talkmagic.co.uk

Craig Browning wrote:The bigger problem however, is even with all the scientific data there are people that have positive results by way of alternative treatment... there are thousands that die because of traditional medical treatment...

Well, no, that's not right. Of course a few people will take alternative medicine and then get better, but this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of cause and effect - because over longer tests, homeopathic medicine is yet to show success rates above that of a placebo. Individual success stories are great, but mean nothing when considering a treatment's overall efficacy. It doesn't undermine anybody's medical triumphs to ask some important questions and find out what actually did the trick.

This sort of thing is part of the reason why the NHS is badgered to fund homeopathy and provide costly placebos to people who have adopted the attitude that truth is subjective, and that science is a "belief" much in the same way a religion might be. There should be no "faith" or "feeling" in medicine or science - you needn't blindly believe in anything when it comes to science; either it's proven to work or it isn't, and the latter needn't be given the time of day. And yet, here we are, it's 2009, and we're going back to the dark ages, where being "open minded" seems to hinge on deliberately ignoring established results and going with "what feels right". And it can't end well for anybody.

This game is over, if you want it: http://www.whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

Tomo wrote:This game is over, if you want it: http://www.whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

set, match point

*boom*

Match to Tomo, Mr Browning has now been knocked out of TMbledone

Oh snap.

I don't think he has been knocked out at all. I could make a far bigger list of people who died and have never been to a homeopath in their life and just had regular medical treatment. In fact the doctors once went on strike in Israel and the death rate went UP. It got so bad that the undertakers association were losing so much business that they demanded the government immediately bring in back to work legislation so that the doctors could resume killing people and the undertakers could resume their business.

And you don't have to give up normal medicine just because you are trying alternative treatment. I notice the people on that link were daft enough to do that and paid the price for it.

Mark, it was surgeons and the death rate went down, and it's to be expected. Surgical procedures have an attendant risk, and that drop in the death rate is down to that risk being removed. Trouble is you also remove the benefit. If the strike had continued then the death rate would have climbed higher than it had previously, as those who would have died on the table get killed by whatever was ailing them in the first place.

In the UK it is almost impossible for you to undergo a surgical procedure without being made fully aware of the risks. I've a friend undergoing treatment for leukaemia and he is given huge check lists that he works through with his doctors detailing what the risks of the procedures themselves are, and what benefit he's likely to get from it. If we let risk rule our lives, we'd never leave the house. Or stay in it.

In that case risk having alternative medicine!

My own doctor made the point that it was surgeons who were on strike and the patients were supposed to be killed off anyway. However in the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies, "He would say that wouldn't he?"

As for this risk/benefit twaddle they are always giving you it seems that it is the patient taking the risk and the doctors getting the benefit.

Of course British doctors don't get much benefit. They don't seem to make as much money as they do over here. No doubt that is why I remember British doctors always being so grumpy and miserable when you go to see them and North American doctors always being so full of cheerfulness.

Mind you for some reason they seem to lose their cheeriness as soon as I enter the door.

mark lewis wrote:As for this risk/benefit twaddle they are always giving you it seems that it is the patient taking the risk and the doctors getting the benefit.

Meaningless, but it sounds witty.

I have always been an amusing fellow.

mark lewis wrote:I have always been an amusing fellow.

I never thought so. More... abusive than witty.

Harry Guinness wrote:

mark lewis wrote:I have always been an amusing fellow.

I never thought so. More... abusive than witty.

If you fail to see Mr Lewis' wit, I fear the fault is yours.

He certainly can't be described as abusive anyway. Brilliantly sarcastic and rude, possibly, but not abusive.

Ah. I think the problem lies in that his abusive comments tend to be... 'moderated'. I don't think his comments about a certain magician of my acquaintance could be called 'witty'.

BTW... I'm nowhere near down for the count. As I said (several pages back) those that believe and have experiential testimony about how something has worked for them (not myself necessarily) will never be swayed; those that don't want to believe will likewise, cling to their position like grim death itself.

I can give you just as big if not bigger lists of persons harmed, maimed or "murdered" by the so-called legitimate health care system including those from the Mental Health arena. So trying to prove who's is bigger just don't apply here.

Secondly, it would seem that no one has paid attention to what I've been saying through most of this; the fact that the majority of alternative health practitioners encourage their clients to work in tandem with a traditional MD and in fact, many have an MD qualification.

There are of course a long list of other points that could be made on the pro side of this issue but the problem in "discussing" such seems to fail and fall into an abyss of sorts when dealing with "rationalists" that aren't rational in the least but predisposed cynics that look at cold data rather than the human experience. I find that side of the equation quite sad.

I am rational. I consider myself very very very rational. I look for evidence. If there is no evidence, then I do not see it as fact.

You sir, keep saying you have proof. We keep asking for said proof, yet you convenniently ignore our repeated requests.

So I ask again, can we have more proof please, other than "But I really really think it works", with relation specifically to homeopathy

In my albeit limited experience I have mainly encountered alternative therapist doctors who have either been struck off as MDs or simply adopt the title of "doctor", it not being a protected term. Anyone can call themselves a doctor and get away with it (including the entirety of the chiropractic profession, who had the balls and nounce to refer to their qualification as a "doctor of chiropractic". And Jonathan Royle). Luckily over here if they try and advertise anything remotely connected to treatment of illnesses or ailments and refer to themselves as a doctor they will feel the full force of the ASA on them. For all the good that does.

The remaining genuine MDs who practice alternative medicine, I suspect, are those that wish to prescribe placebos but are hampered in doing so for medical ethics reasons - that whole "risk / benefit" thing that they're supposed to discuss with their regular patients.