We shouldn't take expert advice at face value

anothernight · 26-12-2015 05:13PM

Haven't read the full thread, but...

steddyeddy wrote: »

Dr.Oz is a cardiologist but he's not a nutritionist . He shouldn't be giving out medical advice about supplements.

That's not really expert advice. A dietician giving advice about nutrition and supplements is expert advice.

Before even considering whether to take expert advice at face value, it might be better to consider whether it's expert advice at all.

K.Flyer · 26-12-2015 05:15PM

There is an old saying "..Doctors differ and patients die"

Through our own personal experience we have had to question (non confrontational) everything being said to us by Doctors, done either directly or by online research.

A few years back our son was having fainting / dizzy episodes. After almost a year of hospital visits and tests the consultant came to the conclusion that he had some form of Epilepsy and wrote out a prescription for some serious meds.
We always felt he was wrong.
Before buying the meds we strongly reqested that he do an MRI, just to be absolutely certain, to which he eventually agreed.
They found that he has a Brain Tumour.
They took him into hospital for further tests and then found that he also had intermittent low blood pressure issues.
Nothing to do with Epilepsy at all.
Epilepsy medication is really heavy duty stuff and would have really messed him up had we not gone for the MRI.
So, sometimes it does pay to question them.
I am not saying that they are always wrong, but they are not always right either.
BTW, Not a word of an apology for the misdiagnosis from the original consultant.

Zimmey · 26-12-2015 05:17PM

anothernight wrote: »

Haven't read the full thread, but...

That's not really expert advice. A dietician giving advice about nutrition and supplements is expert advice.

Before even considering whether to take expert advice at face value, it might be better to consider whether it's expert advice at all.

I suppose lots of people would take a doctor's views on nutrition as expert advice though. Some people are quite in thrall to them.

anothernight · 26-12-2015 05:22PM

Zimmey wrote: »

I suppose lots of people would take a doctor's views on nutrition as expert advice though. Some people are quite in thrall to them.

Very true. That's down to education (or lack thereof) on what they actually do. Still means that people should stop and think before deeming the doctor an expert.

steddyeddy · 26-12-2015 05:24PM

anothernight wrote: »

Haven't read the full thread, but...

That's not really expert advice. A dietician giving advice about nutrition and supplements is expert advice.

Before even considering whether to take expert advice at face value, it might be better to consider whether it's expert advice at all.

If you read my op I stipulated that there is no such thing as expert advice. Some people would consider doctors as nutritional experts. Especially one who has worked with heart disease.

Tipperary Fairy · 26-12-2015 05:25PM

Candie wrote: »

I'd certainly ask about them, and research them online to see how rigorous the study involved is. Anyone worth their salt would be completely transparent about these things. Its a red flag if they aren't.

As with anything else, it's a case of buyer beware. It's better to do some research into anything you're going to spend your money on than blindly trust.

But people do blindly trust, the majority of the time. The point of having a trained professional, that you pay, is so they can use their expertise and experience to advise and/or treat you.

26-12-2015 05:30PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

A doctor is not a nutritionist as Ben Goldacre spells out.

People with a BSc in nutrition are proper nutritionists, but not all nutritionists have a B.Sc in nutrition.

Some doctors may give bad advice, but they're still likely to be much more knowledgeable than the majority of so-called nutritionists (without the bsc), but not dietitians. Doctors can't be expected to be educated to independent degree level in each aspect of the course.

Anyway back OT. The best advice is always get a second opinion if you're in any way doubtful of the advice you're given in any high stakes aspect of your life.

Google is never going to be able to interpret your individual issues and analyse them in the context of your individual case, and while it might be handy for looking up drugs or general stuff, its important to be seen by a doctor if you have any health concerns.

It's important to seek the advice of people properly qualified in any field that has a substantial effect on your life if you will make any important decisions as a result of their advice.

26-12-2015 05:33PM

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

But people do blindly trust, the majority of the time. The point of having a trained professional, that you pay, is so they can use their expertise and experience to advise and/or treat you.

Yes, what I'm saying is that you don't blindly trust anyone, you need to make sure they ARE a trained professional.

It's common sense.

ceadaoin. · 26-12-2015 05:33PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The biggest one that scientists are trying to stamp out is the advice some doctors give their pregnant clients "one or two glasses of wine won't or might not hurt".

