Round 3: Ian McLean v semperfortis: Will Power Or Pill Power?

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is ”Positive Thought Can Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

Ian McLean will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
semperfortis will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Opening statement

"Positive Thought Can Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

Oh this should be an excellent debate. I've been itching to tackle this subject. However I need no pharmaceuticals to cure this 'itch'; the ATS Debate Forum and my worthy opponent Semperfortis will provide all I need!

In the course of this debate, I will describe the relevant aspects of the modern medical industry that lead to a 'drug heavy' treatment philosophy. The effectiveness, dangers, and motives of this approach will be examined. The more philosophical issue of 'positive though' will also be examined, and how it applies in theory, practice, and result to the topic at hand.

This topic begins in the hugely complex field of knowledge of medicine and human health. There are literally thousands of sources and citation I could use to support my case. However, as with any field in which vast amounts of money are involved, the risk of biased sources is always present. For medical facts, I intend to stick to reputable, qualified sources. While my opponent can of course quote whatever sources he desires, I'm sure he will have no objection -- there's enough controversy and agenda even in the top-tier medical journals for him to attempt to make whatever case he may desire. But I intend to present the readers and judges as much neutral evidence, facts, and explanation as possible, for their determination.

Endemic to medicine is the issue of 'appeal to authority'. In fact, part of a doctor's job is to cultivate in patients a sense of confidence in their competence and authority. It's often said that this leads to doctors having a bit of a 'God-complex'. If we were discussing a subject that required an in-depth understanding of, say molecular biology, such appeals to authority might be necessary in order to make a commonly understandable argument in 50,000 characters or less. But I believe this topic can be honestly dealt with and explained without such unexamined technicalities. So, while my opponent is, again, of course free to use such evidence and personal assertion as he sees fit, I intend to make an objective case, avoiding difficult to understand jargon and appeals to 'God-like' expertise.

With that said, let's dive right in to the first topic on the table: The culture of over-prescription and Big Pharma.

First, a necessary and easy to understand piece of jargon, the topic of my first source:

Iatrogenic illness and death:


iatrogenic /iat·ro·gen·ic/ resulting from the activity of physicians; said of any adverse condition in a patient resulting from treatment by a physician or surgeon.
[1]

An example of an iatrogenic event would be incorrect diagnosis of a patient's symptoms. Death or illness resulting from mis-prescription or administration of incorrect pharmaceuticals is a form of iatrogenesis. This happens more often than the medical industry would like to admit:


As few as 5% and only up to 20% of Iatrogenic acts are ever reported. (16, 24, 25, 33, 34) This implies that if medical errors were completely and accurately reported, we would have a much higher annual Iatrogenic death rate than 783,936.
[2]

Now, it should be noted: not all of those 783,936-or-so deaths per year (in the USA alone) are due to unintentional medical error. Some are the result of risky attempts at treatment for patients in dire circumstances. But how common is physician mis-prescription and other error?


The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. (1) Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics. (2, 2a)
[2]

And that's just in-hospital adverse reactions (not necessarily fatal) and unnecessary antibiotics! How about deaths from unforeseen interactions and other incorrectly prescribed pharmaceuticals?


According to the article [Knight/Ridder Jan 7 2001], it is estimated that US drug fatalities runs 100,000 a year. There is no way of confirming the numbers because there is no reliable way to track and investigate problems with drugs. Doctors are not even required to report bad drug interactions.
[3]

As my sources show (and please, check them out -- there's over 50 supporting references in those two links), mistakes are made when prescribing and dispensing pharmaceuticals. More often than admitted.

Why is the medical industry structured to downplay these risks of error? Why are the dangers of adverse drug reaction not made more clear to the public at large? Why is the horribly under-studied problem of bad drug interactions so glossed over and under-reported?

I have only one remaining sentence of quotations that I am allowed to make in this statement. It is enough to state what we all know:


According to a USA Today study, more than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions.
[3]

'Big Pharma' -- the pharmaceutical industry -- is one of the most successful money-making ventures ever created. If we are wondering where the 'pill-popping' culture promulgated by the medical industry has its roots, we need look no further.

Given, the pharmaceutical industry has created many wonderful treatments for specific illnesses. However, they are a maker of 'sledgehammers', and only sledgehammers. And, of course, the viewpoint they perpetuate is that every problem is one that can be solved by application of the appropriate-size sledgehammer. They claim for themselves the authority to influence the entire medical industry -- doctors, hospitals, even government agencies -- as they see fit, in line with their goals and viewpoints.

Billions of dollars are spent annually advertising pharmaceuticals, 'educating' doctors, lobbying politicians; the industry even sponsors tuition for certain medical students of whom they approve. As profit-driven corporations their primary goal, legally binding, is to make money -- not cure disease and alleviate human suffering.

The bias and conflict of interest underlying their assertions of authority is obvious.

The key word here is arrogance. In a self-interested way, they say: "Our authority is unquestionable; there can be no doubt or alternative." Well, ladies and gentlemen, I believe in reason, evidence, and individual understanding. The world has enough sledgehammers.

 

Thank you, to the readers, our moderator and judges, and my worthy opponent Semperfortis, to whom I now yield the floor.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Round 3: Ian McLean v semperfortis: Will Power Or Pill Power?

”Positive Thought Can Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

Semper’s Opening

WOW, Round three already and here I have been given a most interesting topic to debate with my friend and fellow Fighter, Ian.

Let me thank Ian for his participation and MemoryShock, without whose participation I fear the debate forum would disappear, and I would like to thank the readers and judges as well.

I agree almost wholeheartedly with my opponent’s opening as far as the technical aspect of this debate is concerned. While there exists a multitude of technical data, what we are debating is really very simple and I also see no reason to overly complicate the issue, preferring instead to concentrate on the main issue as my opponent is also apparently agreeable to.

As for source material, I like to think I only ever use the most reputable source material and shall endeavor to do so in this debate as well.

Positive Thought vs Medicine

Now having read my opponent’s opening post twice so far, I can see that he intends on focusing somewhat on the evils of modern medicine. I will save him some time and allude to the fact that medicine is not perfect and doctors make mistakes. I intend on showing you however, that this in no way discounts the positive contributions and effects of pharmaceuticals.

“Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”

There have been medical mistakes, there will be medical mistakes, this does not mean we abandon pharmaceuticals for some feel good yoga exercise and hope for the best.

As for abuse in the medical field, how does this compare with abuse in the “positive thought” genre of homeopathic healing? I intend on illustrating that as we progress.

Is the power of positive thought, better, more powerful or more effective than pharmaceuticals? This is the debate topic in a nutshell and what my opponent must prove to you to effectively “win” this debate.

Not that positive thought is effective, or that positive thought has worked in the past, no, he must show us that it is “better” than modern medicine.

During this debate I will show you the progression, historically, of modern medicine and how man has developed all of the myriad ways to heal, prevent and assuage his many ills and ailments. Some effective, some not so much.

We will examine extensively Far Eastern medicinal practices and how they compare to more modern Western styles. Acupuncture, Homeopathic and Chemical remedies will all be covered and I hope will stimulate you in regards to the topic.

An Aspirin, a Migraine, a Gunshot Wound and Laughter is the Best Medicine.

Endorphins are all the rage anymore, we will not neglect our study of these wonderful little Peptide Hormones as we look at this topic.

We will study trauma and psychological illness as well, and we will enjoy it!!!!

Prozac, Lexapro and St. Johns Wart will not be neglected in this debate either.

I will not, in this debate, discount the wonderful effects of “Positive Thought” as I feel confident this has a place in the effective treatment of any “Physical Malaise” as does Pharmaceuticals and Homeopathic Remedies. I intend on quite simply proving the debate topic as it stands.

”Positive Thought Can NOT Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

We are going to examine the many external and internal factors that can cause a “Physical Malaise” and the currently accepted treatments as sanctioned by the AMA, I am also sure that with the help of my opponent, we will look at mystics, shamans and temporal physical relationships.

So, jump in and enjoy this ride with Ian and myself as we explore and examine this fascinating topic.

