Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?  (Read 21021 times)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2016, 06:22:24 pm »

Healthier people in good shape, not dying young, are more likely to mate, hence the population growth ;)

Oh! I see! So that's why advanced, developed countries  with a high life expectancy, such as Japan, Germany and the USA, continue to have rapid population growth, whereas less advanced countries with a lower life expectancy, such as Chad, Eritrea, Kenya and Uganda, have a dwindling population. I didn't know that.  ;D  ;D
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #41 on: May 27, 2016, 05:45:00 am »

Ray, I read your response to my last post.

I have had a fair internal debate as to whether to respond.
I think I have to - if for no other reason to maintain some balance.

Unfortunately, your views on the matter betray enormous naivete.
Simply put, animal studies, while always done (particularly when researching new drugs) just don't prove any kind of point with respect to efficacy or safety in human populations.
This is a well known fact in medical/research circles.
The fact that you don't know this and have difficulty believing this fact does not change the bottom line.

Yes. animal studies are done as a necessary precursor to further studies on humans but those animal studies in a very absolute  (and I mean absolute) sense do not mean anything with respect to efficacy or safety in humans.

Furthermore there is no contradiction in anything that I said with respect to the process of research as it pertains to clinical therapeutics. The contradiction lies in you not understanding the process.

Furthermore, with respect to medical practice, we are not bound in an absolute sense to using drugs and other therapies strictly as per the TGA.
Yes, nearly all of what we do would be regarded as conventional by the TGA, but not all.
However, when we do use drugs above and beyond ways originally set out by the TGA when the drug was approved we do not just suck our thumbs and dream up those indications.
There is solid science behind those uses with good trial evidence (with human subjects) guiding us.
You may or may not realise that it might take twenty years for the various regulatory authorities to update their licensing.
I have used drugs for "off-label" indications plenty of times in my career.
We cannot do this without justifying our reasons pretty thoroughly but the science is there and we refer to it.
Ultimately the party most interested in how we use drugs in this fashion is whatever party is paying for the treatment - usually the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or the insurance company (this applies only in Australia). In practice the hospital pharmacy is the one we have to convince.

Finally, none of the research that you referred  to, that I read anyway, is being done by dieticians - they are clinicians like myself. Dieticians are taught a small subsection of what we are taught as clinicians. The fact that that is all they do for a living does not in any way exclude me and my colleagues from knowing what they know - and particularly given what I do in ICU medicine understanding every aspect of what a dietician does and what they know is actually a fundamental part of my job.

Ray, you used a phrase in your last post - "general impression" - and I sorry, that is all you have on these topics.
Your general impressions are so general that, to me, they amount to gross errors of understanding.

In addition look at how your descriptions have changed:
In the first post on this subject you were talking about fasting patients to cure them of cancer - several individuals, including myself, pointed out that this was dangerous rubbish with not a shred of evidence. Some of the ideas that you introduced to support this argument was that eating a healthy diet, in general, reduced the incidence of cancer. This is true for some types of cancer but in no way proves any kind of point with regard to actually treating someone who actually has cancer particularly with regards to fasting cancer patients.
Now, you are talking about exercise and healthy diet to stay healthy - and I have no issues with this at all except that this has nothing to do with your claims regarding diet or fasting to actually treat cancer.

I reiterate this again: I doubt that you are in a position to adequately interpret scientific/medical research data based on what you have demonstrated in this thread.
I thoroughly respect your right to an opinion, whatever that may be, but your claims present potential danger to any individual not in a position to independently question those claims and it is that concern that has motivated me to involve myself at all.

Tony Jay
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #42 on: May 27, 2016, 06:34:09 am »

Unfortunately, your views on the matter betray enormous naivete.
Simply put, animal studies, while always done (particularly when researching new drugs) just don't prove any kind of point with respect to efficacy or safety in human populations.
This is a well known fact in medical/research circles.

