5 ms·

Extremely famous people frequently "author" books, usually with ghostwriters. Charles' book is credit to him "with" two other people (Tony Juniper and Ian Skell

Extremely famous people frequently "author" books, usually with ghostwriters. Charles' book is credit to him "with" two other people (Tony Juniper and Ian Skelly who, I suspect, did most of the heavy lifting. Charles has for years been sympathetic to all sorts of woo, such as "alternative" medicine; his book was met with broad criticism for its cherry-picking of scientific findings to support his environmental agenda but ignoring evidence against alt medicine, etc.

oneplane 6y ago
I don't think there is such a thing as 'alternative medicine'. There is medicine, and there is not-medicine. Just like there is treatment and there is not-treatment. Calling things 'alternative' puts them on the same level, which they are not.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  I agree. I guess people use “alternative” to refer to “treatments” that have not been, are not able to be, or have failed proper trials.
- starfallg 6y ago
  Part of the issue is that the practice of medicine predate scientific medicine (which is known as just 'medicine' today). For example, many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies.
  - rodelrod 6y ago
    We do the trials.
  - msla 6y ago
    As others have said: We do the trials, and, if something from the pre-scientific era passes muster, we figure out the best way to make it as safe and efficacious as possible with the least variability in effect and fewest side effects. I'm not saying that eating a plant is ineffective, but plants don't come with dosage information for the active ingredient printed on the stem, and knowing how much of the useful (and potentially deadly) substance you're ingesting is important. Vitally important, if you're taking something like digitalis, which comes from foxglove: Get a digitalis dosage far enough wrong and it kills you.
    - starfallg 6y ago
      Yeah, but by stigmatising traditional medicine as 'not medicine', the damage has already been done. Lots of people would be turned off a remedy just because it's 'not medicine', even afterward it was proven scientifically. It is medicine, just not scientific medicine. Compare with the issue of getting people to trust in vaccines when the news headlines are all about very rare side effects. Keep in mind that there are traditional treatments that we haven't yet isolated the cause of action or the understand the pharmacology due to it being the interaction of different compounds. I'm not supporting traditional or alternative medicine, but I also don't think that the issue is so black and white, and treating it as such turns people away from the subject entirely.
      - oneplane 6y ago
        The issue is with the devaluation of mudding of words and language. (which might not be the correct wording) I don't think it has to be stigmatising, but I do think that calling things by their specific name helps with everyones mindset. Some words like 'helpful' are fine, because it does wat it says it does. But calling disparate things by the same name leaves the door open for people to mentally align those things to 'be' the same thing, which they aren't. Distinction is important, even if the differentiation isn't black-and-white. Taking some aspirine vs. drinking a nice cup of green tea can both help with a slightly sore throat, but they are not the same thing. (at the same time, I'd argue that it's better to take that nice cup of tea, take a nap, eat healthy, get to bed on time etc instead of covering the symptom with aspirine) Turning people away from a subject in itself isn't a bad thing; if someone is swayed that easily, they should probably not be entering a world of non-repeatable non-measurable non-transferable items and activities, especially if the people involved can't be held responsible for their actions. It also isn't a pharmacology thing on its own. While pharmaceuticals can help with certain issues, it's not the core of medicine and in certain cultures it's mostly just abused to cover up symptoms instead of used to mitigate or resolve root causes. But it's a tricky comparison. In the end we're comparing something measurable with something based on feelings and traditions. Those are generally not that reconcilable.
      - tacc728 6y ago
  - u801e 6y ago
    > many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies. If those treatments have been studied in a scientific manner, then the reconciliation, so to speak, has already happened. But, how do we define the effectiveness of treatment? In some cases, using a placebo has shown some effect, but that's because the hypothesis about the effectiveness of a proposed treatment didn't pan out.
    - oneplane 6y ago
      To be fair, a placebo can be helpful in its own way. And a 'good' placebo might need to have various methods, tastes, shapes, sizes etc; on the other hand it would be more psychotherapy than what people think of when thinking 'medicine'. Something that 'helps' in a measurable way with no drawbacks is a useful tool to have. It does of course not mend broken bones or suture cuts in the skin.
- dmos62 6y ago
  Is laughter a treatment? It depends. A treatment is something you use to treat. Not something that is effective. If you want to summarize evidence or present opinion, do so, but don't play with language.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    We could expand the word to the context it was used in if that is what you desire: medical treatment. We're not talking about treatment in itself, since that would also cover unrelated issues like 'waste water treatment', which isn't exactly related to the conversational context here.
    - BitwiseFool 6y ago
      How about the word "Therapeutic"?
      - ben_w 6y ago
        Again, depends what for. If someone told me laughter was genuinely therapeutic for clinical depression, I… ok, I would still be surprised, but I could be convinced. If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future. “Alternative medicine” is so often snake oil, that anything calling itself that is something I hold in the same regard as Star Trek Voyager’s plot devices. Indeed, one such “alternative medicine” is what my mother used religiously to stave off old age memory problems — she got Alzheimer’s about 16 years younger than her mother, who didn’t use them.
        dmos62 6y ago
        > If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future. Quick thinking has its place, but wouldn't you care why the person believes that? The anecdata about your family history isn't any more credible, if that's all we have to go by. I think quick think should be addressed with slow think. By thinking speed I'm referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
- ubermonkey 6y ago
  I agree, I was just using term as it is normally used. The pithy joke about it is this: "What do you call alternative medicine that works?" "Medicine."
  - BitwiseFool 6y ago
    From what I understand most "Alternative Medicine" can be chalked up to the placebo effect combined with a self fulfilling prophecy of patient expectations.
- sbuk 6y ago
  “You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine.” ― Tim Minchin

oneplane 6y ago

I don't think there is such a thing as 'alternative medicine'. There is medicine, and there is not-medicine. Just like there is treatment and there is not-treatment. Calling things 'alternative' puts them on the same level, which they are not.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
I agree. I guess people use “alternative” to refer to “treatments” that have not been, are not able to be, or have failed proper trials.
starfallg 6y ago
Part of the issue is that the practice of medicine predate scientific medicine (which is known as just 'medicine' today). For example, many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies.
- rodelrod 6y ago
  We do the trials.
- msla 6y ago
  As others have said: We do the trials, and, if something from the pre-scientific era passes muster, we figure out the best way to make it as safe and efficacious as possible with the least variability in effect and fewest side effects. I'm not saying that eating a plant is ineffective, but plants don't come with dosage information for the active ingredient printed on the stem, and knowing how much of the useful (and potentially deadly) substance you're ingesting is important. Vitally important, if you're taking something like digitalis, which comes from foxglove: Get a digitalis dosage far enough wrong and it kills you.
  - starfallg 6y ago
    Yeah, but by stigmatising traditional medicine as 'not medicine', the damage has already been done. Lots of people would be turned off a remedy just because it's 'not medicine', even afterward it was proven scientifically. It is medicine, just not scientific medicine. Compare with the issue of getting people to trust in vaccines when the news headlines are all about very rare side effects. Keep in mind that there are traditional treatments that we haven't yet isolated the cause of action or the understand the pharmacology due to it being the interaction of different compounds. I'm not supporting traditional or alternative medicine, but I also don't think that the issue is so black and white, and treating it as such turns people away from the subject entirely.
    - oneplane 6y ago
      The issue is with the devaluation of mudding of words and language. (which might not be the correct wording) I don't think it has to be stigmatising, but I do think that calling things by their specific name helps with everyones mindset. Some words like 'helpful' are fine, because it does wat it says it does. But calling disparate things by the same name leaves the door open for people to mentally align those things to 'be' the same thing, which they aren't. Distinction is important, even if the differentiation isn't black-and-white. Taking some aspirine vs. drinking a nice cup of green tea can both help with a slightly sore throat, but they are not the same thing. (at the same time, I'd argue that it's better to take that nice cup of tea, take a nap, eat healthy, get to bed on time etc instead of covering the symptom with aspirine) Turning people away from a subject in itself isn't a bad thing; if someone is swayed that easily, they should probably not be entering a world of non-repeatable non-measurable non-transferable items and activities, especially if the people involved can't be held responsible for their actions. It also isn't a pharmacology thing on its own. While pharmaceuticals can help with certain issues, it's not the core of medicine and in certain cultures it's mostly just abused to cover up symptoms instead of used to mitigate or resolve root causes. But it's a tricky comparison. In the end we're comparing something measurable with something based on feelings and traditions. Those are generally not that reconcilable.
    - tacc728 6y ago
- u801e 6y ago
  > many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies. If those treatments have been studied in a scientific manner, then the reconciliation, so to speak, has already happened. But, how do we define the effectiveness of treatment? In some cases, using a placebo has shown some effect, but that's because the hypothesis about the effectiveness of a proposed treatment didn't pan out.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    To be fair, a placebo can be helpful in its own way. And a 'good' placebo might need to have various methods, tastes, shapes, sizes etc; on the other hand it would be more psychotherapy than what people think of when thinking 'medicine'. Something that 'helps' in a measurable way with no drawbacks is a useful tool to have. It does of course not mend broken bones or suture cuts in the skin.
dmos62 6y ago
Is laughter a treatment? It depends. A treatment is something you use to treat. Not something that is effective. If you want to summarize evidence or present opinion, do so, but don't play with language.
- oneplane 6y ago
  We could expand the word to the context it was used in if that is what you desire: medical treatment. We're not talking about treatment in itself, since that would also cover unrelated issues like 'waste water treatment', which isn't exactly related to the conversational context here.
  - BitwiseFool 6y ago
    How about the word "Therapeutic"?
    - ben_w 6y ago
      Again, depends what for. If someone told me laughter was genuinely therapeutic for clinical depression, I… ok, I would still be surprised, but I could be convinced. If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future. “Alternative medicine” is so often snake oil, that anything calling itself that is something I hold in the same regard as Star Trek Voyager’s plot devices. Indeed, one such “alternative medicine” is what my mother used religiously to stave off old age memory problems — she got Alzheimer’s about 16 years younger than her mother, who didn’t use them.
      - dmos62 6y ago
        > If they told me it would cure Alzheimer’s, I’d make a mental note to ignore their opinions in future. Quick thinking has its place, but wouldn't you care why the person believes that? The anecdata about your family history isn't any more credible, if that's all we have to go by. I think quick think should be addressed with slow think. By thinking speed I'm referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
ubermonkey 6y ago
I agree, I was just using term as it is normally used. The pithy joke about it is this: "What do you call alternative medicine that works?" "Medicine."
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  From what I understand most "Alternative Medicine" can be chalked up to the placebo effect combined with a self fulfilling prophecy of patient expectations.
sbuk 6y ago
“You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine.” ― Tim Minchin