![]() |
€uromeinke, FEJ. and Ghoulish Delight RULE!!! NA abides. |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Beelzeboobs, Esq.
|
I used to work for people doing NIH-funded research on alternative treatments and integrating them into nursing practice. If researchers working on the study suggest to me that a naturopath might be able to help mitigate some of my chronic symptoms, I do give that weight. If actual bench scientists and people who do things to rats tell me that they think some alternative medicine treatment methods are efficacious, I give that weight.
__________________
traguna macoities tracorum satis de |
|
|
Submit to Quotes
|
|
|
#2 |
|
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,354
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
So do I. With the caveat that the NIH has been congressionally mandated to promote alternative medicine.
Again, I am not saying that all alternative treatments are bunk. I am saying that very few have been subjected to rigorous examination and many that have show benefits that are difficult to discern from statistical noise. Unlike most FDA approved medications very few "altnerative treatments" show overwhelmingly positive results when subjected to objective study. A doctor that says "some people say that herb X makes them feel better so you might try that is no different than the throwing pills at the problem and seeing what happens, an approach that was condemned earlier. I'm sure many alternative treatments work, particularly "herbal medicines." I'm just arguing against excessive evidentiary claims. And double standards of evidence between so called alternative treatments and Western medicine. If Merck used the evidentiary standards and lax quality controls of the herbal supplement industry it would be driven bankrupt by lawsuits in a matter of weeks. Hell, the current craze for hoodia (however that is spelled) seems to be based entirely on the scientific theory of "hey, I've never seen a fat bushman so it must work." |
|
|
Submit to Quotes
|