Here is the thing about vitamins, folk remedies and such: I'd feel more secure about sneering them away if we had more scientific evidence for the conventional alternatives.

Yes I know that antibiotics and vaccines and large parts of medical science have been proven to work scientifically. But large amounts of what doctors do is based clinical experience, or plain old medical folklore with no more scientific testing than exist for vitamins. For example, as of 2005 there were zero peer-reviewed scientific studies that showed that weight bearing exercise helps osteoporosis. It makes sense that it would, but when I last checked nobody had actually verified it scientifically. Now maybe someone has done some clinical studies in the last six years. But because so much medical knowledge has never been scientifically verified, I would be no surprised if not bothered to double check something where the consensus remains do strong.

Now it is not unreasonable for doctors to base their treatments on what amounts to craft lore where no scientific tests have been done. But equally, in the absence of scientific evidence, it is not unreasonable to try and help yourself with the same kind of knowledge that is based on experience not blessed by medical trade unions. That does not mean we should accept stuff that has actually been discredited homeopathy, anti-vax, that sort of thing.

Bottom line: science is a labor intensive process. There are lots of areas of human knowledge where we don't have all the scientific knowledge we should, areas where scientific knowledge is possible and would be valuable, but where we in the human race have just not put in our time. Where the science has not been done, but empirical evidence exists, then we have to make decisions the best we can - including sometimes trying stuff and seeing if it works, even if in the absence of scientific studies there are all sorts of ways that type of "test" can yield false positive.

Typo Boy, that's interesting about the difference between what hasn't been conclusively proven, and what has definitely been shown not to work.

Seaka, there have been studies done that show feverfew and magnesium help prevent migraines. The question becomes is the stuff in the bottles you can buy containing the same stuff and or amount that was in te study.

That's fascinating - thanks. I shall now attempt to find the studies, and work out what they were using exactly.

Thanks, smonster. It is, at least, crap that I should have seen coming!

For example, as of 2005 there were zero peer-reviewed scientific studies that showed that weight bearing exercise helps osteoporosis. It makes sense that it would, but when I last checked nobody had actually verified it scientifically.

This is not true - ten seconds on Google Scholar turned up the following:

Exercise and bone mineral density, PubMed 1995

A decrease in physical activity may lead to an increased loss of bone and an increase in the incidence of osteoporotic fractures. Studies have demonstrated increases in bone formation in animals and increases in bone mineral density in humans. Studies of animals show that bone has enhanced physical and mechanical properties following periods of increased stress. Strains which are high in rate and magnitude, and of abnormal distribution, but not necessarily long in duration, are best for inducing new bone formation, resulting in the strengthening of bone by increased density. Cross-sectional studies show that athletes, especially those who are strength-trained, have greater bone mineral densities than nonathletes, and that strength, muscle mass and maximal oxygen uptake correlate with bone density.

Bone mineral density and long term exercise. An overview of cross-sectional athlete studies., PubMed 1993

In young adults, the highest BMC and BMD values have been found in strength and power-trained athletes, while endurance activities such as long distance running and swimming seem less effective with regard to peak bone density. Intensive endurance training may even be associated with amenorrhoea and decreased trabecular bone density in young females. However, after menopause female athletes show greater bone mass indicating that they do not share the accelerated decline in BMC observed in a nonathletic population.

Osteoporosis in anorexia nervosa: The influence of peak bone density, bone loss, oral contraceptive use, and exercise, Journal of Bone & Mineral Research 1992 (The abstract for this one is too technical to quote an excerpt, but you can visit the link yourself.)

[eta: Those were just the first three I clicked through - there were over ten pages of results for "bone density exercise"]

Thanks for the thoughts for Victor. Turns out there's a 9-point scale for determining whether an animal is over, under, or the right weight. 1 is, basically, Auschwitz survivor (vet actually used that example) and 9 is, well, the opposite. When Victor was admitted, he was a 1 to 2. With problems in his kidneys, spleen, liver, lungs, eyes, nervous system, and one other organ that I've forgotten.

We visited him again late yesterday afternoon. His eyes were starting to look a little better (less sign of iritis, and less jaundiced (which is a good sign for his liver)). He didn't want to be held, so I let him explore on the floor. He promptly peed on a scale. He even pooped a bit yesterday. And I accidentally stepped on his tail trying to keep him from trying to escape the isolation ward.

He's still a "puzzle case," at least until test results start coming in (probably tomorrow). But the vets are talking about three possible diagnoses. The "best" is a systemic infection, which can be cured with lots of antibiotics and rest and all that. Lymphoma is in the middle because it can at least be treated (like any other cancer). The scary possiblity is FIP (feline infectious peritonitis). If it's FIP, we're probably going to have to put him to sleep immediately.

From Victor's reaction to the antibiotics, I'm guessing it probably isn't lymphoma. But it could still be FIP.

Hubs chewed me out for stepping on Victor's tail, then chewed me out for letting negative energy into the room when I started feeling guilty. I had to leave the room for 5 or 10 minutes until I stopped crying.

And what makes it worse is, we could have seen it sooner. I feel completely unfit to care for our cats.

And what makes it worse is, we could have seen it sooner. I feel completely unfit to care for our cats.

FredPete, if you aren't fit to care for cats, NO ONE ON THE PLANET EARTH is fit to care for cats.

Now it is not unreasonable for doctors to base their treatments on what amounts to craft lore where no scientific tests have been done.

How are you defining "scientific tests"? Prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover studies?

I ask, because there are a heck of a lot more bases for selecting a medical treatment than ONLY (1) "craft lore" or (2) prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover studies.

For instance, population-based observational studies, even though they run the risk of confounders, are still valid and useful studies that can add to the body of scientific evidence supporting (or decrying) a medical treatment.

For me, the various vitamins and supplements I take have been specifically prescribed by my naturopath MD. I trust her research.

FredPete, if you aren't fit to care for cats, NO ONE ON THE PLANET EARTH is fit to care for cats.

This needed repeating. FredPete, you are so, so good with cats.

And because it needed a separate post:

Happy Birthday, Bonny!

Happy Birthday, Bonny!

Happy Birthday, bonny!!

{{Fred Pete}} Honey, you absolutely deserve to take care of cats. No question about that.