Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
R. Steve Walz wrote:
It doesn't have to be, show me JUST ONE demonstrated instance of something violating physical cause and effect, NO matter HOW complex. I don't really understand your question so can you give me some examples from your point of view. ----------- Don't be ridiculous. Use your mind. The one who's responses are all predetermined, no doubt. Why are Rightists always such ****-****ing disingenuous liars about logic and argument? It's like you have no honor of any kind because you have no rudder for Truth. I have enough of a rudder to know that nothing that comes out of your mouth is truth. Guess what? That's riiiiight! What did you think a brain is anyway? And who or what is in control of all of this? The tooth fairy? ----------------- Show me ANYTHING that does NOT obey cause and effect. Here's one that will never, ever, so long as you live be understandable with your mighty logic, Steve. That is, the reason the mind can be changed, and isn't predetermined, is precisely because it perfectly obeys cause and effect. You see Steve there is a little prerequisite for becoming aware of truths of the mind, and of the nature of life and existence, that you demonstrate unerringly to have none of. And that is humility. You are absolutely convinced of your rightness, and that is the reason why you know nothing. Good day! -- __________________________________________________ _____________________ Christopher R. Carlen Principal Laser/Optical Technologist Sandia National Laboratories CA USA -- NOTE: Remove "BOGUS" from email address to reply. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
This woman has the ticket if you ask me, although I haven't read the
book, I saw an interview of her on tv and what she had to say was quite interesting. http://www.cassmd.com/naturalhighs/index.php http://www.tvo.org/yourhealth/archiv...program12.html The second link states that Canadians are a Prozac crazed society...there is some truth to that. As one my old friends said, "don't drug me, hug me" NB Chris Carlen wrote in message ... R. Steve Walz wrote: It doesn't have to be, show me JUST ONE demonstrated instance of something violating physical cause and effect, NO matter HOW complex. I don't really understand your question so can you give me some examples from your point of view. ----------- Don't be ridiculous. Use your mind. The one who's responses are all predetermined, no doubt. Why are Rightists always such ****-****ing disingenuous liars about logic and argument? It's like you have no honor of any kind because you have no rudder for Truth. I have enough of a rudder to know that nothing that comes out of your mouth is truth. Guess what? That's riiiiight! What did you think a brain is anyway? And who or what is in control of all of this? The tooth fairy? ----------------- Show me ANYTHING that does NOT obey cause and effect. Here's one that will never, ever, so long as you live be understandable with your mighty logic, Steve. That is, the reason the mind can be changed, and isn't predetermined, is precisely because it perfectly obeys cause and effect. You see Steve there is a little prerequisite for becoming aware of truths of the mind, and of the nature of life and existence, that you demonstrate unerringly to have none of. And that is humility. You are absolutely convinced of your rightness, and that is the reason why you know nothing. Good day! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
"Neil Brown" wrote in message m... This woman has the ticket if you ask me, although I haven't read the book, I saw an interview of her on tv and what she had to say was quite interesting. http://www.cassmd.com/naturalhighs/index.php http://www.tvo.org/yourhealth/archiv...program12.html The second link states that Canadians are a Prozac crazed society...there is some truth to that. As one my old friends said, "don't drug me, hug me" NB After reading the articles, they are making it sound as if Canadians have an obsession with mental illness, and the drugs they use for treating it. I don't know about the book though, because those "better mental health through cooking" ideas tend to scare me a little They tag the book with this: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - In this ground breaking book, authors Hyla Cass, M.D., and Patrick Holford show how to formulate the perfect "brain food" to improve how we think and feel, resulting in a greater sense of connection and joy in everyday life. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - The part that bothers me the most is where the cover of the book says, "feel good all the time!" That's just not possible - well, not in the real world anyway. Prozac users may have a different view about this Still, it is giving alternatives to shock treatments, and mind altering drugs, and thats a good thing. The claims are a little over the top, but what do you expect when trying to sell a book? Thanks for the links, interesting stuff. Chris Carlen wrote in message ... R. Steve Walz wrote: It doesn't have to be, show me JUST ONE demonstrated instance of something violating physical cause and effect, NO matter HOW complex. I don't really understand your question so can you give me some examples from your point of view. ----------- Don't be ridiculous. Use your mind. The one who's responses are all predetermined, no doubt. Why are Rightists always such ****-****ing disingenuous liars about logic and argument? It's like you have no honor of any kind because you have no rudder for Truth. I have enough of a rudder to know that nothing that comes out of your mouth is truth. Guess what? That's riiiiight! What did you think a brain is anyway? And who or what is in control of all of this? The tooth fairy? ----------------- Show me ANYTHING that does NOT obey cause and effect. Here's one that will never, ever, so long as you live be understandable with your mighty logic, Steve. That is, the reason the mind can be changed, and isn't predetermined, is precisely because it perfectly obeys cause and effect. You see Steve there is a little prerequisite for becoming aware of truths of the mind, and of the nature of life and existence, that you demonstrate unerringly to have none of. And that is humility. You are absolutely convinced of your rightness, and that is the reason why you know nothing. Good day! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
Chris Carlen wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote: It doesn't have to be, show me JUST ONE demonstrated instance of something violating physical cause and effect, NO matter HOW complex. I don't really understand your question so can you give me some examples from your point of view. ----------- Don't be ridiculous. Use your mind. The one who's responses are all predetermined, no doubt. ------------------------- Yes, and if you respond to my beseechment to do so, one which I was always inevitably going to give, then you will do so, and if not, then you won't, of course! But our efforts can only change each other, and not ourselves, because we ARE ourselves. The knowledge that it CAN work is a cause that can produce effect in our deeds. Why are Rightists always such ****-****ing disingenuous liars about logic and argument? It's like you have no honor of any kind because you have no rudder for Truth. I have enough of a rudder to know that nothing that comes out of your mouth is truth. ------------------------------ You have nuthin' but wish-fulfillment. Guess what? That's riiiiight! What did you think a brain is anyway? And who or what is in control of all of this? The tooth fairy? ----------------- Show me ANYTHING that does NOT obey cause and effect. Here's one that will never, ever, so long as you live be understandable with your mighty logic, Steve. That is, the reason the mind can be changed, ------------ Of course the Mind can be changed, but simply not by YOUR mind if by YOUR own INTENT!! Intent is relativistic, and the only place to stand and control your mind is in the efforts of another to do so, or the accidental ways he or she does so! and isn't predetermined, is precisely because it perfectly obeys cause and effect. ----------------------------- Nonsense, that MEANS the Mind is a result of cause and effect, and all of those are entirely beyond any control you imagine you have over your ideas. That's because your ideas are effects of causes. You see Steve there is a little prerequisite for becoming aware of truths of the mind, and of the nature of life and existence, that you demonstrate unerringly to have none of. ------------------ You have clearly not learned that merely saying so doesn't make it so. And that is humility. You are absolutely convinced of your rightness, and that is the reason why you know nothing. Christopher R. Carlen -------------------- Feeling one is right can have nothing to do with rightness, at all. And: You have clearly not learned that merely saying so doesn't make it so. Rinse and repeat, (above). -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
Andrew VK3BFA wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Chris Carlen wrote: here we go again, ones fanciful beliefs must fit ones prejudices - and all alternatives can be negated by abusing your opponent. Use what works - if a little white pill once a day works for you, then do it. If years of counselling/psychotherapy/holistic/remove the problem/change your diet/ works for you, then use that method. The little white pill method works if you are surrounded by crap you cant control, The pill, is arguably for hard *physical* causes. the other methods work if you can change your environment to eliminate or reduce the stressors. Either method is valid, Only for its specific cause. there is no clearly superior model (it would have emerged by now if that was so) In a particular instance there is often a superior method. For certain conditions, there are well tried methods. The issue is determining what the cause of the problem is. One has to accept that the brain can "malfunction" for at least two independent reasons, either by physical processes e.g. lack of some chemical *or* some sort of brainwashing. It don't make sense to try and fix your allocation problem in software if the problem is a fried memory chip, neither does it make sense to add to add 100 speed up processors if the code is slow because of wait loops. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
