Just diagnosed with P
Question:
<snip> >I would like to see it come to > some sort of conclusion, either here in the newsgroup or in real life.
Me too. I’ll tell you what. I’m due for a road trip. I think we are within about 3 hours drive. Keyboards are too slow and a face to face would likely do a lot of good. If you are willing, I will meet with you to hash this out. I will drop the subject completely, and will not respond to any of your posts, directly or indirectly with any negative comments, until after we have had a chance to really work out our differences. I think my scheduling may allow me to meet with you more than once, so we would really have an excellent opportunity to work the differences. I’ll email my cell number to you. Call me if you feel there is, at least something, that may be agreeable about my proposal, or if you have some counter-proposal. — no spam twice) The original (and current) charter for this newsgroup can be found at http://users.bestweb.net/~trapperj/pgroup/charter_a.s.s-d.p/charter.txt
Response:
Trapper: Well, you’ve done a tremendous amount of pedantic nit-picking with your latest attempt at a response. Good grief, you’re *guessing* the meaning of words when refuting my defintions?!? How wonderfully lazy of you. Here: corroborate (vt.) 1. orig, to strengthen 2. to make the validity of more certain; confirm; bolster; support - Webster’s New World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition So you see, the "piles of evidence" I mentioned in my defintion ARE corroboration. Repeated testing *makes* a hypothesis corroborated. Corroboration *is* the key to the defintion, but since you didn’t bother to look up the word, and instead *guessed* what it means, you spent paragraphs taking me to task for a lapse I did NOT have. Look to yourself for a lack of rigor. And your crack about me replying to every statement you made is obviously wrong. Just more of your hyperbole. And then we have: >…I think it is fair >to assume that you mean ‘absence of contrary evidence’ when you say >opposite. I don’t see another fair interpretation based on what you wrote in >your first post.
And now we’re back to your *bizarre* definition of "fair." The more you use that word, the more it appears that, to you, "fair" means "whatever Trapper happens to like at the time." Case in point: when I mentioned the opposite of "proof" in my defintion of "fact," I was referring to the word I used, "disprove." It would have been much more "fair" of you to see that was what I meant, instead of what you assumed, which you appear to have assumed for the purpose of ridiculing me further. Had you done the correct thing, no assumptions would have been necessary in the first place. And again, *you* brought up the concepts of ‘facts’ and ‘proof’ when you questioned Kim’s use of the word ‘is’, and mentioned a flat earth, so my comments were completely relevant to the post(s) in question. And you still don’t get the concept that what "science" is changes over time, and what passed for "scientific validation" way back when gave the flat-earth idea all the trappings of being a fact _at_that_time_. Of course, your lack of an answer to my direct question, "I guess I should have considered that to be off-topic/digression/nonsense?" might imply agreement, in which case, *you* are the one who began this particular off-topic, nonsense digression. If your lack of an answer implies DISagreement, then your talk about how it isn’t relevant is a lie. If your lack of an answer should imply something other than agreement or disagreement, you’ll have to clue me in as to what it means. Which is it? You then go on to talk about the lack of relevance of searches I did to provide evidence that psoriasis has a basis in genetics, which is the very subject you were talking about with Kim. Your definition of "relevant" is apparently flawed, along with "fair" and "corroboration." And then, ‘comfort’. Either my sarcasm was completely missed, or you were being sarcastic in return. Either way, you again state that you’ve decided to discard what I would feel to be the more important parts of my post, in favor of this overblown, insulting reply, in which you do little but feed the flames. But to move on, of *course* I believe that you are lying to me when you say you respect my opinion. If you believe that you do, then you’re probably lying to yourself, as well, since it is absolutely clear from your posts that you do not. Every one of your replies to me since your tremendous melt-down in the cannabis thread has been insulting and dismissive in some way, shape or form. That you are blind to this is stunning. But, I suspect you are not blind, and are instead deliberately attempting to piss me off. I expect you to either support your slander in the cannabis thread, or retract it. (Oh, now wait a second, let’s be rigorous: it’s not slander, which is spoken, but libel, which is written.) Either way, it would cease to be libel. That’s as far as that thread *needs* to continue. Instead, *YOU* have spent a lot of time ducking the issue, and have now written your own pedantic digression. Then… >Your logic has to be questioned as well. In your defense of on/off topic, >you state that you feel it is important for people to know something (basic >understanding of science.) …
You should have stopped right there and given some thought to what you were writing. The fact that I wrote "I feel" meant I wasn’t making a logical argument, but an emotional one, so your attempt to show that my logic is questionable based on those statements is nothing but a straw man, thus demonstrating your own logical ineptitude more than any I might have. You’re also ignoring the larger context. Every thread in this group is a thread in a psoriasis newsgroup. Every post that’s written here is a post in a thread in a psoriasis newsgroup. Statements in such posts can be on-topic within the post, the thread, *or* within the group as a whole. I said before that I’m sure you’re aware of how newsgroup discussions generally work, and how threads generally drift, but you’ve apparently decided to ignore what goes on in practice in favor of some idealized hypothetical unmoderated newsgroup which doesn’t exist anywhere. Your toilet analogy is simply insulting, and to follow it up, you quote the Webster’s defintion of ‘context’ at me. Bravo. This further supports the idea that you are willfully ignoring that definition in favor of your own, personal definition(s) when it suits you, in order to further abuse me. Your harping on your use of the phrase "I have not noticed" is nothing more than more context destruction from you. The point was, you *changed* the meaning of my words through selective cut-and-snip rearrangement. Your attempts to compare what you did with what happens regularly in scientific papers is laughable, since you *did* change my meaning, in order to dismiss what I’d written as not being worthy of a response at all (except to sniff at it derisively and tell me you weren’t going to reply). Then we come to: >This demonstrates without adding the distraction of a baseless implicit >accusation of an incestuous relationship.