I can only hope that we all learn something as we journey together.

In the end, I will leave you with no doubt that:

”Positive Thought Can NOT Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."


Thank you

Semper



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
First reply

Thank you, Semper. I share your hope that "we all learn something as we journey together". However, I cannot in all honesty claim, nor would I want to claim, that I will leave the audience and judges with "no doubt". I believe my case is strong and correct, but it is my intention to present evidence and logic that will make us think, move beyond bias, recognize self-interested assertions, and reach more open-minded conclusions. For this, I believe that allowing doubt is the first step to learning, and becoming aware of bias and abuse, regardless of agenda.

If we, as advocates, educators, and debaters do our jobs properly, we should not fear or discourage doubt and questions, but rather encourage them, as hallmarks of the honest pursuit of truth.

That little rant aside, I will continue with the first pillar of my three-part case: institutionalized medicine and the bias of pharmacological 'solutions'.

Let's first ask the question: what is malaise?


malaise

1. A feeling of general bodily discomfort or unpleasantness, often at the onset of illness.
2. An ambiguous feeling of mental or moral depression.
[1]

It is important to realize that malaise is a symptom and not a disease itself:


symptom

1. Anything that indicates, or is characteristic of, the presence of something else; especially a perceived change in some function, sensation or appearance of a patient that is indicative of a disease or disorder.
[2]

This is where the evidence I presented in my previous post becomes apparent -- symptoms should not be treated, but rather used as evidence in formulating a diagnosis, which, if accurate, allows the causative disease to be treated. To do otherwise can be a form of iatrogenesis: medical malpractice and incompetence via mis-diagnosis and mis-prescription.

For example, my opponent mentioned that a gunshot wound should not be treated with aspirin and laughter. That is certainly true. 'Gunshot wound' is a specific diagnosis, the symptom of which would be something like 'arterial spurting', rather than malaise.

But what diseases could be indicated by symptoms that include malaise? My research indicates several hundred. Here is a list of 253 diseases that mention 'malaise': [3]

The most common:


  • Stress
  • Emotional problems
  • Fatigue
  • Depression
  • Depressive disorders
  • Poor diet
  • Inadequate sleep
  • Illness
  • Virus
  • Chronic sinusitis
  • Toothache
  • Anemia
    [3]

  • At this point, I think that an ambiguity in the topic of this debate is apparent. The topic mentions "Physical Malaise". Clearly, that indicates part (1) from the definition I quoted above, and excludes part (2). But remember, malaise is a symptom, which can manifest physically or mentally, but the disease causing the malaise (if any) can also be physical or mental in origin. Let's recognize the distinction.

    It is quite obvious, self-evident, that the disease of a "Depressive disorder" can cause mental malaise: "An ambiguous feeling of mental or moral depression". BUT, depressive disorder, and other diseases that might be labeled "non-physical" CAN also causes physical symptoms, such as "bodily discomfort or unpleasantness".

    What are some of the physical symptoms of depression?


  • Irritability, restlessness
  • Fatigue and decreased energy
  • Insomnia, early–morning wakefulness, or excessive sleeping
  • Persistent aches or pains, headaches, cramps or digestive problems that do not ease even with treatment
    [4]

  • So, that 'Physical Malaise' may result from non-physical disease seems like a clear distinction, but in the interest of fairness I will let the matter rest here, that my opponent might respond and clarify his opinion on the matter. I will continue to carefully make the distinction between physical or mental cause and physical or mental effect in my discussion.

    It must be considered that, unlike homeopathic medicine and non-medical treatment, a doctor's diagnosis and prescription is required to obtain pharmaceuticals. Even if the pharmaceuticals themselves were 100% effective, without side-effect or possible negative interactions, their efficiency would be limited by the reliability of the medical establishment that provides them.

    I would trust that any doctor can diagnose a gunshot wound accurately. But, when the symptoms are more vague, as is the case with 'malaise', how effective are doctors? Let's look at doctor's diagnostic performance, in the most dire of cases: life threatening illness:


    Two 1998 reports validate the continued truth that there is an approximately 40% discordance between what clinical physicians diagnose as causes of death antemortem and what the postmortem diagnoses are. In one recent study with such results (44.9% discordance) at the University of Pittsburgh, Pa, two thirds of the undiagnosed conditions were considered treatable. This diagnostic discordance rate compares with 35% in 1938, 39% in 1959, 43% in 1974, and 47% in 1983. No improvement!

    George D. Lundberg, JAMA, Oct. 14, 1998 [5]

    A 40% discordance! And no improvement in over 60 years of medical and pharmacological 'advances'!

    That data of doctor's diagnostic performance is for the most life-threatening of illnesses, those that resulted in the patients deaths (many of which were, sadly, quite avoidable). Look again at the list of possible causes of 'malaise'. They are wide and varied, and most are not life-threatening. It is quite reasonable to assume that, in such cases, doctors are more likely to incompletely diagnose, and attempt to treat the symptom with a pharmaceutical 'shotgun approach', rather than finding the underlying cause or illness.

    We've seen the motives promulgated by the drug industry, we've seen startling evidence of the negative effects of the 'pill-pushing' approach to medicine, and now we've seen direct evidence of a huge level of inaccuracy in doctors' diagnoses.

    Thus I believe we have seen: the path of pharmacological treatment cannot be considered adequately effective for the treatment of general symptoms such as malaise.

     

    Thanks, I now turn the floor over to Semper; in my next reply I will begin to discuss alternative treatment, positive thinking, and some of the unanalyzed assumptions of modern medicine.


    So, jump in and enjoy this ride with Ian and myself as we explore and examine this fascinating topic.

    Your turn to drive, friend! Don't run us off the road!



    posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:11 AM
    link   
    Round 3: Ian McLean v semperfortis: Will Power Or Pill Power?

    ”Positive Thought Can Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

    Semper’s Reply #1

    Quick Aside:


    If we, as advocates, educators, and debaters do our jobs properly, we should not fear or discourage doubt and questions, but rather encourage them, as hallmarks of the honest pursuit of truth.


    All very altruistic of you, but I am here to win a debate, so it is my intention to change minds and confirm knowledge, thereby proving my point. To this end I shall continue.

    Rebuttal:


    symptoms should not be treated, but rather used as evidence in formulating a diagnosis, which, if accurate, allows the causative disease to be treated. To do otherwise can be a form of iatrogenesis: medical malpractice and incompetence via mis-diagnosis and mis-prescription.


    You are mistaken on several points my good and valued opponent.

    Example:

    There are many diseases where only the symptoms can be treated as we currently, with our technology, do not completely understand the disease itself. We still lack complete understanding of Migraines, do you suggest we stop giving pain medicine and treating the symptoms? I have Migraines and without my medicine I would not be able to function when I have an onset, no matter how many positive thoughts I have.

    Many diseases are genetic in nature and we have no treatments for the disease itself, all we have is our ability to treat the symptoms and give the patient some semblance of a normal life.

    Socratic Question #1

    In regards to your statement quoted above, do you advocate NOT treating the symptoms of a disease we have no treatments for?

    Socratic Question #2

    Do you consider the application of pharmaceuticals to alleviate pain “iatrogenesis” when we do not completely understand the cause of the pain?

    Allow me to reiterate, I am in no way going to cast dispersions on the power of positive thought, it works. The question before us is “does it work better than pharmaceuticals?


    Here is a list of 253 diseases that mention 'malaise':


    Did you look at that list prior to posting it my friend?

    Do you really want to contend that “Lack of Sleep” is a disease? Or “Poor Diet”?

    I would reference you back to your own source in this regard.


    Almost any possible condition - Almost every illness makes people feel unwell.


    I fail to see the significance here; perhaps you would like to enlighten us?


    I will continue to carefully make the distinction between physical or mental cause and physical or mental effect in my discussion.


    And that is fine, but there is no distinction in the debate topic and it is a little late to be redefining it. Remember the topic my friend.

    ”Positive Thought Can Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."


    a doctor's diagnosis and prescription is required to obtain pharmaceuticals.


