Unexplained infertiltiy

[LionKing]

to me it is an insult..insults r not just calling names..it is aggressiveness and being unkind too..as for gillianren, she is comparing what i said to not approving vaccination..and according to reading her posts she is accusing me of causing people to die. ..all this while i discussed a specific topic that is common cold that , according to my experience, could b solved without medication and this is nothing like saying that ppl shouldn't b vacinated

I fail to comprehend how Gillianren was aggressive. She was being forthright in her criticism of your view. Neither did she accuse you of causing people to die. What she implied was that people that speak from a position of ignorance about medical matters can cause significant problems.

I assume that you are familiar with Mark Twain: A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

One of the many downsides to the internet is the amount of rubbish that can be published, and that rubbish is consumed by millions of people. The point being that people speaking from ignorance can cause damage to others, and in the extreme anti-vaccers have gained a platform which has been damaging. That is how I read Gillianren's post.

Take a look at the hoax boards here and you will find that I only post arguments about topics that I feel firm and confident about. That is how scientists work. We don't speculate or pretend to be experts when we are not. We defer to others with more knowledge. There have been times when I have been wrong, and others have corrected me. I do not accuse them of being aggressive or insulting me.

Luke, her comments are so aggressive, so full of hatred, and so mean. I understand that criticism is a very important part and should be done, but how you say things and what you hint at between the lines, all take part in how it is received..

you might see it as you wish, I see it as insulting to be compared to non-vaccine groups.. I was talking from something shared among people and I experienced myself, and I even presented scientific data to support the increase of temperature and the work of the immune system. I just don't want to be compared to people who cause death because the topics differ vastly

[Jason Thompson]

as for gillianren, she is comparing what i said to not approving vaccination..and according to reading her posts she is accusing me of causing people to die.

She is accusing you of nothing. She is pointing out your ignorance of medicine, which is frankly irrefutable, and criticising your inability to take on board the responses that point out why you are wrong. That attitude is shared by anti-vaxers, and pointing that out is not accusing you of being anti-vaccination.

Your comments about the cold were shot full of holes by people with actual science knowledge. You googled a few things and copied them into the discussion clearly without actually understanding them. You also abandoned the thread.

[LionKing]

I see this a lot, so I will ask you a question:

How do you know that what you say should be studied is not in fact already being studied? On average new scientific papers are published every minute of every day of every year. The number is constantly increasing. And that's the published results of a study. How long can it take to get those results?

I'm tired of hearing people insist things are not being studied when I doubt they even know how to find out if the studies are ongoing.

Another assumption you make, lionking, is that these 'molecular level' tests are actually at a stage where they would be of any use. Diagnostic tests have to go through rigorous regulatory approval steps, and their rate of false negative/positive outcome has to be below a certain threshold, and they have to show a high degree of specificity, and so on. Something else I am tired of hearing is how certain tests.drugs etc. 'should' be available from people who have no idea what is involved in making those things available in the first place.

Hi Jason,
I reviewed Pubmed and didn't see yet a study for nutrition on unexplained infertility.

1: Pubmed is not the ultimate repository of published papers.

2: There's a good chance you wouldn't recognise a study even if it was published. Many papers on the specific details focus on the real technical minutiae, and these are a) not easily understood by laypeople, and b) don't even have titles that are readily understood by laypeople.

3: Studies are published when they are finished, and generally only when they find significant results.

nutrition has to do with the cells functioning

Of course it does. Proper nutrition has a wide variety of benefits, and almost certainly studues are being conducted into all areas. Until they show conclusive evidence of a link they're not going to be published, and even when they are published, they have to be repeated before they become accepted as genuine results, and then the whole notion of a test that shows up relevant results has to be developed. There is, for example, a wide gap between a study that examines the effects of nutritional deficiency by feeding lab rats with various diets and a developing a test that shows exactly what you are deficient in.

I agree with you that PubMed is not comprehensive..
but before the results are published and repeated as you say, many people would have to suffer which I see as unacceptable, especially when it is established that nutrition has to do with fertility, and certain tests can be done to know for sure about them. Now for the false negative and positive, we are talking about an important life issue here that is fertility.. it might be expensive and inaccurate to test for molecular level, but is it for nutrition? if a woman is found by a blood test to be lacking certain vitamins that affect fertility, shouldn't this be a standard practice before people being told to try IVF?

I just want a hope for my relative and other people ..my relative's wife tried IVF and failed.. stress started to pile up and now they are divorced..
another one is a relative and was told there is no reason behind infertility..I am worried the road will end with her in the same pit..hopefully not if God wills. I should wait for a reply from the Dr. and if her and her husband's nutritional status is not addressed, I shall gather some courage to speak out, or at least leak the information to those around her..you know people might get offended from discussing these topics..so if you or anyone happen to know a practicing physician and can add to our information about this, please do. I am not saying she will for sure have a baby, but it is sure worth testing and trying

[Jason Thompson]

albeit professional replies without aggressive personal contents.

Scientific peer review can be highly virtriolic. Many scientists don't like their theories being shot full of holes, and many don't see the vaue of submitted papers, and they are not shy in expressing their opinions. Nonetheless, if they are wrong they will be shown to be so and the scientific truth will come out.

[Luke Pemberton]

Luke, her comments are so aggressive, so full of hatred, and so mean.

I don't think so, there was no hate there. She was making a powerful argument that resonates with me as a scientist, and that is the danger of people that talk about topics in which they have no expertise.

I understand that criticism is a very important part and should be done, but how you say things and what you hint at between the lines, all take part in how it is received.

What was between the lines about her point?

[Y]ou might see it as you wish, I see it as insulting to be compared to non-vaccine groups.. I was talking from something shared among people and I experienced myself, and I even presented scientific data to support the increase of temperature and the work of the immune system. I just don't want to be compared to people who cause death because the topics differ vastly

It's not the difference of topics par se. It's the root of the argument that is being discussed. As for temperature and work of the immune system, I do believe that others have already informed you that approach to cold/flu treatment is potentially dangerous.

Can you now see what is central to the topic being discussed, namely that medical matters are best in the hands of those that are qualified; and those that profess to be experts spreading wrong information can cause serious harm to others. The topic at hand does not have to be about vaccinations.

[LionKing]

as for gillianren, she is comparing what i said to not approving vaccination..and according to reading her posts she is accusing me of causing people to die.

She is accusing you of nothing. She is pointing out your ignorance of medicine, which is frankly irrefutable, and criticising your inability to take on board the responses that point out why you are wrong. That attitude is shared by anti-vaxers, and pointing that out is not accusing you of being anti-vaccination.

Your comments about the cold were shot full of holes by people with actual science knowledge. You googled a few things and copied them into the discussion clearly without actually understanding them. You also abandoned the thread.

I abandoned the thread because I don't have the patience for any fights. I have presented how temperature works with immunity. The natural versus non-natural thing might be wrong , but that the sweating works out is supported.

[LionKing]

albeit professional replies without aggressive personal contents.

Scientific peer review can be highly virtriolic. Many scientists don't like their theories being shot full of holes, and many don't see the vaue of submitted papers, and they are not shy in expressing their opinions. Nonetheless, if they are wrong they will be shown to be so and the scientific truth will come out.

albeit without aggression

[Zakalwe]

to me it is an insult..insults r not just calling names..it is aggressiveness and being unkind too..

Oh please do stop playing the "I'm offended" card. If you can't hack your posts being questioned then don't post them. Or post them somewhere other than a mainly scientific-based forum where they WILL get challenged.

Luke, her comments are so aggressive, so full of hatred, and so mean. I understand that criticism is a very important part and should be done, but how you say things and what you hint at between the lines, all take part in how it is received..

There's a bad case of butthurt going on here. I have seen many of Gillianren's posts and she is one of the posters probably least likely to be mean or display hatred. So stop being all whiney when you are called to task for your posts.

Garbage like this:

nutrition is said scientifically to affect the cells ..

is so vague as to be meaningless.  Yes, of course nutrition affects cells. At the most basic level, starve a cell and it will die. But how that is supposed to relate to YOUR subject has not been made clear. You are doing nothing other than handwaving and trying to tenuously create a link.

I've watched a few off your threads and they seem to follow a pattern. You post a vague statement, then try to handwave a link, then get a fit of the vapours when you are questioned.

If you do not want to be challenged I suggest you either don't post or else show some signs of actually listening to the people on this board when they not only tell you you might be wrong, but explain why you might be wrong.

You'd do very well to read that sentence and digest it's meaning.
 

[Luke Pemberton]

The natural versus non-natural thing might be wrong , but that the sweating works out is supported.

I understand that Jason has stronger knowledge in biology than me, and you have already been corrected on this point and the nature of viruses. The nature of viruses, amongst other aspects, defeats the sweating argument.

[Jason Thompson]

albeit without aggression

No, not at all. That was my point. Peer review is a very aggressive process.

[Luke Pemberton]

There's a bad case of butthurt going on here. I have seen many of Gillianren's posts and she is one of the posters probably least likely to be mean or display hatred. So stop being all whiney when you are called to task for your posts.

^^^ The part in bold.

If you do not want to be challenged I suggest you either don't post or else show some signs of actually listening to the people on this board when they not only tell you you might be wrong, but explain why you might be wrong.

You'd do very well to read that sentence and digest it's meaning.

^^^ the part in bold.

[LionKing]

I don't think so, there was no hate there. She was making a powerful argument that resonates with me as a scientist, and that is the danger of people that talk about topics in which they have no expertise.

I said I have tried this on myself and this is shared among many people (sweating). It is common knowledge among people unlike the anti-vaccination issue disregarded scientifically. jumping to such a comparison in the first place emanates from hatred. I hope I am wrong anyway.

What was between the lines about her point?

between the lines is that by that topic I could cause people to be dead

It's not the difference of topics par se. It's the root of the argument that is being discussed. As for temperature and work of the immune system, I do believe that others have already informed you that approach to cold/flu treatment is potentially dangerous.

Can you now see what is central to the topic being discussed, namely that medical matters are best in the hands of those that are qualified; and those that profess to be experts spreading wrong information can cause serious harm to others. The topic at hand does not have to be about vaccinations.

Potentially dangerous is every medicine, including Panadol, as I have pointed out listing its rare adverse effects. Serious harm, in rare cases, can be caused by Panadol also and other medicines..it is just rare to occur..

anyhow I curse the moment I tried to put this experience out.. I certainly need Panadol to relieve the headache it caused

[LionKing]

to me it is an insult..insults r not just calling names..it is aggressiveness and being unkind too..

Oh please do stop playing the "I'm offended" card. If you can't hack your posts being questioned then don't post them. Or post them somewhere other than a mainly scientific-based forum where they WILL get challenged.

Luke, her comments are so aggressive, so full of hatred, and so mean. I understand that criticism is a very important part and should be done, but how you say things and what you hint at between the lines, all take part in how it is received..

There's a bad case of butthurt going on here. I have seen many of Gillianren's posts and she is one of the posters probably least likely to be mean or display hatred. So stop being all whiney when you are called to task for your posts.

Garbage like this:

nutrition is said scientifically to affect the cells ..

is so vague as to be meaningless.  Yes, of course nutrition affects cells. At the most basic level, starve a cell and it will die. But how that is supposed to relate to YOUR subject has not been made clear. You are doing nothing other than handwaving and trying to tenuously create a link.

I've watched a few off your threads and they seem to follow a pattern. You post a vague statement, then try to handwave a link, then get a fit of the vapours when you are questioned.

If you do not want to be challenged I suggest you either don't post or else show some signs of actually listening to the people on this board when they not only tell you you might be wrong, but explain why you might be wrong.

You'd do very well to read that sentence and digest it's meaning.

she is good with others, not me

and challenging anything can take a kind way..
and nutrition I meant affects the cells involved in reproduction

[Luke Pemberton]

Peer review is a very aggressive process.

Quite, and for anyone that has undergone the process, it can be soul destroying. However, it usually results in the progression of learning and stimulates debate and understading.That's the point of process. So Lionking, I'm sorry, but people at this board have undergone the process of peer review, so please don't plead a special case.

[LionKing]

Peer review is a very aggressive process.

Quite, and for anyone that has undergone the process, it can be soul destroying. However, it usually results in the progression of learning and stimulates debate and understading.That's the point of process. So Lionking, I'm sorry, but people at this board have undergone the process of peer review, so please don't plead a special case.

replying scientifically is not aggressive in the meaning of being hateful or mean. I can point to Jason's last posts as an example. this I would accept