Tony, even though I'm... err, with you in this continued debate, there's one thing I wish you stop doing. When someone starts to call his/her opponent as "naive" etc., it immediately tells me he/she ran out of gas in the debate. Just stick to facts, please. I understand it all stems from frustration, but still -- you're doing your cause a disservice.

There are countless examples in the history of science of views or reports that was called "naive" in an attempts to dismiss them, which later proved to be true. Like, say, French Academy laughing at men reporting that rocks were falling from the sky.

That is not to say that fasting does any good to patients (except for the extra hope, as was pointed out). I tend to agree with that. My point it, it has to be proved, not simply dismissed.

Furthermore there is no contradiction in anything that I said with respect to the process of research as it pertains to clinical therapeutics.

Yes, there is. That "any kind of point" in "animal studies, while always done (particularly when researching new drugs) just don't prove any kind of point with respect to efficacy or safety in human populations" is clearly over the top. These studies are not done in preparation to treat animals, they are done in preparation to treat humans. And if they did not "prove any kind of point", they would not be conducted. (I remember it was also in your earlier post, but can't find it)

I understand you just tried to stress its inconclusiveness, and made... a slip. And now for some reason instead of admitting it, correcting yourself and moving on, you hang on to it. Just say "that's not what I meant", and move on. Like a scientist would do.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 06:37:21 am by Zorki5 »
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #43 on: May 27, 2016, 07:09:37 am »



Yes, there is. That "any kind of point" in "animal studies, while always done (particularly when researching new drugs) just don't prove any kind of point with respect to efficacy or safety in human populations" is clearly over the top. These studies are not done in preparation to treat animals, they are done in preparation to treat humans. And if they did not "prove any kind of point", they would not be conducted. (I remember it was also in your earlier post, but can't find it)

I understand you just tried to stress its inconclusiveness, and made... a slip. And now for some reason instead of admitting it, correcting yourself and moving on, you hang on to it. Just say "that's not what I meant", and move on. Like a scientist would do.
There is no slip or mistake or me been "over the top".
There are countless studies where therapeutics have been investigated where the animal studies were very encouraging.
Excellent therapeutic effect - as per expectations - and no evidence of toxicity.
Subsequent trials on humans - either no therapeutic effect or actual toxicity and not uncommonly increased mortality in the treatment arm.
This is common enough to merely merit a shrug of the shoulders in the scientific and medical communities.

Yes, the animal trials are done to try, emphasis try, to assess efficacy, and especially safety. If there is no evidence of efficacy and/or safety concerns at this point then the whole line of research is aborted. No human trials will be done.
However, good results at an animal study level just don't prove anything until the human trials also show the same thing.

It is complete bunkum to assume that the result of an animal study will be reproduced in a human population until the human trials have been completed..

With respect to your comment that I have dismissed any thought that diet or fasting does not work - that also is not correct.
I have dismissed, correctly, the claims that Ray originally made precisely because there is no evidence to support his assertions.
If you read all my posts carefully you will see firstly that I am aware that some research is being done into whether diet can be used to treat cancer.
I am also aware that at least one human trial looking at diet (not fasting) in treating prostate cancer is in process now.
No one. not least the investigators themselves know what the result will be.
As I wrote before: until that time....

I also say this, with respect: I have been misquoted, selectively quoted, and I suspect deliberately misunderstood in order for points to be scored.
I don't feel that I have to defend the points that I have made.
There is nothing in this for me personally.
My only motive here is to prevent silly and misguided information been spread around that may well harm others who are not able to correctly interpret this data.
I am aware of the absolute avalanche of trash information being peddled on the net everyday.
I cannot possibly counter all of that but here was a small thing that could be tackled.

My suggestion is that we all move on and get back to talking photography.

Tony Jay
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #44 on: May 27, 2016, 07:28:58 am »

Yes, the animal trials are done to try, emphasis try, to assess efficacy, and especially safety. If there is no evidence of efficacy and/or safety concerns at this point then the whole line of research is aborted. No human trials will be done.

