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 o

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.