Hugh Laurie and Conan O'Brien dislike alternative medicine

[krelnik]

There was a nice skeptical moment during Hugh Laurie's appearance on "Late Night with Conan O'Brien (http://nbc.com/Late_Night_with_Conan_O'Brien/)" on NBC last night. It turns out neither of them like alternative medicine very much.

You can watch the clip online here (http://www.nbc.com/Late_Night_with_Conan_O'Brien/video/episodes/#vid=873122/plt=lf) until December 27th. (Adobe Flash required, as usual). It is just about halfway through the episode in the third segment, it runs from 23:45 to 25:32.

Here's a transcript:


CONAN O'BRIEN: We have something in common, which is... I believe your father is a doctor and my father is a doctor. And so you're playing a doctor now, and I'm curious. Did you learn anything from your father? Is there anything from growing up with a doctor in the family that helped you with the role?

HUGH LAURIE: In a way, yes. I mean, not to do with the character, but to do with my attitude toward medicine. Because I admired my father so much, I grew up with this immense reverence for Western medicine. I think its about the noblest calling there is.

I don't know about you, but I have no patience with the sort of bark-sucking crystals and the herbs and all that sort of stuff. I'm a great believer in antibiotics and anesthetics. These are great things that have saved millions of lives.

(GESTURES TOWARD AUDIENCE)

You know half the people who are here wouldn't be here if it weren't for antibiotics.

CONAN: I am the same way. Whenever something is wrong with me, and someone says, "There's a tree root that you can hold against your head and then think good thoughts,"

HUGH: Right.

CONAN: I push them aside and go to a pharmacy.

(LAUGHTER)

HUGH: Right, me too!

CONAN: I want actual medicine.

HUGH: I want actual medicine, little white pills. Yeah. Because when people try to persuade you of this alternative course because its an ancient medicine, its an ancient therapy. "It's two thousand years old." But two thousand years ago people died at twenty!

CONAN: Yes.

HUGH: It's no recommendation!

(LAUGHTER)

CONAN: If they made it to twenty, it was, "Hey old man! Hey old timer!"

HUGH: Absolutely.

(LAUGHTER)

HUGH: Let's have some more of that tree bark! But, no.

Yes, I definitely grew up with that. And that made me (I suppose) sympathize with the -- Is it left brain or right brain? I don't know which side it is -- but that sort of logical, scientific side of the character, which I do greatly admire. For all his cynicism, sarcasm, etc. etc., I love his belief in reason. It is his religion. I definitely got that from my father.



Gotta love that Dr. House.

[LawnOven]

That was funny, thanks for sharing. :)

[CFLarsen]

But two thousand years ago people died at twenty!

In 1900 Denmark, the average life expectancy was around 47 years.

Today, in 2008, it is just over 75 for men and just over 80 for women.

"Ancient medicine?" No thanks, I'd rather live.

[headscratcher4]

I thought people were living longer in Denmark out of spite.

[tkingdoll]

That's cool but sadly he makes a fool of himself at the end. Left brain/right brain arty/logical is nonsense.

[krelnik]

In his defense, he said that in a very parenthetical way. Plus left brain/right brain is still a very common misconception.

I'm willing to cut him some slack on that.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Love Hugh Laurie. Amazingly talented, very handsome and one of the few people I can think of that instantly exudes intelligence.

Here's another clip well worth seeing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfbn_z8xxJ8

[Doctor Evil]

I just can't decide if I like him more in House, or in Blackadder. (He was very good in the third and fourth seasons.)

[Baby Nemesis]

In 1900 Denmark, the average life expectancy was around 47 years.

Today, in 2008, it is just over 75 for men and just over 80 for women.

"Ancient medicine?" No thanks, I'd rather live.

But then, it wasn't just medicine that's increased people's life expectancy. In fact, the main factor was better sanitation. 150 years ago in Europe, the main reason life expectancy was so low wasn't because people were only typically living till their prime, but the statistics for average life expectancy were skewed hugely because in some places, a large percentage of children died before they were 5, due to diseases made more rampant by overcrowding and poor sanitation. Social factors like improvements in living conditions went a long way to lowering mortality rates.

See, for example, an article called Public Health Then and Now
- Equitable Child Health Interventions: The Impact of Improved Water and Sanitation on Inequalities in Child Mortality in Stockholm, 1878 to 1925 (http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/95/2/208)

... Infant (< 1 year) mortality rates exceeded 200 per 1000 in Stockholm until 1900 and declined to 50 per 1000 by 1925. Most of the decline, which occurred in the postnatal
(1–11 month) period, was driven by a decline in diarrhea mortality. Other important causes of death included congenital conditions; tuberculosis; meningitis; undernutrition; and other diseases associated with poverty, crowding, and adverse living conditions, which were a reality for the majority of the rapidly growing urban population in Stockholm.

There were probably many causes of the decline in diarrhea mortality; improvements in the provision of water and sanitation, changes in hygienic perception and behavior, and general socioeconomic improvements, including improved nutritional status, are all thought to have been contributing factors. Obviously, the mortality decline occurred in the absence of other specific interventions such as immunization and effective curative interventions. ...

The article's about what people can learn about how child mortality rates in the third world can be reduced today. Millions are caused by things like diarrhoea that could be prevented just with better hygiene and sanitation.

From later in the article:

Sweden was a precise example of a strong, centralized state that made the implementation possible. The enforcement and everyday implementation of practical public health policies, such as the removal of fecal matter and garbage, may be one key to reducing exposure to infectious agents from the fecally contaminated environment. The implementation of such policies needs to be guided by appropriate local research. Again, one reason for the decline in diarrhea mortality in Stockholm was probably the wide coverage of both water and sanitation interventions for all segments of the population. Therefore,
in countries with high mortality, public health interventions need to be well organized and extensive if they are to have a substantial impact. ... In addition, as the example in our study suggests, improved access to piped water may be more effective if implemented in a comprehensive setting as part of a broader package of improved sanitation and handling of excreta, increased awareness of personal hygiene and food handling, and general socioeconomic development. ...

[CFLarsen]

Snaps. Not spite.

[fuelair]

I just can't decide if I like him more in House, or in Blackadder. (He was very good in the third and fourth seasons.)What about as Bertie Wooster!!!??:):):):D:D:)

[dudalb]

When does Bill "The Germ Theory Is BS" Maher respond to this?

[Lonewulf]

When does Bill "The Germ Theory Is BS" Maher respond to this?

Better question: Who cares?

[RoboTimbo]

I just can't decide if I like him more in House, or in Blackadder. (He was very good in the third and fourth seasons.)

Have you seen him as Wooster to Stephen Fry's Jeeves?

Oh, fuelair beat me to it.

[Skeptic Guy]

But to balance it out Jon Stewart had Mike Huckabee on last night to sell his silly book, Do the Right Thing. During the interview Huckabee references "5,000 years of recorded history". Stewart doesn't take him to task about it but does so on his, and the religious conservatives, stance against gay marriage. I was yelling at the TV pretty much during the whole interview.

[Madalch]

Amazingly talented, very handsome and one of the few people I can think of that instantly exudes intelligence.
(bolding mine)
He's never done that in Blackadder. Or Jeeves & Wooster.

[RoboTimbo]

(bolding mine)
He's never done that in Blackadder. Or Jeeves & Wooster.

As Wooster, how did he manage to avoid marriage then?

[timhau]

I thought people were living longer in Denmark out of spite.

No. They just get into these really long, drawn-out arguments with the coroner.

[Skeptic Guy]

[Holy Grail]"I'm not dead yet!"[/Holy Grail]

[Lennart Hyland]

That's cool but sadly he makes a fool of himself at the end. Left brain/right brain arty/logical is nonsense.

Oh I heard the difference. Can you please explain?

[KingMerv00]

That's cool but sadly he makes a fool of himself at the end. Left brain/right brain arty/logical is nonsense.

"Fool" is a bit harsh don't ya think?

Hugh and Conan are awesome. I will not have you badmouthing them!:duel

Get back to me if they support Sylvia.

[Fredrik]

When does Bill "The Germ Theory Is BS" Maher respond to this?
I saw this claim in another thread too. (Not sure who made it). Do you really believe it's correct? I mean, I've heard him say some wooish things about how high fructose corn syrup is the cause of most health problems, and if I remember correctly he also said that vaccines would be unnecessary if we just had a better diet. He clearly has some woo beliefs about diet, health and medicine, but has he actually said that diseases aren't caused by germs? I strongly doubt that. His biggest woo belief seems to be that your body can fight off (most of) those germs if you eat right, not that "the germ theory is bs".

He also said something once that almost certainly means that he believes in reincarnation, but that's another story.

[krelnik]

Here are two links with quotes from Maher about the germ theory thing.

Comments on his Friday March 4, 2005 program by Orac:
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/is-bill-maher-really-that-ignorant_07.html

Comments on his Friday November 4, 2005 program by Two Percent Co:
http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/popups/popup_322.html (http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/popups/popup_322.html)

Both have exact quotes from Maher, which I can only assume are accurate.

[tkingdoll]

In his defense, he said that in a very parenthetical way. Plus left brain/right brain is still a very common misconception.

I'm willing to cut him some slack on that.

Me too, he's my hero and also I would consider marriage. With him, not you, I mean. Sorry. But if I ever meet him I will point out the error and he will thank me, and then perhaps proposition me.

[dudalb]

Maher is proof that one can reject religion, but still fall for woo bigtime.

[krelnik]

Me too, he's my hero and also I would consider marriage. With him, not you, I mean. Sorry.

I'm crushed! Crushed, I tell you.

[Big Les]

Oh I heard the difference. Can you please explain?

Funnily enough I went to a lecture earlier this evening that went into this. Basically the idea that the sides of the brain are different in terms of creativeness and logical thought is, as tkingdoll says, BS. It's a gross hyper-simplification (to quote the lecturer!) of the actual differences between the halves - that certain functions take place on certain sides. Have a read of this;

http://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm

[Soapy Sam]

Me too, he's my hero and also I would consider marriage. With him, not you, I mean. Sorry. But if I ever meet him I will point out the error and he will thank me, and then perhaps proposition me.

You realise you don't actually need Hugh Lawrie for that?

[LibraryLady]

........mmmmmmmmmmmmm..........Hugh Laurie................mmmmmmmmmmmm.......

[Fredrik]

Here are two links with quotes from Maher about the germ theory thing.

Comments on his Friday March 4, 2005 program by Orac:
http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/is-bill-maher-really-that-ignorant_07.html

Comments on his Friday November 4, 2005 program by Two Percent Co:
http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/popups/popup_322.html (http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/popups/popup_322.html)

Both have exact quotes from Maher, which I can only assume are accurate.
I saw both of those episodes, but I didn't remember that he said that Pasteur renounced his theory on his deathbed. Until now I thought he just meant that a good dieat will make your immune system more efficient, but the Pasteur comment probably means that he actually believes in the "alternative", which is explained at this (http://www.unhinderedliving.com/germtheory.html) page. A few excerpts:


At the end of his life, Pasteur admitted that his theory was a fraud. He said that it was not the germs that mattered, but the medium in which they lived. And yet, his so-called "work" is the basis of the whole medical model of disease and healing.