Oh, please. There was no implicit accusation – that example was chosen specifically because it was so ludicrous that anyone could see it was patently false. >The fact that it is not nice and is slanderous…
Except it’s not slanderous, nor even libelous. I did not present that "baseless implicit" meaning as fact, only that you’d used all those words before, *and* that I was purposefully taking them out of context and re-arranging them to make a point. But, it’s now clear that you’ve completely ignored that context in order to become indignant. Why am I not surprised? >…is not something that should not be ignored, so it forces the >discussion into the arena of defending against the question, "When did you >stop beating your wife?"…
Not at all, since I wasn’t expecting a response to the truly baseless, implicit meaning. You, on the other hand, changed my meaning in order to treat my post as if it were a used Kleenex. >…You were guilty of introducing a similar >distraction in the pot thread, trying to equate heroin with pot…
This is another example of what you think is "fair." You *still* don’t understand *why* I brought up heroin, no matter how many times I explained myself, but you *think* you do, and run with that incorrect assumption despite the things I’ve said which should, at the very *least*, make you stop and say, "well, I just don’t get you, then." I "equated" heroin with pot in ONLY one regard: their apparent inability to make psoriasis worse. This isn’t a difficult concept, but you are still misinterpreting what I wrote by giving it a meaning I repeatedly and consistently denied ever intending. You called doing that to other of my statements "fair" back then, but it wasn’t fair then, it still is not fair now, and it won’t ever be fair in the future. >…You got your butt kicked pretty good there, but off-hand, I don’t recall as to >whether or not you ever acknowledged how inappropriate it was to introduce >such a distracting example to the thread.
I only got my butt kicked by prejudice. My real meaning was ignored, even to the end (sorry, Cruiser). And gee, I don’t recall you having ever having acknowledged how inappropriate your libel of me was, either. You’re pretty big on telling other people when you think they should apologize, but tend to fail to apologize for your own crappy behaviour. Another example of "those who can’t do, teach," I suppose. >And again, one has to question the reliability of your writings when you >demonstrate that you can boldly and blatantly, grossly mis-state the >definition for fact, compound the mis-stated definition for fact…
And here comes the libel again, and then some more. Your claim that I "boldly and blatantly" (and "grossly"!) misstated the definition of ‘fact’ is based on what? Your GUESS as to the definition of the word ‘corroborate’, and a nit-pick that I failed to explicitly include that word in my first defintion. What a crock. >…fall victim to the same logical fallacies that you seem to have a >propensity for finding in the writings of others…
You keep saying this, but you have failed to provide a single example of this where your interpretation of my meaning and what I actually meant agree. Such agreement is (of course) necessary, since I won’t admit (and would have no reason to) that I’ve commited logical fallacies (or have been less than accurate without correcting myself) based on your lack of understanding of my statements. Repetition of a falsehood does not make it more true. Repetition of libel is actionable. >…bastardize the meaning of context…
[Snort] Pot-kettle-black. >…place the quoting that is standard in scientific papers in the shadow >of out-of-context re-arranged quoting…
Are you now seriously equating your own … read more »
Response:
Hello Dave. Let me begin with your first response by pointing out that you began with a definition of fact that is incorrect. This point is central to interpreting your post, because it sets up the context in which all else follows. It was incorrect because you left out the part of the definition about corroboration, leaving the rest to be read in more than one way. Compare what you wrote in your first response with the textbook quote you provided in your second response:
"Scientifically, when the evidence piles up, and repeated testing fails to disprove the hypothesis, then it is unreasonable to believe that things are other than they appear, and a ‘fact’ is born." The reference you provided in the second post: A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists, that it would be perverse or irrational to deny it. Now YOU might know what you meant in the first post, but what you wrote was factually (no pun intended) incorrect. Corroboration is key to the definition. And you did not include the text book definition in your first post, so there was no way for me (or anyone else) to know that what you meant is something other than what you wrote. So the rest of what you wrote has to be interpreted as written by someone with a definition of fact different from the rest of the world. Hence, it is fair to ask whether we are using the Davew definition, or the global definition. You then follow the incorrect definition by using it in reference to what was a common belief (flat world.) I don’t recall ever having heard an argument where there was anything resembling a scientific validation of flat world, and I won’t accept that particular claim without references, AND that particular argument is a digression as it entirely avoids the relevance of my referring to ‘flat world’ in the first place. But your next statement, in reference to scientific proof, was really interesting: "There’s no such thing, really." But only in your second post do you elaborate that although corroborate and proved are essentially the same, they are not synonyms, and that you were referring to that distinction. In light of your original definition of fact, I could not assume you were making that distinction. And although I would agree with the next statement, " You can’t … mathematical theories," in a rigorous context, how can I take it as the rigorous context when you are not being rigorous in your definition of fact. Further, I can not see where you applied rigor to any part of your first post except in responding to every statement I made with something. But let’s move on to your next sentence, "I provided a working definition of a scientific ‘fact’, above, and you’ll note the lack of the word ‘proof’ or anything like it – only it’s opposite." Based on the text book quote you provided in your second post, it would seem that this sentence is total BS. The reference says that corroborated and proved are essentially the same. It also shows that corroborated is part of the definition. You state a definition of fact that makes no reference to corroboration, and then compound it by noting that you make no reference to proof or anything like it (I would think that corroboration is something like proof) and further state, "… only it’s opposite." I think it is fair to assume that you mean ‘absence of contrary evidence’ when you say opposite. I don’t see another fair interpretation based on what you wrote in your first post. So I still maintain that "…incredibly ridiculous and inaccurate…" is a fair characterization of some of the statements you made in your first response. Nonsense is another fair characterization. You go on to talk about some searches, as if they have relevance, then qualify by referring to them as dirty, then define why they are called dirty. We could easily have multiple threads on searching as it relates to psoriasis. And frankly, I think it is a really good topic. There might even be a really good librarian among us who could take the lead on such a discussion. But I digress (if you get my meaning.) Finally, you get to the point (people are genetically predisposed) giving a reference that states as much. Now in light of the fact that you obviously didn’t realize that you wrote something other than what you meant in the first post, I am comfortable in discarding most of your comments from your second response. But not all of them. Also, in light of your clarifications in your second response, I am comfortable in with-drawing the comment that you went off-topic in the first response. Since you expressed that my comfort is a high priority to you, I thought I would mention it. But to move on, I do respect your opinions, and I still