mechanisms. Medical knowledge of Alzheimer's and all its causes is not yet perfected and settled. Some of them work in a way similar to the way coconut oil is supposed to work. Most of them are very expensive. Pure coconut oil can be purchased at Kroger's for about $6.00 per liter.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samprimary, there are many officially approved medicines that are currently used in the treatment of Alzheimer's. ... Some of them work in a way similar to the way coconut oil is supposed to work.
I find this surprising. What medications are you referring to here?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Samp re: your number 2 point, I have anecdotally noticed that as well. It's rather disappointing, as a libertarian who's very skeptical of most alternative treatments. I don't really get the correlation. Do you know of any prevailing theories that don't just boil down to "libertarianism is absurd and ridiculous so they obviously tend to have other absurd ideas?"
I thought the explanation was clearly that the anti-authoritarian streak in some libertarians also gets manifested in their attitude towards science.
This is a common sort of equivocation that goes on in a lot of people's political thought. "No one has the right to force me to think X or do X" becomes "No one knows better than me whether X is right." Plenty of non-libertarians are also guilty of this.
This combines with the fact that sweeping environmentalism (for instance, recognizing global warming as real) doesn't fit very well with many people's brand of libertarianism. So they come to distrust the environmentalist scientific establishment.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
After do consideration I can not say that a large percentage, or any percentage of Libertarians also support alternative medicines in general or one particular alternative medicine.
I just think its a large percentage of the loud outspoken ones.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP, let me refer you again to this passage in my post from 11/04/2010 at 12:42:
quote:Dr. Newport learned that the ingredient in the drug trial which was showing so much promise was simply MCT oil derived from coconut oil or palm kernel oil, and that a dose of 20 grams (about 20 ml or 4 teaspoons) was used to produce these results. When MCT oil is metabolized, the ketones which the body creates may, according to the latest research, not only protect against the incidence of Alzheimer’s, but may actually reverse it.
As for Samprimary's "plaques and tangles in the brain," which he says is the "true cause" of Alzheimer's, perhaps these consitute the mechanism that tends to restrict and cut off sufficient nourishment to brain cells, so that not enough glucose can get through. Increasing the amount of ketones in the blood stream may get around these hindrances, so that adequate supplies of glucose can reach the brain cells.
You may prefer some medicine that will remove the "plaques and tangles." I don't know if this can be done, or if there are any medicines designed to accomplish this. But if the real negative is their effect in reducing the glucose that can reach brain cells, then any approach that might increase the amount of glucose reaching the brain cells would surely be helpful.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:MattP, let me refer you again to this passage in my post from 11/04/2010 at 12:42:
Yes, I read that. He was referring to a drug trial, apparently of a specific unnamed drug, while you later said that "some" "officially approved medicines" work by the same mechanism.
Is his reference to a trial for a single drug the source for your claim regarding multiple approved drugs?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what the mechanisms claimed are for all the drugs. But here was a serious drug trial for one that addressed the amount of glucose reaching brain cells. So apparently the idea is not considered "quack" science by serious researchers working under USFDA guidelines.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:6.) Samprimary, there are many officially approved medicines that are currently used in the treatment of Alzheimer's. They work via a variety of alleged mechanisms. Medical knowledge of Alzheimer's and all its causes is not yet perfected and settled. Some of them work in a way similar to the way coconut oil is supposed to work. Most of them are very expensive. Pure coconut oil can be purchased at Kroger's for about $6.00 per liter.
Remember that "medicine of the gaps" comment?
1. No alzheimer's medication cures alzheimers. Alzheimers is incurably degenerative.
2. The "expensive" medications, cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, are used because, when researched, they showed that they could be indicated for delaying the onset or progression of Alzheimer-related mental degeneration. This allows them to be medically indicated for use in managing quality of life issues.
3. Your first attempted coup is to say 'the science behind this is not perfected and settled.' You use this as a justification for claiming, essentially, the sanctity of equal time for the unverified claims of a pseudoscientific organization and their unverified 'cure.'
4. Your second attempted coup is to make a false comparison via your idle speculation, and 'oh, perhaps if this is true ..' and offer that one solution is cheaper.
This is all ridiculous, but I know you don't understand why.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Samp re: your number 2 point, I have anecdotally noticed that as well. It's rather disappointing, as a libertarian who's very skeptical of most alternative treatments. I don't really get the correlation. Do you know of any prevailing theories that don't just boil down to "libertarianism is absurd and ridiculous so they obviously tend to have other absurd ideas?"
I thought the explanation was clearly that the anti-authoritarian streak in some libertarians also gets manifested in their attitude towards science.
This is a common sort of equivocation that goes on in a lot of people's political thought. "No one has the right to force me to think X or do X" becomes "No one knows better than me whether X is right." Plenty of non-libertarians are also guilty of this.
This combines with the fact that sweeping environmentalism (for instance, recognizing global warming as real) doesn't fit very well with many people's brand of libertarianism. So they come to distrust the environmentalist scientific establishment.
Most of that makes sense to me, except the last part. My experience with environmentalism is that some of it's strongest proponents also have a strong tendency towards luddism, and actually frequently reject scientific advancement in any non-"green" areas. So I'm not sure how rejecting environmentalism and rejecting medical science would go hand in hand.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