Andrew VK3BFA wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Chris Carlen wrote: R. Steve Walz wrote: It doesn't have to be, show me JUST ONE demonstrated instance of something violating physical cause and effect, NO matter HOW complex. I don't really understand your question so can you give me some examples from your point of view. ----------- Don't be ridiculous. Use your mind. The one who's responses are all predetermined, no doubt. ------------------------- Yes, and if you respond to my beseechment to do so, one which I was always inevitably going to give, then you will do so, and if not, then you won't, of course! But our efforts can only change each other, and not ourselves, because we ARE ourselves. The knowledge that it CAN work is a cause that can produce effect in our deeds. Why are Rightists always such ****-****ing disingenuous liars about logic and argument? It's like you have no honor of any kind because you have no rudder for Truth. I have enough of a rudder to know that nothing that comes out of your mouth is truth. ------------------------------ You have nuthin' but wish-fulfillment. Guess what? That's riiiiight! What did you think a brain is anyway? And who or what is in control of all of this? The tooth fairy? ----------------- Show me ANYTHING that does NOT obey cause and effect. Here's one that will never, ever, so long as you live be understandable with your mighty logic, Steve. That is, the reason the mind can be changed, ------------ Of course the Mind can be changed, but simply not by YOUR mind if by YOUR own INTENT!! Intent is relativistic, and the only place to stand and control your mind is in the efforts of another to do so, or the accidental ways he or she does so! and isn't predetermined, is precisely because it perfectly obeys cause and effect. ----------------------------- Nonsense, that MEANS the Mind is a result of cause and effect, and all of those are entirely beyond any control you imagine you have over your ideas. That's because your ideas are effects of causes. You see Steve there is a little prerequisite for becoming aware of truths of the mind, and of the nature of life and existence, that you demonstrate unerringly to have none of. ------------------ You have clearly not learned that merely saying so doesn't make it so. And that is humility. You are absolutely convinced of your rightness, and that is the reason why you know nothing. Christopher R. Carlen -------------------- Feeling one is right can have nothing to do with rightness, at all. And: You have clearly not learned that merely saying so doesn't make it so. Rinse and repeat, (above). -Steve here we go again, ones fanciful beliefs must fit ones prejudices - and all alternatives can be negated by abusing your opponent. -------------------- The abuse is freeof charge, and unrelated to me being right. Use what works - if a little white pill once a day works for you, then do it. If years of counselling/psychotherapy/holistic/remove the problem/change your diet/ works for you, then use that method. ---------------------- Whatever you decide to swallow, you cannot help your decision or what comes from it. This applies to pills or ideas, you're a product of cause and effect. The little white pill method works if you are surrounded by crap you cant control, the other methods work if you can change your environment to eliminate or reduce the stressors. ----------------------------------- No, you take the pill if cause and effect makes you think it's a good idea, and not because it actually is or is not. If you decide not to then you may get worse or better, again due to cause and effect. Either method is valid, there is no clearly superior model (it would have emerged by now if that was so) so at least look at all the alternatives and work out what is best for you as an individual. ------------------------------ Nonsense, again you ignore cause and effect. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
Kevin Aylward wrote:
Andrew VK3BFA wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Chris Carlen wrote: here we go again, ones fanciful beliefs must fit ones prejudices - and all alternatives can be negated by abusing your opponent. Use what works - if a little white pill once a day works for you, then do it. If years of counselling/psychotherapy/holistic/remove the problem/change your diet/ works for you, then use that method. The little white pill method works if you are surrounded by crap you cant control, The pill, is arguably for hard *physical* causes. the other methods work if you can change your environment to eliminate or reduce the stressors. Either method is valid, Only for its specific cause. there is no clearly superior model (it would have emerged by now if that was so) In a particular instance there is often a superior method. For certain conditions, there are well tried methods. The issue is determining what the cause of the problem is. One has to accept that the brain can "malfunction" for at least two independent reasons, either by physical processes e.g. lack of some chemical *or* some sort of brainwashing. It don't make sense to try and fix your allocation problem in software if the problem is a fried memory chip, neither does it make sense to add to add 100 speed up processors if the code is slow because of wait loops. Kevin Aylward ------------------------ The chance for defective software to fix itself is about even, flip a coin, it will still turn up heads or tails due to cause and effect. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: Andrew VK3BFA wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Chris Carlen wrote: here we go again, ones fanciful beliefs must fit ones prejudices - and all alternatives can be negated by abusing your opponent. Use what works - if a little white pill once a day works for you, then do it. If years of counselling/psychotherapy/holistic/remove the problem/change your diet/ works for you, then use that method. The little white pill method works if you are surrounded by crap you cant control, The pill, is arguably for hard *physical* causes. the other methods work if you can change your environment to eliminate or reduce the stressors. Either method is valid, Only for its specific cause. there is no clearly superior model (it would have emerged by now if that was so) In a particular instance there is often a superior method. For certain conditions, there are well tried methods. The issue is determining what the cause of the problem is. One has to accept that the brain can "malfunction" for at least two independent reasons, either by physical processes e.g. lack of some chemical *or* some sort of brainwashing. It don't make sense to try and fix your allocation problem in software if the problem is a fried memory chip, neither does it make sense to add to add 100 speed up processors if the code is slow because of wait loops. Kevin Aylward ------------------------ The chance for defective software to fix itself is about even, No idea what your saying here. Software dont usually fix itself at all. flip a coin, it will still turn up heads or tails due to cause and effect. There are at least two flaws with this argument. The first is the obvious quantum uncertainty. A given input does not uniquely specify an output. The second, is classical uncertainty. Large numbers of non-linear systems are such that the outputs from a given input can not determined because of uncertainty in the initial conditions. This is often expressed by ill conditioned, or even by the term, chaotic systems. The idea of making in depth predictions for anything but the simplest of systems has been given up long ago. Arguable, QM may or may not form a limiting aspect to human behaviour, however classical uncertainty certainly does. The claim that, in principle, a classical system can be deterministic, is vacuous. To all intents and purposes, given the inputs to a complex system (e.g the brain), the output can not be determined. The *same* input, can, in practise, lead to *different* outputs. Indeed, the knowledge that an equation can have more than one solution with an exact input, leads to the reality that cause an effect is not applicable in removing an individuals own responsibility to their own actions. For example, given someone says hallo to them, independent of prior history, it may cause them to shot or give them a $1. There is simply no way of making a valid prediction. So, the technicality of cause and effect, has little relevance in practice. There is simply no way utilise this principle, if it were so, I would be down at the dog track making my fortune. Your basic flaw is that you assume that cause and effect uniquely determines an outcome from an income. Non-linear equations simply don't have that property. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Andrew VK3BFA wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Chris Carlen wrote: R. Steve Walz wrote: It doesn't have to be, show me JUST ONE demonstrated instance of something violating physical cause and effect, NO matter HOW complex. I don't really understand your question so can you give me some examples from your point of view. ----------- Don't be ridiculous. Use your mind. The one who's responses are all predetermined, no doubt. ------------------------- Yes, and if you respond to my beseechment to do so, one which I was always inevitably going to give, then you will do so, and if not, then you won't, of course! But our efforts can only change each other, and not ourselves, because we ARE ourselves. The knowledge that it CAN work is a cause that can produce effect in our deeds. Why are Rightists always such ****-****ing disingenuous liars about logic and argument? It's like you have no honor of any kind because you have no rudder for Truth. I have enough of a rudder to know that nothing that comes out of your mouth is truth. ------------------------------ You have nuthin' but wish-fulfillment. Guess what? That's riiiiight! What did you think a brain is anyway? And who or what is in control of all of this? The tooth fairy? ----------------- Show me ANYTHING that does NOT obey cause and effect. Here's one that will never, ever, so long as you live be understandable with your mighty logic, Steve. That is, the reason the mind can be changed, ------------ Of course the Mind can be changed, but simply not by YOUR mind if by YOUR own INTENT!! Intent is relativistic, and the only place to stand and control your mind is in the efforts of another to do so, or the accidental ways he or she does so! and isn't predetermined, is precisely because it perfectly obeys cause and effect. ----------------------------- Nonsense, that MEANS the Mind is a result of cause and effect, and all of those are entirely beyond any control you imagine you have over your ideas. That's because your ideas are effects of causes. You see Steve there is a little prerequisite for becoming aware of truths of the mind, and of the nature of life and existence, that you demonstrate unerringly to have none of. ------------------ You have clearly not learned that merely saying so doesn't make it so. And that is humility. You are absolutely convinced of your rightness, and that is the reason why you know nothing. Christopher R. Carlen -------------------- Feeling one is right can have nothing to do with rightness, at all. And: You have clearly not learned that merely saying so doesn't make it so. Rinse and repeat, (above). -Steve here we go again, ones fanciful beliefs must fit ones prejudices - and all alternatives can be negated by abusing your opponent. -------------------- The abuse is freeof charge, and unrelated to me being right. Use what works - if a little white pill once a day works for you, then do it. If years of counselling/psychotherapy/holistic/remove the problem/change your diet/ works for you, then use that method. ---------------------- Whatever you decide to swallow, you cannot help your decision or what comes from it. This applies to pills or ideas, you're a product of cause and effect. The little white pill method works if you are surrounded by crap you cant control, the other methods work if you can change your environment to eliminate or reduce the stressors. ----------------------------------- No, you take the pill if cause and effect makes you think it's a good idea, and not because it actually is or is not. If you decide not to then you may get worse or better, again due to cause and effect. Either method is valid, there is no clearly superior model (it would have emerged by now if that was so) so at least look at all the alternatives and work out what is best for you as an individual. ------------------------------ Nonsense, again you ignore cause and effect. -Steve Let's say I eat too much, so I am over-weight. Cause and effect. So, I decide to stop eating too much, and I end up eating less, and lose weight. Will power - cause - and effect. Pretty simple isn't it? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
Why are Rightists always such ****-****ing disingenuous liars about logic and argument? (Above posted by R. Steve) (Nice choice of juvenile language) ------------------ You have clearly not learned that merely saying so doesn't make it so. (Above posted by R. Steve) And that is humility. You are absolutely convinced of your rightness, and that is the reason why you know nothing. Christopher R. Carlen -------------------- You have clearly not learned that merely saying so doesn't make it so. Rinse and repeat, (above). -Steve No further comment. Regards, Tom |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ...
