[split] Chippy vs the World
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2013, 06:12 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(05-11-2013 05:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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.

I appreciate your attempt to be impartial.

Given that people that know nothing of the topic--e.g. Snivel, Chlamydia Cathy, momsurroundedbyfat, aretardedmind etc.--have decided to "contribute" I have had littele option. I won't be deterred by noise and insults from the cheap seats. I was being asked for a "double-blind systematic review", I was being told that the American College of Gastroenterology doesn't exist and I made it up, that lactose is a monosaccharide etc. etc--FFS. The requests for citations because they came from a place of ignorance were so vague and ill-defined that I could only take a "shotgun" approach. You will see in my posts my repeated attempts to pin down what is being requested. Then when I provide a systematic review and a meta-analysis that associates dosing of A, C, E, zinc and selenium in excess of the RDA with increased mortality I am told they are not "double blind". I try and explain what blinding means and what a systematic review and meta-analysis are but no, knowledge just will not stick on people that are as stuipid and ignorant as Chlamydia Cathy. Then I have this dickhead Snivel that is trying to reverse the burden of proof and cluttering the thread with his idiocy and advertisement of ignorance.

If people that know nothing about this topic keep the fuck out of it and Fulton quits with his appeals to authority as the foundation of his position then I can spend my time and energy demonstrating that so-called "orthomolecular psychiatry" is pseudoscientific junk that has been tossed into the rubbish bin of bad medical ideas.

The insidious thing about Fulton is that he is passing off a fringe--and many say crackpot idea--as mainstream medicine. Orthomolecular psychiatry is NOT mainstream medicine. I don't know of even one college of psychiatry in the Anglophone world that endorses orthomolecular psychiatry. But rather than state that, Fulton passes his quackery off as conventional medicine coming from a putative authority figure. The willingness of idiots on this forum to blindly and uncritically embrace what they are being told because it is coming from a "doctor" is risible.

As I have posted I will provide a detailed rebuttal of Fulton's last post later, most likely tomorrow. I am too tired to read and search through references. Thank-you for the tincture of actual scepticism.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 06:28 AM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(05-11-2013 06:12 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 05:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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.

I appreciate your attempt to be impartial.

Given that people that know nothing of the topic--e.g. Snivel, Chlamydia Cathy, momsurroundedbyfat, aretardedmind etc.--have decided to "contribute" I have had littele option. I won't be deterred by noise and insults from the cheap seats. I was being asked for a "double-blind systematic review", I was being told that the American College of Gastroenterology doesn't exist and I made it up, that lactose is a monosaccharide etc. etc--FFS. The requests for citations because they came from a place of ignorance were so vague and ill-defined that I could only take a "shotgun" approach. You will see in my posts my repeated attempts to pin down what is being requested. Then when I provide a systematic review and a meta-analysis that associates dosing of A, C, E, zinc and selenium in excess of the RDA with increased mortality I am told they are not "double blind". I try and explain what blinding means and what a systematic review and meta-analysis are but no, knowledge just will not stick on people that are as stuipid and ignorant as Chlamydia Cathy. Then I have this dickhead Snivel that is trying to reverse the burden of proof and cluttering the thread with his idiocy and advertisement of ignorance.

If people that know nothing about this topic keep the fuck out of it and Fulton quits with his appeals to authority as the foundation of his position then I can spend my time and energy demonstrating that so-called "orthomolecular psychiatry" is pseudoscientific junk that has been tossed into the rubbish bin of bad medical ideas.

The insidious thing about Fulton is that he is passing off a fringe--and many say crackpot idea--as mainstream medicine. Orthomolecular psychiatry is NOT mainstream medicine. I don't know of even one college of psychiatry in the Anglophone world that endorses orthomolecular psychiatry. But rather than state that, Fulton passes his quackery off as conventional medicine coming from a putative authority figure. The willingness of idiots on this forum to blindly and uncritically embrace what they are being told because it is coming from a "doctor" is risible.

As I have posted I will provide a detailed rebuttal of Fulton's last post later, most likely tomorrow. I am too tired to read and search through references. Thank-you for the tincture of actual scepticism.

Hafnot basically told you that you were being a dick, that your sources were inconsistently unclear that they addressed your assertion that "any benfit - if at all - can be achieved by taking the RDA." And you thanked him? Ha!

Also - nice sidestep. It's not even your fault that you are an asshole, apparently, it's the fault of perfect strangers. Got it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
05-11-2013, 04:14 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(05-11-2013 04:32 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(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.

RE..."Furthermore, you are not a psychiatrist and have had a miniscule amount of training in mental illness and its treatment."

I have had six months full-time training in psychiatry. I also have 20 years experience in general practice, and roughly I would say 30% of my patients have, or do, suffer from depression or anxiety. I regularly attend clinical meetings, I regularly read journals, and I have an excellent rapport with local psychiatrists who I manage patients in common with. In fact those psychiatrists occasionally send me patients who have medical issues that need sorting out because because they trust what I do. If I have a patient with a psychiatric problem, and I give them supplements of some sort, I always inform the psychiatrist (If there is one involved) and there're no objections from them. The supplements are nearly always complimentary to the drug treatment. If a patient has a moderately severe illness they always get a drug from me, and if necessary I am not hesitant to push high doses too. I do whatever I can to make the patient better.

