Court forcing 16 yr old with cancer into chemo

Alex · 07-26-2006, 01:33 PM

Doctors do not tend to be scientific in their approach to medicine. Most practicing doctors couldn't define statistical significance and are swamped everyday by anecdotal interactions. Researchers try to put into a scientific framework.

There are small studies that show efficacy for acupuncture, but they've all been generally too small for significant to be avialable. A study of 22 people just has too much room for statistical error.

There are two scientific organizations (the Cochrane Collaboration and Bandolier) that attempt to issue reviews concatenating evidence-based medical studies. There has not been a reputed effect of acupuncture that their reviews find overwhelmingly indicate positive effects though in many pain related areas there is enough positive research to indicate further research should be done.

For me, the damning element of acupuncture is that there are competing schools of theory completely at odds with each other. You may not be able to see a microwave but you can see indisputable secondary effects of their presence. You can create a testable framework for how microwaves work and make predictions that can be confirmed or disproved. What exists in the different schools of acupuncture is similar to if you want to two traditional physicians and said "I'm having a heart attack" and one immediately went to work on your knee while another immediately began massaging your buttocks. There is no theoretical framework in which acupuncture exists and relies on theories of a lifeforce that, by definition, can not be detected.

As you Google you will find that the National Institutes of Health have a pretty positive take on acupuncture (and althernative medicine in general) but then they also have a congressional mandate to promote alternative medicine so that isn't too surprising. They are on the far positive side of traditional scientific organizations and even they say there is as yet no generally accepted scientific evidence for acupuncture claims, just that they are confident that with sufficient study they will be found.

Again, I am not saying that acupuncture doesn't do anything. I'm saying that there is no strong evidence that it does anything, what it is doing if it does something, or how it might actually accomplish whatever it is claimed it can do. It is correct to say that there are many things in medicine where there is no framework for how it works, but then in those cases where it is used anyway there is almost always strong clinical evidence that it does work

At its root "throw a lot of pills at something and see what happens" is pretty much the very definition of science as long as you're making some attempt to objectively evaluate what does then happen.

Without that objective analysis you have the world of acupuncture where they just throw a bunch of needles at the person and see what happens.

Further, when it comes to medical treatment, there is a second question beyond "does it help" and that is "does it help better than this other thing that helps." For the sake of argument, let's say that acupuncture can put 8% of lung cancer into remission. That's great, definitely shows that acupuncture has therapeutic value. But is it a reasonable choice of treatment if its is shown that standing on your head and spinning in circles puts 72% of lung cancer into remission?

Almost all the areas where acupuncture shows some promise is in pain management. Claims of actual disease treatment (and there is a huge range of what acupuncture practitioners belief their treatment can heal) have shown almost no positive correlation.

I know, it is silly to argue this so strongly. People will believe what they want to believe. (Though it is still strange to me that Western medicine will - rightly - be condemned for when it fails to live up to an ideal of scientific objectivity but "altnerative medicine" will be embraced for never even trying.)

You should see me on the subject of homeopathy. I can't walk into my mothers bathroom without getting angry.

07-26-2006, 01:33 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Doctors do not tend to be scientific in their approach to medicine. Most practicing doctors couldn't define statistical significance and are swamped everyday by anecdotal interactions. Researchers try to put into a scientific framework. There are small studies that show efficacy for acupuncture, but they've all been generally too small for significant to be avialable. A study of 22 people just has too much room for statistical error. There are two scientific organizations (the Cochrane Collaboration and Bandolier) that attempt to issue reviews concatenating evidence-based medical studies. There has not been a reputed effect of acupuncture that their reviews find overwhelmingly indicate positive effects though in many pain related areas there is enough positive research to indicate further research should be done. For me, the damning element of acupuncture is that there are competing schools of theory completely at odds with each other. You may not be able to see a microwave but you can see indisputable secondary effects of their presence. You can create a testable framework for how microwaves work and make predictions that can be confirmed or disproved. What exists in the different schools of acupuncture is similar to if you want to two traditional physicians and said "I'm having a heart attack" and one immediately went to work on your knee while another immediately began massaging your buttocks. There is no theoretical framework in which acupuncture exists and relies on theories of a lifeforce that, by definition, can not be detected. As you Google you will find that the National Institutes of Health have a pretty positive take on acupuncture (and althernative medicine in general) but then they also have a congressional mandate to promote alternative medicine so that isn't too surprising. They are on the far positive side of traditional scientific organizations and even they say there is as yet no generally accepted scientific evidence for acupuncture claims, just that they are confident that with sufficient study they will be found. Again, I am not saying that acupuncture doesn't do anything. I'm saying that there is no strong evidence that it does anything, what it is doing if it does something, or how it might actually accomplish whatever it is claimed it can do. It is correct to say that there are many things in medicine where there is no framework for how it works, but then in those cases where it is used anyway there is almost always strong clinical evidence that it does work At its root "throw a lot of pills at something and see what happens" is pretty much the very definition of science as long as you're making some attempt to objectively evaluate what does then happen. Without that objective analysis you have the world of acupuncture where they just throw a bunch of needles at the person and see what happens. Further, when it comes to medical treatment, there is a second question beyond "does it help" and that is "does it help better than this other thing that helps." For the sake of argument, let's say that acupuncture can put 8% of lung cancer into remission. That's great, definitely shows that acupuncture has therapeutic value. But is it a reasonable choice of treatment if its is shown that standing on your head and spinning in circles puts 72% of lung cancer into remission? Almost all the areas where acupuncture shows some promise is in pain management. Claims of actual disease treatment (and there is a huge range of what acupuncture practitioners belief their treatment can heal) have shown almost no positive correlation. I know, it is silly to argue this so strongly. People will believe what they want to believe. (Though it is still strange to me that Western medicine will - rightly - be condemned for when it fails to live up to an ideal of scientific objectivity but "altnerative medicine" will be embraced for never even trying.) You should see me on the subject of homeopathy. I can't walk into my mothers bathroom without getting angry.
	Submit to Quotes