Adding a Sub Forum for Genetics?

Cort

Founder of Health Rising and Phoenix Rising
Staff member
I was wondering if the power that be could ad a sub-forum for genetics?
We can do that. I'm going to have a blog from someone who will explain how she's using genetic testing to inform her treatment protocols.

Would it be in Research or Treatment...
 

Croatoan

Well-Known Member
I would say it should go under treatment.

Do you have a contact for the person writing the blog? I would love to speak to her!
 

IrisRV

Well-Known Member
We can do that. I'm going to have a blog from someone who will explain how she's using genetic testing to inform her treatment protocols.

Would it be in Research or Treatment...
Maybe both, since information on new genetic research and how knowledge of your genetics can inform your treatment plan. For example,
Under Research -- Genetics Research
Under Treatment -- Using Genetic Information
 

Croatoan

Well-Known Member
Maybe both, since information on new genetic research and how knowledge of your genetics can inform your treatment plan. For example,
Under Research -- Genetics Research
Under Treatment -- Using Genetic Information
I would rather them be under one since it is usually all tied together.
 

Remy

Administrator
We can do that. I'm going to have a blog from someone who will explain how she's using genetic testing to inform her treatment protocols.

Would it be in Research or Treatment...
I think it should go under Research since the science is experimental at best for using SNPs to guide actual treatment. In most cases, we have no idea what the SNPs actually mean for human health yet. People (including some doctors who should know better) tend to extrapolate wildly when the science just doesn't support their theories.
 

Croatoan

Well-Known Member
I think it should go under Research since the science is experimental at best for using SNPs to guide actual treatment. In most cases, we have no idea what the SNPs actually mean for human health yet. People (including some doctors who should know better) tend to extrapolate wildly when the science just doesn't support their theories.
Stop following me around trying to undermine what I am saying.

By your reasoning everything here should be labeled research.
 

RuthAnn

Well-Known Member
I think it should go under Research since the science is experimental at best for using SNPs to guide actual treatment. In most cases, we have no idea what the SNPs actually mean for human health yet. People (including some doctors who should know better) tend to extrapolate wildly when the science just doesn't support their theories.
However, the person who Cort is interviewing does use genetics for treatment. Treatment according to findings allows for better conclusions and understanding. Separating the two has no merit, IMHO.

And separating the two would be counterproductive.

Do we want to simply jump to the conclusion that there is no merit to this type of working on issues? I hope not.
 

Remy

Administrator
Do we want to simply jump to the conclusion that there is no merit to this type of working on issues? I hope not.
Of course not.

But we also must not make the mistake of posting certainties where the science simply doesn't support doing so, regardless of who is hawking it.

I'm obviously fine with working in the theoretical realm as long as we don't confuse people into thinking that there is real science behind it with a plethora of pseudo-science babble. We're just not there yet unfortunately, which is why I suggested the Research section.
 

Croatoan

Well-Known Member
Of course not.

But we also must not make the mistake of posting certainties where the science simply doesn't support doing so, regardless of who is hawking it.

I'm obviously fine with working in the theoretical realm as long as we don't confuse people into thinking that there is real science behind it with a plethora of pseudo-science babble. We're just not there yet unfortunately, which is why I suggested the Research section.
Doctors have no cure or no research that points to a certain cause for ME.

This whole forum is theoretical.

But the point you do not seem to understand is that I am not just randomly saying things. I have been in remission for 18 months because of putting my hypothesis to the test on myself. I have evidence, anecdotal, yes, but I am better. There were so many sacrifices I made you will not begin to even understand. And to come in here and tell my story and hoave someone live you casually dismiss these ideas is not only walking with blinders but it is insulting.

If you wish to help me figure out why I am better I will welcome it, but being negative does not change my state of health, it only frustrates me and gets in the way of progress.

This is the last time I am directly responding to you, and I am putting it in my signature to let people know so.
 

Remy

Administrator
But the point you do not seem to understand is that I am not just randomly saying things.
Anecdotal evidence is fine...but then you post a bunch of studies that don't say what you say they do as "evidence". It just doesn't fly. Talk all you want about your recovery but don't give it a basis in science that does not exist. It didn't fly at PR and it won't fly here.
 

RuthAnn

Well-Known Member
Of course not.

But we also must not make the mistake of posting certainties where the science simply doesn't support doing so, regardless of who is hawking it.

I'm obviously fine with working in the theoretical realm as long as we don't confuse people into thinking that there is real science behind it with a plethora of pseudo-science babble. We're just not there yet unfortunately, which is why I suggested the Research section.
I don't get it. You are fine with people talking in theory but you are not fine if they have genetic studies to back it up. Also, saying that it didn't fly at PR, it's not going to fly here, is another way of saying you are bringing the PR type of regulatory action here, which is based on not wanting to look at alternative ways of finding remedies. And your definition of alternative seems to be "something that Remy doesn't approve of."
It doesn't seem that you call other types of studies psychobabble.
Now for example would you call talking about LDI okay because it is theory but not backed up by any sort of science studies?
In you thread on LDI you said, "If this theory is true, it represents a MAJOR paradigm shift from the infection/pathogen model. People are concerned that LDI will turn off the immune response and let pathogens run amok, but that isn't how it works. The theory is that the body is responding as if pathogens are still there with an inappropriate immune response after the actual pathogen threat is gone. It's not turning off properly through the Treg response. LDI turns it off again."
 

RuthAnn

Well-Known Member
Anecdotal evidence is fine...but then you post a bunch of studies that don't say what you say they do as "evidence". It just doesn't fly. Talk all you want about your recovery but don't give it a basis in science that does not exist. It didn't fly at PR and it won't fly here.
Are you speaking for @Cort and everyone else here? You are not speaking for me, and I am a part of HR.
 

