3 ms·

Experience is "real data". Nothing could be more "real". To imply that real life experience is anything less is obstinate, and ignorant. Let's look at some of

by oblib 8y ago

Experience is "real data". Nothing could be more "real". To imply that real life experience is anything less is obstinate, and ignorant. Let's look at some of that "real data" being talked about here: __ Pediatrics. 1991 Nov;88(5):960-6. "Effects of sugar on aggressive and inattentive behavior in children with attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity and normal children: 17 subjects with attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity compared with 9 age-matched control subjects" __ Seriously, if that's all we've got for "real data" on this subject that's just bullshit, and really old bullshit too. Since that study was published the amount of sugar consumed per day has increased close to 30%. Do you think if they increased the amount of sugar they gave those kids by 30% in would have affected the results? That's what we're dealing with today, everyday, and most every kid. I have far more personal clinical experience than those who conducted that study done 27 years ago, both in the number of children observed and the total hours spent observing them, and it's far more up to date. I've also spoken with dozens of mothers who've confirmed those observations during this past decade alone, and the previous two as well, and none of us had any outside influences motivating us like those who take corporate funding to study just a handful of kids for a few weeks at most. I'll say the same thing I told those Physicians who denied there was such a thing as postpartum psychosis back in 1985, "you don't know shit about this". It wasn't until "Andrea Yates" that the connection was made on that. Between the time I pointed it out and 2001 they all didn't do a damned thing to learn more, and they ignored everyone like me who tried to enlighten them. That is what is happening here, right now. Read the damned article linked above and do some follow up on it. This is a serious problem, and kids getting hyperactive is not the most serious aspect of it. It's way worse than that.

