[split] Chippy vs the World
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2013, 10:46 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(04-11-2013 05:29 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Great sidestepping of the demand for evidence, chippy. See? I'm not the only one that noticed
Its a shame, to see the approach Chippy has gone down. Lambasting and insulting Mark, attacking his professional integrity, attacking his education facility, and the entire Australian medical profession, right off the bat, when Mark humbly stated he was just offering his "2 cents".

Given such an ungracious assault you would have thought Chippy had some substantial evidence both against Mark's claim and for his own claim, but Chippy had neither, all he could do was point to research that claimed not enough is known, that more research is warranted.

I understand that Chippy is probably genuine in his position regarding Vitamins, but it very much smells like to me that he is caught up in some conspiracy theory, the guy had read a few articles and drawn some rarely held conclusion. Now he has a bone to pick with anyone recommending vitamins.

A more centered and less egocentric person could have easily brought up the point that the jury is out on "hard" evidence as to the value of excessive intake of vitamins. He could have mentioned that he had read a few articles stating such a claim and that he is unconvinced with regards to Mark's advice.

There was no need to lambast Mark or Mark's education facility, no need to try and write as if Chippy himself were a medical professional. Really no need to draw people into a fight just to make this point.

But as we have seen with many of Chippy's posts (not just in this thread) he really is a quite unique individual and feels the need to put up a pretense that he is an "expert" on everything (even douchbags For God's Sake LOL). His attempts to make himself look authoritative is by trying to lambast and ridicule others, especially those with genuine knowledge that he sees as a threat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
04-11-2013, 11:17 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
This thread is no longer about who is correct, but who can outlast who in posting in the thread. It's pretty sad. Anyone who is trying to keep up with this thread who are novices to the subjects being discussed are no longer gathering up pertinent information, but seeing a bunch of offloading bollocks cargo.

If an argument lasts longer than five minutes, both sides are wrong. - Neil Degrasse Tyson.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cheapthrillseaker's post
04-11-2013, 07:48 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
Experimental studies have linked magnesium deficiency to anxiety and depression (3). And people with low dietary magnesium are much more likely to be depressed (4).

Studies show striking benefits:

A clinical study contrasting the effects of magnesium (450 mg daily) against a popular anti-depressant drug found that magnesium was highly effective in treating depression and as effective as medication (5).

In a series of case studies it was also shown that magnesium treatment (125–300 mg of magnesium with each meal and at bedtime) resulted in rapid recovery from major depression (in less than 7 days) including symptoms of headache, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, irritability, insomnia, post pregnancy depression, cocaine, alcohol and tobacco abuse and short-term memory loss (6)

And as far back as the 1920s magnesium was used to successfully (a 90% success rate) treat agitated depression, increasing sleep and relaxation (7).

The collective evidence and clinical success with magnesium has led some doctors to suggest that “due to its safety and efficacy, physicians should prescribe magnesium for treatment resistant depression without further delay, even though much more clinical research is needed to confirm and extend this important line of research (8).”

How to increase your magnesium intake:

Eat plenty of magnesium rich foods: whole oats, dark chocolate, brown rice, almonds, hazelnuts, peanuts, lima beans, spinach, swiss chard, okra, and bananas.

Take a high quality magnesium dietary supplement providing about 300 mg of magnesium once to twice daily for 3-4 months.

References:

1. Ford ES, Mokdad AH. Dietary magnesium intake in a national sample of US adults. J Nutr 2003;133:2879–82.

2. Johnson S. The multifaceted and widespread pathology of magnesium deficiency. Med Hypotheses. 2001 Feb;56(2):163-70.

3. Sartori SB, Whittle N, Hetzenauer A, Singewald N. Magnesium deficiency induces anxiety and HPA axis dysregulation: modulation by therapeutic drug treatment. Neuropharmacology. 2012 Jan;62(1):304-12.

4. Jacka FN, Overland S, Stewart R, Tell GS, Bjelland I, Mykletun A. Association between magnesium intake and depression and anxiety in community-dwelling adults: the Hordaland Health Study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2009 Jan;43(1):45-52.

5. Barragán-Rodríguez L, Rodríguez-Morán M, Guerrero-Romero F. Efficacy and safety of oral magnesium supplementation in the treatment of depression in the elderly with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, equivalent trial. Magnes Res 2008;21:218–23.

6. Eby GA, Eby KL. Rapid recovery from major depression using magnesium treatment. Med Hypotheses 2006;67:362–70.

7. Weston PG. Magnesium as a sedative. Am J Psychiatry 1921–22;1:637–8.

8. Eby GA 3rd, Eby KL. Magnesium for treatment-resistant depression: a review and hypothesis. Med Hypotheses. 2010 Apr;74(4):649-60.

