There was an amusing post over at another forum the other day that I had to post hear. There’s a rather notorious few individuals over there who just love to frequently bathe in and peddle quackery and bash anything remotely scientific. It usually comes peppered with the usual “big pharma” conspiracy nonsense or “western medicine doesn’t treat the cause” of illness (obviously true sometimes) cliche. One person in particular is a bottomless pit of logical fallacies. I thought this was quite funny in one sense but not funny for a potential newb reading it:
This was the quote being answered to: “Look how many people come to this forum being told they have MM only to find out they have MAV, for example”.
And the answer:
— Begin quote from ____
But even there, the “science” is flawed and incomplete.
“No, you don’t have the syndrome-without-known-cause-or-cure-called-Meniere’s, you have the syndrome-without-known-cause-or-cure-called-MAV. The symptoms are the same, but we manage them with different medications, that, like Meniere’s medications, do not address the root cause. Since we see differences in the brain amongst those with migraine’s, we make the unproven assumption that they were born this way (“migraine brain”) and that is why we can’t address the cause.”
I am not disputing the helpfulness of migraine meds. It’s the unproven assumptions I see as flawed and incomplete, but worshipped as gospel truth at mvertigo. And because of those assumptions, those who make those assumptions immediately stop the process of trying to peel away different medical causes to 1) immediately help those specific subgroups and 2) see what’s left–and why.
I think there’s a problem with making assumptions at the beginning of a study and then going back to prove them after the desired results are obtained. It is possible under those circumstances to “prove” something that isn’t entirely true. I don’t mean that there is intent of dishonesty, but that there is an inherent flaw to the process.
— End quote
:lol:
So, we have a new label folks – the worshippers of migraine meds! I might set up a shrine in my room today, pile all of the various meds I’ve had a crack at over the years in the corner (I could open a pharmacy I think but most are probably past the use by date) and start gesticulating to the pile of little boxes. Maybe swing some beads around for added effect :lol: I’d happily worship this low dose of Paxil and valium that has enabled a life again.
Anyway, jokes aside, it’s the same old (massive yawn) schtick again with someone certain there’s some underlying mysterious cause that migraine medicines cannot fix or do not address. It goes without saying that any other possible medical problem such as a thyroid issue for example or some deficiency be ruled out in attacking a migraine-based problem because they can be significant triggers. We always say here to first remove the triggers first and then add the meds if trigger avoidance doesn’t clean up the mess. The third paragraph in the response above shows a great degree of ignorance and non-understanding in the scientific method. I’m convinced that no matter how many times you explain it to some people they will just never (refuse?) get it. It really becomes a problem when they spread their nonsense which may ultimately cause newbies to suffer with these symptoms needlessly or worse have some sort of destructive ear procedure thinking they have MM when it could be migraine-based.
Scott
). Over and over we talk about lifestyle modifications such as diet, sleep and exercise as a first line defence. Given that so many migraineurs are incredibly med sensitive/intolerant (including, at the higher end of the spectrum, Scott) to suggest that meds are worshipped as gospel is just wonky, ‘hair shirt’ thinking.