General Discussion

Orrex

(67,083 posts)

23. A very fair question

Thu Apr 17, 2014, 04:35 PM

Apr 2014

The practice should absolutely have been subjected to rigorous testing and peer review. No dispute there.

However...

If we're looking for a simple test for woo vs. not-woo, then it would probably be the degree to which a particular practice is consistent with established science. A procedure that contradicts no scientific principle and makes no science-contradictory claims is probably not woo. A procedure that relies on inherently pseudoscientific principles (e.g. homeopathy) or which bastardizes scientific principles (e.g. referring to "chi" as "energy&quot is probably "woo." In nearly all cases "woo" directly contradicts established science, or else it has no way to be verified empirically (e.g., non-falsifiable claims, etc.)

Again, morcellation was not debunked via "woo" or pseudoscience but through actual science, meaning that the science self-corrected a bogus practice. Pseudoscientific alternative medicine does not self-correct and is inherently resistent to correctly. Advocates of a given scientific principle may resist correction, but the principle itself does not.

That's not an ironclad distinction, but it's useful as a back-of-the-napkin test.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

182 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

More surgical "woo." Gynecological surgeons added this procedure to their repertoire [View all] pnwmom Apr 2014 OP

I wouldn't consider this "woo"... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #1

Morcellation, from the very beginning, lacked scientific evidence pnwmom Apr 2014 #9

still not Woo.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #15

Of course it is. It has been used without scientific evidence showing its pnwmom Apr 2014 #19

My definition of woo means that it hasn't been proven to be effective beyond a placebo effect. VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #47

Morcellation wasn't proven to be safe and effective in any research pnwmom Apr 2014 #52

It was safe and effective for MOST people...it DID what it was designed to do... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #53

The research wasn't done BEFORE the procedure was widely used. pnwmom Apr 2014 #58

because it was done by HAND before.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #62

No. The electric morcellator was invented in 1993. n/t pnwmom Apr 2014 #64

and it was done by hand prior to that..... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #67

Right. And it was a treatment that developed without scientific research. pnwmom Apr 2014 #68

No the treatment is fine....the device though it does as intended... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #69

Using acupuncture doesn't require you to believe in "chi." pnwmom Apr 2014 #70

Yes it does.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #72

It...Does....Not...Work MattBaggins Apr 2014 #75

Tell that to the doctors who reviewed the 29 studies with 18,000 subjects pnwmom Apr 2014 #77

those are "studies" not peer reviewed science.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #91

All the studies published in the Archives of Internal Medicine are peer-reviewed science. pnwmom Apr 2014 #92

No and studies that show it is no more effective than the Placebo Effect VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #94

So now you're saying acupuncture IS more effective than placebo, because pnwmom Apr 2014 #95

NO saying it HAS NOT been proven any more effective than the placebo effect.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #108

Don't waste your time. That one has an agenda. MattBaggins Apr 2014 #74

I agree with you. This is an "antiquated surgical technique," not woo--rather like the old MADem Apr 2014 #60

that may well be true.....I have no idea....but I know that removing the uterii when the patient VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #71

I agree; as I said, it's nothing more than an antiquated surgical technique. MADem Apr 2014 #81

It is woo in the sense that it is a medical treatment not based on scientific evidence pnwmom Apr 2014 #99

Chopping those things out, for many years, was the safest and most effective option short MADem Apr 2014 #104

It isn't antiquated, and it was put into widespread use despite the lack of evidence- pnwmom Apr 2014 #98

It is antiquated--the preferred methodology now is ablation or embolization--no cutting at all. nt MADem Apr 2014 #105

Up to 150,000 U.S. women still have this procedure every year. pnwmom Apr 2014 #106

Some dentists still use those silver fillings, but they're not the optimal way of filling a tooth MADem Apr 2014 #110

The Boston Globe says it has become the "standard of care across the country," pnwmom Apr 2014 #111

There's no way to know how many ablations are done--it could be double that number. MADem Apr 2014 #114

If morcellations are the standard of surgical care, isn't that significant? pnwmom Apr 2014 #115

You are still missing the point. Not sure why. MADem Apr 2014 #117

The point is that the procedure has been in use for decades without research backing it up. pnwmom Apr 2014 #118

It. is. not. woo. MADem Apr 2014 #119

Maybe not. But then neither is acupuncture. pnwmom Apr 2014 #120

I'm not arguing about acupuncture, that's someone else. nt MADem Apr 2014 #121

Counterpoint...ALSO from NIH! VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #180

How "science" works in america... Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 #174

That's a important point. Why did it take so long for these problems to be acted on? pnwmom Apr 2014 #178

They listen to industry, only when the lies and omissions of the businesses are laid bare... Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 #179

how is this woo? La Lioness Priyanka Apr 2014 #2

What part of this is "woo"? n/t tammywammy Apr 2014 #3

Why are you calling this woo? boston bean Apr 2014 #4

Probably because some people think woo or pseudoscience are just general epithets NuclearDem Apr 2014 #7

