4 ms·

Andrew Weil isn't exactly regarded as the most credible source in medical circles. (And I'm being kind here. I've heard some comparisons to Deepak Chopra…)

• Alex3917 16y ago
  He's pretty up on his science. Don't forget he graduated from Harvard medical school, was editor of the Crimson, and majored in botany as an undergrad, making him probably vastly smarter and more knowledgeable about science than anyone here on HN. I actually saw him give a talk this year where he talked about how LSD cured his cat allergies: http://www.maps.org/videos/source/video6.html http://www.maps.org/videos/source/video6.html He speculates about a lot of stuff like this that sounds pretty crazy unless you're willing to take the time to understand his argument. Obviously these kinds of musings are unproven, but that is by definition the nature of speculation. And his actual medical advice is all pretty solid from what I've seen. My favorite talk by him is this: http://www.matrixmasters.net/salon/?p=129 http://www.matrixmasters.net/salon/?p=129 Again there is a lot of speculation, but there's nothing wrong with that at least in my book.
  • nollidge 16y ago
    > vastly smarter and more knowledgeable about science than anyone here on HN Perhaps, but that's probably why the GP talked about his reputation "in medical circles". He's not any more knowledgeable about science than his major critics: http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/weil.html http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/weil.html http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/science_is_irrelevant_resistance_is_futi.php http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/science_is_irrelev... http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4431 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4431 http://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunderground/2009/10/18/the-wild-weil-world-of-woo/ http://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunderground/2009/10/18/...
    • Alex3917 16y ago
      The quackwatch article you cite is extremely intellectually dishonest. It makes a couple points which would be interesting if true, but the overwhelming about of BS makes me highly skeptical. The author seems to have a complete inability to just point out any errors Weil has made and explain why they are wrong. Instead we get sentences like: "The leaders of the establishment believe in the scientific method, and in the rule of evidence, and in the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology upon which the modern view of nature is based. Alternative practitioners either do not seem to care about science or explicitly reject its premises." Not only is this intellectually dishonest because it has nothing to do with what Weil has actually written, but it isn't even true; it was homeopathy that invented evidence-based medicine and drug testing in the first place.
      • nollidge 16y ago
        > homeopathy that invented evidence-based medicine and drug testing I'll need a citation for that. Homeopathy is one of the most blatantly nonsensical, improbable, and unproven "disciplines" I've ever come across. Edit: For context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
        • Alex3917 16y ago
          From a JAMA book review: "19th-century homeopaths pioneered systematic drug-testing research, challenged the dangerously depleting procedures of mainstream physicians at that time, established rigorous professional standards, and valued advanced education at least as highly as their mainstream counterparts did. It was not without reason that homeopaths considered the bases of their approach to medical problems to be more logical and more promising than the inherited tradition of the ancients, upon which mainstream physicians still based their practices." (For what it's worth, JAMA highly recommends the book.) http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/295/13/1590.extract http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/295/13/1590.extract
          • car 16y ago
            Homeopathy may have been cutting edge in the 19th century (I doubt it), but this is the 21st. Science has moved on.