Maybe I'm Misunderstanding Woo... But... Wasn't There A Time When...

[Scootaloo]

133. And you're illustrating my point

So anything other than AMA approved treatment is bunk?

Hyperbole.

I'm certain there are treatments that work, but are not in the journals - yet. Like any other aspect of science, medicine is continually expanding. The thing is, as with any other science, it must be tested rigorously, and found to actually be what is claimed.

So no, I'm not saying that "anything other than AMA-approved treatment is bunk." I'm saying that the bulk of what is referred to as "alternative medicine" has been tested and found wanting. What works is adopted and becomes regular medicine.

Our medical establishment is drenched in money from powerful interests that promote "profitable medicine."

Relevance?

If there were no profit to be made in "alternative medicine," people wouldn't be selling it to you. In fact since in most cases alternative medicine is just self-coaching and placebo, they are making a profit by selling you nothing at all. On the other hand the medical establishment is selling you something that is, indeed, something.

Do you know that your so-called medical authorities for occupational medicine are funded by huge corporations and their board members come from those corporations?

Relevance x2?

Yes, I do. Did you know that it is in the best interests of these corporations that the treatments they fund actually work? Unlike the quacks selling you duct tape that "detoxifies your body" through the soles of your feet, these companies can be - and are - held liable if the shit they produce is a scam. or dangerous. Since htye produce a lot of stuff, and have a big investment (As opposed to sprinkling some mineral salts on duct tape) such a crash could present a truly severe setback.

Now, a perfectly viable case could be made for the problem of profit motive being involved in the practice of medicine. And I welcome it if you choose to make it as such. But such an argument does not by necessity bolster the claims of alternative medicine. They're two different arguments.

You can imagine how selective they would be in deciding what will go into their journals.

Conspiracy!

Again, a case can be made with regard to the expansion of profit motive in such things... and again it is not an argument for head-on forehead chapstick, or cupping, or coffee enemas. it's an argument for increasing federal funding to medical research in order to pressure out such corporate intrusion.

What is not accepted into their journals is then said not to be included in standard practice.

Red herring.

After all, lots of things are not accepted into medical research journals. It's a merit-based system, and not a democratic one, which is true for all research journals, in all fields of science.

Again there is some corruption in the system. There's an easy way to tell where, though; if a journal asks you to pay to have your research published, then it's probably a piece of crap journal. And no, it's not just the terrible corporations that buy ad space (which is what it is) - Look at some of your alternative medical journals. I'll bet a good number of them charge to publish.

In some cases, actual occupational injuries are said not to even exist if they are not published, esp. chemically related injuries.

Reference?

Surely you have some specifics here, and a breadcrumb trail proving the conspiracy claim.

I'm afraid that once again this is still not an argument to bolster alternative medicine. I hate to harp on with this, but it's actually really important for you to understand, especially since it seems to be the bulk of your argument here.

An imperfection within a system does not by default make a competing system superior. They must each be judged by their own merits, not by the failures of other systems.

For a prime example of this problem, look at creationism - or "intelligent design," if you prefer. The crux of this argument is that since science doesn't know exactly how the first life forms developed from nonliving matter, then "God did it!" must be the valid answer. or that since there is no set and repeatable formula for speciation, that there must actually be no such thing and the "kinds" of life are immutable. Needless to say this is just bad logic.

So too with the argument that "there are problems with standard medicine, so the alternative sorts must be good!" No. Not true. remember, each judged by its merits, not the flaws of the other.

Evolutionary theory has shown far more merit than creationism / ID. And standard medicla practice has shown far more merit than most alternative therapies - exceptions simply get adopted as a feature of standard medicine because they work.

Get it?

Bland admonishment.

Seriously, saying "get it!" or worse yet, "wake up!" is a good way to look like an ignorant crank. Avoid it.

Alternative simply means other than medical establishment practice.

Stating the obvious.

Obviously alternative means "other than standard," one doesn't have to eat the oxford Dictionary and claim its power to understand this. However this does not say anything about the meritoriousness of alternative methods of medicine.

It runs the gamut. There are many worthwhile alternative medical journals now where people can learn quite a bit.

Omission.

It does indeed "run the gamut," from useful herbal treatments to dangerous, wasteful and toxic quackeries; and for every quinine, there's a hundred versions of tiger-penis soup.

The same holds true for those journals. And the notion of "worthwhile" is certainly a subjective one. My standard is whether the treatment can withstand scientific rigor or not. Almost unfailingly, when it does hold up, it is place within standard medicine. where it cannot, it continues to circulate among "alternative medical journals," always with the claim that "the establishment doesn't want you to know!"