Lingustic tricks in controversial research papers? - Re: mold treatments through the ears?

[Guest guest]

Certainly,

I can see many areas where one group or another chooses to ignore or

worse, attack a body of research.

Mold research is just one of them. Its absolutely ludicrous how the

medical mainstream on a subject seems to vary from one nation to

another.

Ive been trying to broaden the subjects that Ive been reading up on

and Ive noticed linguistic patterns in the literature on certain

subjects that make me wonder what's really going on.

For example: Is making the title or the conclusion line say the

opposite of what the paper actually says an inside joke to get a final

chunk of funding or get the raw research or raw data published?

For example, one recent paper on some aspect of mycotoxins contained a

short reference to some well connected folk who we know here as

aggressively attacking the idea that the mycotoxin component of indoor

bioaerosols cause illness.. (or maybe the entire idea that water

damaged buildings cause illness!)

Ignoring the title and the other sentence, the paper itself clarified

some interesting points, and IMO was NOT saying that this aspect of

mycotoxins didn't cause illness.

But, sort of out of the blue, the authors seemed to throw that in.

Another paper I recently saw from a university research group on Lyme

disease was dealing with is apparently a controversial subject, the

value (Apparently " value " is defined as SOMETHING elusively OTHER THAN

making it possible for people to WORK and not get progressively

worse!!!!) of treating persistence of infection in people. But, as I

remember, the title seemed to be saying the exact opposite of what the

paper actually said. (Could someone please explain this to me.. If

treating makes people more able to function, why not do it?)

Someone correct me on this, if I'm wrong, but are there groups that

are saying that if they don't catch it early, and it doesn't respond

to one or two short courses of antibiotics, EVEN IF PEOPLE FEEL MUCH

BETTER - those people shouldn't continue to be treated!

They pump COWS up with antibiotics etc, for their entire lives, but

they wont treat people so they don't deteriorate further. (while they

presumably look for an actual cure?)

But, I am getting off track..

I would like to understand the world of medicine better.

Any observations people have are welcome.

The issues involved are very complex on all different levels..

political, scientific, moral, economic.

So many times we go to doctors and they not only fail to listen to us

or deliver good value..

they actually insult us.

If they think that our lives are worth so little that they don't even

deserve an attempt at

addressing causes, rather than simply throwing often obscenely

expensive drugs at problems, then

they don't deserve the respect our society gives them.

I almost expect to pick up the paper some day and discover some

scandal that drug companies were actually

creating new diseases in order to take more money from rich people.

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 1:07 PM, kl_clayton <kl_clayton@...> wrote:

>

>> Its tragic that people are driven to desperation by the barriers like

>> cost and availability of real, quality care.

>>

>

> There is no such thing as " real, quality care " . In every kind of

> treatment it is buyer beware. Medicine is not a science, it is a set

> of beliefs, with blinders on. Many great studies are completely

> ignored, or worse, viciously attacked. It is a highly charged, ego

> driven in many cases, political arena.

>

> Sounds like you are still living in the dream world, Live.

>