think you can learn and am quite aware of the fact that you feel I am less than truthful on these points. So I find it totally bizarre that you would expect me to continue the thread of a month or so ago. If one person (that would be you) has no trust or faith in anything the other person (that would be me) has to say, what is the sense? There is no common ground from which things without absolutes, can be settled. And even those things for which there would ordinarily be common ground, tend to be disregarded and deteriorate into pedantic digressions. I would characterize both of your responses to me that way. In the first response, you apparently decided that I was either incorrect or that there was not enough rigor in the references to "fact" and "scientific proof." Again, the question was how did we get from psoriasis is believed to be genetic … to psoriasis is genetic… so I don’t see the relevance of defining fact at all. It is the statement that changed (psoriasis is…) not the definitions. Even if you had gotten the definitions right the first time, introducing them into the discussion distracts from the real issue as there is an implied relevance when in fact, there is no relevance. Your logic has to be questioned as well. In your defense of on/off topic, you state that you feel it is important for people to know something (basic understanding of science.) You feel that way because a lot of money is spent on alternative medicines, with psoriasis being number one at some point in time. Therefore this can’t be an off topic digression. I can’t say that your argument makes sense to me, as you just defined ‘anything you feel as vital’ as being on topic in any thread. That clearly would include your toilet not flushing properly if you feel it is vital for people to know that ( which is not to say that the topic has no business in this newsgroup as it could be fair to discuss your toilet problems for a number of reasons, but not in this thread) And context mangling can be interesting as well. It seems that your personal preference is to define context as being sentences that are physically VERY close to each other, and disallow any other part of a post as out-of-context. Your preference includes one of the valid definitions of context, but excludes the other valid definition of context (" the whole discourse." See Webster’s for details.) That said, let’s get to – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I said, "What I gathered from the links at PFAQ was …" >You said, "You haven’t looked very hard." > Nice attempt to destory the context, there, Trapper (isn’t that something > you’ve gone on and on about in the past – making sure things were in the proper > context?). I did not say "you haven’t looked very hard" in response to your > "gathered" comment, I said it in response to the following: > I have not noticed the word "is" in the scientific literature. > Only words such as "likely," or "strongly suggests." > The above implies you’ve read the scientific literature. Is your own, personal > defintion of "scientific literature" synonymous with "the links available at > PFAQ"? I hope not.
Obviously, I was speaking to the larger context. Obviously, you choose to either deny or ignore the larger context. I think it is pretty clear from my post (yea, my context is bigger) that I did not look very hard. The important indicator being the reference to the PFAQ links, and secondarily the phrase, "I have not noticed…" One could argue that had I meant that I had taken a good look at the literature, I certainly would have made a substantially stronger statement, replacing, "I have not noticed" with "I did not find." One could further argue that your conclusion, "The above implies you’ve read the scientific literature" forces one to ask your meanings of the word "read," and "the scientific literature." An illustrative scenario seems to be in order. Person1: I lost my keys in the living room. Did you see them? Person2: I have not noticed them. I think it would be fair to conclude that person 2 had been in the living room, but did not search for the keys. But we can not conclude, for example, that person 2 could identify the color of the couch. We don’t know how much time person2 spent in the living-room, or even why he was there in the first place. Now what fair conclusions can you draw about my statement, "I have not noticed…" I think it is obvious to you, that I have not read all the scientific literature in the world. Therefore, I am referring to some subset. Clearly, anyone who is a regular reader of this newsgroup has read scientific literature. You, Randall, Events, Kim, and a host of others reproduce a substantial amount of scientific literature here, all the time. So it is equally obvious that the subset could be as small as what has been posted in this newsgroup, or even less than that. Now the question is, what do I consume from these posts? Do I actually read them or just glance at them? Or do I spend part of everyday at the UNC medical Library? All I said is, "I have not noticed…" What, exactly, are you concluding that allows you to justify the claim, "Nice attempt to destory the … read more »
Response:
>I believe that justifies Kim’s statement, or at least it makes me >comfortable that her statement is qualified.
Well, your comfort level is my top priority. >I consider the rest of this post as off-topic/digression/nonsense >and was tempted not to address it.
I don’t understand why. You are the one who brought up the word "fact." You mentioned proof. I guess I should have considered that to be off-topic/digression/nonsense? Of course not, because you brought them up in order to make a point. I did the same, but I see I’m not worthy of the same courtesy. This, among other things, leads me to believe your feel-good talk a month ago, about respect for my opinions and my ability to learn, was nothing but a lie. Your posts both before and after indicate as much, also. Another reason they’re not off-topic or digressions is that psoriasis was, for at least one year, #1 on the list of diseases for which people spent money on alternative medicines. As such, I feel it is vital for everyone of us to have a basic understanding of science, especially when it comes to what’s a ‘fact’ and what isn’t, in the medical world. People who talk about "scientifically proven" treatments are typically quacks, and it’s important to know why. >But on second thought, some people may not realize that you made >some incredibly ridiculous and inaccurate statements.
In my opinion, most people (including you) will not realize that you are making incredibly ridiculous and inaccurate statements in reply. >First, you play with the word "fact" in a nonsense fashion by >defining fact as the common belief.
Rubbish. First, I made sure to emphasize that I was talking about scientific facts, and not facts as the general populace understands the word ("absolutely true"). Then, the scientific definition of the word "fact" has little to do with "common beliefs," and everything to do with evidence, testing, and *scientific* beliefs. Compare: "Common belief" fact: the sky is blue. Scienfitic fact: well, there’s this thing called "Rayleigh scattering" which blah, blah, blah . . . when it’s "daytime." "Daytime" is defined as blah, blah, blah . . . and by "atmosphere" I mean blah, blah, blah . . . and so the sky appears to be blue. The irony (or hypocrisy, take your pick) here is that you go on to talk about what the "generally accepted" defintion of the word ‘fact’ is, which is nothing more than a plea to the "common beliefs." And those beliefs, in regard to what is and isn’t a ‘fact’ within the realm of science, are often dead *wrong*. The generally accepted scientific definition of the word "fact" (and YOU brought the adjective ’scientific’ into the discussion, not I) is as I stated it. That you are unaware of this is the reason I gave you the definition. Here’s a restatement of it, from the "Introduction to Scientific Thinking" section of a biology course: A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists, that it would be perverse or irrational to deny it.[1] You’ll note the lack of relying on "common beliefs" again. Oh, by the way, it’s knee-slappingly funny that you attribute Clinton-like aspects to me, when it’s YOU who decided to focus the discussion on the word ‘is’. >…then there isn’t much you can say that one could consider >reliable.