    Again, I must advise you that your assertion here is not entirely accurate.


    phar•ma•ceu•ti•cal (fär'mə-sōō'tĭ-kəl) Pronunciation Key
    adj.

    Of or relating to pharmacy or pharmacists.

    n. A pharmaceutical product or preparation.

    Dictionary

    Aspirin
    Preparation H
    Ibuprophin

    All fit nicely within the definition and require no diagnosis or prescription. Also of note is that many prescription meds eventually make their way onto the shelves as OTC (Over The Counter) eventually. Ibuprophin, Aleve, Allie, Claritin etc…

    Socratic Question #3

    Which method do you believe is the best and most effective way to treat Hemorrhoids, Positive Thinking or Preparation H?


    A 40% discordance! And no improvement in over 60 years of medical and pharmacological 'advances'!


    How do you suppose positive thinking will improve this? The medical system is not an exact science, or perfect, yet it is abundantly clear that it works; as I will reference later.


    Thus I believe we have seen: the path of pharmacological treatment cannot be considered adequately effective for the treatment of general symptoms such as malaise.


    But you have yet to address your side of the debate; positive thoughts: remember?

    Again, I would like to reaffirm that I do believe in positive thinking in each and every aspect of life. I believe that it supports us and enables us in many ways that we have yet to discover.

    But I still want my aspirin when I have a headache.

    I have been a weight lifter my entire adult life and will gladly express to you the positive nature of endorphins. I have experienced them even this afternoon on doing a set of bench press. Yet they do nothing for the arthritis in my knees, I need ibuprophin for that. I can not treat my Diabetes with happy thoughts, I would quickly slip into a coma and die if I did.

    While my opponent has regaled you with all the problems inherent in modern medicine, I submit to you that like democracy, it isn’t perfect, but it is the best we have at the current time.

    Wonder Drugs:

    While my opponent is concerned with all the mistakes our medical profession is prone to, I would like for you to look at some of the fantastic remedies we have available.


    Aspirin: Old Standby is the New Wonder Drug

    It's been said that aspirin is so powerful, if were just being introduced today, it might be available only as a prescription drug. But aspirin was introduced to the world in 1897, and the white tablets - touted for their pain-relieving, fever-reducing and anti-inflammatory properties - became readily available over the counter in 1900.

    Aspirin

    All the positive thoughts in the world can never replace the small pill my Granny gave me when I hurt.


    Drugs that have helped treat millions of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers may hold the key to many more medical conditions, including atherosclerosis -- a leading cause of heart disease -- says the researcher who jointly invented and developed them.

    Wonder Drugs

    Our technology is just now coming of age in the area of modern pharmaceuticals and the future looks bright and hopeful. As we discovered the “reasons” behind many of the maladies, we discover new medicines to treat those maladies.

    If you need proof of the effectiveness of modern pharmaceuticals, it is as close as here:


    When the U.S. population reached 100 million in 1915, the average lifespan was 54 years. When we hit 200 million in 1967, it was around 70.

    Today, the average lifespan of someone living in the U.S. is just months shy of 78, and there is little reason to think that we won't continue to push the life expectancy envelope.

    "Life expectancy worldwide has been rising pretty steadily since 1840, at a rate of about two years per decade," Daniel Perry, who is executive director of the Alliance for Aging Research, tells WebMD. "In 1840, the longest-living people in the world were women in Sweden, and they lived an average of 45 years."

    Web MD

    Statistically we are living far longer than at any other time in recorded history; we are also statistically using modern medicines more. Is this a coincidence? Hardly.

    Regardless of my opponent’s doom and gloom outlook towards modern medicine, the facts speak of a much different outlook; one of a positive nature and increased lifespan.

    Socratic Question #4

    When you have a headache, do you think positive thoughts to stop the pain, or do you personally take medicine?

    While we all must retain a positive outlook in order to enjoy our lives, if you get sick it is perfectly okay to take some Nyquil if you get a cold.

    Thank you

    Semper



    posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:29 PM
    link   
    Second reply


    Which method do you believe is the best and most effective way to treat Hemorrhoids, Positive Thinking or Preparation H?

    I would not presume to offer you personal medical advice, my friend. I would suggest you keep a positive attitude, and consider consulting a doctor. Our prayers are with you; I am sure everything will clear up in time.


     



    Here is a list of 253 diseases that mention 'malaise':

    Did you look at that list prior to posting it my friend?
    Do you really want to contend that “Lack of Sleep” is a disease? Or “Poor Diet”?
    I fail to see the significance here; perhaps you would like to enlighten us?

    Thank you for that clarification; you are absolutely correct -- 'malaise', in itself, is not a disease that can be medically cured. When present as a symptom, malaise itself is not treatable by pharmaceuticals.

    The complaint of 'malaise' is an expression of 'a vague sense of imbalance in health'. Doctors hate vague descriptions of symptoms. It is their job to then search for causes and indicators: run appropriate tests, ask additional questions, and make a sound diagnosis.

    If a patient describes multiple symptoms, one of which is malaise, that is definitely not the primary symptom, and should not be treated as such. "Blinding pain" is the relevant symptom of a migraine, not malaise.

    As you say, it's a little late for you to try and redefine the topic. The topic is not:

    "Loud chanting of mantras can cure a headache better than aspirin"
    or
    "Global peace would cause knife wounds to close faster than sutures"

    Malaise is the symptomatic description that doctors resort to when a patient complains "I've just been feeling kinda blah". If the physician goes all Dr House, they might, within 60 minutes, find a rare and obscure cause which may be curable with drugs. But, from previous evidence I've introduced, we've seen how often that happens.

    In fact, in the vast majority of cases, excluding the rare and undiagnosed underlying cause that Dr House always seems to find, malaise cannot be best treated with drugs. Let's examine in more detail:

     

    The question must be asked: What is positive thinking, and how can have physical effect? To better understand that, consider the number-one cause of physical malaise: mental stress.

    The major physical signs of mental stress are:


  • Headaches or backaches
  • Muscle tension and stiffness
  • Diarrhea or constipation
  • Nausea, dizziness
  • Insomnia
  • Chest pain, rapid heartbeat
  • Frequent colds
    [1]

  • And, of course: physical malaise.

    So, here we see that stress, a mental problem associated with negative thoughts, has profound physical effects.

    The converse of negative thoughts, positive thoughts and optimism, is the best cure for stress, not pharmaceuticals:


    Research shows the benefits of optimism and a positive frame of mind are huge: optimists enjoy better health, stronger relationships, are more productive, and experience less stress, among other things.
    [2]

    Let's see what the Mayo Clinic has to say:


    Health benefits that positive thinking may provide include:
  • Decreased negative stress
  • Greater resistance to catching the common cold
  • A sense of well-being and improved health
  • Reduced risk of coronary artery disease
    [3]

  • Positive thinking results in superior overall health, as no drug can:


    Superior Health
    In a study of 99 Harvard University students, those who were optimists at age 25 were significantly healthier at ages 45 and 60 than those who were pessimists. Other studies have linked a pessimistic explanatory style with higher rates of infectious disease, poor health, and earlier mortality.
    [2],[4]

     

    Now, let's look at the second and third major causes of complaints of 'physical malaise': poor diet, and lack of sleep.

    Lack of proper nutrition is obviously a problem that can cause physical effects. Is the best solution pharmaceuticals? Hardly! The best solution is a better diet, making the positive mindset and lifestyle changes that lead to taking better care of the body.

    Of course, pharmaceutical companies do make expensive vitamin concoctions that might also address the problem. But wouldn't, say, fresh fruit be the better solution? Oh wait! Walgreen's sells fresh fruit, so perhaps my opponent would label those 'pharmaceuticals' -- "of or relating to pharmacy". Nice try.

    And lack of sleep also has a pharmacological solution: so-called 'sleep aid' drugs (knockout pills). These are certainly effective, but often have the side effect of malaise, as well as other more nasty effects. Hardly the best solution! Insomnia is usually caused by worry, anxiety, and stress: for which positive thinking is a much better solution than any pill.

    So, can physical malaise be conquered by pharmaceuticals? Absolutely, yes! Show me a person who is 'feeling blah', and I guarantee you that, after a shot of intravenous morphine, they will be feeling juuust fine! Malaise cured. But, is that the 'better' solution? Obviously, for long-term health, it is not.

     

    The core of this debate is the mind/body connection. The stance the pharmaceutical companies advocate is that physical ailments are purely physical, and non-physical ailments are illusory, or the result of 'irregular brain-chemistry' that should be 'cured' with -- you guessed it -- more pills.

    But the evidence is clear: the mind regulates the body, and its immune and healing responses, with much more adeptness and efficiency than any pharmaceutical.

    Consider an occasional cause of physical malaise: oncoming viral infection such as the common cold. How many pharmaceuticals conquer the common cold? Here's a hint: the answer is less than one. The best any do is alleviate some of the symptoms, such as runny nose, fever, etc. They can, at times, alter a person's feeling of well-being from 'absolutely horrible' to one of simple 'malaise'. That's far from conquering malaise, though, isn't it?

    It's the body's immune system that does that, eventually, by attacking the root cause of the problem: the cold virus.

    Let's see how the immune system reacts to positive thinking. Here is a paper, with peer-review commentary, describing the ability of positive thinking to improve immune response in ways no pharmaceutical is able to do:


    Positive attitude correlates strongly with increased ability of the immune system to fight pathogens.
    ...
    A study with the common cold and emotions showed that participants with happy emotions exhibited a greater ability to fight off the cold when given a squirt of the rhinovirus.
    ...
    Correlations were observed in the number of lymphocyte cells and the person's level of optimism.
    [5]

     


    When you have a headache, do you think positive thoughts to stop the pain, or do you personally take medicine?

    I think positive thoughts to stop the pain. When I have a headache, it's due to an imbalance in my body chemistry, unless I have recently been hit on the head
    . I listen to what my body is trying to tell me, and I usually find that the headache is caused by stress, which I take the opportunity to positively confront and diffuse. Occasionally, I get headaches due to dehydration or low blood sugar. When that's the case, I correct the underlying cause first, and yes, I do take the occasional aspirin to correct lingering symptoms.

    What's your point? Headaches aren't 'a vague feeling of ill-health' (malaise), they're headaches.


    In regards to your statement quoted above, do you advocate NOT treating the symptoms of a disease we have no treatments for?

    No, if a complete diagnosis yields no effective course of treatment, then I believe doctors should act to alleviate suffering. Are you contending that malaise is a disease, perhaps similar to 'hysteria' or 'the vapors'? Maybe a zesty coc aine-based beverage should be the cure of choice.



    Do you consider the application of pharmaceuticals to alleviate pain “iatrogenesis” when we do not completely understand the cause of the pain?

    Yes I do, when the root cause of the pain has not been adequately diagnosed. I believe that doctors are too quick to shuffle patients off with a prescription for Vicodin, rather than spending time diagnosing and finding possibly better treatment. That can be iatrogensis, in that the hiding of the symptom can further obscures a possible undiagnosed cause.

    Again, what does this have to do with malaise? I've said I'm not contending a gunshot wound should be cured with laughter. Associated pain can be overwhelming; doctors should help treat that. While there are individuals who, though positive thought alone, can overcome and conquer all forms of pain, that is a rare level of mind/body unity that I would not expect of everyone.

    We can certainly encourage better than the medical industry is currently doing, though.

     

    In limited space, a rebuttal to the one remaining point my opponent attempted to make that I have not yet addressed:


    Statistically we are living far longer than at any other time in recorded history; we are also statistically using modern medicines more. Is this a coincidence? Hardly.

    That is an baseless statement, presented with no evidence, which ignores causation and correlation. Drugs have saved lives, but perhaps better nutrition and preventative health is due more credit? Care to back up your assertion?



    posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:16 AM
    link   
    Round 3: Ian McLean v semperfortis: Will Power Or Pill Power?

    ”Positive Thought Can Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

    Semper’s Reply #2

    Rebuttal:

    Socratic Question Posted By Semperfortis:


    Which method do you believe is the best and most effective way to treat Hemorrhoids, Positive Thinking or Preparation H?


    Answer by Ian McLean:


    I would not presume to offer you personal medical advice, my friend. I would suggest you keep a positive attitude, and consider consulting a doctor. Our prayers are with you; I am sure everything will clear up in time.


    While I appreciate your humor my friend, the rules state a “Direct Response” is required. Please directly answer my Socratic Question.


    'malaise', in itself, is not a disease that can be medically cured. When present as a symptom, malaise itself is not treatable by pharmaceuticals.


    Could you please make up your mind here; I am getting confused. Earlier you stated:


    But what diseases could be indicated by symptoms that include malaise? My research indicates several hundred. Here is a list of 253 diseases that mention 'malaise':


    If the disease is indicated by Malaise, failure to treat it would be catastrophic, yes?


    If a patient describes multiple symptoms, one of which is malaise, that is definitely not the primary symptom, and should not be treated as such. "Blinding pain" is the relevant symptom of a migraine, not malaise.


    I can only surmise that you do not have Migraines, as once more you are incorrect.


    The symptoms may include sleepiness, irritability, fatigue, depression or euphoria, yawning, and cravings for sweet or salty foods. Patients and their family members usually know that when they observe these warning symptoms that a migraine attack is beginning.

    Medicine Net

    The thing is, this is a perfect example of the debate topic. Failure to treat the malaise that precedes a Migraine, results in a traumatic and painful episode. However, proper administration of Pharmaceuticals when experiencing the Malaise, can result in a Migraine that is reduced to the point of allowing the subject, (Me) to continue to interact with society.

    Positive thoughts do nothing, while Pharmaceuticals during the Malaise period do wonders.

    Proof my friend, proof.


    Malaise is the symptomatic description that doctors resort to when a patient complains "I've just been feeling kinda blah"


    That is patently untrue as well.

    As has been shown several times already, Malaise is often associated with a malady both indirectly and directly. In fact, it is the Malaise prior to my Blood Sugar going through the roof that alerts me to check it and maybe take some Pharmaceuticals before going to the hospital.

    The Malaise indicative of a rise in blood sugar is a very prominent feeling of being hot, confusion and sweating. I know this from years of personal experience. When I treat the Malaise, I do not need to go to the hospital.

    More Proof.


    malaise cannot be best treated with drugs. Let's examine in more detail:


    Again, completely false my friend…

    In both the migraine incident and the diabetes, I have shown were treating the malaise with Pharmaceuticals is sufficient and adequate to both cure the malaise and prevent an onset of a more serious disorder.


    positive thoughts and optimism, is the best cure for stress, not pharmaceuticals:


    Perhaps for stress my valued opponent, but looking at your list, Diarrhea strikes me as something that needs a bit more than positive thoughts. I would suggest a bathroom and toilet paper would be in order. A good magazine would not hurt either. Not to mention some Imodium.


    Positive thinking results in superior overall health, as no drug can:


    No argument there; but as previously shown the treatment of Physical Malaise needs good old fashion, (Or Modern as it were) Pharmaceuticals.


    So, can physical malaise be conquered by pharmaceuticals? Absolutely, yes! Show me a person who is 'feeling blah', and I guarantee you that, after a shot of intravenous morphine, they will be feeling juuust fine! Malaise cured. But, is that the 'better' solution? Obviously, for long-term health, it is not.


    I’m glad that we agree on at least part of your quote above.


    So, can physical malaise be conquered by pharmaceuticals? Absolutely, yes!


    Yet the rest is completely incorrect in both the Migraine instance and the Diabetes instance referenced earlier.

    Some other maladies where one treats the Malaise prior to the onset of the actual malady include but are not limited to:

    Influenza
    Common Cold
    Allergies
    Gastro-intestinal Difficulties
    Bronchitis
    Etc

    The list is seemingly endless of the physical maladies one may suffer from, where you must treat the onset of Malaise associated with the malady to prevent the complete and devastating onset of that particular malady.

    Positive thought will not prevent or cure the Influenza Virus, or any virus in fact. Yet the application of Pharmaceuticals at the appropriate time when one is feeling the Malaise associated with the Flu, will prevent the Flu from being incapacitating.

    More Proof my friend.


    Consider an occasional cause of physical malaise: oncoming viral infection such as the common cold. How many pharmaceuticals conquer the common cold? Here's a hint: the answer is less than one. The best any do is alleviate some of the symptoms, such as runny nose, fever, etc. They can, at times, alter a person's feeling of well-being from 'absolutely horrible' to one of simple 'malaise'. That's far from conquering malaise, though, isn't it?


    Actually your example is perfect for my stance. When one feels the onset of the common cold, the Malaise as it were, one may take the appropriate Pharmaceuticals and feel better; at least for a time. Failure to treat the Malaise results in the onset of the cold with all the resultant symptoms and one may be incapacitated.

    Henceforth; treating the Malaise is called for in your own instance.

    Proof


    yes, I do take the occasional aspirin to correct lingering symptoms.


    So you yourself treat your Malaise with Pharmaceuticals.


    Yes I do, when the root cause of the pain has not been adequately diagnosed.


    You redefined the question, again…

    More often then not, the Malaise is a precursor to a known malady and treating the malaise is the first best option as previously covered.

    Socratic Question #1

    When a person has Diabetes and begins feeling the symptoms of rising blood sugar, (Malaise), would you recommend positive thoughts, or pharmaceuticals?
    Direct Answer Please

    Socratic Question #2

    When a person has feelings of Malaise, and knows this to be a result of the onset of Influenza, would you recommend positive thoughts or proper Pharmaceuticals?
    Direct Answer Please


    While the natural healing effects of the human body are in fact phenomenal and still to the most part unknown, the simple fact is that according to the definition of Physical Malaise it is often a precursor to a more serious ailment that frankly the body can not cure itself of without our help. Pharmaceuticals.

    As I have shown in my previous posting, the end result of our treatment of Physical Malaise is the lengthening of our natural life spans. I treat my Diabetes when the first signs of Physical Malaise begin, therefore I survive.

    Simple Proof


    For Consideration:


    The following lists give examples of the diseases and conditions that can cause malaise.

    ACUTE INFECTIOUS DISEASE

    * Acute bronchitis or pneumonia
    * Acute viral syndrome
    * Infectious mononucleosis (EBV)
    * Influenza
    * Lyme disease

    CHRONIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE

    * AIDS
    * Chronic active hepatitis
    * Parasitic disease
    * Tuberculosis

    CARDIOPULMONARY DISEASE

    * Congestive heart failure
    * COPD

    ORGAN FAILURE

    * Acute or chronic kidney disease
    * Acute or chronic liver disease

    CONNECTIVE TISSUE DISEASE

    * Rheumatoid arthritis
    * Sarcoidosis
    * Systemic lupus erythematosus

    ENDOCRINE or METABOLIC

    * Adrenal gland dysfunction
    * Diabetes
    * Pituitary gland dysfunction (rare)
    * Thyroid disease

    NEOPLASTIC

    * Leukemia
    * Lymphoma (cancer that starts in the lymph system)
    * Solid tumor malignancies, such as colon cancer

    BLOOD DISORDERS

    * Severe anemia

    PSYCHIATRIC

    * Depression
    * Dysthymia (a long-lasting depressed mood, less severe than depression)

    MEDICATIONS

    * Anticonvulsant (antiseizure) medications
    * Antihistamines
    * Beta blockers (medications used to treat heart disease or high blood pressure)
    * Psychiatric medications
    * Treatments involving several medications

    Health NYTimes

    Now looking at that list, I can only see maybe two that I would not the application of Pharmaceuticals to treat the Malaise associated with them.

    The simple fact is this:

    ”Positive Thought Can NOT Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

    Thank you

    Semper



    posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 02:59 AM
    link   

    ...Preparation H?
    Please directly answer my Socratic Question.

    Sorry, my friend, I didn't mean to rub you the wrong way. And to clarify my answer, I personally believe that may be the best treatment: not rubbing the wrong way.

    But, humor aside, I did give you a direct answer. You introduced no evidence for me to respond to, other than your personal testimony, and then ask me to recommend treatment? I'm not going to go off-topic and waste time researching an illness that obviously has non-vague symptoms and a clear diagnosis.

    I can understand your motivation Semper, to re-define and debate the topic you want to debate. The topic MemoryShock has given us says "Conquer Physical Malaise", not "Cure All Disease And Injury". I think that's quite clear and I will waste no more time addressing distractions.

    Migraine headache and diabetes (and gunshot wounds) are serious illnesses, with many obvious and serious symptoms. Labeling them 'malaise' is like labeling a hurricane 'a vague sprinkling of rain'. Yes, it may include rain, but it's really not vague.


    When a person has Diabetes and begins feeling the symptoms of rising blood sugar, (Malaise), would you recommend positive thoughts, or pharmaceuticals?

    In the specific case of diabetes, that is a false dichotomy. You've directly asked my personal opinion, and I will indulge you: I believe that the modern 'epidemic' of diabetes is not a natural phenomena and has not been present with humanity at such levels throughout history. I believe it is likely the result of modern artificial and unhealthy diet, environmental contaminants, subtle vaccination side-effects, or compromised metabolism from other sources related to 'modern life'.

    I would love to start quoting sources and arguing the issue, but the topic here isn't "The Current Frequency Of Diabetes Is A Result Of The Modern 'Chemical Lifestyle'." That would make a good topic, though, and I recommend it to MemoryShock.

    With regard to calling hyperglycemia mere 'malaise', I will refer you to your own source from your previous reply:


    Call Your Health Care Provider if
  • Malaise is accompanied by other symptoms indicating a significant illness
  • Malaise persists longer than one week, with or without other symptoms
    [1]

  • I would recommend you not ignore blood sugar imbalance for an entire week. In the interest of your health, please do not label it 'malaise'.

    Also, keep a positive outlook; it will help your health:


    One of the major hazards of diabetes is depression.
    Long-term, your health depends on maintaining a positive attitude as much as anything else.
    [2]

    Please be careful of pharmaceutical insulin; it can have some nasty side-effects; worse if not used exactly correctly:


    Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue; wheezing; muscle pain); changes in vision; chest pain; chills; confusion; dizziness; drowsiness; fainting; fast or irregular heartbeat; headache; loss of consciousness; mood changes; seizures; shortness of breath; slurred speech; swelling; tremor; trouble breathing; trouble concentrating; unusual hunger; unusual sweating; weakness.
    [3]

    If you are thinking of attempting to prevent migraines with drugs, beware of side effects there, too:


  • depression or mood problems, tiredness, and sleepiness
  • dizziness or loss of muscle coordination
  • effects on thinking and alertness
  • confusion, problems with concentration, attention, memory, and/or speech
  • loss of appetite, nausea, a change in the way foods taste, diarrhea, weight loss, nervousness, aggression, upper respiratory tract infection
    [4]

  • Some of those 'side-effects' make simple malaise seem like a walk in the park.

    I must ask: Have pharmaceuticals 'conquered' your illnesses? It sounds to me like you've chosen, or been 'shown', than the only available path is a life-long reliance on pharmaceuticals, and recurring bouts of 'minor symptoms' and risk of more serious side-effects. Rather than conquering malaise, you seem to have bought into it.

    With regard to migraines, again I would not presume to personally diagnose or recommend treatment to you, but please check out this interesting paper I found, regarding the effect of positive thought and non-pharmaceutical lifestyle change on the frequency of migraine headaches (a 75 week study):


    Stage One included training in and application of problem analysis, goal setting, self-recording, self-monitoring, environmental planning and manipulation, muscle, mental and differential relaxation, self-desensitization and self-evaluation of change. Stage Two continued with training in 13 additional self-change skills.

    ...The training for Stage One of behavioral self-management resulted in a 52% reduction in headaches, while for Stages One and Two, 72% reduction was noted. Over an eight month follow-up period the incidence of migraine was reduced to zero.
    [5]

    Reduced to zero. Those results are simply amazing, and I would venture to say, very scary to the pharmaceutical industry.


    When a person has feelings of Malaise, and knows this to be a result of the onset of Influenza, would you recommend positive thoughts or proper Pharmaceuticals?

    Positive thought. I have shown evidence of the ability of positive thought to bolster the immune system in ways drugs cannot, and I have shown, in my first post, the dramatic statistics of over-prescription of antibiotics for cases of the common cold. You do know that antibiotics are ineffective against viruses such as influenza, right? And over-prescription of antibiotics actually leads to an increased risk to public health? What are these 'proper Pharmaceuticals' of which you speak?

    I also believe that a significant form of 'positive thought' is awareness of mind-body unity: attuning one's self to the subtle signals and feedback between the body and the mind. This is essential to recognizing imbalances such as stress, lack of sleep, poor diet, and other issues. When recognized, we can actively deal with those things, encouraging and strengthening our immune systems.

    A healthy, active immune system can conquer the viral threat of influenza in ways that no pharmaceutical can.

     


    I will ignore my opponents more obvious selective quoting and tactics of distraction, other than to comment on his adroitness and skill.

    Let's be clear: the malaise most effectively conquered is that which never occurs. I practice positive thinking and active, aware stress management, and I don't suffer from migraine headaches. If you consider my opponent's personal testimony, consider mine. I have avoided headaches, poor health, and yes, malaise, many many more times via positive thinking than any aspirin has ever helped with.

    Additionally, I have brought statistics to the table -- optimists are healthier overall, and suffer fewer minor and major incidents of poor health.


    Now looking at that list, I can only see maybe two that I would not the application of Pharmaceuticals to treat the Malaise associated with them.

    I must question your medical judgement. Your offer your opinion, label it 'truth', 'proof', and 'fact', without detail of supporting evidence. Many of the diseases on your list are caused by viral agents, for which there is no 'conquering' other than via the patient's immune system. Many others are congenital in nature, or the result of organ failure.

    Have you ever heard of "drug induced hepatitis"? Where's the pill that will cure acute and chronic kidney disease? Are you seriously contending that chemotherapy for leukemia eliminates malaise?

    One entire category on your list shows that in many cases, malaise is caused by pharmaceuticals.

    I noticed you have entirely glossed over what are, by far, the most common causes of malaise -- stress, poor diet, and inadequate sleep. Is it because the obvious solution to those is positive thinking, leading to positive lifestyle change, and not pharmaceuticals?

    Don't even get me started on emotional depression and side effects of psychiatric drugs. I've avoided this, because I know from your first reply that you will probably attempt to muddy the waters of 'emotional cause' (depression and mood disorders) and 'physical effect' (aches, pains, and a non-specific sense of poor physical health), even though I am doing my best to keep that distinction clear. Those are areas where positive thought, if possible, is clearly the best solution, and treatment via psychiatric drugs clearly does not conquer malaise -- it in many cases causes it, as your own list shows.


    As I have shown in my previous posting, the end result of our treatment of Physical Malaise is the lengthening of our natural life spans.

    That's two assertions of the same statement, that a drugged life is a longer, healthier life, with the only 'proof' offered, as far as I can see, being the fact that you're not dead. As I asked in my previous post, care to provide some statistics, studies, analysis of causation vs correlation, insight into the effects of drugs vs nutrition and positive preventative health practices?

     


    Out of space, will continue in the next post -- good job busying me up with outrageous things to respond to, friend.



    posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 10:46 PM
    link   
    Round 3: Ian McLean v semperfortis: Will Power Or Pill Power?

    ”Positive Thought Can Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

    Semper’s Reply #3

    Rebuttal:


    And to clarify my answer, I personally believe that may be the best treatment: not rubbing the wrong way.


    And still you avoid answering the question… Did you read the rules my friend?

    I will again post the question:


    Original Socratic Question From Semperfortis:

    Which method do you believe is the best and most effective way to treat Hemorrhoids, Positive Thinking or Preparation H?


    Whether you think it is relevant or not, the question is to be answered as per the debate rules. Thank you.


    "Conquer Physical Malaise", not "Cure All Disease And Injury". I think that's quite clear and I will waste no more time addressing distractions.


    I begin to wonder if your confusion is purposeful or do you really not understand.

    You definition of “Physical Malaise”


    malaise

    1. A feeling of general bodily discomfort or unpleasantness, often at the onset of illness.
    2. An ambiguous feeling of mental or moral depression.


    Now this is from your own post, just so we are clear.

    Number one is pretty clear. When I have an onset of my “Illness”, Diabetes; I develop a “Feeling of general bodily discomfort and unpleasantness”.

    Clear so far?

    I develop a “Physical Malaise”

    Now that is substantiated….

    Socratic Question #1 (Maybe I can get this answered)

    “When I personally have an “onset of illness” (My Diabetes) and develop a “feeling of general bodily discomfort”, a PHYSICAL MALAISE, do you think that “Positive Thinking” is sufficient or should I take my “Prescribed Pharmaceuticals?”

    Simple and clear cut. I would like an answer as per the debate rules. See below.


    When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.


    Take special note of the part in bold.


    Migraine headache and diabetes (and gunshot wounds) are serious illnesses, with many obvious and serious symptoms. Labeling them 'malaise' is like labeling a hurricane 'a vague sprinkling of rain'. Yes, it may include rain, but it's really not vague.


    I will assume you have not comprehended my previous posts and will attempt to clarify.

    No one has suggested that Migraines and Diabetes are examples of physical malaise. However, one of the symptoms of an onset of both diseases is in fact “PHYSICAL MALAISE”….. As per your own definition.


    Originally posted by Ian McLean

    malaise

    1. A feeling of general bodily discomfort or unpleasantness, often at the onset of illness.
    2. An ambiguous feeling of mental or moral depression.



    I must ask: Have pharmaceuticals 'conquered' your illnesses?


    Thank you for asking: In fact I have gone from Shots each day, to several doses of pills a day, to a pill in the evening and one on the morning thank you. I am a perfect example of the miracle of modern pharmaceuticals. I appreciate your asking.


    I have avoided headaches, poor health, and yes, malaise, many many more times via positive thinking than any aspirin has ever helped with.


    Perhaps you are just healthy? If you have never experienced them, you have no idea if you have avoided them or not.


    With regard to calling hyperglycemia mere 'malaise',


    There are many symptoms involving Diabetes my friend, if you will note, I referenced the “RISE” in blood sugar and the subsequent “MALAISE” involved with that.


    I would recommend you not ignore blood sugar imbalance for an entire week. In the interest of your health, please do not label it 'malaise'.


    And yet the “PHYSICAL MALAISE” is the very thing that alerts me to take my Pharmaceuticals. Thank you for the concern and as you will note; even you have suggested I not ignore it and take my Pharmaceuticals. What happened to positive thought?

    Are you now conceding the debate to me?


    If you are thinking of attempting to prevent migraines with drugs, beware of side effects there, too:


    By your own admission you have never had a Migraine. The onset of a Migraine is indicated by “PHYSICAL MALAISE” and gives the subject a “warning” in which the subject, (I) can take my “Prescribed Pharmaceuticals” and continue to function. Without the preceding “Physical Malaise” the Migraine would come on with no warning and be far more devastating.

    You have no idea if your “Positive Thoughts” work or not, having by your own admission, never experienced the malady.

    They don’t


    Reduced to zero. Those results are simply amazing, and I would venture to say, very scary to the pharmaceutical industry.


    What is scary is you comparing your source, “Wiley Interscience” with the “Mayo Clinic”, if of course you in fact researched what you posted.


    A variety of drugs have been specifically designed to treat migraines. In addition, some drugs commonly used to treat other conditions also may help relieve or prevent migraines. Medications used to combat migraines fall into two broad categories:

    * Pain-relieving medications. Also known as acute or abortive treatment, these types of drugs are taken during migraine attacks and are designed to stop symptoms that have already begun.
    * Preventive medications. These types of drugs are taken regularly, often on a daily basis, to reduce the severity or frequency of migraines.

    Mayo Clinic

    I imagine I’ll stick with the Mayo Clinic.



    A healthy, active immune system can conquer the viral threat of influenza in ways that no pharmaceutical can.


    Wrong


    About Influenza and Vaccination

    Influenza, also called “the flu,” is a contagious respiratory illness caused by influenza viruses. It can cause mild to severe illness, and at times can lead to death. The best way to prevent this illness is by getting an influenza vaccination each year.

    Faces of Influenza


    I must question your medical judgement. Your offer your opinion, label it 'truth', 'proof', and 'fact', without detail of supporting evidence. Many of the diseases on your list are caused by viral agents, for which there is no 'conquering' other than via the patient's immune system. Many others are congenital in nature, or the result of organ failure.


    That makes no sense at all…

    Did you read my post? Did you read the list?


    optimists are healthier overall, and suffer fewer minor and major incidents of poor health.


    And yet this has nothing to do with the topic…

    Remember?


    ”Positive Thought Can Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."


    The fact that if you are positive, you experience less physical malaise is not relevant to the debate my friend. The debate concentrates on WHEN you experience Physical Malaise


    One entire category on your list shows that in many cases, malaise is caused by pharmaceuticals.


    Proof Please?


    Socratic Question #2 (Please Answer Directly)

    “When one first experiences the Physical Malaise associated with a known and previously diagnosed malady, is it your contention that the subject should disregard pharmaceuticals prescribed by a physician and think positive thoughts?”


    Look folks, it is very plain and simple. Physical Malaise is most often associated with the onset of something like Influenza, Migraines or other such maladies. If you ignore that Physical Malaise, or just think positive thoughts, you WILL suffer the effects of the malady. If on the other hand, you treat that Physical Malaise with modern Pharmaceuticals, the extent and severity of the malady will be much reduced or eliminated.

    We are on the cusp of major breakthroughs in modern pharmaceuticals as experienced by the many life extending medicines now available to all of us.

    While the benefits of positive thinking are many, and I freely admit to this, they pale in comparison to modern medical practices.

    The end result is that:

    ”Positive Thought Can NOT Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

    Thank you

    Semper



    posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 06:04 PM
    link   

    I will assume you have not comprehended my previous posts

    My friend, I have understood your previous posts, such as they are, and I have given you straightforward answers. That those answers may not fit within the dichotomies you would paint is not my problem.

    You see, positive thought, to be effective, must actually be positive. To an avowed pessimist, I would venture that pharmaceuticals would be more of a solution than any cynical attempts at 'pseudo-positivity'.

    So when you ask what I would personally recommend to you, my debate opponent, who's asking? To the avowed pessimist who's role you have been assigned to argue, I say (SQ1): "Take your medicine like a good little boy". To you, Semper, whom I greatly respect and know to be open-minded and rational, I hope you will take away from this debate many interesting ideas to apply, for improved health and well-being.

    Because, ultimately, health and well-being, for each of us, is our own responsibility. It cannot be delegated to others, without inevitable sub-optimal results. We must each develop awareness of our body's needs, indicators, and warnings, and bolster and attend to that mutual relationship with positive thoughts, caring attentiveness, and pro-active diligence. 'Slapping down' the body's attempts at communication with drugs that don't address the real problems is not an adequate solution.

    Indeed, no physician would attempt to prescribe specific treatment for serious illness, sight unseen, over the Internet. Much less, I shall make no attempt to do so, as I have made quite clear, despite your attempts to elicit 'God-like oracular pronouncements' which you can then attack. Rather, I'm presenting what I see as compelling evidence of viable, preferable, and more effective alternatives, which I hope you and the readers will consider. I'm encouraging individual decisions and responsibility, not blind reliance on authority -- mine or anyone else's.

    ...But
    , if you still want some more information on Hemorrhoids (with which I have no personal experience or specific advice to offer), I did a little research, searching for 'positive thinking' + 'preparation h' -- a combination that likely amused the folks at google. I found, on a hemorrhoid support forum (yes, there are such things), this survey, contrasting the efficacy of various treatments. I will not enter this as 'official evidence', as it is very subjective and unscientific, but rather present for your personal perusal:


    Top Treatments
    Preparation H: Helps 76% of the time
    Positive Thinking: Helps 100% of the time
    [1]

    To your SQ2: As I have previously clarified (again), my recommendation of specific treatment would depend on the individual and their personal medical history. I would recommend positive thought always, regardless of other options that may also be available. I will point out a contradiction in your question: you posit a 'first experience' of physical malaise, then contend that it has been 'previously diagnosed', with pharmaceuticals at the ready that will cure it? That makes no sense.

     



    By your own admission you have never had a Migraine.

    Oh my friend, if you only knew. I said that I no longer suffer from migraine headaches. I've learned to recognize and defuse the stress and causes that, in my case, might lead to migraine headaches. I now consider such as opportunities to learn, and deal with tensions and conflict of which I might not have been consciously aware. As you may imagine, I have even had some opportunity to practice such positive thinking in this debate, when dealing with your amusingly-exasperating responses.



    influenza vaccination

    Let's look at the common minor side effects of the influenza vaccine:


    Mild fever, malaise, muscle pain, swelling or soreness at the site of injection
    [2]

    And the influenza vaccine (which, as I'm sure you know, is not completely effective, and can have major side effects) must be administered continuously, season after season. You call that a solution that conquers malaise? Enough said.


    What is scary is you comparing your source, “Wiley Interscience” with the “Mayo Clinic”, if of course you in fact researched what you posted.

    Wiley InterScience is a research portal that hosts over 1400 scientific and technical journals, and provides free search and citation services. Here's is the same citation in traditional format, if you would prefer:

    Mitchell, Kenneth, and Ronald White. "Control of Migraine Headache by Behavioral Self-Management: A Controlled Case Study." Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain Vol 16 No 4: pp178-84

    Headache is the journal of the American Headache Society [3]. You may check out their board of directors and such, if you wish to further question their credibility.

     


    Closing statement

    Ladies and gentlemen, my esteemed opponent has fallen dramatically into the trap I laid out in my first post. By immediately emphasizing the culture of over-prescription that the large pharmaceutical companies perpetuate and encourage, and the dangers and conflict of interest between the primary goal of ensuring a continuous revenue stream and secondary goal of conquering illness and disease, I have caused him to mistakenly assume that I am arguing that all pharmaceutical are a deceptive conspiracy, and that all illness and disease can be eliminated by the alternative of positive thought.

    That is simply not the case I am arguing. Nor is it the case that I need to argue, as it goes miles beyond the topic at hand. Although I have highlighted several deadly inadequacies of the industrial health-care system, there is no need for me in this debate to show that pharmaceuticals are useless.

    My opponent has been duped into irrelevantly arguing that serious, life-threatening disease cannot be cured by positive thought alone. Amusingly, he has argued this throughout the entire debate, and has only, at best, been able to assert that in some cases, pharmaceuticals offer an expedient alternative or specific solution, often with risky and unpleasant side-effects.

    Serious disease is not physical malaise: "a feeling of general bodily discomfort or unpleasantness". I have shown, and in fact my opponent's own quoted source demonstrates, that pharmaceuticals are a major cause of physical malaise, admittedly, in some cases as a side effect of treatment of more specific and serious disorders.

    There is no pharmaceutical cure for physical malaise. As a lark, I mentioned that intravenous morphine would offer effective temporary treatment of the symptom. My opponent jumped on this, I believe, as 'proof' of some sort. However, that certainly isn't a cure, despite my opponents self-contradictory argument that malaise isn't 'conquered' unless it continually recurs, to be fought again and again. That kind of logic might make a junky happy, but it certainly isn't rational.

    We've examined here the many potential causes of complaints of 'physical malaise', and I've introduced specific evidence that positive thought directly conquers malaise better than pharmaceuticals (as is the case, obviously, with stress and emotional disorder), and is the solid foundation for positive and proactive changes in lifestyle, avoiding and defusing malaise and illness (as is the case with poor diet and sleep patterns, and surprisingly, even migraine headache).

    When pharmacology offers to fight more serious conditions that may relate to malaise, I have shown that such offerings do not necessarily return a person to a rosy picture of health, but rather temporarily treat more serious conditions at the cost of recurring malaise, risk of dangerous side effects, and the mostly unstudied danger of multidrug adverse reactions.

    Optimists live longer and are less beset by malady. Studies that encourage and teach positivity techniques eliminate malaise, and even more serious causative conditions. Actual measurable strengthening of the immune system is effected by positive thoughts -- this is science, not barefoot pie-in-the-sky idealism.

    As much as my opponent might be tempted to paint positivity and distrust of the complete sufficiency of the pharmaceutical industry as the purview of unrealistic individuals with their heads in the clouds, the case I have presented is rational, consistent, and strongly supported by scientific evidence. Indeed, as I have mentioned, my personal beliefs go somewhat beyond the topic of this debate, and even so, I have been occasionally surprised at clear strength and breadth of the evidence supporting my position.

    In many areas of life, unproductive self-doubt and negativity are detrimental. A positive attitude, harmonious with rationality, is a tool of unmeasured power. Secretly, I believe my opponent agrees with this. I feel I certainly don't need to lecture him on the power of belief and confident assertion, untainted by the negativity of doubt. Of course, it is still necessary that such confidence be supported by reason and evidence.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I believe I have conclusively shown that Positive Thought is a much more powerful weapon for conquering malaise, improving general health, and even curing many serious illnesses, than any product the pharmaceutical industry can or would sell you.

    The evidence is compelling, the motives are clear. Please, dear reader, consider and weigh the arguments and evidence, and I believe you will conclude, as I have:

    "Positive Thought Can Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

    Thank you.



    posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 11:23 PM
    link   
    Round 3: Ian McLean v semperfortis: Will Power Or Pill Power?

    ”Positive Thought Can Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

    Semper’s Closing

    What we have here Readers, Judges and Fellow Fighters is very simple and straightforward.

    My opponent has the duty to prove to you that “Positive Thought CAN Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals”, nothing more nothing less.

    Not that there are benefits to Positive Thought

    Not that there are problems in modern medicine

    He MUST PROVE:

    That ”Positive Thought Can Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

    This he has simply failed to do. In every sense of the word.

    During this debate, my Opponent has refused to answer Socratic Questions in the manner prescribed by the rules of the Debate Forum.

    My Opponent has spent a lot of time on the benefits of positive thought. I have stated before and will state again for the record; positive thought is beneficial to a persons overall health.
    However: That is NOT the topic of the debate.

    It was incumbent upon my Opponent to PROVE to you that not only is positive thought beneficial, but that it is MORE beneficial than modern medicine. This my Opponent has failed to do.

    My Opponent has also all through the debate either failed to grasp, or refused to acknowledge, that “Physical Malaise” is most often experienced as the result of an onset of a malady already known by the patient and that the application of proper Pharmaceuticals when that Malaise strikes, not only can reduce the symptoms of that particular malady, but prevent the onset altogether. Of course I would not expect his acknowledgement on this particular issue as it directly refutes his argument.

    I have read my Opponent’s debate several times now and I fail to see even a direction my opponent is trying to travel in to substantiate his side of the debate.

    Most of my Opponent’s debate was spent regaling the evils of modern medicine. While I will concede to inherent problems in the medical community, this in no way indicates that positive thought is more effective.

    However, on the other side of the coin, if you read my posts, you will find I have given you several examples of a Physical Malaise that can be remedied by the application of proper pharmaceuticals.

    I have given you personal examples of my experiences with the Physical Malaise associated with Diabetes and Migraines and how I use proper pharmaceuticals to dissipate that malaise. I will assure you that all of the personal experiences I posted are very real.

    I have given my Opponent several examples of Physical Malaise and asked him directly if he would use medicine or positive thoughts; we are still waiting on a response.

    You will also notice that my Opponent used a lot of time on the benefits of Positive Thoughts and a Positive outlook on Life. This is admirable and I agree. Yet it has nothing to do with the debate.

    I simply ask you to read this debate, discard all of the useless material that has nothing to do with the debate, and I am sure you will see that I have shown you absolutely that while Positive Thought is beneficial, it is NOT better than Pharmaceuticals.

    I present to you that:

    ”Positive Thought Can NOT Conquer Physical Malaise Better than Pharmaceuticals."

    Thank you

    Semper



    posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:03 PM
    link   
    This, again, was an incredibly tough debate to judge; Congratulations to both Fighters.

    By way of split decision, Ian McLean will advance to Round 4.



    This was a fascinating debate with both fighters showing debate skills of a very high calibre.

    Ian presented his argument well, and skillfully argued his point with good evidence and the best use of the definition of the debate, rightly concentrating on the word "malaise" and building his case around it.
    Despite Sempers attempts to throw him off track and change the focus of the debate, Ian stuck to his guns very well and did not allow himself to be sidetracked by sempers spoiling tactics.

    Semper, as ever, used rhetoric as a potent weapon and was unceasing in his attempts to throw Ian off track.
    The fact that he was unable to do this speaks volumes about his opponent, and despite sempers superb use of logic based arguments to try and refute his opponents position, he was unable to do this.
    Semper seemed to concentrate a little too much on picking his opponents arguments apart, rather than fire up the rhetoric and evidence to support his position more fully.
    This was the key for me, and is again a reflection of a fighter being reactive rather than proactive.

    This told in the final analysis, and for the weight of evidence presented as well as presentation of the evidence the debate goes to Ian McLean by the narrowest possible margin.

    To say that this was a close debate would be an understatement - the fighters were separated by the tiniest margin and it was a very tough debate to judge.

    Congratulations to both fighters.




    Judgment; The win goes to Ian McLean.

    Brief reasoning- Ian set the tone for the argument by showing us that malaise was a symptom of a broad range of things rather than an ailment in its own right. And he introduces the idea that it can have either physical or emotional or mental causes.

    Semper tries to counter this by saying that treating an underlying ailment with pharmaceuticals is the same as showing that malaise itself is best treated with pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, it did not, and really, could not work. It only addressed malaise that accompanied physical ailment and left utterly untouched Ians other points about malaise as a result of depression, lack of sleep, stress, etc. Semper was obviously struggling once Ian set the tone, and he never really found the way out of that trap.

    Had Ian been less diligent about addressing all Sempers arguments, and less skilled at setting the tone, Semper might have won perhaps on the strength of his will alone. Unfortunately Ian was a match for Semper in constructing argument AND he had the side of the argument that lent itself best to success in the context of the debate as issued.

    There was a problem with Ian being a bit cagey with the Socratic questions, but it was not enough to tip the argument to Semper.

    Ian drifted a bit into cheerleading for alternative health, and Semper tried to use brute force to win the argument.
    Those are the only real aesthetic criticisms I had. Sempers assertive stance I think was an attempt to make up for the weakness of his position, which I understand, but unfortunately I am not really susceptible to bluster.


    These were two fine fighters, I think however the topic worked against the con position, and Ian and Semper were too well matched for Semper to overcome that.




    Ian's condescending tone loses him points right off the bat. After lecturing us on the superiority of his sources, he runs off not to the original articles, but to anti-drug industry sites with article summaries, trusting that those sources are correct and correctly interpreted the material that they were reading. (small pause for raised eyebrows...)

    Semper's opening is charming, frankly. He raises the exact same questions to Ian's opening that caused me to raise my eyebrows. His examples are on the mark and well considered.

    Ian's discourse then simply turns into an "answer the questions" but it's obvious he's debating without fact checking. Semper nails him rather neatly on the "headache" question. The rebuttal which mentions positive thinking and diabetes horrified me.

    Aside from the OMG! moments, it's a clear win for Semper. Ian never actually proves the point he begins with -- he simply scampers after details and never mentions studies that prove his points (after saying he would.) Semper sticks to the topic and he correctly reads original resources.



    posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 01:48 PM
    link   
    Congratulations Ian!!!!!!

    Well done my friend..

    (I WAS ROBBED!!!!
    )

    Semper





    new topics
    top topics
     
    3

    log in

    join