Andrew VK3BFA wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Chris Carlen wrote: Use what works - if a little white pill once a day works for you, then do it. If years of counselling/psychotherapy/holistic/remove the problem/change your diet/ works for you, then use that method. The little white pill method works if you are surrounded by crap you cant control, If you learn to change it then you have a _real_ solution. The pill, is arguably for hard *physical* causes. the other methods work if you can change your environment to eliminate or reduce the stressors. Or change the way you react to your environment, or both. Bear in mind we're talking about depression here, not different things like schizophrenia, which is another ballpark entirely. there is no clearly superior model (it would have emerged by now if that was so) It is interesting to see folks put so much energy into arguing that something can't be done, instead of going and finding those who've done it. Human nature is a curious thing. I think we are all limited by our thinking traps. While we gradually recognise them and get free of them, we never see and eliminate all of them by any means. And all the discussoin in the world only occasionally changes that. In a particular instance there is often a superior method. For certain conditions, there are well tried methods. The issue is determining what the cause of the problem is. I would say the real issue was determining which approach works, and which can be applied. The theories behind it aren't the real issue, the results are. One has to accept that the brain can "malfunction" for at least two independent reasons, either by physical processes e.g. lack of some chemical *or* some sort of brainwashing. To really understand the subject one also has to understand that there is far more to it than this. It don't make sense to try and fix your allocation problem in software if the problem is a fried memory chip, neither does it make sense to add to add 100 speed up processors if the code is slow because of wait loops. Thats right. Yet it is tried all the time by those who a) dont know the causes b) haven't gone and found out what works. This is one of those subjects thats probably going to change a lot in the coming decades. Regards, NT |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
N. Thornton wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... Andrew VK3BFA wrote: there is no clearly superior model (it would have emerged by now if that was so) It is interesting to see folks put so much energy into arguing that something can't be done, instead of going and finding those who've done it. Human nature is a curious thing. I think we are all limited by our thinking traps. While we gradually recognise them and get free of them, we never see and eliminate all of them by any means. And all the discussoin in the world only occasionally changes that. In a particular instance there is often a superior method. For certain conditions, there are well tried methods. The issue is determining what the cause of the problem is. I would say the real issue was determining which approach works, and which can be applied. The theories behind it aren't the real issue, the results are. This is meaningless. The idea behind finding out the true cause is to determine what does work, i.e. to get the right results. It called engineering. Without understanding the causes you are going to achieve only almost the right results. One has to accept that the brain can "malfunction" for at least two independent reasons, either by physical processes e.g. lack of some chemical *or* some sort of brainwashing. To really understand the subject one also has to understand that there is far more to it than this. You seem to be trying a bit of one-upmanship here. It should be obvious to anyone that I am merely giving two specific examples to illustrate physical or environmental effects on the brain. It don't make sense to try and fix your allocation problem in software if the problem is a fried memory chip, neither does it make sense to add to add 100 speed up processors if the code is slow because of wait loops. Thats right. Yet it is tried all the time by those who a) dont know the causes b) haven't gone and found out what works. And just how do you propose one finds out the cause without doing experiments? And just how do you propose one finds out what works without doing experiments? Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
N. Thornton wrote:
Hi Thats right. Yet it is tried all the time by those who a) dont know the causes b) haven't gone and found out what works. And just how do you propose one finds out the cause without doing experiments? And just how do you propose one finds out what works without doing experiments? That's not so hard. First, 'find out what works without doing experiments': Many people have tried to treat their depression in many ways. Many have failed, some have succeeded. Thus many experiemnts have been done already. But completely ad-hoc in general, therefore of limited use. All one need do is collect the data: 1. realise this is an effective way to learn successful methods 2. attract the people 3. assess the claimed results 4. Apply statistics to discover what is actually working. Then we will know what works. But you can't apply meaningful statistics to back of the envelope studies. One needs controlled studies, double-blind tests etc... etc....Anything else is, in reality pretty much useless. Its simply not cricket to recommend, in a professional clinical environment, quack cures based on dubious anecdotal claims. Now, about 'find out the cause without doing experiments': The prime point here is we primarily need to know what works. Whether you also know the cause or not, what works will still work. I agree that what works can a valid approach in some instances, in that the reason behind is not always necessary. However, you have no idea what *really* works without doing proper studies. Looking at the cause can come later, for now we just want to know what's working so we can apply it. Its a bit like this: you can plant your wheat seeds and get a crop, or you can sit around and worry about what causes it to grow. Its the result that matters most. And the side effects. This is something I think our NHS health service needs to learn. There are folk around who have solved many problems successfully, Says who?. The snake oil salesman? lots of doctors and nurses have come across the odd one who achieved a remarkable result with their condition. Which could have been luck, i.e. nothing to do with any purported cure, just fixed itself on its own. Happens all the time. Yet the NHS is failing to collate and assess such data, and study known successes to learn more techniques it can apply. One offs are not success. The evidence has to be very strong. This can *only* come about by controlled trials. This is really a no-brainier. Instead the NHS refuses to learn what it doesn't know. Confirmation of claimed cures involve large amounts of money. The system don't have it. Its like a river bed, among all the dirt there is gold and diamonds, and those valuable things are simply not being made any use of. I think you bit out on this one. The risks of doing something wrong simply does not allow for this approach. There are too many claimed cures that arnt. Without proper studies, its all meaningless. One only has two say the words "law" "sue" to put most people in the picture. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... N. Thornton wrote: Hi Thats right. Yet it is tried all the time by those who a) dont know the causes b) haven't gone and found out what works. And just how do you propose one finds out the cause without doing experiments? And just how do you propose one finds out what works without doing experiments? That's not so hard. First, 'find out what works without doing experiments': Many people have tried to treat their depression in many ways. Many have failed, some have succeeded. Thus many experiemnts have been done already. But completely ad-hoc in general, therefore of limited use. All one need do is collect the data: 1. realise this is an effective way to learn successful methods 2. attract the people 3. assess the claimed results 4. Apply statistics to discover what is actually working. Then we will know what works. But you can't apply meaningful statistics to back of the envelope studies. One needs controlled studies, double-blind tests etc... etc....Anything else is, in reality pretty much useless. Its simply not cricket to recommend, in a professional clinical environment, quack cures based on dubious anecdotal claims. Now, about 'find out the cause without doing experiments': The prime point here is we primarily need to know what works. Whether you also know the cause or not, what works will still work. I agree that what works can a valid approach in some instances, in that the reason behind is not always necessary. However, you have no idea what *really* works without doing proper studies. Looking at the cause can come later, for now we just want to know what's working so we can apply it. Its a bit like this: you can plant your wheat seeds and get a crop, or you can sit around and worry about what causes it to grow. Its the result that matters most. And the side effects. This is something I think our NHS health service needs to learn. There are folk around who have solved many problems successfully, Says who?. The snake oil salesman? lots of doctors and nurses have come across the odd one who achieved a remarkable result with their condition. Which could have been luck, i.e. nothing to do with any purported cure, just fixed itself on its own. Happens all the time. Yet the NHS is failing to collate and assess such data, and study known successes to learn more techniques it can apply. One offs are not success. The evidence has to be very strong. This can *only* come about by controlled trials. This is really a no-brainier. Instead the NHS refuses to learn what it doesn't know. Confirmation of claimed cures involve large amounts of money. The system don't have it. Its like a river bed, among all the dirt there is gold and diamonds, and those valuable things are simply not being made any use of. I think you bit out on this one. The risks of doing something wrong simply does not allow for this approach. There are too many claimed cures that arnt. Without proper studies, its all meaningless. One only has two say the words "law" "sue" to put most people in the picture. Kevin Aylwar There are many situations where science cannot help people. These people should not be left without any options, which is the case many times. People who have a life threatening form of cancer which is not responding to medical treatment, many times will turn to alternatives, and who can blame them. If your going to die, why not try whatever you feel might help in some way. Depression is the same thing. If the medical profession cannot help you, which many times is the case, especially when dealing with the human mind, then instead of waiting for the situation to get so far out of hand that it destroys lives, it's time to try other alternatives. The idea of selfhelp will power helping people overcome self-induced depression is hardly a new one, but it is shunned to a degree, by professionals in the mental health field. Since science beleives that everything is based around cause and effect, they always want to know the cause of the depression. That's where the problems start for many people seeking help with depression. Concidering the complexity of the human mind, science fails many times when trying to find this "cause" and often mistakes the wrong events as the "cause". I have learned from my own experiences that when dealing with depression, finding the "cause" can be far less important than finding help for the problem. The reason is that self-induced depression can be more a result of not wanting to deal with events in life, then the actual events themselves. Because of my own past experiences with depression, I beleive there is not an actual cure for it, but rather methods that can be learned to control it. Whether we like it or not, we all have to deal with negative events in our lives. Learning how to deal with these events, past, present, and future, is paramount in beating depression. Masking the events is not always the best approach, and can often lead to far more serious problems. Nobody should have to suffer and not be allowed alternatives treatments for any medical or mental condition, simply because science does not approve of them. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
Hi Kevin.
