Here's why *real* medicine is different than woo:

[MannyGoldstein]

In *real* medicine, roughly 10% of what's done is based on evidence. 10%. That's it. 90% is based on... guesses? Happy thoughts? How much money some constituency can make off of it?

For woo... hard to tell how much is evidence based. Lots of woo things are actually evidence-based, but they're considered "woo" because neither docs, hospitals, nor drug companies can make a buck off of them. Nobody's made a study of it, to my knowledge, but the percentage of evidence-based woo's probably no worse than the percentage in "real" medicine. Can't be much worse. My personal woo habits are probably a lot more evidence-based than typical "real" medicine practiced by the vast bulk of doctors - Pubmed is my friend.

Now let's look at the other side of the coin - damage.

According to the FDA, Vioxx alone probably killed between 40,000 and 60,000 people. That's what, between 13 and 20 September 11th attacks? It's somewhat of a different thing, but still... it's tens of thousands of dead people. And Vioxx was approved by the FDA after big serious studies by big serious doctors at big serious hospitals. Turns out that the research sucked. Oh well.

Here's the kicker: there was zero evidence that Vioxx was safer or more effective than ibuprofen (which it was supposed to replace) during the time it was killing lots of people. Zero. But it made a lot of money for a lot of people, so there's that, I guess. If those now-corpses had taken ibuprofen instead of Vioxx, they would have gotten better pain relief. But Ibuprofen isn't a big earner these days. Sorry folks!

There's plenty more people killed or grievously injured by "real" medicine - PSA tests, all manner of drug prescribing and dosing fuck ups, excessive use of coronary angioplasty, orthopedic surgeries that are known to be pointless, a bunch of others. It's amazing what people will do if someone in a white coat tells them they should. And it's amazing what people in white coats will tell people to do if it'll make them a few more bucks.

Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.
- George Washington

Once in a while, a few people get killed by woo. But tens of thousands? If anyone knows of even a hundred killed in a woo-tastrophe, I'd love to hear about it.

All in all, sadly, we're mostly on our own when it comes to either "real" medicine or woo. Not much evidence for either. At least woo is a lot less effective at mayhem. There is lots of evidence in the literature about stuff that really helps, but it gets ignored because nobody can make a buck off of it.

Grumpily yours,

First-Way Manny

[JaneyVee]

1. I'm a believer and practitioner of many new age philosophies and health lifestyles.

[PNW_Dem]

65. I agree

Here's a source I like. It's pretty grounded.

[cthulu2016]

2. The WMD in Iraq was, in fact, a more serious lie/delusion/hoax than a crop circle

So what?

No critique of medicine can rehabilitate quackery. It can only identify even more stuff as quackery... which is a fine pursuit.

X is bullshit.

No, no. Y is double-plus bullshit.

That is not a defense of X.

[Deep13]

87. Bingo.

Even if someone were to disprove evolution, creationism would still be wrong. Even if someone were to disprove the efficacy for modern medicine, so-called alternative medicine would still be bullshit.

[AikidoSoul]

140. Are you awake? Do you read? Do you experiment?

"Even if someone were to disprove the efficacy for modern medicine, so-called alternative medicine would still be bullshit."

Do you keep track of what works and what doesn't? Do you track what gives you symptoms that are intolerable? Do You eat food? Many foods are considered to be medicine in today's alternative medicine scene. Wake up! A little bit of Dr. Oz couldn't hurt your brain. He;s not right on everything, but he does have some very good insights into health issues, prevention, and what to avoid in order to become healthier.

That is truly one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen on DU.

Pathethic really.

[Deep13]

142. verbal diarrhea

Why don't you go back and organize your thoughts, then get back to me.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Elements-Style-Fourth-Edition/dp/020530902X

[Maraya1969]

155. How can you make a blanket statement like that? Have you tested all alternative medicines?

Do you have concrete evidence that even one of them is snake oil?

I had a dog Rusty that had all sorts of medical problems. One was chronic ear infections. Nothing would cure him. So I decided to try giving him a large dose of CoQ10 every day and after one week he was a new dog. It was amazing. Now I give my two younger dogs CoQ10, (ubiquinol) at least once a week. And I found out after Rusty that they actually makes it for dogs but it is a liquid and very expensive. Better to get the people kind.

[Deep13]

156. One of what is snake oil?

Those purporting to to have treatments for disorders must conduct rigorous testing in compliance with FDA regulations to ensure efficacy and safety. So, whatever it is you are talking about, show me the clinical test results, or at least a report on them from a reputable source.

[sabrina 1]

163. And THAT'S not a defense of 'medical science'. Manny mentioned only ONE drug eg, that has killed

tens of thousands of people. I can list a whole lot more. Killed, maimed etc.

If you want to put your faith in a business that has a record like that, go ahead. I will use medical science where I know for sure it has been, not just properly researched, but around for long enough that we can check out the casualty rate if any.

As alternative medicine, it's at least a lot cheaper, and as pointed out in the OP even if ineffective, it doesn't have the death toll that medical science has.

[djean111]

3. [phone]

I am so glad that I considered all the crap my doctor tried to get me to take for menopause symptoms as just gussied up woo.
Turns out some of it could have killed me, some could have given me cancer.
Seems to me that an awful lot of scientifical medicine is not really all that "investigated" - we are all just lab rats and paying through the nose for the privilege. Off label use, FDA ignoring advisory committees - I decided to just have the fucking hot flashes. Hot flashes are natural. Glad I did.

Just read that the FDA has approved a re-branding of paxil for menopause. WTF?
http://www.drugrecallattorneysblog.com/2013/12/paxil-re-branded-as-menopause.html

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Paxil is nasty stuff

Causes serious issues for many people, especially when they try to get off of it.

[loudsue]

8. People have a nightmare trying to get off Paxil. But they don't tell you that until you've been on

it a while. My step daughter had one helluva time.

Actually, what the trouble-makers here call "woo" is usually herbal medicine. I guess the trouble-makers don't read peer reviewed journals about things they have already judged. There are numerous university double-blind studies about herbs and vitamins, not just in the USA, but in England, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland....etc etc etc. China and India have incredibly effective naturopathic and holistic cures that are also used in their hospitals right along side of the allopathic medicines (commercial medicine) .

In my opinion, both types of medicine should be used together, and neither one should be excluded, as they both have their strong points, and BOTH have their weak points. There are many people who simply cannot take commercial medicine, and there are some people who honestly do not respond sufficiently to herbal medicine. One size does not fit all. But commercial medicine is being pushed because someone makes a whole shit load of money off of it. It causes dishonesty and many people have died and have had their lives ruined because of the FDA making things legal that shouldn't be. Levaquin, anyone?

But the people who come on this site acting like there is no basis for holistic medicine and holistic cures... they have an agenda. You just have to stay off those threads, because they are like republicans in their zealous closed-mindedness. Just ignore them!! They won't go away, and I often wonder why they even show up in their tag teams to push their brand of idiocy down everyone's throats.

Thank you for this thread, MannyGoldstein. But it will soon be hijacked by the pharma zealots.

[RC]

13. +10

Not all "real" medicine is real and not all alternative medicine is quackery.
Much of the medicines in use before the pharmaceutical companies crowded them out with their modern day Woo, came from home remedies. Home remedies, also known as alternative medicine.

[truebluegreen]

108. Western medicine is the best in the world at fixing things that are broken

--or at least duct-taping them back together. Many alternatives focus on not breaking them in the first place. Both are needed.

[840high]

127. I use both medicines. After a car

accident my doc gave me prescription for pain meds. I went to a chiro for back pain - he helped me walk with much less pain.

[Deep13]

88. It may have saved my life.

Negative effects? Yeah, it helped make me fat. The alternative was being crazy. I will NEVER go back to the way I was!

[treestar]

106. +1 Paxil did wonders for me.

I actually felt like a normal person; may have been the first time in my life.

[tblue37]

70. Doctors are heavily inflenced by pharmaceutical reps who lobby them

to prescribe expensive meds.

