I am sorry to say that when going up against a professional in a particular field that you have no expertise in, it is really hard to engage in a scientific debate on the data that resides within their wheelhouse. It is like bringing a toothpick to a gunfight and somehow think you are on equal footing. The lack of knowledge about the actual data behind scientific articles published in the media only ends up getting you wounded. Remember, the media will report on a study if it fits into a narrative they are trying to promote. That is not the same thing as having a good peer reviewed study that actually carries some weight. Listen to the scientists that are actually discussing these issues and zero in on the studies they are paying attention to and not what is being reported on in the media.

Clinicians are fed a steady diet of evidence based research on a regular basis and they should be able to pull apart weak studies if they actually take the time to read them. I worked in research. The problem is that for every one study published that claims a certain result, there is another study that may claim the opposite or have different results. Money plays a big part in what research is actually funded. Learn the difference between studies that are prepublication awaiting peer review or studies coming out of obscure journals that are not well known where authors literally have to pay to have their articles published. Another aspect is learning how to differentiate between results that are statistically significant and clinical significance. I have had disagreements with colleagues over whether a statistical improvement justifies a particular treatment that cannot actually be seen clinically. I have usually called it adjunk science because it costs a patient money and time while giving them no benefit when more useful treatments could be sought.

My hats off to you for making the attempt. It was a brave effort. That guy was very smug and condescending - typical of many I know. They really didn't want to engage on the data and they never offer any of their own. They were more interested in ridiculing than actually having a conversation. And never put yourself down as having a lesser level of education. No excuses.

Take this as a learning experience and actually try to see what were the points they were arguing and whether those points were actually valid. As far as the supplements are concerned, unless you are dealing with a clinician that can see the therapeutic value in their use, you are not going to make any head way. Almost any kind of nutritional approach to patient treatment and care is completely dismissed in school - it is all about the drugs. It is really rough for those of us that do try to incorporate nutrition and supplementation into our patient care modalities with a more complementary approach. Nothing should be overlooked. This has become the glaring divide that we are seeing occur within the medical ranks.

You will be better prepared next time. Many of these professionals are going by their own form of media bias that comes through the CDC, FDA, and medical associations and organizations. These entities during times like our current situation that is highly politicized, will keep their members abreast of studies that are circulating in the media and how to debunk them. I find that many times, especially with hot-button issues like vaccines, they can be repeating their own narrative bias that they are accusing you of. They actually have not even read the research either - they use the preprinted debunking talking points they saw in their inbox. So, if you are not actually familiar with a particular study that you are trying to cite, they simply throw the debunking narrative back at you and you are at a loss. When you can actually cite one or two points in a study and ask for discussion on those points, you can surmise fairly quickly whether they have actually ready the study or whether they are using the Cliff notes. At that point, you know you have them and they know it. It is amazing to see how fast the conversation with be deflected or it reduces to the level of personal attacks and insults. But, if they have read the report, you need to be ready to discuss it.

You have to be willing to discuss the points you bring up and not jump to something else. If we truly want to engage and have some kind of meeting of the minds, we have to be willing to see the other side and stay on topic. Otherwise it just becomes two different sides trying to flood the zone with their own information dump. Neither side at that point is actually listening and it becomes a waste of time and each side walks away thinking what a jerk the other one was.

I am sorry to say that when going up against a professional in a particular field that you have no expertise in, it is really hard to engage in a scientific debate on the data that resides within their wheelhouse. It is like bringing a toothpick to a gunfight and somehow think you are on equal footing. The lack of knowledge about the actual data behind scientific articles published in the media only ends up getting you wounded. Remember, the media will report on a study if it fits into a narrative they are trying to promote. That is not the same thing as having a good peer reviewed study that actually carries some weight. Listen to the scientists that are actually discussing these issues and zero in on the studies they are paying attention to and not what is being reported on in the media.

Clinicians are fed a steady diet of evidence based research on a regular basis and they should be able to pull apart weak studies if they actually take the time to read them. I worked in research. The problem is that for every one study published that claims a certain result, there is another study that may claim the opposite or have different results. Money plays a big part in what research is actually funded. Learn the difference between studies that are prepublication awaiting peer review or studies coming out of obscure journals that are not well known where authors literally have to pay to have their articles published. Another aspect is learning how to differentiate between results that are statistically significant and clinical significance. I have had disagreements with colleagues over whether a statistical improvement justifies a particular treatment that cannot actually be seen clinically. I have usually called it adjunk science because it costs a patient money and time while giving them no benefit when more useful treatments could be sought.

My hats off to you for making the attempt. It was a brave effort. That guy was very smug and condescending - typical of many I know. They really didn't want to engage on the data and they never offer any of their own. They were more interested in ridiculing than actually having a conversation. And never put yourself down as having a lesser level of education. No excuses.

Take this as a learning experience and actually try to see what were the points they were arguing and whether those points were actually valid. As far as the supplements are concerned, unless you are dealing with a clinician that can see the therapeutic value in their use, you are not going to make any head way. Almost any kind of nutritional approach to patient treatment and care is completely dismissed in school - it is all about the drugs. It is really rough for those of us that do try to incorporate nutrition and supplementation into our patient care modalities with a more complementary approach. Nothing should be overlooked. This has become the glaring divide that we are seeing occur within the medical ranks.

You will be better prepared next time. Many of these professionals are going by their own form of media bias that comes through the CDC, FDA, and medical associations and organizations. These entities during times like our current situation that is highly politicized, will keep their members abreast of studies that are circulating in the media and how to debunk them. I find that many times, especially with hot-button issues like vaccines, they can be repeating their own narrative bias that they are accusing you of. They actually have not even read the research either - they use the preprinted debunking talking points they saw in their inbox. So, if you are not actually familiar with a particular study that you are trying to cite, they simply throw the debunking narrative back at you and you are at a loss. When you can actually cite one or two points in a study and ask for discussion on those points, you can surmise fairly quickly whether they have actually ready the study or whether they are using the Cliff notes. At that point, you know you have them and they know it. It is amazing to see how fast the conversation with be deflected or it reduces to the level of personal attacks and insults.

You have to be willing to discuss the points you bring up and not jump to something else. If we truly want to engage and have some kind of meeting of the minds, we have to be willing to see the other side and stay on topic. Otherwise it just becomes two different sides trying to flood the zone with their own information dump. Neither side at that point is actually listening and it becomes a waste of time and each side walks away thinking what a jerk the other one was.

I am sorry to say that when going up against a professional in a particular field that you have no expertise in, it is really hard to engage in a scientific debate on the data that resides within their wheelhouse. It is like bringing a toothpick to a gunfight and somehow think you are on equal footing. The lack of knowledge about the actual data behind scientific articles published in the media only ends up getting you wounded. Remember, the media will report on a study if it fits into a narrative they are trying to promote. That is not the same thing as having a good peer reviewed study that actually carries some weight. Listen to the scientists that are actually discussing these issues and zero in on the studies they are paying attention to and not what is being reported on in the media.

Clinicians are fed a steady diet of evidence based research on a regular basis and they should be able to pull apart weak studies if they actually take the time to read them. I worked in research. The problem is that for every one study published that claims a certain result, there is another study that may claim the opposite or have different results. Money plays a big part in what research is actually funded. Learn the difference between studies that are prepublication awaiting peer review or studies coming out of obscure journals that are not well known where authors literally have to pay to have their articles published. Another aspect is learning how to differentiate between results that are statistically significant and clinical significance. I have had disagreements with colleagues over whether a statistical improvement justifies a particular treatment that cannot actually be seen clinically. I have usually called it adjunk science because it costs a patient money and time while giving them no benefit when more useful treatments could be sought.

My hats off to you for making the attempt. It was a brave effort. That guy was very smug and condescending - typical of many I know. They really didn't want to engage on the data and they never offer any of their own. They were more interested in ridiculing than actually having a conversation. And never put yourself down as having a lesser level of education. No excuses.

Take this as a learning experience and actually try to see what were the points they were arguing and whether those points were actually valid. As far as the supplements are concerned, unless you are dealing with a clinician that can see the therapeutic value in their use, you are not going to make any head way. Almost any kind of nutritional approach to patient treatment and care is completely dismissed in school - it is all about the drugs. It is really rough for those of us that do try to incorporate nutrition and supplementation into our patient care modalities with a more complementary approach. Nothing should be overlooked. This has become the glaring divide that we are seeing occur within the medical ranks.

You will be better prepared next time. Many of these professionals are going by their own form of media bias that comes through the CDC, FDA, and medical associations and organizations. These entities during times like our current situation that is highly politicized, will keep their members abreast of studies that are circulating in the media and how to debunk them. I find that many times, especially with hot-button issues like vaccines, they can be repeating their own narrative bias that they are accusing you of. They actually have not even read the research either - they used the preprinted debunking talking points they saw in their inbox. So, if you are not actually familiar with a particular study that you are trying to cite, they simply throw the debunking narrative back at you and you are at a loss. When you can actually cite one or two points in a study and ask for discussion on those points, you can surmise fairly quickly whether they have actually ready the study or whether they are using the Cliff notes. At that point, you know you have them and they know it. It is amazing to see how fast the conversation with be deflected or it reduces to the level of personal attacks and insults.

You have to be willing to discuss the points you bring up and not jump to something else. If we truly want to engage and have some kind of meeting of the minds, we have to be willing to see the other side and stay on topic. Otherwise it just becomes two different sides trying to flood the zone with their own information dump. Neither side at that point is actually listening and it becomes a waste of time and each side walks away thinking what a jerk the other one was.

I am sorry to say that when going up against a professional in a particular field that you have no expertise in, it is really hard to engage in a scientific debate on the data that resides within their wheelhouse. It is like bringing a toothpick to a gunfight and somehow think you are on equal footing. The lack of knowledge about the actual data behind scientific articles published in the media only ends up getting you wounded. Remember, the media will report on a study if it fits into a narrative they are trying to promote. That is not the same thing as having a good peer reviewed study that actually carries some weight. Listen to the scientists that are actually discussing these issues and zero in on the studies they are paying attention to and not what is being reported on in the media.

Clinicians are fed a steady diet of evidence based research on a regular basis and they should be able to pull apart weak studies if they actually take the time to read them. I worked in research. The problem is that for every one study published that claims a certain result, there is another study that may claim the opposite or have different results. Money plays a big part in what research is actually funded. Learn the difference between studies that are prepublication awaiting peer review or studies coming out of obscure journals that are not well known where authors literally have to pay to have their articles published. Another aspect is learning how to differentiate between results that are statistically significant and clinical significance. I have had disagreements with colleagues over whether a statistical improvement justifies a particular treatment that cannot actually be seen clinically. I have usually called it adjunk science because it costs a patient money and time while giving them no benefit while more useful treatments could be sought.

My hats off to you for making the attempt. It was a brave effort. That guy was very smug and condescending - typical of many I know. They really didn't want to engage on the data and they never offer any of their own. They were more interested in ridiculing than actually having a conversation. And never put yourself down as having a lesser level of education. No excuses.

Take this as a learning experience and actually try to see what were the points they were arguing and whether those points were actually valid. As far as the supplements are concerned, unless you are dealing with a clinician that can see the therapeutic value in their use, you are not going to make any head way. Almost any kind of nutritional approach to patient treatment and care is completely dismissed in school - it is all about the drugs. It is really rough for those of us that do try to incorporate nutrition and supplementation into our patient care modalities with a more complementary approach. Nothing should be overlooked. This has become the glaring divide that we are seeing occur within the medical ranks.

You will be better prepared next time. Many of these professionals are going by their own form of media bias that comes through the CDC, FDA, and medical associations and organizations. These entities during times like our current situation that is highly politicized, will keep their members abreast of studies that are circulating in the media and how to debunk them. I find that many times, especially with hot-button issues like vaccines, they can be repeating their own narrative bias that they are accusing you of. They actually have not even read the research either - they used the preprinted debunking talking points they saw in their inbox. So, if you are not actually familiar with a particular study that you are trying to cite, they simply throw the debunking narrative back at you and you are at a loss. When you can actually cite one or two points in a study and ask for discussion on those points, you can surmise fairly quickly whether they have actually ready the study or whether they are using the Cliff notes. At that point, you know you have them and they know it. It is amazing to see how fast the conversation with be deflected or it reduces to the level of personal attacks and insults.

You have to be willing to discuss the points you bring up and not jump to something else. If we truly want to engage and have some kind of meeting of the minds, we have to be willing to see the other side and stay on topic. Otherwise it just becomes two different sides trying to flood the zone with their own information dump. Neither side at that point is actually listening and it becomes a waste of time and each side walks away thinking what a jerk the other one was.