[split] Chippy vs the World
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2013, 09:01 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 01:46 AM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 08:45 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 08:43 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are the one making the claim. As you said, it's the responsibly of the claimant

You didn't read the studies yourself, did you? You are relying *purely* on someone else's interpretation of the study. Sounds like a legit way to proceed.

The Cochrane Collaboration is one of the most highly-regarded producers of systematic reviews in the world. They literally wrote the manual on performing systematic reviews. Doctors that employ evidenced-based practice all over the world rely on the Cochrane systematic reviews. I too rely on them for the same reason that clinicians and biomedically scientists do: (a) time; and (b) specialisation.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 09:02 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 08:58 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 08:48 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  This is boring. I'd rather hop into bed with my lover. So I'm gonna go do that and leave chippy to suck on girly's salty balls. Make sure you don't give him bat wings, chip

Don't leave me, Cathym. Weeping

There is always room for you. We'll make a cathym sandwich.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 09:02 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 08:43 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You are the one making the claim. As you said, it's the responsibly of the claimant

I provided you the studies, I have no obligation to spoon feed you anything.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 09:04 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 09:00 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 08:55 PM)Chippy Wrote:  The principles of systematic review as specified in the Cochrane Manual do control for bias. RCTs are graded with respect to a collection of criteria including biasing influences.


The conclusions of the systematic reviews and meta-analysis most support my position because the study conclusions are based on all of the relevant RCT studies that the reviewers were able to find on the topic of A, C, E zinc and selenium dosing.

A systematic review (and meta-analysis) represents the best available evidence on any topic. If you want one individual study then find it in the references section. Strong conclusion are formed on the basis of multiple studies not one single study. If a systematic reviews shows X then that is stronger evidence for X than just one single RCT.


You are speaking bullshit. You don't understand what a systematic review or meta-analysis are.


Blah blah blah...cite an original study or STFU

Read the references in Bjelakovic et al (2012) you lazy slapper.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 09:30 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 06:20 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:52 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I am so happy that we both agree.
You made the claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

You demanded of Mark evidence in the form of double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials
Now instead of being a weasel I am again offering you an opportunity to become a man.
Provide the evidence backing your claim. (Man up!)

I already have. I've provided you two comprehensive and authoritative systematic reviews that show that supplementation of antioxidants above the RDA increases mortality.
That's all fine and dandy if the topic was with regards to mortality, but I still want you to provide some evidence in support of your claim.
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.
The context of which is with regards to depression.
Your claim was very bold and assertive, and it was specific to people suffering from depression.
So to be clear I want you to provide evidence ( in the form of double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials) showing that benefits for all depressed patients of taking vitamins are realised by just taking them at RDA.
(03-11-2013 06:20 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I also provided another Cochrane review that shows that dosing women above the RDA will neither prevent nor treat their post-natal depression.
And yet the conclusion did not support your bold claim.
Quote:This study had a high risk of bias because of women withdrawing or not completing their self-scoring system for depression (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale). It may also have been difficult to ensure that the women took their supplements because of concerns that exist about taking supplements during pregnancy. More high-quality studies would be required to confirm any benefit in preventing postnatal depression using selenium.
...
Overall, there is not enough evidence at this stage to recommend selenium, docosahexanoic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid or any other dietary supplement for the prevention of postnatal depression.
Unfortunately there were no other studies of other dietary supplements that met our selection criteria. Other dietary supplements need to be studied in trials where depressed women are excluded from entry to determine if supplements prevent postnatal depression.
At what point does it state that the evidence supports your claim?
"Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 10:08 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 10:31 PM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 09:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 06:20 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I already have. I've provided you two comprehensive and authoritative systematic reviews that show that supplementation of antioxidants above the RDA increases mortality.
That's all fine and dandy if the topic was with regards to mortality, but I still want you to provide some evidence in support of your claim.
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.
The context of which is with regards to depression.
Your claim was very bold and assertive, and it was specific to people suffering from depression.
So to be clear I want you to provide evidence ( in the form of double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials) showing that benefits for all depressed patients of taking vitamins are realised by just taking them at RDA.
(03-11-2013 06:20 PM)Chippy Wrote:  I also provided another Cochrane review that shows that dosing women above the RDA will neither prevent nor treat their post-natal depression.
And yet the conclusion did not support your bold claim.
Quote:This study had a high risk of bias because of women withdrawing or not completing their self-scoring system for depression (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale). It may also have been difficult to ensure that the women took their supplements because of concerns that exist about taking supplements during pregnancy. More high-quality studies would be required to confirm any benefit in preventing postnatal depression using selenium.
...
Overall, there is not enough evidence at this stage to recommend selenium, docosahexanoic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid or any other dietary supplement for the prevention of postnatal depression.
Unfortunately there were no other studies of other dietary supplements that met our selection criteria. Other dietary supplements need to be studied in trials where depressed women are excluded from entry to determine if supplements prevent postnatal depression.
At what point does it state that the evidence supports your claim?
"Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA"

There is no evidence that those with MDD need more of any particular nutrient than those without MDD. If you claim that those with MDD do need more of any particular nutrient than those without MDD then the onus on you is to provide the evidence.

There is no evidence that that those with MDD will benefit from supraphysiological doses of any nutriient. If you claim that those with MDD will benefit from supraphysiological doses of any nutriient then the onus is on you to supply the evidence.

In the absence of evidence for either claim then--by implication--those with MDD have no reason to consume any vitamin or mineral above the RDA. You are the claimain here and you need to provide evidence. This is what you are contending:

H1: Those with MDD require supraphysiological doses of one or more nutrients.
H2: Those with MDD will experience a relief in their symptoms by consuming supraphysiological doses of one or more nutrients.