[whatchamacallit]

4. K&R! n/t

[Benton D Struckcheon]

6. Yup

Doctors guess, a lot.
If, for instance, you come in and they find bone cancer, what they right away know is that it isn't. Cancer in the bone is almost always an indication that there's cancer elsewhere, and they then have to go looking for the original source. Mostly, they guess.
My mom had clogged ears for a while. Cleaned em out, she'd come in again, they'd clean em out again. They kept looking for the cause of this constant clogging, couldn't find one. This went on for a year.
Finally, one day, she could hardly walk. It just happened to be on the first day we were visiting her for a week's vacation. We spent that vacation in the hospital. At the end they finally figured out what she had, but once again, a lot of guessing, and a lot of testing, took place in that week.
Now we know, but it was too late to keep her independent. She now has to live in an assisted living facility, because she can't move around much, and needs assistance in her everyday life. Enough so that it's cheaper to have her there than to use a nurse.
Had they found the cause earlier, she could still be independent. But there's a lot of guesswork in medicine, simply because so many symptoms are shared by so many diseases, and what is apparently wrong looking at the symptoms might be completely different from what's really going on.
Which means that, you know, the entire body is a single unit, and the whole thing reacts when it's sick. Which, you know, is the assumption on which acupuncture is built, just to take a fer instance.

However, it's not true that there's not much evidence for medicine vs woo. In medicine, testing is done, statistical means are used to verify the results, and so on. Corruption, though, is a large part of medicine, for the simple reason there's so much money spent on it. Where there's money, there's corruption, and that screws things up. But that's true for woo too, the diff being yer average woo-ster doesn't bother with controlled tests and statistics.
For acupuncture, there's evidence it helps with pain. Homeopathy though? Useless. Chiropractic? May maybe work on some lower back pain stuff, otherwise useless.
Herbal remedies have known effects and, importantly, known side-effects, so if you're into that stuff you should be checking on both.
Et cetera. Just about everything out there has been investigated. In truth, if you really want to stay as healthy as possible, keep away from red meat and milk, exercise regularly, be happy (a glass or two of wine/beer/you name it a day helps with that; and if you're in CO, you can even light up from time to time to get some assistance...) and that will have the best results. Most doctors these days would tell you exactly the same thing.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. May I ask the cause of the ear clogging?

My mother-in-law's ears clog up often, also.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

124. Vasculitis

...which is an auto immune disease of the circulatory system. Her ears are still a problem, but not nearly as much anymore. Now she has trouble moving one of her legs, and one of her feet is just completely non responsive. Problem seems to be progressing to her other leg now.

[tblue37]

75. One big problem with herbal meds is that they are not FDA regulated, so you have no

way of knowing whether you are getting what you think you are getting, in the dosage you think you are getting.

[bvar22]

148. The FDA?

Our Regulatory Agencies have been captured by the Corporations they are "supposed" to "regulate", and the election of 2008 didn't "change" that.

In fact, it is WORSE today than under the Bush Administration.
The USDA and the FDA doesn't work to protect YOU.
They NOW protect the PROFITS of large Corporations.

[font size=3]"You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!".[/font]
The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here's the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

The FDA and the USDA are now just subsidiaries of the Big Corporations.

Google: Tom Vilsack toes to Monsanto
Google: USDA and Monsanto
Google: FDA and Monsanto




Please go sign the Move On petition:
Tell Obama to Cease FDA Ties to Monsanto
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-obama-to-cease-fda

[appal_jack]

9. K&R. I'll decide what works for me, thanks very much.

I've been to good acupuncturists and bad acupuncturists.

I've been to good chiropractors and bad chiropractors.

I've been to good massage therapists and bad massage therapists.

I've been to good Medical Doctors and bad Medical Doctors.

You know what they all had in common? I kept going to the good ones, and disregarded the bad advice from (and then quit seeing) the bad ones.

I'm 42 years of age, and I credit my relative good health to exercise, healthy eating, and the kind assistance of good acupuncturists, chiropractors, massage therapists, and Medical Doctors. Life is too short to waste time and money listening to the bad ones.

K&R for some First-Rate, First-Way logic here.

-app

[MannyGoldstein]

11. There *does* seem to be some overlap between certain groups...

'Nuff said.

[rhett o rick]

16. Yes, probably too much said. nm

[geek tragedy]

47. 'Nuff said indeed. One group of us gets to make fun of the

Republicans for being anti-science. Too bad you are not able to join us in that.

[IdaBriggs]

12. SMOOCH!!!

Best. Post. Of. The. Day.

[jsr]

14. Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269

November 2010
Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.
By David H. Freedman

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203764804577059841672541590.html

DECEMBER 2, 2011
Scientists' Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results
By GAUTAM NAIK

Two years ago, a group of Boston researchers published a study describing how they had destroyed cancer tumors by targeting a protein called STK33. Scientists at biotechnology firm Amgen Inc. quickly pounced on the idea and assigned two dozen researchers to try to repeat the experiment with a goal of turning the findings into a drug.

It proved to be a waste of time and money. After six months of intensive lab work, Amgen found it couldn't replicate the results and scrapped the project.

"I was disappointed but not surprised," says Glenn Begley, vice president of research at Amgen of Thousand Oaks, Calif. "More often than not, we are unable to reproduce findings" published by researchers in journals.

This is one of medicine's dirty secrets: Most results, including those that appear in top-flight peer-reviewed journals, can't be reproduced.

[progressoid]

17. If we all hate modern medicine so much, why are we so happy to get insurance?

Skip the doctors, the pharmacy, the hospital and just see your local herbalist.

[geek tragedy]

24. Yep. Same people will tell you cigarettes don't kill

because they heard about someone who lived to be 107 while smoking several packs a day.

Anti-science crowd includes some on the left.

[Humanist_Activist]

35. Those same assholes convinced my mom to not try to stop smoking, she didn't live to see 64 years old

[sabrina 1]

164. Not some one who lived, an incredibly large number of people have made it to their

100th birthday and way beyond still smoking. It's a fact, inconvenient for the anti-smoking crowd I know. Maybe they need to relax more and take a look at what those who HAVE lived so long did to get there. One thing they didn't do was to obsess over other people's personal choices.

[geek tragedy]

166. This is a pristine example of woo at its dumbest

and most ignorant and most potentially dangerous.

Every adult with a double digit IQ knows cigarettes are very, very bad for human health.

[Luminous Animal]

60. I've read and reread the OP and still can't find one shred of evidence

for hate of modern medicine.

As a 12 year breast cancer survivor, I am glad that I live in woo San Francisco where all my practitioners, both conventional and alternative were supportive of my treatment.

One of the top oncologist in the US advised me, for the best treatment, to cut off both my breasts, go on tamoxifen, by pass radiation, and fly to China for 6 months of alternative treatment.

[progressoid]

78. Well, Manny said it

Further down thread:

"But you do have a point - one could interpret my OP as saying that medicine is totally worthless,"

But I was actually also referencing the many posts today about people's distrust and anger toward modern medicine.

[Luminous Animal]

81. The operative word is "could". I interpret that as not "should". Reread the OP.

[bvar22]

144. Picky, picky, picky.

[font size=3]Its so much easier to just Make Something Up![./font]

[Live and Learn]

18. Excellent Post.

This post would be an excellent end to the woo wars and the bullying that is going along with them. I know it is going to be the end of any I read.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

19. ha! ok....enjoy that worldview

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Do you have a specific criticism? nt

[geek tragedy]

25. So you're down with climate denialism and creationism?

I mean, since woo is just as good as science, why not just believe what we wasn't rather than listening to some egghead scientists?

[MannyGoldstein]

27. Either you're a bad reader, or I'm a crappy writer.

Possibly both.

[geek tragedy]

29. You wrote quite effectively in disparaging medical

science as being no more reliable than woo.

Or are you only anti-science when it comes to medicine?

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Do you have any specific refutations of anything I wrote?

Anything at all?

[geek tragedy]

42. You refuted yourself:

OP Manny:

For woo... hard to tell how much is evidence based. Lots of woo things are actually evidence-based, but they're considered "woo" because neither docs, hospitals, nor drug companies can make a buck off of them. Nobody's made a study of it, to my knowledge, but the percentage of evidence-based woo's probably no worse than the percentage in "real" medicine. Can't be much worse. My personal woo habits are probably a lot more evidence-based than typical "real" medicine practiced by the vast bulk of doctors - Pubmed is my friend.

