The information superhighway, for the free exchange of ideas...right? I'm not so sure. Fact is, whatever your position is, on any subject you can back it up with a quick google search. Some people believe what they're told, but most people believe what they want. I get asked all the time about fluoride and amalgam, but despite my citing the hundreds of research papers spanning decades of safe use of these materials the people will go on thinking it causes Alzheimer's because they found it on the Internet. You don't want to get your kids vaccinated? Ignore the collective body of research from the worlds leading science organizations and find your self a nice little website that validates your suspicions that it's all a government/pharmaceutical company conspiracy.
I balk at these subjects but then turn and do the same, in some people's minds, when I look for the skeptics side of the global warming debate. And even though I'm not vehemently calling it a conspiracy, there is enough crazy stuff out there to make me raise my eyebrows, and get pretty angry (google 'climategate' and find the emails with some sketchy statements from some of the leading global warming scientists). My suspicions are being confirmed, but am I ignoring the collective body of the worlds science organizations? Incidentally, I am actually pretty excited by green technology, but more so from a energy independent and economical standpoint than a save the ice caps one. And I especially don't want to bankrupt our country to save them.
So what's my point? Are ideas actually being exchanged? I don't think so. It makes us argue, and get angry, and shake our heads at the other side's "out there" views, but in the end, people rarely changes sides, we just go on believing what we want, and we can do that because we know someone out there feels the same as we do because we found them on the web.
So is there a solution? I don't know. Down with the Internet? No way-what would I do without fantasy football! I don't really argue with people who think amalgam fillings are causing their migraines. I tell them the research from legitimate sources because it's my job (and I KNOW it is safe), but I know they will walk out the door and go on believing what they want. We turn away from one another, I shake my head, they shake their head, and we mutter something like, "fool" under our breaths. And even though I would never do it, I'm sure they could find a dentist who would happily take their money and replace all those fillings with nice white ones, that cost more, and need to be replaced more often. (So...if there IS a conspiracy, I think it would be the one that puts more money in the conspirators pockets...I'm just sayin). But in the end that person is happier because they are living a life they feel is in line with their beliefs, and that's not a bad thing. And I'm sure the dentist is happier too! Unless he is advertising that removing your silver fillings will alleviate those ailments, then he just loses his license.
9 months ago
4 comments:
It's true. You can pretty much find anything on the internet to back up your opinion on any matter. It gets confusing. As a mom, I do the research and then go with my gut.
As far as fillings (which I admit I know absolutely nothing about) what if for that one person, they are causing migraines? Maybe for the vast majority of people, those fillings are perfectly safe (as evidenced by the research) but that one person has some weird allergy or sensitivity to it? Could that be possible?
Just wondering...
I guess anything is possible, but I don't have any evidence to say why or how, and a ton to say, 'no it's not causing it.'
Another example is people always say stuff like, "soft teeth run in my family." And it is true that there are some inheritable syndromes that can make you more prone to cavities, but 99% of the time it is always hygiene, and even more often, high frequency carbohydrate intake. So when I hear stuff like that, even though it is POSSIBLE, it's so improbable (unless I see other signs or symptoms of syndromes) I just don't want to perpetuate it in the people's minds, so while I tell them that while there are some cases like that, it's way more likely that it's because of the other stuff. Of course, it helps my case when the kid is sitting there with a sippy cup of Kool aid in their mouth.
I've always been fascinated by the invention of the printing press. It brought the written word - and therefore education - to the illiterate masses. Most importantly it brought the Bible to the masses that no longer had to hang on every word that came out of their questionable Priest's mouthe: pleople learned to think for themselves. Of couse the icky Priests got wise and changed and tweeked the printing of the Bible - changing a word here, a dialect there, in inflection here & there - then sent it off to certain linguistical areas where these particular changes would completely change the meaning of this sacred book. Of course, if it was in print, it was "true" and thus began the two edge sword of the written word. The internet is another powerful invention that - for some people - change their beliefs....should we give it that power? Or should we think for ourselves and rely on the Light of Christ, which we all have. If we are listening, we'll know the truth. I'm with you Danielle, go with the gut!
Re: global warming... One of the arguments is that the science was motivated or pressured by politics (think Kellogg-funded studies somehow producing results that eating breakfast cereals will cure all sorts of stuff like heart disease). There's a similar argument that it wasn't really a conspiracy so much as a "perfect storm" of academics needing funding, government needing a cause for people to rally behind, and media needing something people will read. I have no idea whether either of those arguments hold water... Some of the oft-quoted research does seem like it might have some flaws, but the whole science-of-global-warming thing has just totally descended into mudslinging and name-calling. I've been sort of following it, because there's been a lot of controversy within the American Physical Society (a worldwide professional society for physicists, despite its name). APS went ahead without asking its members and adopted an official position amounting to, "Global warming is happening, and we need to do something about it." APS rarely makes political statements. A number of members have asked APS to reconsider, or at least put it on hold. Several have claimed huge flaws in the research data or methods of the pro-warming side. Most (but not all) of the loudest complainers work for oil companies, have research funded by them, or have consulted for them at some point in history. Both sides are claiming their data are conclusive, the other's data are wrong, their methods are questionable, their allegiances to causes and companies are valued more highly than allegiance to science and truth, etc. And, of course, if the science is sound, it doesn't matter where the money came from; it just calls for greater scrutiny when there's a potential conflict of interest. Confused? I am.
And as far as the find-anything-on-the-Internet types... I guess the only thing to keep in the back of your mind is the notion that science can only disprove, never prove. If 100% of the research shows no link between amalgam and headaches, then definitely tell patients that. It doesn't mean that researchers have looked everywhere, but it does make it very highly probable that there's no link. (I don't entirely believe science can only disprove and never prove anything, myself... but I also think people, including scientists, are far too quick to claim something has been proven conclusively. Science tends to work more by coming up with a hypothesis, testing it, and if it's not proved wrong, assuming it's right and moving forward until something doesn't add up later, and then figuring out what went wrong.)
Post a Comment