Hi Carola.
I'm not sure what to say here. I entered in this discussion interested only in sharing with all the readers the facts regarding some of the claims in the alternative field, and the accuracy of the Quackwatch site. While I present calm arguments supported by evidence, you grow increasingly defensive and shrill and hurl opinions and generalizations. I don't think it's useful to continue here, but in the interest of accuracy for other readers, I feel I should continue to present correct information. I'm sure you will come back with another onslaught of personal opinions and foolish straw men, so knock yourself out.
>Huh? of course not, the libel suits that Barrett won weren't
>dismissed - how can it be dismissed if he won. But there is a
>whole bunch of them that were dismissed. So if you say that
>fighting bad information and health advice is hard work, yes,
>it is just as hard work for his opponents to prove otherwise!
Double Huh? I have no idea what you're saying here, that last sentence has me unsure of what you're getting at. It wouldn't be hard to refute some of Dr Barrett's specific criticisms - all they would have to do would be to provide some convincing scientific evidence. There isn't any.
>Well, then don't say it one way or another. Barrett keeps
>accusing people and methods, but also says the data is
>inclusive, lacking or not proven to work. So at best, he does
>accuse people without sufficient data!!!
I have gone out of my way here to only make strong statements when the data allow for it. There are many unsettled issues, and I've said that several times now. There are, however, many issues that science has settled, and I won't pretend otherwise. When making a claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic. As a self-identified skeptic, I would think you would know this. Barrett states there is insufficient data to support the claims of many alternative practitioners. His primary accusation has been that their claims lack evidence. He's right.
>There is plenty of data and research on Naturopathic and
>Homeopathic Medicine, additionally, almost all health
>insurance carriers in Europe will cover/pay for homeopathic
>and naturopathic treatment at 100 % and base that on the data
>they have which they find reliable. Just because Barrett deem
>it unreliable doesn't mean it is.
I'm still waiting for all this research you keep mentioning. I've provided links to peer reviewed medical journals that state there isn't any. There isn't evidence just because you say there is. I'd love to see the data you refer to.
Don't get me started on what gets paid for in Europe and passed off as medical care. The fact that it's paid for says nothing about it's efficacy or it's evidence base. This is not a valid argument.
>Must have missed that one, as far as I recall you were only
>talking about naturopathic and homeopathic medicine in general
>and there is nothing settled.
Again, I've provided links to medical journals explaining the lack of evidence. I'm not sure how much clearer this can be.
>Really???? How about all the medications that come on the
>market with big fanfare, scientifically proven and everything,
>and then oopsie, oopsie kills people, doesn't do what it is
>supposed to do and we have to take it off the market. But hey,
>at least it was scientifically proven. I would say it has more
>to do with money than anything else. Just like statistics,
>science data can be manipulated to achieve the outcome they
>want.
I will agree that overmarketing of pharmaceuticals is a problem. The FDA process of 3 phase clinical trials is supposed to weed out the more common problems, but some side effects are so rare that it's only when larger numbers of people begin taking a drug do some of the side effects show up. The process is overall very safe, and a lot more effective than homeopathy.
If you or someone in your family were really sick, who would you go see first? A naturopath or a medical physician?
Homeopathy is kind of a fun hobby for people, but when lives are really on the line and people are really sick or hurting, their objections to so-called "allopathic" medicine seem to just disappear. If you had an infected wound, would you want antibiotics or homeopathy? I hope you'd take the former, otherwise (as you said) "oopsie, oopsie" something really bad could happen.
>Yes, I am totally aware of the placebo effect, as a matter of
>fact, the way I grew up was a strong belief in allopathic
>medicine, I had no clue about homeopathic medicine, to me it
>sounded like snake oil science. I FULLY expected that the
>allopathic medications would work, and thought the homeopathic
>treatment was a waste of time. However, it turned out to be
>the complete opposite. I am just curious to hear your
>explanation.
Your previous statement showed a complete lack of understanding of the placebo response. I'm glad you've looked it up since your last post. As for what happened to you, I can't say. Not only am I not familiar with the facts of the case, there are too many variables involved with one case to be certain about *anything*. That's why, as I said before, medical trials have many subjects to control as many variables as possible. Any treatment must be studied in this way if we can make any specific statements about it's efficacy.
As for your specific case, if you'd like an explanation, here are some options:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altbelief.html
>That is exactly right, we are missing the data and no you
>didn't say it, but Barrett did! Barrett claims that all those
>chemical sensitivity claims are a case of mental illness. How
>is that for inaccurate data??
His primary claim, as usual, is that there is insufficient evidence for the claims for the so-called "multiple chemical sensitivity" or MCS syndrome. He states on his site:
"(a) MCS has never been clearly defined, (b) no scientifically plausible mechanism has been proposed for it, (c) no diagnostic tests have been substantiated [1], and (d) not a single case has been scientifically validated. ...In 1997, the [American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology]'s board of directors reviewed the evidence again and concluded that "a causal connection between environmental chemicals, foods, and/or drugs and the patient's symptoms is speculative and not based on the results of published scientific studies."
