Poll: Belief in pseudoscience/paranormal phenomena

Topher,
You have not commented on any links posted or any studies done other than saying other studies say no. I apologize, but I am done with this discussion b/c you do nothing but say it has not been proven. It's been a pleasure.
 
There are certain atheist and generally skeptical members who can rile people up including myself. Topher is one of them. However, while I often disagree with how Topher presents his arguments the substance of his arguments are often very valid. In this thread for instance I haven't seen many proper refutations of his points, to illustrate:

Wry's claim to more experience than Topher than dealing with patients as a result of being a nurse (are you still one wry?- genuine question) is obviously valid. However, while she has more experience that doesn't exactly trump his argument that providing alternative treatments which have not proven themselves to be effective under controlled conditions is quite a silly thing for the NHS to do. Consider for instance that there are numerous other health professionals out there who hold the opposite position from wry i.e that alternative medicines can be harmful by preventing people from seeking out proven cures. Wry is not the only medical pracitioner in the world and in fact Topher's links have included several medical doctors whose opinions I would suggest at least warrant a read before concluding that wry's experience means all medical professionals agree with her position.

Topher also isn't arguing about banning back massages or acupuncture he is talking about not providing non-proven treatments on the NHS- if acupuncture has clinical evidence that it is effective for treating something then great but if it doesn't why should someone be given it as a treatment- that seems dishonest at worst and patronising at best.

Next comes the argument that even if alternative medicines work via the placebo effect then the placebo effect should be exploited. Right... so now we are suggesting that whether a treatment works or not is irrelevant as long as there is a chance that the placebo effect could kick in. Doesn't that mean that clinical trials or any evidence that anything works at all is unnecessary then because if it's just the placebo effect we are looking for then well any treatment will do if it's given in a convincing enough manner. Why don't we allow doctors to give patients bottles of water labelled something else and tell them it will make them better in that case? I mean that is what homepathists do. Would that be ok?


Your making an argument that some doctors could deal with being more considerate fine and dandy. However, your overstating things or at least your presenting a very bias picture. Doctors are people some are better at being compassionate than others and some have better bedside manners than others however the notion that all doctors are robots obsessed with disease and unable to recognise that their is a person in front of them is typical of alternative medicine jargon. I know several friends currently training in medicine and none of them are being taught to ignore the patient- maybe things really are that bad in the US but I severely doubt it. Your story also sounds ridiculously caricatured what doctor is going to tell someone who has a pain in their arm it's because they are overweight with no examination or no reason to believe so. The more likely event is your friend was not happy with the amount of attention he received or with the diagnosis of the cause of his problem that he received. That's fair enough but if someone spent 2 hours examining his arm with magical crystals and then told him his arm is in pain because of blocked energy passages it may well be more comforting but it won't actually be true and if the problem is due to his weight then it's not going to go away.


What you are describing here is using the pulse to detect problems with the flow of blood and the way the heart is operating. This is a far cry from your claim that cancer somehow can be felt as a 'little pebble' in the pulse if this were true then surely it could be proven and would no longer need to be based on anecdotal accounts as it would be established as a valid diagnostic tool.

As for the Skepticism and the NESS I would suggest not dismissing them purely because they are skeptical. Having listened to their podcasts they are the first to admit when they get something wrong... the term skeptic puts people off but it really shouldn't because as Topher rightly points out it just means someone who values logic and asks for evidence before they will believe something.

I'm not against alternative medicines existing nor am I against therapeutic treatments being offered on the NHS (this would include so called alternative treatments such as acupuncture were they are proven to have an effect beyond the placebo effect). All I'm against is unproven treatments being offered on the NHS for 2 major reasons:

1. It lends things that don't it credibility- such as Homepathy.
2. It is spending public money on treatments that tend to not only have any strong clinical evidence that they work but actually often have strong evidence that they do not work.
 
I do not mean to present myself as the end all and be all of treatment or nursing. Merely that MY research, MY coursework and MY experience has lead me to a set of conclusions which I have no intention of setting aside for the claims of someone who has no experience in the field of medicine or nursing. In point of fact, I am still in school (senior year) and have more to learn myself, though I have well over a year of clinical experience.