Ah, more of this crap. Why don’t you take the time to support your previous slander of me, then we can move on to the implications of the above statement. You’re wasting the newsgroup’s time with more attacks like this. >One always has to maintain whether you are using the davew definition, >or the global definition.
Not at all. One always has to realize that I have and will support my definitions and assertions with references (either proactively or when asked), but you fail to, and instead beg us to believe your statements. You fail to back up almost everything you spew as ‘true’, and when called on something, you fail to respond. I predict you will fail to respond to what I would consider to be the most important parts of this post. >Whether something is a fact, or not, is independent of the common belief.
Baloney, unless you are speaking of some sort of absolutism here, which science wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole. In which case, we’re talking about two different kinds of facts. And there are plenty of philosophers who would disagree with you, also. What is known as ‘fact’ at any given point in time is based solely on the assumptions, evidence, and testing done by the people (hopefully ‘experts’) who believe those ‘facts’ to be true. Some of the things we think of as ‘facts’ now may very well be shown to be rubbish in the near or far future. (Many of the things alternative medicine promoters think are facts are known to be wrong already.) The point is, there’s no way to tell, with 100% certainty, that any given ‘fact’ we have now is the Absolute Truth – and the Absolute Truth (with capitals) is the only thing that is utterly independent of human beliefs, common or otherwise. We *think* we know. We’re even pretty darn sure we know in some cases. But there always exists the possibility that we are wrong, either because our assumptions are wrong, our measurements are wrong, or we allowed ourselves to bias the results. The scientific method does not allow us direct access to the Absolute Truth, but it can get us very close. No other system of gathering knowledge that we know now can convincingly make such a claim, but true scientists would never claim they’ve got a lock on the truth, either. And in medical issues (as opposed to physics), such as psoriasis, the possibility we’re wrong is much larger, simply because there are moral and ethical limits to what we can test. Engineering a virus to modify certain human genes (systemically) which are suspected of causing psoriasis would be a good test of whether or not those genes were the correct ones, but no rational researcher today would even dream of actually doing this to a living human being. The risks are far too large and/or unknown. >F=ma is a good working definition, and is often mistaken >for fact. But you won’t hit the broad side of a moon with it…
I have no idea how this follows from what you’ve already said. >…(funny how flat earth theory fails on large scale >navigation as well.)
Funny how by the point in time in which large-scale navigation was regularly occurring, the ‘fact’ of a flat earth was already debunked. Isn’t it funny how the very definition of the word ’science’ has changed over time? Given your idea of what’s "fair" and what isn’t, you probably believe that it is "fair" to judge past knowledge based on today’s beliefs, so you hopefully won’t be at all surprised when, 1,000 years from now, what you believe to be true is generally derided as "primitive thinking." The applicable ‘experts’ of the time once agreed that the world was, indeed, flat. World leaders made decisions with this ‘fact’ as an assumption. They may have been wrong, but things are NO DIFFERENT today in terms of who knows what, and what is done with it. That we believe we’ve got a better idea of how to go about gathering knowledge is largely irrelevant to what that knowledge is and what’s done with it. >You then say there is no such thing as scientific proof. Again, >you must have your own definition. Although "proof" does not >carry the same standard as "fact," there is a such thing as >scientific proof. Really.
"Really." Wow, I am flabbergasted that I missed that, and you corrected me so well by saying "Really"! Of course, you are begging me to believe you once again. Here’s a larger chunk of that "Introduction to Scientific Thinking" page: Scientists never claim that a hypothesis is "proved" except in a popular sense. Scientists prefer to use the word "corroborated" rather than "proved," but the meaning is essentially the same. A highly corroborated hypothesis becomes something else in addition to reliable knowledge–it becomes a scientific fact. A scientific fact is a highly corroborated hypothesis that has been so repeatedly tested and for which so much reliable evidence exists, that it would be perverse or irrational to deny it. This type of reliable knowledge is the closest that humans can come to the "truth" about the universe.[1] "Essentially the same" says you’re partially correct, but they’re not synonyms, except in the "popular sense", and this is the problem: the "common belief" is that the word ‘proved’ is used in the same sense, all the time, by scientists and laymen alike. And you still failed to see my point, but instead decide to just ramble on about how I’m wrong, without any supporting evidence other than your own say-so. Bravo. I’ll remind you again, *you* brought the word ’scientific’ into conjunction with the word ‘proof’, and you should really understand the full meaning of that adjective-noun pair before you use it. "The earth is flat" was once a "scientific fact," given the standards of both ’science’ and ‘proof’ at the time. >And it is a fairly high standard, not like proof used by the >courts and car dealers and scammers. I realize that the word >proof is often confused with fact, and U.S. juries are >constantly reminded that the proof required for conviction >is beyond reasonable doubt, and not the shadow of a doubt. >Thankfully, the courts don’t participate in science too often.
The above, is, of course, just muddying the waters, not making anything clearer. >The rest seems to be a restatement of what I had already said with >the tone/intent being open to multiple interpretations.
