0

From a news report:

These findings suggest that WSE may have promise in schizophrenia, particularly in the treatment of negative and general symptoms and associated stress, she added.

"The data show large effect sizes, and the number needed to treat to get ≥20% improvement in our PANSS negative subscale was only 3. That's pretty exciting. I'm a late convert to nutraceuticals, but I think the bottom line is we just don't have adequate treatments for our patients with schizophrenia," said Gannon.

What is the meaning of this "but"? Does she imply that an early convert to nutraceuticals would more strongly insist that the current mainstream treatment for schizophrenia is poor? So the meaning is "I'm not a nutraceutic zealot, but yeah the mainstream drugs are not quite effective"?

  • 1
    The inference I would draw is that she wishes us to know that even though it has taken her some time to become a champion of nutraceuticals, we should not mistakenly assume that she has felt all along that there are adequate treatments for patients with schizophrenia. Don't mistake her slowness for complacency. I think it could be rephrased Although I'm a late convert...I have not thought our other treatments for those patients were adequate. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Jul 4 '18 at 14:56
  • 1
    One who was ardent in the opinion that existing treatments were inadequate might have been an earlier convert. That's the mistaken concern she wishes to allay. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Jul 4 '18 at 15:01
  • @Tᴚoɯɐuo so her bottom line is not a critique of nutraceuticals? She does not include neutraceuticals in the range of "drugs that have failed to perform really well in schizophrenia"? – CowperKettle Jul 4 '18 at 15:02
  • I cannot find a sentence in the article that contains that phrase or the word "failed", though I only skimmed it very quickly. Are you quoting from the article there or creating a label, as it were? Her remarks on WSE seem generally hopeful about its ability to lessen the effects of "negative symptoms". – Tᴚoɯɐuo Jul 4 '18 at 15:15
  • @Tᴚoɯɐuo Ah, I understand. Thank you. No, I'm not quoting, I was just trying to understand the meaning of her words. – CowperKettle Jul 4 '18 at 15:19
1

In this case, the but could serve several roles. But can indicate exceptions, it can indicate objections, and it can be used for contrast. It can show, and usually explain a change of mind. Here, I would tend to think that it is best understood by the first half of the sentence evoking sympathy with those who are sceptical towards nutraceuticals, and the second is explaining why we apparently need to try such novel things, because the treatments we have are apparently not good enough. So it's a bit of contrast, a bit of change of mind, and a bit of exception, all in one.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.