Old school doctors can be almost that bad, but in truth more holistic practices are being taught in medschool, which is a huge improvement. However, doctors are taught differently then nurses- our pervue is the patient and patient care. Which means we approach treatment on a different level and at a different angle. I believe the nurse role is different in the US then in the UK- here we are the patient advocate and we have the ability to call the doc and demand better or different treatment. Which is good as the doctor is not perfect and just as liable to make mistakes as anyone- but I digress.

Alternative meds have really good treatments and really poor ones. However it is my job as a nurse to get the patient those treatments they feel they need for health and/or wellness. It has also been my experience that even things which have no scientific foundation have a HUGE positive impact on the patient- even if just for stress reduction. You reduce stress, you increase blood flow, get the appetite back, get the patient relaxed enough to sleep- not to mention making that patient feel more positive about the care they are recieving from both the nursing staff and the physicians. As far as I can tell clinically, there are absolutely no downsides to offering alternative care in the hospital setting and everything to benefit from it.
 
I didn't mean to suggest wry that you were painting yourself as the be all and end all of medical opinion. That is however the tone in some of the responses which is why I was pointing out that your experience while indeed more extensive than Topher does not necessarily trump his points.


Quite right too, though to be fair I think you will find that many of the critics of alternative medicines have a lot more relevant experience than you may think. Topher's personal opinion might not be relevant but Topher isn't the only person critical of alternative medicine.


I think nurses play an extremely important role and Im not qualified to comment on the difference between US and UK nursing roles. However, given that nurses typically are seen as part of th big, bad Western medicine establishment I feel its worth pointing out that if what you describe of the nurses role is true it is hardly fair to say that Western medicine doesn't care about the patient just the disease. Nurses and nursing care are a vital part of Western medicine.


I'm quite suprised at the notion that the patient should be the one who decides on the treatment they receive- I mean ultimately yes it is up to the patient if they accept a treatment but deciding which one is suitable? Isn't that the very reason doctors and nurses spend years upon years studying and why people (or most people) are willing to defer to their expertise? On what basis would a patient base a decision for treatment? That aside Im not suggesting that therapies with no scientific basis cannot have a positive effect my point is that generally- there are other less esoteric therapies that would have the same effect without the mumbo jumbo and that therapies with no clinical evidence beyond a general argument for the 'placebo effect' should not be funded by hospitals. The placebo effect comes into play in every single treatment a person receives... we still need standards and quite clearly one of those standards in medicine should be 'does and could the therapy actually work?' with things like Homepathy the answer is no.


How about offering legitmacy to practices which can encourage people not to receive proper treatment for serious illness? I remember watching panorama or something like that (an investigative show) a while back they sent an undercover reporter to 10 (I think) big chain alternative medicine stores saying they were travelling to India and didn't want to get malaria shots... in 9 out of the 10 (approx) the consultant advised them that they could take some alternative treatment and avoid the shots. This is despite the fact that everyone of those stores previously and when they were contacted after the investigation trotted out the rhetoric that they were complimentary not alternative. Now I'm not saying that this is always the case but I think things like Homeopathy being provided in a hospital- a place were people expect treatments to have some legitmacy behind them- is shameful. If you accept things like Homepathy as legitimate therapies then I don't see why doctors should not be allowed to give out bottles of coloured water as treatments as well.
 
To the contrary, I think it is the patients responsibility to decide which treatment they receive. Perhaps the doctor can narrow down the choices, but it is up to the patient to decide which course they prefer. Depending on the condition, the patient may have time to do in-depth research that the doctor may not.

Certainly I do my best to be well-educated on my conditions, as well as both mainstream and complementary treatments.
 
There are the patients who prefer to just follow what ever the doctor's orders are, but there is a growing and, to my mind, positive movement for patients to become self educated and self advocates. The patient is a very important part of the treatment team and, yes, they have the ultimate right to decide on their course of treatment.

Besides, it is very logical. Who knows more about their body and condition then the patient- just because two people have the same diagnosis doesn't mean they have the same disease process or prognosis. Ignoring that could be very detrimental to the patient's treatment.

Edit:

Oh, and complimentary implies in addition to not in place of. Which is the position I have been arguing. Once again, there are no downsides to complimentary therapies- even those without scientific evidence provide a significant improvement in the patient's wellness as well as an often observed improvement in the physical condition.
 