I think this should clear up some things. Kevin Aylward ) wrote: N. Thornton wrote: And just how do you propose one finds out the cause without doing experiments? And just how do you propose one finds out what works without doing experiments? That's not so hard. First, 'find out what works without doing experiments': Many people have tried to treat their depression in many ways. Many have failed, some have succeeded. Thus many experiemnts have been done already. But completely ad-hoc in general, therefore of limited use. There are case specific ad-hoc ones, and widely applicable formula ones. They are not all of limited use at all, and I have seen no real reason to believe they are. All one need do is collect the data: 1. realise this is an effective way to learn successful methods 2. attract the people 3. assess the claimed results 4. Apply statistics to discover what is actually working. Then we will know what works. But you can't apply meaningful statistics to back of the envelope studies. I'm not suggesting a back of envelope study. The data already exists, and only needs collecting and assessing. The individuals have mostly been assessed sufficiently within the medical system to know they have found a real result. Applying statistics to such collected data does indeed reveal a clear pattern. Lets give you an example. method A 3 positive results out of 112 attempts method B 30,000 positive results out of 50,000 attempts method C 71 positive results out of 400 attempts method D 4 positive results out of 6 attempts method E 60 positive results out of 900 attempts Very simple stuff, it shows clearly which method should be researched in more depth, and which one might warrant more data collection. This elementary statistics can indeed be applied. One needs controlled studies, double-blind tests etc... etc....Anything else is, in reality pretty much useless. This is a standard misperception of our time. Collecting the info I propose would indeed show who has recoverd from what and how, and it will show up any substantial trends. Such data is not 100% reliable, but 75% reliability is more than enough of a basis on which to do a more thorough study on a method. I'll explain this more further down. Its simply not cricket to recommend, in a professional clinical environment, quack cures based on dubious anecdotal claims. Of course, I would not suggest doing so. First any positive results would be used as a basis for more research, not for clinical recommendations. Second there is nothing dubious and anecdotal about the results of doctors exams and reports that clearly show a cure. These exams have already been carried out in over 50% of cases. Now, about 'find out the cause without doing experiments': The prime point here is we primarily need to know what works. Whether you also know the cause or not, what works will still work. I agree that what works can a valid approach in some instances, in that the reason behind is not always necessary. However, you have no idea what *really* works without doing proper studies. Thats why I propose a preliminary study that will show us what is worth a detailed study. Not one to find out beyond doubt what works, but one to find out what looks real promising, and is worthy of more thorough research. I have found that there are such things about. Looking at the cause can come later, for now we just want to know what's working so we can apply it. Its a bit like this: you can plant your wheat seeds and get a crop, or you can sit around and worry about what causes it to grow. Its the result that matters most. And the side effects. If there are side effects I would consider that part of the result. One of the results of drug based treatments is going to be side effects. This is something I think our NHS health service needs to learn. There are folk around who have solved many problems successfully, Says who?. The snake oil salesman? Lots of doctors and nurses have seen surprising cures. AFAIK they dont sell snake oil. I think its obvious we wouldnt be looking for testimonies from busineses selling junk. lots of doctors and nurses have come across the odd one who achieved a remarkable result with their condition. Which could have been luck, i.e. nothing to do with any purported cure, just fixed itself on its own. Happens all the time. Of course. But when you get the data and find tens of thousands of results from a particular method, way above the luck level with all other approaches, that is statistically significant data, not just luck. That is what we're looking for. Yet the NHS is failing to collate and assess such data, and study known successes to learn more techniques it can apply. One offs are not success. So if you have a condition and you find a way to successfully treat it, and have used the treatment lets say 10 times in your life, and it has resulted in rapid favourable outcomes each time, you're saying that's not a success? It is by definition a success. There are working treatments about that have been employed by far more than one person: clearly numbers are needed to reach any useful level of conclusion reliability. The evidence has to be very strong. It has to be strong enough to warrant a further research project. That is quite achievable. This can *only* come about by controlled trials. This is really a no-brainier. That's what you've been taught, and I understand why. In reality you dont need controlled trials to get 75% confidence. You can get that by pooling multiple results of uncontrolled trials. You'll never get 100%, but with some things you can get enough confidence to warrant doing a more in depth investigation. Now, tell me, was the treatment oral magnesium suphate discovered by double blind controlled trials? I think not. Yet it works, and was discovered to work. Obviously it is not only controlled trials that can produce useful data, you only have to understand statistics to see that, rather than believe what you're taught blindly. There are very good reasons why dbc trials are generally insisted on, but to discount _all_ others is an (understandable) mistake... I could get into all that in much more depth, but its a whole thread on its own. Instead the NHS refuses to learn what it doesn't know. Confirmation of claimed cures involve large amounts of money. The system already has that data. Its on peoples medical records. Those people have already been assessed by their docs/specialists and found to be better. It costs little. What does need changing is a specific form is required for this, to make this data clear and mass-harvestable. At the moment sometimes the relevant info is written on the records, sometimes its not, and almost never is it reported to anyone who could make use of it. The system don't have it. Wrong again. 1. It takes no fortune to run a small data collection point and issue the forms. 2. It is actually a very cost effective way to do research to find new treatments, much more so than paying for drugs that cost billions to develop. The system does have the money to pay for that, it just needs to allocate a little of that money more wisely. When the survey results achieve a successful treatment, it will start to save the system money. It is simply better value than billion pound drugs. Its like a river bed, among all the dirt there is gold and diamonds, and those valuable things are simply not being made any use of. I think you bit out on this one. I know, but I'll wait until I see you've comprehended the idea before taking on board such judgements. I hope from this reply you will be a bit clearer on the concept I propose. Only when you have got what I'm actually proposing will you be in a position to make a genuinely informed judgement. So far that has not been possible - think about that. Soon or now it will be. The risks of doing something wrong simply does not allow for this approach. That doesnt stop todays researchers. Research projects get it wrong all the time, its expected, its OK. There are too many claimed cures that arnt. Absolutely. This can deal with those too when the scheme is later extended to collecting failed treatment results as well, by reporting the real results on Snake Oil Brand A. But in all of this we need to do it based on _evidence_, and not presupposition, which is how its done today sometimes. Without proper studies, its all meaningless. I'm suggesting a valid study that will lead to more thorough studies, that will lead to a few new curative practices. One only has two say the words "law" "sue" to put most people in the picture. No, you've just missed it. Cite me a case of a researcher being sued for honestly producing data that turns out to not pan out long term. Its an erroneous criticism. With what I'm proposing it is clear upfront to all that some of the leads this generates will pan out and some wont. There wont be any surprises or broken promises when something's found not to work later, we know that will happen. I'm thinking you'll be rather clearer by now on just what I'm proposing. Stay well, NT |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... BigMike wrote: There are many situations where science cannot help people. These people should not be left without any options, which is the case many times. People who have a life threatening form of cancer which is not responding to medical treatment, many times will turn to alternatives, and who can blame them. If your going to die, why not try whatever you feel might help in some way. Depression is the same thing. If the medical profession cannot help you, which many times is the case, especially when dealing with the human mind, then instead of waiting for the situation to get so far out of hand that it destroys lives, it's time to try other alternatives. The idea of selfhelp will power helping people overcome self-induced depression is hardly a new one, but it is shunned to a degree, by professionals in the mental health field. ---------------------- That's because it doesn't work. The way to change people so that they are more likely to feel better is to modify their responses, which involves having an effect on them by what YOU do to them, not tell them to do it themselves. If they could, they WOULD! We can change each other, BUT we cannot change ourselves, because we ARE ourselves! Who we are, is subject to change. Since science beleives that everything is based around cause and effect, they always want to know the cause of the depression. That's where the problems start for many people seeking help with depression. -------------------------- Depression lifts when you find the cause and give them good orgasms. If you try to talk them out of feeling bad without ****ing them, you're merely being dishonest. You sound sexually frustrated Steve. Maybe that's you problem Concidering the complexity of the human mind, science fails many times when trying to find this "cause" and often mistakes the wrong events as the "cause". ------------------------ That's because western psychology is usually very stupid, puritan, and useless compared to a good sex partner, or even just a friend who halfway cares about you. huh? I have learned from my own experiences that when dealing with depression, finding the "cause" can be far less important than finding help for the problem. The reason is that self-induced depression can be more a result of not wanting to deal with events in life, then the actual events themselves. ----------------------- And if people could treat themselves for it, they WOULD! This MEANS that they can't, since they don't and then talk about it on Usenet! Most people do not chat on Usenet Steve. Unlike us, they actually have a life Because of my own past experiences with depression, I beleive there is not an actual cure for it, but rather methods that can be learned to control it. Whether we like it or not, we all have to deal with negative events in our lives. Learning how to deal with these events, past, present, and future, is paramount in beating depression. Masking the events is not always the best approach, and can often lead to far more serious problems. Nobody should have to suffer and not be allowed alternatives treatments for any medical or mental condition, simply because science does not approve of them. -------------------------- Science, when applied by westerners to personal problems, isn't as good as a good ****. -Steve Your all class, Steve. LOL |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