Isn't that "some kind of point"?

There is no slip or mistake or me been "over the top".

My suggestion is that we all move on and get back to talking photography.

Amen.
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #45 on: May 27, 2016, 08:43:24 am »

This is getting bit ridiculous:

The answer is no - it is not "some kind of point".

I will give an analogy that can be understood:

If one goes to a car dealer needing a motor vehicle and the salesman points one to a pile of parts lying on the floor what will be your response?
The answer is that you know that that this is not a motor vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that the salesman tries to reassure you that everyone of those parts is from a Lamborghini.
Whichever way one looks at that pile of parts it NOT a motor vehicle.
The fact that each of those parts are genuine components of what might be a motor vehicle changes nothing.

I have made it pretty clear that from a clinical perspective that animal studies do not cut the mustard.
I cannot make treatment decisions based on animal studies.
(If the animal studies are done on a mouse model then perhaps I could use the information gained to treat a mouse but nothing more. There would be no guarantee that that treatment would work on a dog or a rhesus monkey. It just doesn't work that way.)
Only human studies tell us what we need to know.
(I look after humans and not mice after all.)
The pile of parts is the animal studies.
The motor vehicle is the human trials.

The issue that I have tried to address from the beginning is not merely a topic for debate on an intellectual or philosophical level.
I actually have to deal with patients totally mired in just this kind of misinformation, believing all sorts of things that are sometimes intrinsically harmful and others that are only harmful because the patient chooses some treatment that does not work rather than something that does.
Sometimes we can convince the patient and common sense prevails and sometimes not.
I have seen several deaths from patients taking the latter position.
Just that you know: we respect the patients decisions - whatever they are, but that does not mean the same thing as agreeing with them.

I made a point about being misunderstood and you chose to misrepresent what I was saying.
I ask again - just leave it alone.

Tony Jay
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #46 on: May 27, 2016, 09:22:03 am »

This is getting bit ridiculous:

Yes, and that is why I wholeheartedly agreed to your suggestion to do some photography instead.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #47 on: May 27, 2016, 09:41:24 am »

Oh! I see! So that's why advanced, developed countries  with a high life expectancy, such as Japan, Germany and the USA, continue to have rapid population growth, whereas less advanced countries with a lower life expectancy, such as Chad, Eritrea, Kenya and Uganda, have a dwindling population. I didn't know that.  ;D  ;D

Ray, there are many factors that affect both mortality and natality rates overall. It still doesn't change my claim that a subsection of the overall population that is young, healthy, and in good shape is more likely to mate, in any society. Other factors might diminish that or even negate it. The sad trend, however, is that the advanced countries are becoming increasingly obese, to the point that, in a few years, the obese will become a majority in the States. That both increases the mortality and decreases the chance of mating. Which, in turn, only increases the need to drown the sorrow in more food ;)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #48 on: May 27, 2016, 11:45:58 am »

Ray, there are many factors that affect both mortality and natality rates overall. It still doesn't change my claim that a subsection of the overall population that is young, healthy, and in good shape is more likely to mate, in any society.

I can't disagree that being young and healthy is a solid basis for mating. When one is young, the sexual urge is stronger. However, insecure societies, and societies dominated by religious fanaticism prohibiting the use of contraceptives for birth control, are likely to breed more.

I'd love to get into deep philosophical discussions about such matters, but I think I might be treading on dangerous ground.

Quote
Other factors might diminish that or even negate it. The sad trend, however, is that the advanced countries are becoming increasingly obese, to the point that, in a few years, the obese will become a majority in the States. That both increases the mortality and decreases the chance of mating. Which, in turn, only increases the need to drown the sorrow in more food.

There's a similar situation in Australia. When I go shopping with my partner in local supermarkets, I'm often amazed at the extreme obesity of certain individuals I encounter.
I would like to do a photographic project on obesity, but knowing how people are very sensitive about any attention being drawn to their overweightedness, I'm not sure how I could approach the subjects to get them to accept my photographing them.