Wry and Ember I would suggest the notion that you either blindly follow what a doctor tells you or take some responsibility and do research for yourself is a false dichotomy. I wouldn't blindly follow what a doctor told me and every doctor I've ever been to has presented me with choices in the way to proceed with treatments however my point is that it is silly to ignore the expertise of a doctor or think that a few hours spent on the internet can replace years of medical training. There is a reason doctors are well paid consider that there university degree typically lasts over 4 years followed by a number of years as trainees. The notion that people should do research into their own condition is great and yes the internet is a very valuable research for such things but it's no replacement and is not anywhere near on a par with medical training. For one the internet does not come with a filter and most people are not particularly used to scrupulously checking their sources- you can see this all over the place on MAP. So if several websites say that chemotherapy for instance does no good and is just poisoning the body so how could that help in very technical terms- it doesn't make them right.


"...ultimately yes it is up to the patient if they accept a treatment..."

I agree. I just don't think patients are as well qualified as doctors to make diagnosis.


Who knows more about their condition? In terms of how it feels the patient... in terms of knowing what symptoms mean and how conditions act and develop... doctors. If your of the opinion that a person can better diagnosis their own condition than a doctor why should anyone go see a doctor? Why not just sit at home, use the internet to match their symptoms to a condition then decide on their own treatment?


Wry if you read my last post again you will note that I point out that often 'complimentary' is simply used as rhetoric. You will find many posts on MAP if you look were people talk about 'complimentary' treatments but then spend most of their post arguing about how Western medical treatments are based purely on whats profitable and are often unnecessary except for in cases of severe trauma. Saying that complimentary medicine can never be harmful seems to somewhat ignore the issue of hospitals lending legitmacy to treatments with no evidence and which the practitioners of have often been found to discourage people from seeking real treatment for serious illnesses (such as cancer). I would wonder as well if we should not care whether an alternative therapy works or not whether hospitals should also be sending patients to shamans, faith healers or the like? If not, why not? These are also unproven cures with claims of efficacy?
 
The false dichotomy is, perhaps, implied by my clumsy wording. The fact is, there is a whole range of patient behavior- from blind acceptance to full control. That is what I meant to imply.

I think at this point we are going to have to agree to disagree. My experience and research has led me to the conclusion that CATs are a very positive experience for the patient and that they have really helped patients increase wellness and health. That outcome is not to be easily dismissed for me just because I happen to think things like homeopathy is complete bunkum. It is, scientifically- however it is very important for *some* patients. Patients with chronic conditions (acute is a whole other matter and one that presents a different patient-doctor interaction and one which I, frankly, wasn't talking about in this conversation) do know more about their particular condition then the doctor. They know what causes flair ups, they know what makes it better, they know what meds they have already tried and what did and did not work. Those who have lived with their conditions for years (and yes, it is different when they have just been diagnosed) do, in point of fact, know more about what is going on with their bodies then some random doctor in a hospital.

No, not all doctors are as discribed by some here. Yes, there are a few extremes- but that is true for all professions and its just something you have to look for and then never go back to that doctor again. Most doctors have learned to start incorporating some CATs- especially the better proven ones like massage, yoga, meditation, aromatherapy and herbals (depending again on which herb and how much research has been done on it).
 
Gosh,
I leave for one day and you all jump in! Good to see you all,
For me it does not matter much what is "proven" First of all what is all of your definitions of proven?

It can be very difficult to "prove" anything works 100% of the time (western meds or CAM) so what percentage is it considered to be effective? Some western meds only have a 30% effective rate, but are still on the market. If this is the standard then some CAM practices should be considered proven. However, there are other western meds/techs that could be shown to be 80-90% effective even 99% (fixing fractures etc. I say 99% b/c the bone breaks don't obviously heal exactly as it was before breaking) So by this number CAM therapies are NOT effective.

What of all the people that turn to CAM for help and get relief, or relief for loved ones and it does help? Then they get other loved ones to go and that helps and that goes on and on. I was speaking to a patient yesterday who's child has asthma, western meds did the usual with an inhaler, but sometimes attacks would be very severe. She sought out CAM and found my teacher, my teacher told her to KEEP her child on the inhaler. But through CAM (acupuncture) she was "weened" off of it. Still my teacher said she should keep the inhaler for emergencies. This patient told me that she believes in it b/c it has helped so many of her family members, her loved ones have been changed for the better and she cares little what research or others say.

