The Non-Woo of Real Medicine

Badly Shaved Monkey · 18th October 2006, 04:56 AM

Here is an interesting piece to show your woo friends. It demonstrates how responsible medical practitioners are able to accept objective scrutiny and adjust their views if the objective data contradict their previous opinions. You can still detect the existence of vested interests and subjective opinion, but the point is that a sensible evidence-based debate can be had.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6061652.stm

Particularly striking is the quote from Michael Baum;

"Michael Baum, professor of surgery at University College London who set up one of England's first screening programme in 1987, told the Daily Telegraph: "This latest evidence shifts the balance even further towards harm and away from benefits. If this report stands up, the NHS screening programme should be referred to the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence to decide whether it should be closed down.""

This is how real medicine works. Unlike the bizarre cult-member behaviour of the homeopaths and their ilk whose reaction to scrutiny is to invent excuses as to why scrutiny itself is inapplicable.

Bowser · 18th October 2006, 06:32 AM

Fortunately homeopathy is there to help those who are utterly failed by allopathic medicine.

fls · 18th October 2006, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Bowser

Fortunately homeopathy is there to help those who are utterly failed by allopathic medicine.

What sort of failures are you thinking of?

Linda

wollery · 18th October 2006, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Bowser

Fortunately homeopathy is there to help those who are utterly failed by allopathic medicine.

By giving them magical water that has been show to have no effect beyond that expected from a placebo.

Badly Shaved Monkey · 18th October 2006, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Bowser

Fortunately homeopathy is there to help those who are utterly failed by allopathic medicine.

I'm not sure 'fortunately' is the word.

I don't think 'help' is the right word either. Did you mean 'fleece'? Yes. I'm sure you did.

Small point: if homeopathy did work, we wouldn't need anything else, so it wouldn't just be used by the confused and the chronically slightly unwell.

Cuddles · 18th October 2006, 08:38 AM

Worst article ever. There is no concern that women are being harmed.

Quote:

But they also discovered it was diagnosing woman with breast cancer who would have survived without treatment

Notice this is not about false results, it is purely that some cancers don't kill people, but since we can't tell this yet we have to treat them as if they will.

Quote:

The programme saves 1,400 lives every year. Women who are screened are also less likely to have a mastectomy than those who are not screened

So they save thousands of lives, but a few people might not have died anyway, or get a little bit upset and therefore all screening is evil. First the BBC promotes all kinds of utter ******** and now they attack legitimate medicine, despite all the evidence in the article agreeing that screening is good. If I'd had any respect for the BBC left they would have just lost it.

fls · 18th October 2006, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

Here is an interesting piece to show your woo friends. It demonstrates how responsible medical practitioners are able to accept objective scrutiny and adjust their views if the objective data contradict their previous opinions. You can still detect the existence of vested interests and subjective opinion, but the point is that a sensible evidence-based debate can be had.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6061652.stm

Honestly, that's not a very good article to choose. First of all, journalists rarely do a decent job reporting on scientific issues. In order to serve as a model, I would choose to reference the Cochrane review directly (http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...877/frame.html) or try to find a more knowledgeable source.

Second, the article gives the impression that medical practitioners are willing to let some women die in order to avoid causing some other women anxiety. Does that make any sense to you? Doesn't that suggest that the author of that article somehow got it wrong?

Part of the problem with these discussions is that it is usually a made-up issue born of ignorance that is discussed. I understand your intentions, but articles like that do nothing to help that problem.

Linda

Badly Shaved Monkey · 18th October 2006, 10:12 AM

Okaaayy...

The point I was making was to show that real medicine can engage in this kind of debate.

As to the particulars of the topic, I think the point is that the morbidity and mortality of unnecessary treatment needs to be set against the morbidity and mortality saved by the screening, and that what was being said, hence the suggestion for a referral to NICE.

This is from the Cochrane review itself;

"This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily."

I'm not sure how that matches with the headline figure of "1,400 lives saved each year"

fls · 18th October 2006, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

Okaaayy...

The point I was making was to show that real medicine can engage in this kind of debate.

I don't get the impression that showing evidence that the various mantras are untrue ("Physicians treat the symptoms, not the cause", "Nutrition isn't taught in medical school") makes any real difference. Objective evidence obviously doesn't mean the same thing to the people you are aiming this at as it does to you and me . And I notice the capacity to make stuff up far exceeds our capacity to counteract it, anyway.

Like I said before, I understand your intention, but I have come to realize, after years of trying this approach, that it is not effective.

Linda

ponderingturtle · 18th October 2006, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

I'm not sure 'fortunately' is the word.

Of course it is fortunate, it relieves them of excess cash, thus lightening their wallet, and we all know losing weight is good right?

Eos of the Eons · 18th October 2006, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Bowser

Fortunately homeopathy is there to help those who are utterly failed by allopathic medicine.

The sarcasm thread can be found under "community"

Deetee · 19th October 2006, 06:03 AM

My memory tells me that this Goetzcth chappy has published a Cochrane review of this a couple of years ago, when exactly the same points were raised and discussed about possible harm to women.

Is this actually based on any new data??

I've no time to double check now, but will try later. This sounds reminiscent of a Labour propaganda type exercise, where they announce new but identical initiatives or pretend they are providing new funding for something each year.

ETA - a quick search found these:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s394891.htm
http://www.epicentro.iss.it/1/proble...i/commenti.pdf

I see this was 7 years ago, not "a couple".
Ahhh.... How time flies when you are enjoying yourself.

Also found this
http://www.update-software.com/Abstracts/AB001877.htm
which seems to be the same review updated from 2001 with a different coauthor.
Is the latest update based on new data?

fls · 19th October 2006, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Deetee

My memory tells me that this Goetzcth chappy has published a Cochrane review of this a couple of years ago, when exactly the same points were raised and discussed about possible harm to women.

