Adding a Sub Forum for Genetics?

[Remy]

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

No.

 

[Who Me?]

One of the problems at PR was that people got very aggressive when they disagreed with someone and I see that here.

This argument escalated totally out of proportion over where to put a topic? WTF? What does LDI, which Remy did not mention on this thread, have to do with SNP's or where to put this thread?

I've said it before, if people don't start changing their behaviors and learn how to play nice with others, this is just going to be another Sh*t show like PR and I won't stay for that.

 

[RuthAnn]

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.

I think the thing that is keeping the battle going is the opposite of what you are blaming it on, @Why me?, and it is something that is being brought over here from PR. You can see that from the quote above.
That's wherein the battle lies. Are we going to allow this type of thinking to follow us here?
The person who Cort is interviewing is going to talk about her treatment based on information that she has about genetics. Are we going to respect her findings and applications? Or are we going to dismiss them and use words such as pseudo-science psycho babble?

 

[Remy]

The person who Cort is interviewing is going to talk about her treatment based on information that she has about genetics. Are we going to respect her findings and applications? Or are we going to dismiss them and use words such as pseudo-science psycho babble?

Real scientists are aware that criticism and questioning are integral parts of the scientific method. They do not make hypotheses and present them as "facts" using big words and linking lots of studies that don't actually support their findings. They present their work within the context within which it was developed and let other people's questions and concerns inform their future work. This is how this science thing works...and yes, it has its own set of limitations, but it is the best we have got at this point. And yes, I include anecdotal science under this umbrella because I think it is critically important as well.

Are we meant to throw all respectful discussion of the limitations out the window so as not to hurt someone's ickle bitty feelings? I bet @Cort's interview subject is tougher than that.

And FWIW, I didn't say psycho-babble. Putting words in my mouth AGAIN.

 

[Who Me?]

All I know is that deciding where to put a thread should not escalate to this level.

Who gives a crap? I sure don't have the energy to waste on something that in the scheme of things means nothing.

 

[IrisRV]

I couldn't agree more with @Who Me?

We are allowed to disagree here. Disagreement is not a criticism or an insult. People are allowed to have different ideas and opinions on topics. We are not automatons programmed to think exactly the same thing. Disagreement is not only acceptable, it's healthy. The more information and viewpoints on the table, the better. People are best informed when different, and sometimes contradictory, viewpoints are presented. They can make up their own minds based on the full picture.

We most definitely do NOT want to bring the type of thinking that does not allow different viewpoints here. The 'only my viewpoint is acceptable" attitude is what drove many people away from PR. We do not want it here.

@Remy disagrees with you. She's allowed to. She's allowed to present her viewpoint, just as you are allowed to present yours. I will say again, disagreement is not criticism or insult. It is simply a different viewpoint that allows everyone reading the thread to see the different ways other people look at the topic. Continue to present whatever information you feel supports your position. That is interesting and informative. Please do not attempt to stifle a viewpoint different from your own by stooping to personal attack.

Using personal attacks in response to simple disagreement is just not on.

 

[RuthAnn]

Sorry, @Remy, here is what you really said.


Remy said: ↑

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."​

 

[RuthAnn]

Perhaps a good location for nutrigenomics would be under the category Getting Better.

 

[IrisRV]

Perhaps a good location for nutrigenomics would be under the category Getting Better.

Great idea! Which subsection? Treatment? Recovery Stories?

 

[Cort]

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!

I have it but I don't know where. Maybe you two could collaborate.

 

[Cort]

This thread really went off the rails a bit! (It's actually a sign that the Forum is growing (lol)). Some members have reported the thread as getting a bit antagonistic - which it has. I have not been as attentive to the Reports as I could have been. Just so you know I finally got to this thread...

Besides having a commitment to be on our best behavior and trying not to take things personally - I know that's not easy - one of the rules we will have is not to put negative things in our signature about other posters.

 

[Cort]

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

For now I think we'll do a Genetic Forum under Treatment and we'll see if we get enough studies to put one under research.

 

[Cort]

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 think we're just going to have to take care with this treatment area. That shouldn't be that hard. We'll have to remind everyone that genetics information posits tendencies, is sometimes strong and is sometimes not and that there are no guarantees - the last of which everyone, after their many experiences, probably realizes anyway.

Do you have any other ideas Remy? I actually think this combination - someone who's benefited a lot for genetic testing and someone who has their doubts - is a good one.

 

[Who Me?]

@Cort I just posted this in resource. But maybe you want to move it to treatment?

http://www.cortjohnson.org/forums/threads/dr-ben-lynch-mthfr-mutation-help.3768/