To ask to what extent you trust science?

It's Prolia

Thank you. Would you mind saying what the medication is?

'most importantly how to come off it safely' is what should be there

It's not clear that COVID made trust in science worse: https://wellcome.org/news/how-covid-19-has-increased-worlds-trust-science

Most importantly what? I think there are some words missing.

Science is only what we’ve managed to figure out so far. So no I don’t trust it as gospel and nobody should. The whole point of science is to keep learning and challenging.

So anyone that tells me to trust the science is inherently arrogant and foolish.

There's science, and there's "the science": i.e. the bits that politicians and billionaires cherry pick for their own ends. It's funny how in 2020, we only heard from the scientists that thought that lockdowns were a good idea. Any who tried to speak against this narrative were swiftly silenced. You could watch BBC interviewers doing it.

Such = succeed

In the history of things that worked, lots of things didn't.

Only through analysis, discussion and perseverance does anything such and science is oftentimes the foundation.

No, systematic reviews look at peblished research to assign a level of evidence for a product/outcome
Animal testing is neither here nor there in relation to systemic reviews, published trials from in-vitro studies, through in-vivo to the phased clinical trials are reviewed. Some may include animal studies, but as you well know, this is strictly regulated, and welfare standards are extremely high

It was an engineering marvel.

Never trust anyone who says follow the science. It always turns out to be a lie.

The atomic bomb wasn't a scientific failure. The problem is a moral one.

Thalidomide transpired to be a really useful drug though didn't it?

Thalidomide being used for morning sickness wasn't a failure of science, it was a failure of method and people.

I guess my personal perspective is one of mistrust based on a bad experience, which resulted in not just a temporary change to my body, but a permanent one. And a change that affects my brain, the very key part of what makes everyone human.

Not having control over my voluntary movements, because of something that was ironically given to help me, is (pun totally intended) a very hard pill to swallow.

I certainly don't hate science or even medicine per se as there would be no logic in that, but it's not easy to be enthusiastic about the treatment people have or benefit from ie psychological or psychotropic drugs when you are never going to be able to even use a calcium vitamin pill or an antifungal cream without them making your symptoms worse 😢

Anyway, rant over. It makes no difference to the vast majority of people that there are the unlucky few who have suffered iatrogenic harm, but I guess until it happens to you, then people just don't understand.

Odd question.

Science: the way the material world works, just ‘is’. How can I trust or distrust ‘science’?

Human’s response to science is a different matter.
Do I trust scientific discoveries in the hands of profit making businesses? Not without close scrutiny.
Do I think scientists to behave ethically? No more or less than any other humans (so no, they need close scrutiny)
Do I trust governments to manage and communicate scientific issues? No, not at all.

Do I think we should pursue and look to scientific research to further understanding if the material world and address many of our problems? Yes.

It's a favourite hobbyhorse of the woo-invested to claim that "big pharma doesn't fund research into essential oils/vitamins/homeopathy/reiki because there's no money in it for them", when in fact all these things have been extensively studied through clinical trials and gold-standard evidence reviews and have been found to be no more effective than placebo, which is why they are still "alternative therapies" and not "therapies".

Are there legitimate criticisms to be made of the agendae and budgets and politics and egos that shape scientific and medical research? For sure. Is the above one of them? Nope.

@SpecduckularlyQuackers

My friend wrote a book. Educate yourself.

amzn.eu/d/fXMmfRm

This was my thought too. If there's no practical research on a subject, there's likely going to be nothing written about it to compile a systemic review...

Scientific literacy and the ability to critically appraise literature is important but these seem to be very niche rather than universal skills.

Science is correct… but something it’s difficult to identify side effects of new therapies or the effects on new technology… only after years of use.

@curious79 Yeah, no shit. They're trying to make it a) more effective and b) safer and with fewer drawbacks, because there's no doubt that smoking the dried plant comes with a lot of health-related drawbacks. That's work and it requires investment. Nobody will be forced to buy their products when they're done. Also, nice post hoc shifting of the goalposts from "big pharma has no interest in proving the benefits of marijuana" to "big pharma wants to monetise marijuana by proving the benefits of it".

I ‘trust’ Science in the same way I trust Mathematics - a way of describing, understanding and exploring the universe.

"But I don't understand calculus - so it must be a hoax."

"2+2=4 ? That's what they want you to think."

'Vitamin B17'. Not a vitamin. Actually a weaker synthetic version of cyanide.

Giving people weakened doses of something poisonous in the hope it'll kill cancer cells and not just the person and their other cells. But one where they are told it's too dangerous to eat peaches or almonds (and a bunch of other foods) if they decide to take it.

Sounds like a less safe attempt at chemotherapy to me and I think I'd rather have tried and already tested ones or immunotherapy such as is being developed through actual science (or the new targeted radiotherapy implants) over an attempt to evade legal requirements for drug efficacy and safety to be able to flog it as a supplement.

Someone I know recently received funding from the Gates Foundation as they are developing low cost tech to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of parasitic diseases in low and middle income countries. So evil.

Yes and to use that ghastly phrase they are looking at how to monetise it by isolating and patebting specific compounds in it!!