cyphar 8y ago
> Experience is "real data". Nothing could be more "real". To imply that real life experience is anything less is obstinate, and ignorant. Experiences are coloured by your personal opinions, emotions, retrospective reasoning, and so on. Yes, it's "real" -- but it's not objective or useful data in the context of discussion about a scientific argument (this is why I scare-quoted it in my response -- all data is "real" unless you literally fabricated it, but data being "real" isn't the only consideration). You can base your life on what you feel is important, I'm just saying that (on the whole) clinical studies are by far the most effective way of discovering whether a hypothesis stands up to scrutiny. > Do you think if they increased the amount of sugar they gave those kids by 30% in would have affected the results? You were talking about Red 40, not sugar (and you dismissed out-of-hand that the problem wasn't caffeine). But in any case, I never said that sugar (or Red 40) wasn't bad for children (sugar is obviously awful for humans in general, and that has been known since the 1950s with John Yudkin's work), I was saying that arguing it from purely anecdotal evidence weakens your argument needlessly. On the Wikipedia article for Red 40 I saw a study from 2011 by the FDA that showed a possible link between Red 40 consumption and hyperactivity, but also that further testing was needed (I can't download the PDF of the study -- it's missing from the FDA website). I think pointing people to that would be a better way to argue than to argue from anecdotes. > I've also spoken with dozens of mothers who've confirmed those observations during this past decade alone I guess I was in the right ball-park with n=32. How did you confirm these observations? How are you sure that they didn't have a preconceived view on what caused their experiences? Did you ask questions that might have lead them to a different answer (as we know, polling questions can be written to find either result)? While I do appreciate you wanting to find out information "from the horse's mouth", you need to consider whether you added any bias in your research. This is why double-blind trials exist, and is why you need to have a rigorous experimental design if you want to prove something. Would you accept the argument that "I've spoken to with dozens of mothers who've confirmed that their children became autistic after being vaccinated"? Of course not. Just because "sugar is bad for children" is probably true (and "vaccines cause autism" is categorically false) doesn't mean it should be subject to less scrutiny as an argument.
- oblib 8y ago
  Hey, I agree that double blind trials would be great, but I have to point out again that many of the studies others here are citing have huge issues. One linked here was from 1994 and to consider that as proof there is no link completely disregards the increase in consumption of both Red 40 and sugar by close to 30% and it ignores what the author of the article linked here has exposed and that's she's just getting started with her review of that data. To leap to a "bias" in what I've observed and pointed out is a pretty far leap. I have no profit motive at all. I'm not selling anything here or getting paid to offer a conclusion, and neither were any of the mothers I've discussed this with, and the sample size is at least several times larger than the study I linked to above, and more current. And I also pointed out another very insightful personal experience with how "Professionals" will ignore those who provide insight that is fact based when it doesn't jive with their archaic teachings. This thread is a fine example of that. No one seemed to take into account the increased consumption of both sugar and Red 40 when citing those old studies that are being reviewed by the author. It's not unfair to say it is the data they're using is skewed to to their bias. As far as mother's saying that vaccines triggered autism in their children, I won't leap to deny there's a link. This is not an issue I've looked into much so I don't have an opinion to offer, but my experience is that it's wise to listen to mothers who have experience and those in the health care industry have a very long history of ignoring them when they should have been listening. All that said, I have very much enjoyed discussing this with you and appreciate you taking the time to share your insights with me. It's rare to see anyone come back to these conversations here.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    > To leap to a "bias" in what I've observed and pointed out is a pretty far leap. I have no profit motive at all. A bias doesn't mean you're being paid -- a bias just means you have a preconceived view on a topic (or are primed to have a certain view on a topic based on your other personal views). Being paid in order to present a particular view (as though it was your own) is called corruption, not bias. > and the sample size is at least several times larger than the study I linked to above Both sample sizes are tiny. The study you linked to above (in my view) isn't good science -- it would've been trivial to find more children to take part in the study (and thus a small sample size seems quite fishy). But ~40 mothers also isn't a large enough sample size. > As far as mother's saying that vaccines triggered autism in their children, I won't leap to deny there's a link. This is not an issue I've looked into much so I don't have an opinion to offer I will -- there is absolutely no link. This has been shown by hundreds of studies, and the only available counter-evidence is a study from the 1998 which was written by a doctor (Andrew Wakefield) that later lost his medical license because his study was fraudulent. There is no link, and I would recommend not wasting any energy being open-minded about the prospect. The reason autism rates in children have increased is because we now classify more people as autistic and have a greater understanding of high-functioning autism (since our understanding of autism has improved in the past few decades). > my experience is that it's wise to listen to mothers who have experience and those in the health care industry have a very long history of ignoring them when they should have been listening. Mothers are incredibly risk-averse when it comes to their childrens' safety -- this is obviously understandable and important (it's an aspect of our evolutionary biology). But being incredibly risk-averse can also make you incredibly susceptible to fearmongering (which the prevalence of homeschooling and concerning decrease in vaccinations have proven). I understand the appeal of "mother's intuition", but it really isn't conclusive enough to make decisions about child health (other than the mother's own children). And let's not forget that mothers don't all agree on everything -- so which mothers should be trusted on which topics? This is why you need objective trials (and I agree that the trial you linked above isn't good -- the need for trials isn't invalidated if the current trails are bad or inconclusive).

by oblib 8y ago

cyphar 8y ago

> Experience is "real data". Nothing could be more "real". To imply that real life experience is anything less is obstinate, and ignorant. Experiences are coloured by your personal opinions, emotions, retrospective reasoning, and so on. Yes, it's "real" -- but it's not objective or useful data in the context of discussion about a scientific argument (this is why I scare-quoted it in my response -- all data is "real" unless you literally fabricated it, but data being "real" isn't the only consideration). You can base your life on what you feel is important, I'm just saying that (on the whole) clinical studies are by far the most effective way of discovering whether a hypothesis stands up to scrutiny. > Do you think if they increased the amount of sugar they gave those kids by 30% in would have affected the results? You were talking about Red 40, not sugar (and you dismissed out-of-hand that the problem wasn't caffeine). But in any case, I never said that sugar (or Red 40) wasn't bad for children (sugar is obviously awful for humans in general, and that has been known since the 1950s with John Yudkin's work), I was saying that arguing it from purely anecdotal evidence weakens your argument needlessly. On the Wikipedia article for Red 40 I saw a study from 2011 by the FDA that showed a possible link between Red 40 consumption and hyperactivity, but also that further testing was needed (I can't download the PDF of the study -- it's missing from the FDA website). I think pointing people to that would be a better way to argue than to argue from anecdotes. > I've also spoken with dozens of mothers who've confirmed those observations during this past decade alone I guess I was in the right ball-park with n=32. How did you confirm these observations? How are you sure that they didn't have a preconceived view on what caused their experiences? Did you ask questions that might have lead them to a different answer (as we know, polling questions can be written to find either result)? While I do appreciate you wanting to find out information "from the horse's mouth", you need to consider whether you added any bias in your research. This is why double-blind trials exist, and is why you need to have a rigorous experimental design if you want to prove something. Would you accept the argument that "I've spoken to with dozens of mothers who've confirmed that their children became autistic after being vaccinated"? Of course not. Just because "sugar is bad for children" is probably true (and "vaccines cause autism" is categorically false) doesn't mean it should be subject to less scrutiny as an argument.