This is in complete disagreement with science yet people still peddle it. Why?

At least in the UK, the official NHS advice is that one or two units once or twice a week is safe. It's not just some doctors saying it, it's the government guidelines.

I looked into this when I was pregnant and there isn't one study where FAS was found in a child of a light/moderate drinker. It is caused by excess levels of alcohol ie drinking to alcoholic levels. Where is the science to say that or or two drinks is harmful?

Colser · 26-12-2015 05:43PM

Do we really need anyone telling us what we should or shouldnt be doing in a lot of instances,where has common sense gone in a lot of everyday things that we encounter (Im not talking about medical issuess)?

Do we actually need someone "qualified" to tell us what a healthy diet is,in fairness we know what we should be eating but its a personal decision after that as to what we eat.

The smoking ban in cars with children,surely every adult knows that its criminal(imo) to inflict cigarette smoke anywhere near children so why the hell did a law need to be introduced? No law is going to stop people that would do this from actually doing it,its common sense ffs .

Wearing seatbelts and insuring children are properly restrained in cars,again why do people need to be told about this,shouldnt it be something that any adult/parent would automatically do?

We shouldnt need experts to tell us certain things but some people just refuse to use their own intelligence and blame others when things go wrong.Its really very annoying in particular when it affects others and worse again where children are involved.

K.Flyer · 26-12-2015 05:44PM

Candie wrote: »

Yes, what I'm saying is that you don't blindly trust anyone, you need to make sure they ARE a trained professional.

It's common sense.

But even trained professionals can get it wrong, even when dealing with peoples health matters.

gctest50 · 26-12-2015 05:45PM

K.Flyer wrote: »

There is an old saying "..Doctors differ and patients die"

Through our own personal experience we have had to question (non confrontational) everything being said to us by Doctors, done either directly or by online research.

A few years back our son was having fainting / dizzy episodes. After almost a year of hospital visits and tests the consultant came to the conclusion that he had some form of Epilepsy and wrote out a prescription for some serious meds.
We always felt he was wrong.
Before buying the meds we strongly reqested that he do an MRI, just to be absolutely certain, to which he eventually agreed.
They found that he has a Brain Tumour.
They took him into hospital for further tests and then found that he also had intermittent low blood pressure issues.
Nothing to do with Epilepsy at all.
Epilepsy medication is really heavy duty stuff and would have really messed him up had we not gone for the MRI.
So, sometimes it does pay to question them.
I am not saying that they are always wrong, but they are not always right either.
BTW, Not a word of an apology for the misdiagnosis from the original consultant.

You can't be sure of that though

- maybe it was both ?
- maybe he has it now and hasn't had one since/yet ?

i hope he will be in the clear for many decades though

anothernight · 26-12-2015 05:47PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

If you read my op I stipulated that there is no such thing as expert advice.

See, I disagree on that one. An expert is just a person who is very knowledgeable about their field. If my car breaks down through a mechanical failure, I will take the advice of my usual mechanic, who has repeatedly shown in the past that he's knowledgeable and skilful when it comes to fixing cars. In that context, and in that field, he's an expert.

In court, an expert witness will be someone who has the qualifications and experience in the field relevant to the case.

In both scenarios the experts can be wrong, but that doesn't mean they're not experts. It's all about what they're advising on, and whether they're actually knowledgeable to a high degree within that topic. What constitutes "a high degree" is up to debate, however. But since an expert is (according to the Oxford Dictionary) "a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area", as long as the person's knowledge/skill in the area they're advising on is high enough to give well educated advice (in health sciences, evidence-based; in car mechanics, results-driven; etc etc.), that person can be considered an expert, in my opinion.

I agree with you that the advice shouldn't be followed blindly. However, and this is a big however, it's all too easy for people to become the personification of the old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

You said: "Scientifically there is no such thing as an expert". I'm afraid the world isn't made up exclusively of scientists. You can be an expert baker too, if you know enough about baking.

26-12-2015 05:57PM

K.Flyer wrote: »

But even trained professionals can get it wrong, even when dealing with peoples health matters.

People are fallible, they're not robots.

If training and education counts for nothing, then you're welcome to have your house built by a dressmaker, or your car serviced by a shop assistant, or your health assessed by a pilot, or your plane flown by a florist.