I'm imagining situations like my introducing myself by saying, "Wow! You are so amazing! I've never seen anyone so wonderfully large. Do you mind if I photograph you?"

Anyway, since this is a photography forum, I think I should show one of my photos from my archives, taken several years ago, relevant to the topic.
I was on a whale watching expedition on the east coast of Australia. A couple of the passengers on the boat were very obese. I photographed them, and they didn't mind (so please don't censor this photo, moderators).  ;)

I have to say that this photo was more interesting to me than the subsequent shots I took of whales jumping out of the sea.  ;D
 
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #49 on: May 27, 2016, 12:15:13 pm »

... I was on a whale watching expedition...

Apparently ;)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #50 on: May 27, 2016, 12:30:59 pm »

Yes, there is. That "any kind of point" in "animal studies, while always done (particularly when researching new drugs) just don't prove any kind of point with respect to efficacy or safety in human populations" is clearly over the top. These studies are not done in preparation to treat animals, they are done in preparation to treat humans. And if they did not "prove any kind of point", they would not be conducted. (I remember it was also in your earlier post, but can't find it)

I understand you just tried to stress its inconclusiveness, and made... a slip. And now for some reason instead of admitting it, correcting yourself and moving on, you hang on to it. Just say "that's not what I meant", and move on. Like a scientist would do.

Thanks for your support. The reference is in post #31, as follows.

"However in the context that we are debating even when causality has been established in studies done with cell cultures or even animal studies this does not imply in any way that a similar intervention in humans will have the desired effect."


I suspect this is a Freudian Slip on the part of Tony Jay. He probably meant to write, "does not imply with certainty", as opposed to "does not imply in any way". He's just revealing his biases as a physician.  ;)

For the benefit of those who don't know what a Freudian Slip is:
"A Freudian slip is a verbal or memory mistake that is believed to be linked to the unconscious mind. These slips supposedly reveal the real secret thoughts and feelings that people hold."



Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #51 on: May 27, 2016, 12:43:59 pm »

Thanks for your support. The reference is in post #31, as follows.

"However in the context that we are debating even when causality has been established in studies done with cell cultures or even animal studies this does not imply in any way that a similar intervention in humans will have the desired effect."


I suspect this is a Freudian Slip on the part of Tony Jay. He probably meant to write, "does not imply with certainty", as opposed to "does not imply in any way". He's just revealing his biases as a physician.  ;)

For the benefit of those who don't know what a Freudian Slip is:
"A Freudian slip is a verbal or memory mistake that is believed to be linked to the unconscious mind. These slips supposedly reveal the real secret thoughts and feelings that people hold."


Wrong!

It's a brand of Austrian underwear. It photographs terribly well when wet.

Rob C

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2016, 01:58:23 am »


Wrong!

It's a brand of Austrian underwear. It photographs terribly well when wet.

Rob C

Isn't Freud out of fashion nowadays? I didn't realise you were the sort of photographer who likes to photograph unfashionable stuff, Rob.  ;D
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #53 on: May 28, 2016, 04:54:51 am »

For the benefit of the few people who may be interested in the general issues of the validity of animal  tests, I've included a couple of links below.

The first link provides an overview of the benefits. The second link provides a critique of the methods and the competence of the testing procedures, which is why I asked Tony Jay, in response to his #31 post which included his personal account of the dismal failure of successful results on animal testing to be reproduced on humans, if a separate additional study as to the reasons for this result had been conducted.

Tony didn't reply, so I assume that no such additional study was conducted in this instance, so the same mistakes are likely to be repeated in future animal tests. Such is life.  :(

http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html
http://www.nature.com/news/misleading-mouse-studies-waste-medical-resources-1.14938
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #54 on: May 28, 2016, 06:02:28 am »

For the benefit of the few people who may be interested in the general issues of the validity of animal  tests, I've included a couple of links below.

