Will it be helpful to do more research in alternate medicine?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The literature is not restricted, however, to simple criticisms of homeopathy, but contains numerous studies and meta-analyses, including a repeat of the original 1997 infamous one published in The Lancet. The conclusions range from the simple "there isn't evidence to support any results are anything other than placebo" to more concerning findings. Specifically, the researchers publishing studies on the efficacy of alternative medicine don't just poorly construct their experiments, they also do not report (and perhaps actively deceive in doing so) important information relating to what they did and what their findings were:

"The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in Canada and the United States is prevalent. Parallel to this trend, there is a large body of rigorous literature on CAM ...But current research suggests that reporting quality of CAM trials is poor...These results suggest that a large proportion of CAM trials have poor reporting quality, resulting in difficulties in assessment of internal and external validity. Reporting quality may vary across different types of complementary therapies, with herbal medicine trials being somewhat better reported compared with homeopathy and acupuncture trials. However, some research states that trials of herbal medicine still fail to report information necessary to judge internal validity, external validity, and reproducibility Our results indicate that RCTs of herbal medicine interventions frequently do not report important characteristics of the intervention. Specifically, we found that these trials fail to report more than 60% of the information suggested in recently published reporting guidelines for RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of herbal interventions...The results of the present study suggest that RCTs of herbal medicine interventions fail to report important aspects of the intervention to a greater degree than has been found previously."

Gagnier, J. J., Moher, D., Boon, H., Beyene, J., & Bombardier, C. (2011). Randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions underreport important details of the intervention. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 64(7), 760-769.

"Based on the summary score of the checklist used in this work, we found that overall approximately two-thirds of the RCTs evaluated suffered from a number of major methodological problems that seriously limit their usefulness in determining the effect of the CAM intervention on the PRO [patient-reported outcomes] endpoints under investigation."

Efficace, F., Horneber, M., Lejeune, S., Van Dam, F., Leering, S., Rottmann, M., & Aaronson, N. K. (2006). Methodological quality of patient-reported outcome research was low in complementary and alternative medicine in oncology. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 59(12), 1257.

"We found that reports of RCTs of herbal medicine interventions reported less than half of the necessary information in their published reports...less than one third of trials adequately reported information regarding whether those administering the intervention were blind (28%); the methods for implementation (22%) and generation (21%) of the random allocation sequence; whether there were protocol deviations (18%), blinding of outcome assessors (14%), and any methods to determine the success of blinding (<2%). Not reporting this information leaves the reader guessing as to their completion. This information must be reported for the reader to adequately assess the influence of bias on the results of the trial."

Gagnier, J. J., DeMelo, J., Boon, H., Rochon, P., & Bombardier, C. (2006). Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of herbal medicine interventions. The American Journal of Medicine, 119(9), 800-e1.

"Four RCTs compared homeopathic medicines to placebo; one assessing individually-prescribed medicines and three assessing formulaic medicines. None demonstrated a statistically significant difference in outcomes between groups, although two showed a trend towards better outcomes in the homeopathy treatment groups. Three of the RCTs demonstrated significant improvements from baseline in measures of sleep quality in both the homeopathy and placebo groups. All four RCTs involved small patient numbers and were underpowered, and were poorly reported with high patient withdrawal rates. The use of a crossover design in one study made the results difficult to interpret. An uncontrolled cohort study was also identified; this reported statistically significant improvements from baseline for the group receiving formulaic homeopathic medicine...

A large number of case studies of treatment by a homeopath for insomnia were also identified. However, the lack of control groups, lack of consistent outcome measures, and tendency to report only positive results (reporting bias) means that it is not possible to definitively ascribe the reported improvements to the treatment."

Cooper, K. L., & Relton, C. (2010). Homeopathy for insomnia: a systematic review of research evidence. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 14(5), 329-337.

