Re: Regulating acupuncturists etc

On 30 Nov, 13:41, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The myth that there are properly designed studies,
or even could be, for every standard medical
procdure is part of an anti-alternative medicine campaign
calling itself "evidence" based medicine and popularized
by such people as Dr. Ernst - an MD who has had no
advanced training in alternative medicine and holds no
degrees in it by his own addmission.


It seems reasonable to me that medicine should be based on evidence,
and that the evidence should be as good as possible. I expect those
advocating evidence-based medicine are opposed to alternative medicine
in so far as it is not supported by adequate evidence.

Why do you think an MD who evaluates the effectiveness of homeopathy
should be a trained homeopath? Indeed, such an MD might be less
objective. Do you think only trained psychoanalysts are equipped to
evaluate psychoanalysis?


Quick, where is the double blind randomized placebo controlled
studies for heart surgeries, knee replacement operations,
chemotherapy?
Those procedures and surgeries are determined and designed
by the expert MD's and surgeons themselves and in the end
we rely on their skill, not on some blind research testing.


It is not easy to conduct double-blind trials for some treatments,
but that doesn't imply that such trials shouldn't be conducted when
they are feasible.

We depend on the skill of GPs to diagnose, treat and refer, and on
the skill of surgeons to operate. A different type of skill is
required to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments. You seem to be
confusing the different types of expertise. Also, GPs and surgeons
may have limited access to the data required for the purposes of
evaluation.


Alternative medicine physicians are trained to find out as
best they can which treatments to recommend, just as
solicitors, architects, researchers, accountants, etc., offer informed
advice to their clients.
What's wrong with THAT?


Nothing, as long as they are acting on the basis of adequate
evidence.

Why don't homeopaths -- if they are confident of the validity of their
practices -- participate in some carefully controlled trials under the
supervision of independent researchers? If such trials were
successful, then homeopathy would gain greater acceptance and more
generous funding.

Dave Smith
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BBC: Could water really have a memory?
    ... you admit that your entire hypothesis must be wrong. ... in order to make a key experiment relevant to Homeopathy look bad. ... he revealed at the very least his ignorance of how modern medicine works ... "evidence based" medicine thingy has a LOT of critics, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Is sea salt better for your health than table salt?
    ... There is no reason to believe homeopathy works. ... There is no credible evidence it does work. ... demonise conventional medicine. ... "the treatment of disease by conventional means, ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Can somebody tell steelclaws ...
    ... alternative medicine is useless are futile. ... Real evidence, and not some unhinged woo you generally provide. ... Carole believes that her laxatives will keep her safe. ... read my posts for a few examples. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Lie back and relax: reflexology and aromatherapy degrees are dropped
    ... clinical evidence of efficacy, albeit controversial, remain in any ... By providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA ... an efficacious system of medicine. ... House of Commons report into the Evidence Check on Homeopathy ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Is sea salt better for your health than table salt?
    ... if it were justly applicable today the claim that it doesn't cure is ... There is no reason to believe homeopathy works. ... There is no credible evidence it does work. ... demonise conventional medicine. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)