N. Thornton wrote:
Hi Kevin. I think this should clear up some things. All one need do is collect the data: 1. realise this is an effective way to learn successful methods 2. attract the people 3. assess the claimed results 4. Apply statistics to discover what is actually working. Then we will know what works. But you can't apply meaningful statistics to back of the envelope studies. I'm not suggesting a back of envelope study. The data already exists, and only needs collecting and assessing. The individuals have mostly been assessed sufficiently within the medical system to know they have found a real result. Applying statistics to such collected data does indeed reveal a clear pattern. Lets give you an example. method A 3 positive results out of 112 attempts method B 30,000 positive results out of 50,000 attempts method C 71 positive results out of 400 attempts method D 4 positive results out of 6 attempts method E 60 positive results out of 900 attempts Very simple stuff, it shows clearly which method should be researched in more depth, and which one might warrant more data collection. This elementary statistics can indeed be applied. Correlations by themselves have little value. Correlations have to be shown to be *causative*. Its why the tobacco industry could claim that the was no proof that smoking causes cancer. I agree that you can use this as a starting point for further investigations, but by themselves have little value. One needs controlled studies, double-blind tests etc... etc....Anything else is, in reality pretty much useless. This is a standard misperception of our time. Not at all. This has evolved precisely because it was recognised that the prior methods had seriously failings. Collecting the info I propose would indeed show who has recoverd from what and how, and it will show up any substantial trends. Such data is not 100% reliable, but 75% reliability is more than enough of a basis on which to do a more thorough study on a method. I'll explain this more further down. One has no real idea how reliable it is at all. There are too many places where the results could be totally meaningless. lots of doctors and nurses have come across the odd one who achieved a remarkable result with their condition. Which could have been luck, i.e. nothing to do with any purported cure, just fixed itself on its own. Happens all the time. Of course. But when you get the data and find tens of thousands of results from a particular method, way above the luck level with all other approaches, that is statistically significant data, not just luck. That is what we're looking for. I agree, if you see strong correlations, then this should warrant further study. Yet the NHS is failing to collate and assess such data, and study known successes to learn more techniques it can apply. One offs are not success. So if you have a condition and you find a way to successfully treat it, and have used the treatment lets say 10 times in your life, and it has resulted in rapid favourable outcomes each time, you're saying that's not a success? It is by definition a success. Thats not what I'm saying. I meant one off by not working on all individuals, only a few individuals. For example, my twin brother suffered with severe eczema for around 25 years, from birth. Continually scratching. It was horrendous. His skin was a mess. Nothing helped. His life was utter misery from it. One day he decided to go completely vegan, that's is no animal products whatsoever. After around 3 months, he noticed that he was no longer scratching. He was cured, and has been ok now for the last 20 years. On occasions he has inadvertently taken animal products, in all cases he now has a severe allergic reaction confirming that food was the problem. So, this method worked for him, will it for others? This can *only* come about by controlled trials. This is really a no-brainier. That's what you've been taught, and I understand why. In reality you dont need controlled trials to get 75% confidence. This makes no sense. Without controlled experiments you have no idea what you've got. Its 101 science. You can get that by pooling multiple results of uncontrolled trials. You'll never get 100%, but with some things you can get enough confidence to warrant doing a more in depth investigation. The data could all be Swiss cheese. The literature is filled with erroneous "studies". Now, tell me, was the treatment oral magnesium suphate discovered by double blind controlled trials? I think not. Ho hum... Yet it works, and was discovered to work. You can pick any one off the cuff example you like, but it means nothing to the principle of doing good science. Obviously it is not only controlled trials that can produce useful data, you only have to understand statistics to see that, rather than believe what you're taught blindly. You doing that condescending one-upmanship again. The scientific method is not something one learns "blindly". This is exactly what the method is designed to eliminate. Its a process to ensure that what you think you have, is what you have. When peoples welfare is at stake, its even more relevant then in the inanimate sciences. There are very good reasons why dbc trials are generally insisted on, but to discount _all_ others is an (understandable) mistake... I could get into all that in much more depth, but its a whole thread on its own. I don't discount non controlled studies out of hand. If they indicate significant promise, than that is an argument to do the studies correctly. Instead the NHS refuses to learn what it doesn't know. Confirmation of claimed cures involve large amounts of money. The system already has that data. Its on peoples medical records. Those people have already been assessed by their docs/specialists and found to be better. It costs little. Doubt it somehow. Things usually mushroom out of hand. There is simply too many claimed cures to pursue any. Waiting lists are way over a year for many treatments in the UK NHS. What does need changing is a specific form is required for this, to make this data clear and mass-harvestable. Oh dear...another form...I don't think that you have really thought this through. At the moment sometimes the relevant info is written on the records, sometimes its not, and almost never is it reported to anyone who could make use of it. The system don't have it. Wrong again. 1. It takes no fortune to run a small data collection point and issue the forms. I don't agree. Its extra staff. Every expenditure requires good support for it. 2. It is actually a very cost effective way to do research to find new treatments, much more so than paying for drugs that cost billions to develop. The system does have the money to pay for that, it just needs to allocate a little of that money more wisely. But you cant determine what will actually pay out in the end. You assuming that you choose correctly in what your studying. Most won't pan out. Its the way life works. There are 1000's of different medical conditions that all need cured, selecting one, e.g. such as depression, is a choice that not many will take. When the survey results achieve a successful treatment, it will start to save the system money. It is simply better value than billion pound drugs. Arguable, depression is a non issue for the NHS. They can simply send depressed people away. Maybe it costs society money in the long run, but that will have little impact on NHS policy. Its like a river bed, among all the dirt there is gold and diamonds, and those valuable things are simply not being made any use of. I think you bit out on this one. I know, but I'll wait until I see you've comprehended the idea before taking on board such judgements. I hope from this reply you will be a bit clearer on the concept I propose. Only when you have got what I'm actually proposing will you be in a position to make a genuinely informed judgement. So far that has not been possible - think about that. Soon or now it will be. You proposal is really a dreaming proposal. Nice idea, but will never work. It don't take into account the way real life works. Every one is competing for limited resources, with there own pet agendas. I don't think you understand just what it takes to get an organisation to go and spend money, especially one like the NHS. The risks of doing something wrong simply does not allow for this approach. That doesnt stop todays researchers. Research projects get it wrong all the time, its expected, its OK. I did not suggest this. Its the people that implement/recommend the cure that has the liability. If something goes wrong, people get sued. Its that simple. One only has two say the words "law" "sue" to put most people in the picture. No, you've just missed it. Cite me a case of a researcher being sued for honestly producing data that turns out to not pan out long term. Its an erroneous criticism. No, you missed it. Why would you think I was referring to the data collectors? With what I'm proposing it is clear upfront to all that some of the leads this generates will pan out and some wont. There wont be any surprises or broken promises when something's found not to work later, we know that will happen. Unfortunately, only a few % will pan out. its the way its always been. I'm thinking you'll be rather clearer by now on just what I'm proposing. Indeed. Wishful dreaming... Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
R. Steve Walz wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote: You're trying to convince using a majority vote now? You'd LOSE! MWI gets rid of virtually all difficulties that MOST physicists posit for other theories, the only objection to MWI is that it works TOO well http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9703089 Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
Hi Kevin.