"Approximately 150 randomized clinical trials of homeopathy have been published to date, and their results are far from uniform....As new studies emerged, so did further (n=11) systematic reviews; collectively, their results fail to show that homeopathic remedies are more than placebos. The most recent systematic review in this area focuses on homeopathy for depression and concludes that the evidence is limited &#8216;due to lack of clinical trials of high quality&#8217;.
Systematic reviews are prone to publication bias and poor methodological quality of the primary data. It is conceivable that the homeopathic community does not publish all studies that generated negative findings. One early and spectacular (but little-known) example of this phenomenon is Nazi Germany's attempt to evaluate homeopathy on a grand scale. Leading German scientists of the time were charged with testing homeopathy at a basic science level in addition to through clinical research. The results, which survived the war but later seem to have disappeared in the hands of homeopaths, were apparently wholly negative. The frequently poor quality of clinical trials constitutes a further problem. Re-analyzing their own data, Linde et al. concluded that &#8216;there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results&#8217; "

Ernst, E. (2005). Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?. Trends in pharmacological sciences, 26(11), 547-548.

"Because CAM historically has lacked the established research infrastructure of conventional medicine, it has attracted relatively few high calibre researchers. As a consequence, the field suffers from a general lack of research expertise (potentiated and perpetuated by lack of funds). This, in turn, has resulted in a situation where many of the relatively few scientific investigations in CAM are methodologically weak, or outright flawed. Yet flawed science is unlikely to be ethical: expressed in the words of the BMA, &#8220;Studies which are unscientific are also unethical&#8221;.
Ernst, E., Cohen, M. H., & Stone, J. (2004). Ethical problems arising in evidence based complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of medical ethics, 30(2), 156-159.

 

[ratikala]

dear mycorrhiza ,

Of course, they would have to be scientists and confirm it using scientific methods.

a peer review of medical practices would prehaps be better caried out by another doctor who can tell you wheter a person has been made well or not .

Unless you're suggesting that homeopathy works because of magic or spirits (which I have heard people claim), it should be testable in labs.

I think you are attempting to make naturapaths sound rediculous ,
it is a serious science but not one proved in a laboratory , it is one allready proven in practice .

When producing homeopathic products you start out with there being an actual ingredient. Then it's diluted and further diluted until the ingredient is no longer there. However, if it's badly diluted, then there might be very toxic ingredients left in it.

thank you kind sir , but I am fully aware of the process and can assure you that the manifacture of homeopathic preperations is taken very seriously and is no more likely to be badly produced than a allopathic treatment produced by chemists in a laboratory .

You did call them "toxins". The dose makes the poison and the dosage set for nearly all medicine is below the toxic level.

butmany allopathic remedys have acumulative effects .

Do you have any scientific studies to back up these effects?

scientific evedence personaly no , only the evidence of sick people made well .

If the "chemical industry" is actively trying to discredit homeopathy, despite homeopathy working, then there needs to be a massive conspiracy where they pay scientists to change the results every time homeopathy is scientifically tested. Otherwise, there would be scientific studies proving that the homeopathy works, yet there are none.

you are sugesting conspiricy ,
please note I did say .....

"I am not suggesting a conspiricy , just pointing out that the chemical industries are profit making industries and will attempt to protect their own interests" .

If the alternative medicine is effective and has a firm base of scientific evidence backing it up, then yes it has a place in medicine. However, there is no scientific evidence that homeopathy works.

again I reitterate ...

"I beleive there is a ballance to be acheived , I am level headed enough to realise that there is a place for both alternative methods and what you call actual medicine ,
it is not dangerous if one consults an experienced practitioner ."

It is dangerous, because you're using something that doesn't work instead of something that works.

for your information , I have used homeopathy for over twenty years and have experienced success in aleviating conditions where allopathic medicines had failed , I have done away with the need for chemical treatments that were having bad acumulative effects .

in my book that is proof enough .

you are adamant that it canot work , and I am convinced of its eficacy , shall we please leave it at that .

 

[mycorrhiza]

dear mycorrhiza ,

a peer review of medical practices would prehaps be better caried out by another doctor who can tell you wheter a person has been made well or not .

I'm talking about peer-review done on scientific articles. I wouldn't want my medicine tested by someone who didn't have a degree in medical science (or in a related field) and who didn't stick to scientific methods.

I think you are attempting to make naturapaths sound rediculous ,
it is a serious science but not one proved in a laboratory , it is one allready proven in practice .