The point is that anyone can get anything wrong at any time, but you're a lot less likely to if you've an academic background and training in that particular field.

K.Flyer · 26-12-2015 06:08PM

gctest50 wrote: »

You can't be sure of that though

- maybe it was both ?
- maybe he has it now and hasn't had one since/yet ?

i hope he will be in the clear for many decades though

We are sure, as we asked his new nuero consultant about the it and he said he didn't have epilepsy.
The cardio consultant explained the fainting / dizzy spells was a low blood pressure issue that he should grow out of and could be gently medicated until then, unless the tumour was a contributor.
The medication worked and he has more or less grown out of it. The tumour became a different problem altogether, but still lucky to have been found early, and with no seizure issues to date.

- maybe he has it now and hasn't had one since/yet ?

^^^^^
Not sure what you meant, hopefully I covered it for you.

i hope he will be in the clear for many decades though

Thanks.
We are a year after neuro surgery and six months after Proton Therapy and his last scans are looking good.

Junkyard Tom · 26-12-2015 06:18PM

K.Flyer wrote: »

our son was having fainting / dizzy episodes. After almost a year of hospital visits and tests the consultant came to the conclusion that he had some form of Epilepsy and wrote out a prescription for some serious meds.
We always felt he was wrong.
Before buying the meds we strongly reqested that he do an MRI, just to be absolutely certain, to which he eventually agreed.
They found that he has a Brain Tumour.

It took them a year to do an MRI on a child who was fainting and having dizzy episodes?

****. Me.

Zimmey · 26-12-2015 06:18PM

anothernight wrote: »

See, I disagree on that one. An expert is just a person who is very knowledgeable about their field. If my car breaks down through a mechanical failure, I will take the advice of my usual mechanic, who has repeatedly shown in the past that he's knowledgeable and skilful when it comes to fixing cars. In that context, and in that field, he's an expert.

In court, an expert witness will be someone who has the qualifications and experience in the field relevant to the case.

In both scenarios the experts can be wrong, but that doesn't mean they're not experts. It's all about what they're advising on, and whether they're actually knowledgeable to a high degree within that topic. What constitutes "a high degree" is up to debate, however. But since an expert is (according to the Oxford Dictionary) "a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area", as long as the person's knowledge/skill in the area they're advising on is high enough to give well educated advice (in health sciences, evidence-based; in car mechanics, results-driven; etc etc.), that person can be considered an expert, in my opinion.

I agree with you that the advice shouldn't be followed blindly. However, and this is a big however, it's all too easy for people to become the personification of the old saying "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

You said: "Scientifically there is no such thing as an expert". I'm afraid the world isn't made up exclusively of scientists. You can be an expert baker too, if you know enough about baking.

I totally agree with this post. Not much more to add!

Zimmey · 26-12-2015 06:20PM

Candie wrote: »

People are fallible, they're not robots.

If training and education counts for nothing, then you're welcome to have your house built by a dressmaker, or your car serviced by a shop assistant, or your health assessed by a pilot, or your plane flown by a florist.

The point is that anyone can get anything wrong at any time, but you're a lot less likely to if you've an academic background and training in that particular field.

And this!

Taco Chips · 26-12-2015 06:43PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

On a separate issue Zimmy that's one of the reasons biochem is taught to medical students. Unfortunately it becomes a problem when they go into research. It's a public secret that scientists are warned off doing PhD's with clinicians for that reason. I don't think training with a consultant is good enough for research anymore.

I do think doctors should know about biochemical pathways, enzyme inhibition ect. They underlie all disease and treatment.

One of the things I taught was the metabolism of alcohol and the effect of alcohol on pathways. That's what I teach to medical students. If I was to teach that to biochems I would tell them how to determine the metabolic pathways. So it really is the basics being learned and there's no excuse not to know it.

For instance do you think a doctor saying one or two glasses are fine during pregnancy should need to know how ethanol is metabolised?