No, because this procedure was used for decades without scientific research pnwmom Apr 2014 #13

acupuncture scientifically proven....no VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #16

Even if you believe that, rather than the Harvard and Chicago researchers, pnwmom Apr 2014 #17

please provide links to those.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #18

You just did. Your own link says its use is evidence-based for dental pain and nausea. n/t pnwmom Apr 2014 #20

but they weren't convinced it was any more effective than a placebo.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #21

From a Harvard site: pnwmom Apr 2014 #22

this has been published and peer reviewed? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #24

Yes. Ever hear of the Archives of Internal Medicine? pnwmom Apr 2014 #25

No they are not....I just replied with the appropriate response from that doctor VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #26

Results are mixed on acupuncture, but the 29 studies of 18,000 subjects analyzed in pnwmom Apr 2014 #28

Mixed doesn't mean what you think it means.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #30

It doesn't mean what you think it means. n/t pnwmom Apr 2014 #32

I means I probably do not have a "chi" VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #35

Acupuncture, like a number of accepted drugs, has an unknown mechanism of action. pnwmom Apr 2014 #97

Results are not even remotely mixed MattBaggins Apr 2014 #78

You're not keeping up with the research. It's used at Harvard, U. Chicago, pnwmom Apr 2014 #100

Accupuncture harms MattBaggins Apr 2014 #76

it harms when a single practitioner doesn't follow sterile practice. magical thyme Apr 2014 #80

Any surgery harms when it fails to use sterile instruments. So? pnwmom Apr 2014 #96

Using your definition of woo, yes. joeglow3 Apr 2014 #131

It is woo because it was promoted and used as a treatment without the scientific pnwmom Apr 2014 #10

This is something that hasn't been properly independently tested. NuclearDem Apr 2014 #5

Then why do people here keep calling acupuncture woo? pnwmom Apr 2014 #14

Because there's no such fucking thing as qi. mathematic Apr 2014 #27

As a procedure, it has been shown to be effective and without harm, pnwmom Apr 2014 #29

No it hasn't.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #33

You don't keep up. I didn't say SSRI's are never effective. pnwmom Apr 2014 #36

It has to be beyond PLACEBO EFFECT to not be Woo.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #49

Then SSRI's for moderate and mild depression are a form of "woo." pnwmom Apr 2014 #54

No that is NOT what it said at all..... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #56

That's not what the research says: pnwmom Apr 2014 #88

You are spreading dangerous bullshit. Union Scribe Apr 2014 #86

You might try reading the research. This isn't news anymore -- it has been pnwmom Apr 2014 #87

Vanilla is handling your nonsense well enough for me. Union Scribe Apr 2014 #89

Do you also have a problem with Scientific American and all the scientific journals pnwmom Apr 2014 #112

bullshit VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #90

Oh and you forgot this part...from your link... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #51

The majority of people prescribed SSRI's are those with less severe depression. pnwmom Apr 2014 #55

No that is not true.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #57

No, the researchers did. Read the article again. And here's more: pnwmom Apr 2014 #59

No I did....the fact that YOU are comparing the results of SSRI's to acupuncture says it all... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #61

If you can show that acupuncture will cure cancer MattBaggins Apr 2014 #79

Acupuncture can relieve pain and reduce nausea. It doesn't have to cure cancer pnwmom Apr 2014 #85

but hasn't been proven more effective than to make people THINK they received the treatment VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #109

Yes, it has been shown to be more effective in many studies. And since it is so much safer than pnwmom Apr 2014 #116

No....not more than placebo.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #124

Kudos Demit Apr 2014 #128

Thanks..... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #129

Prayer doesn't cause harm, so it is not woo. joeglow3 Apr 2014 #132

If there is clear evidence that the device does no good or causes harm... Orrex Apr 2014 #6

Why is the standard any different than with acupuncture, for example? pnwmom Apr 2014 #11

A very fair question Orrex Apr 2014 #23

Thank you for a reasoned response. pnwmom Apr 2014 #113

Acupuncture is claimed to rely on a function never shown to exist Orrex Apr 2014 #123

I see the woo aspect. A procedure was used without testing, on faith alone, without proof of its Squinch Apr 2014 #8

Thanks. You explained my point better than I did. n/t pnwmom Apr 2014 #12

Which was... ret5hd Apr 2014 #37

Not woo joeglow3 Apr 2014 #133

The original intent of removing the tumors was to prevent their spread. The method they used on Squinch Apr 2014 #135

No evidence has been provided that this is not effective mathematic Apr 2014 #31

It has been proven more likely to spread cancer than pnwmom Apr 2014 #34

That is not what determines "effectiveness".... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #38

It's not enough to be "effective" if it isn't proven safe, too. As your example demonstrates. n/t pnwmom Apr 2014 #39

That is nothing to do with woo....woo is about magic.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #41

Woo is about treating medical conditions in the absence of scientific research showing pnwmom Apr 2014 #42