I doubt that many scientists would agree that it's science. If it actually works, then it should be able to go through the very same tests used for conventional medicine.

thank you kind sir , but I am fully aware of the process and can assure you that the manifacture of homeopathic preperations is taken very seriously and is no more likely to be badly produced than a allopathic treatment produced by chemists in a laboratory.

There are many more restrictions when it comes to the production of actual medicine than there is for homeopathic products, and there have been cases where the homeopathic medicine has indeed been very badly made.

you are sugesting conspiricy ,
please note I did say .....

"I am not suggesting a conspiricy , just pointing out that the chemical industries are profit making industries and will attempt to protect their own interests" .

So why do the results never turn out in favor of homeopathy whenever it's tested scientifically? In what way are they trying to discredit homeopathy?

for your information , I have used homeopathy for over twenty years and have experienced success in aleviating conditions where allopathic medicines had failed , I have done away with the need for chemical treatments that were having bad acumulative effects .

in my book that is proof enough .

Others have used crystals or prayer with positive results, but that is not proof that they actually work beyond placebo. Could you give me more specific details, or is it personal?

you are adamant that it canot work , and I am convinced of its eficacy , shall we please leave it at that .

You're allowed to believe anything you want as long as it doesn't affect others negatively, but I believe that homeopathy is dangerous because it's trying to sell water as cure for serious illnesses. Therefore I am against people trying to push the idea on other people.

I am open to the possibility of it working, but then I will need scientific evidence to back it up. So far, the scientific evidence points towards homeopathy being false and no more effective than placebo.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you are adamant that it canot work , and I am convinced of its eficacy , shall we please leave it at that .

But what makes you convinced of its efficacy?

As Daniel Moynahan said, "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

 

[ratikala]

dear 9-10ths penguin,

But what makes you convinced of its efficacy?

as a child born with eczema asthma and enumerable alergies and having been brought up under the treatment of allopathic doctors , and having experienced treatment which did nothing but lock the patient in to a cycle of ever increasing strengths of prescriptions to do no more than hold the condition at bay . then folowed by the bodys reaction against the drugs prescribed , ( which I can tell you is not pleasant ) , when I was old enough to make choices for my self I stoped using chemical treatments and turned to alternative methods , so you could say I used my self as a giniue pig.

without writing a dissertation on the subject , I came to the conclusion that allopathic medicine could only treat the symptom once it has arisen , the more I looked into alternative methods the more I saw the benifit of treating the whole person , and that by doing so one could work on the rot cause rather than the symptom .

after many years I have rid my self of so many of the afflictions that I was born with , and before some one says "you probably just grew out of it ", it took many years and a lot of experementation from dietary restrictions to acupuncture , homeopathy , herbal remedys and meditation .

unfortunately in the process I lost allmost all faith in allopathic doctors and rely allmost entirely on homeopathy and have found it to be helpfull in so many instances .

I am not saying that I would not go to a doctor for a diagnosis if I were worried about something but I would allways choose wholistic treatments where possible .

after what I have been through I can without any doubt tell you that chemical medicine should be used as a last resort , it is used far too liberaly and with desasterous concequences .

As Daniel Moynahan said, "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

"but not his own facts." ? ....... what do you mean by this ?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

dear 9-10ths penguin,



as a child born with eczema asthma and enumerable alergies and having been brought up under the treatment of allopathic doctors , and having experienced treatment which did nothing but lock the patient in to a cycle of ever increasing strengths of prescriptions to do no more than hold the condition at bay . then folowed by the bodys reaction against the drugs prescribed , ( which I can tell you is not pleasant ) , when I was old enough to make choices for my self I stoped using chemical treatments and turned to alternative methods , so you could say I used my self as a giniue pig.

without writing a dissertation on the subject , I came to the conclusion that allopathic medicine could only treat the symptom once it has arisen , the more I looked into alternative methods the more I saw the benifit of treating the whole person , and that by doing so one could work on the rot cause rather than the symptom .

I find it strange (and maybe rather telling) that when I asked you for your reasons why you think homeopathy is effective, you only gave reasons why you think that conventional medicine is ineffective. These are not the same thing.

I also find it strange that you condemn conventional medicine for "treating the symptom" (a criticism that I don't think is valid, BTW) but then praise homeopathy, which is primarily a symptom-based approach.

after many years I have rid my self of so many of the afflictions that I was born with , and before some one says "you probably just grew out of it ", it took many years and a lot of experementation from dietary restrictions to acupuncture , homeopathy , herbal remedys and meditation .

Why is that an unreasonable explanation? Speaking for myself, while I don't have eczema, I do have allergies and asthma. I've never taken a homeopathic preparation and never been to an acupuncturist, but I control my asthma through a combination of medication (mainly Flovent) and avoiding triggers. I've also noticed that I've built up a tolerance to certain allergens. When I've seen these things have real effects in my own life, why would I presume that they wouldn't have real effects in yours? You may not take any conventional medicines, but most asthmatics learn to avoid things that set off their asthma, and things like regular exercise can build up your resistance to asthma attacks.

And you said that you were trying a number of different approaches at once. How can you isolate the effects of homeopathy specifically?

unfortunately in the process I lost allmost all faith in allopathic doctors and rely allmost entirely on homeopathy and have found it to be helpfull in so many instances .

I am not saying that I would not go to a doctor for a diagnosis if I were worried about something but I would allways choose wholistic treatments where possible .

after what I have been through I can without any doubt tell you that chemical medicine should be used as a last resort , it is used far too liberaly and with desasterous concequences .

And my experience has been the exact opposite. What do you make of this?

For that matter, if you really do think homeopathy is clearly effective for you, what do you make of the fact that in every rigorous study that's ever been done, homeopathy has been shown to be no more effective than placebo?

"but not his own facts." ? ....... what do you mean by this ?

I mean that regardless of how convinced each of us are, at the end of the day, only one of our positions is reasonable.

... and judging by the way you can't tell the difference between criticism of conventional medicine and support for homeopathy, and by the way you consider, effectively, a study with a sample size of one and no blinds or controls (i.e. your anecdotal experience) as compelling evidence, I have an idea of who's reasonable and who's not on this issue.

 

[ratikala]

dear 9-10ths ,

I find it strange (and maybe rather telling) that when I asked you for your reasons why you think homeopathy is effective, you only gave reasons why you think that conventional medicine is ineffective. These are not the same thing.

you are looking for the answers that you want to find , and egnoring what ever does not support your arguement .

you seem to have missed ..."unfortunately in the process I lost allmost all faith in allopathic doctors and rely allmost entirely on homeopathy and have found it to be helpfull in so many instances ".

what you want me to list them ?

I also find it strange that you condemn conventional medicine for "treating the symptom" (a criticism that I don't think is valid, BTW) but then praise homeopathy, which is primarily a symptom-based approach.

I condemn it because the treatments I was given caused me severe suffering .

a combination of wholistic methods have not only removed the cause of the symptoms but have gone a long way to removing the dammage caused by these treatments .

you say you have not taken a homeopathic approach but you claim to know more about it than someone who has experience of it ????

Why is that an unreasonable explanation?

because I am the one living in this body and I know the difference between an efective cure and accepted growing out of the milder forms .

Speaking for myself, while I don't have eczema, I do have allergies and asthma.

yes as you say you still have it and I do not therefore that in it self is a good arguement for wholistic medicine !

I've never taken a homeopathic preparation and never been to an acupuncturist, but I control my asthma through a combination of medication (mainly Flovent) and avoiding triggers.

then you are not qualified to speak against something which you have not tried .

I've also noticed that I've built up a tolerance to certain allergens. When I've seen these things have real effects in my own life, why would I presume that they wouldn't have real effects in yours? You may not take any conventional medicines, but most asthmatics learn to avoid things that set off their asthma, and things like regular exercise can build up your resistance to asthma attacks.

you are talking of asthma alone ,

And you said that you were trying a number of different approaches at once. How can you isolate the effects of homeopathy specifically?

if you read a little more carefully I said ...."it took many years and a lot of experementation from dietary restrictions to acupuncture , homeopathy , herbal remedys and meditation" .

no where did I say that I was trying a lot of different approaches at once , please do not twist my words .

