VRP doesn't know about DMSA? // Re: ALA - how much must one drink?

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> There is such a thing as knowing a falsehood, but let me follow you

> down this path...

> Here we would have to talk about the difference, if any, between

> knowledge and truth. I would say that " Knowing very little truth "

is

> " knowing very little " .

So, when >95% of practitioners who are interested " know a falsehood " ,

would saying they " know very little " really describe this?

Does it say it in a way you would want to for someone " new " ?

Doesn't work for me.

> Please don't make me use the leeches and

> blood-letting argument....

Oh, I'll go there if you want. At the time this was being done,

would it make sense to say " those doctors who do that are just

ignorant fools " ? No, you'd actually have to discuss the issues

involved and come up with evidence that there are better treatments,

safer treatments -- and/or evidence that the leeches are not

actually helping.

WHEN there is actually a body of evidence -- and I do not mean

" all the posts on this list " -- I mean a citeable, clear, BODY

of evidence -- something that perhaps 50% of people might even

CONSIDER calling " valid " -- then maybe I'd start dismissing

out-of-hand people who are unfamiliar with it as " ignorant " .

But that goes back to the knowledge vs truth thing. Which is

a circular argument. The people who disagree with you will happily

tell you that their knowledge is indeed true. You'll happily say

that their knowledge is a pile of rubble.

My point is not actually who is right, but that there is a

very major level of disagreement.

> >I guess we'd have to discuss what " know " means. I'm thinking that

> >you would say that > 95% of chelation practitioners and

> >mercury researchers also " know very little " ?

>

> If we were to define " chelation practitioner " certain ways,

possibly

> 99%, but this is just a hunch. There are some very good people out

> there, few and far between.

We'll have to discuss " good people " too!

> >There could be some truth in such a view, but it is very different

> >than saying someone is negligent in looking for information or

> >is dumb or irresponsible.

>

> You may have lost me here. I dont think I said or implied this.

Oh, no, it's a language thing. Let me restate what I said, with

different (and unusual) punctuation, and see if it makes more sense:

" There could be some truth in such a view, but it is very different

than saying someone ((is " negligent-in-looking-for-information " ) or

(is " dumb " ) or ( " irresponsible " )).

> >Many intellegent and dedicated people,

> >(including researchers, I think), people who are fully versed on

> >all the going theories (including Andy's) believe that using DMSA

on

> >all sorts of (not-every-4-hours) schedules is fine.

> >

> >You and I likely agree that this whole business of chelation is

> >pretty much in the dark ages. I would say that very little is

> >known (as compared to what would be useful to know) -- and that

> >the level of knowing is far from what would be desireable.

>

> I would actually disagree. The knowledge (i.e. biochemistry,

> pharmacokinetics) is there. The application thereof is not widely

> understood or propagated.

I would argue that the application is a critical part of " the

knowledge " . I don't think whittling it down to " the knowledge "

as separate form " application " is useful here.

> What is in the dark ages is the education of the people who

advertise

> that they are educated enough to apply this knowledge.

Sorry, this just brings me back to the " but I'm right " line of

argument. I think you are claiming that education is ONLY

education if it results in " truth " . And in a pure sense I'd

probably agree with you. But if you want to say that most

[chelation doctors and mercury researcher and VRP] are

UNEDUCATED, I think you are being misleading. You need to

explain your meaning of " educated " as it differs significantly

from common usage, and people will end up either thinking you

are a cracked or (perhaps) thinking that these people are not

educated (in the usual meaning), which is very false.

> Not sure I get where you're coming from. I think anyone lurking

on

> this list for 24 hours will see there is disagreement. But if you

> feel a banner at the top of each message should read " warning --

work

> in progress -- see the files for what is the truth " or " each post

is

> simply the opinion of the writer, " I think that will scare people

> away. I think it's important that anyone who comes to this list be

> welcomed in a supportive manner, while being challenged and made to

> challenge everything they have been told until now. They also have

to

> realize that the nature of UNMODERATED Usenet or is

that

> they could end up receiving advice on chelation from a plumber, a

> concerned parent simply repeating what their doctor has told them,

a

> chemical engineer, or the self-professed most world-renowned expert

> on chelation. The last one is not necessarily the one I would trust.