I don't think theres any need for a dig at consultants there. Many of them are phd holders themselves. A consultant is an specialist in medicine that is their area of knowledge. A biochemistry phd is a specialist is that field. Of course the consultant isn't going to have the same knowledge in the area that the biochemist has, just in the way the biochemist isn't going to know anything about medicine. Collaboration in academia between specialists is the focus of research these days. Multi disciplinary approach and all that. No need to constantly draw lines in the sand and create a pissing match between specialties.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Zimmey wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

Zimmy I'm not trying to bash doctors. They do a very tough job and are very knowledgeable.

If for instance they talk about weightloss or alcohol tolerance for their foetus they really should know what they were talking about. A friend of mine is a GP and tells (reassures) some of his clients that one or two glasses were fine. He's really just afraid to disagree with them IMHO. I jokingly asked him what enzyme breaks down alcohol and what levels where needed to breakdown a glass of wine and finally what levels of alcohol dehydrogenase the woman had in her system. He didn't know but he would have to know before being able to say that one or two glasses is ok.

Medical students are taught all of the fundamentals of biochemistry in the preclinical years, including alcohol metabolism and the rest. Thats at the very start of their career. It's examined in medical school and in certain licensing exams after that (e.g, USMLE step 1). Your friend who's a GP is a long way removed from that stage of their career so it's not exactly surprising they didn't remember that specific detail of that specific reaction off the top of their head.

The NHS guidelines outline that there hasn't been known harm from light alcohol intake in the later stages of pregnancy and that is obviously what he was referring to. Do you think he should have to recall every single biochemical reaction there is in the body? What about the finer details of pathological changes? Minute anatomy? Molecular medicine? That would be absurd. They learn as they go and then guidelines are formed. It would be literally impossible otherwise.

steddyeddy · 26-12-2015 08:17PM

Candie wrote: »

People with a BSc in nutrition are proper nutritionists, but not all nutritionists have a B.Sc in nutrition.

Some doctors may give bad advice, but they're still likely to be much more knowledgeable than the majority of so-called nutritionists (without the bsc), but not dietitians. Doctors can't be expected to be educated to independent degree level in each aspect of the course.

Anyway back OT. The best advice is always get a second opinion if you're in any way doubtful of the advice you're given in any high stakes aspect of your life.

Google is never going to be able to interpret your individual issues and analyse them in the context of your individual case, and while it might be handy for looking up drugs or general stuff, its important to be seen by a doctor if you have any health concerns.

It's important to seek the advice of people properly qualified in any field that has a substantial effect on your life if you will make any important decisions as a result of their advice.

There is no way a doctor's nutritional knowledge is equal to a nutrition BS.c degree.

jd · 26-12-2015 08:20PM

Graces7 wrote: »

I trust the anti vaccine knowledge also and no child of mine would ever have been vaccinated...

What do you you mean by anti vaccine knowledge?

26-12-2015 08:36PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

There is no way a doctor's nutritional knowledge is equal to a nutrition BS.c degree.

I didn't say it was:

likely to be much more knowledgeable than the majority of so-called nutritionists (without the bsc)

Simon2015 · 26-12-2015 08:50PM

Just look at these two Irish Doctors discussing the side effects of Finasteride.

Dr Maurice Collins of HRBR says that the side effects of Finasteride "disappear in 100% of cases" once someone stops taking the medication.

While Dr Andrew Rynne says the side effects of Finasteride "can last a lifetime" and calls the drug "a dangerous toxic medication". Thats in stark contrast to Dr Maurice Collins who says that Finasteride is "incredibly safe".

Obviously one of these Doctors is not telling the truth and has a vested interest.

GirlatdRockShow · 26-12-2015 09:11PM

Colser wrote:

Do we actually need someone "qualified" to tell us what a healthy diet is,in fairness we know what we should be eating but its a personal decision after that as to what we eat.

But how do you know what a healthy diet is? This isn't knowledge you were born with. It's knowledge you have acquired throughout your life.
The qualified experts are the ones that examine the science, write the guidelines on what a healthy diet is and rely them to the public. You may not have gone to a specific professional yourself and asked what a healthy diet is, but you have absorbed what the professionals have said through "background noise" almost, whether it be through the media, at school/work, from the government.
Agree that after that it is a personal opinion.

Banjoxed · 26-12-2015 09:12PM

Del2005 wrote: »

I believe the person who told me not to eat yellow snow.