And my experience has been the exact opposite. What do you make of this?

concidering you said that you didnot suffer ezcema it is fair to say that prehaps you have a very different condition ?

For that matter, if you really do think homeopathy is clearly effective for you, what do you make of the fact that in every rigorous study that's ever been done, homeopathy has been shown to be no more effective than placebo?

poppycock !

I mean that regardless of how convinced each of us are, at the end of the day, only one of our positions is reasonable.

concidering I have gone through numerous experiences by which I might make comparisons , ... and you have not I would proffer that I have a little more experience in the matter than you posess . I allso have an open mind which I feel many would agree was at least" reasonable" !

... and judging by the way you can't tell the difference between criticism of conventional medicine and support for homeopathy, and by the way you consider, effectively, a study with a sample size of one and no blinds or controls (i.e. your anecdotal experience) as compelling evidence, I have an idea of who's reasonable and who's not on this issue.

I only answered your post as I beleived you were asking a sincere question ,
however I have a horible fealing that you simply wish to win an arguement .

 

[mycorrhiza]

poppycock !

Could you provide some scientific studies on the subject that show favorable results for homeopathy then?

 

[ratikala]

Could you provide some scientific studies on the subject that show favorable results for homeopathy then?

I see no need for Sientific evidence,


when sceience produces a treatment which is supposed to ....and I quote , ...

" to treat itching"

has , and I quote .....

"Side Effects

Skin irritation, eg itching, burning, stinging. Thinning of the skin. Changes in skin pigmentation. Stretch marks (striae). Groupings of fine blood vessels becoming prominent under the skin (telangiectasia). Excessive hair growth (hypertrichosis). Prolonged use of this medicine on extensive areas of skin, broken or raw skin, skin folds or underneath airtight dressings may on rare occasions result in enough corticosteroid being absorbed to have side effects on other parts of the body, for example a decrease in the production of natural hormones by the adrenal glands."

quoted from wickipedia (so you are gauranteed imparciality )


I repeat .....
for your information , I have used homeopathy for over twenty years and have experienced success in aleviating conditions where allopathic medicines had failed ,
I have done away with the need for chemical treatments that were having bad acumulative effects .

in my book that is proof enough .

you are adamant that it canot work , and I am convinced of its eficacy ,
shall we please leave it at that .

 

[Meow Mix]

I see no need for Sientific evidence

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason ... is like administering medicine to the dead..." (Thomas Paine)

Irony intended.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

dear 9-10ths ,



you are looking for the answers that you want to find , and egnoring what ever does not support your arguement .

you seem to have missed ..."unfortunately in the process I lost allmost all faith in allopathic doctors and rely allmost entirely on homeopathy and have found it to be helpfull in so many instances ".

what you want me to list them ?

Yes, that's what I asked for.

you say you have not taken a homeopathic approach but you claim to know more about it than someone who has experience of it ????

Yes, because I've actually read the research into it.

You are not immune to the placebo effect. Your body has natural healing ability. As a person going about his life in the normal way, you have no way to control for the effects of homeopathy versus all the other things going on in your life.

And to top it all off, even if I trusted your reasoning (which I don't), your experience is a sample size of one. It's not even large enough for me to calculate a standard error for your results... IOW, it's so unreliable that I can't even estimate a number for how unreliable it is.

I don't trust you. Based on what you've said in this thread, I don't consider your opinion reliable. I'm not going to take your word for it when you say that homeopathy is effective. If you want me to accept your conclusion, you'll have to show me good reasons why.

poppycock !

So you know of a reliable study that shows homeopathy to be effective? Please provide a link, then.

 

[ratikala]

dear 9-10ths ,

Yes, that's what I asked for .

I have allready said that I am not going to write a dissertation on over twenty years worth of of my medical history ,

A , it is personal and .....B , you would only dissmiss it as you have done up to now !

Yes, because I've actually read the research into it.

due to your dissmisive attitude I can only assume you have only read one side of the arguement , or that you read with a closed mind .