oblib 8y ago
Hey, I agree that double blind trials would be great, but I have to point out again that many of the studies others here are citing have huge issues. One linked here was from 1994 and to consider that as proof there is no link completely disregards the increase in consumption of both Red 40 and sugar by close to 30% and it ignores what the author of the article linked here has exposed and that's she's just getting started with her review of that data. To leap to a "bias" in what I've observed and pointed out is a pretty far leap. I have no profit motive at all. I'm not selling anything here or getting paid to offer a conclusion, and neither were any of the mothers I've discussed this with, and the sample size is at least several times larger than the study I linked to above, and more current. And I also pointed out another very insightful personal experience with how "Professionals" will ignore those who provide insight that is fact based when it doesn't jive with their archaic teachings. This thread is a fine example of that. No one seemed to take into account the increased consumption of both sugar and Red 40 when citing those old studies that are being reviewed by the author. It's not unfair to say it is the data they're using is skewed to to their bias. As far as mother's saying that vaccines triggered autism in their children, I won't leap to deny there's a link. This is not an issue I've looked into much so I don't have an opinion to offer, but my experience is that it's wise to listen to mothers who have experience and those in the health care industry have a very long history of ignoring them when they should have been listening. All that said, I have very much enjoyed discussing this with you and appreciate you taking the time to share your insights with me. It's rare to see anyone come back to these conversations here.
- cyphar 8y ago
  > To leap to a "bias" in what I've observed and pointed out is a pretty far leap. I have no profit motive at all. A bias doesn't mean you're being paid -- a bias just means you have a preconceived view on a topic (or are primed to have a certain view on a topic based on your other personal views). Being paid in order to present a particular view (as though it was your own) is called corruption, not bias. > and the sample size is at least several times larger than the study I linked to above Both sample sizes are tiny. The study you linked to above (in my view) isn't good science -- it would've been trivial to find more children to take part in the study (and thus a small sample size seems quite fishy). But ~40 mothers also isn't a large enough sample size. > As far as mother's saying that vaccines triggered autism in their children, I won't leap to deny there's a link. This is not an issue I've looked into much so I don't have an opinion to offer I will -- there is absolutely no link. This has been shown by hundreds of studies, and the only available counter-evidence is a study from the 1998 which was written by a doctor (Andrew Wakefield) that later lost his medical license because his study was fraudulent. There is no link, and I would recommend not wasting any energy being open-minded about the prospect. The reason autism rates in children have increased is because we now classify more people as autistic and have a greater understanding of high-functioning autism (since our understanding of autism has improved in the past few decades). > my experience is that it's wise to listen to mothers who have experience and those in the health care industry have a very long history of ignoring them when they should have been listening. Mothers are incredibly risk-averse when it comes to their childrens' safety -- this is obviously understandable and important (it's an aspect of our evolutionary biology). But being incredibly risk-averse can also make you incredibly susceptible to fearmongering (which the prevalence of homeschooling and concerning decrease in vaccinations have proven). I understand the appeal of "mother's intuition", but it really isn't conclusive enough to make decisions about child health (other than the mother's own children). And let's not forget that mothers don't all agree on everything -- so which mothers should be trusted on which topics? This is why you need objective trials (and I agree that the trial you linked above isn't good -- the need for trials isn't invalidated if the current trails are bad or inconclusive).