Pittsburg, Kansas | RDinMN - 9/16/2024 07:28 I originally started responding to posts because I thought I had information that would be helpful, as it seemed many were posting with health, and specifically nutrition-related questions. It wasn't my intention to become so involved, but I did think that I was providing information that people on this site would value. I don't think that is the case any more. There seems to be so many on this site that distrust and resist the advice of their healthcare providers, if in fact they will even go to one, and the healthcare system in general. I think this will likely be my last nutrition-related post, and I think many will be glad to see me go.
I hope you don't go. You add greatly to the discussion. Same with littlejohn. He and I do not see eye to eye (at least based on his linked posts) on nutrition probably way more apart than you and I. But I am glad he is engaging in the discussion. If everyone thinks and has the same opinions a discussion is pointless. Might as well just talk to our own selves.
My only intention also is hopefully being helpful for others. That is not because I have had any professional training or have special knowledge. I have not and don't. But I have had some experience that has greatly improved my health and if the information I learned could cause someone else to learn and improve their health then it makes it worthwhile to spend the time discussing. If they learn from the conventional links you provide that is great. If they learn from littlejohns vegan links great. If they learn from my links I hope I provided good useful links. We all have our own agency. Adults with the ability to choose what we want to believe. I don't want anybody to take what I say as advice. But if it causes them to do research and make their own decision then that is a positive.
I value your input a lot. It causes me to question my own beliefs and also causes me to sometimes dig deeper to make sure what I believe still holds true. Which is good when I question myself. There are some things I no doubt need to change my mind on. If not it means I make no mistakes and have become perfect. I don't think the one perfect One would find that amusing. Therefore since I am imperfect logic tells me I must have some things wrong and the only way I can improve is to change my mind on the things I "know" but are wrong. Now if I only knew which ones were wrong and need to change. That is a difficult part of life, for some like me more than others. These discussions help me figure things out and question what I believe.
As far as who and what to believe in my own case. Let's say hypothetically I have had personal experience with 10% of what I hear and try to understand about health. The other 90% I am trying to learn about but really have, at least currently, "no dog in the fight". So I listen to conventional medicine and it does not concur with what I have witnessed in the 10% personally. Doesn't mean they are wrong, maybe I am just an oddity. But doesn't agree with my experience. Take the vegan promoters and I listen to some of what they say. They may be right but the 10% of my experience doesn't seem to agree with what they are promoting. Then I listen to the doctors and researchers that I have been following for almost 6 years. The 10% I have had personal experience with all of the sudden makes sense through their lens.
So on the 90% I have had no experience do I follow the conventional wisdom? Well I shouldn't totally ignore it, that is for sure. It came about for a reason and to totally ignore it would be foolish. But the area I have had the 10% with personal experience and found conventional wisdom was wrong it makes me at least question the other 90%. Same with the vegan message only a little more so. My 10% experience doesn't match up with what they are promoting. So it makes it really hard for me to accept much of the other 90% they are promoting. But when it comes to the doctors and researchers I follow that I have had the 10% experience it agrees with, there is a lot more mental incentive to tend to believe the other 90% of what they are saying. If it is the same as conventional medicine even greater confidence in what they say. If they differ, well my experience matches up with the 10% so maybe I should pay attention to the other 90%. Doesn't mean they are right. Also doesn't mean they are wrong. But it gives me more confidence in the 90% where I have had no experience because they helped me understand the 10% I have had personal experience with.
The caveat to that is a good con contains 95% truth. I remember watching a movie many years ago about a con man teaching a younger con man to play the game and con people out of their money. Might have been a Paul Newman film. Can't remember for sure. He said something on the order of "the secret to a good con job is 95% of it is true. It is the 5% where you hit the mark". I have remembered that for many years. The true part gets the mark comfortable believing the con man is legitimate and it telling the truth. Then the portion that is the lie is what cons people out of things. Maybe that is the way with the people I listen to (but I don't think so or I wouldn't listen to them). Or maybe that is the way some industries that we depend on work (maybe not even intentionally, but in actual practice). This is a thought and a question I always have when dealing with new information. Is this the truth (as they know it, because everyone makes mistakes), or is it mostly the truth with a "gotcha" somewhere hidden in the middle? Hard to know for sure and we deal with people and organizations daily with that question not always resolved.
I have rambled and philosophized again. And I had to look it up to even know how to spell it. Now if I only knew what it means................ :-)
Edit: people don't read long posts so most will probably skip this one. Which is probably good.
Edited by John Burns 9/16/2024 09:53
|
Statins