She told me "I don't need proof, my proof is that my family is healthy and that is all I need." She is a nurse btw.

This whole discussion is based on whether or not they work, yet we have set no standard or criteria by which they must show they work. So plain and simply ask CK, Topher anyone else who needs proof. What would it take for it to be accepted? Will it be one "break through" study? Or will it take many "break through" studies? Does the study have to be absolutely "perfect" (I doubt this one would be the case, as studies are rarely perfect)? Or a certain percentage of studies that shows it is effective? What are the standards you would set for the study? What are the qualifications you would want for the peron(s) doing the study? Who would the study be funded by? All I ask is to make your own ideal "perfect" study with which to test any CAM theory and then set your means etc. for which it would be deemed "accepted" within the scientific community.
 
Well, we have found some middle ground. I will never say that complementary medicine can't be harmful. I tend to lean towards more natural sources, but "natural" doesn't necessarily mean safe, it can just as easily be poisonous.

One of the reasons that trauma is brought up is because Western medicine (and culture) seem to be built around the concept of "treat the symptoms hard and make them go away fast." Patients go in wanting a pill that will make it "all better" right away. And never mind that the condition might be a virus for which antibiotics are useless.

CATs tend more to a model of lifestyle changes, using & encouraging the body's natural defenses, and slow gradual improvements.

Look, my mother was diagnosed with cancer this summer. I am very grateful for chemotherapy, an aggressive disease needs an aggressive response. But I'm also glad that the center she is using includes CATs:

acupuncture
naturopathy, nutrition



Consider that clergy are already an established part of hospital care, as it has LONG been recognized that healing often has a psychological and/or spiritual component.

Shamanism, in my experience, is at least in part based on psychology and an understanding of the human mind. As for faith healers: while I reject the scientologists claims that prayer alone can treat their ills, I will not turn down any offers to pray for healing for a person with an illness.
 
Interesting post folks... gonna take some time to read through and reply properly- I appreciate the discussion.

EDIT: Took some time. Here's my reply.


I don't think we disagree on so much though. I too agree that CAT's can be a very positive experience and help people. I don't argue that people shouldn't use them I simply suggest that hospitals should only be using ones that have been shown to offer a legitimate beneficial effect over and above the placebo effect. I expect you do support this too as I doubt that you would promote hospitals being affiliated with pyschics who channeled alien healers, crystal healers or exorcists. All of which could be helpful to some people but which we know to be bunk. Bear in mind I'm not denying people the right to go to crystal healers Im just arguing that hospitals should not be promoting them as being affliated with a hospital lends legitmacy to a treatment- a legitmacy many alternative treatements do not deserve.


Since you asked... simply the same standard to which mainstream medicine is held. If a treatment cannot be shown in well designed studies to have an effect any greater than the placebo effect then it should not claim to be an effective treatment. In terms of what kind of studies I pay heed of... the same kind that mainstream medicine respects i.e. large scale, double blind trials with good controls. It's not rocket science to me. Studies of this caliber have been performed quite often and almost every alternative treatment tested does not fair well... where the treatment has faired well I consider it much more legitimate. But as with all things the more evidence the better so the more well designed studies the better. Next, in terms of funding and whatnot it doesn't matter as long as the study is conducted by a well respected research center one say that publishes in scientific rather than purely alternative journals. Several well designed small studies or one well designed large scale study significantly bolster the case for a treatment and well designed studies can be repeated or corrobated by other similiar studies. This is how mainstream treatments get developed so it's not some ridiculous standard alternative medicines must meet - it's just the same standard as normal treatments.

Also the more extravagant the claims the more convincing the evidence must be. Thats pretty straightforward to me to. If a guy claimed to have found a cure for aids and produced one study conducted on 12 patients at his research center no-one had ever heard of before... his claims need to be further tested before being accepted. Anyone with any medical background and even those with no medical background can produce a study... that's why people have to examine the quality of studies rather than simply considering them all equal.


It's Christian healers who believe that prayers alone can heal illness, scientologists just think pyschiatry is all bunk. Anyhow, I'm not sure what your saying here are you suggesting hospitals should be affliated with shamans and the like? If so I couldn't disagree more- seriously, I mean really is there no standard to which treatments should be held? Should we just allow anything to be considered a viable treatment if anyone in the world might believe in it?

It seems to me that a certain misguided postmodern fear of admitting that anything doesn't work- no matter how clearly ineffective or implausible is preventing people from criticising anything. It is ok to say something doesn't work when it doesn't and it is ok to suggest that treatments claiming to treat an illness should have some evidence that they can do that. Or are we at the stage of the argument were I get told that everything is equally true?
 
I hope not b/c then all good discussion fall by the wayside and go into "internet limbo" then
 
I don't believe in most of it, but I think some old Chinese medicine has benefits, and I know chiropractors can usually make people feel pretty good.
 
I think, perhaps, you are putting too much into "hospital allowance". There is a whole range of therapies that are undertaken in the average hospital and while there are some private hospitals here which are very integrated with CATs, they are pretty few and far between. Most patients seek CATs in addition to what is prescribed by the doctor rather then the doctor prescribing the CAT, though it is not uncommon for some doctors to prescribe them- come to think of it. I know several cases of women with lupis who were prescribed yoga very effectively and there are several doctors who will prescribe vitamins, dietary suppliments and herbal remedies. I think you are still hooked on debating some of the more outlandish therapies. Ones which I, as a nurse, would allow a patient to bring in on their own into the hospital setting.

I think, or at least interpret, Ember's comment about clergy as stating that healing is about more then treating symptoms until they go away. You have to deal with the spiritual and emotional sides of health as well- the difference between health and wellness. Clergy are valued members of the healing team as they can help patients heal spiritually and gain a lot of comfort. I don't think Ember meant to imply faith healing per se. And there are several hospitals that incorporate shaman and medicine men for this reason. It just depends upon the population- when I was in Chinle, Az the patients were all Navajo and Zuni. Therefore, medicine men were employed to as spiritual healers- or perhaps more accurately, healers of the spiritual.
 
Maybe I am overstating but the issue I thought we were discussing was whether or not this would be a good thing for hospitals to offer or endorse. Hence saying well not all hospitals offer it doesn't really matter much for the argument to whether or not they should. Not to mention that in the UK at least that any of the NHS funding goes towards homeopathy is to me shameful... we are not talking pocket change either.


I don't honestly believe anyone is advocating hospitals become affliated with shamans the point of such examples is to highlight that with no standard for whether something actually works then where do we draw the line. The answer you and some others seem to be advocating is that there is no line... that if someone believes something helps them then it's perfectly fine for it to be offered in a hospital setting. That to me is a ridiculous standard and I'm honestly shocked that people would suggest that ANY treatment is fine as long as the person believes it will help. I mean that really seems to just be going way too far to the extreme of being PC... and by being PC I mean not being able to criticise any treatment simply because someone believes in it. Offering someone a treatment like Homeopathy (which is hardly on the extreme spectrum- it's very mainstream) when you know it can't work as it claims is akin to saying it's ok to offer people false treatments as long as you don't tell them it's false.


The mental side of health yes hospitals have to deal with... the spiritual? Your also assuming here that the alternative healers are qualified to deal with mental issues... are they? Once again I would point out Im not saying 'just give them a pill and kick them out' I'm simply advocating that whatever treatment is used even things like massage or yoga or acupuncture should have some evidence that they help.

To illustrate; everyone knows acupuncture is relaxing if someone needs to relax and they are interested in acupuncture SURE why not suggest they go visit an acupuncture clinic. Or maybe even an illness for which acupuncture has been shown in trials to have a positive effect on, again SURE, there is a reason behind the recommendation.

What I would be against is advocating acupuncture to manage something like tinnitus without adding the caveat that it has been shown in clinical trials to have no better effect than a placebo. That kind of thing. Or with providing any funding to homepathic remedies- which would be wasting valuable funding on providing water with a completely pseudo-scientific explanation.


Taoquan you seem to put belief above what is true... I don't and I would see that as a distinctly harmful trend for medicine to follow. I wont deny someone their right to believe what they want but that doesn't make it something that should be regarded as an effective treatment or something a hospital should in anyway be affliated with. Let's take an extreme example... headhunting... yes I can hear the groans already however headhunting was considered a necessary practice in several places in SE Asia right up to the twentieth century- it was considered essential to the health of the individual and of the community in general that heads be collected. Now this is as we all know not true as was shown when it was prevented and things went on fine... yet the tribes that practiced this believed in it feverently and undoubtedly it made them mentally and 'spiritually' better when it happened. So why following your argument above should this practice have been prohibited? I mean isn't that just one society imposing it's views on another- isn't the fact that they believed taking heads was necessary for their health enough to make it 'true'? If not, why not? I know its an extreme example but cultural relativism... eugh, it brings out extreme reactions- I'd take heads if I thought it would bring an end to it.


I'm sorry Taoquan but I think this is the problem with the aforementioned cultural relativism despite sounding as if it's considerate to respect all beliefs... it's actually patronising and in the end harmful. Looking at societies without modern medicine or people unfamiliar with it and suggesting that somehow it's kinder to respect their beliefs than provide them with treatment that works or allow them to learn how modern medicine works is in my eyes just fetishing another culture as primitive. We don't still respect treatments based on the 4 humors or miasma so why should we respect other theories about the body which the evidence shows to be wrong simply because they are from foreign cultures. In every single culture that modern medicine has been brought or developed in the life expectancy goes up and a whole range of previously incurable or deeply debalitating diseases go down. All those cultures had all the 'traditional' treatments before... if the placebo effect was capable of the miraculous abilities claimed for it you would wonder why any society with a high enough belief wasn't totally free of illness.

I also feel like I adding that I don't know what kind of images you have of shamans but from my experience of shamanism it really isn't the noble profession that provides people with spiritual relief that people seem to be envisioning. In traditional societies it's generally a deeply traumatic experience for the individual; not to mention that shamans are not usually the wise old elders seen in disney films but conmen (and women) out to make a buck!

Taoquan your other points need some more thought so I'll respond properly when I've had time to do some research.
 
Actually, I believe the original question was who believed in these treatments, and whether they were effective.

As for whether hospitals should offer a service like that: I think it depends on the treatment, the practitioner, the situation and the relationship that is established.

An acquaintance of mine in the mental health field (can't recall whether psychiatrist or psychologist), a few years ago was offered what he considered a dream position: to head up a team of practitioners combining Western psychological care with traditional Navajo practices at a clinic in Arizona.

I would expect any practitioner that a hospital would have dealings with should have to have some credentials acceptable both to their field and to the patient(s) they would be seeing. Even shamans are supposed to undergo an apprenticeship and training before going their own way.

And yet even that has no guarantee. Going back to the rights of clergy, you do realize that clergy certification is highly variable? It can be as simple as going online and paying a small fee to an online church - no training required. Or it could require a Master's degree plus on-the-job training.

You admit that the headhunting example is extreme. I do think there should be bounds on what is permitted, and killing another person in an attempt for healing is not appropriate.

I think the cases we have been describing are ones in which the risks are limited to the patient and (perhaps) the practitioner. Have we not also established that the hypothetical patient IS receiving western medical care??

Consider my situation for a moment. Baby is at full term, the doctor has scheduled an induction in the morning. What harm is there in using appropriate pressure points to try and encourage labor over the weekend? If it works, my doctor is happy. If it doesn't work, we'll use the pitocin.
 
Why offer it? Because there is clinical evidence that it DOES improve patient outcomes. Period, end of story. You seem to want to continue to dismiss alternative therapies merely because you don't like them or don't agree with them. That does not negate the fact that there are plenty of studies out there that indicate many forms have excellent outcomes in the field. Nor does it negate the fact that many traditional or Western therapies have very poor sucess rates and continue in use.

And yes, there is a HUGE spiritual element to mental health- in point of fact, a large section of mental health nursing is learning to address these spiritual needs. And many clergy are trained to deal with it, and not all those clergy are Christian, traditional or familiar to us.

Did I read you correct in stating that you don't even think that research into CATs should be funded or was that me just being tired from a long day? Because that is a scary statement to me.
 
Thank you.

I know you disagree with my approach/method however I appreciate you can see past that.

I don’t think one approach or method is necessarily ‘better’ than the other, I think many have a use. Maybe yours is more appropriate however in the end I guess it just comes down to how you prefer to approach matters.


Exactly.

Professor Born at Kings College London makes an excellent point with regards to homoeopathy, although it can be applies to all alternative therapies:

"While it may be tempting to dismiss homoeopathy expenditure as relatively small across the NHS, we must consider the cultural and social damage of maintaining as a matter of principle expenditure on practices which are unsupported by evidence."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6683489.stm


On a side note… too often do you hear of stories of parents removing scientifically proven treatment from their children and turning to alternative treatments, only for their child to die as a result.