...

Once in a while, a few people get killed by woo. But tens of thousands? If anyone knows of even a hundred killed in a woo-tastrophe, I'd love to hear about it.

All in all, sadly, we're mostly on our own when it comes to either "real" medicine or woo. Not much evidence for either. At least woo is a lot less effective at mayhem. There is lots of evidence in the literature about stuff that really helps, but it gets ignored because nobody can make a buck off of it.

In other words, your claim is that the benefits of woo are probably as great as those of medical science with far fewer costs.

But along comes Comment Manny to reveal OP Manny as an ignoramus:

Comment Manny:

Average life expectancies have increased by 30 years of so over the last century. Studies have shown that most of this is due to sanitation, antibiotics, and vaccines, but a major chunk of it is still-unexplained

So, Comment Manny shows, OP Manny is simply full of nonsense. Medical science has increased human life expectancy by decades! Woo's track record contribution to that increase has been estimated at zero.

Polio, smallpox, diphtheria, whooping cough--those diseases had nothing to fear from woo.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. The comment doesn't refute the OP

The 10% that's evidence-based is pretty powerful, and the #1 improvement is sanitation, which isn't medicine.

But you do have a point - one could interpret my OP as saying that medicine is totally worthless, which it's not.

[geek tragedy]

57. Your OP is stating that on balance woo is at least as good as medicine .

Your claim is that they do similar levels of good, with woo doing less harm.

Also: sanitation is a medical as well as a scientific advance. Germ theory and everything.

Woo woo!

[MannyGoldstein]

59. I do not make that claim.

On the other hand I can't deny that claim, either.

All I can do is point out that 90% of medical practice is not based on evidence, a statistic that's broadly held to be true. And that there's not really any evidence of massive kill-offs due to woo.

Night-night.

[geek tragedy]

61. Any rational person will deny that claim.

Sanitation, antibiotics, anesthesia, vaccines--each individually has contributed more to human health than the woo y'all practice. Fact.

Billions will live longer because of medical science. Best that stat.

[Major Nikon]

66. A few

You said "Vioxx alone probably killed between 40,000 and 60,000 people" and the person you are referencing doesn't even go that far. He says it could have been that high and it's really nothing more than a guess. Your own link contains another source who seriously doubts those numbers. If those numbers scare you, then you probably don't want to know about other NSAIDs, including ibuprofen which also kill people, but nobody really knows how many they kill because they weren't studied as extensively as Vioxx.

Comparing science based medicine with woo is ridiculous. How many lives does woo save or even improve? Answer, zero. Yet people who opt for woo instead of real science actually do die by the tens of thousands and probably hundreds of thousands. They just aren't dying here in the US, and why? Because we have real medicine. Take a trip to the 3rd world sometime where people have no choice other than woo. See how much better they are for it.

[Humanist_Activist]

69. I also found his 90% figure to be suspicious, its linked to a total of two op-eds, one in the...

Boston Globe and another in cross linked into cardiobrief.org, a website dedicated to heart related health issues for Forbes magazine, an op-ed for a single doctor, yet this 90% figure is supposed to be the consensus? Not to mention both op-eds don't quite go as far as the OP, he's misrepresenting things, which doesn't surprise me.

[MannyGoldstein]

119. American Heart Association: only 11% of treatment recommendations back by good evidence

Did you miss this in the op ed I linked to? Or do you not know who the AHA is?

"Perhaps no recommendations carry more weight — and the burden of more life-and-death decisions — than those in cardiology, issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. Of the 2008 guidelines, involving over 2,700 treatment recommendations, only 11 percent were backed by strong evidence from multiple randomized clinical trials, according to a 2009 study by Duke University researchers published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Meanwhile, 48 percent of the recommendations were based on the personal opinions of experts in the field."

Easy article to find, but just in case (Pubmed is your friend):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19244190

[Humanist_Activist]

133. Of recommendations, you made it seem, in your OP, that 90% of ALL medicine is purely guesswork...

well frankly, its rather remarkable guesswork, considering the results, don't you think?

[Cassidy]

162. What percent of homeopathy, herbal remedies, etc. have 11% or more "strong evidence"

Would I be correct in understanding that you take a specific study of the 2008 cardiology recommendations to be representative of all modern medicine?

Would I also be correct in understanding that 11% median number of those recommendations "based on evidence from multiple randomized trials or meta-analysis" and 39% of those recommendations "based on evidence from a single randomized trial or non randomized studies" with 48% median recommendations "based on expert opinion, case studies, or standards of care" is the entire basis for your assertion that "In *real* medicine roughly 10% of what is done is based on evidence."

The study you cite actually indicates that there was good supportive evidence for at least 50% of the 2008 cardiology recommendations. Not ideal, but far better than 10%. Yes, I went to the original JAMA article.

In the meantime, you might want to take a look at this:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/222
Herbal remedies are a $60 billion industry in the U.S. alone and this study by Newmaster et al., similarly to other studies, found high levels of contamination (59%) and substitution (32%). How can you say something works if you can't even know what is in that bottle?

Can we at least acknowledge that there is big money in woo as well as pharma? Can we agree to be skeptical of all claims equally and expect supporting evidence based on the scientific method?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

28. yes. you link to articles showing profit motive and greed were warping/stopping scientific method

and allowing drugs or procedures to be considered for use by the public. There is no condemnation of the scientific method and evidence-based medicine research in the link you provided. It merely says the processes were allowed to be grossly abused and that is not the same as "well, science-based medicine is a crap shoot so might as well go visit the shaman".

You cherry-picked some well-known cases, but there are far more such as studies showing dosages of cold medicine in children under 4 were potentially harmful and did little good so now the warnings suggest only to provide such medicines to children under 4 upon physicians consultation. In that case, the FDA did step in and radically correct a substandard set of protocols and helped lead to better medicine. That's just one example. But the testing of new procedures and drugs for cancer, aids, diabetes, and the like are things I would like to see continued and believe are superior to crystal therapy.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Boy, I must be a really shitty writer.

Sorry.

Where did I say that the scientific method is bad if done correctly?

Bonus question: do you disagree that the bulk of what doctors do is not based on evidence?

[Humanist_Activist]

38. You ignore the harm caused by alternative "medicine" while hypercritical of science and evidence...

based medicine, I would say that are assumptions are accurate.

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Link or slink.

Either demonstrate tens of thousands of woo deaths or please heed your own plea to pay attention to numbers, not gut feelings.

[geek tragedy]

45. Your argument is that the net effect of woo on public health is better than that

of medical science.

Which, given your concession that life expectancy is decades longer due to medical science, has been shown to be woo itself.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. So I guess we won't be seeing your numbers then.

Disappointing.

[geek tragedy]

63. 7.5 years of life for the average person because of medicine.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1260.long

So. BILLIONS of lives saved/extended by scientific/professional medicine. What's aromatherapy's track record?


P.S. why do we pay for Medicare if woo is just as good? Maybe we should just enact Woocare and Woocaid and save money?

[LadyHawkAZ]

79. "Condoms don't stop AIDS"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/09/aids

Woo.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

40. things done for my son from his first trimester up through his last wellness check

are in the high 90th percentile done based on evidence. The fact that things change over the years re: doctors' recommendations is partly based on having more data to provide more efficacious treatments.

For example: child safety seat recommendations from doctors, checks for autism, routine vaccinations, checks for skeletal abnormalities, checks for weight or growth abnormalities....all based on scientific research and decades of statistics from doctors around the world.

That's just for children. What the high 90th percentile of doctors procedures involve is checking for abnormalities and suggesting either lifestyle changes or early intervention through antibiotics, drug therapies or surgery for those small percentage that do come up with warning flags.

[MannyGoldstein]

118. High 90th percentile?

I'm not sure what you mean - that 90 percent of what they did is backed by strong evidence? Do you have data to demonstrate what you're claiming?

[NuclearDem]

21. The fact that big pharma is greedy and some doctors are incompetent

doesn't validate pseudoscientific treatments.

It's like creationists "proving" their assertions by showing how Richard Dawkins is a dick sometimes.

[geek tragedy]

22. Well, feel free to consult the local faith healer

and herbal supplement dealer to solve all of your medical problems.

