Re: Regulating acupuncturists etc
- From: Sleepalot <sleepalot07@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:38:05 +0000
Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 3:59 pm, Dave Smith <da...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30 Nov, 13:41, CitizenJimserac<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.
Excuse me I quite agree - what you are overlooking is
that the attacks on alternative medicine are misrepresenting
the NATURE of that evidence by the pretension that all of
standard medicine is backed up by iron clad 100% exact
double blinded placebo controlled randomized testing
and that is a complete falsehood.
No it's your strawman and your falsehood.
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?
Do YOU think we should have biologists evaluating the work
of physical chemists?
Your missing the point. In homeopathy, what is the treatment,
the thing to be evaluted for efficacy? Can the homeopath be
separated from his potion? If not: if his words are materially
important, then he's a shaman, or priest, making incantations.
If the potion he makes is itself the whole of the treatment, then
it can be (and should be) tested independantly of him.
Perhaps we need some Homeopaths to evalute the MD's.
Only if they are qualified to do so.
Do you have ANY idea of the current mess of our
health care situation - the NUMBER of people killed
or injured by standard medical practice? You DON'T want
me to go find the link and quote some figures on that do you?
Yes, or rather YES, if we're going to be shouty about it, but
only if it's from an authoritative source.
I'm here to tell you, all of you, that MD's and the system of
medicine, allopathy, that they represent is NOT the be all
and end-all of all medicine.
But as we've established you're not a doctor, or an expert in any
related field, why should we care what you tell us?
And it does NOT represent the gold standard of evaluating medical
procedures. What IS the gold standard - the health, well being,
recovery and CURE of the patient.
No, that's completely wrong. Working that way, you can take one
patient as proving the efficacy of a treatment, and ignore thousands
of failures.
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.
But it does mean that those trials do not exist - the EVIDENCE was
not quite as "scientific" as the pretenders of "evidence would have
you believe. Who then decides on the "evidence". Why the expert
surgeons and MD's of course. It is the SAME with the Homeopaths.
Ah, "it's a conspiracy!"
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.
Excuse me, do you think some statistician or physciist is telling
the MD's which procedures are good and which not?
NO. The MD's and surgeons are doing that themselves just as
they should.
That claim is based on what?
At one time it was accepted practice to surgically remove
part of a person's stomach as the "cure" for some types of ulcers.
Then Barry Marshall came along and new procedures were devised
based on his discovery.
Yes, advances are made in evidence-based medicine.
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.
I can't believe that is not being done right now, but I'm too tired to
search for it. Check the NIH alternative medicine web site.
Thanks
Citizen Jimserac
Ooops!
Healer dies after failing to treat a foot wound
<http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/Healer-dies-after-failing-to.4699316.jp>
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
.
- References:
- Re: Regulating acupuncturists etc
- From: Citizen Jimserac
- Re: Regulating acupuncturists etc
- Prev by Date: Re: Regulating acupuncturists etc
- Next by Date: Re: Regulating acupuncturists etc
- Previous by thread: Re: Regulating acupuncturists etc
- Next by thread: Re: Regulating acupuncturists etc
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