Here’s one example of a parent of a child with Leukaemia stopping Chemotherapy for holistic medicine: http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=68209&provider=gnews The child later died.

Here’s another case in which parents decided to turn to a “physic healer” for their child’s treatment for a brain tumour. After four surgeries by doctors and some telephone conversations with the psychic healer, the cancer when into remission (the parents credit the psychic). However CAT scans eventually showed a new mass growing. Doctors recommend another surgery since they think the cancer has almost certainly returned. The psychic healer however suggests they let is grow, since, he says, it is just healthy new brain tissue growing! www.dailytidings.com/2007/0210/stories/0210_cancer.php

Now of course, these are just two anecdotes of unfortunate incidents and certainly not comprehensive of all alternative/complementary medicine or proof against such treatment, however I’ve read more of these types of incidents than I care to. I think part of it comes down to given credence to such treatments. Many people rationally assume that treatments offered by hospital work and I think that next to personal belief (which pertains to the above examples), it is likely to be the main reason for it. People just don’t research for themselves. They assume it has already been proven so we must made sure this is the case.
 
Everyone is bias. They key is to be at least bias as possible.


No, this is dogma. Pseudoscepticism. Any legitimate sceptic will change their mind given sufficient evidence.


What do you mean here? Of course I am bias towards authentic scientific studies! The scientific method is the proven best method of establishing what is true.


Well these are all claims which cannot be verified by me. However the latter claim is completely understandable… to not become emotionally attached to a patient. That makes perfect sense. Doctors constantly see patients and their family suffer and patients die. Establishing a professional relationship rather than an emotional one, while it might be difficult to do, is probably the best thing to do. If a patient dies, the doctor literally has to ‘move on’ to other patients. This might seem callous but it is his job. That is why, I would think, councillors would be available to handle this aspect emotion side.


What does this have to do with my comment?
I wasn’t talking about now; I was talking about after it potentially being proven.
If it is proven it will be free in social health care countries. In non-social healthcare countries the alternative practitioner could and probably would charge much more, or at least as much as the MD.


I have looked into the claim, and yes, it makes perfect sense that doctors can, for example, identify potential heart problems or blood flow problems due to the pulse, however it is something else entirely to suggest you can diagnose all sorts of different conditions and diseases such as cancer just via a pulse check! That is what I was questioning. Even in western medicine I highly doubt a diagnosis is made just by a pulse check.


I’ve checked out the link you’ve posted as like CKava has stated, these are not conclusive. And yes, I do state overall that it tends to be negative because it is true, and ultimately this is what is important. Yes, there are many positive studies however when you look at all the studies you tend to see an overall negative result. I see no problem in mentioning this as a valid reason for being sceptical. You on the other hand tend to keep mentioning personal experience/anecdotal accounts and while I don’t doubt your personal experience on these matters, there are many reasons for doubting anecdotal ‘evidence’. Often the success that people report are a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which is to say A then B, therefore A caused B. For example, people may visit an alternative practitioner or take an alternative medicine and find the illness is improved or healed, and therefore they credit the practitioner or alt medicine as the reason for the cure when any number of things could be the cause, including, no less, time itself. This is precisely why we have double-blinded testing as it removed these types of possibilities.


Repeated clinical significance under properly controlled well design blinded studies. We need to be sure that the medicine or therapy does what it says it does (i.e. beyond the placebo effect) and that it is safe (i.e. we know the dangers, etc). As for what continues significant, well I gather this would depend on the individual medication/treatment be tested and the claims being made. While there may be a minimal line for any treatment, I would imagine some studies put in place specific conditions as to what continues significant.


I would imagine that a doctor would be well within his rights not to recommend a treatment procedure or medication which has not proven. While he cannot stop the patient from going ahead with such treatment on their own accord, I’m sure, for example, a doctor would want to know the potential dangers involved before recommending and/or agree to it. Otherwise he could be placing himself in potential legal danger. The dangers of a treatment are part of the clinical studies, another reason why they are important. If I were a doctor I may tell them there is not enough evidence for me to recommend such treatment, but that I cannot stop them from going ahead with it at their own choice.
 
Back
Top