Complementary therapies

[trowie246]

[quote="zeno

 

This is also where peer reviews help]

 

This is what should happen. Unfortunately Dr Andrew Wakefield managed to get his research paper published in the Lancet without any review by his peers. His research was of course looked at and shown to be highly flawed and he was eventually discredited but not before alot of damage was done. I was working as a nurse at the time and it was difficult for us to reassure parents that as far as we understood previous research showed the MMR vaccination to be safe. But it was confusing for parents and also myself because here was research being presented which seemed entirely plausible and had been published in a credible medical journal.

[zeno]

Sometimes good science throws up results that challenge our current medical thinking and beliefs. That is how progress is made.

Absolutely.

 

And of course acupuncture is now frequently offered on the NHS.

Unfortunately. They are wasting valuable resources on questionable treatments.

 

My own belief is that there are lots of well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning quacks working in alternative medicine.

I suspect many of them really do think that what they do can cure all ills, but the evidence says they have been misled.

 

But alternative medicine also allows alternative thinking and, some of the alternative approaches have now been shown to be effective, and have added to our body of knowledge.

Quite, but I really wouldn't hold my breath that acupuncture, homeopathy, reiki, crystal healing or any other woo is likely to result in a Nobel prize any time soon! Where they come from is years of careful scientific research, conducted by those with knowledge and experience, not by someone who'd struggle to pass O-level biology and certainly wouldn't pass final year medical school.

[EM]

This is also where peer reviews help: any reputable journal that publishes scientific papers will have a paper peer reviewed by others who have some knowledge in that field. If there is an obvious attempt to falsify results or if the methodology is obviously flawed, that will be spotted and the paper will not be published (or published with the comments from the reviewers). Thus, errors will be uncovered and corrected.

This is what should happen. Unfortunately Dr Andrew Wakefield managed to get his research paper published in the Lancet without any review by his peers.

A very good point. Even though the scientific method is pure and, as zeno pointed out, designed to deal with lapses, there is a shocking amount of bad science published in prestigious journals and conference proceedings. I review such papers in the field of structural engineering and regularly see terribly incompetent work even from the best Universities.

 

Another worrying development I've noticed is the increasing focus by Universities on computation-only research. Rather than conduct physical experiments (which are expensive) to test theoretical models , papers routinely calibrate one computer model against another (cheap). This is clearly losing sight of reality.

[zeno]

This is what should happen. Unfortunately Dr Andrew Wakefield managed to get his research paper published in the Lancet without any review by his peers. His research was of course looked at and shown to be highly flawed and he was eventually discredited but not before alot of damage was done. I was working as a nurse at the time and it was difficult for us to reassure parents that as far as we understood previous research showed the MMR vaccination to be safe. But it was confusing for parents and also myself because here was research being presented which seemed entirely plausible and had been published in a credible medical journal.

Yes, Wakefield and the media have a lot to answer for! We are still suffering from this and we are still waiting for proof of any link between MMR and Autism. Wakefield has been thoroughly discredited, particularly for his unethical behaviour in respect of the children he used in his research - Wakefield was being paid by a lawyer representing the parents of children who were trying to prove a link and they were not, as Wakefiled claimed, just chosen at random. He also didn't have approval of the ethics committee as he claimed. Ten out of the 13 authors withdrew their name from that part of the the Lancet article that claimed there was a link.

[Mag]

Zeno, you are trying to apply the research procedures used for drugs to the procedure of acupuncture. Would you feel it appropriate to double blind procedures such as surgery??

[zeno]

Zeno, you are trying to apply the research procedures used for drugs to the procedure of acupuncture. Would you feel it appropriate to double blind procedures such as surgery??

RCTs in general are difficult - but not impossible - for surgery. However, it is still the gold standard and we should do everything we can to apply RCTs and double-blind RCTs wherever possible. With acupuncture, researchers are very close to devising a true sham acupuncture that blinds both the patient and practitioner and there is no good reason why this should not be applied to acupuncture.

 

The paper you sent me (thanks!) is interesting and highlights the factors that may affect sham acupuncture. The authors spend 280 words (over 10%) of the paper telling us about the story of the Emperor's New Clothes! Why they thought that was necessary or helped is anyone's guess! They give six physiological effects that they think might influence any sham acupuncture placebo effect. They attempt to give reasons for these, but they are not all convincing: showing that these have some physiological effect does not mean that it is critical in acupuncture.

 

However, it looks like a good contribution to the debate and highlights the factors that need to be investigated, but does not mean (as I suspect was intended and I note the conflict of interest of the lead researcher) that acupuncture cannot or should not be subject to blinded RCTs: scientists should continue to look for a solution that allows the various effects to be evaluated to find out whether or not acupuncture or sham acupuncture does, indeed, have a significant effect. Given that other paper I came across on the same site, which discusses various sham acupuncture techniques, I am hopeful that ways will be found.

 

As I think I've said before, given the claims being made, I'm surprised any good trials have shown - at best - a minor benefit (which could have other explanations). As they don't really like to say in quality journals, more research is needed!

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Poseidon is away south right now to celebrate his mums 81st birthday, she's managed this far without alternative therapy.

 

I'm sure when he's back next week he'll be pleased to join in and welcome DR Nancy back, as for me, when I need help I'll see my GP, he saved my life once, got me to the hospital and I was operated on once they'd re-hydrated me, and for that I'm greatful and thankful.

 

Congratulations to her mom on her 81st b'day

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

When placebo effect is with you, it is powerful, and when it is with us, it is nothing.

Who said that? I certainly didn't. The placebo effect is the name given to a wide range of effects. It can be powerful, but it has limits and it certainly depends on the situation. Did you know that red placebo (ie sugar) pills invoke a greater placebo response that blue ones for pain? I wonder why homeopathy pills are white?

 

Many AltMeds, because their customers are misled into believing they are effective, do provoke a placebo response, but, because stuff like homeopathy does absolutely nothing by itself, the only response in their customer is the placebo response.

 

However with proper doctors, when prescribing to a patient a medicine that has pharmacological action, has the placebo response in addition to the action of the treatment. So, there is a double benefit: a treatment for which there is scientific evidence that it works and possibly a placebo response.

 

Is placebo playing hide and seek with us. But who is having the last laugh? You, Us, or placebo itself?

What do you mean?

 

What do you mean by proper doctors?

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

According to a 1970 edition of Webster’s New World dictionary, the word comes from the Latin sciens, present participle of scire, to know. The dictionary says: 1. originally, knowledge. 2. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation. 3. a branch of knowledge, especially one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles and methods. 4. a). the systematized knowledge of nature. . any branch of this.

 

Homeopathy, for example, is a science because all knowledge pertaining to homeopathic medicines is derived from observation, study and experimentation

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Zeno said homeopathy is religion. On the contrary I can say conventional medicine is religion.

 

the similarities between conventional Medicine and dogmatic or fundamentalist religion are obvious.

 

1. Both are run on hiarchies,the priests were the lackies of the bishops while Doctors are the lackies of the drug companies.

 

2. priests and Doctors are not allowed to think for themselves or question the higher authority, if they did both were struck of. They all have to sing from the same hymn sheet or else.

 

3. Both ignore data outside the narrow dogmatic beliefs, both punish heretics,Both offered salavation and hopes beyond their ability to deliver.

 

4. Both played on fears (vaccination scaremongering,hell fire and brimstone for non believers)

 

5. Both only offer salavation from a dogmatic outside forces.

 

6. Both try prevent free discusion of homeopathy and reject criticism.

 

(Total rejection of homeopathy despite evidence in the real world that it works shows a indoctinated mind that refuses to look things outide of its narrow belief systems

 

7. Both indoctrinate into a narrow field of study that rejects observations of reality that go against the indoctrinated dogma.

 

8. Both held great political power and money to control the thoughts of the masses.

 

9. In the real world hundreds of thousands of iatrogenic deaths each year caused by allopathic drugs and misdiagnosis etc which are ignored because it goes against the dogma, while the church killed millions in the inquisition and for being witches.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

In conventional medicine, new medicines (sources are mostly chemical/synthetic) are constantly being created, tested in test-tubes, sick persons, or animals (rats), and going in and out of market every few years once their side effects (typical examples are of steroids, antibiotics, hormones) become obvious to the general public. How many allopathic drugs of yesterday can be found on the chemists’ shelves today? They all had their day, and their alluring names have faded into oblivion (because they are declared ineffective or dangerous), only to be replaced by newer drugs (now you can judge yourself how scientific allopathy is?).

 

Homeopathic medicines (prepared from many natural substances such as herbs and minerals) used in the times of Dr. S. Hahnemann (200 yrs back) are used even today because of their efficacy. They have been tried and tested on healthy human beings. They are known, trusted, and reliable.

[zeno]

What do you mean by proper doctors?

Proper doctors are ones who have passed a basic biology exam and had the patience, perseverance and ability to have passed an accredited degree in conventional medicine and who is registered with the General Medical Council and licensed to practice medicine.

[zeno]

According to a 1970 edition of Webster’s New World dictionary, the word comes from the Latin sciens, present participle of scire, to know. The dictionary says: 1. originally, knowledge. 2. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation. 3. a branch of knowledge, especially one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles and methods. 4. a). the systematized knowledge of nature. . any branch of this.

 

Homeopathy, for example, is a science because all knowledge pertaining to homeopathic medicines is derived from observation, study and experimentation

No, Nancy. Homeopathy is not science because it fails several key tests. The main one it fails is prediction. Homeopathy can not make a single prediction that can be tested. Did you read and understand what I said in my earlier post about science and prediction?

[zeno]

the similarities between conventional Medicine and dogmatic or fundamentalist religion are obvious.

No they are not, Nancy.

 

1. Both are run on hiarchies,the priests were the lackies of the bishops while Doctors are the lackies of the drug companies.

Yes, there are hierarchies, but that's where your analogy fails. Please provide evidence that all doctors are 'lackeys' of the drug companies and please compare that to homeopaths being lackeys of companies like Boiron.

 

2. priests and Doctors are not allowed to think for themselves or question the higher authority, if they did both were struck of. They all have to sing from the same hymn sheet or else.

This is a very silly assertion: please give a reason why you think this.

 

3. Both ignore data outside the narrow dogmatic beliefs, both punish heretics,Both offered salavation and hopes beyond their ability to deliver.

Again, an unfounded allegation. If you mean doctors generally ignore the quack nonsense that is homeopathy and crystal healing, then I agree. But they also ignore possession by a demon as nonsense, so I don't see what you hope to achieve by your assertion. Please also provide details of punishment meted out to heretics. Doctors don't offer 'salvation', whatever that means.

 

4. Both played on fears (vaccination scaremongering,hell fire and brimstone for non believers)

Vaccines unequivocally offer protection to society and individuals and has saved countless lives. It is the quacks who, not understanding the biology and science of vaccines, have spread fear and distrust about vaccines, causing many children to unnecessarily suffer from diseases like measles. Just what 'hell and brimstone' are you talking about?

 

5. Both only offer salavation from a dogmatic outside forces.

I have no idea what you mean.

 

6. Both try prevent free discusion of homeopathy and reject criticism.

Please give examples of doctors preventing (or even trying to prevent) discussion of homeopathy.

 

(Total rejection of homeopathy despite evidence in the real world that it works shows a indoctinated mind that refuses to look things outide of its narrow belief systems

Belief systems? Didn't you read and understand what I said earlier about what science was? Let me say it again: the ONLY evidence that homeopathy works is from homeopaths with a vested interest in it working and their customers who generally know even less about medical conditions than their homeopaths. This is ANECDOTAL evidence only and is not considered reliable by those who have far higher standards of concern, integrity and care for their patients. I suspect you still don't understand why anecdotes are just not enough when it comes to people's health and I'd be glad to explain it for you in more detail.

 

7. Both indoctrinate into a narrow field of study that rejects observations of reality that go against the indoctrinated dogma.

No doctors don't. What 'observations of reality'?

 

8. Both held great political power and money to control the thoughts of the masses.

Doctors do not hold political power. In what way do you think they do?

 

9. In the real world hundreds of thousands of iatrogenic deaths each year caused by allopathic drugs and misdiagnosis etc which are ignored because it goes against the dogma, while the church killed millions in the inquisition and for being witches.

Utter nonsense. Of course some patients are misdiagnosed and some patients die (doctors are only human and do, occasionally make mistakes), but real doctors treat real, life threatening conditions and the fate of all of us is to die. Homeopaths on the other hand, treat self-limiting, non-serious conditions - if indeed they even exist - and the experience of a 'consultation' with a customer will make the customer feel a bit better, so it's no wonder that their customers think it works. However, when something serious arises (heart attack, diabetes, cancer), they need to see a proper doctor, not one that sells sugar pills. It is when the customers of homeopaths are led to believe that homeopaths can successfully treat serious medical conditions that it gets dangerous.

 

Nancy, if you want to progress the discussion, you'll need to learn to provide some kind of back up for your assertions. Just saying them and repeating them does not make them true and you will influence no one with that style.

[zeno]

In conventional medicine, new medicines (sources are mostly chemical/synthetic) are constantly being created, tested in test-tubes, sick persons, or animals (rats),

Yes, Nancy, new medicines are being continually created as new knowledge and understanding is found through experiments and results. Yes, new medicines are tested in vitro, in vivo (in much more than just rats) and, yes, on people with the condition the medicine is aimed to help. Compare and contrast this with homeopathic preparations: some 'prover' or other takes a bit of the 'remedy' and dreams about it and writes down a list of 'feelings' they think it invokes. This then gets used by homeopaths to match up with their customers to come up with the right preparation. No testing; no impartiality; no integrity; no idea. If you want, I can provide a link to the kind of nonsense a 'prover' comes up with that'll show everyone here just how nonsensical these provings are?

 

and going in and out of market every few years once their side effects (typical examples are of steroids, antibiotics, hormones) become obvious to the general public.

No. You are confusing this with the fact that better treatments are found, unlike homeopathy, where preparations found do not change in the light of new knowledge or understanding.

 

How many allopathic drugs of yesterday can be found on the chemists’ shelves today?

Very few. And that's the strength of conventional medicines: we keep making them better. You are falling into an appeal to tradition fallacy.

 

They all had their day, and their alluring names have faded into oblivion (because they are declared ineffective or dangerous), only to be replaced by newer drugs (now you can judge yourself how scientific allopathy is?).

See above. If you had read and understood what I said in my long post about science, you'll discover that continually refining knowledge is one of the strengths of science, not one of its weaknesses. It is homeopathy that is stuck in the past, unwilling and unable to change its dogma, with one dogmatic, cult leader at its head: Hahnemann and no one willing or able to question his nonsense.

 

Homeopathic medicines (prepared from many natural substances such as herbs and minerals) used in the times of Dr. S. Hahnemann (200 yrs back) are used even today because of their efficacy. They have been tried and tested on healthy human beings. They are known, trusted, and reliable.

Nancy, the only evidence you have supplied are anecdotes: fallible stories told by those far too close to be unbiased. That just will not do when people's health is concerned. As I said above, I can say much more about homeopathy - not so much for you (because I'm not sure you will listen) - but for the others here who might like to know exactly what it is and what homeopaths claim about it.