A couple of your comments indicate to me some miscommunication still on what I'm discussing here. For clarity I'll give a quick overview to make sure we're both on the same page. 1. there is a standard form produced for doctors and specialists 2. It is to be filled in when they come across a clear positive result that they consider out of the ordinary, unexpected, ie in a small percentage of cases. Lets spin 3 examples: 2a. A patient they'd been treating with severe depression, with little result, and held no hope for. The person rarely washes or shaves, shows practically no interest in anything. Patient has been written off by the DSS as being incapable of work for life. Specialists have said basically there's nothing more we can do, if he tries suicide again we'll admit him to a psych ward long term for his own safety. The patient isn't seen for a while, and comes back one day with an air of confidence, a clean suit, a job, a calm attentive and positive attitude, a whole new perspective on thier previous problems, interests, friends, life plans, and lots of smiles. Person says 'well, I did this, and the problems all gone now'. The doc says, wow, what a change! All the depression indicators have gone. At this point the form gets used. Example 2b: a patient being treating with life threatening asthma, regularly admitted to A&E for emergency treatment, on strong drugs which dont seem to be controlling the problem effectively. (A&E = ER) Doc hears nothing for a while, forgets about patient, then one day they come in and say the problems all sorted now. They say 'nothing helped until I took linseed oil, now its just not a problem. I havent been to A&E for 8 months now.' Doctor checks NHS records, and indeed they have not needeed A&E in the last 8 months, or even any prescriptions. Breathing flow rate test shows full recovery. At this point the form gets used. Example 2c: a patient being treated with chronic severe eczema, has seen all the specialists, picks up scripts for creams regularly, often treated for secondary infection. Doc hears nothing for a while, forgets about patient, then one day they come in and say 'Look, no more eczema! Nothing helped until I stopped eating dairy products, been just fine ever since.' Doctor can see they no longer have any eczema. Doc checks NHS records, and they have not had any prescriptions for 6 months. The form gets used. 3. These forms are filled out for all conditions, not a small selection of conditions. Any surprising positive result is reported, regardless of the condition. 4. The data is collated centrally, and any results that stand way above the noise level are looked for. 5. Any strong positive results indicate a reason to do a more in depth controlled trial on anything found - they obviously do _not_ indicate something should be used in clinics! That is well down the line. I hope this is clear. All one need do is collect the data: 1. realise this is an effective way to learn successful methods 2. attract the people 3. assess the claimed results 4. Apply statistics to discover what is actually working. Then we will know what works. But you can't apply meaningful statistics to back of the envelope studies. I'm not suggesting a back of envelope study. The data already exists, and only needs collecting and assessing. The individuals have mostly been assessed sufficiently within the medical system to know they have found a real result. Applying statistics to such collected data does indeed reveal a clear pattern. Lets give you an example. method A 3 positive results out of 112 attempts method B 30,000 positive results out of 50,000 attempts method C 71 positive results out of 400 attempts method D 4 positive results out of 6 attempts method E 60 positive results out of 900 attempts Very simple stuff, it shows clearly which method should be researched in more depth, and which one might warrant more data collection. This elementary statistics can indeed be applied. Correlations by themselves have little value. Correlations have to be shown to be *causative*. That comes later. Strong correlation is generally sufficient reason to do the further in depth study. 30,000 successes out of 50,000 attempts is of value for that. I agree that you can use this as a starting point for further investigations, Good! One needs controlled studies, double-blind tests etc... etc....Anything else is, in reality pretty much useless. This is a standard misperception of our time. This has evolved precisely because it was recognised that the prior methods had seriously failings. Correct. What is incorrect is to imagine those prior methods to be useless. How useful they are depends on various factors, and it is really quite easy to show that in some cases good useful results are obtained - and in some nothing is obtained. Collecting the info I propose would indeed show who has recoverd from what and how, and it will show up any substantial trends. Such data is not 100% reliable, but 75% reliability is more than enough of a basis on which to do a more thorough study on a method. I'll explain this more further down. One has no real idea how reliable it is at all. There are too many places where the results could be totally meaningless. There are expected to be some. It will be less reilable than a similar but controlled study, but that does not zero its usefulness. Controlled medical studies arent too reliable either btw. This approach has both pros and cons compared to controlled medical trials.... another time tho. lots of doctors and nurses have come across the odd one who achieved a remarkable result with their condition. Which could have been luck, i.e. nothing to do with any purported cure, just fixed itself on its own. Happens all the time. Of course. But when you get the data and find tens of thousands of results from a particular method, way above the luck level with all other approaches, that is statistically significant data, not just luck. That is what we're looking for. I agree, if you see strong correlations, then this should warrant further study. Good! Yet the NHS is failing to collate and assess such data, and study known successes to learn more techniques it can apply. One offs are not success. So if you have a condition and you find a way to successfully treat it, and have used the treatment lets say 10 times in your life, and it has resulted in rapid favourable outcomes each time, you're saying that's not a success? It is by definition a success. Thats not what I'm saying. I meant one off by not working on all individuals, only a few individuals. For example, my twin brother suffered with severe eczema for around 25 years, from birth. Continually scratching. It was horrendous. His skin was a mess. Nothing helped. His life was utter misery from it. One day he decided to go completely vegan, that's is no animal products whatsoever. After around 3 months, he noticed that he was no longer scratching. He was cured, and has been ok now for the last 20 years. On occasions he has inadvertently taken animal products, in all cases he now has a severe allergic reaction confirming that food was the problem. So, this method worked for him, will it for others? If a method works often enough for it to rise well above the noise then it would be picked up by what I'm discussing. If it doesn't, it won't. No problem there. This approach will never pick up on the ones that have just a 3% success rate. The truth is no-one knows what success rate veganism gives for eczema. No company stands to make out of studying it. But the NHS does. This is true with many conditions and treatments. I have come across a lot of people who have resolved their own problems when they were considered to be beyond help. There is potential there. This can *only* come about by controlled trials. This is really a no-brainier. That's what you've been taught, and I understand why. In reality you dont need controlled trials to get 75% confidence. This makes no sense. Without controlled experiments you have no idea what you've got. Its 101 science. I think you're making assumptions there. Read on. (BTW this method is already used here to detect potential carcinogens) You can get that by pooling multiple results of uncontrolled trials. You'll never get 100%, but with some things you can get enough confidence to warrant doing a more in depth investigation. The data could all be Swiss cheese. IRL with a large number of results some will be and some wont. You get to assess the noise level and look for anything that rises well above it. The literature is filled with erroneous "studies". Thats right, and this is why controlled studies are normally demanded. What is not taught in your science 101 is just why so many controlled (and uncontrolled) studies produce junk results. When you address some of the problems you can get uncontrolled results with a useful probability of correctness. You can argue on that, but its been done, many times. I'm trying not to get too much into all that here. Now, tell me, was the treatment oral magnesium suphate discovered by double blind controlled trials? I think not. Yet it works, and was discovered to work. You can pick any one off the cuff example you like, but it means nothing to the principle of doing good science. It means that uncontrolled studies do turn up results some of the time. Its a known fact. Its also known there are ways to improve the odds, particularly by using large numbers of test results from a wide variety of sources. Obviously it is not only controlled trials that can produce useful data, you only have to understand statistics to see that, rather than believe what you're taught blindly. You doing that condescending one-upmanship again. no, I'm just wanting to avoid going down that path. Like