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.I was wondering if the power that be could ad a sub-forum for genetics?
Maybe both, since information on new genetic research and how knowledge of your genetics can inform your treatment plan. For example,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
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.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.
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.
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.
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.But the point you do not seem to understand is that I am not just randomly saying things.
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."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.
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.
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 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."
And you LDI theory is rigorously accurate? No, it is less accurate than studies backing up genetics.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.
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.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?
Rooted in science that Remy doesn't consider science = not being allowed to be called a treatment.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.
Not at all. Please read my posts again and stop putting words in my mouth. It's rude.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.
Yes, so what's your point? I said it was a theory, not a fact...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.