General Discussion

intaglio

(8,170 posts)

165. Prefrontals were the worst type of woo

Sun Apr 20, 2014, 10:14 AM

Apr 2014

The process could not be carried out in a reproducible way and the extent of trauma to the lobes varied between patients. What is more the results were variable; some patients became passive, some became violent, some became vegetative and some died. The process was carried out for a wide variety of patient including schizophrenics, bipolars, depressives, people we would now recognise as autistics and some epileptics.

The variation in effect is not surprising given that the methodology was to hammer a sharpened rod (similar to a knitting needle) through the orbit to the eye and then sweep this rod in a variety of arcs (according to the whim of the surgeon). The motion was completely unguided, there being no real time x-ray projection, and completely random as little if any knowledge of the real function of brain structures existed at the time.

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