The first link provides an overview of the benefits. The second link provides a critique of the methods and the competence of the testing procedures, which is why I asked Tony Jay, in response to his #31 post which included his personal account of the dismal failure of successful results on animal testing to be reproduced on humans, if a separate additional study as to the reasons for this result had been conducted.

Tony didn't reply, so I assume that no such additional study was conducted in this instance, so the same mistakes are likely to be repeated in future animal tests. Such is life.  :(

http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html
http://www.nature.com/news/misleading-mouse-studies-waste-medical-resources-1.14938
Ray they did not make mistakes!
The bottom line is that mice and dogs and rats and pigs and rhesus monkeys are not exactly the same as humans when it comes to complex cell biology, biochemistry and genetics. Your throwaway comment that mice have ninety whatever percent of the DNA of humans just betrays your utter ignorance on the matter. What are small and trivial issues to you actually translate to massive potential issues when trying to interpret the results of animal studies. Sometimes the human trials almost exactly match what was found in the animal studies but very frequently they absolutely do not.

This thread is NOT helpful in advancing understanding one these matters.
I am really sorry but your knowledge of these issues is pseudo knowledge.
You simply are not in a position to interpret and understand the data.
You have decided that I am talking nonsense - that is your prerogative.

I have even been dismissed as committing Freudian slips.
You seen hell bent on wilfully misunderstanding what I have said because it does not line up with what you obviously want to believe.

The bottom line, for the nth time, is that NO clinician can make a clinical treatment decision based on a an animal study.
The fact that animal studies are used in the research pyramid in testing potential therapeutic interventions does not change this truth.
Until human trials validate safety and efficacy all bets are off.
Another bottom line is that many many human trials have shown either lack of efficacy or actual safety concerns of these potential therapeutics.
You seem to believe that these "negative" trials mean that mistakes have been made.
This is absolutely and patently not warranted.
The whole point of the graded approach that is taken is to weed out drugs and other therapeutic interventions that don't work or are dangerous.
That means that they are successful - if the therapy is dangerous then the damage is limited to a small group of individuals and usually the unfolding results are carefully monitored statistically and if patient harm is detected then the trial is stopped.

The truth is that any animal model is an imperfect model for a human.
This means that no one can be certain that the results of an animal trial will actually be replicated in a human population until the human trials are done.

Your view of science is a magical one not borne of the facts.
I no longer expect that my trying to put a common-sense realistic viewpoint forward will help.
It seems to me that I am treading on hallowed ground - to me it appeared that you are a devotee of scientism.
Unfortunately you want to dismiss those negative trials as "mistakes" - they are not - they are the results of accurate and careful science.
I cannot contribute further to this on the basis of your misplaced faith.

My suggestion is to move on.

Tony Jay
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #55 on: May 28, 2016, 08:48:15 am »

Ray they did not make mistakes!
The bottom line is that mice and dogs and rats and pigs and rhesus monkeys are not exactly the same as humans when it comes to complex cell biology, biochemistry and genetics.

I never knew that, Tony. What a revelation! I thought all animals were exactly the same.  ;D

Quote
Your throwaway comment that mice have ninety whatever percent of the DNA of humans just betrays your utter ignorance on the matter.

Then please advise me what the degree of similarity is. I do understand that simply because the DNA encoding of proteins in a chimpanzee might be 99% similar to that of humans, does not mean that all characteristics of behaviour are the same. A good analogy would be the comparison of two orchestras. Because 99% of the instruments are of the same type in both orchestras does not mean that the orchestras always play the same tune.

Quote
The bottom line, for the nth time, is that NO clinician can make a clinical treatment decision based on a an animal study.

I'm an animal of the species Homo Sapiens, and the sub-species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. What species are you, Tony?  ;)

Quote
You seem to believe that these "negative" trials mean that mistakes have been made.
This is absolutely and patently not warranted.

