killermike wrote:
##### wrote:
She's too open minded and intelligent for you, move on now or she will sooner rather than later.
Is this how we are describing pseudoscience now? The realm of open-minded, intelligent people?
It part of The Intelligent Design.
Currently wearing doterra lavender and I smell fabulous.
As someone going into medical school, you should know the placebo effect is a real thing and therefore if she believes essential oils make a difference to mood, energy levels, etc, then they likely do. As others have mentioned, the bigger issue is overreacting to something so trivial.
Send her this link and decide what to do based on her reaction.
Would you rather be right or do you want to have a good and fun relationship?
Great! Ask for a hot oil massage ?♂️!
You do realize essential oils are not a drug, right?
Maybe she is posting about you on her essential oils board about how the guy she’s seeing is into running.
She uses the oils because they work. For her.
Of course if you replaced one of her oils with something else, it would still work. Efficacy of placebos have been widely studied. There are some good science podcasts about the issue, and some good articles. The complicated mental and physical changes caused by placebos are pretty astounding. Learning about those issues would probably help.
So yes, she is 'anti-science', but you can also explain the success she has with the oils with science. It doesn't make her stupid or a bad person. She's just using what truly makes a difference for her.
So what do you do? You sure as hell don't want to use the oils or encourage her. They won't work for you. Ideally you find a way to let her do her thing without it impacting you. Your only hope is to avoid her requests, or try it here or there, without being condescending or lecturing her. If she won't stop pushing, maybe it's a deal breaker. But we accommodate different beliefs all the time. I think it's a sign of the times that we assume a competing belief is a deal breaker.
Oh, and she better be hot. Otherwise, I take back everything I just said and you should run, not walk, for the exit.
Ag guy wrote:
You utter dolt. 70% of soybeans go directly to animal feed. The biggest chunk of the rest goes to oil. Very small percentages go to things like biodiesel and foods for direct human consumption. The Ag industry wants you to eat meat, not soy.
Not true. That's a bunch of vegan propaganda. At any given time, only about 10% percent of cattle are on a feed lot. They spend most of their lives eating grass.
no no no wrote:
Not true. That's a bunch of vegan propaganda. At any given time, only about 10% percent of cattle are on a feed lot. They spend most of their lives eating grass.
According to the USDA, 70% of soybeans go to animal feed. Your point about 10% of cattle being on a feed lot is not incompatible with that fact.
Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with
poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef
and aquaculture.
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdfl know all wrote:
As someone going into medical school, you should know the placebo effect is a real thing and therefore if she believes essential oils make a difference to mood, energy levels, etc, then they likely do. As others have mentioned, the bigger issue is overreacting to something so trivial.
But it's still a false belief and an adherence to pseudoscience. The fact that there might be a placebo effect doesn't make it legitimate.
The concern here is that she is an anti-science person. Her getting lucky with a placebo effect isn't really a resolution to that.
Just make sure you don't knock her up bc essintial oils cause autism and other birth defects. So you best be pulling out unless you want a little Atard.
pull out wrote:
Just make sure you don't knock her up bc essintial oils cause autism and other birth defects. So you best be pulling out unless you want a little Atard.
It's not just pregnant women that should be worried. They can cause seizures, skin burns, and asthma, among other things.
nobody should use wrote:
pull out wrote:
Just make sure you don't knock her up bc essintial oils cause autism and other birth defects. So you best be pulling out unless you want a little Atard.
It's not just pregnant women that should be worried. They can cause seizures, skin burns, and asthma, among other things.
They can also give you man boobs:
"The suspicions that essential oils may be endocrine disrupters originated from a 2007 report in the New England Journal of Medicine: a case study of three young boys, all age 10 or younger, who were identified by a Denver pediatrician as having unexplained large breasts. The doctor learned the boys regularly used tea tree and lavender oils. In all three cases, when the boys stopped using the products, the issue went away a few months later. When the researchers tested the oils on human cells in the lab, they determined the oils appeared to interfere with hormone behavior in the cells."
killermike wrote:
So because I value the scientific method and the peer review process, I'm a pharma/medical shill?
I don't have anxiety meds, and I'm not taking a position on anxiety meds here. I am only taking a position on the need for peer-reviewed evidence when making medical claims. Evidence-based medicine is one of the greatest ideas humans have ever produced, and it is responsible for the life expectancy we see today.
Essential oils folks make all sorts of wild claims with no real evidence. That is pseudoscience.
1. Peer reviewed evidence is tricky. In order to understand the review, you have to trace who the peers are, what research funding they've received from which source of money. Follow the money trail, and ensure it doesn't end back up in the pockets of those that have a vested interest in a "peer reviewed" study.
2. Life expectancy gains in the early 20th century was really driven by three things. Figuring out how to treat infectious diseases, decreasing infant mortality, and improving working conditions so people don't get killed on the job in the volumes they did at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century. From there, incremental improvements were made due to increase in technology in regards to heart health. And of course, linking smoking to deaths helped a little - but not even close to what the top 3 things did to improve life expectancy.
Most of the above gains above, while definitely due to significant research (some peer-reviewed, and some not); it was before significant economic interests became involved which now clouds the issue a bit.
Since that huge 20th century improvement in life expectancy; which, by the way, means an increase in population density; it is expected that the current generation will be one of the first generations to see a decline in life expectancy.
I suggest reading "The Rise & Fall of American Growth" for a complete synopsis on this.
Anti-Everything wrote:
1. Peer reviewed evidence is tricky. In order to understand the review, you have to trace who the peers are, what research funding they've received from which source of money. Follow the money trail, and ensure it doesn't end back up in the pockets of those that have a vested interest in a "peer reviewed" study.
Reputable journals are reputable journals. I don't need to trace the money trail for every reviewer at the New England Journal of Medicine in order to know whether I can trust it to generally publish honest work.
The idea that all of these researchers are financially conflicted has little bearing in reality. Sure, there have been some high-profile cases of dishonest work funded by industry, like the cigarette/cancer "studies," but those are by far the except.
Besides, what's the alternative? If we aren't going to trust peer-reviewed scientific work, what will we trust?
Anti-Everything wrote:
2. Life expectancy gains in the early 20th century was really driven by three things. Figuring out how to treat infectious diseases, decreasing infant mortality, and improving working conditions so people don't get killed on the job in the volumes they did at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century. From there, incremental improvements were made due to increase in technology in regards to heart health. And of course, linking smoking to deaths helped a little - but not even close to what the top 3 things did to improve life expectancy.
Nearly all of those things, including two of the top three, were a result of evidence-based medicine.
My point is simple: evidence-based medicine, which is primarily conducted through the peer review process, is the gold standard for a reason. Pseudoscience like essential oils and chiropractic quacks are offering the alternative of no real evidence, not a superior evidentiary process.
STEMMY wrote:
I just started hanging out with this girl who must spend thousands of dollars a year on essential oils. She has one for everything. She otherwise seems pretty normal except (aside from a required physical before starting colleg) hasn’t been to a doctor in seven or eight years. I’m not sure how long I can go without saying something that might offend her. Any tips for keeping my mouth shut? Or should I risk it and try some sort of intervention?
0/10
Pics?
pull out wrote:
Just make sure you don't knock her up bc essintial oils cause autism and other birth defects. So you best be pulling out unless you want a little Atard.
I believe you're thinking about vaccines? Where you injected recently by any chance?
Girl: "guy I was seeing posted about me on bottom feeding hobbyjogger message board. So I dumped him."