RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

[Guest guest]

Again, you’re subverting the discussion into lines that have no connection with the topic under discussion. Nothing you have said, or for that matter others have said, has changed the basic fact that standards of evidence have not yet been met. People are free to believe what they want, as you do, but realize that it’s still essentially a belief or perhaps a theory or a hypothesis. The underlying data has not been presented as far as I can tell in a way that would constitute compelling support for the claim to elevate things much beyond the belief level. All of the anecdotal testimonies do not elevate the claim to more than that. You keep finding reasons for why it will never be more than that, but giving such reasons do not change the sad fact that the weight of evidence doesn’t meet the standards of objective methodology and testing to arrive at a scientifically supportable conclusion. Now before you rush to respond, try to think of a reasoned response and avoid personal insinuations. For the most part we’re trying to be civil here. Stan From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of BSent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 5:05 PMiodine Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies Even if Drs A and B put together statistics from their records, it wouldn't satisfy the medical community and probably not people like yourself either. If you were taking the iodine protocol you would be experiencing the difference in your life and you wouldn't need the approval of a medical science which has proved itself to be highly corrupt. I'm not interested nor willing to wait for my health to improve while medical science continues to play its profit games. I have been in charge of my own health for decades and I'm in much better health than many people my age in the USA.Did you watch the Burzinski film?--At 03:41 PM 6/12/2011, you wrote:>>>The financial costs of a randomized study are an important consideration, >but that's not really the subject of the discussion. The subject is about >a scientific method for collecting data which permits one to support a >particular medical claim. I don't personally doubt the efficacy or >effectiveness of iodine treatment. All I'm saying is that in Dr >Brownstein's book and his website, and elsewhere, I have not see data >presented in such a way that it meets the current standard for supporting >the claim. It's the method of scientific 'proof' that we're discussing. So >no, it's not at all complicated, it's simple actually. Who does it, how >it's done and so forth is the subject of another discussion, although I >would love for Drs A and B to plumb their records and put it into a >coherent summary which would go a long way to addressing this concern, but >it would not close the gap completely until something like a head to head >comparison was conducted.>>Stan>>From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of > B>Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:54 PM>iodine >Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies>>>>Stan-- imo you're making this way more complex than is required. Studies>aren't done by the big companies that have the money because there is no>money to be made with iodine. In fact, the very lack of iodine in our>diets is the cause of a great many illnesses from which those very same>companies make big bucks stirring up drugs to " treat " . So there is simply>no motivation by those who have the money. Asking why individual doctors>don't do these studies is disingenuous-- no single doctor has the money,>witness the Burz>>~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

Stan -

You will not get the information you are seeking. The doctors that are using it in their practice and finding good results will never produce the studies you are seeking. It is too costly and time consuming for them to undertake. If or some miracle there is a bunch of money and an organization that will support it then you will get the data you are seeking but for now you will need to be content (or not) with the information that is being shared by these practitioners and then make your decisions from there.

Buist, ND

Owner / Iodine Group

RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies>>>>Stan-- imo you're making this way more complex than is required. Studies>aren't done by the big companies that have the money because there is no>money to be made with iodine. In fact, the very lack of iodine in our>diets is the cause of a great many illnesses from which those very same>companies make big bucks stirring up drugs to "treat". So there is simply>no motivation by those who have the money. Asking why individual doctors>don't do these studies is disingenuous-- no single doctor has the money,>witness the Burz>>~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

Stan,

I'm not sure what you would consider a "reasoned response." I

suppose it would have to be a well-thought-out rebutal to, or

agreement with, the statement that scientific criteria have not been

met.

My guess is that most folks here would agree with the statement --

and still not find it a deterrant to moving forward. Our response

may not be "reasoned" in the way you would hope for, but it is, I

believe, "reasonable" in terms of what we need, what we hope for,

and what we often manage to accomplish in the way of healing.

Scientific validation is good to have, but in its absence, we muddle

along, helping each other . . . and, to a wonderful degree, getting

things right.

On 6/12/2011 7:50 PM, S. Altan wrote:

Again, you’re subverting the

discussion into lines that have no connection with the

topic under discussion. Nothing you have said, or for

that matter others have said, has changed the basic

fact that standards of evidence have not yet been met.