Remy

Administrator
I don't get it. You are fine with people talking in theory but you are not fine if they have genetic studies to back it up. Also, saying that it didn't fly at PR, it's not going to fly here, is another way of saying you are bringing the PR type of regulatory action here, which is based on not wanting to look at alternative ways of finding remedies. And your definition of alternative seems to be "something that Remy doesn't approve of."
It doesn't seem that you call other types of studies psychobabble.
Now for example would you call talking about LDI okay because it is theory but not backed up by any sort of science studies?
In you thread on LDI you said, "If this theory is true, it represents a MAJOR paradigm shift from the infection/pathogen model. People are concerned that LDI will turn off the immune response and let pathogens run amok, but that isn't how it works. The theory is that the body is responding as if pathogens are still there with an inappropriate immune response after the actual pathogen threat is gone. It's not turning off properly through the Treg response. LDI turns it off again."
Right. I put LDI in the proper context. I didn't say it was fact, or try to back it up with scientific studies that either don't actually say what I am claiming or just simply don't exist. I said it was a new theory that represented a paradigm shift and it would be interesting to see how it played out in the real world.

I am not talking about regulatory action a la PR (except possibly in cases where someone is so devoted to their pet theory that they become combative and unpleasant). I am talking about being rigorously accurate and that is something we all should aspire to, no?

99% of the SNPs have no good science YET as to what they actually do in the body and to read things into the studies that don't exist doesn't do anyone any favors.

I don't appreciate the personal insults either for having a different opinion.
 

RuthAnn

Well-Known Member
Right. I put LDI in the proper context. I didn't say it was fact, or try to back it up with scientific studies that either don't actually say what I am claiming or just simply don't exist. I said it was a new theory that represented a paradigm shift and it would be interesting to see how it played out in the real world.

I am not talking about regulatory action a la PR (except possibly in cases where someone is so devoted to their pet theory that they become combative and unpleasant). I am talking about being rigorously accurate and that is something we all should aspire to, no?

99% of the SNPs have no good science YET as to what they actually do in the body and to read things into the studies that don't exist doesn't do anyone any favors.

I don't appreciate the personal insults either for having a different opinion.
And you LDI theory is rigorously accurate? No, it is less accurate than studies backing up genetics.
I don't understand why you are trying to disqualify this type of looking at things. If you have no interest in it, ignore it. If you can post your LDI experience and not worry about someone using it, why would you worry so much about someone trying this mode of healing?
 

Remy

Administrator
And you LDI theory is rigorously accurate? No, it is less accurate than studies backing up genetics.
I don't understand why you are trying to disqualify this type of looking at things. If you have no interest in it, ignore it. If you can post your LDI experience and not worry about someone using it, why would you worry so much about someone trying this mode of healing?
I'm not worried about someone trying it as long as they know clearly what it is or is not. I think I was clear about that re:LDI being a new hypothesis/theory, but if you think I should take another look at my wording, I'm happy to do so.

I'm worried about someone thinking that treatment based on SNPs is rooted in science, when it is not. Yet.
 

RuthAnn

Well-Known Member
I'm not worried about someone trying it as long as they know clearly what it is or is not. I think I was clear about that re:LDI being a new hypothesis/theory, but if you think I should take another look at my wording, I'm happy to do so.

I'm worried about someone thinking that treatment based on SNPs is rooted in science, when it is not. Yet.
Rooted in science that Remy doesn't consider science = not being allowed to be called a treatment.

Rooted in theory, based on nothing other than theory that Remy agrees with = allowed to be called a treatment.

Just show me the "danger" of someone thinking that genetic based nutritional healing.
 

Remy

Administrator
Rooted in science that Remy doesn't consider science = not being allowed to be called a treatment.

Rooted in theory, based on nothing other than theory that Remy agrees with = allowed to be called a treatment.

Just show me the "danger" of someone thinking that genetic based nutritional healing.
Not at all. Please read my posts again and stop putting words in my mouth. It's rude.

Did you even read the studies LDI is based on? Your remarks suggest not.
 

RuthAnn

Well-Known Member
I didn't put words in your mouth, I tried to explain what you are saying in a logical format.

And these are your words, not mine.

If this theory is true, it represents a MAJOR paradigm shift from the infection/pathogen model. People are concerned that LDI will turn off the immune response and let pathogens run amok, but that isn't how it works. The theory is that the body is responding as if pathogens are still there with an inappropriate immune response after the actual pathogen threat is gone. It's not turning off properly through the Treg response. LDI turns it off again.
 

Remy

Administrator
These are your words, not mine.

If this theory is true, it represents a MAJOR paradigm shift from the infection/pathogen model. People are concerned that LDI will turn off the immune response and let pathogens run amok, but that isn't how it works. The theory is that the body is responding as if pathogens are still there with an inappropriate immune response after the actual pathogen threat is gone. It's not turning off properly through the Treg response. LDI turns it off again.
Yes, so what's your point? I said it was a theory, not a fact...

There's no good research on how most SNPs affect the body. People need to stop acting like there is more *there* than there is. That's all. I have no problem discussing theories around it. I have a problem acting like they are facts.

I don't see how I've overemphasized what LDI may or may not do or how this one post I've made is even at all relevant to this discussion. Except for you've glommed onto it as some sort of example of me doing something I'm patently not.
 

Get Our Free ME/CFS and FM Blog!



New Threads

Forum Tips

Support Our Work

DO IT MONTHLY

HEALTH RISING IS NOT A 501 (c) 3 NON-PROFIT

Shopping on Amazon.com For HR

Latest Resources

Top