Jomanda-Good Question

[Eos of the Eons]

The obvious question: why did it take the demise of a celebrity at the hands of these quacks to bring the authorities to the point where they'd take action? Is it because none of the other victims of the quacks were "important" enough...?

And not only that, why are there "homeopath" schools and other such craziness where they tell people they are getting an education? People pay to learn lies and then are told they are able to go out and "treat" others.

This case illustrates how awful the results of "homeopathic" and other sCAM treatments are.

I just don't get it.

[Soapy Sam]

Granted, but- how does one answer the obvious argument that "real" medicine kills people too?
Misdiagnosis.
Errors in prescription or dosage.
Chemotherapy / radiation therapy.
Infection while in hospital (MRSA etc)
Tissue rejection
Surgical errors
Anaesthetic reaction.
Delays due to medical mismanagement or resource shortage.
Simple indecision.

All are potentially and in fact, lethal, during normal treatment.

What we need to know is why people choose to reject mainstream medicine for alternatives. Are we more afraid of treatment which we know to carry risks than we are of the condition? Do they consider it safer to do nothing?

And are they always wrong?

[Eos of the Eons]

My question is about why something that isn't true is still allowed to be taught. Why do they get to charge people to tell them lies about "magic water"? It's a lie because we can show it's no more effective than doing nothing. Yet they train people to think they can treat real maladies with it.

It's dishonest. You don't see doctors telling people that they will cure them when they can't. They don't just use magic water and tell them they will get better.

Errors are not blatant lies. They are not intentional deceptions about how effective the treatment is. We can show homeopathy (and other sCAM) is ineffective and why. Yes, they are always wrong. You can't use water that has once touched arsenic to treat arsenic poisoning.

What we need to know is why people choose to reject mainstream medicine for alternatives. Are we more afraid of treatment which we know to carry risks than we are of the condition? Do they consider it safer to do nothing?

People chose to reject "mainstream" medicine because they are lied to about how "unsafe" "mainstream" medicine is by those who would sell them a cheap ineffective alternative for a million times more than its worth.

It's better to go with a known risk if the treatment that is effective. Yet, when you are lied to about the risk of doing nothing (using homeopathy or other useless alternative) you choose to go with an unknown because you are led to believe it's "safer". The known risk of surgery is better and safer than a lie. You know what you are getting into, and are told about the risks and effectiveness of it. The lie about sCAM is the unknown and you are going with an illusion.

With the mainstream you are told what the risks of the treatment are, if doing nothing is safer you can choose to do nothin. With sCAM you are told nothing is safer and not one bit of truth is told about how much quicker you will die since you are essentially doing nothing.

So you have people going to homeopath school, learning bunk, being told they can actually treat others, and having to pay an arm and a leg for learning garbage. Why do the schools get to lie to people and take their money?

[treble_head]

I think we need a movement toward educating the public about actual medicine. Cattle headers have the Beef Council, We have one for Milk, one for Cheese, one aganist tobacco, et al.

I think there should be a "Medicinal Doctors for Common Sense Council" (I know that MDCSC isn't as catchy as Pork - The other white meat, but it can be worked on).

Can't we show statistics of the success rates of actual real doctors against homeopathic practitioners, for cancer treatment. Something! I don't claim to have the details down, but I think a lot of doctors who truly believe in the hyppocratic oath might be willing todonate a bit of money to this cause.

If the "This is your brain on drugs" ads are out there. Why not these? Thoughts?

[Soapy Sam]

I agree, but I think doctors also need to do something about their perceived image, which has shifted from that of a caring person who comes out in a storm at two am, to one of a fat cat pharma rep who rarely leaves the golf course.

Both images are false of course, but the issue is perception.
If people cared about facts , Eos wouldn't need to ask her question in the first place.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by treble_head
Can't we show statistics of the success rates of actual real doctors against homeopathic practitioners, for cancer treatment. Well, no, because nobody is collecting any statistics on the latter.

This is one of the big problems we have when debating SCAM-artists on this forum. Adverse events related to real medical treatment are documented and the results are in the public domain. So it's easy for these guys to pull up links about how many people died because of Vioxx or and SSRI or whatever. However, their practice is completely unregulated and nobody is recording anything, so the comparable figures just aren't there. They also declare bare-facedly that their treatments are "safe" - simply by asserting that all the aggravations and "healing crises" and so on (this is when a homoeopathic treatment is coincidentally followed by a deterioration in the patient's condition) are just part of the remedy picture and are not side-effects.

There is also the fact that most of the patients treated by SCAM aren't very ill. Most have mild and/or self-limiting conditions. It's relatively unusual for someone with a really serious condition to abandon real medicine and put all their faith in an alternative. So it's not exactly a level playing field for comparison. A bit like criticising the top teaching hospital because it has the highest percentage of cardiac surgery deaths, without considering that this is where all the other hospitals send their very worst-risk patients to be seen by the top people in the business.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Well, let's hear it for Kylie Minogue, poor girl. At least she's not making any noises about spiritual healers and holistic wellness, it looks as if she might be about to set a shining example of how to do what doctor tells you and maximise your chances of survival.

I hope it all turns out well for her.

Rolfe.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Granted, but- how does one answer the obvious argument that "real" medicine kills people too?

You list errors, incompetence, and natural occurrences, regarded by all participants as things to be avoided. These occur in conventional medicine by accident, not design. Eos is talking about something whose very foundation is an inherent falsehood. I believe it possible to argue that there is a difference.

What we need to know is why people choose to reject mainstream medicine for alternatives.

The answers are easier to understand and sound more reassuring. Conventional physicians, as a group, are more apt to admit their ignorance, while the alternative practitioners are more apt to declare their effectiveness.

And are they always wrong?

Do your own homework. What do all the double-blind tests results say?

[BPScooter]

I totally agree that late-night TV and radio, in the US, is fair ground for woo. Many of the stations, when lacking paid advertisement, will run a government-provided message. The National this or Council for Physics or the Union of Logicians should really jump on this.

No kidding, I was driving in Iowa and heard a late-night time-filler reminding me to recycle in Manhattan, and was also reminded that the steam fitters union was working for me. How does that happen? Truckers must laugh their asses off.

Wouldn't it be nice if somewhere, sometime, someone heard JR say: "The James Randi Educational Foundation is here for you. Contact us at Randi.org for more information." (this message paid for by the National Science Foundation as a public service).