3 ms·

I mean the fact that it works as a treatment. We don't have much more than doing a blind test and checking improvement to test causality. There are so many real

by comboy 7y ago

I mean the fact that it works as a treatment. We don't have much more than doing a blind test and checking improvement to test causality. There are so many real world factors that elimination wouldn't work. I see that you like Jung so I'm sure you're aware that there's more than neurochemistry that can influence it, but when talking about drugs, incentives seem to be aligned such that one should expect patented substances to have the most papers showing positive results vs something cheap and readily available. Plus I thought you were only basing this N=1 on blood tests so I didn't like dismissal of paper based on that, thus the tone of my prev reply, I'm sorry about that.

tomhoward 7y ago
Right yeah, I see those mentions of past studies, which suggest some positive results but don’t say much about long-term outcomes. (My own experience has been that in early stages of feeling impaired, supplementation of Mg and other nutrients would bring about short-term mood benefits but subside in the medium to long-term (and show no measured changes in hair tests), even with consistent ongoing supplementation, suggesting that the emotional/life issues are an overriding factor long-term. I don't doubt that a simple dietary deficiency of Mg may be a causal factor for some, perhaps even most people. But studies like these often seem happy to report positive outcomes after finding, say, 70% short-term efficacy, but ignore the remainder, in which the causation may be very different. > incentives seem to be aligned such that one should expect patented substances to have the most papers showing positive results vs something cheap and readily available. Yes, which has been a source of frustration, but I understand modern economics, so I get it. > Plus I thought you were only basing this N=1 on blood tests so I didn't like dismissal of paper based on that, thus the tone of my prev reply, I'm sorry about that. Cheers for that.

by comboy 7y ago

tomhoward 7y ago

Right yeah, I see those mentions of past studies, which suggest some positive results but don’t say much about long-term outcomes. (My own experience has been that in early stages of feeling impaired, supplementation of Mg and other nutrients would bring about short-term mood benefits but subside in the medium to long-term (and show no measured changes in hair tests), even with consistent ongoing supplementation, suggesting that the emotional/life issues are an overriding factor long-term. I don't doubt that a simple dietary deficiency of Mg may be a causal factor for some, perhaps even most people. But studies like these often seem happy to report positive outcomes after finding, say, 70% short-term efficacy, but ignore the remainder, in which the causation may be very different. > incentives seem to be aligned such that one should expect patented substances to have the most papers showing positive results vs something cheap and readily available. Yes, which has been a source of frustration, but I understand modern economics, so I get it. > Plus I thought you were only basing this N=1 on blood tests so I didn't like dismissal of paper based on that, thus the tone of my prev reply, I'm sorry about that. Cheers for that.