3 ms·

Ok, if that's not good enough for you then pick one of the other examples that the ACS provide. Or continue attacking the ACS as a reputable source, whatever.

by analog 14y ago

Ok, if that's not good enough for you then pick one of the other examples that the ACS provide. Or continue attacking the ACS as a reputable source, whatever. Or go and look up the examples that the med student provided, Inositol or Theanine. I expect you'll find reasons to ignore the evidence there too though, that's the problem with zealotry.

dalke 14y ago
I don't understand your argument. You said that alt.med methods are effective. I and Nursie point out that the methods which are effective for alt.med are also part of std.med. They are not unique to alt.med and therefore cannot be used to justify the validity of other alt.med practices which are not part of std.med. Do you agree with this argument? If not, why not? If both std.med and alt.med make the same recommendation then what's "alt" about alt.med? Otherwise I continue. You point out that prayer is effective. I respond that intercessory prayer has not been shown to be effective, despite several large-scale experiments. Yes, prayer can be part of palliative care, since it might make some people feel better. But palliative care is not treatment. It also leads to questions like, is reading a good book on the topic of death or dealing with terminal cancer (as with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotherapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotherapy) a better, more effective palliative care than telling people to read the Good Book? You point out that the ACS says that prayer is effective. I point out that you've misread the page, because the ACS page does not say that prayer is effective. It only says that prayer is a visible aspect of how some people carry out their 'spiritual life', and that a spiritual life may help some people feel better. Furthermore, the definition of 'spiritual life' on that page is so ill-defined that it includes, say, the hobbies of a dyed-in-the-wool hard-core reductionist, atheist, anti-CAM person. Which might also be hobbies that a std.med practitioner would suggest. There is nothing "alt" about a doctor suggesting that someone relax by taking a holiday in the countryside, away from computers and phones. So no, it's not good enough me as evidence that alt.med is effective. Nor should it be good enough for you. Yes, there are perhaps a dozen dietary supplements and herbs which might be useful. These are overshadowed by the array of supplements on the market that have no redeeming quality except perhaps to enrich the pockets of the multi-billion dollar supplement manufacturing industry. Which means that yes, Nursie and I are wrong in that there is a thin sliver of possibly useful treatments to come from alt.med. Most interestingly, these tend to be for anxiety and depression, where effectiveness is much harder to evaluate than "can cure a staphylococcus infection." Thin evidence, I say, but I'll concede that sliver. Your argument though is that those dozen possible treatments justify the entire alt.med industry? Color me doubtful. You say that I ignore the evidence. What I ask is that you present the evidence. The ACS page does not seem to provide the evidence that you say it does. The ACS page is, of course, a summary and cannot be held up to full scrutiny, which is why, in order to strengthen my argument, I've made references to some of the experimental research papers on the topic, and they concur with my position. Surely if there is the good evidence that you say there is then you can either find more experimental research with conclusions that strengthen your viewpoint, or can highlight the flaws in the papers I cite, yes?
- analog 14y ago
  You're attempting the No True Scotsman argument. You say any alt med that works is part of std med.
- analog 14y ago
  You're also attempting to Strawman me by presenting arguments as mine that I never stated. "Your argument though is that those dozen possible treatments justify the entire alt.med industry?"
  - dalke 14y ago
    That was rhetorical. You point out that there's perhaps a dozen herbs and nutritional supplements which might .. and I do stress the might .. be a useful treatment. Does that justify the entire herbal and diet supplement industry? Since your argument does seem to be that Nursie is wrong for saying that 100% of alt.med is useless as a treatment, when the actual number is 99.9+%. Do you really want to get that fraction of a mil? Because I'll grant you that <0.1%, and wonder why it's so important to you. Again I ask you the question, what puts the "alt." in "alt.med"? If a practice is common to both std.med and alt.med, when should we attribute its discovery or common use to alt.med? Obviously you shouldn't say that open heart surgery is part of natropathy, but why not? It works, so why doesn't alt.med claim it as its own? You can't, for example, say that food supplements are only part of alt.med because fluoride in (some) water systems, vitamin D in milk, and iodine in salt are three food supplements that medical researchers successfully insisted be part of the standard food supply, in order to improve public health. What makes 'alt.med' alt? But in some sense you're right. The old canard is that we have a name for alt. medicine that works - it's called "medicine." Because fundamentally, modern medicine is based on trying to find what works. The thing is, very little of alt.med "works", by almost any definition except palliative care, and even then, no more helpful than other forms of care. Take a look at any of the research papers on the subject, where the alt.med methods were put to a test, and you'll see that any signal that is there is about as strong as the noise. Compare that to the first people who were treated with penicillin. Compare that to the children who no longer got polio. Those are examples of clear, strong signals of effective treatments.