Enderlein found that all microbes that live permanently in our bodies go through three stages:

The Primitive Stage (microbe)
The Middle Stage (bacteria)
The End Stage (fungus)

Other scientists were later able to confirm that there was a fourth stage which occurs only after extreme toxicity in which the fungus goes through a transformation, mutating into the Virus.


Primitive phases live in a strong alkaline pH
Bacterial phases live in mild alkaline pH
Fungal forms live in a medium acid pH
Viral forms live in a strong acid pH (2)


Most of the germs which enter our bodies from the outside are quickly killed by the immune system. But it is the microorganisms which live permanently in our bodies that cause us to get sick. And they cause sickness because we provide them with a rich growth medium so that they can mutate and transform themselves into deadly bacteria, fungus, and viruses.



The Germ theory CANNOT account for the fact that if you expose 100 people to what he called "pathogenic bacteria" that 10 of the people in that room will NOT DEVELOP THE DISEASE.

I wonder how their "theory" explains that if you don't expose those 100 people to the bacteria, one hundred people in that room will not develop the disease.

[Rodney]

But then, it wasn't just medicine that's increased people's life expectancy. In fact, the main factor was better sanitation.
According to an October 1998 editorial in Bandolier:

Bandolier has traditionally concentrated on examining systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials of treatments, and trying to make sense of them in ways that ordinary mortals like us can understand. But medical treatments are only one side of the coin of improved health and longevity. There's also the not insignificant factor of healthy, or unhealthy, living.

Speculation and precision

John Bunker set out to try and estimate the contribution of medicine to improvements in life expectancy and quality of life since 1950. He himself says that any estimates of medicine's contribution to health can only be more than speculative and less than precise. The information he used came from several sources - changes in disease-specific death rates from the US National Center for Health Statistics and data on medical improvements from trials and meta-analyses.

Heart disease

In heart disease, for example, age adjusted death rates fell in the US from 307 to 156 per 100,000 between 1950 and 1989, about half of the fall in death rates for all causes. Over the same period overall life expectancy increased by 7.1 years, and so it was estimated that some 3.4 years of the improved life expectancy resulted from the fall in the death rate from heart disease.

Reviewing the evidence on the efficacy of medical interventions in heart disease, it was estimated that 40% of the decline in the death rate could be attributed to coronary care units, treatment of hypertension, and medical and surgical treatment of ischaemic heart disease. So 40% of the 3.4 years (1.4 years) could be attributed to medicine and health care.

Bottom line

The approach was extended to other areas, and the bottom line was an estimate that medical care can be credited with five of the 30 years of increased life expectancy in this century, and three of the seven years since 1950.

See http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band56/b56-1.html

[Brendy]

I saw this claim in another thread too. (Not sure who made it). Do you really believe it's correct? I mean, I've heard him say some wooish things about how high fructose corn syrup is the cause of most health problems.

I'm gonna have to argue with you.

Obesity is rampant. Foods with high fructose corn syrup are high in calories. They make people fat. Of course it's not the food's fault but the people eating it.

However I have no problem with someone saying high calorie foods are a large health problem. Diabetes and Heart Disease, two of the most common health problems in our country, can be caused by obesity.

I'm sorry but saying corn syrup is a problem is not woo.

[Fredrik]

Lol, I didn't say it was. Maher's comments about corn syrup were clearly linked to that stuff about how germs are only dangerous if you're on a bad diet. So he isn't just saying that corn syrup makes you fat. The implication is that it also gives you bird flu. That part is definitely woo.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

(bolding mine)
He's never done that in Blackadder. Or Jeeves & Wooster.

I've never seen those shows and, in fact, hardly know that they exist but I'll paraphrase Christopher Guest, who observed that American comedy consists of idiots playing even bigger idiots (or generally smart people dumbing themselves down to the level of morons) and British humor consists of very intelligent people playing idiots. "Silliness framed in intelligence" is how he put it.

Just an aside but I find it odd that someone as wealthy, famous, talented, attractive and intelligent as Laurie describes himself as shy. Withdrawn, I could see. Introverted, yes. That he is shy, though, is startling.

[luchog]

But then, it wasn't just medicine that's increased people's life expectancy. In fact, the main factor was better sanitation.
And what, exactly, was it that motivated the dramatic improvement in modern sanitation? Oh, that's right, it was modern medicine and the germ theory of disease! Imagine that.

[Geek Goddess]

But to balance it out Jon Stewart had Mike Huckabee on last night to sell his silly book, Do the Right Thing. During the interview Huckabee references "5,000 years of recorded history". Stewart doesn't take him to task about it but does so on his, and the religious conservatives, stance against gay marriage. I was yelling at the TV pretty much during the whole interview.

To be fair (and I hate doing this), there is not a great deal of *recorded* history much older than that. Cuneiform from the end of the 4th millenium BCE, some Chinese stuff quite a bit older, but not much.

But I get your point :p

[Rodney]

And what, exactly, was it that motivated the dramatic improvement in modern sanitation? Oh, that's right, it was modern medicine and the germ theory of disease! Imagine that.
That's not the issue. In post #3 on this thread, CFLarsen stated:

"In 1900 Denmark, the average life expectancy was around 47 years.

Today, in 2008, it is just over 75 for men and just over 80 for women.

'Ancient medicine?' No thanks, I'd rather live."

Do you have evidence that someone living in sanitary conditions will live longer by taking modern medicine than s/he will by taking ancient medicine? If so, let's hear it.

[MattusMaximus]

Another reason to like Hugh Laurie :D

[ponderingturtle]

In 1900 Denmark, the average life expectancy was around 47 years.

Today, in 2008, it is just over 75 for men and just over 80 for women.

"Ancient medicine?" No thanks, I'd rather live.

But how much of that was just the high infant mortality rates?

If you died before a year old would you care?

[ponderingturtle]

But to balance it out Jon Stewart had Mike Huckabee on last night to sell his silly book, Do the Right Thing. During the interview Huckabee references "5,000 years of recorded history". Stewart doesn't take him to task about it but does so on his, and the religious conservatives, stance against gay marriage. I was yelling at the TV pretty much during the whole interview.

That is about right for recorded history though. the difference between loons and science is not so much in the historic era but the prehistoric era. It is not history unless it is written down at the time.

In fact in say the north america there are only about 500 years of recorded history.

[Cavemonster]

That's not the issue. In post #3 on this thread, CFLarsen stated:

"In 1900 Denmark, the average life expectancy was around 47 years.

Today, in 2008, it is just over 75 for men and just over 80 for women.

'Ancient medicine?' No thanks, I'd rather live."

Do you have evidence that someone living in sanitary conditions will live longer by taking modern medicine than s/he will by taking ancient medicine? If so, let's hear it.

For any specific modern medicine, there is ample evidence of it's effectiveness. It isn't absolutely impossible that an ancient treatment for a the same malady is of equal or greater effectiveness.

However, no such research is available for these ancient remedies. Since substantial evidence of such an effective ancient remedy would save lives and make those already selling them very wealthy, I can only assume that the lack of real evidence of effectiveness is proof of ineffectiveness.

[ponderingturtle]

To be fair (and I hate doing this), there is not a great deal of *recorded* history much older than that. Cuneiform from the end of the 4th millenium BCE, some Chinese stuff quite a bit older, but not much.

But I get your point :p

Technically the word "recorded" is not unnecessary though. Before it is recorded it is prehistory not history.

[Hindmost]

But how much of that was just the high infant mortality rates?

If you died before a year old would you care?

Yes, I would care...I just wouldn't know that I cared.

glenn

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, I would care...I just wouldn't know that I cared.

glenn

It just seems very much like the "if you never existed would it matter to you" argument. At say one to babies pass tests of self awareness?

[Rodney]

For any specific modern medicine, there is ample evidence of it's effectiveness. It isn't absolutely impossible that an ancient treatment for a the same malady is of equal or greater effectiveness.

However, no such research is available for these ancient remedies. Since substantial evidence of such an effective ancient remedy would save lives and make those already selling them very wealthy, I can only assume that the lack of real evidence of effectiveness is proof of ineffectiveness.
The issue here is whether modern medicine promotes greater longevity than ancient medicine. For example, some are concerned that antibiotics initially provide quick cures for bacterial infections, but lose their effectiveness over time and do not promote greater longevity than herbal treatments.

[paximperium]

The issue here is whether modern medicine promotes greater longevity than ancient medicine. For example, some are concerned that antibiotics initially provide quick cures for bacterial infections, but lose their effectiveness over time and do not promote greater longevity than herbal treatments.
If your child or parents get a pneumonia or brain infection, will YOU use antibiotics or herbs on them.

[Hindmost]

It just seems very much like the "if you never existed would it matter to you" argument. At say one to babies pass tests of self awareness?

such a dilema for a test since most adults aren't self aware:rolleyes:

It really is a paradox of sorts. Right now I can say I would care.

glenn

[grunion]

One wonders why believe in naturopathy over science-based medicine has not been cast off through natural selection by now. I guess it will take several dozen (or hundred?) more generations.

[grunion]

In 1900 Denmark, the average life expectancy was around 47 years.

Today, in 2008, it is just over 75 for men and just over 80 for women.

"Ancient medicine?" No thanks, I'd rather live.[Milton Berle]75 years in Denmark? You call that living?[/Milton Berle]

[Rodney]

If your child or parents get a pneumonia or brain infection, will YOU use antibiotics or herbs on them.
With respect to a life-threatening condition of that nature, I would use antibiotics, and I suspect so would most herbalists. However, I think most herbalists would argue that they are less likely to face conditions of that nature than those who rely on modern medicine. In any event, do you have evidence -- such as a controlled study -- that modern medicine promotes greater longevity than ancient medicine?

[Silentknight]

The issue here is whether modern medicine promotes greater longevity than ancient medicine. For example, some are concerned that antibiotics initially provide quick cures for bacterial infections, but lose their effectiveness over time and do not promote greater longevity than herbal treatments.

No, antibiotics aren't always effective, but herbal treatments are even less effective. There's a reason alternative medicine is called "alternative" medicine. It couldn't make the cut as legitimate medicine, such as by proving its effectiveness in double-blind studies.

Just because something touted as an alternative to the shortcomings in an established theory doesn't make that alternative true. The gaps in evolution do not prove creationism true. The gaps in the official 9/11 report do not prove conspiracy theories true. Likewise, the shortcomings of modern medicine do not make treebark and magic mushrooms reliable treatments. Alternative medicine must stand on its own merits, and it can't even do that.

[paximperium]

With respect to a life-threatening condition of that nature, I would use antibiotics, and I suspect so would most herbalists. However, I think most herbalists would argue that they are less likely to face conditions of that nature than those who rely on modern medicine. In any event, do you have evidence -- such as a controlled study -- that modern medicine promotes greater longevity than ancient medicine?
Are you serious? Average lifespan of a man in 1900 was 47years as opposed to over 70 in the modern era?

Of course you and many others herbal woo-mongers will claim some other cause for this increase longevity.
Life Expentancy
http://www.healthypeople.gov/document/images/fig1.jpg
Infectious Disease Mortality
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol3no4/lender_f2.gif

[KingMerv00]

Are you serious? Average lifespan of a man in 1900 was 47years as opposed to over 70 in the modern era?

Of course you and many others herbal woo-mongers will claim some other cause for this increase longevity.
Life Expentancy
http://www.healthypeople.gov/document/images/fig1.jpg
Infectious Disease Mortality
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol3no4/lender_f2.gif

I'm not sure but I think Rodney is claiming most of that change is based on sanitation not medicine.

[paximperium]

Oh well. I guess hygiene must have decreased deaths from heart attacks and strokes as well.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m830a1f1.gif

[MattusMaximus]

With respect to a life-threatening condition of that nature, I would use antibiotics, and I suspect so would most herbalists. However, I think most herbalists would argue that they are less likely to face conditions of that nature than those who rely on modern medicine. In any event, do you have evidence -- such as a controlled study -- that modern medicine promotes greater longevity than ancient medicine?

Then those sCAM herbalists are hypocrites. This is the thing that really disgusts me about sCAM - they can operate quite well in the margins, pushing their pseudoscience, but only because they can ride the coat-tails of real science-based medicine. They can claim "success" in many cases because many people get better due to the better standard of living afforded by actual medical science & technology.

When push comes to shove, and your kid is bleeding out of his/her eyes, even these woo-ish sCAMers own up to reality and go with the real thing. Gee whiz, what happened to all the miracle claims about your herbs, eh? :rolleyes:

Sometimes I think what we need to truly put these sCAMers in their place is some kind of awful plague to hit us hard. Something that is so nasty that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you'd better damn well get it taken care of with real science-based medicine or you're dead meat.

[Cavemonster]

Rodney,
Each specific medication specifically addresses an ailment, a specific cause of death.

Each western medication's ability to deal with this specific cause is well documented. For herbal medication, this is not the case.

Since effectively treating or curing a life threatening disease, by definition raises life expectancy, there would need to be another mechanism by which herbal medicine outperformed western medicine.

Could it be that Western medicine produces side effects which make it less preferable? No, side effects are well monitored in extensive studies.

Could it be that herbal medicine has positive side effects of a preventative nature? Again this would show up in a study and make a whole lot of money for the people selling the herbal remedies shown to be so effective at preventing illness. The burden is on you to produce such a study, I have never seen one.

Bottom line- The burden rests on any medicine not formally tested to prove that it is better than currently used methods. We have a system for this. If something works better it is very easy to see and is very rewarding for those involved.

[Skeptic]

In his defense, he said that in a very parenthetical way. Plus left brain/right brain is still a very common misconception. I'm willing to cut him some slack on that.

I wouldn't even rate is as a misconception in this case:it's used merely as a figure of speech -- the modern equivalent of "my head says X but my heart says Y". This figure of speech is based on discarded science and is literally false, but that's true for most such metapors. Hardly means he's a woo-woo.

What's more, with his attitude, I'm quite sure that even if he meant it literally, then if Laurie is told that the left-brain right-brain theory is wrong, he'd change his mind. It's not being wrong about reality that makes one a woo-woo -- it's ignoring reality, which he obviously isn't doing.

[Skeptic]

However, I think most herbalists would argue that they are less likely to face conditions of that nature than those who rely on modern medicine

Sorry, there isn't the slightest evidence for that.

[Skeptic]

One wonders why believe in naturopathy over science-based medicine has not been cast off through natural selection by now. I guess it will take several dozen (or hundred?) more generations.

Simpler answer: when they're seriously ill, 99% do go to regular doctors and get conventional medical treatment. The 1% who thinks natural herbs will cure their cancer, or that praying will stop that nasty TB, do, indeed, die painfully. All these "natural cures" only "work" on generally healthy people who have self-limiting conditions (e.g., the common cold, etc.) -- which means they're no cures at all, naturally.

Of course, once those 99% survive the radical masectomy (now necessary because they tried to treat their breast cancer with "natural herbs" before seeing a real doctor), they claim that it wasn't really needed, that they were just about to be cured with their herbal medicines anyway, that they're sorry they ever went to see a doctor, and all that modern science knows how to do is to slash, burn, and disfigure.

[Lonewulf]

Simpler answer: when they're seriously ill, 99% do go to regular doctors and get conventional medical treatment. The 1% who thinks natural herbs will cure their cancer, or that praying will stop that nasty TB, do, indeed, die painfully. All these "natural cures" only "work" on generally healthy people who have self-limiting conditions (e.g., the common cold, etc.) -- which means they're no cures at all, naturally.

Of course, once those 99% survive the radical masectomy (now necessary because they tried to treat their breast cancer with "natural herbs" before seeing a real doctor), they claim that it wasn't really needed, that they were just about to be cured with their herbal medicines anyway, that they're sorry they ever went to see a doctor, and all that modern science knows how to do is to slash, burn, and disfigure.

I have a solution: Stop treating them with medicine. Have every patient that come in fill out a very short survey, asking if they believe Homeopathy "works" and that modern medicine doesn't, and if they say that it doesn't work, then turn them away for more deserving patients. If they lie and are caught spreading that weed of misinformation, then hike up the rates next time they come in for medicine; if they're going to work to take business from real doctors *anyways*...

[Big Les]

I've never seen those shows and, in fact, hardly know that they exist but I'll paraphrase Christopher Guest, who observed that American comedy consists of idiots playing even bigger idiots (or generally smart people dumbing themselves down to the level of morons) and British humor consists of very intelligent people playing idiots. "Silliness framed in intelligence" is how he put it.

Just an aside but I find it odd that someone as wealthy, famous, talented, attractive and intelligent as Laurie describes himself as shy. Withdrawn, I could see. Introverted, yes. That he is shy, though, is startling.

For me, having grown up with his other shows, it's no surprise at all. I think you would have got the same impression had you seen him playing a catalogue of buffoons, weirdos, and awkward toffs. Many British comedians over the years seem to be this way, the ones that aren't outright clinically depressed or bipolar (like his partner Stephen Fry). Eddie Izzard is another shy person who is able to perform on stage etc;

http://www.transgenderzone.com/features/izzard.htm

[fls]

In any event, do you have evidence -- such as a controlled study -- that modern medicine promotes greater longevity than ancient medicine?

Yes, from both directions. Every trial or all-or-none observation or epidemiologic study that shows improved survival for a therapy or preventive measure or avoidance of a harmful exposure, compared to what came before, provides evidence that modern medicine promotes longevity. You have already been shown evidence from the other direction - longevity increases as the products of modern medicine accumulate.

Linda

[Baby Nemesis]

And what, exactly, was it that motivated the dramatic improvement in modern sanitation? Oh, that's right, it was modern medicine and the germ theory of disease! Imagine that.

Wrong. Oh no it wasn't. Certainly not to a large extent. Here's a tragicomic little anecdote for you:

... In the hot summer of 1858, the stench from the Thames was so bad that Members of Parliament fled from the rooms adjacent to the river and Benjamin Disraeli rushed from the debating chamber, handkerchief to nose. The press called the crisis The Great Stink. Disraeli introduced to Parliament a Bill which gave Bazalgette the authority to construct the intercepting sewers which he had designed but which had been held up by government bureaucrats. The Great Stink
concentrated MPs' minds wonderfully. The Bill passed into law within sixteen days and Bazalgette began work immediately.

Oh yes, when politicians become scared, that's when things start to happen, germ theory or not. The theory hadn't been popularised then. People still thought disease was caused by vapours caused by stench in the air. Some background to my quote, and info on one of my heroes:

In 1892 cholera struck Hamburg, killing 8,605 people. The British government was alarmed. Four earlier cholera epidemics had killed forty thousand Londoners and on each occasion the disease had been brought to the city by passengers arriving from foreign ports. ... The epidemic never happened because of the work of Sir Joseph Bazalgette (1819-91). Bazalgette was one of the greatest of Victorian engineers who, between 1856 and 1889, built more of London than anyone else before or since in his role as Chief Engineer to the Metropolitan Board of Works. The sewers, pumping
stations and treatment works that he built are still keeping the capital clean. Before Bazalgette's time London's sewage flowed into the Thames from which it leaked into adjacent springs, wells and other sources of drinking water: hence the cholera epidemics. ...
http://bucks.ac.uk/halliday/greatstink.htm

Another thing that got politicians going to improve living standards that so greatly enhanced public health was .. believe it or not, the Boer War. Oh yes. When politicians realised that many many people who volunteered to go had to be turned away because they were too unfit, they realised some good social care legislation would have to be introduced to improve living standards, ... in case there was another, bigger war, and they'd need more fighting men. So they did some big research projects and started to introduce national welfare schemes. See a book called War Is Good for Babies and Other Young Children: A History of the Infant and Child Welfare Movement in England 1898-1918 by Deborah Dwork.

[Baby Nemesis]

Then those sCAM herbalists are hypocrites. This is the thing that really disgusts me about sCAM - they can operate quite well in the margins, pushing their pseudoscience, but only because they can ride the coat-tails of real science-based medicine. They can claim "success" in many cases because many people get better due to the better standard of living afforded by actual medical science & technology.

When push comes to shove, and your kid is bleeding out of his/her eyes, even these woo-ish sCAMers own up to reality and go with the real thing. Gee whiz, what happened to all the miracle claims about your herbs, eh? :rolleyes:

Sometimes I think what we need to truly put these sCAMers in their place is some kind of awful plague to hit us hard. Something that is so nasty that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you'd better damn well get it taken care of with real science-based medicine or you're dead meat.
Wow, you'd want to sacrifice thousands or millions of lives to prove that modern medicine will ultimately win out over herbal treatments. Kind of counter-productive? Wouldn't you say it's a far less drastic and painful solution to simply point to the plagues of the past where herbal remedies were being sold and yet still thousands of people died? :-7

I once read a book by a doctor living around 100 years ago, who said he'd encountered followers of the "Christian Science" cult. He was upset because some let their children suffer after they'd had accidents or become ill, rather than seeking medical attention for them, such as it was in those days. But some parents would say to him, "Please take our child to the hospital and don't take our beliefs into account".

[MattusMaximus]

Wow, you'd want to sacrifice thousands or millions of lives to prove that modern medicine will ultimately win out over herbal treatments. Kind of counter-productive? Wouldn't you say it's a far less drastic and painful solution to simply point to the plagues of the past where herbal remedies were being sold and yet still thousands of people died? :-7

It's called venting and sarcasm. Try looking them up sometime.

[Skeptic Guy]

That is about right for recorded history though. the difference between loons and science is not so much in the historic era but the prehistoric era. It is not history unless it is written down at the time.

In fact in say the north america there are only about 500 years of recorded history.

To be fair (and I hate doing this), there is not a great deal of *recorded* history much older than that. Cuneiform from the end of the 4th millenium BCE, some Chinese stuff quite a bit older, but not much.

But I get your point :p

You know, when I first typed this, I thought to my self, "Self, are you sure that recorded history went much before 5,000 years?" I answered said self, "Sure, there were many civilizations with wrtining, art, and 'stuff'." This is the last time I listen to "self".

But you get what I mean about Mr. Huckabee.

[Rodney]

Yes, from both directions. Every trial or all-or-none observation or epidemiologic study that shows improved survival for a therapy or preventive measure or avoidance of a harmful exposure, compared to what came before, provides evidence that modern medicine promotes longevity. You have already been shown evidence from the other direction - longevity increases as the products of modern medicine accumulate.

Linda
I will concede that, relative to alternative treatments being used in developed countries in the first half of the 20th Century, modern medicine has improved longevity (although by a far lesser amount than some folks here seem to think.) However, I don't believe that many people in developed countries were using ancient medicine until the last generation or so (although I admit that depends on exactly what the term "ancient medicine" encompasses). Further, I believe that it can be misleading to look only at short-term results, such as the use of antibiotics versus herbal treatments for bacterial infections. Finally, it may be that modern medicine is better for certain illnesses, but that ancient medicine -- at least the best of ancient medicine -- is better for other illnesses. So, I'm still uncertain as to how much, if any, modern medicine increases longevity relative to ancient medicine.

[paximperium]

I will concede that, relative to alternative treatments being used in developed countries in the first half of the 20th Century, modern medicine has improved longevity (although by a far lesser amount than some folks here seem to think.)
Which continues to be your fallacious backdoor escape claim. Can't show evidence for something, you give a "moderate" positional claim and expect people to somehow just accept it.

No. Your claim is false. Modern medicine has significantly improved longevity ESPECIALLY when it comes to infant and perinatal mortality.

Why don't you compare the life expectancy of wonderful hygienic ancient Rome to the modern age? Roman life expectancy was around 25 due to high infant mortality but rises to the 50s once you control for the infant death rates. 50years Vs. 70+years


However, I don't believe that many people in developed countries were using ancient medicine until the last generation or so (although I admit that depends on exactly what the term "ancient medicine" encompasses). Exactly. Using this ill defined wishy-washy term allows woo-mongerers to always move the goalpost. "Oh, it wasn't REAL ancient medicine."

Further, I believe that it can be misleading to look only at short-term results, such as the use of antibiotics versus herbal treatments for bacterial infections.
No. It is completely fair to look at things that work Vs. things that do not.

Finally, it may be that modern medicine is better for certain illnesses, but that ancient medicine -- at least the best of ancient medicine -- is better for other illnesses.
Such as?
Can you even name one "ancient medicine" treatment that is superior to modern medicine. Anything at all.

So, I'm still uncertain as to how much, if any, modern medicine increases longevity relative to ancient medicine.
A lot.

[grunion]

I will concede that, relative to alternative treatments being used in developed countries in the first half of the 20th Century, modern medicine has improved longevity (although by a far lesser amount than some folks here seem to think.) However, I don't believe that many people in developed countries were using ancient medicine until the last generation or so (although I admit that depends on exactly what the term "ancient medicine" encompasses). Further, I believe that it can be misleading to look only at short-term results, such as the use of antibiotics versus herbal treatments for bacterial infections. Finally, it may be that modern medicine is better for certain illnesses, but that ancient medicine -- at least the best of ancient medicine -- is better for other illnesses. So, I'm still uncertain as to how much, if any, modern medicine increases longevity relative to ancient medicine.Can you name a disease that is better cured by "traditional" (or "ancient" or "alternative" or any other non-science based moniker you may wish to apply) medicines than by medicines that have been verified by clinical trials? And can you provide the evidence that the "natural" medicine is more effective than the science-based one?

[Rodney]

Can you name a disease that is better cured by "traditional" (or "ancient" or "alternative" or any other non-science based moniker you may wish to apply) medicines than by medicines that have been verified by clinical trials? And can you provide the evidence that the "natural" medicine is more effective than the science-based one?
A study published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that children who received a single dose of buckwheat honey 30 minutes before bedtime slept better and coughed less than those who received honey-flavored dextromethorphan or no treatment at all. See http://www.pharmacist.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=17992&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm

[Jimbo07]

Wrong. Oh no it wasn't. Certainly not to a large extent... Oh yes, when politicians become scared, that's when things start to happen, germ theory or not... The theory hadn't been popularised then. People still thought disease was caused by vapours caused by stench in the air. Some background to my quote, and info on one of my heroes:


http://bucks.ac.uk/halliday/greatstink.htm

Another thing that got politicians going to improve living standards that so greatly enhanced public health was .. believe it or not, the Boer War. Oh yes.

Ummm... the London sewers were actually a seminal case in acceptance of the germ theory of disease.


One of the major contributions to fighting cholera was made by physician and self-trained scientist John Snow (1813-1858), who found the link between cholera and contaminated drinking water in 1854.[29] In addition, Henry Whitehead, an Anglican minister, helped Snow track down and verify the source of the disease, which turned out to be an infected well in London. Their conclusions were widely distributed and firmly established for the first time a definite link between germs and disease.


Medical opinion at the time held that cholera was caused by foul air: a so-called miasma. Dr John Snow had earlier advanced a different explanation, which we now know to be correct: cholera was spread by contaminated water. His view was not generally accepted.

Championed by fellow engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Bazalgette was appointed chief engineer of the Commission's successor, the Metropolitan Board of Works, in 1856 (a post he retained until the MBW was abolished and replaced by the London County Council in 1889). In 1858, the year of the Great Stink, Parliament passed an enabling act, in spite of the colossal expense of the project, and Bazalgette's proposals to revolutionise London's sewerage system began to be implemented. The expectation was that enclosed sewers would eliminate the stink ('miasma'), and this then reduced the incidence of cholera.


So luchog said motivated... motivated? No. but the germ theory of disease and the sanitation of the time were in lockstep...

Since both homeopathy and modern medicine began to take form in the 19th c. I wouldn't spend too much time calling 19th c. medicine "modern." ;)

[paximperium]

A study published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that children who received a single dose of buckwheat honey 30 minutes before bedtime slept better and coughed less than those who received honey-flavored dextromethorphan or no treatment at all. See http://www.pharmacist.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=17992&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm
Honey for cough is ancient medicine? A folk remedy perhaps but then "ancient medicine" continues to be whishy-washy term.

Dextromethrophan does not work in cough for children period.
You are comparing something against something that has been shown in prior studies to not work any better than placebo.

But welcome to modern medicine. Now honey can be used since we now have evidence for it. We also recommend cranberry juice for urine infections, niacin and fish oil for high triglycerides and many other so called "alternative" therapies.

How about you actually show something that has to do with your claim. You know, longevity?

[soylent]

[Milton Berle]75 years in Denmark? You call that living?[/Milton Berle]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113093726.htm

[grunion]

A study published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that children who received a single dose of buckwheat honey 30 minutes before bedtime slept better and coughed less than those who received honey-flavored dextromethorphan or no treatment at all. See http://www.pharmacist.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=17992&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfmDextromethorphan has been discredited as a cough suppresant in other studies, and its use is widely discouraged by the scientific community in children under age 12. The side effects, in many cases, seem to be more significant than the actual efficacy of the drug.

Honey does indeed give some symptomatic relief for sore throats and possibly coughs, but i would hardly call it a "natural medicine." Ice cream is also damn good for people feeling a bit warm, and water an excellent remedy for thirst. But are these "diseases"? Also there is some danger in widely administering honey to children less than 18 months old, apparently due to the possibility of active botulin spores.

[paximperium]

Dextromethorphan has been discredited as a cough suppresant in other studies, and its use is widely discouraged by the scientific community in children under age 12. The side effects, in many cases, seem to be more significant than the actual efficacy of the drug.

Honey does indeed give some symptomatic relief for sore throats and possibly coughs, but i would hardly call it a "natural medicine." Ice cream is also damn good for people feeling a bit warm, and water an excellent remedy for thirst. But are these "diseases"? Also there is some danger in widely administering honey to children less than 18 months old, apparently due to the possibility of active botulin spores.
What many alternative medicine proponents seem to believe is that modern medicine will ignore "ancient" medicine just because of some underlying dogma(or the evil pharmaceuticals).

No. Medicine has no ego. We will use anything that works and I have no shame in claiming the use of "alternative" medicine for modern practice IF IT WORKS. But that is the issue, it often doesn't

[Baby Nemesis]

Ummm... the London sewers were actually a seminal case in acceptance of the germ theory of disease.

They may have helped to prove it. But yes, Luchog said, "And what, exactly, was it that motivated the dramatic improvement in modern sanitation?"

Certainly the dramatic improvement in London's sanitation was motivated by the fears of politicians that the stench of the Thames was going to kill them, not the germ theory. It may be that in other cities later on, the germ theory having been well proven, that was what did motivate improvements.

Sadly, I think Dr. John Snow died before his findings were generally accepted.

Since both homeopathy and modern medicine began to take form in the 19th c. I wouldn't spend too much time calling 19th c. medicine "modern."

Um, who's doing that? I'm not sure what your point is there. I was just saying that improvements in social policy had a more dramatic effect on life expectancy than direct medical advancement, ... though of course advances in medical knowledge have helped a lot.

[pgwenthold]

As I like to say, what do doctors call "alternatives" medicines that work? Medicine.

I have just gotten into this a little bit. As I have mentioned, I have been hanging out on-line with a lot of pregnant moms (btw, we just had our baby boy, Gregory Thomas on 11/20). Many are about due now. There have been some complaining about doctors inducing them. I tend to stay away from such discussions, but I was waiting for the complaint I knew was coming: "It's not natural."

I went off, talking about how Mother Nature is not compassionate, and how infant and mother mortality rates were much, much higher 100 years ago when deliveries were mostly "natural."

Another objection is that there "is no medical reason to do so." I said, there is. Your baby is alive today, and may not be tomorrow. So inducing now means you don't have to take the risk you get by waiting to tomorrow. If the baby is full term, and the body is ripe, then inducing is absolutely medically warranted (in fact, there is no reason to even wait a week after full term - all that happens in that week is that the baby grows another 1/2 lb making delivery even more difficult; waiting a week made more sense in days before detailed imaging allowed doctors to accurately determine full gestation time - nowadays, with early (8 wk) ultrasound it is possible to get a very accurate conception date, from which it 40 weeks can be calculated; in the old days, when doctors were guessing based on the last period, the full term assignment was far less accurate and so they were better off waiting, to be on the safe side)

[MattusMaximus]

I will concede that, relative to alternative treatments being used in developed countries in the first half of the 20th Century, modern medicine has improved longevity (although by a far lesser amount than some folks here seem to think.) However, I don't believe that many people in developed countries were using ancient medicine until the last generation or so (although I admit that depends on exactly what the term "ancient medicine" encompasses). Further, I believe that it can be misleading to look only at short-term results, such as the use of antibiotics versus herbal treatments for bacterial infections. Finally, it may be that modern medicine is better for certain illnesses, but that ancient medicine -- at least the best of ancient medicine -- is better for other illnesses. So, I'm still uncertain as to how much, if any, modern medicine increases longevity relative to ancient medicine.

Rodney, I'm having a hard time seeing you down field when you run off with the goalposts like that :rolleyes:

[Rodney]

Honey for cough is ancient medicine? A folk remedy perhaps but then "ancient medicine" continues to be whishy-washy term.

Dextromethrophan does not work in cough for children period.
You are comparing something against something that has been shown in prior studies to not work any better than placebo.

But welcome to modern medicine. Now honey can be used since we now have evidence for it. We also recommend cranberry juice for urine infections, niacin and fish oil for high triglycerides and many other so called "alternative" therapies.
You're helping me make my point. The FDA approved dextromethorphan for over-the-counter sale as a cough suppressant in 1958, but now its efficacy is questioned. On the other hand, honey and other folk remedies that were once dismissed are now taken seriously. I do agree with you that modern medicine has to be given some credit here.

How about you actually show something that has to do with your claim. You know, longevity?
The burden's not on me. You, CFLarsen, and others are the ones who think modern medicine has dramatically improved longevity. I'm skeptical as to what that impact is, although I do agree that we've made improvements from a century ago.

[paximperium]

You're helping me make my point. The FDA approved dextromethorphan for over-the-counter sale as a cough suppressant in 1958, but now its efficacy is questioned.
What point is that? That DXM is not effective? That medicine as a science depends on evidence and is self correcting?
Please do tell what's your point?

On the other hand, honey and other folk remedies that were once dismissed are now taken seriously. I do agree with you that modern medicine has to be given some credit here.
Since when was honey for cough dismissed?


The burden's not on me. You, CFLarsen, and others are the ones who think modern medicine has dramatically improved longevity. I'm skeptical as to what that impact is, although I do agree that we've made improvements from a century ago.
No. YOU are the one claiming that alternative meds have some effect on longevity.

I have provided a nice graph showing that life expectancy has risen and there is overwhelming data showing that infant mortality has decreased, due to modern medicine. Are you going to claim that "hygiene" somehow increased life expectancy from the 1970s from the mid 60s to the mid 70s by the 2000.

[plumjam]

In 1900 Denmark, the average life expectancy was around 47 years.

Today, in 2008, it is just over 75 for men and just over 80 for women.

"Ancient medicine?" No thanks, I'd rather live.

Anyone got a time-machine handy?

[Rodney]

What point is that? That DXM is not effective? That medicine as a science depends on evidence and is self correcting?
Please do tell what's your point?
The point is that most medical doctors have been biased against ancient medicine and folk remedies although, happily, that has begun to change.

Since when was honey for cough dismissed?
Why was DXM, rather than honey, used in so many cough medicines? As the lead author of the recent study stated: "Many families are going to relate to these findings and say that grandma was right." See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/12/03/honey.for.cough.ap/index.html

No. YOU are the one claiming that alternative meds have some effect on longevity.
No, I simply asked: "Do you have evidence that someone living in sanitary conditions will live longer by taking modern medicine than s/he will by taking ancient medicine?"

I have provided a nice graph showing that life expectancy has risen and there is overwhelming data showing that infant mortality has decreased, due to modern medicine. Are you going to claim that "hygiene" somehow increased life expectancy from the 1970s from the mid 60s to the mid 70s by the 2000.
Not entirely, but the increase isn't that dramatic. According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html, life expectancy in the U.S. was 72 in 1974 and 77.9 in 2004.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

For me, having grown up with his other shows, it's no surprise at all. I think you would have got the same impression had you seen him playing a catalogue of buffoons, weirdos, and awkward toffs. Many British comedians over the years seem to be this way, the ones that aren't outright clinically depressed or bipolar (like his partner Stephen Fry). Eddie Izzard is another shy person who is able to perform on stage etc;

http://www.transgenderzone.com/features/izzard.htm

Hugh Laurie has also said that he has severe clinical depression. He says he still experiences it occassionally and still receives treatment for it. That I can completely and totally see. I don't know why but that seems to fit him like a glove.

It's strange that a person who is shy would go into comedy or acting. I know quite a few actors and, with exceptions, they are generally quite assertive, confident and abrasive. The types that were either the popular kids in high school or the "cool nerds".

[MattusMaximus]

Anyone got a time-machine handy?

I do, but it's stuck in only one gear - reverse doesn't work ;)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

In 1796 Jenner took the fluid from a cowpox pustule on a dairymaid's hand and inoculated an 8-year-old boy. Under 200 years later:

The last naturally occurring case of smallpox occurred in Somalia in 1977. In 1980, due to aggressive vaccination campaigns, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that smallpox had been eliminated from the world as a natural disease threat.

[Baby Nemesis]

A great success story.

They've tried to wipe out polio worldwide, but they're failing to eliminate it entirely. Some people are suspicious of the vaccine. See, for example:

Polio cases jump in Pakistan as clerics declare vaccination an American plot (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/15/pakistan.topstories3)

The parents of 24,000 children in northern Pakistan refused to allow health workers to administer polio vaccinations last month, mostly due to rumours that the harmless vaccine was an American plot to sterilise innocent Muslim children.

The disinformation - spread by extremist clerics using mosque loudspeakers and illegal radio stations, and by word of mouth - has caused a sharp jump in polio cases in Pakistan and hit global efforts to eradicate the debilitating disease. ...

The scaremongering and appeals to Islam echoed a similar campaign in the Nigerian state of Kano in 2003, where the disease then spread to 12 polio-free countries over the following 18 months. Pakistan is one of just four countries where polio remains endemic. The others are Nigeria, India and Afghanistan. ...

[paximperium]

The point is that most medical doctors have been biased against ancient medicine and folk remedies although, happily, that has begun to change.
Happily? Why? Does it satiate your dogma that something worthless is getting popular?

It is actually an extremely bad situation. Doctors should be biased against useless treatments and the unfortunate fact that more are accepting "alternative" crap is detrimental to patient care and a total waste of time and resources.


Why was DXM, rather than honey, used in so many cough medicines?Because detromethorphan was FDA approved for adults where is actually does work and no one bothered to study its affects in kids until recently.


As the lead author of the recent study stated: "Many families are going to relate to these findings and say that grandma was right." See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/12/03/honey.for.cough.ap/index.html
So? Grandma was also senile and wrong about many things as well. Guess what? We know she was right because of science and research. We don't accept claims based purely on tradition or just because grandma said so.

Lives are at stake. Woo-mongering dogma are a risk to the lives of patients.

No, I simply asked: "Do you have evidence that someone living in sanitary conditions will live longer by taking modern medicine than s/he will by taking ancient medicine?" Ancient Rome Vs. Modern America.
Every study that shows that medicine works is one such evidence.
Now, do you have any of your own?


Not entirely, but the increase isn't that dramatic. According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html, life expectancy in the U.S. was 72 in 1974 and 77.9 in 2004.Wow. So what is "dramatic"? Moving the goal post much?

5 years increase in life expectancy in a population of hundreds of millions isn't "dramatic"? Yeah right.

[EvilSmurf]

Also when "folk remedies" and such are proven to be effective, they're no longer called "Alternative Medicine". Things like Foxglove and Willow Bark - that is, the "folk remedies" which were proven to have effectiveness - are now called "Medicine".

[CFLarsen]

Why would anyone go back to the time where people's average life expectancy was around 47 years?

[Skeptic Guy]

Can you name a disease that is better cured by "traditional" (or "ancient" or "alternative" or any other non-science based moniker you may wish to apply) medicines than by medicines that have been verified by clinical trials? And can you provide the evidence that the "natural" medicine is more effective than the science-based one?

A study published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that children who received a single dose of buckwheat honey 30 minutes before bedtime slept better and coughed less than those who received honey-flavored dextromethorphan or no treatment at all. See http://www.pharmacist.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=17992&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm

I copied grunion's post just to be sure that we are on the same page. What was asked for was an example of a disease that is better cured by traditional/alternative/ancient medicine than modern/"Western" medicine. I don't think a cough counts.

[luchog]

Do you have evidence that someone living in sanitary conditions will live longer by taking modern medicine than s/he will by taking ancient medicine? If so, let's hear it.

I just did, weren't you paying attention? You quoted it.

Think of every advance in health and longevity for the past 150 years. All of that came about through modern, scientific medicine and the germ theory of disease. "Ancient" medicine was almost exclusively based on religious beliefs and practices, with very little basis in empirical study.

As for specific examples, let's see... insulin-dependent diabetes comes immediately to mind. A genetic disorder with no effective treatment prior to this century; an early and painful death was guaranteed under "ancient" medicine. "Ancient" medicine also treated many physical and mental disorders, such as Epilepsy, Migraine, certain parasite infections, and other disorders that cause chronic pain, seizures, hallucinations, etc. as "demon" or "spirit" possession. Even when they weren't, treatments were typically drastic, involving ingestion highly toxic substances (including heavy metals), bloodletting, physical torture, and even trepanning. While some of these disorders are not fatal in and of themselves, "ancient" medical treatments for them often were. And for those that were potentially fatal, it was a race to see whether the disorder or the treatment would kill the patient first.

Then there's modern surgery, which has kept many people alive through injuries that would have been irreperable and fatal less than 200 years ago, let alone into "ancient" times.

And of course, the epitome of modern medicine, antibiotics and immunization. Under "ancient medicine", millions of people died of smallpox, pneumonic plague, typhoid fever, malaria, and numerous other diseases that have been effectively eliminated anywhere that modern scientific medicine is dominant. Previously common diseases like measles, mumps, pertussis, and others caused brain damage, chronic physical disorders, and death; which "ancient" medicine did nothing to remedy, but scientific medicine has almost eliminated (except for a few nutjob anti-vaxxers).

And then there's cancer, many forms of which are treatable now, thanks to scientific study; which had no effective treatment under "ancient" medicine, and invariably resulted in a quick and painful death once it manifested.

On top of that, nearly all the "lifestyle" changes which have greatly improved lifespans have resulted from medical research determining the effects of diet, drug use, exercise, stress, and many other lifestyle issues.

It takes a truly profound ignorance to deny the effects of scientific medicine, and it's vast superiority over numerous ancient traditions.

[luchog]

One wonders why believe in naturopathy over science-based medicine has not been cast off through natural selection by now. I guess it will take several dozen (or hundred?) more generations.

Because believers in naturopathy are also beneficiaries of the scientific medicine that they deride, and therefore live long enough to reproduce and pass on their anti-science memes.

[luchog]

Oh yes, when politicians become scared, that's when things start to happen, germ theory or not. The theory hadn't been popularised then. People still thought disease was caused by vapours caused by stench in the air.

Except, of course, that the "miasma" belief had already been repudiated by that point, and germ theory supported; as demonstrated by Dr. John Snow's work several years earlier. Likewise, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis's work with sanitation and infant mortality predated these events by around a decade. Both of them made cases for improved santitation, but were soundly ignored by the political infrastructure until the problem became acute.

Bazalgette did not work in a vacuum, and the results on the cholera epidemic were at least as much coincidental as they were designed. Despite that, disease resulting from poor sanitation continued to run rampant throughout London, and Europe, for some time afterwards; due to the lack of systemic knowledge of the cause of disease, and the relation of sanitation to it's spread. The approval was a classic case of mistaking correlation for causation based on extremely limited empirical observation, and which was effective almost entirely by accident. Similar mistaken associations have had considerably less effect.

What improvements in santitation were made were small, highly specific to and not nearly as effective as you appear to want to claim until they were systemized, and the basis was adequately demonstrated and applied to all industries and lifestyles; and the effect on disease prevention, infant mortality, foodborne illness, etc. did not create a significant impact until well into the early 20th century. It wasn't until the Inter-War Period that dramatic improvements in infant mortality, longevity, and disease prevention were seen.

[luchog]

So? Grandma was also senile and wrong about many things as well. Guess what? We know she was right because of science and research. We don't accept claims based purely on tradition or just because grandma said so.

I know from personal experience, and to the severe detriment of my own health, that "grandma" is usually very wrong. Unfortunately for me, my parents didn't learn that lesson.

[Rodney]

I just did, weren't you paying attention? You quoted it.

Think of every advance in health and longevity for the past 150 years. All of that came about through modern, scientific medicine and the germ theory of disease. "Ancient" medicine was almost exclusively based on religious beliefs and practices, with very little basis in empirical study.
What about acupuncture and herbal treatments?

As for specific examples, let's see... insulin-dependent diabetes comes immediately to mind. A genetic disorder with no effective treatment prior to this century; an early and painful death was guaranteed under "ancient" medicine. "Ancient" medicine also treated many physical and mental disorders, such as Epilepsy, Migraine, certain parasite infections, and other disorders that cause chronic pain, seizures, hallucinations, etc. as "demon" or "spirit" possession. Even when they weren't, treatments were typically drastic, involving ingestion highly toxic substances (including heavy metals), bloodletting, physical torture, and even trepanning. While some of these disorders are not fatal in and of themselves, "ancient" medical treatments for them often were. And for those that were potentially fatal, it was a race to see whether the disorder or the treatment would kill the patient first.
I don't agree with your definition of ancient medicine -- I'm talking about techniques that were used thousands of years ago and that are still being used today.

Then there's modern surgery, which has kept many people alive through injuries that would have been irreperable and fatal less than 200 years ago, let alone into "ancient" times.
I'll give you that one.

And of course, the epitome of modern medicine, antibiotics and immunization. Under "ancient medicine", millions of people died of smallpox, pneumonic plague, typhoid fever, malaria, and numerous other diseases that have been effectively eliminated anywhere that modern scientific medicine is dominant. Previously common diseases like measles, mumps, pertussis, and others caused brain damage, chronic physical disorders, and death; which "ancient" medicine did nothing to remedy, but scientific medicine has almost eliminated (except for a few nutjob anti-vaxxers).
Things are murkier here. Again, improved sanitation has made a huge difference, but disease still kills millions worldwide.

And then there's cancer, many forms of which are treatable now, thanks to scientific study; which had no effective treatment under "ancient" medicine, and invariably resulted in a quick and painful death once it manifested.
Now you're largely ignoring reality. President Nixon declared a "War on Cancer" in 1971 and here we are, 37 years and billions of dollars later, with cancer still rampant. The lack of progress should embarrass the medical profession, but apparently it doesn't. Instead, Lance Armstrong is trotted out repeatedly, as if he's representative of the progress that's been made.

On top of that, nearly all the "lifestyle" changes which have greatly improved lifespans have resulted from medical research determining the effects of diet, drug use, exercise, stress, and many other lifestyle issues.
Alternative medicine proponents started talking about these things long before most MDs did.

It takes a truly profound ignorance to deny the effects of scientific medicine, and it's vast superiority over numerous ancient traditions.
I'm not denying that there have been benefits of modern medicine, but I'm still not sure how much it has improved longevity over the best of ancient medicine.

[paximperium]

What about acupuncture and herbal treatments?

Acupuncture is based on superstitious misunderstanding of the human physiology. There is no chi.
Modern Herbal remedies are commonly based on nothing but tradition and woo energy. If an herb works, it would be refined and be made a medicine.

I don't agree with your definition of ancient medicine -- I'm talking about techniques that were used thousands of years ago and that are still being used today.So treatments that are just being used because they are old?
Such as coining in Vietnamese culture? Cupping in Chinese culture?
Wrapping an umbilical cord in feces in certain African cultures?
Voodoo? Faith healing?
What is YOUR definition of "ancient" medicine?


Things are murkier here. Again, improved sanitation has made a huge difference, but disease still kills millions worldwide.So? Disease kills millions worldwide because they lack modern medicine.


Now you're largely ignoring reality. President Nixon declared a "War on Cancer" in 1971 and here we are, 37 years and billions of dollars later, with cancer still rampant. The lack of progress should embarrass the medical profession, but apparently it doesn't. Instead, Lance Armstrong is trotted out repeatedly, as if he's representative of the progress that's been made.
That's hilarious. Such a big strawman you there. It shows your complete and lack of understanding of cancer. Cancer is not one disease. It is multiple diseases. The progress in cancer treatment is astoundingly good.

We have have made great strides in several types of leukemias such as CML. Breast cancer mortality has dropped significantly. Due to new screening and treatments colon cancer is also dropping like a rock. We have a lot of work to do especially with lung cancer and several other near incurable cancers but your ignorance does not mean there is no progress. Lance Armstrong is a great example of the success of modern cancer treatments.
http://www.medscape.com/content/2004/00/48/73/487387/art-cc487387.fig6.gif
Breast Cancer

http://crchd.cancer.gov/images/statistics/crchd-colon-mortality.jpg
http://www.leukaemia.org/files/u1/incidence.gif
Childhood Leukemias

Alternative medicine proponents started talking about these things long before most MDs did. Garbage. Do you think that doctors actually opposed exercise and fresh air in the past? Doctors did the work to show what sort of lifestyle changes mattered. Woo-mongerers just claimed credit for everything they got right and happily ignored things that they were completely wrong about.

Being shown to be correct with no justification and no evidence doesn't mean the woo-mongerer was right, just lucky.


I'm not denying that there have been benefits of modern medicine, but I'm still not sure how much it has improved longevity over the best of ancient medicine.Name the best of ancient medicine that actually prolongs lives.
Name one ancient medicine treatment that does anything for cancer, heart attacks or any significant disease at all.

[jmcvann]

Love Hugh Laurie. Amazingly talented, very handsome and one of the few people I can think of that instantly exudes intelligence.

Here's another clip well worth seeing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nfbn_z8xxJ8

I have a problem with Randi at the very beginning of this clip.

Horoscope guy (to Randi): Would you say that Canadians and Americans have different characteristics from each other?

Randi: Yes, they do.

REALLY? Would someone here like to name one? Please list any trait that is exclusively Canadian or American. I'm dying to know how I can spot those hosers from afar, or at least early on in a conversation.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I have a problem with Randi at the very beginning of this clip.

Horoscope guy (to Randi): Would you say that Canadians and Americans have different characteristics from each other?

Randi: Yes, they do.

REALLY? Would someone here like to name one? Please list any trait that is exclusively Canadian or American. I'm dying to know how I can spot those hosers from afar, or at least early on in a conversation.


Hmm...I'd say that Canadians are perhaps a little more modest and discreet than Americans? A little more polite?

Nah, that's not really true.

There are differences in culture, absolutely. In personality and personal characteristics, though, I can't think of a single thing.

[Madalch]

REALLY? Would someone here like to name one? Please list any trait that is exclusively Canadian or American. I'm dying to know how I can spot those hosers from afar, or at least early on in a conversation.
Americans don't get offended if you call them Americans.

[Miss_Kitt]

Me too, he's my hero and also I would consider marriage. With him, not you, I mean. Sorry. But if I ever meet him I will point out the error and he will thank me, and then perhaps proposition me.

But, Teek, consider: He smokes!! Yes, Hugh is brilliant, charming, witty, not excessively nice, has gorgeous eyes, plays the sexiest character in TV history (at least, for the first couple of seasons) and plays piano wonderfully. But he smokes cigarettes...he'd taste like an ashtray.

So you'd be better off leaving him for me to proposition! ;)

Actually, he is happily married and has a teenaged daughter who thinks it is hilarious that Dad is considered sexy in the US.

BTW, I echo whomever said he exudes intelligence. It's possible for an actor to play dumber than he is; but you can only play, oh, call it 10% smarter than you are. This is why usually I can't watch medical shows or forensics-type programs: I find the actors/actresses totally unbelievable. A lot of what makes the character of Greg House believable is that Hugh really is quite intelligent and quite educated, so a lot of House's oddball interests and abilities were added to the character BECAUSE Hugh could already do them.

Now, if they'd just do something about improving the quality of the scripts again...

Regards, MK

[qwints]

Name the best of ancient medicine that actually prolongs lives.
Name one ancient medicine treatment that does anything for cancer, heart attacks or any significant disease at all.

Quinine comes to mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinchona

Cranberry as a treatment for UTI's
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18253990

St. John's Wort for depression
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000448.htmlhttp://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000448.html

All of these were traditional remedies that have been found to be effective. BUT THAT'S THE POINT - scientific studies have found them to be effective and doctors now recommend them. Traditional remedies/ ancient practices are a great place to start looking for medical treatments, but the longevity of a practice is unlikely to be correlated with its efficacy given the prevalence of the placebo effect.

[zooterkin]

That's hilarious. Such a big strawman you there. It shows your complete and lack of understanding of cancer. Cancer is not one disease. It is multiple diseases. The progress in cancer treatment is astoundingly good.


Indeed; another example, schoolgirls in the UK are being vaccinated against HPV, which causes 70% of cervical cancers. What are the figures for the effectiveness of 'traditional' medicine?

[pgwenthold]

Quinine comes to mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinchona

Cranberry as a treatment for UTI's
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18253990

St. John's Wort for depression
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000448.htmlhttp://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000448.html

All of these were traditional remedies that have been found to be effective. BUT THAT'S THE POINT - scientific studies have found them to be effective and doctors now recommend them. Traditional remedies/ ancient practices are a great place to start looking for medical treatments, but the longevity of a practice is unlikely to be correlated with its efficacy given the prevalence of the placebo effect.


And while Cranberry Juice and St John's Wort are "effective," there are far better treatments available. However, they are more expensive and have other drawbacks (too many antibiotics leads to problems, of course), and so use these things that are not as good, but are often "good enough."

The doctors always tell my wife to drink cranberry juice when she feels a UTI coming on, but when it comes, they still prescribe antibiotics.

[pgwenthold]

Indeed; another example, schoolgirls in the UK are being vaccinated against HPV, which causes 70% of cervical cancers. What are the figures for the effectiveness of 'traditional' medicine?

And note one of the problems in fighting cancer is that, because people are living so much longer, they are more likely to develop cancer.

When people are dying at the age of 50, there isn't a lot of prostate cancer.

[Baby Nemesis]

Except, of course, that the "miasma" belief had already been repudiated by that point, and germ theory supported; as demonstrated by Dr. John Snow's work
several years earlier. Likewise, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis's work with sanitation and infant mortality predated these events by around a decade. Both of them made cases for improved santitation, but were soundly ignored by the political infrastructure until the problem became acute.

No, sadly, John Snow was ridiculed during his lifetime, on the whole. It was only after his death that his findings were really accepted. From an article in the British Medical Journal called Death and miasma in Victorian London: an obstinate belief: (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7327/1469)

"From inhaling the odour of beef the butcher's wife obtains her obesity."
Professor H Booth, writing in the Builder, July 1844

This assertion is perhaps the most extravagant manifestation of a belief that prevailed in the medical profession for much of the 19th century and survived in some quarters into the 20th century. This belief held that most, if not all, disease was caused by inhaling air that was infected through exposure to corrupting matter. Such matter might be rotting corpses, the exhalations of other people already infected, sewage, or even rotting vegetation. The "miasmatic" explanation of the cause of disease figured prominently in the long debates among the people who were responsible for combating the cholera epidemics that afflicted Britain, and particularly London, between 1831*and 1866. ...

In the Victorian period the "miasmatic" theory of disease causation took some strange forms among influential people
Dr John Snow's hypothesis of polluted water being a cause of cholera was not accepted in official circles at the time of his death in 1858
In 1858*the "Great Stink" concentrated the minds of legislators on the problems of metropolitan sewage
As a result of this, Joseph Bazalgette was finally allowed to proceed with his plan for the main drainage of London
London's final cholera epidemic, in 1866,*in an area not yet protected by Bazalgette's system, helped to ensure that John Snow's hypothesis gained acceptance in official circles ...

At the time of Snow's death in 1858*few people were convinced of the truth of his hypothesis.

The story of Ignaz Semmelweis is a very sad one indeed. And quite famous, I think. He demonstrated the truth of the germ theory in the hospital where he worked, where he wanted to find out why women giving birth under the supervision of trained doctors were a lot more likely to die than those giving birth with the help of midwives. He theorised that it might have something to do with the fact that the doctors were going to see the women straight after dealing with dead bodies in the mortuary, without washing their hands. He got them to wash their hands, and the incidence of death from fever dropped from about 10% to about 1-2%. However, ... I'll let Wikipedia tell it:

At the time, diseases were attributed to many different and unrelated causes. Each case was considered unique, just like a human person is unique. Semmelweis' hypothesis, that there was only one cause, that all that mattered
was cleanliness, was extreme at the time, and was largely ignored, rejected or ridiculed. He was dismissed from the hospital and harassed by the medical community in Vienna, which eventually forced him to move to Budapest.

Semmelweis was outraged by the indifference of the medical profession and began writing open and increasingly angry letters to prominent European obstetricians, at times denouncing them as irresponsible murderers. His contemporaries, including his wife, believed he was losing his mind and he was in 1865 committed to an asylum (mental institution). Semmelweis died there only 14 days later, possibly after being severely beaten by guards.

Semmelweis' practice only earned widespread acceptance years after his death, when
Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease which offered a theoretical explanation for Semmelweis' findings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

It wasn't until the Inter-War Period that dramatic improvements in infant mortality, longevity, and disease prevention were seen.

Indeed. As I said in my previous post to you, one thing that caused politicians to push for social progress was discovering at the time of the Boer War what a terrible condition much of the urban population was in. Of course, the social policy changes took years to implement. The introduction of the National Health Service After the Second World War in 1948 was a major factor in improving health, since it meant people no longer had to pay for healthcare.

Think of every advance in health and longevity for the past 150 years. All of that came about through modern, scientific medicine and the germ theory of disease. "Ancient" medicine was almost exclusively based on religious beliefs and practices, with very little basis in empirical study. ...

While the premise of that post is on the whole absolutely sound, and it's true that "ancient" medical treatments could be worse for the patient than the disease they had, the post contains several little errors. For instance, much of the terrible treatment of disease, for example blood-letting, did not derive from religious practice, but from the theories of ancient Greek philosophers. See, for example: The Four Humours (http://www.kheper.net/topics/typology/four_humours.html)

In Greek, Medieval, and Renaissance thought, the traditional four elements form the basis for a theory of medicine and later psychological typology known as the four humours. They constituted the western equivalent of the Chionese five states of change. ...

Although they had differences in general they saw health as an equilibrium of the body as determined by the four humors. ...

"[In classic times] medicine was equated with philosophy and three Greek philosophers, Hippocrates
(c.460 – 370 b.c.e.), Plato (427-348 b.c.e.) and Aristotle (384-322 b.c.e.) contributed to the vision of health, disease and the functions of the body. Although they had differences in general they saw health as an equilibrium of the body as determined by the four humors.

Sap in plants and the blood in animals is the fount of life. Other body fluids- phlegm, bile, faeces, became visible in illness when the balance is disturbed. For instance, epilepsy, the sacred disease was due to phlegm blocking the airways that caused the body to struggle and convulse to free itself. Mania was due to bile boiling in the brain. Black bile was a late addition to disease theory and was associated with melancholy." ...

[jmcvann]

Hmm...I'd say that Canadians are perhaps a little more modest and discreet than Americans? A little more polite?

Nah, that's not really true.

There are differences in culture, absolutely. In personality and personal characteristics, though, I can't think of a single thing.

Nope. I'm not even going to give you cultural differences. I can be persuaded, though. All you have to do is tell me about one cultural indicator that all Canadians share, and that no Americans do. I'm waiting...

This is a sore point for me. I believe that people really need to get over this feeling that there is some distinction derived from our place of birth. Worse, from the place of our ancestors' birth. Am I Irish? Well, some of my ancestors lived there. But it means nothing. It informs who am I am in no way. There is no trait that is "Irish." (Please, no drinking jokes. They are the lowest and laziest replies possible.)

It's bad in the micro as well as the macro. I'm from the Midwest. So what? It means nothing. You can make no assumptions about me just knowing that fact. I am so sick of people who lump "Southerners" together. Or "San Francisco-types." "New Yorkers." "The French." It's lazy, lazy, lazy.

[Delvo]

I have a problem with Randi at the very beginning of this clip.

Horoscope guy (to Randi): Would you say that Canadians and Americans have different characteristics from each other?

Randi: Yes, they do.

REALLY? Would someone here like to name one?I had a similar reaction to a bit of bad logic from HL's friend and comedy partner who was there with him. (I can't name the guy because he doesn't do American TV like HL does.)

The astrologer had specified that the person whose astrological data he'd examined had a "zany" sense of humor. HL's friend turned that into just having a sense of humor and put on the little mocking show of asking the audience whether any of them lacked a sense of humor. The astrologer's point had been about the type of sense of humor, not its presence or absence. So HL's friend committed two different argumentative fallacies there: straw man, and what I guess could be called "appeal to mockery", trying to make the opponent's case look worse not by truly arguing against it but by spouting insults at it and trying to turn it into a joke. Worse yet, the astrologer didn't quite catch the nature of either of those and didn't do as good a job of defending himself as he could have. (Especially if he was familiar with HL's comedy work, which could indeed be called "zany".)

This reminds me of the thread about things every skeptic should know or keep in mind. We're sitting here complaining about bad logic and fallacies and such that came from people on our own side and would, if they were to get away with them in a debate, favor our own side!

[plumjam]

Why would anyone go back to the time where people's average life expectancy was around 47 years?

I'll go if you go. You first ;)

[jmcvann]

It's possible for an actor to play dumber than he is; but you can only play, oh, call it 10% smarter than you are. This is why usually I can't watch medical shows or forensics-type programs: I find the actors/actresses totally unbelievable. A lot of what makes the character of Greg House believable is that Hugh really is quite intelligent and quite educated, so a lot of House's oddball interests and abilities were added to the character BECAUSE Hugh could already do them.


Can you cite any facts that back up this 10% claim? How many actors do you know? How "smart" is Anthony Hopkins? Joan Allen? Kelsey Grammer? I think you have false impression about the "real" Hugh Laurie, but it fits in with your tastes. You also see many more "dumb" roles because that is what the entertainment industry seems to think we want to see.

I'd also bet that you don't like "medical shows or forensics-type programs" because most of them are crap (granted, that is MY taste), they have recycled the same plot lines over and over and they overuse the zoom-in-to-the-capillaries story-telling technique. TV is oversaturated with these shows.

[Professor Yaffle]

Hugh Laurie got a Douglas at Cambridge. How intelligent that makes him, I don't know. He does seem to be a pretty good muscian from what I have seen.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm
Between 1900 and 1999...

Since 1900, infant mortality has decreased 90%, and maternal mortality has decreased 99%.

Um. I don't know about some people here, but I figure those numbers are significant.

With the development of sulfur-containing (anti-microbial) drugs in 1937, penicillin in the 1940s, and re-hydration and improved blood transfusion methods, by 1949 infant deaths declined 52%. By this time, it was noted that the largest decrease in mortality was among the postnatal infants (those babies older than 28 days), and the highest infant mortality rates were among "high-risk" neonatal (27-day-old or younger), those born prematurely or of LBW.
http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/73/Infant-mortality.html

Modern medicine started to save most term babies by 1949, and not just due to sanitation alone.

RH factors were discovered too, and there is no alternative medicine on the planet that will help with that in any way.

Cancer survival rates are increasing because of better early detection methods.
http://www3.cancer.gov/atlasplus/

What altie medicine detects early stages of cancer????
NONE.

[LibraryLady]

"Got a Douglas?" I thought he graduated with the equivalent of a C average.

[Skeptic]

However, I don't believe that many people in developed countries were using ancient medicine until the last generation or so (although I admit that depends on exactly what the term "ancient medicine" encompasses).

Well, let's look at ancient societies. THEY used ancient medicine (almost by definition, right)? Er... what was the average life expectancy in, say, ancient India? 30? 35? And that annoying infant mortality? 50% or so? At least? Oh wait, don't tell me -- if it wasn't for "ancient medicine", they would have been even MORE sick, right?

If it wasn't for modern medicine, I would have painfully died as an infant, since I had a medical condition that was absolutely incurable with all of that ancient wisdom. Only modern surgery could save me -- which it did. What's more, it had nothing whatever to do with my "lifestyle choice". Eating healthier, natural food (whatever that means) at the age of two months would not have helped me not get sick.

What's more, there is at least a 50% chance you, too, would have died painfully as well before the age of 30 -- from one of those annoying baterial infections. So first you let modern medicine save your life, repeatedly, to say nothing of vastly improving its quality -- and then you dump on it for not being "natural" or "sensitive" or "holistic" enough. As the old Jewish joke has it, that's like getting saved from a shipwreck and then telling the rescue crue: "I had a hat, damn you!"

So take you "alternative" and "ancient" medicine and shove it.

[technoextreme]

Hugh Laurie got a Douglas at Cambridge. How intelligent that makes him, I don't know. He does seem to be a pretty good muscian from what I have seen.
Huh... Did they right the aspect of House liking archeology because of Hugh Lauries degree in archeology?

[Skeptic]

The claim that modern greater life expectancy is only, or mostly, due to "improved sanitation" can be seen as the nonsense it is by simply looking at the history of modern medicine.

In the 18th century, Jenner immunized people against smallpox, the first modern vaccine. For some reason, despite the fact that both populations lived in the same sanitary conditions, those vaccinated didn't get smallpox, and those not vaccinated did.

Or take the invention of antibiotics. Surprise, surprise -- suddenly, the death rate from bacterial diseases took a plunge as their use spread. Damn, sanitation sure improved quick, didn't it? The 1950s were SO much cleaner than the 1930s...

Or let's look at Pasteur's vaccine against rabies -- those treated after being bitten by a rabid dog (at least those treated in time) did not develop rabies. Those who weren't, died of rabies, which has a 100% mortality rate once symptoms appear. I suppose it's all due to Pasteur washing their wounds, or something. Improved sanitation, you know.

How about diabetes? Before Insulin, all the "natural medicine" in the world wouldn't help. Once Insulin began to be used to treat it, surprise! It became treatable! Sanitation? Bull. Had nothing to do with it.

The same goes for Polio, TB, Syphilis... the list goes on and on. Sure, sanitation is a good thing. But no, it wasn't improved sanitation that defeated those diseases. It was modern medicine. Against all of the great killers of humanity, from the plague to Tuberculosis, traditional medicine was utterly and totally useless.

You're right, however, that modern medicine and traditional medicine work against different sorts of diseases. Modern medicine works against some diseases -- those which kill and disfigure and maim and cripple. It defeats them. Traditional medicine only "works" against other diseases -- those self-limiting, minor diseases that pass on their own anyway, such as the common cold, headaches, nausea, or stomach cramps.

Quite apart from the fact that this show that, almost certainly, traditional medicine simply doesn't work at all -- e.g., it only seems to work with those diseases that are light enough and short enough for people to convince themselves they feel better due to the "traditional medicine", when in reality these diseases simply pass on their own -- even if traditional medicine did work with such diseases, it's chump change, a pathetic failure, compared to what real medicine does.

"Traiditional medicine" is simply medicine that doesn't work.

P.S.

To avoid a misunderstanding -- I'm not at all claiming modern sanitation is unimportant. But it annoys me no end when the (s)CAM practitioners try to minimize the achievement of modern medicine by claiming it did nothing and sanitation did everything.

[Professor Yaffle]

"Got a Douglas?" I thought he graduated with the equivalent of a C average.

A Douglas (or Thora) is slang for a 3rd class degree. Douglas Hurd = Third.

A first is a Geoff, a 2:1 is an Attila and a 2:2 is a Desmond.

[jmcvann]

Hugh Laurie got a Douglas at Cambridge. How intelligent that makes him, I don't know. He does seem to be a pretty good muscian from what I have seen.

"Got a Douglas?" I thought he graduated with the equivalent of a C average.

A "Douglas" is just one step above an "ordinary degree" in the British system. Above it are "lower second-class honors," "upper second-class honors," and "first-class honors." C average may be a little low, but I don't know the details.

[Baby Nemesis]

The claim that modern greater life expectancy is only, or mostly, due to "improved sanitation" can be seen as the nonsense it is by simply looking at the history of modern medicine.

Um, I don't know about Rodney, but all I've been arguing is that better sanitation was a huge factor in improving health. And in fact in Africa today, it's possible that millions of lives could be saved if better hygiene and sanitation procedures were put into operation. Accessible healthcare for all would be a brilliant step forward. But some extremely simple procedures, much cheaper than that, such as better hygiene and more accessible soap, could help save masses of lives, as could making the provision of safe drinking water possible.

From an article called Personal Hygiene Behaviours (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/fact-sheets/fact-sheets-htm/RSA%20Personal%20Hygiene%20EA.htm) from an organisation calling themselves WELL - Resource Centre Network for Water, Sanitation and Environmental Health

1.1 billion people in the world do not have access to safe water, and 2.6 billion do not have access to adequate sanitation. It is estimated that 2.2 million people in developing countries, most of them children, die annually due to diarrhoea linked to lack of access to safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene (WaterAid 2006). ...

Poor water quality continues to pose a major threat to human health. Diarrhoeal disease alone amounts to an estimated 4.1 % of the total DALY global burden of disease and is responsible for the deaths of 1.8 million people every year. It was estimated that 88% of that burden is attributable to unsafe water
supply, sanitation and hygiene and is mostly concentrated on children in developing countries, (WHO, 2004).

Provision of safe water supply and sanitary conditions coupled with sustainable proper personal hygiene can drastically reduce this burden. *

Hygiene behaviour plays an important role in the prevention of diseases related to water and sanitation, such as cholera, typhoid, dysentery, diarrhoea and intestinal worms. Providing water and sanitation facilities does not necessarily lead to a decrease in these diseases. For real impacts to be felt, provision of these facilities has to go hand in hand with their proper use and maintenance. *This is achieved by persuading people to change their behaviour
in order to reduce ‘risk’ practices that predispose them to hygiene and sanitation related diseases. ...

Campaigns to promote hand washing with soap, food protection, domestic hygiene and safe excreta disposal,* in particular of infants’ stools, have been shown to deliver big health gains. The simple habit of hand washing if widely adopted would save more than one million lives around the world annually, the majority of them children under the age of five in poorer countries. The simple act of washing hands with soap can reduce diarrhoea by over 40% (WaterAid 2006). Better hygiene through hand washing and safe food handling reduces child diarrhoea by 35%, improved water quality by 15-20% and safe disposal of children’s faeces by nearly 40%. ...

ETA: I'm not sure about the exact accuracy of the statistics. But I know from other sources that the basic premise is correct.

[Aitch]

Hugh Laurie got a Douglas at Cambridge. How intelligent that makes him, I don't know.

Oi! Nowt wrong with a Thora - it's what I got.:rolleyes: And I only got bumped up from a Pass degree because I found a mistake in one the the Final exams - and added something rude about it to my answer! :cool:

[MattusMaximus]

Also when "folk remedies" and such are proven to be effective, they're no longer called "Alternative Medicine". Things like Foxglove and Willow Bark - that is, the "folk remedies" which were proven to have effectiveness - are now called "Medicine".

EvilSmurf makes an excellent point. The history behind digitalis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitalis) (foxglove) is a perfect example of this.

Digitalis comes from foxglove, but the active ingredients in the foxglove plant have - through scientific work via pharmaceutical companies - been identified, copied, refined, and packaged so that the pill given to patients with heart conditions will have maximum effect with minimal side-effects. That is the power of modern scientific medicine which so many sCAM proponents fail to understand.

If we ignore the modern scientific method with regards to medicine, as so many sCAMmers propose, a helluva lot of people are going to get sick & die as a result.

[Miss_Kitt]

I don't remember whom I should address this to, but the 10% estimate is my own, based upon knowing a lot of smart people (attending Harvey Mudd College, for example) and watching a lot of actors trying to play smart people in films or on TV. There certainly are some smart actors, but the biggest skillset a thespian needs is excellent memorization, good looks (especially for actresses) and being a good "liar" -- that is, to look like you believe what you're saying when you say it.

And that is, perhaps, where a lot of actors fail in trying to play very intelligent and educated people: They don't shade how they speak correctly for the actual meaning of their words. They rattle off a list of possible diseases or conditions without emphasizing which ones are likeliest or of most concern. Even when you are ticking off a laundry list, certain items are more important so you'll emphasize them. If a person has just memorized the impressive terms without knowing what they really mean, they won't quite ring true. (At least, to someone who does know what they mean.)

And I've known a number of actors, though not as many as I have smart people. I did not say, nor imply, that actors are stupid--just that most of them are not as smart as excellent doctors, excellent lawyers, and most scientists. (Which reminds me, can anyone recommend a movie where the scientists are truly plausible?) I'm not slamming actors, just making an observation.

A lot of TV shows are quite stupid, and so are the people being portrayed, so it's no big strain on the actor to be plausible. Even more have deliberately "average" intelligence people featured. No one needed a degree in Chemistry to play a role in "Friends" or on "Heroes", to pick a couple of very popular shows of recent vintage. And now that CSI : everywhere and medical dramas are so popular, we have lots of actors trying to seem smart enough to have gotten hard science degrees when they could not in real life have done so. IMHO, that shows. Good writing can only do so much; good acting can only do so much; after that, there has to be a certain level of smarts and education in the actor himself for the characterization to ring true.

By the way, by "actor" and "he" I am just being efficient and using the standard English construction; these comments also apply to actresses. (In fact, I would say the problem is exacerbated for actresses, whom are required to be good-looking for almost all roles. Very few women get to be 'character actors' until they are middle-aged; men can look like Danny DeVito and have work from their 20's.) I request that I not be deluged by attacks calling me sexist for saying "actor" to imply both sexes, thank you.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

A movie where the scientists were plausible...Daniel Craig and Philip Bosco as Heisenberg and Bohr in Copenhagen?

Well, at least they were more plausible than Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jessica Alba as scientists.

I'd put Russell Crowe as John Nash on the list and the cast of Apollo 13 as the astronauts...but, then again, maybe not.

Liam Neeson as Alfred Kinsey- there you go! :)