Folk remedies having done so much to combat polio, whooping cough, malaria, etcetera.

[Humanist_Activist]

23. Do people like you hate modern medicine so much you will never use it?

I doubt it, do you think humans lived longer and healthier lives in the past than today?

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Some parts of modern medicine are helpful.

As I wrote, about 10% of it is based on evidence, that stuff should be helpful.

Average life expectancies have increased by 30 years of so over the last century. Studies have shown that most of this is due to sanitation, antibiotics, and vaccines, but a major chunk of it is still-unexplained.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

30. reduced infant and child mortality due to a host of medical advances.

and safety precautions

[geek tragedy]

32. What percent has been attributed to woo? nt

[Humanist_Activist]

33. You forgot nutrition, which is much better today than in the past...

I don't see how a major chunk is unexplained, much of that explains why things are so much better now.

Woo, when it doesn't hurt directly does it in a more insidious way, it reduces herd immunity by telling people that vaccines cause autism, leading to rubella and mumps outbreaks in various parts of the world that didn't have them in a generation. It encourages people to use stuff that doesn't work instead of stuff that actually does work, and spreading illness as a result.

You talk about the harm caused by mainstream medicine, at least we are aware of it because of the need for public reporting and clinical trials, what about the shit that's untested and unregulated? How many babies and children suffered from Hyland's teething tablets, which in some cases had dangerous levels of belladonna in it? Where is the reporting on this, it lead to a recall. You demand impossible standards from mainstream medicine while giving woo a fucking pass, and you claim to have the high ground?

Why not go live in a cave, off the grid?

[MannyGoldstein]

39. How many children died from Hyland's tablets?

Seems like none. http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/hylands.asp

Homeopathy is ridiculous, but pretty harmless.

Unless you have figures showing otherwise.

[Humanist_Activist]

46. That's your standard? Direct harm only?

The only way homeopathy can kill you is through drowning, but that's not the point.

If someone contracted a serious illness and opted for homeopathy instead of traditional treatment, and died, should the marketers of the homeopathic remedy be liable. What if it were a minor child who's parent opted for homeopathy instead of traditional treatment, with the same result, is homeopathy harmless then as well?

You seem to hold snake oil to a different, and far lower standard, than evidence based medicine.

[geek tragedy]

50. Forget homeopathy, we should just pray away illness.

That can literally never cause physical harm.

[tblue37]

117. How many kids die of treatable illnesses (like diabetes!) because their

parents believe they can pray away the sickness? We read about such cases--and I bet there are ones we never hear about.

[MannyGoldstein]

120. Did you actually *read* my OP?

Doesn't seem like it.

[Humanist_Activist]

131. I don't see it as a nuanced cost benefit analysis, but rather a hit piece against science. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

132. And what bad things did I say about science?

Be specific, thanks.

[Humanist_Activist]

134. You misrepresent how modern medicine operates, you talk about the risks, downplay the...

benefits, and then you downplay or dismiss the risks associated with quackery.

What was the point of your post? You sound like a creationist trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution.

[MannyGoldstein]

135. Settle down there, Beavis.

First you say I'm attacking science, now you're talking about attacking medicine.

Which is it?

[geek tragedy]

48. So, parents should be allowed to pray for their kids rather than

sending them to the doctor under the logic of you and the other anti-science DU progressives.

Because medical mistakes kill more people than praying does.

[WillyT]

31. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[madfloridian]

34. Great post.

[eggplant]

43. Somehow, I suspect that if you were really, really sick, you'd go see a doctor.

But that's just a guess.

[abq e streeter]

44. Great post as usual

You're one of the dwindling number of people who keep me here.
Thank you,
A Manny G. fan.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

51. your avatar photo is really interesting considering the topic at hand

we likely lost a great musical artist far too early because of his failure to submit a doctor's medical advice due to religious beliefs allowed the early cancer to spread and kill him very early in life (36).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Marley

[ElboRuum]

67. Oh, now you're just being difficult...

...serving up inconvenient ideas like that.

[abq e streeter]

84. And a great way to smoke out more

of exactly the type of smug, "know it alls" who have overrun this place.
3 more on ignore.

[ProgressSaves]

49. Anyone that touts anything on this list is either insane, full of shit, or profoundly naive.

We should be outspoken against these harmful ways of thinking.

Society cannot progress when large swaths of the population believe in such nonsense and those that tout this garbage deserves neither respect, nor a soapbox.

Acupuncture
Alphabiotics
Alternative dentistry
Alternative medicine
Applied kinesiology
Autism denial
Ayurvedic medicine
Chelation therapy
Chiropractic
Colloidal silver
Colon cleansing
Cranio-sacral therapy
Cupping
Detoxification
Ear candling
Energy medicine
Escharotics
Folk remedies
Herbal remedies
HIV/AIDS denial
Holistic medicine
Homeopathy
Iridology
Naturopathy
Osteopathy
Ozone therapy
Psychic surgery
Vaccine denial
Vitamin megadoses
Astral projection
Curses
Exorcisms
Faith healing
Ghosts
Magick
Psychics
Vampires
Voodoo
Witchcraft
Astrology
Attachment therapy
Dowsing
Dream interpretation
Evolution denial
Facilitated communication
Feng shui
Hypnosis
Numerology
Reparative therapy
Repressed memory therapy

[NuclearDem]

54. Yep, that's pretty much the Great List of Bullshit.

[Electric Monk]

55. False equivalence lumping chiropracty with voodoo and astrology. Enjoy your stay.

[ProgressSaves]

56. Heartbreaking stories of what those quacks will do to you:

http://whatstheharm.net/chiropractic.html

[Electric Monk]

58. One of those "quacks" fixed my whiplash without me having to have surgically fused vertebrae. nt

[ProgressSaves]

62. No evidence to support chiropractic outside minor musculoskeletal problems.

"While 50-60% of patients who seek chiropractic care do so for back or neck pain, a significant number are treated for other problems. There is no evidence to support the use of chiropractic outside the realm of minor musculoskeletal complaints. Chiropractors who make any claims beyond low back pain are either dishonest, ignorant, or both. There is some evidence that (rarely) chiropractic care can cause stroke, carotid artery dissection, and other life-threatening problems.

Chiropractic may have a place in the treatment of low back pain—or it may not. Chiropractors are basically glorified massage therapists—except many massage therapists have better training, and know the limits of their profession. Chiropractors who discourage real medical care, vaccinations, and medications, or sell herbs and other potions out of their offices should be ashamed of themselves."

http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2008/01/18/why-chiropractic-is-patently-r/

[Electric Monk]

73. It's intellectually dishonest for you to lump it in with Psychic Surgery and Astral Projection. nt

[ProgressSaves]

77. I did not compile that list on my own.

You are free to heal your body any way you please.

Me or science calling it bullshit won't stand in your way.

[phleshdef]

138. There is a completely legit side to chiropractic.

Stuff in your neck and back can get knotted up, pinched up, pushed out of place etc. A good chiropractor can help with that. It doesn't take much in the way of experimentation to prove that much.

[stopwastingmymoney]

153. I agree about Chiropractic

I had a lower back sprain 15 years ago that still flares up, it can knot me up from neck to pelvis.

My chiropractor gets me walking again and with a few adjustments I'm pain free. She might be a glorified massage therapist, but it's an enormous value to me.

[uppityperson]

167. What do you mean by "stuff"?

[phleshdef]

168. Do you really need to ask a question with such a painfully obvious answer?

[uppityperson]

170. What is the painfully obvious answer please? Thank you for clarifying so I don't have to

assume I know what you mean.

Having worked in conjunction with several chiropractors, I have learned that different people have different ideas of what constitutes "stuff" and I wanted to see what you meant.

[uppityperson]

169. Chiropractors, like anyone else, that overstep their scope of practice and do not know or believe

their limits are bad. Unfortunately too many people do not know what a chiro's scope of practice and/or limitations are so they can cause issues by denying need for other treatment as well as sucking up huge amounts of money.

I have worked with both kinds, from the homest ethical ones who helped aome musculoskeletal problems to those who prescribed thousands of dollars of repeat visits and suppliments to no effect beyond lightening wallets.