by analog 14y ago

dalke 14y ago

I don't understand your argument. You said that alt.med methods are effective. I and Nursie point out that the methods which are effective for alt.med are also part of std.med. They are not unique to alt.med and therefore cannot be used to justify the validity of other alt.med practices which are not part of std.med. Do you agree with this argument? If not, why not? If both std.med and alt.med make the same recommendation then what's "alt" about alt.med? Otherwise I continue. You point out that prayer is effective. I respond that intercessory prayer has not been shown to be effective, despite several large-scale experiments. Yes, prayer can be part of palliative care, since it might make some people feel better. But palliative care is not treatment. It also leads to questions like, is reading a good book on the topic of death or dealing with terminal cancer (as with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotherapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotherapy) a better, more effective palliative care than telling people to read the Good Book? You point out that the ACS says that prayer is effective. I point out that you've misread the page, because the ACS page does not say that prayer is effective. It only says that prayer is a visible aspect of how some people carry out their 'spiritual life', and that a spiritual life may help some people feel better. Furthermore, the definition of 'spiritual life' on that page is so ill-defined that it includes, say, the hobbies of a dyed-in-the-wool hard-core reductionist, atheist, anti-CAM person. Which might also be hobbies that a std.med practitioner would suggest. There is nothing "alt" about a doctor suggesting that someone relax by taking a holiday in the countryside, away from computers and phones. So no, it's not good enough me as evidence that alt.med is effective. Nor should it be good enough for you. Yes, there are perhaps a dozen dietary supplements and herbs which might be useful. These are overshadowed by the array of supplements on the market that have no redeeming quality except perhaps to enrich the pockets of the multi-billion dollar supplement manufacturing industry. Which means that yes, Nursie and I are wrong in that there is a thin sliver of possibly useful treatments to come from alt.med. Most interestingly, these tend to be for anxiety and depression, where effectiveness is much harder to evaluate than "can cure a staphylococcus infection." Thin evidence, I say, but I'll concede that sliver. Your argument though is that those dozen possible treatments justify the entire alt.med industry? Color me doubtful. You say that I ignore the evidence. What I ask is that you present the evidence. The ACS page does not seem to provide the evidence that you say it does. The ACS page is, of course, a summary and cannot be held up to full scrutiny, which is why, in order to strengthen my argument, I've made references to some of the experimental research papers on the topic, and they concur with my position. Surely if there is the good evidence that you say there is then you can either find more experimental research with conclusions that strengthen your viewpoint, or can highlight the flaws in the papers I cite, yes?

analog 14y ago
You're attempting the No True Scotsman argument. You say any alt med that works is part of std med.
analog 14y ago
You're also attempting to Strawman me by presenting arguments as mine that I never stated. "Your argument though is that those dozen possible treatments justify the entire alt.med industry?"
- dalke 14y ago
  That was rhetorical. You point out that there's perhaps a dozen herbs and nutritional supplements which might .. and I do stress the might .. be a useful treatment. Does that justify the entire herbal and diet supplement industry? Since your argument does seem to be that Nursie is wrong for saying that 100% of alt.med is useless as a treatment, when the actual number is 99.9+%. Do you really want to get that fraction of a mil? Because I'll grant you that <0.1%, and wonder why it's so important to you. Again I ask you the question, what puts the "alt." in "alt.med"? If a practice is common to both std.med and alt.med, when should we attribute its discovery or common use to alt.med? Obviously you shouldn't say that open heart surgery is part of natropathy, but why not? It works, so why doesn't alt.med claim it as its own? You can't, for example, say that food supplements are only part of alt.med because fluoride in (some) water systems, vitamin D in milk, and iodine in salt are three food supplements that medical researchers successfully insisted be part of the standard food supply, in order to improve public health. What makes 'alt.med' alt? But in some sense you're right. The old canard is that we have a name for alt. medicine that works - it's called "medicine." Because fundamentally, modern medicine is based on trying to find what works. The thing is, very little of alt.med "works", by almost any definition except palliative care, and even then, no more helpful than other forms of care. Take a look at any of the research papers on the subject, where the alt.med methods were put to a test, and you'll see that any signal that is there is about as strong as the noise. Compare that to the first people who were treated with penicillin. Compare that to the children who no longer got polio. Those are examples of clear, strong signals of effective treatments.