I have to say, Tony, with all due respect, that you seem to be lacking in knowledge and understanding outside of your chosen discipline. Mistakes are a part of the learning process. When things go wrong, or do not go according to expectations, that's a wonderful opportunity to learn. That's how our scientific knowledge progresses, and how we progress at a personal level. We learn by understanding the cause of our mistakes, and try not to repeat them.

Quote
The truth is that any animal model is an imperfect model for a human.
This means that no one can be certain that the results of an animal trial will actually be replicated in a human population until the human trials are done.

No-one can be absolutely certain of anything. There are always degrees of certainty involved in any situation, and that also applies to drugs that have been tested on the human animal. Different individuals will have at least slightly different responses, according to their age, sex, genetic make-up, general health and pre-existing medical conditions. But you know that, don't you?  ;)

Quote
Your view of science is a magical one not borne of the facts.

I certainly disagree on that point. I think I understand better than most people the nature of the scientific method of repeated experimentation and the need for attempts to falsify a particular theory before it is provisionally accepted as true. If at some later date, observations appear to be at odds with the predictions of an accepted and proven theory, then either the theory has to be re-evaluated and changed, or some other explanation consistent with the theory, has to found.

It is because I understand these general processes of the scientific method, I am aware of the many situations which don't lend themselves to scientific proof because of their complexity, uncontrollable and unpredictable variables, and the long time-frames needed for changes to take effect and be observed. The science of Climate Change is one such subject that's in this category, as well as certain aspects of human biology, diet and fasting.

In the absence of scientific proof, I use my nous, based upon whatever evidence I can find and on whatever seems plausible, reasonable and rational. Got it?  ;)

Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2016, 09:03:06 am »

Ray you are continually (wilfully) missing the point.
Put it to rest.
The assumptions you make about me are incorrect - I actually have qualifications in both science and medicine.
I have actually done research in the past.
The reasons I have not continued in research have nothing to do with lack of aptitude.

Believe what you want.
I will not respond to any further posts on the the subject.

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #58 on: May 28, 2016, 10:01:20 am »

And on that note:

http://time.com/4350398/cell-phones-brain-heart-cancer-rats/

 :)


Devi's advocate!

I have always understood the dangers of electrical radiation. Even in basic science classes we did the experiment with iron filings and an electrical current. Swathes of Glasgow have a selling blight upon them due to proximity to high-voltage power lines delivering the juice to houses and (once) factories. Cellphones emit radiation too, and though weaker it's much closer. I've used electric shavers since I could afford to buy one: I now have a pre-cancerous skin condition on my face blamed, in part, on sunshine exposure; so on where to blame the non-actinic parts? I don't want to rain on anyone's fun, but has there been a study on 'intimate' electrical pleasure devices and their electromagnetic emissions? Consult your local gynaecologist (eventually spelled it correctly!) soon.

;-(

Rob C

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Can our pictures actually achieve anything positive?
« Reply #59 on: May 30, 2016, 02:23:07 am »

Perhaps I should leave this topic alone and move on, as Dr Tony Jay suggests, but it's such an important topic with so many unresolved questions, I don't see why I should move on.

Moving on is what Tony Jay appears to have done when is own experiments with animals produced the opposite effect in human trials. I pointed out that this was a wonderful opportunity to conduct further research to find out the reasons for the discrepancy, but apparently this was not done, no doubt because the funding was not available.

If there are more efficient methods of carrying out the initial research on animals, such as use of 'in vitrio assays', I would not argue against that. If Dr Tony Jay wishes to make the point that animal studies in general are not useful, and are also cruel, and should be banned, then that's another issue which could be discussed.

Unfortunately, I find Dr Tony Jay's posts rather confusing from a logical and objective perspective. He reminds me of the situation of someone responding to a criticism of a photograph on this website. I've contributed to this site for many years, and quite often have observed angry responses from people submitting a photo for criticism, when someone posts a legitimate point of criticism which is not in praise.