The article, found at

http://knowledgeofhealth.com/modern-day-...-epidemic/

makes a lot of good points about zinc, (including the fact that it is possible to overdose on the stuff, so chipster will get excited....By the way I only prescribe large doses for my patients short term as in 1 to 2 months and usually then decrease the dose to lower levels). In the real world it is actually very difficult to overdose on zinc.) More importantly, the article makes the important points that serum zinc is not a good indicator of total body stores and that rates of absorption very between individuals and with the type of zinc consumed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
04-11-2013, 07:52 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(04-11-2013 10:46 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 05:29 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Great sidestepping of the demand for evidence, chippy. See? I'm not the only one that noticed
Its a shame, to see the approach Chippy has gone down. Lambasting and insulting Mark, attacking his professional integrity, attacking his education facility, and the entire Australian medical profession, right off the bat, when Mark humbly stated he was just offering his "2 cents".

Given such an ungracious assault you would have thought Chippy had some substantial evidence both against Mark's claim and for his own claim, but Chippy had neither, all he could do was point to research that claimed not enough is known, that more research is warranted.

I understand that Chippy is probably genuine in his position regarding Vitamins, but it very much smells like to me that he is caught up in some conspiracy theory, the guy had read a few articles and drawn some rarely held conclusion. Now he has a bone to pick with anyone recommending vitamins.

A more centered and less egocentric person could have easily brought up the point that the jury is out on "hard" evidence as to the value of excessive intake of vitamins. He could have mentioned that he had read a few articles stating such a claim and that he is unconvinced with regards to Mark's advice.

There was no need to lambast Mark or Mark's education facility, no need to try and write as if Chippy himself were a medical professional. Really no need to draw people into a fight just to make this point.

But as we have seen with many of Chippy's posts (not just in this thread) he really is a quite unique individual and feels the need to put up a pretense that he is an "expert" on everything (even douchbags For God's Sake LOL). His attempts to make himself look authoritative is by trying to lambast and ridicule others, especially those with genuine knowledge that he sees as a threat.

Spot on. Thanks.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
05-11-2013, 12:18 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2013 12:55 AM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(1) From Position Statement #24 of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists
(Adopted: April 1988 (GC1/88. Item 1.5.7) Amended: Oct 1988 (GC2/88 Item 2.3.11.1); Oct 1994 (GC2/94 Item 4.10.2); Oct 1997 (GC2/97.R64) Current: Until superseded or withdrawn)

10. There is no scientific substantiation of the therapeutic efficacy of orthomolecular psychiatry in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. The College is therefore opposed to the use of orthomolecular practices other than as part of appropriately designed and ethically approved clinical trials.

(2) From Megavitamin and Orthomolecular Therapy in Psychiatry: A Report of the APA Task Force on Vitamin Therapy in Psychiatry (1973):

The preceding material should make it clear that in our view the results and claims of the advocates of megavitamin therapy have not been confirmed by several groups of psychiatrists and psychologists experienced in psychopharmacological research. The negative results have been obtained with adequately sized populations, employing careful observations by physicians, psychologists and nurses and employing standardized, reliable psychological and behavioral rating scales and appropriate statistics. They have been designed to test the efficacy of vitamin Ba (nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, niacin) and the coenzyme derived from it (nicotinamide-adenine-dinucleotide), and this has been found to be useless and not without hazard. Thus, the claims of the megavitamin proponents made as far back as 1957 have not been confirmed. (p.45)

(3) Fulton has yet to present any evidence in the form of a double-blinded placebo controlled study design that supraphysiological doses of any nutrient are efficacious in the treatment of any mental illness.

(4) Fulton's advice is not consistent with best-practice in primary care or with the principles of evidence-base medicine. What he is advocating is not mainstream medicine and is widely recognised as quackery:

http://pediatrics.georgetown.edu/documen...rapies.pdf
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela...ortho.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRela...quack.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_m95sS0khk

(5) This is from Reynold Spector writing for CSICOP. From Science and Pseudoscience in Adult Nutrition Research and Practice

Are food supplements helpful? Are there particular nutrients that will prevent illness and disease and possibly prolong life?The answer, notwithstanding thousands of positive EOS [epidemiology/observation studies] and, in some cases, small inadequate clinical trials, is there is no rigorous scientific evidence for the utility of dietary supplements, including megavitamins in normal-weight (nonpregnant) adults with a stable BMI of 20-25 eating a diet containing adequate amounts of the nutrients in Table 1. See Table 3 for representative examples of false claims based on erroneous EOS...As you can see, the EOS have been frequently in error, yielding false-positive results. In general the clinical trials in Table 3 are examples of controlled, randomized studies done with very large numbers of people often versus placebo...In fact, there is some evidence in controlled trials that megavitamins (e.g., E, C, and A) may actually increase mortality...Yet, notwithstanding the lack of evidence of benefit and potential harm, megavitamins and supplements are still recommended by some nutrition “experts.”

