3 ms·

> I hesitate to even use the words non-mainstream or alternative, because they get made fun of, but it just goes to show how successful the push to demonize al

> I hesitate to even use the words non-mainstream or alternative, because they get made fun of, but it just goes to show how successful the push to demonize alternative health practitioners has been. You gotta be honest with yourself: 1. Anything that is claimed to work gets tested. 2. Anything showing efficacy in double-blind trials get taken up almost immediately. 3. The only stuff left on the table, then, is the stuff that was tested and was found to perform no better than a placebo. This is where all the alternative medicines lie, on the efficacy spectrum. Of course the people selling drinking water or acupuncture sessions are going to claim that "the establishment" has never bothered to test their product - why would they tell you that it's been tested and relegated to "alternative" medicine? The sad fact is that there are a large number (few million, at least) of Phd candidates every year looking to publish a thesis about a drug/process/medicine/practice that is effectively a new cure for something. They will get insanely rich, and famous, and get invited to give talks and get tenure if even one of the currently popular alternative medicines work better than a placebo. You need to ask yourself "Is it really possible that every single graduating student of the bio and medical sciences are either bought off by big pharma or too stupid to get this easily reachable fame and fortune?" Your answer to that question, to yourself, is enough - you don't need to reply to me telling me how $FOO successfully demonized $WORKING_MEDICINE - you need t simply ask yourself why millions of grad students haven't jumped at this opportunity for themselves.

vonjuice 3y ago
Just remember there was a time when medical doctors refused to wash their hands for surgeries, adamantly: https://theconversation.com/ignaz-semmelweis-the-doctor-who-discovered-the-disease-fighting-power-of-hand-washing-in-1847-135528 https://theconversation.com/ignaz-semmelweis-the-doctor-who-...
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > Just remember there was a time when medical doctors refused to wash their hands for surgeries, adamantly: https://theconversation.com/ignaz-semmelweis-the-doctor-who- https://theconversation.com/ignaz-semmelweis-the-doctor-who-... What does that have to do with scientists? I've said how huge fame and fortunes are sitting on the table for the first person who can find evidence for the popular alternative medicines. What medical doctors do, or don't do, is irrelevant, because medical doctors aren't in the business of determining what works and what doesn't, they prescribe only what has already been tested to work. Their job isn't to run tests to determine what works, it's to diagnose and treat using known working medication. If your complaint is that medical doctors don't prescribe alternative medicines, then your beef is not with doctors, but with the science that tested them and found them not to work.
kuerbel 3y ago
>2. Anything showing efficacy in double-blind trials get taken up almost immediately. I have experience working with a CRO, and unfortunately, the statement isn't entirely accurate. Not every novel molecule or treatment receives the clinical evaluation it deserves. Clinical studies are incredibly costly, and even if a drug is theoretically just as effective as the standard treatment but with fewer side effects, it might not receive approval. The same holds for treatments with slightly improved efficacy, and so forth. >3. The only stuff left on the table, then, is the stuff that was tested and was found to perform no better than a placebo. This is where all the alternative medicines lie, on the efficacy spectrum. The primary challenge lies in the need for funding to conduct these studies. There are natural compounds that can be equally as efficient as their synthetic counterparts, with fewer side effects. Another problem is that natural compounds often cannot be patented.

vonjuice 3y ago

Just remember there was a time when medical doctors refused to wash their hands for surgeries, adamantly: https://theconversation.com/ignaz-semmelweis-the-doctor-who-discovered-the-disease-fighting-power-of-hand-washing-in-1847-135528 https://theconversation.com/ignaz-semmelweis-the-doctor-who-...

lelanthran 3y ago
> Just remember there was a time when medical doctors refused to wash their hands for surgeries, adamantly: https://theconversation.com/ignaz-semmelweis-the-doctor-who- https://theconversation.com/ignaz-semmelweis-the-doctor-who-... What does that have to do with scientists? I've said how huge fame and fortunes are sitting on the table for the first person who can find evidence for the popular alternative medicines. What medical doctors do, or don't do, is irrelevant, because medical doctors aren't in the business of determining what works and what doesn't, they prescribe only what has already been tested to work. Their job isn't to run tests to determine what works, it's to diagnose and treat using known working medication. If your complaint is that medical doctors don't prescribe alternative medicines, then your beef is not with doctors, but with the science that tested them and found them not to work.

kuerbel 3y ago

>2. Anything showing efficacy in double-blind trials get taken up almost immediately. I have experience working with a CRO, and unfortunately, the statement isn't entirely accurate. Not every novel molecule or treatment receives the clinical evaluation it deserves. Clinical studies are incredibly costly, and even if a drug is theoretically just as effective as the standard treatment but with fewer side effects, it might not receive approval. The same holds for treatments with slightly improved efficacy, and so forth. >3. The only stuff left on the table, then, is the stuff that was tested and was found to perform no better than a placebo. This is where all the alternative medicines lie, on the efficacy spectrum. The primary challenge lies in the need for funding to conduct these studies. There are natural compounds that can be equally as efficient as their synthetic counterparts, with fewer side effects. Another problem is that natural compounds often cannot be patented.