I understand this type of response, but I don't condone it. The emphasis should always be on the reasoned articulation behind the criticism, rather than "I'm an experienced and professional photographer who's had photos accepted by magazines. How dare you criticise my photo! What do you know about photography?"

To get back to my original point that seems to have produced such an unreasoned and negative response from Dr Tony Jay, that fasting may have health benefits that can even cure cancer, according to studies on mice and rats, I agree that those results alone are not sufficient proof. I'm not silly. I do understand that any differences in genetic make-up and in existing medical/health conditions can affect the results, whether in mice or men. It's an enormously complex situation, which is a subject of continuing reasearch.

However, on the subject of fasting, we already have a huge history going back thousands of years, of people engaging in voluntary fasting. If we include involunatary fasting (due to droughts), the practice goes back millions of years.

I don't subscribe to the magical properties advertised by religions, although I do recognise that they might have a placebo effect. Buddhism, when stripped of all the magical mumbo jumbo, is one of the few religions (perhaps the only one) , which teaches certain basic principles which are in accord with modern science.

The Buddha is reported in the scriptures to have fasted to the point of almost total starvation, in his search for enlightenment. Fortunately, he realised he would die if he continued, so he adopted the 'middle way' of avoiding extremes. The Buddha supposedly lived to the age of 82. That extreme fasting did not appear to have had any serious, long-term effects. His middle way, with regard to eating, was just one meal per day, in the morning, which he considered to be very healthy, as a result of experiments on himself.

Interestingly, this was also the practice of the average, ancient Roman citizen, including members of the Roman army. One of the most successful empires in the history of mankind had a practice of eating just one meal a day. Doesn't that tell you something, Tony Jay?

Of course, you would probably counter, if you do respond to this post, that excessive indulgence in eating was a common occurrence in ancient Rome, which was even encouraged by the use of the 'vomitorium', in order to vomit and then continue eating.

This of course is a mistranslation of the word 'vomitorium', which you should know if you are a doctor familiar with Latin terms. A vomitorium is merely an exit to a building or enclosed space. Excessive eating did no doubt take place in ancient Rome, but probably only amongst the wealthy aristocrats who could afford lavish banquets.

In summary,  test results for a new drug or procedure on animals are very provisional. But test results for fasting are not so provisional because of the long history of fasting in many cultures. It's simple not reasonable and rational to assume that the claimed health benefits of fasting are 'rubbish'. Don't you think if there were no health benefits, the practice of fasting would not have become a part of so many cultures throughout the ages. Don't you understand, if it were the case that actual harm resulted from fasting, the practice would not have continued. Do you think your distant ancestors were all stupid dopes?

You do understand, I hope, that the main reason why Muslims and Jews do not eat pork, is because pigs in ancient times were very susceptible to certain diseases that affected the people who ate the meat. This is no longer the case, but the tradition of abstaining from pork prevails.

It is reasonable to deduce that many ancient practices resulted in response by some chieftain, or his advisors, observing that harmful effects were taking place as a result of certain practices, and that such practices should be banned in the interests of the well-being of the population.

Fasting is not in this category. Harmful effects do not appear to be an issue, otherwise the practice throughout history would not have continued.
With regard to the latest research on the effects of (moderate) fasting on mice and rats, there are two major points to consider. First there are no harmful effects on humans to report throughout history, except with certain modern people who may have got themselves into serious trouble with their unnatural lifestyle and diet, and who already suffer from some sort of medical condition.

Secondly there are not only animal studies which show the benefits of fasting and/or a restricted diet, but many anecdotal studies from people who have tried it, including myself.

To dismiss such claims as 'rubbish', as you have done, sends a clear message to intelligent, thinking people, that you are a prisoner of your narrow interpretation of your own discipline and are unable to think outside of the box.

Sorry to be so blunt, but let the truth prevail.


Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up