I said there is a whole nother threads worth to this branch-off. We have enough to discuss just in this one. Suffice it to say very briefly that controlled studies are not the research cure-all hoped for. The proliferation of controlled studies with duff results in medicine shows controlled medical studies to be unreliable too. While your point about what a controlled study gives you is sound in theory, it isnt like that in practice. There are serious issues with controlled medical trials. But no more diversion. If I just wanted to be condescending I'd say ho-hum. I don't want to because I prefer discussing, and I realise everyone has plenty of room to learn, me included. Sometimes assumptions are wrong. I'm not being condescending, the same basic truths are so for all of us. The scientific method is not something one learns "blindly". This is exactly what the method is designed to eliminate. Its a process to ensure that what you think you have, is what you have. We know that, but I dont think thats the point here. Not all things are practical to do controlled studies on. You're then left with 2 practical options: dont study it, or study it uncontrolled and accept the failure rate, and use your positive results as preliminaries for tighter studies when warranted. That is perfectly valid science. When peoples welfare is at stake, its even more relevant then in the inanimate sciences. Directly, no-ones welfare is at stake. An uncontrolled study can only be used to pinpoint any strong trends that indicate a few methods deserve more thorough investigation. That is not putting anyones welfare at stake, as you seem to suggest. Indirectly, welfare comes down to which is the cheaper method per result of finding a new treamtent. If an uncontrolled across the board collation picks up on one effective treatment it will have done so at a relatively low cost compared with the currently popular methods. If that treatment is one people get to go and do themselves without the NHS paying specialists or drugs, even better, more payback. There are very good reasons why dbc trials are generally insisted on, but to discount _all_ others is an (understandable) mistake... I could get into all that in much more depth, but its a whole thread on its own. I don't discount non controlled studies out of hand. If they indicate significant promise, than that is an argument to do the studies correctly. Exactly. We agree on that key central principle. Instead the NHS refuses to learn what it doesn't know. Confirmation of claimed cures involve large amounts of money. The system already has that data. Its on peoples medical records. Those people have already been assessed by their docs/specialists and found to be better. It costs little. Doubt it somehow. Things usually mushroom out of hand. It is routine that the doc gets to see the patient later, and patient tells them about their result. And often they do a proper assessment, and often not. It is routine that the result goes on the medical records. Costwise it is only a small percentage of people who have found such cures. Confirming and completing the paperwork takes one 10 minute visit. The suggested data collation is pretty basic. As for further development, the NHS already pays for massive amounts of R&D, billions, by buying new and still patented drugs. If 0.1% of that spend is diverted into a process that produces a total of 3 treatment approaches then it is ahead. There is simply too many claimed cures to pursue any. That's what showed me you hadnt understood the idea. Waiting lists are way over a year for many treatments in the UK NHS. For a few yes, but how is this relevant? Long waits are more political and managerial than financial. What does need changing is a specific form is required for this, to make this data clear and mass-harvestable. Oh dear...another form...I don't think that you have really thought this through. Valid criticisms can be accepted, but 'oh dear' doesnt count as one. The system don't have it. Wrong again. 1. It takes no fortune to run a small data collection point and issue the forms. I don't agree. Its extra staff. Every expenditure requires good support for it. Yes... we seem to agree there. 2. It is actually a very cost effective way to do research to find new treatments, much more so than paying for drugs that cost billions to develop. The system does have the money to pay for that, it just needs to allocate a little of that money more wisely. But you cant determine what will actually pay out in the end. You assuming that you choose correctly in what your studying. Most won't pan out. Its the way life works. There are 1000's of different medical conditions that all need cured, selecting one, e.g. such as depression, is a choice that not many will take. Hopefully you're clearer now on what's being put forward. When the survey results achieve a successful treatment, it will start to save the system money. It is simply better value than billion pound drugs. Arguable, depression is a non issue for the NHS. They can simply send depressed people away. Maybe it costs society money in the long run, but that will have little impact on NHS policy. That would be politically unacceptable here. The current edge of political cost-cutting debate is whether or not sex changers should be made to pay for their treatment. This is not America You proposal is really a dreaming proposal. Its a discussion on a newsgroup, not a business proposal I have any personal intention of getting involved in. Nice idea, but will never work. First I'm hoping you are clearer about what it is now. If you still think it'll never work, guess what, its already been done on a smaller scale, and has found results already. Once folk realise there's a cheaper way of finding working treatments than what's popular today, this approach will in time become used. Its simply an intelligent and more efficient approach. Now I dont think it'll be done any time soon, but in time: a) a more realistic perspective will be applied to controlled/uncontrolled medical studies (neither of which are especially reliable IRL). b) more awareness will develop of just how many lay people have found their own successful treatments (many) C) and as this concept continues to get applied on a smaller scale its value will become steadily more realised. Things are already moving in the direction such that all the ground conditions are being gradually set up now. It don't take into account the way real life works. Every one is competing for limited resources, with there own pet agendas. I know. As the value awareness of this increases, it will end up on someone's agenda at some point. There are folks who stand to gain from it after all. I don't think you understand just what it takes to get an organisation to go and spend money, especially one like the NHS. We haven't even addressed that question, so I see no base for this criticism. The risks of doing something wrong simply does not allow for this approach. That doesnt stop todays researchers. Research projects get it wrong all the time, its expected, its OK. I did not suggest this. Its the people that implement/recommend the cure that has the liability. If something goes wrong, people get sued. Its that simple. No they dont, our laws are different to yours. Secondly your point is relevant to the studies that are done on safety before a treatment is used clinically. It has nothing to do with the phase of the process I'm discussing here, ie collecting data and looking for potential. One only has two say the words "law" "sue" to put most people in the picture. No, you've just missed it. Cite me a case of a researcher being sued for honestly producing data that turns out to not pan out long term. Its an erroneous criticism. No, you missed it. Why would you think I was referring to the data collectors? I didnt, its obvious you weren't. I gathered you thought I was proposing that initial study data be used to recommend tratments to clinic patients, which is certainly not what this is about. That would not be a sensible proposition. Any clinical treatment would need to be well investigated before being recommended to doctors and patients, and established to be sufficiently safe. I think thats fairly obvious. The process from first study to final use involves a bare minimum of: 1. initial data collation to find any potential treatment 2. controlled trials to investigate the look-goods more rigorously 3. trials to establish safety of such treatment 4. cost/benefit analyses, etc. Going thru the correct procedures eliminates suing over here, and keeps your U.S. sue risks down to current medical levels over there. With what I'm proposing it is clear upfront to all that some of the leads this generates will pan out and some wont. There wont be any surprises or broken promises when something's found not to work later, we know that will happen. Unfortunately, only a few % will pan out. its the way its always been. Yep - in a different process. Bear in mind this process involves the use of: a) drugs that are already on retail sale b) non drug approaches etc, so some of the work associated with todays new drug trials has already been done, or doesnt need doing. If we get a few % it will in fact be quite fortunate. I'm thinking you'll be rather clearer by now on just what I'm proposing. Indeed. Wishful dreaming... I think it will happen in time, things are moving in the direction such that all the ground conditions are being set up now. Time will tell for sure. ****, I got to ban myself from this for a while, this took way too long. Nice discussing again. I'm sure we'll have more when curiosity gets the better of me. It always does. Regards, NT |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ...
