Quake3World

evidence based medicine are the keywords

Agreed. Again, there is no 'alternative' medicine. THere is medicine that stands up to evidence based studies and then there is the rest.

heh, but remember, a lot of what doctors do and know is based on empirical data.

saturn wrote:heh, but remember, a lot of what doctors do and know is based on empirical data.

A lot of drug company sales reps use empirical data to sell their product. Like Neurontin....an anti-seizure medication that the company's reps claimed should be prescribed for a large number of other maladies.

I've had docs prescribe me stuff that was not originally designed to treat the issue, but that had been found to work well on it...but nobody knew the mechanism. In those cases, I am always a bit cautious, because if we aren't sure what mechanism it works through for a given problem, we probably aren't sure about some of the cellular pathways that are negatively impacted by it.

There will always be some uncertainty and empirical data in medicine....I agree with that.

Gabapentine also works against nerve pain. It's some analogue of the GABA neurotransmitter, but it works differently. I thought it lowered the neuronal sensitivity through binding with calcium channels in central neurons + decreasing a bunch of neurotransmiters.

Some things you can never really test, since it won't pass the ethical committee, which is a good thing. You can't use humans in many medical experiments.

Yea, I was prescribed it for neuropathy associated with my ruptured disc and subsequent fusion.

I didnt like it, though. Made me feel weird...and not in a good way.

SOme people call it 'morontin' for that reason.

Heh... this all reminds me of when someone suggested I take Zicam for a cold. I checked it out and the package claimed it was a homeopathic treatment. I found this odd because it clearly is not. I discovered it's a zinc supplement, so maybe they just called it "homeopathic" because they don't know what the mechanism for it is (apparently it works, though).

"It works! Who cares why?"

Needless to say, this was one reason (among others) that I stayed away from it...

Geebs wrote:Exactly. If information stored on the quantum level can affect signal transduction, why would receptors evolve?

Apart from that, depending on the effects of quantum physics in the macro universe (or a part of it, say a human body) is hardly a smart thing to do. QP is stochastical in nature, rather than predictable and reproducible.

^misantropia^ wrote:

Geebs wrote:Exactly. If information stored on the quantum level can affect signal transduction, why would receptors evolve?

Apart from that, depending on the effects of quantum physics in the macro universe (or a part of it, say a human body) is hardly a smart thing to do. QP is stochastical in nature, rather than predictable and reproducible.

Which is why relativity and qp are mutually exclusive. Relativity requires a smooth fabric of spacetime....but at the subatomic level the behavior of particles is dominated by randomness, leading to what Brian Green called "quantum frothing"...

tnf wrote:leading to what Brian Green called "quantum frothing"...

Reminds me of Einstein's quote: "Spooky action at a distance." Physicists didn't really like QP back then.