Should I explain? Would that help? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I said, "…a few million possibilities. I know, a gross >simplification…" >You said, "perhaps a dozen loci (maybe as many as 20), which >corresponds to perhaps 300 genes, which
… read more »
Response:
I did find the answer buried in your response Dave. It was: > "Studies have also indicated that a person is born > genetically predisposed to psoriasis, and multiple > genes have been discovered over the past 5 years > confirming this fact." > http://www.skincarephysicians.com/psoriasisnet/mythsANDfacts.htm#causes
I believe that justifies Kim’s statement, or at least it makes me comfortable that her statement is qualified. I consider the rest of this post as off-topic/digression/nonsense and was tempted not to address it. But on second thought, some people may not realize that you made some incredibly ridiculous and inaccurate statements. First, you play with the word "fact" in a nonsense fashion by defining fact as the common belief. This sounds like the Clintonion "is." If you redefine the word "fact" to something other than the generally accepted definition, then there isn’t much you can say that one could consider reliable. One always has to maintain whether you are using the davew definition, or the global definition. Whether something is a fact, or not, is independent of the common belief. F=ma is a good working definition, and is often mistaken for fact. But you won’t hit the broad side of a moon with it (funny how flat earth theory fails on large scale navigation as well.) You then say there is no such thing as scientific proof. Again, you must have your own definition. Although "proof" does not carry the same standard as "fact," there is a such thing as scientific proof. Really. And it is a fairly high standard, not like proof used by the courts and car dealers and scammers. I realize that the word proof is often confused with fact, and U.S. juries are constantly reminded that the proof required for conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, and not the shadow of a doubt. Thankfully, the courts don’t participate in science too often. The rest seems to be a restatement of what I had already said with the tone/intent being open to multiple interpretations. I said, "…a few million possibilities. I know, a gross simplification…" You said, "perhaps a dozen loci (maybe as many as 20), which corresponds to perhaps 300 genes, which corresponds to perhaps 10 million DNA base pairs (on average)." I said, "What I gathered from the links at PFAQ was …" You said, "You haven’t looked very hard." I said, ".. there is a lot of evidence …" You said, "… there is, indeed, a lot of evidence …" etc. — no spam twice) The original (and current) charter for this newsgroup can be found at http://users.bestweb.net/~trapperj/pgroup/charter_a.s.s-d.p/charter.txt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->You are stating as fact that there "is" a genetic component. > Scientifically, when the evidence piles up, and repeated testing fails to > disprove the hypothesis, then it is unreasonable to believe that things are > other than they appear, and a ‘fact’ is born. >By big news, I mean that some lab or study has scientifically proven, and a >second lab or study has verified the first study. >At one point in history, it was "clearly generally accepted within the >literature among …related professional experts …" the earth was >flat. > At that point in history (in Europe, primarily) the ‘fact’ was that the earth > was, indeed, flat. >Not the same thing as scientific proof. > There’s no such thing, really. You can’t ‘prove’ medical or physical or other > scientific ‘facts’ like you can prove logical or mathematical theories. I > provided a working definition of a scientific ‘fact’, above, and you’ll note > the lack of the word ‘proof’ or anything like it – only it’s opposite. >I have not noticed the word "is" in the scientific literature. Only words >such as "likely," or "strongly suggests." > You haven’t looked very hard. While the pile of evidence isn’t quite as high > as for the earth being round, there is, indeed, a lot of evidence that > psoriasis *is* based in genetics. > A quick-and-dirty Medline search, such as > http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=psoriasis+genetic > generates a list of 477 papers going back to 1967 which mention both the words > ‘psoriasis’ and ‘genetic’. I’m sure that searches using a different > combination of keywords, such as ‘gene’ or ‘genes’ or ‘genetics’ or > ‘chromosome’ (etc) will turn up even more that the quick-and-dirty search > misses. > But not all these articles will be discussing the genetics of psoriasis (that’s > why the search is ‘dirty’). However, looking way back to where there aren’t > many abstracts, the title "Attempt to explain the genetic basis of psoriasis" > certainly is provocative. It’s from a 1973 paper: > http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=73190234 > So, the evidence has probably been piling up for at least 29 years, which is > impressive, since Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA only 20 years > before then. >> This is based upon the long known >> heritablility, actual identification of a number of genetic markers >I certainly missed this. What I gathered from the links at PFAQ was that if >there is, then it must be in this set (something akin to we narrowed it down >to a few million possibilities. I know, a gross simplification, but you get >the point, I’m sure. > Well, PFAQ certainly doesn’t present itself as the be-all-end-all of psoriasis > information. It’s a starting place. But that’s beside the point. > The ’set’ comprises perhaps a dozen loci (maybe as many as 20), which > corresponds to perhaps 300 genes, which corresponds to perhaps 10 million DNA > base pairs (on average). Some of the loci even have names: PSORS1 (‘PSORS’ > stands for "psoriasis susceptibility") through PSORS5, for example. The number > of base pairs only really matters if you’re looking for a single polymorphism > as a cause, which, in the case of psoriasis, is unlikely (not that > single-base-pair-polymorphism searches aren’t being used in settling the > remaining psoriasis/genetics questions, though). >And yes, I understand that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is >worthwhile to spend a really big sum of money to hunt for genetic markers, >but as best I can tell, none have been found so far. I did follow your PFAQ >links and I don’t see any statements using the word "is" the way you do. > One of the links on PFAQ is http://www.pinch.com/skin/ PFAQ says, in part, > "The Skin Page also includes an enormously useful set of > links for searching places ranging from United States > government resources to the Merck Medical Dictionary to > newsgroups via Google." > This includes the Medline search. One can find a bunch of articles with > Medline in which markers have been found. Like this one: > http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=21864073 > which says, in part, > "PSORS1, near HLA-C, is the major genetic determinant > of psoriasis." >This is not to say that I don’t believe it myself, in fact, I do. But I >simply find no evidence that a research professional in the field is willing >to say "is," so unless I missed something, and I certainly may have missed >something, I think current evidence does not support "is," making it >inappropriate for you to do so, both in regular posts and your PFAQ. > Here’s another use of ‘is’: > "Accumulating evidence indicates that psoriasis is a > multifactorial disorder caused by the concerted action > of multiple disease genes in a single individual, > triggered by environmental factors." > http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=21565782 > And one from PsoriasisNet (from the American Academy of Dermatology): > "Studies have also indicated that a person is born > genetically predisposed to psoriasis, and multiple > genes have been discovered over the past 5 years > confirming this fact." > http://www.skincarephysicians.com/psoriasisnet/mythsANDfacts.htm#causes > Judging from the few dozen abstracts I read, I’d have to say that it is > unreasonable to think that psoriasis is not associated with genetic > abnormalities in the vast majority of cases. (If it were reasonable, we’d > still see papers which ask the question of whether or not there are *any* genes > in common among psoriatics, and tons of family studies – those studies have > mostly been done, however, and the results accepted.) Also, numerous > researchers are using a genetic basis for psoriasis as an assumption, and > failing to find that hypothesis challenged by their results. > Thus, the genetic basis of psoriasis would be called a ‘fact’ (as you say, "as > best I can tell"). > What’s not yet established as concretely is *which* genes are involved in any > particular case of psoriasis. But that’s just like saying, "we know the earth > is round, but we don’t know why," which was, indeed, the case at one point in > time. >Again, I do realize I could be wrong and I simply missed it somewhere along >the way, or simply mis-interpreted what I was reading (like that would be >new 
> No, not at all new. > – Dave W
– no spam twice) The original (and current) charter for this newsgroup can be found at http://users.bestweb.net/~trapperj/pgroup/charter_a.s.s-d.p/charter.txt
Response:
>You are stating as fact that there "is" a genetic component.