>

> >I also happen to have generally positive opinions about VRP.

>

> So do I. They make good products. They just have no business

telling

> people how to use them, whether it's the dosage or how much liquid

to

> ingest with them. They have, I am sure, good knowledge of chemistry

> and marketing (i.e. what products to manufacture in response to a

> demand) but that's it.

Um, really? You would want them not to put ANY recommendations on

ANY of their labels?

> Beyond this, I can understand the argument that careful

consideration

> of what anyone says and evaluation is necessary WHEN you are in

> research mode, or arguing a phylosophical point. But once you start

> approaching the realm of practicality and fact, things change. Not

> everything is relative and there are absolutes. " Why don't you step

> off that cliff, we are still considering whether gravity kicks in

> every time--this time you might be safe. "

, please consider that I've actually taken the time and

trouble to try to say what exactly is a valid way to evaluate a

chelation product.

http://home.earthlink.net/~moriam/Chelation_products.html#how_evaluate

(and try is the correct word -- it's an attempt,

not entirely sucessful)

And beyond that I don't think I can respond to what you just said --

I don't believe I think in the particular dicotomy that you just

stated, and my reaction is just to feel confused.

Like, um, I think you are saying that my concerns don't apply

to practical situations. And I don't think I even know how to

think outside of practical situations. Um, like, is there

something else?

> I sometimes think of this list as guerilla warfare. People come

here

> mostly for quick answers or confirmation when they are about to do

> something extraordinarily silly, like a 300mg EDTA challenge test,

or

> voting for McCain. There is a limited window in which to get the

> right answer though. Or at least throw in enough doubt that they

> start looking at sources here and elsewhere. Or accept that this

one

> time, there is nothing you can do other than sit back and admire

some

> form of Darwinism at work...

Yes, I see that point of view, and I see that there is a value

in getting across just the crudest bits of information, and

possibly in ways that are misleading or that are dismissive

or that are (any number of other negatives).

I also have seen that people do get confused by this, even though

it is not your intent. You may think this is a lesser evil, but

how about starting out by agreeing that it IS an evil.

Consider that someone could actually think that there's agreement

on some things, that there's some general standard, and that

anyone who doesn't recommend 4-hour-dose-timing is living in a

cave. How is this person going to feel when they find out that

4-hour-dose timing is considered some bizarre theory -- some weird

little fringe idea -- by many people.

And how are they going to respond when they are totally unprepared

for the opinions and beliefs elsewhere?

Perhaps we need to consider if they will need to stumble out of

this list, or not.

How are they going to feel about the advice they've gotten here?

I've seen some pretty horrible examples of this -- I'm not

just talking in theory about some sort of abstract harm.

People can actually feel like they have be very turned off to

this " truth " .

This is an old dilemma, of course -- and one I don't have a good

answer for. I see the value and the risk on both sides, and I

am still, ALWAYS, looking for how to serve all the needs.

Do you think the evangelical religions are irritating BECAUSE

of the way they sell their truth? They think it is worth it

BECAUSE the stakes are so high. I'm saying that both matter

and that I don't like being " sold " on stuff by the sort of

dismissive statement you made. You may be saying that I'm

a minority (I think that is about what Andy's argument boils

down to FWIW. But you may have different reasons.)

I'm saying that I see the value of people choosing safer routes

AND I also see the value in being clear and considerate

telling them what is safer.

> None of this changes the fact that drinking that much water is

> dangerous.

Right, and the anti-VRP and drone comments do not do anything to

address the water issue.

The part where you assumed they ONLY believed the VRP person is

probably worse though......

> Children have died. Parents have been charged in the

> deaths. Parents who were either ignorant or were told to by so-

called

> professionals that it's what they should do. Parents who asked the

> wrong people for advice.

Or who didn't learn to evaluate advice -- which I'm saying they

are not likely to figure out while you are telling them how silly

VRP's advice is.

best,

Moria