what to beleive? propoganda vs "facts"?

[ihavequestions]

SWIM just thought of something. how do we distinguish propoganda vs actual facts?

clearly propoganda is crazy by itself, however many people on this site also cite good sources of info and "truth " about drugs that are accepted and clearly not propoganda. but how do we know that those sources arent pro drug mumbo jumbo?

and what do the doctors and medical proffesionals beleive? i mean doctors KNOW about fact from fiction when it comes to drugs right?

for example which side is fake and what is isnt? some are pro drug, and some anti drug. both with "sources". its hard to distunguish when we arent in the lab conducting these experiements and swim hopes to god that the doctors who we depend on treating us know drug fact from drug fiction.

[Paracelsus]

You are likely to get both ridiculously anti-drug and ridiculously pro-drug "facts" thrown at in life. The key to detecting bullshit on either side is examining arguments and verifying the "sources" provided. Anybody can cite some sources that back up any claim (Holocaust denialism, Moon landing conspiracy, Intelligent Design, etc.).

There is no magical formula for detecting deception other than looking into it by yourself while being skeptical and as objective as possible.

[Panthers007]

During the so-called Cold War between the Soviet Union and the USA, I was asked which side I believed. I said neither 100%. Both sides are lying through their teeth. One needed to look in between the two voices to find the truth. That proved to be accurate. This, I believe, is applicable in any propaganda war.

[ihavequestions]

what do doctors beleive? i mean they are the ones who we rely on to make us better. swim would hope that they know the facts. i mean how is it possible that doctors could beleive in propoganda?

[Paracelsus]

Einstein once said that there are two infinite things: the universe and human stupidity. People who went to medical school are not exempted from this. Although higher education is supposed to train critical and independent thinking, people shield themselves with knowledge filters, to which literally nobody is immune to.

And since doctors are often highly specialized, many know little else than the narrow area of medicine about which they know everything.

[moda00]

Knowledge is always changing. An example would be that as a child swim was given some sort of fillings or caps on her molars- sealants, that is what they were called. These were apparently all the rage and common practice to use on children to prevent cavities on these teeth. She was a kid, and simply had them done because they were recommended by the dentist and her parents trusted the dentist,so she went along with it.

Later in her young adult life, she had problems with these teeth. After having to get one crowned and another requiring extensive treatment, she brought this up and was told by her hygienist that the material used as cavity prevention sealant back then was actually detrimental. The fact is, they thought the idea of coating the teeth so they couldn't get cavities was a good one. But they did not know how to do this properly, and the material they were using was not sufficient to prevent problems- they found that most people who had this procedure done actually had more problems with those teeth- and the problems were more severe, because the sealants sealed in any existing decay or bacteria, along with hiding additional problems that may have developed over the years.

Swim's hygienist told her that while they had developed new technologies and procedures for sealants that were supposed to be an improvement on the old, which had caused problems, that she herself was waiting and refused to have her youngest child's teeth sealed- that she would continue to read about the results and monitor them in her practice before making a determination. This seemed a wise approach.

The point being, doctors and dentists know what they are taught in school, same as any professional. But to me, the most important thing to realize is that knowledge is constantly changing. I would have the most faith in a doc, dentist, or any person really who reads journals and keeps up to date on research, as well as someone who is able to think for themselves and question the status quo, someone who engages in debate and critical thinking and is willing to examine new ideas and continue the learning process throughout their life (personal and professional) This applies to the doctors treating us, sure, but it applies to everyone, including ourselves. Rather than determining whether or not we should trust our doctors, we should also take an active role in our own health and decisions, so that the final outcome is not based on a single individual's perspective but rather on a collection of ideas and perspectives, and weighing of the pros and cons. If a doctor makes out like there is only one treatment option or medication available, or that there is only one "right" or "effective" option of the many available, run like hell.

I also like panthers' point that it is not usually "black and white," or one side vs. another- and when it is, neither side is usually 100% objective or accurate. It is a personal matter, a matter of acknowledging not only the information as presented, but the sources behind it, and the motives of those presenting it, and then finding a reasonable middle ground that may offer some insight into the actual "truth," if there is such, about any given situation.

And learn to trust your instincts- while one should not assume they have an internal barometer for what is right or wrong, trust your instincts as far as when to question something or to seek alternate opinions. If something seems off, it probably is. If something seems excessive and illogical, it probably is- although further research will provide clarification either way- the important thing is not to accept anything at face value but to keep seeking. That's all you can really do. And while you will never know or understand everything out there, it doesn't mean it is worthless to try to learn and make the best possible decisions given the circumstances- this process of trying to understand, and trying to approach things logically and in the most beneficial way possible is the process of learning how to live.

[Heretic.Ape.]

^ the history of science and medicine is made up of things that sounded about right at the time but have turned out flat wrong.

[moda00]

what do doctors beleive? i mean they are the ones who we rely on to make us better. swim would hope that they know the facts. i mean how is it possible that doctors could beleive in propoganda?

Another important point, hate to bring it up, is money and power. In the field of medicine, what is the one industry that keeps things rolling along? The pharmaceutical industry. Who funds those studies about the drugs we are prescribed? You guessed it. And there are people out there whose career/occupation is to promote their company's drugs, and to talk doctors into prescribing them. Doctors are human like everyone else- I am not saying doctors don't have good intentions- this varies by person, in any profession. I am just saying they are surrounded by propaganda all day long, and are just as fallible as anyone else.

[Nature Boy]

SWIM just thought of something. how do we distinguish propoganda vs actual facts?

clearly propoganda is crazy by itself, however many people on this site also cite good sources of info and "truth " about drugs that are accepted and clearly not propoganda. but how do we know that those sources arent pro drug mumbo jumbo?

and what do the doctors and medical proffesionals beleive? i mean doctors KNOW about fact from fiction when it comes to drugs right?

for example which side is fake and what is isnt? some are pro drug, and some anti drug. both with "sources". its hard to distunguish when we arent in the lab conducting these experiements and swim hopes to god that the doctors who we depend on treating us know drug fact from drug fiction.

Propaganda is mainly steeped in media which is dumbed down for your average Joe Soap so usually it tends to be pretty easy to spot. Sensationalist headlines, misconstrued use of wording, unusual statistical claims etc. When it comes down to studies and trials though, I agree with Paracelsus. Scepticism and objectivity is key.

[Samadhi]

Propaganda is used everywhere if you think about it. even things i agree with use propaganda to promote their message. Just because the propaganda is not negative does not make it exempt from being propaganda. It seems that without powerful lies and or stretched truth, nobody will take cause.

The world is full of bent perspective because there is no perfect perspective. facts and propaganda will differ depending on what you believe and how you view the subject.

my brain hurts trying to explain this.
I'll stop

[nate81]

Personally, I try to verify any arguement that interests me. From every angle. I try to make sure I know both of the major "sides" in an arguement and form my opinion later. Sometimes I can't avoid my own bias however.

With the medical stuff, I think our doctors are drivin by money. Not the local family doctor necessarily but the researchers and the investors. They all seem to be interested in making money first and helping patients as a side effect. The hippocratic oath is a pretty good idea but needs to be rethought to include not only "do no harm" but "do not exploit".

[ShawnD]

It seems pretty easy to detect bullshit when it comes to drug information. I'll lay down some simple rules.

Speculation is always propaganda:
"marijuana leads to harder drugs"

Personal experiences are always propaganda:
"my friend killed himself on LSD because he thought he could fly"

Mild health risks are often true:
"marijuana causes memory loss"
"caffeine causes arrhythmia"
"cocaine increases blood pressure"

Serious health risks are almost always propaganda:
"alcohol causes brain damage" (only if you have alcohol poisoning)
"ephedrine causes heart attacks" (in >99% of people it doesn't)

Vague explanations for how drugs work are always propoganda:
"LSD makes your spinal cord bleed" (I actually heard this before)

[Paracelsus]

I can come up with way too many exceptions for those to be rules.

[dr_haldol]

I think the best way to make sure you don't get any crap is to read scientific stuff directly. I prefer that way...

There are many authors writing very good book(s), like Albert Hofmann, Ann & Sasha Shulgin, Stanislav Grof etc etc.
And if you go into a university library you also get many good books, chemical/psychological/pharmacological journals...

A clear contra to this way is if you haven't got any scientific/academic background.
But I think if you want to educate and entertain yourself in a drug-related way, science (and of course, drug-experienced people like shamans etc) is the only answer. The more you know about a drug you're going to ingest, the better you're off.

It's not a good way simply eating every crappy pill you get your hands on, at least IMHO.