Help: I need a definition.

[shuttlt]

Does anybody know of a coherent explanation of what it means to say that a therapy can 'help' with something, as opposed to saying that it can 'treat/cure' something, or 'treat/cure the symptoms' of something? I'm mainly thinking of chiropractic, but this use of 'help' seems to apply to many alternative therapies.

Since they don't say "we are only saying 'help', because we'd get taken to court of we said 'cure', or 'treat' and it's really just a cunning dodge" they must surely have some alternative explanation?

[MortFurd]

Does anybody know of a coherent explanation of what it means to say that a therapy can 'help' with something, as opposed to saying that it can 'treat/cure' something, or 'treat/cure the symptoms' of something? I'm mainly thinking of chiropractic, but this use of 'help' seems to apply to many alternative therapies.

Since they don't say "we are only saying 'help', because we'd get taken to court of we said 'cure', or 'treat' and it's really just a cunning dodge" they must surely have some alternative explanation?
Nope, that's pretty much it. If they tell you it can treat or cure, then the FDA and/or other agencies can nail them - and things begin to look really bad for them in court. It's a weasel word.

[JJM]

Nope, that's pretty much it. If they tell you it can treat or cure, then the FDA and/or other agencies can nail them - and things begin to look really bad for them in court. It's a weasel word.Absolutely; but they overlook a point, anyway. If you say you can cure a disease, I want to see the reliable data. If you say you can help a disease, you still need reliable data. Their unartful dodge does not excuse the lack of evidence. I also like fls (Linda)'s suggestion that "helping" a disease may not be desirable.

Quacks have a large, weasel-vocabulary. The Brit. Chiro. Assoc. is a bit unusual in claiming There is evidence to show that chiropractic care has helped children with the following symptoms:
Asthma Colic
Prolonged crying, Sleep and feeding problems
Breathing difficulties Hyperactivity
Bedwetting, Frequent infections, especially in the earshttp://web.archive.org/web/20070206003656/http:/www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Happy+families.pdf
Those claims are unusual in that they cite some "conditions" by name. Many quacks think they can weasel-out by claiming "We don't treat conditions (e.g., colic), we treat the person. Once again- where is the evidence?

They have the bogus idea that if they change the words they are absolved of the need for reliable support for the claim.

[blutoski]

It's a weasel word.

That's my thought, exactly. The term used in critical thinking to describe intentional evasion of making a specific claim is 'weasel words.'

If the altmedder is pushed to the wall, they will sometimes say off the record that they personally believe the treatment modality in question does cure ailment X and would love to advertise this, but that they are prohibited by law from saying so by a corrupt FDA who are in the pockets of Big Pharma.

[fls]

Does anybody know of a coherent explanation of what it means to say that a therapy can 'help' with something, as opposed to saying that it can 'treat/cure' something, or 'treat/cure the symptoms' of something? I'm mainly thinking of chiropractic, but this use of 'help' seems to apply to many alternative therapies.

Since they don't say "we are only saying 'help', because we'd get taken to court of we said 'cure', or 'treat' and it's really just a cunning dodge" they must surely have some alternative explanation?

The FDA treats "help" as it does "treat" or "cure". That is, if you say that supplement X helps to prevent urinary tract infection, you are making a disease claim. The use of the word "help" seems to serve a rhetorical, rather than a regulatory or medical function.

Linda

[blutoski]

The FDA treats "help" as it does "treat" or "cure". That is, if you say that supplement X helps to prevent urinary tract infection, you are making a disease claim. The use of the word "help" seems to serve a rhetorical, rather than a regulatory or medical function.

That's the letter of the law, but I'm always surprised to learn from my friends and colleagues that they sincerely think using 'helps with' or 'is used to treat' or 'has been used to treat' or 'has traditionally been used to cure' or other expressions protects them.

Sort of like my sister, who writes off her clothes as a buiness expense. She just thinks it's OK and no amount of advice will convince her otherwise until the axe falls in an audit.

By the same token, a lot of altmedders do discuss tactics, and they are aware of how far they can go in their community without risking triggering formal complaints.


In any case, it's probably still weasel words in the sense that it's evading accountability. Even if it's not the FDA, it's the customer who would be demanding proof.

[shuttlt]

That's the letter of the law, but I'm always surprised to learn from my friends and colleagues that they sincerely think using 'helps with' or 'is used to treat' or 'has been used to treat' or 'has traditionally been used to cure' or other expressions protects them.

This was definately an impression I had. Funny that it isn't the case. It makes me wonder whether the whole 'we don't treat diseases, we treat subluxations (which when fixed make the disease go away)' trick back in the days of the Palmers actually worked.

[shuttlt]

When they say they don't 'treat', are they saying that they are not focused on the disease, or the symptoms, they are focused on some deeper something else - wellness, or whatever. They know that their patient actually wants them to deal with the disease and stop the symptoms, so they say they can 'help'.

This is like the doctrine of the double effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect).

[Dancing David]

This is true of many 'treatments' however a measured decline in symptoms is always a good thing.

[shuttlt]

This is true of many 'treatments' however a measured decline in symptoms is always a good thing.
But that surely begs the question of what the difference is between saying that "if you take/do X you will get a measured decline in Y" and saying that "X can 'treat' Y"?