Because some doctors are just as gullible as their patients. There's nothing 'special' about being a doctor.
And why do you regard the mention of the placebo affect as 'talking down'? The placebo effect is extremely important in medicine.
Homeopathy is Witchcraft
- Thread starter Vladd67
- Start date
Because some doctors are just as gullible as their patients. There's nothing 'special' about being a doctor.
And why do you regard the mention of the placebo affect as 'talking down'? The placebo effect is extremely important in medicine.
I belive there have been some serious experiments to try and use the placebo effect actively. I mentioned on another thread about a study that took and actor who studied an apparently successful "faith healer" for a while and then emulated him. The actor actually generated slightly better results than the faith healer. The conclusion was that the placebo effect can be a very effective treatment and that all that was necessary is that the patient truly believes that something has been done to them that will have a real effect, whether it be an alternative treatment or medicines or a placebo. In the case of the actor he was just more convincing than the "real thing". So long as they truly believe in it, it can be remarkably effective. This is not to say that faith healing works in itself just that we haven't yet fully explored our own body's ability to heal itself. After all if you stop to think about it the vast majority of our illnesses; coughs, colds, infections, cuts, bruises etc are very efficiently healed by our own bodies.
dustinzgirl
Mod of Awesome
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 3,697
Um, nooooooooooooo, witchcraft is witchcraft.
I should know, one of my sisters is a practitioner of witchcraft, and my mom worked in a homeopathic pharmacy for years.
Funny, nobody I know has died ever from any homeopathic drug.
But I know several that have died from prescription drugs.
And that wasn't the placebo effect, either.
And here's some food for thought---all doctoring and medicine is homeopathic in its original nature. Since original "doctors", mainly priests, rabbis, nuns, midwives, ect....used herbs, incense, and so forth to heal the sick.............
I should know, one of my sisters is a practitioner of witchcraft, and my mom worked in a homeopathic pharmacy for years.
Funny, nobody I know has died ever from any homeopathic drug.
But I know several that have died from prescription drugs.
And that wasn't the placebo effect, either.
And here's some food for thought---all doctoring and medicine is homeopathic in its original nature. Since original "doctors", mainly priests, rabbis, nuns, midwives, ect....used herbs, incense, and so forth to heal the sick.............
The fact that homeopathy can have a placebo effect is not an excuse to use it.
Bullsh!t is bullsh!t, no matter how you dress it up. In every case, when a doctor is faced with an ailment that he/she thinks will respond to placebo, there is a better alternative than homeopathy. Sometimes it may be something like a vitamin D tablet, or even an antibiotic. All that is needed is for the doctor to convince the patient that it is good, and the placebo effect will cut in. So why not give something with a genuine benefit, even if it is just a vitamin pill?
Homeopathic medicine is a lie and a swindle. Even when it has a therapeutic placebo effect, that effect is still based on a lie. Modern medicine is based on science - not on lies.
Bullsh!t is bullsh!t, no matter how you dress it up. In every case, when a doctor is faced with an ailment that he/she thinks will respond to placebo, there is a better alternative than homeopathy. Sometimes it may be something like a vitamin D tablet, or even an antibiotic. All that is needed is for the doctor to convince the patient that it is good, and the placebo effect will cut in. So why not give something with a genuine benefit, even if it is just a vitamin pill?
Homeopathic medicine is a lie and a swindle. Even when it has a therapeutic placebo effect, that effect is still based on a lie. Modern medicine is based on science - not on lies.
J-WO
Author of 'Pennyblade' and 'Feral Space'
And a third of Europe went on to die of plague.
Which just about highlights the titanic powers of the placebo effect.
Ah, but the theory of homeopathy is that using herbs is too powerful, they need to be diluted until they're indetectable.
And I did have a friend who died in a homeopathic clinic, refusing conventional treatment. Two kids, seven and twelve, gifted musician, person I liked a lot, father a medical doctor.
I can't, however, say conventional treatment would have saved her. The "what ifs" in this life are impenetrable. But her husband told me that the doctors had thought she would probably have lasted at least another five years, although they would probably not have been very pleasant ones.
So, better or worse? It was entirely her choice.
j d worthington
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 13,889
Yes, people have died from prescription drugs; usually through either improper usage on their part, misdiagnoses on the part of the physician, an impurity in the drug, or an undetected allergy.
On the other hand, the percentage of success versus failure, when it comes to having a genuine medicinal benefit, is vastly superior to homeopathy or for that matter the bulk of "alternative medicines", even with the placebo effect taken into account. This is because these medications are tested, re-tested, and based on very sound evidence on how the human body and various substances work in combination. Homeopathy, on the other hand, is based on something which is completely contradictory to any and all objective evidence. It is, in a word, a crock.
And while "all doctoring and medicine is homeopathic in its original nature" may be true in essence (if we are truly talking about the origins of any such practice, some of which goes back so far into the mists of time that we aren't even sure how early they began), this is true of any branch of human knowledge: astronomy began as astrology; chemistry began as alchemy; and so forth. But... they have come a long, long, long way since then, and have changed their nature almost completely... when it comes to procedures or substances which are generally accepted by the medical or scientific community as of genuine efficacy of themselves (again, setting the placebo effect aside). When it comes to those "alternatives"... most of them have failed repeatedly to pass muster when tested scientifically. Those which do are investigated further, and eventually either adopted into such usage, or discarded when the evidence begins to mount against them.
Anecdotal evidence is, to be blunt, not worth a good damn unless it is backed by other sources; the one with the best track record being rigorous, double-blind, scientific testing. And for the record: a good many people have died over the years by relying on such methods rather than those which have met such rigorous testing. Whether they would have survived given the latter cannot be said with absolute certainty, but given the evidence, their chances of doing so would have been vastly improved. We do know that every year numbers of people, including children, die from treatable diseases which are often easily survivable, just because their parents (or the children themselves, with either their parents' permission, persuasion, or coercion) rely on such methods rather than tried and tested medical procedures. Homeopathy, along with so many of them, relies on the gullibility and scientific illiteracy of the populace and, as has been said many times before, anyone or anything which banks on that is sure to never lack adherents....
On the other hand, the percentage of success versus failure, when it comes to having a genuine medicinal benefit, is vastly superior to homeopathy or for that matter the bulk of "alternative medicines", even with the placebo effect taken into account. This is because these medications are tested, re-tested, and based on very sound evidence on how the human body and various substances work in combination. Homeopathy, on the other hand, is based on something which is completely contradictory to any and all objective evidence. It is, in a word, a crock.
And while "all doctoring and medicine is homeopathic in its original nature" may be true in essence (if we are truly talking about the origins of any such practice, some of which goes back so far into the mists of time that we aren't even sure how early they began), this is true of any branch of human knowledge: astronomy began as astrology; chemistry began as alchemy; and so forth. But... they have come a long, long, long way since then, and have changed their nature almost completely... when it comes to procedures or substances which are generally accepted by the medical or scientific community as of genuine efficacy of themselves (again, setting the placebo effect aside). When it comes to those "alternatives"... most of them have failed repeatedly to pass muster when tested scientifically. Those which do are investigated further, and eventually either adopted into such usage, or discarded when the evidence begins to mount against them.
Anecdotal evidence is, to be blunt, not worth a good damn unless it is backed by other sources; the one with the best track record being rigorous, double-blind, scientific testing. And for the record: a good many people have died over the years by relying on such methods rather than those which have met such rigorous testing. Whether they would have survived given the latter cannot be said with absolute certainty, but given the evidence, their chances of doing so would have been vastly improved. We do know that every year numbers of people, including children, die from treatable diseases which are often easily survivable, just because their parents (or the children themselves, with either their parents' permission, persuasion, or coercion) rely on such methods rather than tried and tested medical procedures. Homeopathy, along with so many of them, relies on the gullibility and scientific illiteracy of the populace and, as has been said many times before, anyone or anything which banks on that is sure to never lack adherents....
Peter Graham
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,616
Ventamist,
Can you answer my three questions from earlier in this thread? I'm no scientist, but even I know that for homeopathy to even have the potential to work, we need to rethink a number of basic laws of physics.
That's because no-one can die from drinking very small amounts of water.
It isn't. Homeopathy isn't the same as herbalism, although I do wonder in light of other comments if homeopathy means something different over here. There is no evidence that the ancients repeatedly diluted distilled plant extracts to make them work better. Medieval medicine took one of two forms - stuff it full of lavender or saw it off. You used the first if the condition involved no bleeding or suppurating and the second if it did.
Aspirin is a good example. The active ingredient occurs naturally in willow (?) bark. So chewing willow bark relieved headaches and so on. But this is precisely the point. As soon as that cause and effect has been spotted, aspirin stops becoming some sort of "alternative therapy" and becomes boring old "medicine" of the sort you can buy in chemists.
I think that all people in this thread are saying are that if homeopathy, aromatherapy, crystal healing, spells, chakra-fondling and all the rest of it wish to be regarded as serious and viable treatments, they should be submitted to the same testing regime as any other potential medicine and should still be able to come up smelling of roses.
If crystals really can heal sickness, let's prove it and dole them out to everyone who needs one. But if they can't, let's continue treating the barefoot wierdy-beardies of Totnes, Hebden Bridge, Alston, Mid-Wales and Glastonbury with a modicum of healthy scepticism.
Regards,
Peter
Arch Druid (elect) and Chief Wizard to the Court of Oberon, King of the Faeries.
Can you answer my three questions from earlier in this thread? I'm no scientist, but even I know that for homeopathy to even have the potential to work, we need to rethink a number of basic laws of physics.
That's because no-one can die from drinking very small amounts of water.
It isn't. Homeopathy isn't the same as herbalism, although I do wonder in light of other comments if homeopathy means something different over here. There is no evidence that the ancients repeatedly diluted distilled plant extracts to make them work better. Medieval medicine took one of two forms - stuff it full of lavender or saw it off. You used the first if the condition involved no bleeding or suppurating and the second if it did.
Aspirin is a good example. The active ingredient occurs naturally in willow (?) bark. So chewing willow bark relieved headaches and so on. But this is precisely the point. As soon as that cause and effect has been spotted, aspirin stops becoming some sort of "alternative therapy" and becomes boring old "medicine" of the sort you can buy in chemists.
I think that all people in this thread are saying are that if homeopathy, aromatherapy, crystal healing, spells, chakra-fondling and all the rest of it wish to be regarded as serious and viable treatments, they should be submitted to the same testing regime as any other potential medicine and should still be able to come up smelling of roses.
If crystals really can heal sickness, let's prove it and dole them out to everyone who needs one. But if they can't, let's continue treating the barefoot wierdy-beardies of Totnes, Hebden Bridge, Alston, Mid-Wales and Glastonbury with a modicum of healthy scepticism.
Regards,
Peter
Arch Druid (elect) and Chief Wizard to the Court of Oberon, King of the Faeries.
I think this is correct. If I buy herbal medicine, it is sometimes labeled homeopathic. This is obviously vastly different than what most have in mind with Homeopathy.
I suspect that is more a case of unscrupulous marketeers caching in on a trendy name. Homeopathy is a very precisely defined alternative medicine (IMO, I'm afraid, a load of old hokum). From Wiki:
Apart from the placebo effect, homeopathy does not work in any way at all - ever.
Herbalism can work. Normally it is much less potent that conventional drugs, and I would personally rather use the more effective drug. But there are a few herbs that do work, and have been proven to work by proper scientific testing.
Two examples come to mind. Ginger is effective against nausea. St. John's Wort is effective to a degree against slight depression. Sadly, St. John's Wort has some nasty side effects.
Other herbs contain effective drug type chemicals, and are no longer used because the product derived from those herbs is much better. eg. asprin vs willow bark. Digitalis vs foxglove etc.
And then there is the rest. The vast bulk of herbal remedies either have not been subject to scientific testing, and thus are probably ineffective or toxic. The ones that have been so tested are nearly all useless.
End conclusion. Like homeopathic remedies, you have to be ignorant or stupid to rely on herbal remedies rather than modern effective drugs.
Herbalism can work. Normally it is much less potent that conventional drugs, and I would personally rather use the more effective drug. But there are a few herbs that do work, and have been proven to work by proper scientific testing.
Two examples come to mind. Ginger is effective against nausea. St. John's Wort is effective to a degree against slight depression. Sadly, St. John's Wort has some nasty side effects.
Other herbs contain effective drug type chemicals, and are no longer used because the product derived from those herbs is much better. eg. asprin vs willow bark. Digitalis vs foxglove etc.
And then there is the rest. The vast bulk of herbal remedies either have not been subject to scientific testing, and thus are probably ineffective or toxic. The ones that have been so tested are nearly all useless.
End conclusion. Like homeopathic remedies, you have to be ignorant or stupid to rely on herbal remedies rather than modern effective drugs.
There's a entire chapter on homoeopathy in Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science. I read it about ten days ago. I can't recommend the book too highly, especially his denunciation of homoeopathy.
Despite any possible placebo effect of homoeopathic drugs, the very real danger of people attending a homoeopathic practitioner is that a serious condition, only recognised by a properly trained medical practitioner, may be missed.
Prince Charles's approach to homoeopathy is both laughable and dangerous. He publicly supports homoeopathy and his status in society lends credence to the practice but does anyone doubt that if there was the slightest chance that he was suffering from anything slightly serous he wouldn't be treated with the most sophisticated drugs that modern medicine could come up with?
Despite any possible placebo effect of homoeopathic drugs, the very real danger of people attending a homoeopathic practitioner is that a serious condition, only recognised by a properly trained medical practitioner, may be missed.
Prince Charles's approach to homoeopathy is both laughable and dangerous. He publicly supports homoeopathy and his status in society lends credence to the practice but does anyone doubt that if there was the slightest chance that he was suffering from anything slightly serous he wouldn't be treated with the most sophisticated drugs that modern medicine could come up with?
dustinzgirl
Mod of Awesome
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 3,697
http://www.adrugrecall.com/html/recalled.html
Dangerous Drug Side Effects - CBS News Video
Misdiagnosis of Medication Causes of Stroke - WrongDiagnosis.com
The list of possible medications or substances mentioned in sources as possible causes of Stroke includes:
- Activella
- Agrylin
- Alesse
- Alora Transdermal System
- Anagrelide
- Apri
- Aviane
- Biphasil
- Brevicon
- BuSpar
- BuSpar Dividose
- Buspirone
- Buspirone Hydrochloride
- Camilla
- Catovit
- Cenestin
- Chlorotrianisene
- Climara
- Climara Pro Transdermal System
- Cocaine
- Coke
- CombiPatch
- Cosopt
- Crack
- Cryselle
- Cyclessa
- Demulen 1/35
- Demulen 1/50
- Desogen
- Diazoxide
- Dienestrol
- Diethylstilbestrol
- Dofetilide
- DV Cream
- Ecstasy
- Enbrel
- Enpresse
- Epoetin
- Epoetin Alfa
- Epogen
- Eprex
- Errin
- Esclim
- Estinyl
- Estrace
- Estraderm
- Estrasorb
- Estratab
- Estratest
- Estratest HS
- Estring
- Estrostep 21
- Estrostep Fe
- Etanercept
- Femhrt
- FemPatch
- Femring
- Ginkgo
- Glivec
- Gynodiol
- Honvol
- Hyperstat I.V
- Imatinib
- Innofem
- Jolivette
- Kariva
- Lessina
- Levlen
- Levlite
- Levonorgestrel
- Levora
- Lo/Ovral
- Loestrin 1/20
- Loestrin 21 1.5/30
- Loestrin 21 1/20
- Loestrin Fe 1.5/30
- Loestrin Fe 1/20
- Low-Ogestrel
- Menest
- Microgestin Fe 1.5/30
- Microgestin Fe 1/20
- Mircette
- Mirena
- Modicon
- Necon 1/35
- Necon 1/50
- Necon 10/11
- Necon 7/7/7
- Neocon 0.5/35
- Neurosine
- Nor-Q.D
- Nora-BE
- Nordette
- Norinyl 1+35
- Norinyl 1+50
- Norplant II
- Nortrel 0.5/35
- Nortrel 1/35
- NuvaRing
- Ogen
- Ogestrel
- Ortho Dienestrol
- Ortho Tri-Cyclen
- Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo
- Ortho-Cept
- Ortho-Cyclen
- Ortho-Est
- Ortho-Micornor
- Ortho-Norvum 1/50
- Ortho-Novum 1/35
- Ortho-Novum 10/11
- Ortho-Novum 7/7/7
- Ortho-Prefest
- OrthoEvra
- Ovcon-35
- Ovcon-50
- Ovral
- Ovrette
- Plan B
- Portia
- Premarin
- Premphase
- Prempro
- Preven
- Procrit
- Progestasert
- Proglycem
- Prolintane
- Sefulken
- Sprintec
- Stilphostrol
- Syntest DS
- Syntest HS
- TACE
- Tikosyn
- Tri-Levlen
- Tri-Norinyl
- Triphasil
- Trivora
- Vagifem
- Vivelle
- Vivelle-Dot
- Yasmin
- Zovia 1/35E
- Zovia 1/50E
(1998 - adverse drug reactions) "Adverse drug reactions are a significant public health problem in our health care system. For the 12,261,737 Medicare patients admitted to U.S. hospitals, ADRs were projected to cause the following increases: 2976 deaths, 118,200 patient-days, $516,034,829 in total charges, $37,611,868 in drug charges, and $9,456,698 in laboratory charges. If all Medicare patients were considered, these figures would be 3 times greater."
Unless you are planning to kill yourself with pills overdose, the least thing you would expect from a medicine to cause you is death. But for patients with arthritis, that's a risk they may face while taking Celebrex. According to the product web page, Celebrex may increase the chance of a heart attack or stroke that can lead to death. Serious skin reactions or stomach and intestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, can occur without warning and may cause death.
(Link)
Just sayin'.
http://www.topix.com/forum/drug/T3FOO9FI451MJNVTQ
http://www.adrugrecall.com/yaz-birth-control/deaths.html
Dustinzgirl
You need to keep this kind of thing in perspective. There are a hell of a lot more people saved by modern drugs than who die as a result of them.
For example : take leukemia. In 1960, only 14% of leukemia patients survived the disease. Today, it is well over 50%. This improvement is due to modern drugs.
Leukemia & Lymphoma Society - Leukemia Facts & Statistics
I quote :
"An estimated 245,225 people in the United States are living with, or are in remission from, leukemia. An estimated 44,790 new cases of leukemia will be diagnosed in the United States in 2009."
And that is just leukemia. Modern drugs save an enormous number of lives. To do that, they have to be potent. What a lot of people fail to understand is that this potency means they have a strong effect on the human body. If a drug is truly potent, there is always the risk of a side effect that may, in rare cases, be lethal. On the other hand, if the drug is not potent, and thus without risk, it is also going to be useless.
That is, of course, the case for homeopathy, and for a lot of alternative remedies. They are not potent, and are thus quite safe. On the other hand, they do no good either.
You need to keep this kind of thing in perspective. There are a hell of a lot more people saved by modern drugs than who die as a result of them.
For example : take leukemia. In 1960, only 14% of leukemia patients survived the disease. Today, it is well over 50%. This improvement is due to modern drugs.
Leukemia & Lymphoma Society - Leukemia Facts & Statistics
I quote :
"An estimated 245,225 people in the United States are living with, or are in remission from, leukemia. An estimated 44,790 new cases of leukemia will be diagnosed in the United States in 2009."
And that is just leukemia. Modern drugs save an enormous number of lives. To do that, they have to be potent. What a lot of people fail to understand is that this potency means they have a strong effect on the human body. If a drug is truly potent, there is always the risk of a side effect that may, in rare cases, be lethal. On the other hand, if the drug is not potent, and thus without risk, it is also going to be useless.
That is, of course, the case for homeopathy, and for a lot of alternative remedies. They are not potent, and are thus quite safe. On the other hand, they do no good either.
The Procrastinator
1 Candlepower Brain
Seeing as no one has managed to come up with an answer to my question - why do so many people flock to homeopathic and alternative remedies (and contrary to the prevailing opinion on this thread, not all who do are gullible idiots) - your comment might have to do, my Sceptical friend. Perhaps people do not fail to understand the potency of refined drugs and the risks of side effects. Perhaps it makes them uneasy and they want gentler, more "natural" methods. Perhaps the "one size fits all" approach of modern medicine does not sit well with everyone. I am speculating of course.
The thing is I am not in favour of homeopathy at all, but I am an occasional user of alternative remedies for non-serious ailments, where I find them to be effective. If it was serious of course I would go to the doctor. I am not anti-modern medicine. But modern medicine is not infallible either. I heard recently about the rise of another "superbug" - another virulent antibiotic-resistant strain of bacteria, caused by overprescription of antibiotics. And I personally am not keen on becoming reliant on painkillers and anti-inflammatories to deal with RSI, so I look for other ways to deal with it. Not homeopathy mind you - haven't gotten quite that desperate.
But I think dismissing people out of hand who question the efficacy of the medical system - not just medications, but the whole messy thing, including the antics of pharmaceutical companies and the fallibility of uninspired GP's - is counterproductive. Not everyone who goes for homeopathy (or other alternative remedies) is an empty headed fool who doesn't understand about modern medicine. So what's going on?
Procrastinator
I don't think anyone has used the term "empty headed fool". However, to say that people are often gullible would be true. Such gullibility can come from the simple fact that most people are uneducated in most spheres of human knowledge. This definitely includes medicine. When knowledge is lacking, it is easy for certain people, with the gift of the gab, to convince those lacking such knowledge, into believing that which is wrong.
I do not agree with you on alternative medicine. The thing is, if any form of alternative medicine actually works well, it gets adopted by medical researchers and becomes part of conventional medicine. This has happened many times. Many modern drugs came from traditional herbs. For example : Arteminisin is a new and potent drug for malaria. It came from a Chinese herb.
If an alternative remedy does not get so adopted, it is generally because it offers little. For this reason, there is little or nothing to be gained by patronising those who offer alternative remedies.
I don't think anyone has used the term "empty headed fool". However, to say that people are often gullible would be true. Such gullibility can come from the simple fact that most people are uneducated in most spheres of human knowledge. This definitely includes medicine. When knowledge is lacking, it is easy for certain people, with the gift of the gab, to convince those lacking such knowledge, into believing that which is wrong.
I do not agree with you on alternative medicine. The thing is, if any form of alternative medicine actually works well, it gets adopted by medical researchers and becomes part of conventional medicine. This has happened many times. Many modern drugs came from traditional herbs. For example : Arteminisin is a new and potent drug for malaria. It came from a Chinese herb.
If an alternative remedy does not get so adopted, it is generally because it offers little. For this reason, there is little or nothing to be gained by patronising those who offer alternative remedies.
Karn Maeshalanadae
I'm a pineapple
It's not quite so much the fact that just because an alternative remedy offers little. (That is indeed the case in many situations, don't get me wrong.)
What it is, is that it might not appear to offer very much, at least not at first. And why assume that humans are all alike? We have different blood types, different allergies, different antibodies, different immune systems. There's even some diseases that will strike a person of a certain genetic background more often than others. (Sickle cell anemia is such an example-it tends to strike those of descent from lands where malaria is rampant, which tends to wind up being tropical areas of the planet.)
I've always thought long and hard on this subject, alternative medicine. Who's to say everyone's body will react the same way to a chemical? I, for instance, have an extreme intolerance to acetaminophen-an intolerance that my doctor has written off as an allergy. My grandmother has a horrible allergy to morphine.
So why assume that just because an herbal remedy doesn't work for you, that it won't work for any other person on Earth? Are scientists able to gather people all around the world to study the reaction to every genetic background possible on our planet? I highly doubt that.
