Alternative medicine as a last resort

[GreyPilgrim]

I started a thread on allergy testing via Vega machines last week (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55348), and have been carrying on the conversation with friends outside the forum. Responses to that thread, plus the reams of stuff I've found by googling Vega (and the testers lack of response to any mails) has convinced me of what I already knew...it really is rubbish.

One friend is 'into' his natural remedies. He had an illness which cleared up after taking a natural remedy and now firmly attributes one to the other. I don't buy homeopathy. I don't buy anecdotal evidence...and we discussed the general subject in a lively manner. I was on a huge soapbox by the end of it...arguing diplomatically / intelligently is maybe not my strongest point

One question I've been pondering. He asked that if my child had a a serious illness, that if we had tried all known conventional treatments and nothing had worked, and if she were deteriorating...would I consider a homeopathic solution. He wasn't asking me to change my beliefs. Just a "well I've tried everything else, she's going to get worse and possibly die fairly soon...what have I got to lose?"

Being on the soapbox, I replied No. Believing whole heartedly that something does not work means I would be wasting my time in thinking about subjecting her to a natural remedy. Trying it would maybe torture us more by giving us all false hope, and would only serve to put money in a charlatans pocket (and maybe even give them the opportunity to say 'tut, if you'd only tried us first, we could have saved her').

Thought about it all night. In the light of day it strikes me as a really selfish point of view, surely? I really believe that any perceived benefits from homeopathic remedies are short lived and purely placebo based....but if we HAD tried everything else, and if my daughter was deteriorating fast, and a homeopathic remedy DID give her a boost and either prolonged or improved the quality of her life EVEN FOR HALF AN HOUR, wouldn't it be horrendous to deny ourselves that time together just for the sake of a principle?

I wondered what your thoughts are. My daughter is fine by the way, it was purely a hypothetical situation for the sake of argument.

[Mojo]

Thought about it all night. In the light of day it strikes me as a really selfish point of view, surely? I really believe that any perceived benefits from homeopathic remedies are short lived and purely placebo based....but if we HAD tried everything else, and if my daughter was deteriorating fast, and a homeopathic remedy DID give her a boost and either prolonged or improved the quality of her life EVEN FOR HALF AN HOUR, wouldn't it be horrendous to deny ourselves that time together just for the sake of a principle?People in desperate or hopeless situations will tend to grasp at any possible chance of rescue. The problem is that there are people out there who will use this as a means of getting money out of them.

[Kaarjuus]

Sure, why not, go ahead. But wouldn't it be better to give her apple juice instead? After all, apple juice has a curative effect no smaller than homeopathy, and as an additional bonus, it contains vitamins and tastes good.

[MRC_Hans]

Very strange line of arguing from a proponent of homeopathy: "If you were so desparate that you were beyond rational thinking, would you try homeopathy?"

Would he regard a "yes" as an argument for homeopathy? :nope:

Hans

[brodski]

if seriously ill people had infinite time and resources, then why not try every bat_guano crazy thing which is recommended, and which would do no harm in itself?
Good questions.
However in the real world time and money are often scarce resources for the seriously ill (or at least eon of the two usually is), in which case it is necessary to focus your scarce resources towards those things which are more likely to help you. People who use medicine are statistically more likely to get better faster, or get better to a greater extent than those who don't. Thats why medicine is medicine and alternative medicine is not, if alternative medicine made people get better faster than placebo, the it would no longer be alternative medicine, it would just be medicine.
You then have to add into the mix alt-med treatments which are actually harmful, whether because they can damage the body in themselves, or because they "require" that seriously ill people give up real medical treatments.
an defnatley you have the vile bastards who seek to exploit the seriously ill in order to make quick buck.

We don't reject alt med out of principle, we reject it because it either has been shown not to work, or is so unlikely to work it is not worth waisting scares resources on. as Rolfe is fond of saying, why not nail a chicken to your door as well, it "could" work...

[GreyPilgrim]

We don't reject alt med out of principle, we reject it because it either has been shown not to work, or is so unlikely to work it is not worth waisting scares resources on. as Rolfe is fond of saying, why not nail a chicken to your door as well, it "could" work...

I agree with all of this. I just couldn't formulate an answer at the time which didn't make me sound as if I would risk my daughters life out of the sake of principle. And I'm know thats what charlatans prey on...

Just wanted to bounce the idea around, really.

[brodski]

I agree with all of this. I just couldn't formulate an answer at the time which didn't make me sound as if I would risk my daughters life out of the sake of principle. And I'm know thats what charlatans prey on...

Just wanted to bounce the idea around, really.
I gathered that you weren't an alt med proponent. :)
I think that the time and resources argument is usually the best for a quick responce if you don't want to be seen as placing principles over the lives of your loved ones, as it's a practical, real world answer. If you could only pick one (or a few) treatment(s) why reject that which has been proven to work, in favor of that which is at best conjecture?