(6) There is good evidence that long-term nutrient supplementation is associated with increase mortality:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419320
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18425980
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18677777
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17327526

(7) Standard textbooks in nutrition science Essentials of Human Nutrition and Introduction to Clinical Nutrition (2nd Ed) do not identify those diagnosed with MDD as having any special dietetic needs such that they need supraphysiological doses of any nutrient. Introduction to Clinical Nutrition actually cautions:

The acute toxicity of vitamin B6 is quite low; daily doses of under 500 mg (i.e., 250 times RDA) for up to 6 months appear to be safe, but prolonged consumption of the vitamin in amounts considerably above RDA may increase the individual's daily requirement because of dependency and can also result in neurotoxicity. In most cases, the individuals recover normal functions after they stop taking the megadoses. Large doses of vitamin B6 should not he taken unless the individual has been proven to have a deficiency and the use of such doses is warranted. (p.259)

See also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6308447 re B6 toxicity
See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...x/abstract re toxicity of water-soluble vitamins

Standards textbooks in psychiatry either do not mention "megavitamin therapy" or "orthomolecular medcine" else when they do they state it is without evidence and do not advocate its use:

New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry -- No mention in somatic treatments section

Kaplan & Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (9th Edition) in a subsection 28.5 Nonconventional Approaches in Mental Health Care provides a list of inconclusive and methodologically weak or flawed studies in relation to some vitamins and minerals. These appear alongside such things as Homeopathy, Therapeutic Touch and Qigong. Furthermore, the treatment section for MDD (13.8 Mood Disorders: Treatment of Depression; 48.1 Depressive Disorders and Suicide) and the treatment section for GAD (14.8 Anxiety Disorders: Somatic Treatment) do not advocate supraphysiological doses of any nutrient as part of a treatment regimen.

(8) The universities of Tasmania are consistently ranked amongst the worst universities in Australia and the world:

http://www.australianuniversities.com.au/rankings/
http://www.shanghairanking.com/FieldMED2013.html
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2013.html
http://theconversation.com/obstacles-to-...ally-11330
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/prog...22/4962902

It is well-known amongst Australian high-school students that if you can't get into anything in the major cities of Australia you can get a place in a Tasmanian university.

(9) Merely because someone has a medical degree doesn't eliminate their need to provide evidence and it doesn't demonstrate that they aren't a quack. The APHRA deregisters many quacks and incompetents every year. See here. See also http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/how-...rs-quacks/ http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dr-o...doscience/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 03:23 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2013 04:13 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
Please read this...

"The word "orthomolecular" was introduced by Linus Pauling in "Orthomolecular Psychiatry", his seminal 1968 article published in the journal Science. Before defining this term, it may be useful to review some of the events that led to its introduction. In 1949, Pauling and his colleagues published a paper in Science that announced the discovery of the cause of sickle-cell anemia, the first disease to be described as a molecular disease. He had worked on hemoglobin for many years and published a number of papers on its properties. (In 1965, he and Emile Zuckerkandl published an extremely influential paper on the use of hemoglobin and other globin proteins to estimate the evolutionary divergence of organisms, which introduced the science of molecular evolution.) While serving as a member of the Medical Advisory Committee of the United States government in 1945, Pauling listened to Dr. William Castle of Harvard describe the abnormal sickle shape of the red corpuscles in patients with sickle-cell anemia. Pauling immediately suggested that the sickling might be caused by an abnormal hemoglobin that combined with itself into long rods when deoxygenated. The long rods then twist the red corpuscle into the abnormal shape characteristic in sickle-cell anemia. A few years later, Pauling was able to test and confirm this hypothesis with the help of Dr. Harvey Itano. Their Science paper, which demonstrated that sickle-cell anemia is caused by an abnormal molecule, heralded the era of molecular medicine.

A number of other molecular diseases have been described, such as phenylketonuria, in which an enzyme deficiency allows the accumulation of the amino acid phenylalanine in the body, leading to mental and physical problems. Galactosemia is another molecular disease. In afflicted infants, the sugar galactose accumulates because of a missing enzyme, causing mental and physical manifestations. Both of these illnesses arise from abnormalities in the amounts or the structure of enzymes, and by the late 1950s, Pauling had become increasingly interested in the role of enzymes in brain function. Thanks to funding from the Ford Foundation, he started to explore the biochemistry and molecular basis of mental illness. He learned about changes in mental function that precede the overt B vitamin deficiency diseases—pellagra, pernicious anemia, and beriberi—and later learned about the work of two psychiatrists, Abram Hoffer and Humphry Osmond, who were reporting success in treating schizophrenics with niacin, the B vitamin that prevents pellagra.

In the case of phenylketonuria, treatment has consisted of restricting the amount of dietary phenylalanine. Similarly, galactosemia can be treated by eliminating milk, which contains galactose, from the diet. Pauling cited these strategies as examples of orthomolecular psychiatric therapy, which he defined in "Orthomolecular Psychiatry" as "the treatment of mental disease by the provision of the optimum molecular environment for the mind, especially the optimum concentrations of substances normally present in the body." He later broadened this definition to include orthomolecular medicine, which he defined as "the preservation of good health and the treatment of disease by varying the concentrations in the human body of substances that are normally present in the body". He sometimes appended "and are required for health" to this definition and noted, "the adjective orthomolecular is used to express the idea of the right molecules in the right concentration" (emphasis added). The treatment of diabetes by the injection of insulin and the prevention of goiter with iodine are other instances of orthomolecular medicine.

As you can see from the examples of orthomolecular medicine discussed above, sometimes decreasing the amount of a substance in the body is beneficial (see also the article on homocysteine in this newsletter). Orthomolecular medicine is not "alternative"; rather, it should be considered as an adjunct to appropriate conventional medicine. Pauling became especially fascinated with vitamin C in the mid-1960s and quickly recognized that the intake of this vitamin and, consequently, its concentration in the body, significantly influences health and disease.

Research in orthomolecular nutrition and medicine forms the basis of the mission of the Linus Pauling Institute. Our faculty are particularly interested in determining the body's optimal concentration of various substances from food, including vitamins, micronutrients, and phytochemicals, that leads to the best of health and affords the greatest protection against disease."

Chipster, your derogatory assessment of orthomolecular medicine, in common with the ignorant attitude of some doctors, is plainly wrong.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
05-11-2013, 03:36 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
tl;dr

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 04:11 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(05-11-2013 03:36 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  tl;dr

Some zinc would help your concentration. lol
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
05-11-2013, 04:32 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2013 04:39 AM by Chippy.)
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(05-11-2013 03:23 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please read this...

I will respond in detail to your post later. Some comments in brief for now.

It speaks to your intellect and character ormore precisely your lack of it that rather than try and engage me in an argument (which you know you will lose because you have no evidence) that you would prefer to stir-up an ignorant and idiotic rabble to try and shout me down. You (and Stevil and Cathy and the other ignoramuses) are as bad as the worst religionists.

Quote:Chipster, your derogatory assessment of orthomolecular medicine, in common with the ignorant attitude of some doctors, is plainly wrong.

My position is consistent with the the official position of the American Psychiatric Association (which I quoted in point (2)) and the The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (which I quoted in (1)).

The "some doctors" that you refer to is the majority of psychiatrists in the USA and Australia.

Furthermore, you are not a psychiatrist and have had a miniscule amount of training in mental illness and its treatment. Your quackery has the potential to cause death. If someone with MDD comes to you and instead of referring them to a (non-quack) psychiatrist or initiating their treatment with antidepressants (as per evidence-based medicine) you instead give them bottles vitamins and minerals and tell them to go home and take those you risk sending them home to commit suicide. If this hasn't already happened it is only a matter of time before it does happen. If it has happened/does happen then you deserve not only to be deregistered but also to be criminally prosecuted for medical negligence.

I will give you a detailed rebuttal of what you posted later.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 05:14 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
I've been umming and ahhing for a while about joining this thread. I don't have much to say, but:

* I stand on the side of scepticism on vitamin and nutrient consumption in general. Although I acknowledge that it is likely some disorders and some individuals benefit from dietary supplements, what I hear through sceptical circles heavily populated by physicians is that most vitamin and mineral supplements either have no effect or a net negative on human health - being linked to higher incidences of cancer and the like.

* I am more persuaded by the opinion of peak bodies on this subject than by individual doctors, and more persuaded by doctors who move in sceptical circles than those who do not.

* Chippy, you have failed to consistently engage in manner that effectively communicates reliable information. You have spent more effort than necessary on ad hominem and although you have cited sources it hasn't been consistently clear either that those sources had something direct to say about the topic at hand or that those sources were known to be reliable. Part of the problem here is that the claims being made about zinc, magnesium and the like in this thread are fairly non-specific so I understand the difficulty in dragging up specific responses. I appreciate the knowledge and effort you have put into the thread, but as a matter of tone if nothing else I think you may have done more overall for your opposition's case than your own. How you debate is of course a matter for yourself, but from the perspective of an observer on the sideline it seemed that you took an approach that didn't sufficiently support your argument's credibility and relied mostly on ad hominem to reduce the credibility of your opponent's argument - who has after all the title of "Doctor" attached to his name, though not psychiatrist as you say.

* Mark, I appreciate also your knowledge and input in this discussion. I have no particular need right now for any medical treatment but I'll keep a sceptical open mind to the topic should it come up in the future with my own doctor in relation to specific diagnoses or maladies.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: