3 ms·

Just because current conventional medicine isn't entirely evidence-based does not excuse the claims of CAM from the requirement for evidence. Note that when an

by jimworm 14y ago

Just because current conventional medicine isn't entirely evidence-based does not excuse the claims of CAM from the requirement for evidence. Note that when an MD gives this statement: "take these antibiotics, then get some bed rest and take plenty of fluids", 2/3rds of the advice given is likely not based on evidence, yet there is a huge difference between that and a recommendation not based on any evidence at all.

up_and_up 14y ago
> Just because current conventional medicine isn't entirely evidence-based does not excuse the claims of CAM from the requirement for evidence. Who says CAM practitioners do not want to be subjected to RCT? Bring on the money and the time to do it!! Fact is very little money nor time has been spent on RCT for CAM. My wife who practices Ayurveda, is dying for there to be more studies. Plus, your statement is fallacious since you are claiming it is OKAY for conventional docs to conduct "unscientific" practices and procedures, which is at least 50% of what they do, but it is NOT OKAY for CAM practitioners to do the same.
- jimworm 14y ago
  I did not say that CAM practitioners do not want to be subjected to RCT, nor did I claim that it is acceptable for conventional medical practitioners to recommend practices and procedures that are not evidence-based. Make no mistake, I'm not conflating conventional medicine with evidence-based medicine (EBM). Statements like "get some rest and drink some fluids" must be backed up by evidence to be considered EBM, and there have been cases where that very statement was proven false. In medicine there are also assertions and predictions based on theory instead of direct evidence, lest we be hamstrung by cases not specifically studied. Conventional medicine has an advantage here, because the many theories it collectively adopts on the human ecosystem (physiology, biochemistry, germs, and others) are generally backed by scientifically rigorous studies. This leads to a model that is very well described, often down to the molecular level, and correlates well with other branches of science. This makes its assertions a lot more plausible, if only indirectly evidence-based. Compare that with the theories of the schools of CAM, many of which are based on nothing but tradition, with many others already having been debunked. This lack of plausibility plays a part in limiting the resources available for CAM research, and is the cause of the general sense of incredulity at the CAM community's claims by the scientifically literate. This relates to the OP, where a theory poorly backed-up by evidence is used to create a large body of assertions, leading to doubt and incredulity over its claims.

by jimworm 14y ago

up_and_up 14y ago

> Just because current conventional medicine isn't entirely evidence-based does not excuse the claims of CAM from the requirement for evidence. Who says CAM practitioners do not want to be subjected to RCT? Bring on the money and the time to do it!! Fact is very little money nor time has been spent on RCT for CAM. My wife who practices Ayurveda, is dying for there to be more studies. Plus, your statement is fallacious since you are claiming it is OKAY for conventional docs to conduct "unscientific" practices and procedures, which is at least 50% of what they do, but it is NOT OKAY for CAM practitioners to do the same.

jimworm 14y ago
I did not say that CAM practitioners do not want to be subjected to RCT, nor did I claim that it is acceptable for conventional medical practitioners to recommend practices and procedures that are not evidence-based. Make no mistake, I'm not conflating conventional medicine with evidence-based medicine (EBM). Statements like "get some rest and drink some fluids" must be backed up by evidence to be considered EBM, and there have been cases where that very statement was proven false. In medicine there are also assertions and predictions based on theory instead of direct evidence, lest we be hamstrung by cases not specifically studied. Conventional medicine has an advantage here, because the many theories it collectively adopts on the human ecosystem (physiology, biochemistry, germs, and others) are generally backed by scientifically rigorous studies. This leads to a model that is very well described, often down to the molecular level, and correlates well with other branches of science. This makes its assertions a lot more plausible, if only indirectly evidence-based. Compare that with the theories of the schools of CAM, many of which are based on nothing but tradition, with many others already having been debunked. This lack of plausibility plays a part in limiting the resources available for CAM research, and is the cause of the general sense of incredulity at the CAM community's claims by the scientifically literate. This relates to the OP, where a theory poorly backed-up by evidence is used to create a large body of assertions, leading to doubt and incredulity over its claims.