3 ms·

I did a quick google search and it was one of the first references that came up. I only have to provide a citation that CAM sometimes works to disprove Nursies

by analog 14y ago

I did a quick google search and it was one of the first references that came up. I only have to provide a citation that CAM sometimes works to disprove Nursies assertion that CAM "doesn't work".

dalke 14y ago
Nursie did not assert simply that all of CAM "doesn't work". Nursie pointed out that those aspects of CAM which do work are shared with traditional medicine, and have been part of traditional medicine for a long time. They are not specific to CAM. A naturopath may suggest that you always wear a seatbelt when driving a car. That doesn't make the suggestion part of naturopathy. A naturopath may suggest that you keep the safety on when carrying a firearm. Again, that's a good suggestion, but it's not something specific to naturopathy. The examples you pointed out on the Cancer Society web page are not unique to naturopathy. I interpret them as trying to say something good about naturopathy, probably because of so many complaints about how naturopathy is being 'suppressed by Western thought', or something like that. The NIH site I pointed you to reports on the CAM practices which are specific to CAM. Very few of them "work" in any fashion, and none of them are treatments.
- analog 14y ago
  No sorry you're wrong, he responded to me saying 'if it works' with "It doesn't.", and also said "I don't understand how it works because it doesn't"
  - dalke 14y ago
    "It" refers to the part of alt.med which isn't part of med. That's the part that makes it "alt." At least, that's how I interpret it. The full context is: analog: "Paleo diet has worked, and also alt medicine", followed by Nursie: "I don't understand how it works because it doesn't!" The immediate context for 'it' is homeopathy, but I think, based on Nursie's other statements, that it should apply to all of alt.med. It doesn't apply to (to coin an abbreviation), "std.med", because it seems that Nursie finds convincing evidence that std.med does work. So the question to you is, what puts the "alt." in "alt.med"? If practice X is part of "alt.med" and is part of "std.med" then is how is X "alt"? It's possible that something started as alt.med and became part of std.med, but the practices listed on the ACS page have been part of std.med since pretty much since the dawn of evidence-based medicine, so it's not like std.med recently took those parts from alt.med. Therefore, you should interpret those quote of Nursie to mean: "[The part of alt.med which is specific to alt.med] doesn't [work]" and "I don't understand how [the alt. part of alt.med] works because [the alt. part of alt.med] doesn't [have any demonstrated effectiveness]".
    - analog 14y ago
      One of the examples cited by the ACS is the use of prayer. Apparently this has been shown to be effective in some cases. The use of prayer is definitely part of alt med, and has been shown to work, therefore Nursie is incorrect when he says "alt med does not work".
      - dalke 14y ago
        No, prayer has not been shown to work. Rather, what do you mean by "work"? If people who pray feel more relaxed, then yes, it works for some people. So does meditation. So does reading a book, or watching a movie. Or playing cards, or talking with friends. If by "effective" you mean that people who pray have a higher longevity, higher rate of being cured, etc. then no, it doesn't work. This type of prayer is usually called intercessory prayer. Take for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567 . > Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. ... > CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications. Take for another example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19370557 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19370557 . > OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of intercessory prayer as an additional intervention for people with health problems already receiving routine health care. > AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care.
        analog 14y ago
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Just to clarify - my assertion is that CAM doesn't work because if it works, and we have evidence to show that it works, it's not CAM it's part of the body of evidence-based medicine. If we don't have scientific evidence that something works then pretty much by definition we can't say it works because we don't have the proof. It's sort-of tautological. The other comment "I don't understand how it works because it doesn't" was specifically in reference to Homeopathy, which has been shown over and over again to be no better than placebo (i.e. doesn't work). The example was to show that there's no point in investigating how something works, and it's silly to chastise people for not understanding how something works, unless we can first show that something works and that there is even something to investigate. Apply this to paleo - I have no reason to suspect it works or not. Before investigating this miraculous diet, lets do a proper study to see if it actually is of benefit to the general population, or just to a subset, or if actually the benefits reported are by a tiny number of self-selected people and not really significant at all. When we actually know (rather than suspect from anecdote) that it does something, then is the time to look at how.
Nursie 14y ago
"I only have to provide a citation that CAM sometimes works to disprove Nursies assertion that CAM "doesn't work"." It helps to pick something that is actually CAM then, and not part of mainstream health advice that has been coopted by CAM. Eating well and getting lots of exercise isn't exactly revolutionary, outside-the-box, non-mainstream thinking.