No it isn't and you don't get your own version of a definition..... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #44

You don't get it. It wasn't proven effective or safe BEFORE it came into wide use. pnwmom Apr 2014 #40

So some uteri were left intact afterward? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #45

That would be an anecdotal piece of evidence, not a research study. nt pnwmom Apr 2014 #48

that some uteri were left intact after this procedure? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #63

Obviously some prefer to pick and choose their woo G_j Apr 2014 #43

No lets not....there is woo and there are scientifically proven procedures determined NOT to be VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #46

the above is a "scientifically proven procedure"? G_j Apr 2014 #50

the above is a device designed to do a procedure PREVIOUSLY done by hand VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #65

Exactly. And morcellation has proven NOT to be a scientifically proven procedure. pnwmom Apr 2014 #102

No as been told to you over and over and over again....it DID its intended job..... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #107

Wow! Questions of "woo" aside, I'm feeling good about my big ol' myomectomy scar right now. Coventina Apr 2014 #66

glad you didn't opt for acupuncture instead! VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #73

It was not an option presented to me by my ob/gyn Coventina Apr 2014 #82

Cannot imagine why.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #83

That's not woo... SidDithers Apr 2014 #84

Wow. ecstatic Apr 2014 #93

A good friend of mine had it, too. And I remember she was so happy at the time pnwmom Apr 2014 #103

Lol! This ain't woo. zappaman Apr 2014 #101

All too often surgeons guess. n/t intaglio Apr 2014 #122

Uh WTF is that supposed to mean? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #125

Unfortunately some surgeons tend not to function on evidence intaglio Apr 2014 #126

Oh so throw the baby out with the bathwater because SOME are not ethical? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #139

Did I say that all surgeries are woo? NO intaglio Apr 2014 #144

This is about Woo....not some unethical doctors... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #145

Because "unethical" doctors and scientists are as big a source of Woo as snake oil salesmen intaglio Apr 2014 #161

No that is not what WOO means... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #163

Prefrontals were the worst type of woo intaglio Apr 2014 #165

No....bad medicine is NOT woo...read the definition VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #166

and its still based on Science.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #167

Wrong, absolutely and completely wrong intaglio Apr 2014 #175

definition VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #164

If there is no evidence to support a treatment it fulfills the definition of Woo intaglio Apr 2014 #168

NO not if it doesn't do better than placebo VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #169

I am saying that there has to be evidence of effect and evidence of method of action intaglio Apr 2014 #170

No that is not what that means.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #171

Not recreatable, the word is repeatable intaglio Apr 2014 #176

Some surgeries are no more effective than placebo, but are widely performed. Example: Squinch Apr 2014 #138

Oh come on....surgery is NOT woo....no matter how much the Woo propagandists VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #140

Well, let me introduce another study: Squinch Apr 2014 #141

I don't need studies.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #142

But the SURGERY is NOT more effective than placebo. But you say that the surgery simply isn't woo. Squinch Apr 2014 #143

Surgery IS more effective than placebo....geebus.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #146

Read the sources I linked. This surgery is NOT more effective than placebo. Squinch Apr 2014 #147

"A" surgery does not make surgery Woo..... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #149

Will you PLEASE read the links? We are not talking about a single surgery. We are talking Squinch Apr 2014 #152

What does even ONE type of surgery prove? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #153

It means that that type of surgery is woo, according to your definition. And I can show you studies Squinch Apr 2014 #155

bloodletting is woo....so what....it still doesn't make the whole thing woo VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #156

OMG! This is too ridiculous. Have a nice night. Squinch Apr 2014 #158

That is the first thing you have said that made sense.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #159

cross argueing SwampG8r Apr 2014 #148

exactly! VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #150

i am married to an arnp and SwampG8r Apr 2014 #151

But it does make THAT type of surgery woo. And it is performed about 700,000 times per year. Squinch Apr 2014 #154

yes THAT surgery is woo SwampG8r Apr 2014 #160

No one said it does. But first, there are, as I have pointed out repeatedly, Squinch Apr 2014 #172

It may not be woo but it is a for profit business. Jesus Malverde Apr 2014 #127

I am a first hand "witness", if you will...... Amaril Apr 2014 #130

Was the use of Thalidomide woo? joeglow3 Apr 2014 #134

If the use of, say, Bella donna for migraines is woo, how is that different from the use of Squinch Apr 2014 #137

Thalidomide was never approved for use in the US. LeftyMom Apr 2014 #157

And? joeglow3 Apr 2014 #181

Please - seriously? Take a procedure for WOMEN through rigorous investigation IdaBriggs Apr 2014 #136

Thats not woo LostOne4Ever Apr 2014 #162

ok I'm not a doctor and LiberalElite Apr 2014 #173

I think it's 5 brands of the device, and there are a lot of each brand out there spreading tumors. Squinch Apr 2014 #177

Wonder what kills more people whatchamacallit Apr 2014 #182