Your assumptions that I am a "quack" and that my patients only get vitamins or minerals from me is totally untrue. When I see a patient for the first time I sit with them for an hour and I examine every aspect of their health. That costs me money because Medicare doesn't reimburse doctors for doing that. I do it because I take a pride in what I do and I care about my patients. If I was a quack I'd be practising "five-minute medicine."

You've assumed I have no experience in psychiatry. Please document your experience in treating patients so we can all make an assessment of what you do.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(05-11-2013 12:18 AM)Chippy Wrote:  (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.
The above is an interesting statement.
But also is vague with regards to what might be deemed "orthomolecular practices". For example if a person suffering depression is also deemed as defficient in a specific nutrient are The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists opposed to the patient being perscribed doses of that nutrient in order to attain optimal levels? Orthomolecular practices seem to be regarding balance via supplimentary intake (be that via food or concentrated pills) or even reduction in intake, rather than as an alternative to other mainstream practices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthomolecular_medicine
Quote:Orthomolecular medicine[1][2] is a form of complementary and alternative medicine aimed at maintaining health through nutritional supplementation
Note the empasis on "complementary" and "supplementation" rather then as a "complete and exclusive" alternative treatment.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists statement seems (to me) to be contradictory to RDA which assumes that there is a level of balance that the body ought to be in, thus the requirement for a daily intake level.
The RDA assumes a healthy individual, maintaining an already optimal balance, but what about cases where a person in a state of deficiency?
(05-11-2013 12:18 AM)Chippy Wrote:  (2) From Megavitamin and Orthomolecular Therapy in Psychiatry: A Report of the APA Task Force on Vitamin Therapy in Psychiatry (1973):
Here is a rather lengthy reply to this report issued by Canadian Schizophrenia Foundation
http://www.iahf.com/orthomolecular/reply..._tfr_7.pdf
(05-11-2013 12:18 AM)Chippy Wrote:  (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.
Fulton has never made a claim that such evidence exists, nor has he made a claim that doctors' advice must be limited only to treatments for which there exists conclusive results based on "double-blinded placebo controlled studies".
"The Clap" whom insists medical advice must be backed up by double-blinded placebo controlled studies, refuses to back his own claim
Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA.
BTW since The Clap insists on immature name calling, I will from now on refer to him by this very beffitting handle.
(05-11-2013 12:18 AM)Chippy Wrote:  (4) Fulton's advice is not consistent with best-practice in primary care or with the principles of evidence-base medicine.
Dr Fulton is giving advice with regards to "complementary" and "supplementation" intake, self-help steps that people on the internet can take. I have not seen him state that he disagrees with any best-practices in primary care or with the principles of evidence-based medicine.
The Clap however has made a claim Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA. Not being a Doctor and not basing his advice on any level of experience or on best practices this can be best described as quackery.
(05-11-2013 12:18 AM)Chippy Wrote:  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
The key phrase here is "eating a diet containing adequate amounts of the nutrients".
If a person is nutrient deficient then their diet is lacking adequate amounts of nutrients thus food supplements may be helpful. Why is this such a problem for you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
05-11-2013, 05:17 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(05-11-2013 04:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If a person is nutrient deficient then their diet is lacking adequate amounts of nutrients thus food supplements may be helpful. Why is this such a problem for you?

That isn't what "orthomolecular psychiatry" is about. Nutritionists have been correcting nutritional deficiencies ever since nutritional requirements were defined and no medical college has a position statement against nutritionists.

Neither the RANZCP nor the APA are opposed to correcting nutritional deficiencies, what they are opposed to is the idea that supraphysiological doses of vitamins and minerals have antidepressant, anxiolytic and antipsychotic effects in people that exhibit no deficiency of any nutrients.

You don't understand what you are reading. Carry on devaluing the thread with your ignorant posts.

Also, if there is evidence that dosing above the RDA is associated with increased mortality and there is no demonstrable benefit in dosing above the RDA then clearly the most prudent course of action is to dose at the RDA. You don't appear to understand that simple line of reasoning.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 05:25 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(05-11-2013 04:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The RDA assumes a healthy individual, maintaining an already optimal balance, but what about cases where a person in a state of deficiency?

What evidence is there that everyone with MDD, GAD or psychosis has nutritional deficiencies?

What you don't appear to be able to get through your thick head is that it is insufficient to merely assume that someone (without a demonstrable nutritional deficiency) needs supraphysiological doses of any nutrient. Why assume that someone with MDD needs supraphysiological doses of a given nutrient? Why not assume they need sherbert bombs? Just because there is no paper that says that those that have MDD don't need sherbert bombs doesn't mean there is good reason to believe that sherbert bombs will reduce the severity of depression.

What you are arguing is a load a ignorant garbage.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 05:26 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
Girly, I think there's gonna be a queue in ball sucking for Chipster.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 05:31 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
(05-11-2013 05:26 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Girly, I think there's gonna be a queue in ball sucking for Chipster.

Anyone tried these olives before? Can't believe I'm just finding out about them now. They're fucking fabulous.

[Image: olives.jpg]

You know what they go great with? That's right, CHEESE! Drooling

[Image: feta.jpg]

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
05-11-2013, 05:32 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
Btw - clappy and clap was a mistake. But now that I know him - i agree - it's a very fitting moniker

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 05:35 PM
RE: [split] Chippy vs the World
How many scabble points could you get from the word supraphysiological?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: