Do You See A Doctor Or A Witch Doctor?
Some people see doctors. Some of those doctors (don't assume yours is one), practice evidence-based medicine, and actually have a clue as to how to assess what is and isn't solid enough evidence.
Some people skip the evidence thingie altogether and go to bullshitologists, otherwise known as "naturopaths." From December, 2003:
"Naturopathic medicine" is a recent manifestation of the field of naturopathy, a 19th-century health movement espousing "the healing power of nature." "Naturopathic physicians" now claim to be primary care physicians proficient in the practice of both "conventional" and "natural" medicine. Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care. An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices. Despite this, naturopaths have achieved legal and political recognition, including licensure in 13 states and appointments to the US Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee. This dichotomy can be explained in part by erroneous representations of naturopathy offered by academic medical centers and popular medical Web sites.
Orac has more details here.
...In some sixteen states and five Canadian provinces license naturopaths in some form, and in some states naturopaths are fighting for--and in some cases winning--the power to prescribe certain real pharmaceutical medications and order real medical tests. For instance, in California, naturopaths can order laboratory tests and X-rays, which reminds me of a conversation I had with a mammographer from California at TAM last summer. He told me a tale of the dilemma he had when naturopaths and other "alt-med" practitioners ordered tests at his facilities. Specifically, the dilemma came about because he doubted that the naturopath knew what to do with the results. Meanwhile, in Oregon, naturopaths can prescribe certain types of pharmaceutical drugs (as opposed to the usual supplements, herbs, or homeopathic remedies they normally prescribe). Meanwhile, moves are under way to expand the prescribing privileges of naturopaths in Canada.Unfortunately, naturopathy is a hodge-podge of mostly unscientific treatment modalities based on vitalism and other prescientific notions of disease. As a result, typical naturopaths are more than happy in essence to "pick one from column A and one from column B" when it comes to pseudoscience, mixing and matching treatments including traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, herbalism, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine that you can imagine. Despite their affinity for non-science-based medical systems, naturopaths crave the imprimatur of science. As a result, they desperately try to represent what they do as being science-based, and they've even set up research institutes, much like the departments, divisions, and institutes devoted to "complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM) that have cropped up on the campuses of legitimate medical schools and academic medical centers like so many weeds poking through the cracks in the edifice of science-based medicine.
When anybody uses the term "naturopath" in my presence, I immediately reclassify them as the kind of dingdong who thinks they can predict what'll happen to me Wednesday based on what the moon is doing to Capricorn behind Aquarius' back.
Modern medicine sure has its failings -- the utterly wrong notion that a high-carb, low-fat diet is good for you, for starters -- but at least it starts out as an attempt to be scientific, even if it degenerates into bad or fraudulent science far too many times. The problem is, for the ordinary person, it's hard to parse whether your doctor is good or just another quack who doesn't know how to read studies, hasn't read one for years, and bases what they prescribe on the commercials they see on CNN and which pharmaceutical company gives the nicest pens (if not the nicest thinly disguided payola).
"Modern medicine sure has its failings"
Boy, howdy. The only reason that quack-o-practy or similar superstitions ever got a foothold was due to the rather dismal state of 'traditional' medicine at the time. When 'homeopathy' was getting started, the Placebo Effect was more powerful and less dangerous than the typical MD, who refused to wash his hands. The more modern high-carb nonsense that you mentioned is just the tip of the iceberg. It's mainly due to the skewed incentives in the so-called 'medical' (pill-pushing) industry. Doctors don't really have time to follow the science, so they rely on pharma reps and agenda-driven study summaries (which are often contradicted by the data in the study).
There is very little defense against being maimed or killed by your MD. You could do some independent study of your own problems (as I have), but you soon discover that most of the 'information' available (especially about nutrition -- see my blog at http://guestdietblog.com -- BTW, I'm looking for guest bloggers) is pure crap, and most folks don't know how to deal intelligently with things like confounders in research. Hell, MDs by and large have no clue how real science is done. In a perverse way, the typical quack-o-practor or homeopath is still less of a hazard to your health than the typical MD.
TX CHL Instructor at February 28, 2011 7:50 AM
Wow, Amy, your level of ignorance on this topic is surprising. I don't even know where to begin.
William at February 28, 2011 7:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/28/do_you_see_a_do.html#comment-1854596">comment from WilliamWow, Amy, your level of ignorance on this topic is surprising. I don't even know where to begin.
Please do. Please go to Dave Gorski's link and tell me all the stuff he got wrong, and why.
Oh, and so sorry for stepping on your Qi! Where is your Qi and how do you know it's there? Because somebody tells you it is? (Yeah, I get where you're coming from. Halfway up your ass, two left turns, and a u-ey after that.)
Pssst...we like evidence-based thinking here. The kind that tells the truth about how horrible statins are for almost everyone and the kind that says homeopathy is bullshit because there's no evidence that it works.
Amy Alkon at February 28, 2011 8:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/28/do_you_see_a_do.html#comment-1854704">comment from TX CHL InstructorThere is very little defense against being maimed or killed by your MD.
There's plenty, but not enough. I am coached by an epidemiologist, who taught me the word "iatrogenesis" -- when medical care fucks you up -- and who warns me that doctors and hospitals are dangerous. (He testifies before Congress, etc., with some regularity, about research methodology that is shoddy or fraudulent and leads to deaths or harm for patients.) I want evidence-based medicine all around, but at least modern medicine starts from the premise that there should be evidence, not just "Here, take this...ancient Chinese secret!"
Also, TX CHL Instructor, this isn't an advertising site for seeking guest bloggers. You're rude to post that. If you want to advertise on my blog and not just steal advertising space through my comments, contact me and pay me. You owe me $1 for the ad you posted. Pay through PayPal to your left. Unless you're unethical and believe you'll just take ad space for free and screw me.
Amy Alkon at February 28, 2011 8:08 AM
You could do some independent study of your own problems, but you soon discover that most of the 'information' available is pure crap, and most folks don't know how to deal intelligently with things like confounders in research. Hell, MDs by and large have no clue how real science is done.
Its been my experiance most people are morons and have no idea how anything works.
Its sad really, your brain is pre programed to do intense calculations automatically, its how you catch a ball thrown to you and manage to stand upright.
And still most people are incappable of understanding why the sky is blue, simple chemical reactions, inertia, or any other of the dozens of things that elevate us above common pets
lujlp at February 28, 2011 8:55 AM
Thanks, public education!
brian at February 28, 2011 10:24 AM
In the spirit of established science ("Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes), I just wanted everyone to know that for lunch I am currently eating leftover roast beef tenderloin and an ounce of sliced Parmesan cheese. This beef is moist and covered in crust of olive oil, salt, pepper, garlic and thyme which I pulverized in the Cuisinart to make a paste.
At this point I cannot imagine how I'm going to lose weight eating a slab of meat with 40 grams of fat in it (YUM! INSANE!). It seems so insane to me even after reading the book...I thought I had accepted it all but the lingering lies of the establishment taint my view. I don't believe the weight is going to come off!! In fact I am afraid I will blow up like a balloon eating salami and butter (reading labels for hidden things Taubes talks about).
Trying to keep net carbs down to 25 a day and am following the rules in the appendix (no milk, 4 ounces of cheese a day, 1/2 an avocado, etc.). If I lose weight, Amy, I'm taking you out for steak next time I'm in L.A.
Gretchen at February 28, 2011 10:50 AM
When I don't know where to begin, I don't, until I do.
Please just pick one thing that you disagree with and start there. We'll wait.
I am really tired of the confusion people put out but cannot support without faith.
Dave B at February 28, 2011 10:54 AM
The absurdity is that the government awards monopoly protection to any of these groups, none of which are demonstrably professional enough to justify any such protection - and frankly, if they were good enough to stand on their own, they wouldn't have begged for the monopoly protection of boards and licensure backed by govt force. My father and brother are both MDs and I greatly admire both of their professional committment, intelligence and conscience. But their profession as a whole ROUTINELY fails to live up to its supposed guiding principle of 'first do no harm.' It can seem almost comic, and results in tragedy.
The truth is, medical care boils down to buyer beware. The govt monopoly on 'medical' care gives the impression that we're protected from a 'buyer beware' situation, and in that way leads to systemic over-reliance on medical 'opinions'.
Those who benefit from govt monopoly protection through licensing should AT LEAST be required to provide statistics on outcomes - but even that will be problematic as you can bet the govt won't be able to sort out how to effectively measure such a thing.
Get the govt out of this licensing business, let the people take responsibility for their own care, and if you think they are too stupid/uneducated to do it themselves, start your own advocacy group to help them. Quit pretending the current system of govt monopoly licensure works as advertised.
As for so called 'naturopaths', if you don't trust them you won't go see them. The reason they exist is that so few people trust MDs. I think this decision should remain in our own hands, we ultimately are and should be responsible for our own health. Sadly, government intervention throughout the medical care markets will ensure we cannot get the best that medical science should be able to offer us.
Apolloswabbie at February 28, 2011 11:16 AM
Amy I was wondering if you tracked how many grams of fat you ate per day on a high-fat diet? I did a cursory look online and couldn't find anything but figured I could get a quick answer here. We look to be about the same size so whatever number you shoot for would probably work for me too.
Shannon at February 28, 2011 12:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/28/do_you_see_a_do.html#comment-1855337">comment from ShannonAmy I was wondering if you tracked how many grams of fat you ate per day on a high-fat diet? I did a cursory look online and couldn't find anything but figured I could get a quick answer here. We look to be about the same size so whatever number you shoot for would probably work for me too.
I don't count them. I eat as much fat as I can get. The more I have, the less hungry I get. I eat fatty steak, Braunschweiger liverwurst, bacon, heavily buttered green beans, etc. I don't count calories at all -- I eat when I'm hungry and stop when I'm not.
Amy Alkon at February 28, 2011 12:08 PM
Hey, guys, remember, YMMV on the diet stuff. Generally, Amy's right - having looked stuff up, more people ought to do that - but not all of us are Blazing Wite-Out™ with a manic drive to learn.
Which burns energy.
Don't forget she runs, too, and so should you!
-----
Hey, William? Don't come back. You won't like the taste of the ass handed to you, no matter how much people are supposed to taste like pork.
Radwaste at February 28, 2011 3:04 PM
huh, my witch doctor told me:
oo-ee-oo-ahah-ting-tang-wallawalla-bing-bang...
isn't that the right thing?
SwissArmyD at February 28, 2011 4:13 PM
I just wish I could have the thousands back that was wasted on Neurontin for my lady.
As far as doctors and knowledge -- my lady had a relatively young Indian doctor. I did research on the drugs, interactions, etc. We hit an appointment where her amitriptyline (Elavil) dosage wasn't cutting it anymore. I told her we needed to up it. I knew the max dosage, while she had to look it up.
After that -- I could pretty much walk in and get her to prescribe anything. I just needed to explain why and how it would be good. The appointments went from 30 to 10 minutes. I gave her the latest stats short of BP, pulse and temp.
I don't want to be my own doctor -- but it is so much easier when you take responsibility.
Jim P. at February 28, 2011 9:01 PM
I think people who are not extremely ill need to take more responsibiilty to find out what is available and what may be more suitable for themselves. It is up to individuals whether they prefer less medical intervention or more medical intervention.
WLIL at March 1, 2011 7:29 PM
I think people who are not extremely ill need to take more responsibility to find out what is available and what may be more suitable for themselves. It is up to individuals choice(that is if the choice are available or if they would like to make their own choice) whether they prefer none medical intervention, less medical intervention or more medical intervention.
WLIL at March 1, 2011 7:33 PM
I think people who are not extremely ill need to take more responsibility to find out what is available and what may be more suitable for themselves. It is up to individuals choice(that is if the choice are available or if they would like to make their own choice) whether they prefer none medical intervention, less medical intervention or more medical intervention.
WLIL at March 1, 2011 7:33 PM
I think people who are not extremely ill need to take more responsibility to find out what is available and what may be more suitable for themselves. It is up to individuals choice(that is if the choice are available or if they would like to make their own choice) whether they prefer none medical intervention, less medical intervention or more medical intervention.
People should be weaned off this dependence mentality that they have to depend on medicine to cure any slight illness. Keeping themselves healthy without dependence on any medicine would be a better alternative.
WLIL at March 1, 2011 7:40 PM
BTW, the death panels are here: FDA panel to rule on Avastin drug
Jim P. at March 1, 2011 10:42 PM
"You owe me $1 for the ad you posted."
Cheap at twice the price. I just sent you $2. My apologies for the 'ad'.
TX CHL Instructor at March 2, 2011 9:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/28/do_you_see_a_do.html#comment-1865432">comment from TX CHL InstructorThanks - now we're square. Appreciate that.
Amy Alkon at March 2, 2011 9:46 AM
I always find it fascinating when people so over-generalize that they overlook some pretty telling facts. Few issues are black or white.
The question posed here completely ignores that iatrogenic illness (illness CAUSED by the medical profession) is the 3rd largest cause of death in the US (behind heart attack and cancer - both, for the most part, "man made" illnesses as well).
Do I go to a Doctor or Witch-Doctor?
Both. I actually follow the advice of a Naturopathic Doctor who, (in his words) considers it his job to keep me healthy. There is focus on nutrition, immune system support and lowering toxicity levels (most American's have some level of heavy metal toxicity and heavy metals are recognized to be a contributor to auto-immune disease, thyroid disease and cancer, to name a few).
My Naturopathic Doctor went to Medical School originally with the intention of becoming an MD. He then switched and went to a college for Naturopathy and has spent much time studying nutrition on his own.
When I went to this Naturopath it was because I had developed an auto-immune condition, and was getting no positive result from the drugs I had been prescribed by an MD Doctor (nor could she find the cause of the problem). Within 2 weeks of doing what my Naturopath recommended, my hives disappeared. I've no longer needed the prescribed steroids which would have, over time, destroyed my liver and caused a host of other side effects.
Am I a "Ding Dong?"
No, I'm no idiot. If I were to become very ill, (which I have not since I've been seeing the Naturopath), I would immediately go to a Medical Doctor... in fact my Naturopath would insist on it.
I'm sure there are Naturopathic Doctors who don't recognize the limitations of what they do, but I suspect they are in the minority. There IS solid science behind much of it. After all... pretty much all the drugs we take have their basis in the chemicals found in nature and in plants. Herbology, for instance, is so widely used in Asia that there have been thousands of scientifically controlled (double blind placebo) studies done on the efficacy of various plants, and when a plant is found with a chemical that a drug company can make money from... they then use that chemical in a drug (while trying to block people from using the natural alternative - look up Statin Drugs and Red Yeast Rice).
Scientifically speaking our bodies are chemical factories run on electricity and fueled by the food we eat. Our bodies make some of the needed chemicals (we produce our own antioxidants for example) and some we have to get from our food (leucine in protein for instance).
Naturopathy is centered on the premise that our bodies were designed to ward off sickness and heal themselves (immune system for instance), and that, when supported properly (nutrition, plants, herbs, exercise, lifestyle), and not over-taxed with toxins, bad nutrition, etc., they will do so.
Overall, I'm not sure what you think is "quackery" about a health philosophy that focuses on keeping you healthy? Seems to me the science of being healthy is what Naturopathy is all about.
Don't get me wrong... I'm sure there are some "quack" treatments that some Naturopaths prescribe (in any profession you find a wide range of knowledge, skill levels, and philosophies) ... though I suspect most of the Doctors are like mine... focused on those things that have science and common sense behind them.
It is obvious, though, that we do (often through our own actions, lifestyles and nutritional illiteracy), have conditions that are in need of more drastic and immediate remedy than natural "wellness care" can provide. Then we turn to "sick care."
"Western style medicine," and the US, have some of the best surgeons and emergent care treatments in the world. If I had a heart attack, organ failure, or was in a accident, I wouldn't go to my "Witch-Doctor" as you call him.. nor would he let me (we've had that conversation). Naturopathic Doctors routinely refer patients to MD's and hospitals for serious conditions.
I want, to note here that I would, before taking any drastic action, get a 2nd or 3rd opinion and cross my fingers that a secondary infection, mistake, carelessness, apathy, or drug interaction didn't kill me in the hospital. I AM slightly paranoid because, of my 4 most recently deceased relatives, 3 were killed, or speeded along, by the medical profession. My Father went into the hospital for a routine surgical procedure that had only a 2% complication rate... and died 2 weeks later as the result of a cascading series of medical errors and apathy (his Doctor insisted there was nothing wrong with him up until a half hour before he spit up arterial blood, coded and died).
One commenter here hit the nail on the head... instead of debating on which "system" is good or bad, right or wrong, we all need to be pro-active and informed about our own nutrition and health. Now, with the world of knowledge at our fingertips (Google), it's even easy to monitor our own health to a limited extent.
For instance, many people don't know that many of the same labs that process the tests your Doctors charge you $300 for... will do that same test for you if you walk in off the street. They will charge about $50. Some tests you can get at the local drugstore or order online. You still need to understand the results... so if you don't have the time to do the research, you need a Doctor or Nurse to look at them. I have a friend who is a Doctor who I email my test results to for her opinion.
Also... you can use the internet to get a second opinion for yourself. A friend had a Doctor who wanted her to get $6000 (non-insured too) worth of surgery for fibroid tumors without asking her about her diet or lifestyle changes. I did some research, suggested she get off birth control pills and eliminate soy and other high estrogen plants from her diet and her bleeding and cramping went away and she didn't need the surgery after all. She went through menopause a couple of years later and the tumors greatly reduced in size as they generally do.
This argument about which health care system/philosophy is good or bad also has a lot of corporate money behind it (always follow the money!). If you look at the amount of money spent by the Pharmaceutical industry to suppress knowledge of healthy supplements, and blocking and criminalizing threats to their patents (red yeast rice, ephedra, walnuts, marijuana), you start to realize that you need to....
question everything - resist authority.
Sue at March 3, 2011 7:27 AM
Sue, perhaps the naturopathy is affecting your vision. See my comment above:
In the words of Marcia Angell and Jerome Kassirer:
Amy Alkon at March 3, 2011 7:54 AM
Oh, and Dr. Eades told my boyfriend and me that red yeast rice is basically a naturally occurring statin...very damaging.
Amy Alkon at March 3, 2011 7:55 AM
My brain works fine... enough so that I don't feel the need to personally insult others who hold different opinions.
I'm unclear though as to what your point is here.
You seem to hold the opinion that all aspects of "Naturopathy" are untested and therefore, invalid. "Naturopathy" is a very, VERY broad term and encompasses a wide range of things... from things that are, frankly, laughable, to things that have been widely tested and proven to work. I was trying to make the point that you really cannot generalize. Some aspects of medicine that are called Naturopathy are bad, some good. Same with "Western or Americanized medicine.
Of course... a lot rests on how you define "tested." I take it you must mean tested by Americans? Because, as i mentioned, there are THOUSANDS upon thousands of studies and tests that have been done on the efficacy of various plants and herbs. Yes they have been done by Doctors and Scientists in other countries. Does that make them invalid?
Let's look at American testing standards...
The FDA standards for approving a new drug, (for instance) is that it be "more effective than a placebo" and that it not be shown to kill too many people. They also rely on the companies that are going to profit off the drug to provide the research. We can trust them, after all, why would a company lie to make money?
Heres a few issues with that...
There is no requirement to identify what you used AS the placebo, and about 75% of studies don't identify it. Why is that a problem? Because if you used a sugar pill as the placebo against a diabetes drug, you'll get skewed results. Remember, the drug only as to perform "better." 50% better, 5% better, same thing.
However, even double blind placebo studies are not perfect. Why? Because here is how they work... You are recruited for a study for a new "allergy medicine." You are given an "orientation" because they have to get your name on a consent form. For that they have to explain to you all the possible side effects. Now supposedly you don't know if you've been given the drug, or the placebo. Except that the minute you start experiencing any of the side effects... guess what? You know you are getting the real drug. Now the "placebo effect" kicks in and the "double blind placebo" studies results can't really be trusted.
Another problem... numerous times drug companies have been caught, well, lying, and fabricating results (usually by leaving out any negative indicator).
There is no standard that a new drug be BETTER than a drug that already exists. A new drug can be less effective, and less SAFE, than an existing one, and it still gets approved. Now the drug company has a "new" (which the public interprets as "better"), drug with a new, 20 year patent (and high profit margin), and the "old" drug, with an expiring patent (about too become a generic with a low profit margin), is shuffled to the side... even if it is SAFER and more EFFECTIVE. Doctors are given colorful literature on this "new" drug and, being too busy to do their own research, are easily convinced this is the latest greatest to prescribe. On top of that over 50% of our TV ads are for drugs.... so patients come in asking for that new drug and insisting on being given it. Statistics show about 70% will walk out with the prescription they ask for.
So all these "tested" drugs must be GREAT right?
Americans are 5% of the worlds population and we consume over 50% of the words supply of prescription drugs.
This MUST mean that we are the healthiest nation in the world, right?
Oops... no, that honor goes to Japan, who practice a great deal of ... guess what? ..."Chinese medicine" ... all that nutrition, plant based, stuff along with (horrors) acupuncture.
All natural stuff = "bad"
All (tested) drugs and chemicals = "good"
Am I getting it right now?
Sue at March 3, 2011 10:08 AM
No.
brian at March 3, 2011 11:04 AM
The question posed here completely ignores that iatrogenic illness (illness CAUSED by the medical profession) is the 3rd largest cause of death in the US (behind heart attack and cancer - both, for the most part, "man made" illnesses as well).
Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bull-fucking-shit.
You want to know why so many people die of heart attacks and cancer?
Becuase they live long enough to. They dont get eaten by wovles or jungle cats, tehy dont die of exposure to the elements, they dont die from dehydration due to dysentary., they dont have weakend immune systems from polio or malaria.
When you live long enough for your organs to fail from overuse or DNA transcription errors they arent 'man made' dieseases. They are the only way that nature can kill us off 'naturally' anymore
lujlp at March 3, 2011 12:11 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/28/do_you_see_a_do.html#comment-1873214">comment from lujlpluj bats major cleanup!
Amy Alkon at March 3, 2011 12:35 PM
You want to know why so many people die of heart attacks and cancer? Becuase they live long enough to.
Yawn.
When you live long enough for your organs to fail from overuse
And ironically, you almost pull yourself out of the hole! You're actually almost there!
What you're failing to answer (or ask) is WHY organs are failing from overuse? What actually keeps organs functioning? How is "overuse" measured from one person to another?
I'll give you a head start: modern "conventional" medicine will not be able to help you answer these questions.
However, if you DO answer those questions, you just might have it. I kind of see you as someone trying to piece Legos together in the dark: you know what the Lego spaceship should look like in end, but you're flailing around with no lights on and are desperately trying to attempt to peice together an incoherent narrative.
The clock is ticking.
Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
Ian
Ian at March 3, 2011 8:38 PM
Hmm. I wonder... in iatrogenic illness stats, is that counting the times the patient is convinced the naturopath is doing some good, but isn't?
Radwaste at March 3, 2011 8:42 PM
Ian, without flourie in the water supply peoples teeth would rot faster, with out water cleaning treatments dysentary and a whhole host of other water borne illnesses like ecoli for example would be as common here as they are in the slums of thrid world counties.
You know why organs fail fom over use? Its a law of nature, nothing lasts forever, everything has to die sooner or later.
As to why some poeples organ dont last as long as others - it called genetics moron. The reason we have diebetic is becuase their pancreases are weaker then others.
Nature doesnt give a shit about us, everytime two people fuck and get pregnant their offspring is nature playing the lottery with random bits of data, some work out, some dont. The ones that dont work out ususally die prevent the spread of their genes.
But go a head and prove me wrong, name one species that has members alive at this moment that were alive 1000 yrs ago, or beter yet 10,000 yrs ago
lujlp at March 4, 2011 4:58 AM
"But go a head and prove me wrong, name one species that has members alive at this moment that were alive 1000 yrs ago, or beter yet 10,000 yrs ago"
Umm, luj, that was silly. Several insectidae, the coelacanth and a myriad of very-deep-sea critters. Trees... that big-ol creosote bush...
Oh, wait, you want individuals. Okay, here!
Radwaste at March 4, 2011 1:57 PM
Rad, he stated modern medicne had no idea why people die of old age.
As for the list you provided I was already aware of it which is why I specified individual specimens at 10,000 years as nothing has ever been verified as living longer than 5,000. And as far as I am aware no vertabrates species have ever made it past 500 yrs
Biological stasis in bateria and fungi doesnt count as stasis pauses aging
lujlp at March 4, 2011 8:06 PM
Ian, where did you go Ian, I thought you had such wisdom to bestow on we morons who use emerical science to form rational decisions
lujlp at March 5, 2011 8:32 PM
"Rad, he stated modern medicne had no idea why people die of old age."
Oh. Sorry. Well, that's easy, too.
DNA doesn't duplicate perfectly in our case. The list I linked to has reasons some other species can dodge that bullet.
Radwaste at March 6, 2011 7:37 PM
Leave a comment