[Luminous Animal]

76. Similar with one of my closest friends.

She was driver of a horse cab in Philadelphia and was rear ended which sent her head over heals with the top of her head on the pavement.

Her helmet saved her from head injuries but not from chronic neck and spine injuries.

Western medicine? A life time of pain killers and disability.

Chiropractic? A life time of relief and productivity.

[pnwmom]

64. Right. The doctors at Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, and across the country

who practice acupuncture and the international research team who compiled 29 studies of acupuncture involving 18,000 patients are all insane, full of shit, or profoundly naive.

And the osteopaths who attend medical school and work with MD's in practices all over the country, they're idiots, too.

I took my teenage son to the pediatrician with sudden, excruciating chest pain, and the only doc available at that moment was an osteopath. He talked to my son, made a couple "adjustments" and my son's pain was gone. Instantly. It turned out to be referred back pain, due to a spine that had gotten out of alignment because his spine was growing faster than his muscles and tendons. He gave my son instructions about exercises to do and it never recurred.

Many years earlier, when I was pregnant and had a fever and a cough, my OB told me that wasn't his province, and told me to go to my Family Practice doctor for that. My Family Practice Doctor had no openings for three days. I finally got a referral from the OB to an osteopath who had just opened her own practice and did have time to see me. The OB explained to me that an osteopath was a fully qualified doctor with the same basic medical training that an MD has. When I went to the osteopath, she diagnosed me with pneumonia and prescribed antibiotics. She said if I had waited three more days I would have ended up in the hospital. As it was, my baby and I were fine.

But you think all osteopaths and the people who use them , and the Federal government and private practices that hire them, are all full of shit.

It must be special to be you.


http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-is-worth-a-try-for-chronic-pain-201304016042

Over the years there has been substantial debate about whether acupuncture really works for chronic pain. Research from an international team of experts adds to the evidence that it does provide real relief from common forms of pain. The team pooled the results of 29 studies involving nearly 18,000 participants. Some had acupuncture, some had “sham” acupuncture, and some didn’t have acupuncture at all. Overall, acupuncture relieved pain by about 50%. The results were published in Archives of Internal Medicine.

The study isn’t the last word on the issue, but it is one of the best quality studies to date and has made an impression.

“I think the benefit of acupuncture is clear, and the complications and potential adverse effects of acupuncture are low compared with medication,” says Dr. Lucy Chen, a board-certified anesthesiologist, specialist in pain medicine, and practicing acupuncturist at Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital.

[ProgressSaves]

68. "Worth a try"

Not convincing enough for me.

And I have nothing against people that resort to this kind of thing. Hell, I consider them victims.

But I will be as vocal about it being bullshit as people are that say it works.

[pnwmom]

72. And what do you know that doctors at Harvard don't? Not much.

You clearly don't understand that a huge part of medicine is trial and error.

You also don't realize that osteopaths are fully qualified doctors who attend medical school and have additional training in osteopathy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_schools_in_the_United_States

[Quixote1818]

92. Results were less than impressive

Conclusions: Acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain and is therefore a reasonable referral option. Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo. However, these differences are relatively modest, suggesting that factors in addition to the specific effects of needling are important contributors to the therapeutic effects of acupuncture.

Snip>>> but there is no accepted mechanism by which it could have persisting effects on chronic pain.


My impression is it's recommended as a last resort type of thing. Not exactly a glowing recommendation.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513#RESULTS

Look, there is some science behind acupuncture and it can have a small impact and yes even Harvard has some people who go that route. That's not hard to believe since there is real science involved, however you can bet your ass most of the Harvard doctors have very little interest in it.

[pnwmom]

93. A 50% reduction in pain with few side effects is considered

a good result in pain control.

And this discussion is about "woo" -- which acupuncture isn't.

[Quixote1818]

94. Sham acupuncture rated .37 compared to .55 for real acupuncture

So the placebo gave close to 50% improvement too. I would rather have the toothpicks and an aspirin and save myself $100.

[pnwmom]

96. Do you understand percents?

I'll make it easy for you.

Fifty percent of 37 is 18.5. And 37 plus 18.5 = 55.5

So the .55 for real acupuncture means that it is almost 50% more effective than the placebo -- a significant improvement.

But there is another factor. It could be that the exact placement of the needles isn't critical, and thus that the "sham treatments" were actually not placebos. This is something researchers are still investigating.

[Quixote1818]

97. CNN says we are both wrong

The difference was actually only 7%


Pain relief of 50% or more on a 100-point scale -- pain that drops from a 60 to a 30, say -- is a commonly used standard of effectiveness in pain research. By this measure, the study found, the effectiveness rates for real acupuncture, sham acupuncture, and treatment as usual are 50%, 43%, and 30%, respectively.

Real = 50%
Sham = 43%

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/11/health/health-acupuncture/

But hey, if a placebo works awesome! One should do it.

[pnwmom]

98. Is there a reason you left this sentence out?

"Most clinicians and patients would say a 50% success rate versus a 30% success rate for something like intractable chronic pain is actually pretty good," says lead author Andrew J. Vickers, a statistician at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

[Quixote1818]

101. Yes because 50 vs 30 compared to 43 vs 30 is negligible

Is there a reason you left this part out?

Snip> ".... pain that drops from a 60 to a 30, say -- is a commonly used standard of effectiveness in pain research."

So they are suggesting there needs to be a drop of 30 to be effective.

"Treatment as usual" which scored a 30 compared to real acupuncture at 50 is a difference of only 20 and 10 less than the standard of effectiveness the article suggests.

But still, the fact that fake acupuncture and real are only 7% different clearly shows it's mostly in the patients mind. However, as the link below from Harvard suggests, placebo's and just showing you care about a patient are more and more excepted.


http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/01/the-placebo-phenomenon

[pnwmom]

103. It is NOT a difference of only 7 percent. You really don't understand percents.

You don't add or subtract them to determine the difference.

And, as a source, I prefer this newsletter from the Harvard Medical School to your article from CNN. Please note that the person quoted is a board certified anesthesiologist, not a reporter.


http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-is-worth-a-try-for-chronic-pain-201304016042

Over the years there has been substantial debate about whether acupuncture really works for chronic pain. Research from an international team of experts adds to the evidence that it does provide real relief from common forms of pain. The team pooled the results of 29 studies involving nearly 18,000 participants. Some had acupuncture, some had “sham” acupuncture, and some didn’t have acupuncture at all. Overall, acupuncture relieved pain by about 50%. The results were published in Archives of Internal Medicine.

The study isn’t the last word on the issue, but it is one of the best quality studies to date and has made an impression.

“I think the benefit of acupuncture is clear, and the complications and potential adverse effects of acupuncture are low compared with medication,” says Dr. Lucy Chen, a board-certified anesthesiologist, specialist in pain medicine, and practicing acupuncturist at Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital.

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.06/h/other1.html

Some info on calculating percent of change . . . it's not as simple as it looks.

[Quixote1818]

105. I strongly disagree

The percentages are even more insignificant that what CNN was implying. See my response to your other post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4286235

And here is an article from a Harvard Doctor that gives some suggestions for pain and he lists acupuncture LAST even behind things like chondroitin and glucosamine which are a joke in the medical community.

Snip> "Acupuncture works in some patients, although I don't think science knows exactly why it works," says Dr. Berkson. "It's worth trying if other things aren't working for you."

Man, he sounds really pumped about the acupuncture doesn't he?

http://inhealth.cnn.com/knocking-out-knee-arthritis/alternative-treatments-for-knee-pain

And my original post was quoting the actual study you keep talking about which sounds lukewarm to the effectiveness of acupuncture at best. Here it is again, the quotes I posted are from the study linked to by the Harvard website you keep posting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4286030

[Quixote1818]

109. Wow, you are off by a mile. Here is an explanation from the authors of the paper

Snip> The authors themselves try to put it into context:


To give an example of what these effect sizes mean in real terms, a baseline pain score on a 0 to 100 scale for a typical RCT might be 60. Given a standard deviation of 25, follow- up scores might be 43 in a no acupuncture group, 35 in a sham acupuncture group, and 30 in patients receiving true acupuncture. If response were defined in terms of a pain reduction of 50% or more, response rates would be approximately 30%, 42.5%, and 50%, respectively.


According to another scientist: What Vickers et al are arguing is that a change of 5 on a 0-100 pain scale (which would be a change of 0.5 on a 0-10 pain scale), a subjective scale, is noticeable by patients. It’s probably not.

Snip> Here’s a hint: -5 (the difference between sham acupuncture and “real” acupuncture) is not clinically significant. The only way you can even approach clinical significance is to compare no-acupuncture controls versus acupuncture, in which case you’re adding placebo effects into any other effect observed, even if that effect is real (which I highly doubt it to be). Indeed, Vickers et al labor mightily to try to convince readers that this tiny effect, if it exists, is not just statistically significant, but clinically significant. They doth protest too much, methinks. In fact, I very much like how the grand master of the scientific analysis of “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM), Edzard Ernst, put it:


Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter, said the study “impressively and clearly” showed that the effects of acupuncture were mostly due to placebo. “The differences between the results obtained with real and sham acupuncture are small and not clinically relevant. Crucially, they are probably due to residual bias in these studies. Several investigations have shown that the verbal or non-verbal communication between the patient and the therapist is more important than the actual needling. If such factors would be accounted for, the effect of acupuncture on chronic pain might disappear completely.”

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/12/can-we-finally-just-say-that-acupuncture-is-nothing-more-than-an-elaborate-placebo-can-we-2012-edition/

[Ellipsis]

71. K&R

[joshcryer]

74. ITT we bash the FDA.

[intaglio]

80. For once I thought you were going to say something sensible

Instead I find you deceptive and an issuer of lies. You use several completely different standards of "evidence" and false accounting pretending that you have justification for your loathings.

A link to assist you in your ineffective search for people hurt by the alternatives Where's the Harm

Science based medicine does "fuck up" but you fail to account for it's massive success and the vast numbers of people successfully treated. You take what must be the inevitable failures amongst the many patients who are assisted by real measurable effects and call that evidence of how it fails, completely ignoring the triumphs. For medicine, the majority of treatments are tested in controlled circumstances and the effects noted. Sometimes there are cock-ups and that is taken into evidence and results in the removal of the treatment. That is evidence, scientific evidence, and is what is meant by "evidence based medicine".

In contrast you want us to accept the bogus claims of snake oil salesmen who cite only anecdotal evidence, dubious traditional accounts or misuse scientific terms like "quantum" or "vibrations" or "micronutrients". Luckily most of what these frauds sell has no effect whatsoever so, guess what? there are few deaths due to their nostrums (though there are such deaths) and of course there are the deaths from illnesses left untreated because the patients believe the propaganda you and your ilk spew in your hatred of "Big Pharma".

Let us look at some alternative medicine with consequences

Ayurvedic Medicine - largely invented by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and pushed by that champion of the irrational Deepak Chopra. The actual formulations contain lead, arsenic and mercury, other formulations contain feces. Yes, people have been poisoned by this garbage but as much of this 1970s spiritualism is concerned with avoiding or eating certain normally harmless foods, meditation and magical charms (which work because of quantum vibrations) it is pretty harmless until you get a real illness. In this last case visit a doctor and get a treatment that works.

Chinese traditional medicine - cobbled together from several different traditions at the behest of Mao Tse Tung. The majority of this new age nonsense is the usual herbal medicines (which rarely have any real effect), non-herbal medicines (bear spleen, anyone?), mysticism (unblocking the flow of your Chi). There are also 2 totally ineffective physical treatments - acupuncture and acupressure both of which have effects indistinguishable from the placebo effect - i.e. getting well on your own.

Chiropracty - is fine if you have neck or back pain but it would be better to go to a real physiotherapist who is unlikely to break your spine or rupture your aorta by their manipulations. Chiropractors also claim to be able to treat other illnesses; they can't.

Homeopathy and flower remedies - water and sugar pills. People don't die from the effects but they do die from trying to treat real illnesses with this eighteenth century nonsense.

A link to assist you in your ineffective search for people hurt by the alternatives Where's the Harm

[ucrdem]

85. Ever wonder how Shakespeare wrote all those plays, sonnets, and epyllia?

It wasn't coffee or tea because they weren't yet available in Merrie Olde. And just about every play is loaded with references to one or more herbal concoctions, including the drug that induces death-like sleep in Romeo and Juliet and a direct reference to some kind of amphetamine in Antony and Cleopatra, iirc. And in at least one, Comedy of Errors, an"elixir" is the crucial plot element as it allows the character (Helen, using her late doctor-father's recipe) to cure the king and win the guy. And then there's A Midsummer Night's Dream from which I concluded that Mr S was a user.

[intaglio]

90. Herbal medicines do contain some active ingredients BUT

you cannot control the dosages and you cannot control the other substances that are in the herbs.

Look at the 2 favourites of the "herbal medicines is good" community; willow bark and foxglove tea.

Willow bark does contain salicylic acid which is an NSAID but that substance destroys the lining of the stomach a damn site faster than the medical version aspirin (acetyl salicylic acid) which is most definitely NOT in willow bark.

Foxglove tea can assist patients suffering from angina but you cannot control the dosage in the decoction as the content of the active ingredient, digitalis, varies between plants and even varies according to the season. Then add in the cocktail of other poisons present in foxglove and it becomes a weapon of last resort against angina.

To put it another way, would you prefer to use morphine for pain control or heroin bought on the street?

[ucrdem]

91. I'd prefer the stuff Friar Lawrence hands out.

Just kidding. I see your point and don't disagree that medicine has made huge huge advances, as have public health and disease control generally, but a lot of healing still comes down to the skill of the practitioner, which beyond basic metrics is hard to rate scientifically.

[Quixote1818]

89. Great post! nt

[pnwmom]

95. Acupuncture isn't woo.

It has been shown through dozens of studies to reduce pain and is recommended by MD's all over the country, including at Harvard. But they wouldn't use acupuncture to cure HIV anymore than they would give aspirin - another pain reliever -- to cure HIV.

And osteopaths, another group on the list, get four years of standard medical school and are licensed to practice medicine in all of the states. They're hired by the military, the VA, and private medical practices all over the country to work as PCP's.

Your list of examples is meaningless. You might as well blame all dentists for the fact that a three year old died this week after her dentist said she needed three root canals and incompetently administrated anesthesia and killed her. Or maybe you should say big pharma practices woo because they've caused so many deaths with drugs that were inadequately tested and never should have been released.

[intaglio]

99. Accupuncture has been shown in dozens of studies to be no better than a panacea

The pain relief effect is minimal and dependent on the release of endorphins in the brain. This has been blind tested and found to be the same effect as hypnosis.

[pnwmom]

100. I assume you mean placebo. But even that isn't true.

Acupuncture has proven to be more significantly more effective than sham acupuncture.

From a Harvard newsletter:

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-is-worth-a-try-for-chronic-pain-201304016042

Over the years there has been substantial debate about whether acupuncture really works for chronic pain. Research from an international team of experts adds to the evidence that it does provide real relief from common forms of pain. The team pooled the results of 29 studies involving nearly 18,000 participants. Some had acupuncture, some had “sham” acupuncture, and some didn’t have acupuncture at all. Overall, acupuncture relieved pain by about 50%. The results were published in Archives of Internal Medicine.

The study isn’t the last word on the issue, but it is one of the best quality studies to date and has made an impression.

“I think the benefit of acupuncture is clear, and the complications and potential adverse effects of acupuncture are low compared with medication,” says Dr. Lucy Chen, a board-certified anesthesiologist, specialist in pain medicine, and practicing acupuncturist at Harvard-affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital.

[intaglio]

113. Oh yes the "reported" pain studies

Essentially hypnosis - and panacea means universal medicine.

As for all the other benefits touted for acupuncture - they don't exist

[Quixote1818]

104. Yep and here are the numbers from the study

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 08:31 AM - Edit history (1)

On edit after I found better info:

Here is a devastating response to the study being touted. The numbers that separate placebo from acupuncture are statistically little more than noise. The difference in pain of .5 on a scale from 1 to 10 or about 5 on a scale from 1 to 100:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4286235


Full rebuttal to the study here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/12/can-we-finally-just-say-that-acupuncture-is-nothing-more-than-an-elaborate-placebo-can-we-2012-edition/

[La Lioness Priyanka]

111. very well articulated. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

121. The site you link to... *admits* that it's not science-based

2. Isn't using anecdotes as evidence a logical fallacy?

Yes it is, and that's good critical thinking! Yes, these anecdotes don't really "prove" anything. However, many proponents of unsupportable information will offer only anecdotes in support. When you encounter someone pushing bad information, perhaps you can offer some of these stories in reply. It's not a true rebuttal, but it might get their attention!

That having been said, we do attempt to limit the stories we post here to ones that can be documented well, either with extensive mainstream media coverage or scientific research. Speaking of which, be sure to check the scientific studies page, which lists only those cases backed by some sort of study or scientific report.

Typical case is "Person X had Y disease which is usually fatal if treated by "real" medicine, they tried quack cure Z, and they died." As the site itself points out, that's not science.

As I said in the OP - most of what's done in woo is unproven. As is most of what's done in "real" medicine.

It seems like you did carefully not read either my OP or the site you linked to.

[intaglio]

123. No, it uses court records and newspaper reports

You asked for evidence that your beloved small medicine harms people, I provided it. As to anecdotal evidence? You seem happy enough to use anecdote to support the incompetent claims of purveyors of snake oil.

Now account for the success of science based medicine.

Now account for the poisons in "traditional" medicines.

Now account for the deaths caused by incompetent Chiropractors - please read Simon Singh's article on this (link goes to an extract on a site that provides more evidence of the nonsense that is alternative medicine)

Now account for the tiny numbers of people harmed by science based medicine as opposed to the tiny fragment of humanity benefited by the "alternative".

Account for the decline in perinatal mortality of both mothers and children - because "alternative" and "traditional" medicine had frock all to do with it.

Account for the massive perinatal mortality in countries dependent upon "traditional" and "alternative" medicines and their equally stunning death tolls in non-maternity illnesses.

Your bogyman, Big Pharma, oversells its products but every manufacturer does that and at least Big Pharma is forced to reduce their claims when they are shown to be false by science - or is science part of the conspiracy as well?

[Vashta Nerada]

145. And this thread has 77 recs.

Great post.

[madinmaryland]

150. Kind of funny that his "followers" have missed the fact that Manny does not

use the "sarcasm" smiley.

[Quixote1818]

159. This makes me wonder if DU should re-think how a posts gains recs.

Clearly if people could vote down as well, the OP would probably be in the negative range but it's not allowed. I wonder if DU could do something like two negative votes cancel one positive? I know they want more positive stuff allowed so people get a more positive feeling from their experience at DU like Facebook does but when it's too skewed it can give a back-wards impression of what most DUers believe. So what is more important, a good feeling at DU or a realistic recommendation tally showing what the majority of DUers believe?

[Quixote1818]

86. Oh lovely, not the Deadly Doctor Gambit again

woo-tastrophe's happen every fucking time someone uses unproven alternative medicine instead of actually getting proven treatment and then die. Or when idiots refuse to get their kids immunized. Things we see happening in the millions every year across the globe. Yes millions! Are there issues with regular medicine? Of course but they PALE in comparison to what would occur without regular medicines and doctors and people relying on woo BS.

Also, care to list all these cures that are not profitable? I always here this argument but no one can give a real example.

[JustAnotherGen]

102. Thank you

My father's doctor's insistence that the man who did not drink or smoke and who excercised regularly -but who had been exposed to every single color of "agents" in the rainbow during the Korea/Vietnam era - that his persistent cough was pneumonia . . .

Let's just say he got it wrong in November 2010 and January 2011. When Doctor's start treating the whole body and the entire history -and stop patting people on te head and sending them on their way with suckers - I will start trusting them again.

Any Vietnam Vet who listens to a doctor about a "cough" and takes the diagnosis is misguided. The medical community is not ready for the storm. My father was one of the older vets and had been a Green Beret at the peak of his career. There are a million men and women right behind him and guess what - we know agent pink masks the cancer blood tests. But alas - that's "woo".


Those of us who listen to our bodies and treat ourselves through food and movement are not practicing woo. We are taking responsibility for our health and ownership over our bodies. Do antibiotics work? Yes. But when they don't - demand answers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. There was plenty of evidence that Vioxx had an advantage over ibuprofen - stomach ulcers

The FDA originally approved Vioxx in May 1999. The original safety database included approximately 5,000 patients on Vioxx and did not show an increased risk of heart attack or stroke. A later study, called VIGOR (VIOXX GI Outcomes Research), was primarily designed to look at the effects of Vioxx on side effects such as stomach ulcers and bleeding and was submitted to the FDA in June 2000. The study showed that patients taking Vioxx had fewer stomach ulcers and bleeding than patients taking naproxen, another NSAID. However, the study also showed a greater number of heart attacks in patients taking Vioxx.

http://www.healthcentral.com/rheumatoid-arthritis/vioxx-251793-5.html

and NSAIDs are a well known cause of ulcers: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Peptic-ulcer/Pages/Causes.aspx

There was a real desire to have a drug that arthritis sufferers could take long term without the risk of ulcers. But they screwed around with the heart attack data rather than admit what the studies (which were, let's remember, scientific studies) indicated.

[MannyGoldstein]

122. As I said in my OP, there was *no* evidence of increased safety while it was on the market

VIGOR was the first study to show reduced risk of GI complications, but the same study also showed a massive overall increase in death and injury, so it was pulled from the market.

So while it was being prescribed in volume, here's is what doctors knew:

- We have no reason to believe that Vioxx is better at relieving pain than ibuprofen. Nobody even suspects that it does.
- It's theorized that Vioxx will be safer on the GI tract vs. ibuprofen, but we don't know if this is true. No studies demonstrate it. It could even be worse.
- Vioxx is a new drug, so we don't know a lot about its safety.
- Death from GI tract complications of ibuprofen are pretty unusual and rarely fatal.
- Vioxx costs more than $3 per pill, vs less than a penny for ibuprofen.

Unless the above is wrong (and please let me know if it is), would *you* have prescribed Vioxx?

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. The lessening of GI complications for the class including Vioxx was known before the VIGOR study

but you can't get a large scale study for the particular drug until it's also used in large quantities. Deaths from GI complications may be rare, but pain isn't. It's silly to ignore it, and pretend that doctors had no reason whatsoever to prescribe it over ibuprofen. And that's what your OP did - completely ignore the main reason for the existence of Vioxx.

Your OP seems designed to give the impression that doctors will prescribe new drugs for no reason whatsoever. And you're doing that to defend 'woo' - ie products that never even attempt to have proper trials to show their safety or effectiveness.

[MannyGoldstein]

129. Can you provide a link to info on the studies that demonstrated increased safety

Prior to VIGOR?

p<0.05, of course.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

110. hundreds of thousands died from woo, before the evolution of the scientific method

[Quixote1818]

112. They still do.

From woo that is, not science.

[eqfan592]

115. I love threads like this.

Lets me build up my ignore list. I have little interest in the opinion of those who buy into the nonsense being perpetuated by the OP.

[sendero]

116. This is where the pea-brains ..

... get lost. They confuse our system of medicine, especially pharma, with "science". It's not science folks, so dispense with the straw man.

[IdaBriggs]

128. It is an "Art".

If it was science you wouldn't really need a doctor - just a well programmed computer with the symptoms/diagnosis and someone to put in the data / test results.

(I'm kind of cynical! Lol!)

[riverwalker]

126. Modern medicine="Dilaudid Deficiency"

Everything is treated with Dilaudid. EVERYTHING.
There must be a severe public health crisis caused by the lack of Dilaudid in American air food and water, because suddenly it is the magic cure all for everything.

[intaglio]

147. Dilauddid = Hydromorphone, is a pain killer and has been in use since 1924

so what are you seeing hydromorphone prescribed for except pain?

[Jesus Malverde]

130. It's a health care industry.

When you run out of sick people. You need to start treating healthy people in order to grow your business. It's basic business sense.

[bvar22]

149. Did you know that "Occasional Insomnnia"

...is an illness that must be treated with prescription drugs?

and [font size=4]BANG!!![/font]
a NEW market worth several BILLION DOLLARS/year is created for something that is entirely normal,
especially in an aging population!

[font size=3]Prescription ONLY, so you will have to demand it from your doctor![/font]

Where would we BE without all the research?

And ADD in children?
Now THAT is a goldmine!
...but "ask your doctor".... (for a powerful drug if you have been having trouble controlling your kid lately. He/she MUST be sick, because, gawd knows, you are the perfect parent.)
...a Fuckin GOLD MINE!!!


Didn't it used to be illegal for the Pharmaceutical Industry to advertise on TV?

[reformist2]

136. Attacking the medical industry is a very touchy subject, because many people here are in it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

137. I look at it this way, if any of these asshats were 1/2 as competent as they try to imply,

they wouldn't have all day every day to spam DU.

[MisterP]

139. if it talks like a Powellite, serves Powellite ends, uses Powellite means, erases history like a

Powellite, it's probably a Powellite (or "Stosselite" or "Pennantellerite," whatever)

hence my new sigline

[Progressive dog]

141. Antibiotics, Vaccines, Medicines taken from folk medicine

including aspirin and statins, and lots of bucks were made and lives were saved.
Life expectancy more than doubled in just over a century and you want to replace the science that gave us that with the very "health care" that gave us a 31 year life expectancy in 1900. So going back to the days of woo would kill millions every year and I'm sure that a lot of today's woo killing is blamed on the modern medicine that is used too late.

[Bradical79]

160. Yes, lots of good and effective medicines out there

It's a lot of the designer drugs peddled in tv ads that may fix one problem and cause many more that you have to look out for. I agree though, wanting to go back to the days of magic and superstition dominating healthcare is pretty irrational.

[bvar22]

143. THank You, Manny,

K&R,
and a link back to a thread I posted yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024282158

This thread stirred up a whole nest of Big Pharm Supporters,
who will do ANYTHING, even make up Bald LIES and Fabrications,
to marginalize anyone who suggests that the Billion Dollar Pharmaceutical Industry isn't being completely honest with their "customers".

Cui Bono?

[ProSense]

146. Colorado May Become The Latest State To Crack Down On Vaccine Denialism

Colorado May Become The Latest State To Crack Down On Vaccine Denialism
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/06/3123991/colorado-vaccine-exemptions/

[Glassunion]

151. +1

Simply for the term "woo-tastrophe". Gave me a giggle.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

152. Steve Jobs & the Woo of not seeking proper treatment

Many people die from Woo because they don't seek proper treatment.

In October 2003, Jobs was diagnosed with cancer,[207] and in mid-2004, he announced to his employees that he had a cancerous tumor in his pancreas.[208] The prognosis for pancreatic cancer is usually very poor;[209] Jobs stated that he had a rare, far less aggressive type known as islet cell neuroendocrine tumor.[208] Despite his diagnosis, Jobs resisted his doctors' recommendations for medical intervention for nine months,[175] instead consuming a pseudo-medicine diet in an attempt to thwart the disease. According to Harvard researcher Ramzi Amri, his choice of alternative treatment "led to an unnecessarily early death." (Wikipedia)

[Autumn]

154. If I'm really feeling sick I go to the DR. If I have a miserable cold

I prefer herbs and teas, not that over the counter shit. I have found that acupuncture, prescribed by my Dr works. And if my back goes out I have gotten relief in one visit from a chiropractor.

[rosesaylavee]

157. K&R

Thanks for the thread Manny!

[Bradical79]

158. magical thinking in medicine used to kill a LOT more people than it does now

oleast here in the U.S. It's been entertwined with nonsense regarding demons and other old time religious and superstitious quakery for much of our history. Now science is under threat from capitalist corporate interests where even when actual good science is done, the results are either burried or lied about outright if the results are not satisfactory to the money men.

Sorry if anything in my post if off kilter, my tablet is digging out on me a bit.

[Moonwalk]

161. You know, that 10% bit sounds good...until you really think about it....

the percentage of evidence-based woo's probably no worse than the percentage in "real" medicine.

Okay, I don't agree, but I can understand this thought if we're talking about some as-yet-uncured cancer and the doctors have a treatment that won't guarantee you'll live, and the woo might be just as likely to work or not work.

But what if you have syphilis? Are you saying that penicillin has only a 10% chance of curing you, and that prayer or green tea or certain herbs are going to be "no worse" than the percent of this "real" medicine in curing you?

Which is to say, this amazing point you're trying to make has a huge hole in it. Woo isn't always no worse than evidence based medicine. Or would you really NOT get a shot of penicillin if you found out you had syphilis because you doubt the evidence?

[Jim Lane]

165. Your own sources show what's wrong with woo.

The Boston Globe op-ed ("Trial and too many errors", the source for your linked article) correctly states that "a randomized clinical trial (is) the gold standard in terms of evidence quality...." There are some scientific questions that are difficult to answer, so you can't just throw together a trial and thereby discover a cure for cancer. Nevertheless, randomized clinical trials of things like homeopathy have not been inconclusive, but rather have conclusively demonstrated its worthlessness.

(Two digressions here:
1. Do enough studies and, by random variance, you'll have one that supports a false conclusion. For example, take a bunch of people with chronic headaches and test the efficacy of sleeping with a photo of Ted Cruz under your pillow. To avoid placebo effects (or reverse placebos for liberals), the patient sees only an opaque envelope, which might contain the photo but might instead contain just a blank piece of paper. Most of the time there'll be no difference. Every now and then, however, the Ted Cruz photo will show significantly more healing power than the blank page. The Cruzeopathists will spread word of that study far and wide, ignoring the large number that showed no difference, and ignoring the outlier at the other hand in which the blank paper appeared to work better.
2. Science is not a fixed body of conclusions. It's a method. Sometimes, conclusions that were thought to be well established have to be revised in light of new evidence. For example, there've been a few occasions when Newton's law of gravity yielded an incorrect prediction about a planetary orbit. Some people said that there might be another planet, still unknown, affecting the one we're observing. Others said that the latest observations mean the law is inaccurate. In the case of the orbit of Uranus, the first view was correct. Mathematicians applying Newton's law told astronomers exactly where to look to discover Neptune. In the case of the orbit of Mercury, the second view was correct. Newton's formulation of gravitational attraction had to be revised slightly to take account of relativistic effects. To the extent that acupuncture or some variant of it can survive this kind of process, then it's not woo.)

Now, what about science? The CardioBrief piece you cite states:

A key weakness in the chain is the use of guidelines in evidence-based medicine, since expert opinion instead of “solid clinical trial evidence” plays a large role in the guidelines. The problem is that “many physicians who write these recommendations have financial ties to drug companies.”

In those instances, to paraphrase Chesterton, it doesn't mean that the scientific method has been tried and found wanting; rather, it's been found unprofitable, and not tried.

Are those instances 90% of the total, as you imply? I don't think your sources come close to establishing that. When a medical recommendation is based on expert opinion rather than a randomized clinical trial that's directed specifically at the precise question involved, the expert opinion is often an educated case based on somewhat similar trials, on animal studies, on extrapolation from theories that have held up very well in every area in which they have been rigorously tested, etc. Those recommendations aren't infallible. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that 90% of all scientists are on the take from drug companies or are just making stuff up in order to get published and thus tenured.

In your effort to emphasize the extent to which proper scientific method isn't being used, you write: "There is lots of evidence in the literature about stuff that really helps, but it gets ignored because nobody can make a buck off of it." That's far too sweeping. The first example that occurs to me of something that really helps (helps a lot of medical problems) is exercise. Nobody can make much of a buck off it -- Nikes are way cheaper than bypass surgery and if you can't afford even Nikes you can run barefoot. Nevertheless, would you say that the medical establishment ignores exercise for that reason? No way. We're constantly being harangued about getting more exercise. Furthermore, we're constantly being harangued by experts who don't sell running shoes and who don't otherwise reap financial benefit from their recommendation.

[ananda]

171. In my lifetime I personally know of one woo-tastrophe ..

.. where a woman who tried faith healing died of cancer.

BTW, I don't consider chiropractic and acupuncture woo..
too many success stories, including my own.