Scientifically, when the evidence piles up, and repeated testing fails to disprove the hypothesis, then it is unreasonable to believe that things are other than they appear, and a ‘fact’ is born. >By big news, I mean that some lab or study has scientifically proven, and a >second lab or study has verified the first study. >At one point in history, it was "clearly generally accepted within the >literature among …related professional experts …" the earth was >flat.
At that point in history (in Europe, primarily) the ‘fact’ was that the earth was, indeed, flat. >Not the same thing as scientific proof.
There’s no such thing, really. You can’t ‘prove’ medical or physical or other scientific ‘facts’ like you can prove logical or mathematical theories. I provided a working definition of a scientific ‘fact’, above, and you’ll note the lack of the word ‘proof’ or anything like it – only it’s opposite. >I have not noticed the word "is" in the scientific literature. Only words >such as "likely," or "strongly suggests."
You haven’t looked very hard. While the pile of evidence isn’t quite as high as for the earth being round, there is, indeed, a lot of evidence that psoriasis *is* based in genetics. A quick-and-dirty Medline search, such as http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=psoriasis+genetic generates a list of 477 papers going back to 1967 which mention both the words ‘psoriasis’ and ‘genetic’. I’m sure that searches using a different combination of keywords, such as ‘gene’ or ‘genes’ or ‘genetics’ or ‘chromosome’ (etc) will turn up even more that the quick-and-dirty search misses. But not all these articles will be discussing the genetics of psoriasis (that’s why the search is ‘dirty’). However, looking way back to where there aren’t many abstracts, the title "Attempt to explain the genetic basis of psoriasis" certainly is provocative. It’s from a 1973 paper: http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=73190234 So, the evidence has probably been piling up for at least 29 years, which is impressive, since Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA only 20 years before then. > This is based upon the long known > heritablility, actual identification of a number of genetic markers >I certainly missed this. What I gathered from the links at PFAQ was that if >there is, then it must be in this set (something akin to we narrowed it down >to a few million possibilities. I know, a gross simplification, but you get >the point, I’m sure.
Well, PFAQ certainly doesn’t present itself as the be-all-end-all of psoriasis information. It’s a starting place. But that’s beside the point. The ’set’ comprises perhaps a dozen loci (maybe as many as 20), which corresponds to perhaps 300 genes, which corresponds to perhaps 10 million DNA base pairs (on average). Some of the loci even have names: PSORS1 (‘PSORS’ stands for "psoriasis susceptibility") through PSORS5, for example. The number of base pairs only really matters if you’re looking for a single polymorphism as a cause, which, in the case of psoriasis, is unlikely (not that single-base-pair-polymorphism searches aren’t being used in settling the remaining psoriasis/genetics questions, though). >And yes, I understand that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is >worthwhile to spend a really big sum of money to hunt for genetic markers, >but as best I can tell, none have been found so far. I did follow your PFAQ >links and I don’t see any statements using the word "is" the way you do.
One of the links on PFAQ is http://www.pinch.com/skin/ PFAQ says, in part, "The Skin Page also includes an enormously useful set of links for searching places ranging from United States government resources to the Merck Medical Dictionary to newsgroups via Google." This includes the Medline search. One can find a bunch of articles with Medline in which markers have been found. Like this one: http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=21864073 which says, in part, "PSORS1, near HLA-C, is the major genetic determinant of psoriasis." >This is not to say that I don’t believe it myself, in fact, I do. But I >simply find no evidence that a research professional in the field is willing >to say "is," so unless I missed something, and I certainly may have missed >something, I think current evidence does not support "is," making it >inappropriate for you to do so, both in regular posts and your PFAQ.
Here’s another use of ‘is’: "Accumulating evidence indicates that psoriasis is a multifactorial disorder caused by the concerted action of multiple disease genes in a single individual, triggered by environmental factors." http://www.pinch.com/skinny?medline=21565782 And one from PsoriasisNet (from the American Academy of Dermatology): "Studies have also indicated that a person is born genetically predisposed to psoriasis, and multiple genes have been discovered over the past 5 years confirming this fact." http://www.skincarephysicians.com/psoriasisnet/mythsANDfacts.htm#causes Judging from the few dozen abstracts I read, I’d have to say that it is unreasonable to think that psoriasis is not associated with genetic abnormalities in the vast majority of cases. (If it were reasonable, we’d still see papers which ask the question of whether or not there are *any* genes in common among psoriatics, and tons of family studies – those studies have mostly been done, however, and the results accepted.) Also, numerous researchers are using a genetic basis for psoriasis as an assumption, and failing to find that hypothesis challenged by their results. Thus, the genetic basis of psoriasis would be called a ‘fact’ (as you say, "as best I can tell"). What’s not yet established as concretely is *which* genes are involved in any particular case of psoriasis. But that’s just like saying, "we know the earth is round, but we don’t know why," which was, indeed, the case at one point in time. >Again, I do realize I could be wrong and I simply missed it somewhere along >the way, or simply mis-interpreted what I was reading (like that would be >new
No, not at all new. – Dave W. http://members.aol.com/psorsite/
Response:
> Since I don’t know what you mean by "big news", I don’t know what you > think you might have missed. My own words are certainly an > oversimplification of the situation but not a mis-statement. For > example, I’m not saying that the full genetic underpinnings have been > worked out. While "genetics are responsible" are your words, not mine, > and may carry connotations to some different from what I actually > said. For example, I am not trying to imply that it is solely genetic > or that all cases are inherited, which is how some people might take > your version.