You are not immune to the placebo effect. Your body has natural healing ability. As a person going about his life in the normal way, you have no way to control for the effects of homeopathy versus all the other things going on in your life.

if I am not imune to the placebo efect why then did conventional medicine not work ?

why did other methods not work ? .... when I was younger my mother tried numerous herbal treatments to aleviate the condition , why did these not act as a placebo ?
I have allso tried many things that had no effect .

And to top it all off, even if I trusted your reasoning (which I don't), your experience is a sample size of one. It's not even large enough for me to calculate a standard error for your results... IOW, it's so unreliable that I can't even estimate a number for how unreliable it is.

you do not have to trust my reasoning , because I am not giving you reasoning , I gave you simple facts which you choose to dissbeleive .

I don't trust you. Based on what you've said in this thread, I don't consider your opinion reliable. I'm not going to take your word for it when you say that homeopathy is effective. If you want me to accept your conclusion, you'll have to show me good reasons why.

I am not asking you to trust me , I am simply suggesting that you stop being so dissmisive and look at things with an open mind .

and as this question comes up in ' political debates ' I suggest that you look at the broader picture ,....

is there a need for alternative methods of acheiving a healthfull state ?

should governments look in to this more closely ?

could the burdon on the allready streched health services be aleviated by the use of alternative methods ?

I beleive the answers to these questions are yes !

So you know of a reliable study that shows homeopathy to be effective? Please provide a link, then.

the whole purpose of this thread was to ask .......will it be healpfull to do more reacearch into alternative medicines ?

to which I beleive tha answer is yes! ... there are many people who have been helped by wholistic treatments and there are many cases where conventional medicine has not been efective , therefore there is a need to take these claims seriously rather than behave in such an incredulous manner .
it may just be that scientific methods are not yet sufficiently advanced to make the nececary studys , after all if it were advanced enough to understand how homeopathy works it would also be advanced enough to come up with many more efective cures than it has at present .

the original post asked a polite and sincere question , ......

Peace be on you. If large companies with better research facilities include their work in various branches of alternate medicines worldwide, it will be better for everyone. The cost of cure will be reduced. People will have more options. What do you think?

I replied with equal sincerity ,.... yes I do beleive that if the large companies were to do more reasearch that eventualy they would find many usefull methods of treating illness , the fact that they have not yet come up with conclusive evidence does not mean that they will not in the future . then you arguements will look rather sad .

 

[mycorrhiza]

I see no need for Sientific evidence,

You claimed that saying that there was no evidence that homeopathy was anything more than placebo in any of the studies done on it was "poppycock". So if it's "poppycock", then where are the studies that show that homeopathy is effective?

it may just be that scientific methods are not yet sufficiently advanced to make the nececary studys , after all if it were advanced enough to understand how homeopathy works it would also be advanced enough to come up with many more efective cures than it has at present .

Why can't they test homeopathic products like they test medicine? If it works it should work in studies too. It shouldn't matter if they understand how it works, because it would still work.

 

[Innominate]

If some private companies want to use alternative medicine, let them create/use it and advertise to the public.. Who cares?

If it actually ends up working (just for the sake of completion in the answer..I'm doubtful that it would), great. If it ends up having a placebo effect, fine. If it solves absolutely nothing and wastes peoples' money, it's well-deserved. If it costs the lives of people who fell for pseudoscience, it's also well-deserved. It's not my responsibility (nor anyone else's, in my opinion) to make sure people seek scientifically-sound medication.

This doesn't mean that I wouldn't support being informed about which treatments are scientifically sound, or even having regulations to ensure scientifically sound treatments are being used in hospitals. In fact, I would fully support that, as it's in my best interest. What I wouldn't care about is someone that wanted to go to a local alternative medicine center and shell out cash there. They have been told what is effective and what isn't; if they still choose to stray away to these alternatives, it's their choice and their risk.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

What do you consider or how do you define alternative medicine?

Something that isn't accepted or recognized by the FDA or some government agency?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If some private companies want to use alternative medicine, let them create/use it and advertise to the public.. Who cares?