by analog 14y ago

I did a quick google search and it was one of the first references that came up. I only have to provide a citation that CAM sometimes works to disprove Nursies assertion that CAM "doesn't work".

dalke 14y ago

Nursie did not assert simply that all of CAM "doesn't work". Nursie pointed out that those aspects of CAM which do work are shared with traditional medicine, and have been part of traditional medicine for a long time. They are not specific to CAM. A naturopath may suggest that you always wear a seatbelt when driving a car. That doesn't make the suggestion part of naturopathy. A naturopath may suggest that you keep the safety on when carrying a firearm. Again, that's a good suggestion, but it's not something specific to naturopathy. The examples you pointed out on the Cancer Society web page are not unique to naturopathy. I interpret them as trying to say something good about naturopathy, probably because of so many complaints about how naturopathy is being 'suppressed by Western thought', or something like that. The NIH site I pointed you to reports on the CAM practices which are specific to CAM. Very few of them "work" in any fashion, and none of them are treatments.

analog 14y ago
No sorry you're wrong, he responded to me saying 'if it works' with "It doesn't.", and also said "I don't understand how it works because it doesn't"
- dalke 14y ago
  "It" refers to the part of alt.med which isn't part of med. That's the part that makes it "alt." At least, that's how I interpret it. The full context is: analog: "Paleo diet has worked, and also alt medicine", followed by Nursie: "I don't understand how it works because it doesn't!" The immediate context for 'it' is homeopathy, but I think, based on Nursie's other statements, that it should apply to all of alt.med. It doesn't apply to (to coin an abbreviation), "std.med", because it seems that Nursie finds convincing evidence that std.med does work. So the question to you is, what puts the "alt." in "alt.med"? If practice X is part of "alt.med" and is part of "std.med" then is how is X "alt"? It's possible that something started as alt.med and became part of std.med, but the practices listed on the ACS page have been part of std.med since pretty much since the dawn of evidence-based medicine, so it's not like std.med recently took those parts from alt.med. Therefore, you should interpret those quote of Nursie to mean: "[The part of alt.med which is specific to alt.med] doesn't [work]" and "I don't understand how [the alt. part of alt.med] works because [the alt. part of alt.med] doesn't [have any demonstrated effectiveness]".
  - analog 14y ago
    One of the examples cited by the ACS is the use of prayer. Apparently this has been shown to be effective in some cases. The use of prayer is definitely part of alt med, and has been shown to work, therefore Nursie is incorrect when he says "alt med does not work".
    - dalke 14y ago
      No, prayer has not been shown to work. Rather, what do you mean by "work"? If people who pray feel more relaxed, then yes, it works for some people. So does meditation. So does reading a book, or watching a movie. Or playing cards, or talking with friends. If by "effective" you mean that people who pray have a higher longevity, higher rate of being cured, etc. then no, it doesn't work. This type of prayer is usually called intercessory prayer. Take for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567 . > Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. ... > CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications. Take for another example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19370557 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19370557 . > OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of intercessory prayer as an additional intervention for people with health problems already receiving routine health care. > AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer, the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care.
      - analog 14y ago
- Nursie 14y ago
  Just to clarify - my assertion is that CAM doesn't work because if it works, and we have evidence to show that it works, it's not CAM it's part of the body of evidence-based medicine. If we don't have scientific evidence that something works then pretty much by definition we can't say it works because we don't have the proof. It's sort-of tautological. The other comment "I don't understand how it works because it doesn't" was specifically in reference to Homeopathy, which has been shown over and over again to be no better than placebo (i.e. doesn't work). The example was to show that there's no point in investigating how something works, and it's silly to chastise people for not understanding how something works, unless we can first show that something works and that there is even something to investigate. Apply this to paleo - I have no reason to suspect it works or not. Before investigating this miraculous diet, lets do a proper study to see if it actually is of benefit to the general population, or just to a subset, or if actually the benefits reported are by a tiny number of self-selected people and not really significant at all. When we actually know (rather than suspect from anecdote) that it does something, then is the time to look at how.

Nursie 14y ago

"I only have to provide a citation that CAM sometimes works to disprove Nursies assertion that CAM "doesn't work"." It helps to pick something that is actually CAM then, and not part of mainstream health advice that has been coopted by CAM. Eating well and getting lots of exercise isn't exactly revolutionary, outside-the-box, non-mainstream thinking.