The statement in question is "Nor will you necessarily always have it in the sense of showing symptoms. If you do have psoriasis, you will always have the genetic fault that underlies it but that’s not the same thing. Some people have the genetic fault and never even show symptoms -carriers, in other words. In one sense they ‘have’ psoriasis but I don’t think that’s what you mean." You are stating as fact that there "is" a genetic component. By big news, I mean that some lab or study has scientifically proven, and a second lab or study has verified the first study. At one point in history, it was "clearly generally accepted within the literature among …related professional experts …" the earth was flat. Not the same thing as scientific proof. I have not noticed the word "is" in the scientific literature. Only words such as "likely," or "strongly suggests." > Anyway, it is clearly generally accepted within the literature among > the medical and related professional experts that psoriasis has been > scientifically proven (perhaps you are looking for a different version > of proof) to appear as a result of a combination of genetic and > environmental factors (again, this is not the same as your words > "genetics are responsible"). > This is based upon the long known > heritablility, actual identification of a number of genetic markers
I certainly missed this. What I gathered from the links at PFAQ was that if there is, then it must be in this set (something akin to we narrowed it down to a few million possibilities. I know, a gross simplification, but you get the point, I’m sure. > (with it expected that more will be found and some interesting new > theories about how they may work), and a wide range of studies > -particularly those involving twins making clear that there are both > genetic and environmental elements. What is still up in the air is > working out the full details of the genetic underpinning and the full > disease mechanisms. There’s been a link to a cautious version of this > from the AAD ("support the finding") and some other related info from > places like the UMICH P Genetics lab in PFAQ for a while.
And yes, I understand that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is worthwhile to spend a really big sum of money to hunt for genetic markers, but as best I can tell, none have been found so far. I did follow your PFAQ links and I don’t see any statements using the word "is" the way you do. This is not to say that I don’t believe it myself, in fact, I do. But I simply find no evidence that a research professional in the field is willing to say "is," so unless I missed something, and I certainly may have missed something, I think current evidence does not support "is," making it inappropriate for you to do so, both in regular posts and your PFAQ. Again, I do realize I could be wrong and I simply missed it somewhere along the way, or simply mis-interpreted what I was reading (like that would be new — no spam twice) The original (and current) charter for this newsgroup can be found at http://users.bestweb.net/~trapperj/pgroup/charter_a.s.s-d.p/charter.txt
Response:
>Thanks Kim!
I’ve joined the NPF but what I love about here is the quick response. Thank you so much for replying so soon. The doctor/doctors I’m going to now have a psoriasis day care center. Unfortunately, it’s an hour and a half away. I tried the light therapy there but going three times, making arrangments for my two small children made it worse. In a few days I’m going to the doctor who’s name is on the building, the guy who started the day care center. The other doctor is also a derm. I just don’t know if he specializes in ps. The derm. I saw before these two told me I had mites. A draw back from living in a smaller area. I tried to get into Northwestern in Chicago. They are booked until August. So for now I’m going to continue with these. Only now I’m not going to pussyfoot around. I’ve researched, taken notes and will ask how long different meds. take. I don’t want my impatience to cause me to do something stupid. I don’t want to waste my time, or money on things that don’t work. As far as a support group. Once again, they don’t offer one in my area (local office is 20 minutes away). Only at the day care center. That is why I rely on this for my support..unless I get the nerve to start one on my own ; )
Response:
><snip> … If you do have psoriasis, you will always have the genetic > fault that underlies it but that’s not the same thing. Some people > have the genetic fault and never even show symptoms -carriers, in > other words. In one sense they ‘have’ psoriasis but I don’t think > that’s what you mean. >You state the genetics as fact. I understood that it was highly likely that >genetics are responsible, but that it has not yet been proven. Was this a >mis-statement, or did I miss the big news?
Since I don’t know what you mean by "big news", I don’t know what you think you might have missed. My own words are certainly an oversimplification of the situation but not a mis-statement. For example, I’m not saying that the full genetic underpinnings have been worked out. While "genetics are responsible" are your words, not mine, and may carry connotations to some different from what I actually said. For example, I am not trying to imply that it is solely genetic or that all cases are inherited, which is how some people might take your version. Anyway, it is clearly generally accepted within the literature among the medical and related professional experts that psoriasis has been scientifically proven (perhaps you are looking for a different version of proof) to appear as a result of a combination of genetic and environmental factors (again, this is not the same as your words "genetics are responsible"). This is based upon the long known heritablility, actual identification of a number of genetic markers (with it expected that more will be found and some interesting new theories about how they may work), and a wide range of studies -particularly those involving twins making clear that there are both genetic and environmental elements. What is still up in the air is working out the full details of the genetic underpinning and the full disease mechanisms. There’s been a link to a cautious version of this from the AAD ("support the finding") and some other related info from places like the UMICH P Genetics lab in PFAQ for a while. The Psoriasis Newsgroup Resource FAQ can be found at http://pfaq.cjb.net but will also be coming soon (twice a month) to a newsgroup near you…
Response:
<snip> … If you do have psoriasis, you will always have the genetic > fault that underlies it but that’s not the same thing. Some people > have the genetic fault and never even show symptoms -carriers, in > other words. In one sense they ‘have’ psoriasis but I don’t think > that’s what you mean.
You state the genetics as fact. I understood that it was highly likely that genetics are responsible, but that it has not yet been proven. Was this a mis-statement, or did I miss the big news? — no spam twice) The original (and current) charter for this newsgroup can be found at http://users.bestweb.net/~trapperj/pgroup/charter_a.s.s-d.p/charter.txt
Response:
JM… LOL Yes thanks. That did help??? I’ve thought about wearing something sexy to the doctor to see if he would get a lite box in his office closer to me (basically it would have to be my upper half) but since he has already seen me in the rough (literally), I figure to just go outside if the sun ever comes my way. I’ve often thought while soaking my spots about which part of my body would I be willing to have forever spotted in order to have the rest of my clear. I’ve really given it serious thought..now why? I’m not REALLY making a deal with anyone. Yet my answer has always been….NONE. I’m not willing to give up any part of me to this! Not even the parts that stay mostly covered. I want to believe in remission as being clear..totally clear and then breaking out again. Is this a fantasy? Or is remission you don’t get any additional ones to the thousands you already have???? It’s hard when you are new. You don’t know what to expect. You want to believe it will get better, then be broken hearted when you see those baby one starting to grow. I have definately made progress, not as quickly and what I have paid out in meds. If stress is a factor, then basically I’m screwed. I’m a type A (is there any type B’s that have it?) I’m sure I can speak for all us just diagnosed that any info, support and foresight is appreciated beyond words.