Barrett's just saying there's no evidence. Again, he's right.
>
>Just like Barrett you make generalizations which distort the
>whole picture.
Actually, you've got the generalizations thing down enough for both of us. Your attempt to pit "alternative" vs "allopathic" is a great example of this. This is the logical flaw of collectivism. For an avowed skeptic, I'd think you'd know that.
>I have said that many of the recommendations
>that are done under the mantle of "alternative medicine" make
>me cringe, and I don't blindly accept anything just because it
>is alternative, however, that there is validity to many of
>the alternative methods, like acupuncture, homeopathic
>medicine, naturopathic medicine, nutrition, exercise, etc.
Exercise and nutrition aren't alternative methods. I'm still waiting on this evidence for homeopathy from an actual scientific source in a peer-reviewed journal. And again, I'm only speaking about homeopathy here, and I'm only sticking to areas where the data allows me to make strong conclusions. I go only as far as the data allows. There is some mixed evidence for acupuncture, for example. Some recommendations given by alternative practioners make good sense - it isn't all bad. But there are also "some" claims that are ridiculous, dangerous, and demonstrably false.
>Just because it is a different approach doesn't make it wrong
>and doesn't make it unreliable.
I never said this, you did. What a ridiculous straw man.
>As a matter of fact it has already entered mainstream medicine, so are
>you saying that all those doctors who incorporate that their practice
>with great success are quacks??
I haven't called anyone a quack. What success are you talking about? Financial success? There sure isn't any proven medical success for homeopathy, so I assume you're talking financial success here.
>This being said, there are many good aspects to allopathic
>medicine and many doctors on both sides now find it beneficial
>to incorporate the best of both worlds. However, there seem to
>be fanatics on both sides who find it more important (for what
>ever reason) to discredit or attack the other side. I think we
>all would benefit from a more inclusive approach and the
>willingness to learn from each other.
As long as we are learning things that are actually medically useful, then I agree. People who provide responsible medical care do have an ethical obligation to protect the public and try to ensure the highest quality in medical treatment.
>In all reality there are less than genuine people on both
>sides and I resent your notion that all alternative folks are
>dishonest.
I never said this either. You have created again a foolish and simplistic argument that is easy to discredit. The only problem is that I've never said that. I've only mentioned that there are specific alternative claims that are demonstrably false. You're the one painting with a broad brush here...
>There is more to humans than a mere number of organs, bones
>and tissues. It's not like a car where you just change the
>parts and then it drives. Although science often makes it
>sound like that.
Of course they aren't. Many traditional medical practitioner take a "whole person" approach to care, myself included. That last sentence of yours smacks of the generalizations you accuse me of so often.
>
>That's great Jason, but you do the same thing that I do, you
>pick and chose what fits your picture of the world, your
>experience and your lifestyle. So, it is ok that you do that
>but if I do it, it's wrong??
This is inaccurate. I never made any positive claims that can not be supported by evidence. That's the whole difference here. I merely said I make personal choices based on my interpretation of the existing research. I wouldn't attempt to discredit an entire line of scientific research based simply on my personal choices, nor would I say that there was research that supported my choices if there isn't any. It's the specific claim of efficacy that requires evidence. I haven't made one.
>Fact is, Barrett blasts ALL methods of alternative medicine,
>including well established procedures and only says in a side
>note that there is not enough data or the data is unreliable.
>According to who??? He generalizes and clearly misleads people
>about alternative medicine as a whole.
He generalizes because the data agree with him. Where are these "well-established procedures" you mention? I haven't seen anything that is scientifically inaccurate on his pages. If you find something inaccurate, you can report him on the HONcode website, his site is a member of this group and the standards for accuracy are very high. By all means, email all this great positive evidence you say there is. If all these treatments really work so well, it should be easy to prove it, right?
>There is NOTHING on his 20 websites that would refer to anyone in the
>allopathic field. There are just as many quacks and dishonest people
>in the allopathic field as there are in the alternative.
You evidently have not read his sites carefully. I'm hardly surprised at this, however. He specifically mentions issues in osteopathic medicine and in dentistry, and many of the alternative methods he attacks are supported by some medical "allopathic" physicians as well. It's not the person involved, but the treatments and claims that are at issue. Again, it's not personal, it's a question of evidence. You continue to conflate these two.
On the Hippocratic oath - there are many versions of this, and there are many differences from school to school.
"It is the opinion of many scholars that Hippocrates did, in fact, originate the phrase, but did so in his Epidemics, Bk. I, Sect. XI. One translation reads: "Declare the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future; practice these acts. As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least to do no harm."
So, what's "naturopathic" about this?
If you want to continue this discussion, feel free to email me. Since other people haven't chimed in with much here, I don't want this heated discussion to take up space on the forum that could be better used in other ways. I know this discussion doesn't have much to do with fitness or with Cathe Friedrich's excellent workouts (I've even done a few with Carolyn) so I don't want to make a nuisance of this discussion any more than it already has become.
Tchus....