Don't go where the huskies go, then.

mirrorwall14 · 26-12-2015 09:29PM

The alcohol one apart from fetal alcohol syndrome is contentious. No one is going to actually go and do a proper blind study and actually give alcohol to pregnant women on a large enough sample size to figure out what level of alcohol causes problems for the fetus. Pretty sure that would be one hell of an ethics issue. From large scare questionnaire studies they can tell that large quantities of alcohol in first trimester cause FAS but no scientist is going to be the one saying that 2 units of alcohol a week is not harmful to the fetus for example as they cannot conclusively say that. They also don't want to in anyway promote alcohol use in case someone goes on a bender. If the study said three units then some would take 3/4 saying ah sure it's only a bit over the limit etc. However the knowledge attained down through the years appears to suggest that very low levels of alcohol have little effect on the fetus and there is a lot of anectotal evidence suggesting that to both parents and the medical profession. I know I did read some suggestions that for a very stressed woman then a glass of red wine for relaxation in third trimester may actually help things more than they hinder. At least that is my understanding of the research.

Everything in pregnancy is a risk. Everything. I'm
Allergic to penicillin. The alternate antibiotics are all riskier during pregnancy but the risk has to be weighted against the benefits

Graces7 · 27-12-2015 07:49AM

Herb Powell wrote: »

This is exactly the kind of bullshhit I'm talking about. Thank you for the example.

By the way, in the case of vaccines, it's not just "your body, your life". If you refuse to vaccinate yourself or your children and then go and participate in society, you are directly responsible in resurrecting diseases that we had under control. Perhaps even facilitating resistant strains. Again, thanks for that.

Your bad experience does not trump existing medical knowledge, and no amount of crying "brainwashed!" (very convenient, isn't it?) is going to change that.

A typically bombastic and predictable reply using insulting terms. Product of a closed mind. I am not crying either..so my "bad experience" covering over 30 years of medical mistakes and abuse is what? Literally hundreds of drs making the same mistakes? In any other profession they would be sacked, Actually the dr who made the greatest mess of my life has been struck off now. Not my doing and I did try. Old lady I know says" Doctors bury their mistakes". I am alive only because I challenged what you call" medical knowledge". And I got it right and my life choice is to ask questions, challenge and think for myself; and I have an academic background and am well able to read and learn. My choice and my advanced medical directive is also in safe hands. I ask the dr for what I know I need. You make medicine into what is worse than the worst and most bigoted religion. I think God for that one doctor who had the sense after 30 years to take a proper case history rather than just going by what other drs said and to clear my name and my records. Sadly the picture here is much the same. Why does it worry you that I make this life choice? i am not taking up any time or resources after all and not advocating that anyone else follow my way. To read you one would think drs never did wrong; enough posts here say as I do. Ask, question, insist. Where is the harm in that? Had I not done this I would be long dead. Literally. is that not grand? Damaged permanently by drs but alive and enjoying what I have left.

Graces7 · 27-12-2015 07:56AM

jd wrote: »

What do you you mean by anti vaccine knowledge?

google it and make your own mind up please. Read widely. It is a controversial subject and you need to decide yourself. Basically one dr vaccinated his child who developed problems he decided were a result of the vaccine and its ingredients.J He paid heavily for that. I believe him. I did not take smallpox vaccine, or polio or TB and would not take any flu vaccine.I nearly died after my last anti tetanus so no more of that, My choice. But if I ever say anything, the medics shout me down . In Canada they are getting teenagers. boys who were vaccinated against mumps getting mumps.Seems it wore off and was not for life. I tried saying that on a forum and the reaction was interesting.. as I predict will be again. Think I will stay away the day! My choice, your choice. Free country.

ceadaoin. · 27-12-2015 08:08AM

Graces7 wrote: »

google it and make your own mind up please. Read widely. It is a controversial subject and you need to decide yourself. Basically one dr vaccinated his child who developed problems he decided were a result of the vaccine and its ingredients.J He paid heavily for that. I believe him. I did not take smallpox vaccine, or polio or TB and would not take any flu vaccine.I nearly died after my last anti tetanus so no more of that, My choice. But if I ever say anything, the medics shout me down . In Canada they are getting teenagers. boys who were vaccinated against mumps getting mumps.Seems it wore off and was not for life. I tried saying that on a forum and the reaction was interesting.. as I predict will be again. Think I will stay away the day! My choice, your choice. Free country.