Response:
>Hi!!! I new also. Since the middle of February I’ve also had those >little bumps ALL over my body…eventually joined to make a few bigger >bumps. Went to FIVE doctors before I was finally diagnosed with PS. >I thought I had scabies or some mite living amongst us. Needless to >say, that would have been a better deal. My doctor told me that >Guttate was the easiest to treat???
Is your Doc a derm or a GP. If GP, you might want to get referred to a derm who specializes in P (derm does not in itself equal P expert). Dunno where he gets the idea that guttate per se is easiest to treat, and suspect it was said to make you feel better. A lot of times guttate is triggered by an infection and especially when it occurs in children after something like a strep infection can go away for a long time and sometimes never even return. Here’s a link to some info at http://www.psoriasis.org/k010.htm > He also said that after six >months and you still have them, it’s just psoriasis and I will always >have it. I have made some progress but not what I wanted. Is there a >thing called remission? And what exactly does it mean. Good luck to >you.
OK, again the above may just be misguided communication efforts by your doc who actually does know better, but is mostly why I think you might want to find someone with more expertise. First the 6 months thing is nonsense, as there are things that can look somewhat similar and be chronic. This is not to say he’s got the diagnosis wrong, just that that’s not why. Nor will you necessarily always have it in the sense of showing symptoms. If you do have psoriasis, you will always have the genetic fault that underlies it but that’s not the same thing. Some people have the genetic fault and never even show symptoms -carriers, in other words. In one sense they ‘have’ psoriasis but I don’t think that’s what you mean. Certainly there’s remission, although what that means varies a great deal from person to person. And it’s really important when reading some of the replies you might see here to remember that almost by definition those who are talking about it here in the ng have it worse than the norm or they would be unlikely to feel the need/see reason/put in the time to participate in a support group. There are some mild cases here but by and large that ’s true. Getting back to remission, it can range from suddenly spontaneously going away and never returning (it does happen, even if that’s not the norm either) to the sort of ebb and flow that most here report. And again, that can mean all of it goes away or 50% of it goes away -it’s going to vary by individual and management of treatments and things that might trigger making it worse. When you say you aren’t happy with your progress, how is he treating it and for how long have you been using those treatments. I’m assuming that since you say you’ve seen 5 docs it hasn’t been since the Feb breakout. Did you ask the doc why those particular treatments and how long it should take to see effect (yeah, I know, most other people don’t either). The fact that you’ve seen some progress is good and part of the problem with psoriasis is balancing benefit vs risks of the treatment. Most things take at least a few weeks to really show benefit, but not everything works for everyone or in the same way. OTOH once a treatment really gets a hold on controlling symptoms, it may seem slow at first but then might pick up speed in clearing. P is unfortunately the ultimate YMMV condition. Welcome to the group BTW KIm The Psoriasis Newsgroup Resource FAQ can be found at http://pfaq.cjb.net but will also be coming soon (twice a month) to a newsgroup near you…
Response:
My aunt found a soap online that helps, it might especially help you since you just got diagnosed. It’s called Earth Goddess and she got it at http://www.earthgoddessskincare.com/at.cgi?a=193392
Response:
Hi!!! I new also. Since the middle of February I’ve also had those little bumps ALL over my body…eventually joined to make a few bigger bumps. Went to FIVE doctors before I was finally diagnosed with PS. I thought I had scabies or some mite living amongst us. Needless to say, that would have been a better deal. My doctor told me that Guttate was the easiest to treat??? He also said that after six months and you still have them, it’s just psoriasis and I will always have it. I have made some progress but not what I wanted. Is there a thing called remission? And what exactly does it mean. Good luck to you.
Response:
As so far as I am personally able to determine, remission simply means that whatever condition you have it will lie dormant within the body for a set period of time until something comes along to trigger it off. Be this food, stress, (though EVERYONE keeps going on about me and stress and that this is the reason why I have P, bollocks!) or just something in the atmosphere. ANYTHING. Basically the condition will hibernate with the body and wait for an opportune moment to come back and make your life hell which leaves you wondering why did it come back JUST as you were about to head for the sun, or just when you were about to take your top off whilst negotiating that large sway of the dance floor… hope this helps! JM – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Hi!!! I new also. Since the middle of February I’ve also had those >little bumps ALL over my body…eventually joined to make a few bigger >bumps. Went to FIVE doctors before I was finally diagnosed with PS. >I thought I had scabies or some mite living amongst us. Needless to >say, that would have been a better deal. My doctor told me that >Guttate was the easiest to treat??? He also said that after six >months and you still have them, it’s just psoriasis and I will always >have it. I have made some progress but not what I wanted. Is there a >thing called remission? And what exactly does it mean. Good luck to >you.
Response:
Hi everyone I just found out today that these annoying bumps I’ve had all over my body for the past 4 months is P. I’m very upset and was just wondering if there’s anyone who can help me by giving me some encouraging new about this disease. Thanks Alexis
Response:
There will be dark times, there will be bright times. Charish the bright times and keep fighting the dark times. Never give up! That’s my advice. Misty (fighting P for 20 years this year, wow it’s an anniversary for me…)
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hi everyone I just found out today that these annoying bumps I’ve had all over > my body for the past 4 months is P. I’m very upset and was just wondering if > there’s anyone who can help me by giving me some encouraging new about this > disease. Thanks Alexis
Response:
>Hi everyone I just found out today that these annoying bumps I’ve had all over >my body for the past 4 months is P. I’m very upset and was just wondering if >there’s anyone who can help me by giving me some encouraging new about this >disease. Thanks Alexis
If you’ve only had it a few months, you may have better odds of getting them to go away. What did the doctor recommend? Did you see a dermatologist or just a generalist? If you can’t get it to go away with the first couple of tries, you are in some small amount of luck, in that there are a couple of new biotech treatments just entering service, which are a lot better than anything available previously. Hope that’s encouraging. At worst, you have a new hobby. How’s that? <g> J.
Response:
Well if you’ve just been diagnosed and don’t have much of an outbreak you can probably get it under control before it gets too bad. You may have to try several different things before you find the one that works for you but getting an early start puts you at an advantage. Use that advantage. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Hi everyone I just found out today that these annoying bumps I’ve had all over > my body for the past 4 months is P. I’m very upset and was just wondering if > there’s anyone who can help me by giving me some encouraging new about this > disease. Thanks Alexis
Response:
Related Posts