4 ms·

> Sure. But this has nothing to do with the scenario of an unproven stem cell therapy. There the chances are 99,99999% vs. 0.00001%. > This is a really bad ide

> Sure. But this has nothing to do with the scenario of an unproven stem cell therapy. There the chances are 99,99999% vs. 0.00001%. > This is a really bad idea, and your comment ideally shows why that's the case. You're selling people the idea that they have something like a 50/50 chance. But that's a complete illusion. Even 10/90 is an illusion. The chances of a completely unproven therapy to do any good are practically zero. The 50/50 is for sake of practicality, it's not the main point. The point is some people would take unproven treatments if it meant they had any chance to improve their quality of life. See: The man who's having his head transplanted. I've been in this situation before where all approved methods had failed me. I was extremely desperate to find something that would help, so I was vulnerable to con men (and they made a killing off me from "homeopathic remedies"), but when I settled down with a clear and rational head, I decided that I would be worse off if I continued living in my pathetic state. So, I did my due diligence and interviewed every treatment that looked promising (after doing research on my disease). Even though they were all "out there" I found one I was confident in and signed up. There was no guarantee I was going to be better, only that there'd be a $60k hole in my pocket. To make a long story short, it improved my condition to a manageable state and I'm very happy with the results. I've never been a proponent of restriction, only proper education. If someone is properly educated on the possible harms and how to avoid them, then why shouldn't they be allowed to take a course they believe would benefit them (without hurting anyone else)? The problem that's being discussed here, though, is that the clinic had a power imbalance (partly due to lack of proper education on the subject) and preyed against these three women. Perhaps if they were informed properly (due to regulation on full disclosure) they might have been better off.

sdenton4 10y ago
In your view, though, blame will always lie elsewhere. It's either with the uneducated blind women, or, if you're a generous soul, the society that failed to properly educate them. Somehow the back alley quack with the completely unrested remedy evades all blame for their actions. Quackery has a supply side and a demand side. The supply side is easier to deal with. It's a smaller target. Furthermore, it's in the interest of the quack to produce misinformation that your education programs will be in competition with.
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  > In your view, though, blame will always lie elsewhere. This is contrary to what I said, but I wasn't clear. Let me elaborate: > Perhaps if they were informed properly (due to regulation on full disclosure) they might have been better off. What statements the clinic puts out should be regulated, just like supplements. You are not allowed to say some things, but required to say other things. > It's either with the uneducated blind women, or, if you're a generous soul, the society that failed to properly educate them. The blind women is partly to blame (though dependent on her ability to research -- an 90 y/o alzheimer's patient is much much much less to blame than a 25 y/o office worker) for being taken advantage of. The clinic, however, holds the majority of the blame for practicing deceptive procedures and misinforming (if they indeed had misinformed, I only skimmed the article). > Quackery has a supply side and a demand side. The supply side is easier to deal with. It's a smaller target. This is true, but it does not bring about the best outcomes. Proper medical procedures (as accepted and enforced by regulatory agencies) are most of the time years behind in implementing new and better techniques (or not incentivized to, see: europe vs. american models of health treatment). You hurt: the people to whom accepted practices do not offer relief, the research of "unethical" procedures that could otherwise save lives if there was no stigma (again, see: head transplant), and people's freedom of choice.
SubuSS 10y ago
The problem with 'freedom of choice' is the assumption that you are equipped enough to handle the information. There is a general assumption among us educated that given time and energy, we can understand anything logically without our biases hurting the process. In reality, we are not equipped. We are not even equipped to analyze day to day news that we receive (if you consider all the biases, journalistic mistakes and private interest media/websites). We just don't have the time to do the same job as a fully trained doctor / FDA certifier would. We might convince ourselves based on some outliers, but in reality - specialization has been the key to address the ever expanding scope of knowledge today. Anecdotally, When I was a kid, there used to be pretty much a physician or a surgeon in India. They handled 99% of cases compared to today when every body part has a specialist. That's the scope of knowledge spread - It is very trivializing to assume that we can jump in and figure it all out better than the experts. I am glad that your non-approved treatment worked out. But it is anecdotal - there are a million other equivalents where it didn't. This spans people with intelligence of all ranges. Cornered people would be will do almost anything based on how they perceive the current threat. The fact that they convince themselves that they are making the right call, doesn't make it right.

sdenton4 10y ago

In your view, though, blame will always lie elsewhere. It's either with the uneducated blind women, or, if you're a generous soul, the society that failed to properly educate them. Somehow the back alley quack with the completely unrested remedy evades all blame for their actions. Quackery has a supply side and a demand side. The supply side is easier to deal with. It's a smaller target. Furthermore, it's in the interest of the quack to produce misinformation that your education programs will be in competition with.

stagbeetle 10y ago
> In your view, though, blame will always lie elsewhere. This is contrary to what I said, but I wasn't clear. Let me elaborate: > Perhaps if they were informed properly (due to regulation on full disclosure) they might have been better off. What statements the clinic puts out should be regulated, just like supplements. You are not allowed to say some things, but required to say other things. > It's either with the uneducated blind women, or, if you're a generous soul, the society that failed to properly educate them. The blind women is partly to blame (though dependent on her ability to research -- an 90 y/o alzheimer's patient is much much much less to blame than a 25 y/o office worker) for being taken advantage of. The clinic, however, holds the majority of the blame for practicing deceptive procedures and misinforming (if they indeed had misinformed, I only skimmed the article). > Quackery has a supply side and a demand side. The supply side is easier to deal with. It's a smaller target. This is true, but it does not bring about the best outcomes. Proper medical procedures (as accepted and enforced by regulatory agencies) are most of the time years behind in implementing new and better techniques (or not incentivized to, see: europe vs. american models of health treatment). You hurt: the people to whom accepted practices do not offer relief, the research of "unethical" procedures that could otherwise save lives if there was no stigma (again, see: head transplant), and people's freedom of choice.

SubuSS 10y ago

The problem with 'freedom of choice' is the assumption that you are equipped enough to handle the information. There is a general assumption among us educated that given time and energy, we can understand anything logically without our biases hurting the process. In reality, we are not equipped. We are not even equipped to analyze day to day news that we receive (if you consider all the biases, journalistic mistakes and private interest media/websites). We just don't have the time to do the same job as a fully trained doctor / FDA certifier would. We might convince ourselves based on some outliers, but in reality - specialization has been the key to address the ever expanding scope of knowledge today. Anecdotally, When I was a kid, there used to be pretty much a physician or a surgeon in India. They handled 99% of cases compared to today when every body part has a specialist. That's the scope of knowledge spread - It is very trivializing to assume that we can jump in and figure it all out better than the experts. I am glad that your non-approved treatment worked out. But it is anecdotal - there are a million other equivalents where it didn't. This spans people with intelligence of all ranges. Cornered people would be will do almost anything based on how they perceive the current threat. The fact that they convince themselves that they are making the right call, doesn't make it right.