3 ms·

I didn't realise you were such a cherry-picker. You took my first comment out of context, again, but oh well. He should be entitled to include absolutely anyt

by robbiep 14y ago

I didn't realise you were such a cherry-picker. You took my first comment out of context, again, but oh well. He should be entitled to include absolutely anything he chooses as something that may have the slimmest possible hope of being in some way beneficial. I am not in anyway disagreeing with this, and indeed supported it in my above post. The whole open-source process is the filter. - No, there is no filter. There is just a blog site. On which anyone may post their views and experiences, which may be observations of n=1, or n=10,000. And there is a big difference. And no way of knowing. Maybe the process will change, and so my first post serves to illustrate a weakness in the current design if it works, will find a far better outcome than a dogmatic approach represented by such a sentiment as "anyone with a half rational brain should be alarmed by this statement". So why don't you just come out and say that you are an apologist for CAM, instead of trying to pick off other points of my argument? You are not interested in my criticism of his process, or my suggestions or comparisons about how the art of medicine is not necessarily a process that is open to engagement from everyone (and there are some very good points further down critiquing my justification of this) You say earlier I'm not here to debate the efficacy of TCM or homeopathy, that's a waste of everyone's time. But that is what you are effectively doing, as it is becoming obvious you are not concerned with my actual commentary or engaging in meaningful debate, but rather my dismissal of the use of alternative medicine. And it is a valid technique of open discussion to dismiss that which is invalid - another comparison - an open source project is only open to people who know or will do the hard work to learn the language it is written in - The same applies to the imperfectly developed concept of open source medicine: You have to speak the language to be able to contribute. If you dont speak the language (read: pseudoscience) it is not that you can't contribute, but your contributions are noise.

tomhoward 14y ago
So why don't you just come out and say that you are an apologist for CAM Look, that's a really disgraceful comment, for reasons you're probably not able to know. I'm not engaging with your arguments because they do all come down to one's pre-conceived position on CAM. It's a religious/identity argument, and, yes, a waste of time. BTW... Fair point - I did cherry pick something out of context, mistakenly. Your comments are very long and I was skimming. But I think my point holds: it's not for you to judge what should be in or out. Your notion of what should be allowable is governed by your apparently binary classification of modalities as being either science-based or alternative. My point is that your judgement on this is not required: the open source process should provide the evidence. This may or may not turn out to be true, but either way it will be interesting. Can't we wait to see the results?
- robbiep 14y ago
  I'm pleased we're able to reach a level of civility here; FWIW i apologise for my ad hominem attack. I do not think that treatments are either binary Alt-med or science-based; rather there is a spectrum; I didn't make this explicitly clear however left the door open to this when I said I support lifestyle treatments. I agree that the evidence should speak for itself but as I point out in another post part of the problem with CAM is that you are dealing with 'true believers' - people that will deny the research that has been done and claim that none has. The truth is a huge body of CAM has been looked at, and tested scientifically; most of it has been found to be wanting; some has been found to be useful, and is now 'medicine', some of it has still not been looked at. So in this sense when I say something to the effect that 'this treatment is not good and may kill people who would likely be better treated by a different method' what I am implying is that the treatment has been shown to have no effect, and thus is already invalid. Should I wait for other people to decide? I don't know. I am opinionated and a passionate advocate of better healthcare and increased scientific awareness. Sometimes I express my points of view. Should all the evidence be available on all treatments - like, for example, on this blog/Cure page? Yes. But what this site is, in it's current incantation, going to lead to is impassioned descriptions of treatments based on belief, and not evidence. Additionally, and again, I make the point that if someone is, for example, undertaking Traditional Chinese Medicine and 'Homeopathic Chemotherapy', whilst at the same time undergoing conventional therapy - Chemo and Surgery +- Radio, and the treatments are successful, the person involved is as likely as not to ascribe the success of their treatment to the alternative treatments than the conventional, evidence backed treatments. Which gives the alternative treatments backdoor legitimacy, whilst having no efficacy of their own, and distorts the perceptions of those newly diagnosed that are desperately seeking help and answers. So i am interested to see where this goes, how 'open source medicine' turns out and how it's put together; I don't think doctors should have a monopoly on medical knowledge; or feel that the only legitimate advice comes from the devotees of the cult of medicine (as it is often made out to be), However I will not be quiet about the dangers posed by unfettered access to 'folk' remedies and recommendations based on a n=1 sample size, or 'cousin's uncle's sister's gardner' type treatment recommendations.
  - tomhoward 14y ago

by robbiep 14y ago

tomhoward 14y ago

So why don't you just come out and say that you are an apologist for CAM Look, that's a really disgraceful comment, for reasons you're probably not able to know. I'm not engaging with your arguments because they do all come down to one's pre-conceived position on CAM. It's a religious/identity argument, and, yes, a waste of time. BTW... Fair point - I did cherry pick something out of context, mistakenly. Your comments are very long and I was skimming. But I think my point holds: it's not for you to judge what should be in or out. Your notion of what should be allowable is governed by your apparently binary classification of modalities as being either science-based or alternative. My point is that your judgement on this is not required: the open source process should provide the evidence. This may or may not turn out to be true, but either way it will be interesting. Can't we wait to see the results?

robbiep 14y ago
I'm pleased we're able to reach a level of civility here; FWIW i apologise for my ad hominem attack. I do not think that treatments are either binary Alt-med or science-based; rather there is a spectrum; I didn't make this explicitly clear however left the door open to this when I said I support lifestyle treatments. I agree that the evidence should speak for itself but as I point out in another post part of the problem with CAM is that you are dealing with 'true believers' - people that will deny the research that has been done and claim that none has. The truth is a huge body of CAM has been looked at, and tested scientifically; most of it has been found to be wanting; some has been found to be useful, and is now 'medicine', some of it has still not been looked at. So in this sense when I say something to the effect that 'this treatment is not good and may kill people who would likely be better treated by a different method' what I am implying is that the treatment has been shown to have no effect, and thus is already invalid. Should I wait for other people to decide? I don't know. I am opinionated and a passionate advocate of better healthcare and increased scientific awareness. Sometimes I express my points of view. Should all the evidence be available on all treatments - like, for example, on this blog/Cure page? Yes. But what this site is, in it's current incantation, going to lead to is impassioned descriptions of treatments based on belief, and not evidence. Additionally, and again, I make the point that if someone is, for example, undertaking Traditional Chinese Medicine and 'Homeopathic Chemotherapy', whilst at the same time undergoing conventional therapy - Chemo and Surgery +- Radio, and the treatments are successful, the person involved is as likely as not to ascribe the success of their treatment to the alternative treatments than the conventional, evidence backed treatments. Which gives the alternative treatments backdoor legitimacy, whilst having no efficacy of their own, and distorts the perceptions of those newly diagnosed that are desperately seeking help and answers. So i am interested to see where this goes, how 'open source medicine' turns out and how it's put together; I don't think doctors should have a monopoly on medical knowledge; or feel that the only legitimate advice comes from the devotees of the cult of medicine (as it is often made out to be), However I will not be quiet about the dangers posed by unfettered access to 'folk' remedies and recommendations based on a n=1 sample size, or 'cousin's uncle's sister's gardner' type treatment recommendations.
- tomhoward 14y ago