5 ms·

> "Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to work? Medicine." - Tim Minchin, Storm, 2008 I've been a big fan of Tim Minchin's, an

> "Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to work? Medicine." - Tim Minchin, Storm, 2008 I've been a big fan of Tim Minchin's, and thanks to living in one of the cities where he built much of his early fame, I've seen and enjoyed much of his work. But I feel like a form of Godwin's Law should apply to this quote. It's been done to death, it contributes nothing of value to the discussions in which it is cited, it minimises and trivialises the horrible predicament of people (like myself) who experience illnesses that mainstream medicine can't/won't recognise or treat, and serves only to promote a sense of smugness among people who think they have mainstream medical science on their side. The point that people sharing this quote don't understand is this: For mainstream medical science to 'prove' something to work, it requires huge commercial and/or political incentives to do the research. If a pharmaceutical company or research institution can't reasonably expect a study to result in the development of a drug that can yield hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, it doesn't get done. That leads to a vast gap between what has been "proved to work" and what can actually work for people who take matters into their own hands, as I've done very successfully. It's notable that all the comments here seeking to refute Mz's comment are doing so by exaggerating or outright misquoting what she said.

inopinatus 9y ago
On the contrary, I shared this quote having full knowledge of the cost and complexity and political barriers, having both studied the industry academically and being personally close to medical practitioners engaged in the research and implementation of new treatments. I think all suggestion of "alternative remedies" is dangerous, since it opens the door to those preying on desperation to sell false hope. I have an active dislike of the phrase, because it fails to capture just how harmful they can be, and how rarely they are actual remedies. "Unproven interventions" might be a better name. More precisely, they also serve to mask those treatments deserving of more research that might actually have some potential, because such signal is lost in the torrential noise of snake oil and quackery. I join your criticism of the externalities in the US market-led system that incentivise research into drugs of symptomatic relief rather than cures. Nevertheless I believe that is a short-term systemic malfunction, and in any event is not a severe problem elsewhere where drug pricing is regulated. Large amounts of money and time are routinely allocated around the world for fundamental research into many difficult and poorly understood conditions. Pointing out that medicine can't treat everything is fine, because if it could we wouldn't need more research. But claiming the research doesn't get done, that's simply untrue.
- tomhoward 9y ago
  I think all suggestion of "alternative remedies" is dangerous, since it opens the door to those preying on desperation to sell false hope. I'm with you on practitioners who charge thousands of dollars offering to cure terminal cancer with carrot juice and coffee enemas. But this is a very small segment of the industry, and from what I've seen, anyone who does that for any amount of time gets regulated or shamed out of business. Most natural health practice is nothing of that sort. It's things like diet/nutrition, exercise, stress/trauma therapy; all things that have significant evidence of being beneficial. All the treatments I've tried in my journey to get well fit into this category: low-risk treatments for non-life-threatening conditions, that just support the mind and body to heal and strengthen naturally over the long term. I've been doing it for nearly 10 years and in that time my life has utterly transformed. Do you have any objection to this that doesn't rely on dismissing every health provider without a medical degree as a dangerous charlatan?
  - Mz 9y ago
    Most natural health practice is nothing of that sort. It's things like diet/nutrition, exercise, stress/trauma therapy; all things that have significant evidence of being beneficial. All the treatments I've tried in my journey to get well fit into this category: low-risk treatments for non-life-threatening conditions, that just support the mind and body to heal and strengthen naturally over the long term. This has been my experience as well. MCT oil has long been medically recommended (i.e. by actual doctors) for serious gut issues, such as stomach cancer and cystic fibrosis. It is not routinely recommended by doctors as a standard treatment for CF, but it is popular in the CF community. It isn't not a drug. It is not an unproven treatment. It has a solid track record. But, it seems to not be actively promoted in part because it isn't a drug. It is cheap and effective, but no miracle cure. What gets actively touted are new drugs that cost $250k or more annually and are only effective on about 5 percent of patients. There is no big fortune to be made in telling seriously ill people "If you eat better and avoid triggers, you can have higher quality of life, need fewer drugs, etc." There is a huge fortune to be made on these extremely niche drugs with insane price tags. So, doctors and other business people often promote the things that are lining their pockets, rather than the things that help patients improve their quality of life at little cost and low risk.
Alex3917 9y ago
> I feel like a form of Godwin's Law should apply to this quote. I would liken it more to the "nothing to hide" argument or "it's what plants crave." Some things actually are Nazi-like even if it's cliche to point it out. Whereas the Minchin quote is just something that people mindlessly repeat, seemingly detached from any sort of objective reality.
nradov 9y ago
This is not true. The medical field does a lot of research which is totally unrelated to drug development. Pick up a random collection of medical journals and look for yourself.
- tomhoward 9y ago
  Indeed, I neglected to mention the other main motivator for undertaking research: to be published in journals. Thanks for pointing it out. Seriously though, can you not see how the medical research system (and most importantly, the kinds of things that will be included in studies) is influenced by the fact that any study must seek to deliver on a commercial incentive, a political one, or at the very least, be likely to published in a reputable journal [1]? [1] Incidentally, this is also, indirectly, a commercial incentive, given that journal publications are used as a key metric for ranking research universities internationally, which has a major bearing on funding.
  - nradov 9y ago
    If the research isn't worth publishing in a reputable journal then it probably isn't worth doing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
    - tomhoward 9y ago
      The point is that this qualifier - that research must be "worth publishing in a reputable journal" - imposes significant constraints on what kind of research may be attempted to begin with. An hypothesis that is too far outside of mainstream accepted thinking may not be studied, if it seems (to the people proposing the study or the people considering funding it) like it will be too hard to get it through peer review or editorial review. I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a flaw in the system; it is healthy that there are constraints on what kind of research gets funded, and for things that are way outside of established thinking, the bar should be higher [1]. But it does mean there will inevitably be a gap - quite possibly a very big gap - between what has been "proved to work" and what can be effective for those who want or need (like myself) to take matters into their own hands. [1] Problems like politicisation, egotism and bullying are often said to be rife in scientific research institutions, so it's questionable whether the system is as healthy as it could be, but that's a separate discussion.

inopinatus 9y ago

On the contrary, I shared this quote having full knowledge of the cost and complexity and political barriers, having both studied the industry academically and being personally close to medical practitioners engaged in the research and implementation of new treatments. I think all suggestion of "alternative remedies" is dangerous, since it opens the door to those preying on desperation to sell false hope. I have an active dislike of the phrase, because it fails to capture just how harmful they can be, and how rarely they are actual remedies. "Unproven interventions" might be a better name. More precisely, they also serve to mask those treatments deserving of more research that might actually have some potential, because such signal is lost in the torrential noise of snake oil and quackery. I join your criticism of the externalities in the US market-led system that incentivise research into drugs of symptomatic relief rather than cures. Nevertheless I believe that is a short-term systemic malfunction, and in any event is not a severe problem elsewhere where drug pricing is regulated. Large amounts of money and time are routinely allocated around the world for fundamental research into many difficult and poorly understood conditions. Pointing out that medicine can't treat everything is fine, because if it could we wouldn't need more research. But claiming the research doesn't get done, that's simply untrue.

tomhoward 9y ago
I think all suggestion of "alternative remedies" is dangerous, since it opens the door to those preying on desperation to sell false hope. I'm with you on practitioners who charge thousands of dollars offering to cure terminal cancer with carrot juice and coffee enemas. But this is a very small segment of the industry, and from what I've seen, anyone who does that for any amount of time gets regulated or shamed out of business. Most natural health practice is nothing of that sort. It's things like diet/nutrition, exercise, stress/trauma therapy; all things that have significant evidence of being beneficial. All the treatments I've tried in my journey to get well fit into this category: low-risk treatments for non-life-threatening conditions, that just support the mind and body to heal and strengthen naturally over the long term. I've been doing it for nearly 10 years and in that time my life has utterly transformed. Do you have any objection to this that doesn't rely on dismissing every health provider without a medical degree as a dangerous charlatan?
- Mz 9y ago
  Most natural health practice is nothing of that sort. It's things like diet/nutrition, exercise, stress/trauma therapy; all things that have significant evidence of being beneficial. All the treatments I've tried in my journey to get well fit into this category: low-risk treatments for non-life-threatening conditions, that just support the mind and body to heal and strengthen naturally over the long term. This has been my experience as well. MCT oil has long been medically recommended (i.e. by actual doctors) for serious gut issues, such as stomach cancer and cystic fibrosis. It is not routinely recommended by doctors as a standard treatment for CF, but it is popular in the CF community. It isn't not a drug. It is not an unproven treatment. It has a solid track record. But, it seems to not be actively promoted in part because it isn't a drug. It is cheap and effective, but no miracle cure. What gets actively touted are new drugs that cost $250k or more annually and are only effective on about 5 percent of patients. There is no big fortune to be made in telling seriously ill people "If you eat better and avoid triggers, you can have higher quality of life, need fewer drugs, etc." There is a huge fortune to be made on these extremely niche drugs with insane price tags. So, doctors and other business people often promote the things that are lining their pockets, rather than the things that help patients improve their quality of life at little cost and low risk.

Alex3917 9y ago

> I feel like a form of Godwin's Law should apply to this quote. I would liken it more to the "nothing to hide" argument or "it's what plants crave." Some things actually are Nazi-like even if it's cliche to point it out. Whereas the Minchin quote is just something that people mindlessly repeat, seemingly detached from any sort of objective reality.

nradov 9y ago

This is not true. The medical field does a lot of research which is totally unrelated to drug development. Pick up a random collection of medical journals and look for yourself.

tomhoward 9y ago
Indeed, I neglected to mention the other main motivator for undertaking research: to be published in journals. Thanks for pointing it out. Seriously though, can you not see how the medical research system (and most importantly, the kinds of things that will be included in studies) is influenced by the fact that any study must seek to deliver on a commercial incentive, a political one, or at the very least, be likely to published in a reputable journal [1]? [1] Incidentally, this is also, indirectly, a commercial incentive, given that journal publications are used as a key metric for ranking research universities internationally, which has a major bearing on funding.
- nradov 9y ago
  If the research isn't worth publishing in a reputable journal then it probably isn't worth doing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
  - tomhoward 9y ago
    The point is that this qualifier - that research must be "worth publishing in a reputable journal" - imposes significant constraints on what kind of research may be attempted to begin with. An hypothesis that is too far outside of mainstream accepted thinking may not be studied, if it seems (to the people proposing the study or the people considering funding it) like it will be too hard to get it through peer review or editorial review. I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a flaw in the system; it is healthy that there are constraints on what kind of research gets funded, and for things that are way outside of established thinking, the bar should be higher [1]. But it does mean there will inevitably be a gap - quite possibly a very big gap - between what has been "proved to work" and what can be effective for those who want or need (like myself) to take matters into their own hands. [1] Problems like politicisation, egotism and bullying are often said to be rife in scientific research institutions, so it's questionable whether the system is as healthy as it could be, but that's a separate discussion.