I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and effect. You exaggerated: Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more appropriate Actually everything is an interpretation the only important thing is predictability power of my subjective perception of reality (other people is part of this perception). From this point view MUI has productive power. --George |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
BigMike wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... BigMike wrote: There are many situations where science cannot help people. These people should not be left without any options, which is the case many times. People who have a life threatening form of cancer which is not responding to medical treatment, many times will turn to alternatives, and who can blame them. If your going to die, why not try whatever you feel might help in some way. Depression is the same thing. If the medical profession cannot help you, which many times is the case, especially when dealing with the human mind, then instead of waiting for the situation to get so far out of hand that it destroys lives, it's time to try other alternatives. The idea of selfhelp will power helping people overcome self-induced depression is hardly a new one, but it is shunned to a degree, by professionals in the mental health field. ---------------------- That's because it doesn't work. The way to change people so that they are more likely to feel better is to modify their responses, which involves having an effect on them by what YOU do to them, not tell them to do it themselves. If they could, they WOULD! We can change each other, BUT we cannot change ourselves, because we ARE ourselves! Who we are, is subject to change. ----------------- But not by us, because a thing cannot change itself, we can be said to change, but from other causes. Since science beleives that everything is based around cause and effect, they always want to know the cause of the depression. That's where the problems start for many people seeking help with depression. -------------------------- Depression lifts when you find the cause and give them good orgasms. If you try to talk them out of feeling bad without ****ing them, you're merely being dishonest. You sound sexually frustrated Steve. Maybe that's you problem ----------------------------- No, oversexed. ;- Concidering the complexity of the human mind, science fails many times when trying to find this "cause" and often mistakes the wrong events as the "cause". ------------------------ That's because western psychology is usually very stupid, puritan, and useless compared to a good sex partner, or even just a friend who halfway cares about you. huh? ------------------------ It's true, it's very much less efficacious than friendships. I have learned from my own experiences that when dealing with depression, finding the "cause" can be far less important than finding help for the problem. The reason is that self-induced depression can be more a result of not wanting to deal with events in life, then the actual events themselves. ----------------------- And if people could treat themselves for it, they WOULD! This MEANS that they can't, since they don't and then talk about it on Usenet! Most people do not chat on Usenet Steve. Unlike us, they actually have a life ---------------- I type really fast. Because of my own past experiences with depression, I beleive there is not an actual cure for it, but rather methods that can be learned to control it. Whether we like it or not, we all have to deal with negative events in our lives. Learning how to deal with these events, past, present, and future, is paramount in beating depression. Masking the events is not always the best approach, and can often lead to far more serious problems. Nobody should have to suffer and not be allowed alternatives treatments for any medical or mental condition, simply because science does not approve of them. -------------------------- Science, when applied by westerners to personal problems, isn't as good as a good ****. -Steve Your all class, Steve. LOL ----------------------------- I think what I am is very very good, and as a confirmed violent Communist, unrelated to "class". -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
George Buyanovsky wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and effect. You exaggerated: Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more appropriate I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I used the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many doing QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause". As I noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without bringing it to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is. Kevin Aylward http://www.anasoft.co.uk SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
Kevin Aylward wrote:
George Buyanovsky wrote: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and effect. You exaggerated: Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more appropriate I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I used the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many doing QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause". As I noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without bringing it to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is. Kevin Aylward ----------------- I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, but we really do KNOW that "things happen without a cause", except that the "cause" in that phrase is some process within reality. It does NOT preclude all possible lives existing, and each being separated by each being a different outcome such that each is Determined yet without Cause, even a Divine one. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Kevin Aylward wrote: George Buyanovsky wrote: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and effect. You exaggerated: Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more appropriate I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I used the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many doing QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause". As I noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without bringing it to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is. Kevin Aylward ----------------- I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, but we really do KNOW that "things happen without a cause", except that the "cause" in that phrase is some process within reality. It does NOT preclude all possible lives existing, and each being separated by each being a different outcome such that each is Determined yet without Cause, even a Divine one. -Steve -- Go outside on a clear night Steve, when it's easy to see many stars in the sky, look into the heavens above, and clear your mind of the idea that we have a clue what life is all about. Let the mystery and wonder of it all come back into your heart and mind. As much as I love science, if your not careful, it can strip these basic, wonderful, human attributes from you. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
bigmike wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Kevin Aylward wrote: George Buyanovsky wrote: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and effect. You exaggerated: Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more appropriate I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I used the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many doing QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause". As I noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without bringing it to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is. Kevin Aylward ----------------- I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, but we really do KNOW that "things happen without a cause", except that the "cause" in that phrase is some process within reality. It does NOT preclude all possible lives existing, and each being separated by each being a different outcome such that each is Determined yet without Cause, even a Divine one. -Steve -- Go outside on a clear night Steve, when it's easy to see many stars in the sky, look into the heavens above, and clear your mind of the idea that we have a clue what life is all about. Let the mystery and wonder of it all come back into your heart and mind. As much as I love science, if your not careful, it can strip these basic, wonderful, human attributes from you. ---------------------- Garbage. Only an ass hides his superstition behind the romance of mystery. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
bigmike wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... bigmike wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Kevin Aylward wrote: George Buyanovsky wrote: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and effect. You exaggerated: Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more appropriate I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I used the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many doing QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause". As I noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without bringing it to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is. Kevin Aylward ----------------- I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, but we really do KNOW that "things happen without a cause", except that the "cause" in that phrase is some process within reality. It does NOT preclude all possible lives existing, and each being separated by each being a different outcome such that each is Determined yet without Cause, even a Divine one. -Steve -- Go outside on a clear night Steve, when it's easy to see many stars in the sky, look into the heavens above, and clear your mind of the idea that we have a clue what life is all about. Let the mystery and wonder of it all come back into your heart and mind. As much as I love science, if your not careful, it can strip these basic, wonderful, human attributes from you. ---------------------- Garbage. Only an ass hides his superstition behind the romance of mystery. -Steve It's not superstition Steve, it's the unknown. And the mystery of life will remain unknown. What's more, there's not a damm thing you can do about it. Get all the degrees you want. Read all the books you want. Do all the calculations you can come up with, invent any theory you wish, and they will never do you any good. The essence of life is in your thoughts, your desires, your dreams and your emotions, not in any physical properties. If science is your only tool to understanding, then a 3 year old has a better understanding of life then you do. And that's a fact. But you know all of this all ready, don't you Steve? I'll play along.... ---------------- All you said, while true, is still just posturing. My Science is as simple as pie, it isn't overly complex, strained, or calculated. The essence of my Science is in my thoughts, desires, dreams, and emotion. Life is just a tool the Infinite uses to exist. Imagine, accusing me of not being poetic enough!! -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Alternate treatment for depression
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... bigmike wrote: "R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Kevin Aylward wrote: George Buyanovsky wrote: "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message ... I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and effect. You exaggerated: Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more appropriate I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I used the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many doing QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause". As I noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without bringing it to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is. Kevin Aylward ----------------- I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, but we really do KNOW that "things happen without a cause", except that the "cause" in that phrase is some process within reality. It does NOT preclude all possible lives existing, and each being separated by each being a different outcome such that each is Determined yet without Cause, even a Divine one. -Steve -- Go outside on a clear night Steve, when it's easy to see many stars in the sky, look into the heavens above, and clear your mind of the idea that we have a clue what life is all about. Let the mystery and wonder of it all come back into your heart and mind. As much as I love science, if your not careful, it can strip these basic, wonderful, human attributes from you. ---------------------- Garbage. Only an ass hides his superstition behind the romance of mystery. -Steve It's not superstition Steve, it's the unknown. And the mystery of life will remain unknown. What's more, there's not a damm thing you can do about it. Get all the degrees you want. Read all the books you want. Do all the calculations you can come up with, invent any theory you wish, and they will never do you any good. The essence of life is in your thoughts, your desires, your dreams and your emotions, not in any physical properties. If science is your only tool to understanding, then a 3 year old has a better understanding of life then you do. And that's a fact. But you know all of this all ready, don't you Steve? I'll play along.... |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Painting exterior metal gate, sand blast, then rust treatment? | Metalworking | |||
Leather sofa - extra cash for treatment? | UK diy | |||
Aluminum Heat Treatment | Metalworking |