If it actually ends up working (just for the sake of completion in the answer..I'm doubtful that it would), great. If it ends up having a placebo effect, fine. If it solves absolutely nothing and wastes peoples' money, it's well-deserved. If it costs the lives of people who fell for pseudoscience, it's also well-deserved. It's not my responsibility (nor anyone else's, in my opinion) to make sure people seek scientifically-sound medication.

In some cases (e.g. homeopathy) alternative medicine is nothing more than fraud. Are you in favour of allowing fraud across the board?

And in other cases, it's a matter of overstating the certainty with which the person selling the alternative medicine knows that it works... like the difference between "we aren't completely sure about this, but it shows some promise and deserves further research" to "this cures cancer, diabetes, and AIDS!"

I'm an engineer. If I make public statements about engineering while putting myself out as an expert in my field, then I'm liable for what happens when members of the public rely on my expertise. Do you think laws like this should be struck down, or are you looking for a double standard when alternative medicine practitioners make claims that people rely on?

This doesn't mean that I wouldn't support being informed about which treatments are scientifically sound, or even having regulations to ensure scientifically sound treatments are being used in hospitals. In fact, I would fully support that, as it's in my best interest. What I wouldn't care about is someone that wanted to go to a local alternative medicine center and shell out cash there. They have been told what is effective and what isn't; if they still choose to stray away to these alternatives, it's their choice and their risk.

Here's the problem: oftentimes, people aren't told what's effective and what isn't... or at least, they get mixed messages from different people, all putting themselves forwards as experts in their fields.

I do have a bit of sympathy for someone who - through no fault of their own - isn't particularly scientifically literate who gets taken in by a convincing-sounding pitch from some snake oil salesman. Take autism: it's something where the body of research is constantly changing; it's also something where people who really other nothing more than fraudsters try to come up with ways to separate well-meaning parents from their money out of the hope that they might be able to get some small benefit for their children. It's so hard for a parent of an autistic child to stay up-to-date on current research as it is; it's made even harder by all the pseudoscience and quackery that they have to sift through.

For instance, when something like craniosacral therapy actually gets covered by public health insurance in some places, I can't exactly fault a scientific layperson for falling for it.

Edit: I'm not necessarily looking to get these products pulled off the shelves. What I'm looking for is to stop the people selling them from making irresponsible claims about the effectiveness of their products that people will then rely on. They make storefront psychics advertise their services as "for entertainment purposes only"; I'd go for something similar for these alternative medicine treatments that can't pass scientific muster. After that point, then I might be able to agree with you that the people who do fall for them bear full responsibility for what they've done to themselves.

 

[LuisDantas]

Public health is one of the serious, sober dilemmas we face globally. Alas, most of the challenge is in our acceptance that there is only so much that can be done.

IMO we should focus more on quality of life and a bit less on what amounts to a desire to buy health.

 

[Draka]

This whole thing with ratikala is reading very much like someone being interrogated for their religious beliefs.

a: Where's the evidence? The PROOF?
b: I have all I need because I've seen it for myself time and time again without fail.
a: You say you have but that makes no sense because others say differently and have shown no scientific evidence in support of it.
b: That doesn't matter to me because, as I've told you, I've seen it with my own eyes, had it work in my life, for many years. Whether others say they have evidence of it makes no difference to me, I have all the evidence I require.
a: Well, I haven't seen any of it, and neither have these "experts" over here so I don't see how you can believe it.
b: How many times must I tell you that doesn't matter to me. I have all I need and more.

Gods, this argument sounds familiar.

 

[Innominate]

In some cases (e.g. homeopathy) alternative medicine is nothing more than fraud. Are you in favour of allowing fraud across the board?

That depends on the situation. In this situation, there are scientists all around that can attest to the ability of the scientific treatments and to the inability of the nonscientific ones. People are very well warned, yet they still go for it.
An accurate parallel would be another case of fraud that has the same very well documented and supported warning, yet the "victim" still goes to what was warned about.
This being said, a case of fraud in which those affected have no means of knowing whether or not the business is legitimate, they wouldn't suffer because of their idiotic decisions or disregard for evidence, but rather very different reasons. This being said, fraud like this should have penalties (in my opinion at least).