People are free to believe what they want, as you do,

but realize that it’s still essentially a belief or

perhaps a theory or a hypothesis. The underlying data

has not been presented as far as I can tell in a way

that would constitute compelling support for the claim

to elevate things much beyond the belief level. All of

the anecdotal testimonies do not elevate the claim to

more than that. You keep finding reasons for why it

will never be more than that, but giving such reasons

do not change the sad fact that the weight of evidence

doesn’t meet the standards of objective methodology

and testing to arrive at a scientifically supportable

conclusion. Now before you rush to respond, try to

think of a reasoned response and avoid personal

insinuations. For the most part we’re trying to be

civil here.

Stan

From: iodine

[mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of

B

Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 5:05 PM

iodine

Subject: RE: Re: Blindly

following/double blind studies

Even if Drs A and B put together statistics from

their records, it wouldn't

satisfy the medical community and probably not

people like yourself

either. If you were taking the iodine protocol you

would be experiencing

the difference in your life and you wouldn't need

the approval of a medical

science which has proved itself to be highly

corrupt. I'm not interested

nor willing to wait for my health to improve while

medical science

continues to play its profit games. I have been in

charge of my own health

for decades and I'm in much better health than

many people my age in the USA.

Did you watch the Burzinski film?

--

At 03:41 PM 6/12/2011, you wrote:

>

>

>The financial costs of a randomized study are

an important consideration,

>but that's not really the subject of the

discussion. The subject is about

>a scientific method for collecting data which

permits one to support a

>particular medical claim. I don't personally

doubt the efficacy or

>effectiveness of iodine treatment. All I'm

saying is that in Dr

>Brownstein's book and his website, and

elsewhere, I have not see data

>presented in such a way that it meets the

current standard for supporting

>the claim. It's the method of scientific

'proof' that we're discussing. So

>no, it's not at all complicated, it's simple

actually. Who does it, how

>it's done and so forth is the subject of

another discussion, although I

>would love for Drs A and B to plumb their

records and put it into a

>coherent summary which would go a long way to

addressing this concern, but

>it would not close the gap completely until

something like a head to head

>comparison was conducted.

>

>Stan

>

>From: iodine

[mailto:iodine ]

On Behalf Of

> B

>Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 1:54 PM

>iodine

>Subject: RE: Re: Blindly

following/double blind studies

>

>

>

>Stan-- imo you're making this way more complex

than is required. Studies

>aren't done by the big companies that have the

money because there is no

>money to be made with iodine. In fact, the

very lack of iodine in our

>diets is the cause of a great many illnesses

from which those very same

>companies make big bucks stirring up drugs to

"treat". So there is simply

>no motivation by those who have the money.

Asking why individual doctors

>don't do these studies is disingenuous-- no

single doctor has the money,

>witness the Burz

>

>

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way

~~~~

--A.J. Muste

[Guest guest]

Because I make an argument against the " standards of evidence " that you

fetishize, you tell me I am subverting the argument. Your issue is not

serving the needs of this list and this is the end of my participation in it.

--

At 09:50 PM 6/12/2011, you wrote:

>

>

>Again, you're subverting the discussion into lines that have no connection

>with the topic under discussion. Nothing you have said, or for that matter

>others have said, has changed the basic fact that standards of evidence

>have not yet been met. People are free to believe what they want, as you

>do, but realize that it's still essentially a belief or perhaps a theory

>or a hypothesis. The underlying data has not been presented as far as I

>can tell in a way that would constitute compelling support for the claim

>to elevate things much beyond the belief level. All of the anecdotal

>testimonies do not elevate the claim to more than that. You keep finding

>reasons for why it will never be more than that, but giving such reasons

>do not change the sad fact that the weight of evidence doesn't meet the

>standards of objective methodology and testing to arrive at a

>scientifically supportable conclusion. Now before you rush to respond, try

>to think of a reasoned response and avoid personal insinuations. For the

>most part we're trying to be civil here.

>

>Stan

>

>From: iodine [mailto:iodine ] On Behalf Of

> B

>Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 5:05 PM

>iodine

>Subject: RE: Re: Blindly following/double blind studies

>

>

>

>Even if Drs A and B put together statistics from their records, it wouldn't

>satisfy the medical community and probably not people like yourself

>either. If you were taking the iodine protocol you would be experiencing

>the difference in your life and you wouldn't need the approval of a medical

>science which has proved itself to be highly corrupt. I'm not interested

>nor willing to wait for my health to improve while medical science

>continues to play its profit games. I have been in charge

>

>

~~~ There is no way to peace; peace is the way ~~~~

--A.J. Muste