It's actually a very selfish choice. By not vaccinating yourself or your kids you are inflicting your views on more than just yourself if you happen to become ill and introduce a disease to your community that ends up killing vulnerable people.

No vaccine is 100% effective in each individual, they also rely on herd immunity. This is what has protected you and your kids if you have them.

It's people making the choice not to vaccinate that is behind the rise in these previously almost eradicated illnesses returning and people dying needlessly. Well done.

Samaris · 27-12-2015 08:26AM

As always, there's a sensible medium. Er..given the length of this, I'll split it up a bit.

Qualified Expertise
Firstly, who's doing the telling? If the person (or people) have advanced qualifications in the specific area, then they are more to be trusted than those who have only passing knowledge, or qualifications in close-but-different areas. Beware "false experts". I could give a trust-worthy sounding thesis on ...hell, cancer, and claim my knowledge as a scientist. I would be a "false expert" though, since my qualifications are in environmental (climate change) areas.

A GP has a wide range of practical knowledge, and advanced skill in deciphering the problem from vague descriptions of "pain here" or "I get sick in the morning", etc., but, from their experience, they will be most skilled at commoner complaints and less with unusual presentations, which is why specialists exist. And, like all people, they can make mistakes and sometimes be bullheaded in insisting that it has to be one of the commoner issues, because they've never had a presentation of X-rare illness.

Vaccination
If a large number of experts in their field say that all available evidence points to vaccination being the best way to cure pandemic-levels of particular illnesses - be it smallpox, rubella, whooping cough, TB - then they are most likely accurate. There are some cases of people reacting badly to immunisation, it's true, but they are extremely rare and a hell of a lot rarer than the likelihood of actually picking up these illnesses in an unvaccinated society. Which is why it is imperative for those who -can- be immunised to -be- immunised to protect those who cannot, for one reason or another, be shielded themselves.

One just has to look at the numbers of those vaccinated getting the disease/those in a vaccinated society getting those diseases compared to unvaccinated societies. No-one should be dying of smallpox or TB today. But people do, and the biggest tragedy is those that die needlessly because of this -virulent- strain of Jenny McCarthyism. That woman is a pox all by herself and God only knows how many deaths she and her disciples have had a part in bringing about with her poisonous and unscientific scaremongering. Graces - please do more reading and research into vaccination and look at the expertise being brought to bear on both sides. There is no connection between vaccination and autism. I don't ask you to believe -me-, I am, after all, a "false expert" in this area, but read the work of the actual experts. They are in agreement about it.

The money trail and falsified "controversy"
Secondly, follow the money trail on both sides. It's depressing that we should need to do so, but there you have it. It's the pox on the climate change debate too. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", but honestly, when one reads the history of the argument and sees the same names popping up time and again on the side of Big Oil, it just gets depressing. "Teach the controversy" my arse. There -isn't- a controversy in scientific circles, but this pseudo-scientific bullcrap seems to work both in environmental circles and when it comes to evolution versus "intelligent design".

Consensus vs Trickery
Of course scientific consensus changes. That is how science operates. But it is relatively rare that a whole system of thought is utterly and completely overturned by a new discovery, especially in sciences that rely on observation. It's extremely exciting when when it -does- happen, but it's rare.

There's also a poisonous trend of thought, especially on the internet, that everyone is out to fool the layperson (by which I mean the general population without specific training in X area). Well, there are certainly con-artists out there, but there's less in science than just "on the internet" due to the rigorous eyeballing of each other that scientists do. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [Who watches the watchman?] They custodiet each other! Emphatically. Because a lapse in examining each other's work could waste years of their own time. And, because, mistakes - terrible mistakes - HAVE been made when politics have been forced onto science - the influence of the Tobacco industry in suppressing information on lung cancer is one, and Vioxx. That was a horrendous example of politics being forced over science for the sake of money. And it was generally out of the scientists' hands; their expertise was overruled.

Common Sense
Finally, follow the logic. We're not going to all understand the minutae of every subject. I don't understand particle physics, so I'll go with what the experts say there. But I can certainly follow the logic and the scientific principles of chemical overloading in a system.

...I could rant on about this forever, but I'll leave it there before I fill up the page with my splutterings.

We shouldn't take expert advice at face value

Comments