And in other cases, it's a matter of overstating the certainty with which the person selling the alternative medicine knows that it works... like the difference between "we aren't completely sure about this, but it shows some promise and deserves further research" to "this cures cancer, diabetes, and AIDS!"

I would urge patients to do some research. I'm not saying that scientists are infallible (or anything of the sort), but I am saying that I would personally research into what treatments are effective against cancer, diabeters, and AIDS. If there is no scientific support behind it, I'll stay on the safe side and go wtih something scientifically supported.

I'm an engineer. If I make public statements about engineering while putting myself out as an expert in my field, then I'm liable for what happens when members of the public rely on my expertise. Do you think laws like this should be struck down, or are you looking for a double standard when alternative medicine practitioners make claims that people rely on?

First of all, show the evidence that what you're encouraging is true. If we're talking about medicine, we should have multiple results from multiple experiments that demonstrate the effectiveness of a treatment, all backed by a general scientific consensus. Shouldn't the same apply to engineering?
Let's say that you designed aeroplanes. The planes would be heavily tested before you load the public into them. It's that simple. If someone wants to jump in a plane with a nutjob down the street that designed and built his own plane that is horridly ineffective, isn't it still on the person that entered the plane? I don't care how convincing the guy was, he was not qualified, and the risk was assumed when you went into the plane.

Here's the problem: oftentimes, people aren't told what's effective and what isn't... or at least, they get mixed messages from different people, all putting themselves forwards as experts in their fields.

Yes, but some research into where the scientific consensus is isn't that difficult. Again, I'm not saying it's infallible, but it's much safer.

Take autism: it's something where the body of research is constantly changing; it's also something where people who really other nothing more than fraudsters try to come up with ways to separate well-meaning parents from their money out of the hope that they might be able to get some small benefit for their children. It's so hard for a parent of an autistic child to stay up-to-date on current research as it is; it's made even harder by all the pseudoscience and quackery that they have to sift through.

For instance, when something like [I can't quote the URL until I have 15+ posts] actually gets covered by public health insurance in some places, I can't exactly fault a scientific layperson for falling for it.

Being entirely honest here, I didn't even consider the cutting edge things that appear in a field like this. I won't pretend like I did. BUT, I also wouldn't give my child a treatment if I didn't know if it worked or if it would worsen things.

In the case of the obviously ineffective, the "victim" deserves what they get if they pay for it. In the case of a person being apart of a trial on cutting edge treatments, they're still assuming risk (now I might not go as far as saying they deserve adverse effects, but they shouldn't hold someone else liable if they experience them). In the case of the BS slyly covered in misleading studies and the such (things that don't have certain scientific studies that refute them yet), if they're portrayed as something that is extremely efficient and aren't, then it's time to step in and change things. At this point, the consumer has no liability nor fault here.
The main difference between the two BS selling scenarios are as follows:
- one scenario has heaps of evidence stating that the treatments aren't effective
- one scenario has less scientific research, but the product is claimed to be effective
The first scenario leaves the consumer at fault because the information is available (therefore they only lose on the grounds of stupidity) and the second scenario leaves the seller at fault because there isn't enough information to make educated decisions (therefore the consumer has no means of knowing whether or not the treatment is effective).

Edit: I'm not necessarily looking to get these products pulled off the shelves. What I'm looking for is to stop the people selling them from making irresponsible claims about the effectiveness of their products that people will then rely on. They make storefront psychics advertise their services as "for entertainment purposes only"; I'd go for something similar for these alternative medicine treatments that can't pass scientific muster. After that point, then I might be able to agree with you that the people who do fall for them bear full responsibility for what they've done to themselves.

There is a lack of proof involved with psychics. All of the scientific evidence points towards their lack of validity. Therefore, if someone wants to go blow money on it, it's their fault.
There is a lack of proof involved with alternative medicines. All of the scientific evidence points towards their their lack of effectiveness. Therefore, if someone wants to go blow money on it, it's their fault.

 

[ratikala]

IMO we should focus more on quality of life and a bit less on what amounts to a desire to buy health.

Ah at last ,....a true wholistic approach :namaste