Karn
Proper scientific study of a remedy involves lots of people. The more people, the more reliable the result, which means medical researchers like to recruit many, many people for their trials. If a remedy aids only a small percentage of those people, it still shows in a slight improvement compared to placebo.
Alternative treatments occasionally show promise. Some treatments that work, as well or better than drugs, include yoga and meditation for stress related conditions, and honey for topical use on such things as leg ulcers.
These are well documented, and orthodox doctors do make use of them. Alternative treatments that are actually better than orthodox are very few and far between.
The major source of useful treatments from alternative medicines, though, is herbalism. A number of herbs have shown promise, and result in useful drugs.
What drives the herbalists crazy, though, is that the researchers remove the active chemical from the herb, chemically modify it, and produce it in standard form. The herb derived drug ends up far more effective than the herb it came from. Which leaves the herbalists with what? An inferior treatment, meaning that if they talk people into using herbs instead of drugs, they are doing those people a grave disservice.
End result is that no sensible person should consult an alternative therapist. You are likely to end up with a snake oil therapy, and miss out on an orthodox treatment that might actually cure what ails you.
Proper scientific study of a remedy involves lots of people. The more people, the more reliable the result, which means medical researchers like to recruit many, many people for their trials. If a remedy aids only a small percentage of those people, it still shows in a slight improvement compared to placebo.
Alternative treatments occasionally show promise. Some treatments that work, as well or better than drugs, include yoga and meditation for stress related conditions, and honey for topical use on such things as leg ulcers.
These are well documented, and orthodox doctors do make use of them. Alternative treatments that are actually better than orthodox are very few and far between.
The major source of useful treatments from alternative medicines, though, is herbalism. A number of herbs have shown promise, and result in useful drugs.
What drives the herbalists crazy, though, is that the researchers remove the active chemical from the herb, chemically modify it, and produce it in standard form. The herb derived drug ends up far more effective than the herb it came from. Which leaves the herbalists with what? An inferior treatment, meaning that if they talk people into using herbs instead of drugs, they are doing those people a grave disservice.
End result is that no sensible person should consult an alternative therapist. You are likely to end up with a snake oil therapy, and miss out on an orthodox treatment that might actually cure what ails you.
Taking a step back from the debate about homeopathy - a form of snake oil, and not in the least diluted in this respect - we have to recognise that gullibility and idiocy (using the colloquial definition) are not the same thing at all.
We are all gullible about something or other, possibly because we are creatures of hope; we wish to believe things can get better and sometimes let that desire override our scepticism.
You only have to look at elections to see this happening: millions around the world make the effort to vote for folk who they believe have made serious mistakes in government, but contrary to past evidence, will get it right the next time. (You could argue - though I wouldn't - that the less gullible are those who vote for one candidate in order to stop the election of another.)
Ursa
I agree totally. Gullibility and idiocy are not the same.
Mind you. We are not all equally gullible. There will always be those who are shrewd and discriminating, and those who are very gullible.
I term the relevent quality "rationality" which I define as the ability to judge what is real and what is not. This is distinct from "intelligence", which I define as the ability to manipulate data mentally. There are lots of people who are highly intelligent, and manipulate data with great ability. However, they choose to believe data that is patently wrong. Thus, they are intelligent but irrational.
I agree totally. Gullibility and idiocy are not the same.
Mind you. We are not all equally gullible. There will always be those who are shrewd and discriminating, and those who are very gullible.
I term the relevent quality "rationality" which I define as the ability to judge what is real and what is not. This is distinct from "intelligence", which I define as the ability to manipulate data mentally. There are lots of people who are highly intelligent, and manipulate data with great ability. However, they choose to believe data that is patently wrong. Thus, they are intelligent but irrational.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | Medieval witchcraft and modern witchcraft and the impact of improved communications | History | 0 | |
|
Alewife and Witchcraft | History | 6 | |
| J | Cautions on Witchcraft Figures.... | History | 9 |
Similar threads
-
Medieval witchcraft and modern witchcraft and the impact of improved communications
- Started by Montero
- Replies: 0
-
-