In the absence of evidence for H1 and H2 then those with MDD should stay with the RDA as per everyone else, no other conclusion follows from the absence of evidence for H1 and H2.

Furthermore I provided you evidence that unnecessary supplementation of A, C, E, zinc and selenium is potentially harmful.

Unless it can be demonstrated that those with MDD represent a special population with special nutritional needs then there is no justification for dosing above the RDA. The RDA is applicable unless compelling reasons can be provided to deviate from it. No such compelling reasons have been provided by you or Fulton.

On your reasoning there is just as much (or perhaps more because poprocks haven't been shown to increase mortality) reason to give those with MDD pop rocks than there is to give them supraphysiological doses of any nutrient. How do you know that those with MDD don't need pop rocks? Can you provide me a paper that shows that those with MDD don't need pop rocks?

If I make the claim that the bodies of those with MDD are crying out for pop rocks the onus is on me to provide the evidence that this is the case. The "default" position is that those with MDD don't need pop rocks. The nutritional "default" is the quantities specified in the RDA. Those with MDD are dietetically the same as everyone else unless evidence can be produced that shows otherwise. Given that there is no evidence that those with MDD are dietetically different from anyone else then the RDA applies to them just as it applies to everyone else without any demonstrable special dietetic need.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 10:41 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 10:08 PM)Chippy Wrote:  If you claim that those with MDD do need more of any particular nutrient than those without MDD then the onus on you is to provide the evidence.
That's fine, but lets focus on your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.
(03-11-2013 10:08 PM)Chippy Wrote:  If you claim that those with MDD will benefit from supraphysiological doses of any nutriient then the onus is on you to supply the evidence.
Again, fine and dandy, but let's focus on your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.
(03-11-2013 10:08 PM)Chippy Wrote:  In the absence of evidence for either claim then--by implication--those with MDD have no reason to consume any vitamin or mineral above the RDA.
That's fine, but this was not your claim. Your claim was assertive and bold, it almost sounded as if you were an expert in this field of medicine.
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

(03-11-2013 10:08 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Furthermore I provided you evidence that unnecessary supplementation of A, C, E, zinc and selenium is potentially harmful.
This doesn't help support your claim. Just as a gentle reminder, your claim was
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.
(03-11-2013 10:08 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Unless it can be demonstrated that those with MDD represent a special population with special nutritional needs then there is no justification for dosing above the RDA.
This isn't true, Mark has provided plenty of justification, both through references and via his years of training and experience. The guy is a professional Doctor, licenced to practice in Australia. He just doesn't have evidence to the criteria that you are demanding.
But this is beside the point. You have made a claim, you need to provide evidence based on your claim.
(03-11-2013 10:08 PM)Chippy Wrote:  The RDA is applicable unless compelling reasons can be provided to deviate from it. No such compelling reasons have been provided by you or Fulton.
I have never seen a research paper claiming that the RDA of vitimans is sufficient for people suffering from depression, please provide your evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 11:02 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 10:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That's fine, but lets focus on your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

I've already answered your question. I'm not going to keep repeating myself simply because you refuse to acknowledge it or don't understand it.

Quote:I have never seen a research paper claiming that the RDA of vitimans is sufficient for people suffering from depression, please provide your evidence.

I've never seen a paper claiming that those with MDD don't need pop rocks so they must need pop rocks.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 11:22 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 12:02 AM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 10:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I have never seen a research paper claiming that the RDA of vitimans is sufficient for people suffering from depression, please provide your evidence.

You have no idea about evidence or how science works. The implication of your position is that those with MDD need literally everything for which there doesn't exist a paper which says that they don't need it. This list would include:

--pop rocks (as I've already stated)
--dog shit
--toe nail clippings
--sweat from GirlyMan's ass crack
--lint
--dead flies
--cat piss
--hobo dick cheese

So if Fulton claimed that MDD can be treated by eating 600mg a day of hobos' dick cheese and I said that was bunkum your reply would be show me a paper that shows that those with MDD can't be treated with hobos' dick cheese.

You don't know what you are on about. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof. The RDA applies to all humans unless evidence can been shown that a person is part of a special population with a particular dietetic need and those with MDD have not been shown to be such a population. No such evidence exists for those with MDD so the RDA applies to that cohort also. Also it is insufficient to just assume that those with any illness have a special dietetic need. Unless such a need can be demonstrated there is no justification for exceeding the RDA.

If your response is going to be that they might need mega-doses of X then my response is that they may also need hobos' dick cheese.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 11:57 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(03-11-2013 11:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  That's fine, but lets focus on your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

I've already answered your question. I'm not going to keep repeating myself simply because you refuse to acknowledge it or don't understand it.
You haven't provided any support for your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.

Instead you keep arguing about whether there is evidence that high doses of vitamins are effective on sufferers of depression.

But your claim is about the recommended daily allowance and a claim that it is enough for sufferers of depression.
These are different claims. I demand that you provide evidence in support of your own claim.


(03-11-2013 11:02 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:I have never seen a research paper claiming that the RDA of vitimans is sufficient for people suffering from depression, please provide your evidence.

I've never seen a paper claiming that those with MDD don't need pop rocks so they must need pop rocks.
...But we are discussing the evidence that supports your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.
Where is the supporting evidence?


(03-11-2013 11:22 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I have never seen a research paper claiming that the RDA of vitimans is sufficient for people suffering from depression, please provide your evidence.

You have no idea about evidence or how science works.
You could educate me by showing the evidence you have that supports your claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.
What research papers suggest that the RDA of vitamins is sufficient for sufferers of depression?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: