how often does a study

[Suezoled]

have to be done in order to safely conclude if a technique, medication, etc is effective or not? Things like physical therapy proved theselves. Thing like chiroporactics, while it does some good, does NOT do what is advertises in terms of subluxations and "innate health." Homeopathy has never proven itself viable; about 200 years later they are still asking taxpayers to pay for their flawed studies; they can't even seem to fund their own dang research! *ahem* Insulin was proven in labs and then in real life to help people live with a better life with diabetes. What good has spiritual healing done?

Bottom line question: is the "alternative" medicine industry (those that are proven viable become mainstream) something that mainstream and true advocates of real medicine will always have to conflict with?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Good question. I don't have an absolute answer.

For something suffciently well-defined that it can can yield a proper "proof of principle" then I would say that a single test performed under proper conditions would be good enough for me. Our challenge to the homeopaths to identify remedy from blank a large number of times would count. I'd still want some independent replication just to ensure no fraud, but if that test is failed then homeopathy cannot work. If that test was passed then there would have to be something so damn peculiar going on that the rest of their claims would need to be addressed, but homeopathy would have a fair claim to say at least some of its reported effects are real. It would then be a matter of performing multiple subsidiary trials so tease out what was real and useful and what was just an accidental accretion onto the body of useful treatment strategies. So, fail the proof of principle and it cannot work. Pass the proof of principle and the hard work begins, but in the context of your question whether "a technique, medication, etc is effective or not" in an absolute sense would have been proven.

Real medicine in contrast is not amenable to a single test because, as we have pointed out to our opponents, it is not a single entity amenable to one single test. Instead, real medicine is an historical agglomeration of things that defintely work and things that might work with a whole set of shades of grey in between. At one end of the spectrum you only need a few Type I diabetics to live after insulin to prove that it works, at the other end, we vets still argue over what if any surgery is best for canine ruptured cruciate ligaments. Every so often someone comes along and moves the furniture, but really we are making best guesses.

[exarch]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Bottom line question: is the "alternative" medicine industry (those that are proven viable become mainstream) something that mainstream and true advocates of real medicine will always have to conflict with?My guess is that, yes, there will always be flaky people who make a personal observation with a sample size of 1, and determine that they have discovered the be all and end all of medical treatment. They will use it to treat all of their family and friends who have chronic diseases that current medical knowledge can't cure completely yet, some of the people will (think they) get better, and everything that appears to have been cured will be added to the list of things it can cure.

When people look into the "how", many wild theories pop up, many involving a complete misunderstanding of things like Quantum Physics (or whatever else is the new buzz-word at that time). The medical establishment will do a few controlled studies showing absolutely nothing, conclude it's a waste of time and move on, and proponents of the flaky theory (who will become fewer and flakier) will continue to endorse it until they are all dead.

Maybe some day, accupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, crystal healing, laying on hands, etc... will all be discredited, but we will be stuck with a whole slew of new "fringe" practices that work just the same as the ones now: you notice someone gets better so you assume you did something to make them better.
Unless scientific thinking and Double Blind testing is part of everyones high school curriculum, there will always be people around who think they are not affected by placebo effect, selective memory, the natural course of the disease, ...

[BillHoyt]

I'd mince the question a bit differently. There are really two questions:
o What does it take (scientifically) to settle a question,
o Will the alt meds never quit?

The answer to the second question is, unfortunately, no, they'll never quit. Unless, of course, we all do a much better job of science education and critical thinking education. Then we'll have a world in which the remaining cranks are so few and so ineffective that they will have been marginalized practically out of existence.

The answer to the second question is, unfortunately, no, a question is neverycompletely settled scientifically. Science never proves anything in any absolute sense. It can rule many things out and build enough evidence to declare something to be "true," but that truth is always a provisional truth. It is subject to revision should new and compellingly contrary evidence be uncovered.

[Rolfe]

It depends on the question. I remember a question that arose while I was doing my PhD. I discovered a very strong correlation between the protein and the magnesium concentrations of horse sweat. Which was not present between protein and any of the other analytes I measured. So, was the magnesium I was measuring either protein-bound or even actually part of the protein?

I devised a simple experiment. I took one sample of sweat, which had high protein and high magnesium. I passed it through a filter with pores large enough to let magnesium ions through, but not large enough to let protein molecules through. I re-assayed both analytes afterwards. The protein concentration was down to almost zilch, and the magnesium concentration was unchanged.

Clear cut answer. No binding or strong association. Didn't need to repeat it with six more samples, one trial is enough.

If your question is simple enough and well enough defined, and if you design a test which really tests the issue, one clear-cut answer may be sufficient.

The problem is that tests that are done of altmed propositions are never that clear cut. This may partly be difficulty in designing a suitably clear-cut test, but is mostly due to the altmedders having a predilection for tests which are very flaky indeed. It would be so easy to prove homoeopathy in the way that BSM describes, and it ought to be a complete piece of cake according to their own claims (the existence of proving effects). But no, they prefer to guddle around with basophil degranulation like the late lamented Benveniste, or pull up selected case records.

They will not do the simple, one-shot-answers-question tests.

Rolfe.

[El Greco]

Actually the world is getting less of a cully as time passes, but this is a very slow process. Not many people rely on a witch or a shaman for their healing abilities nowadays. And clairvoyants are not *oficially* in the courts of today's leaders. Homeopathy is able to fool people because it resembles so much proper medical procedures.

I think that sometime the world will get rid of today's gross hoaxes, but other, more sophisticated ones will emerge. Of course, these too will look gross in the eyes of the future skeptics.

[The Don]

Perhaps you're right worldwide, but in the UK I get the impression that the high water mark for science occurred at some point in the '80s and since then (and possibly as a result of BSE) there has been an incredible rise in woo. Whereas there were always a few "drippy hippies" who believed in crystals and the like, this now includes people like our Prime Minister's wife.

A lot of people today have lost their naiive trust of doctors and scientists but don't have the ability or desire to learn anything for themselves.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
The problem is that tests that are done of altmed propositions are never that clear cut. This may partly be difficulty in designing a suitably clear-cut test, but is mostly due to the altmedders having a predilection for tests which are very flaky indeed.

Altmeddlers, perhaps? :)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Altmeddlers, perhaps? :) I thought that's what I typed! Rats!

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by The Don
Perhaps you're right worldwide, but in the UK I get the impression that the high water mark for science occurred at some point in the '80s and since then (and possibly as a result of BSE) there has been an incredible rise in woo.

I agree.

I still blame John Selwyn bloody Gummer and that hamburger he force-fed to his daughter.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I thought that's what I typed! Rats!

Rolfe.

I'll tell the OED when they phone, but it'll still be me they cite. ;)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I'll tell the OED when they phone, but it'll still be me they cite. ;) Oh, really? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870422122&highlight=altmeddlers#post1870422122)

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Oh, really? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870422122&highlight=altmeddlers#post1870422122)

Rolfe.

Bugger!

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Bugger!

*points at the monkey* ha-ha!

[Eos of the Eons]

04-24-2004 01:28 PM

Hmm. Six months ago Altmeddlers was coined. But great minds think alike, or one remembered the other without remembering that it was a memory.

Altmeddlers, peddlers, medlesome beggers/buggers. I really should go to bed now...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Suezoled
have to be done in order to safely conclude if a technique, medication, etc is effective or not?


I'd say a sensible guideline is when well designed scientific studies rarely fail to acheive statistical significance.

[The Don]

Originally posted by jzs


I'd say a sensible guideline is when well designed scientific studies rarely fail to acheive statistical significance. [/B]
That's a sensible guideline. Why is it that we are still doing studies ? Could it be that wishful thinking trumps scientific method every time where public opinion is concerned ?

[Asolepius]

Originally posted by The Don
Whereas there were always a few "drippy hippies" who believed in crystals and the like, this now includes people like our Prime Minister's wife.
Not just his wife. Blair is right behind the recent announcement that altmed is to be available throughout the NHS. Apparently it's all based on homeopathy having cured Peter Hain's son of asthma. Not really surprising as Blair has some difficulty in evaluating evidence.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Les Rose
Not really surprising as Blair has some difficulty in evaluating evidence. OW!!!!

Rolfe.

[exarch]

Originally posted by The Don
That's a sensible guideline. Why is it that we are still doing studies ? Could it be that wishful thinking trumps scientific method every time where public opinion is concerned?Here's the thing though: Public opinion can keep a losing position (i.e. there STILL no evidence) alive, but it can't make a rock solid position (i.e. there IS proof) go away.
Once there's proof, no amount of public outcry will make that proof disappear. That's the real strength of science. If you're right, you're right, no matter what anyone else says.

Sadly, this usually also means that if people can't prove you're wrong, you get to keep on tooting your horn until someone does.

[The Don]

The problem is that public opinion often drives government policy (particularly in the UK where the government is still hurting from the fact that they said that there was nothing to worry about with BSE). As a result, alternative treatments are sanctioned even though there is no proof that they work. This in turn gives legitimacy to the treatments after all "...why would it be available on the National Health Service if it didn't work ?"

Politicians are scared of the public and of public opinion. They don't trust (or can't be seen to trust) their scientists because they got it wrong over BSE (even if many of them didn't).

Unless the government comes under attack from ex-patients or their relatives because their treatments were unsafe (which is unlikely because such treatments are almost always safe, ineffective but safe) then there will be no incentive for them to reverse their position.

[Cynical]

I can hardly believe this. I signed on here after being away for several months, and Suezoled, Pokemon Bill, and LeFevre are ALL still here, with the same old avatars that need changing. Doesn't ANYTHING new ever happen around here?

Suez, you look like a witch in your avatar. Bill Hoyt, if you're going to be a pokemon, at least change Pokemons - there are about 250 to choose from, you know.

As for LeFevre - well, obviously he's not going to get a haircut, after I have warned him that he must do this. So he needs to put up a picture of Cousin Itt...because "Itt" looks more like LeFevre than LeFevre himself!:D

[Asolepius]

Originally posted by The Don

Politicians are scared of the public and of public opinion. They don't trust (or can't be seen to trust) their scientists because they got it wrong over BSE (even if many of them didn't).


Actually the scientists didn't get it wrong over BSE. Several years ago I served on the biomedical sciences committee of the Institute of Biology, one of the bodies consulted by the government. The problem was not wrong advice from scientists, it was inept interpretation by civil servants. A double first in classics from Trinity College Cambridge may be very impressive, but too many of these people don't know the atomic weight of helium. Aptly enough, one of my last consultations was on how to improve consultations!

I'm really going through a despondent phase - somebody cheer me up. There seems nothing to stop us from sliding back into the dark ages.

[The Don]

Well if it helps, the BBC seems to be fighting a sterling rearguard action against the power of woo. The latest watchdog programmes, a number of items on Radio 5 do show that they're trying and as CurtC has shown there's always the Grauniad.

Of course the flipside of this is the way in which ignorance is almost revered these days, especially ignorance of anything hard like science or sums. Knowledge used to be a gateway to success and personal improvement. "Kids today" (tm) aspire to success in arenas where success is perceived as being easy like sports, pop music and being a 'C' list celebrity not realising that it's probably far easier and they're more likely to achieve success the hard way.

The pendulum is swinging one way, it'll swing back soon.