Is this actually based on any new data??

As far as I can tell, it is not. The report is listed as an update. And it mentions the identical number of studies and participants, with identical RR's (compared to the 2001 report). What is different is the conclusion, with a change in emphasis and wording to concede an effect on breast cancer mortality, but now more of a fuss wrt false positives. That is, the information extracted from the studies is unchanged, but the conclusions to be drawn from the information and the concerns to be emphasized have changed.

I have to admit that I find the conclusions for both reviews almost bizarrely biased. It isn't something that I expect to see from a Cochrane review. And it further emphasizes my concern that the lay-practice of presenting the authors' *conclusions* as the *results* often misleads.

Linda

18th October 2006, 04:56 AM	#1
Badly Shaved Monkey Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor Posts: 5,262	The Non-Woo of Real Medicine Here is an interesting piece to show your woo friends. It demonstrates how responsible medical practitioners are able to accept objective scrutiny and adjust their views if the objective data contradict their previous opinions. You can still detect the existence of vested interests and subjective opinion, but the point is that a sensible evidence-based debate can be had. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6061652.stm Particularly striking is the quote from Michael Baum; "Michael Baum, professor of surgery at University College London who set up one of England's first screening programme in 1987, told the Daily Telegraph: "This latest evidence shifts the balance even further towards harm and away from benefits. If this report stands up, the NHS screening programme should be referred to the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence to decide whether it should be closed down."" This is how real medicine works. Unlike the bizarre cult-member behaviour of the homeopaths and their ilk whose reaction to scrutiny is to invent excuses as to why scrutiny itself is inapplicable.
	__________________ "i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath. "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park) Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.

18th October 2006, 06:32 AM	#2
Bowser Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 157	Fortunately homeopathy is there to help those who are utterly failed by allopathic medicine.
Bowser Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 157

18th October 2006, 06:46 AM	#4
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! TLA Winner Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Land of Eternal Hope Posts: 10,312	Originally Posted by Bowser Fortunately homeopathy is there to help those who are utterly failed by allopathic medicine. By giving them magical water that has been show to have no effect beyond that expected from a placebo.
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

18th October 2006, 08:25 AM	#5
Badly Shaved Monkey Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor Posts: 5,262	Originally Posted by Bowser Fortunately homeopathy is there to help those who are utterly failed by allopathic medicine. I'm not sure 'fortunately' is the word. I don't think 'help' is the right word either. Did you mean 'fleece'? Yes. I'm sure you did. Small point: if homeopathy did work, we wouldn't need anything else, so it wouldn't just be used by the confused and the chronically slightly unwell.
	__________________ "i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath. "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park) Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.

18th October 2006, 08:38 AM	#6
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,570	Worst article ever. There is no concern that women are being harmed. Quote: But they also discovered it was diagnosing woman with breast cancer who would have survived without treatment Notice this is not about false results, it is purely that some cancers don't kill people, but since we can't tell this yet we have to treat them as if they will. Quote: The programme saves 1,400 lives every year. Women who are screened are also less likely to have a mastectomy than those who are not screened So they save thousands of lives, but a few people might not have died anyway, or get a little bit upset and therefore all screening is evil. First the BBC promotes all kinds of utter ******** and now they attack legitimate medicine, despite all the evidence in the article agreeing that screening is good. If I'd had any respect for the BBC left they would have just lost it.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

18th October 2006, 06:39 AM	#3
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Bowser Fortunately homeopathy is there to help those who are utterly failed by allopathic medicine. What sort of failures are you thinking of? Linda

18th October 2006, 09:52 AM	#7
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey Here is an interesting piece to show your woo friends. It demonstrates how responsible medical practitioners are able to accept objective scrutiny and adjust their views if the objective data contradict their previous opinions. You can still detect the existence of vested interests and subjective opinion, but the point is that a sensible evidence-based debate can be had. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6061652.stm Honestly, that's not a very good article to choose. First of all, journalists rarely do a decent job reporting on scientific issues. In order to serve as a model, I would choose to reference the Cochrane review directly (http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...877/frame.html) or try to find a more knowledgeable source. Second, the article gives the impression that medical practitioners are willing to let some women die in order to avoid causing some other women anxiety. Does that make any sense to you? Doesn't that suggest that the author of that article somehow got it wrong? Part of the problem with these discussions is that it is usually a made-up issue born of ignorance that is discussed. I understand your intentions, but articles like that do nothing to help that problem. Linda

18th October 2006, 10:12 AM	#8
Badly Shaved Monkey Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor Posts: 5,262	Okaaayy... The point I was making was to show that real medicine can engage in this kind of debate. As to the particulars of the topic, I think the point is that the morbidity and mortality of unnecessary treatment needs to be set against the morbidity and mortality saved by the screening, and that what was being said, hence the suggestion for a referral to NICE. This is from the Cochrane review itself; "This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily." I'm not sure how that matches with the headline figure of "1,400 lives saved each year"
	__________________ "i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath. "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park) Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.

18th October 2006, 11:06 AM	#9
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey Okaaayy... The point I was making was to show that real medicine can engage in this kind of debate. I don't get the impression that showing evidence that the various mantras are untrue ("Physicians treat the symptoms, not the cause", "Nutrition isn't taught in medical school") makes any real difference. Objective evidence obviously doesn't mean the same thing to the people you are aiming this at as it does to you and me . And I notice the capacity to make stuff up far exceeds our capacity to counteract it, anyway. Like I said before, I understand your intention, but I have come to realize, after years of trying this approach, that it is not effective. Linda

18th October 2006, 11:43 AM	#10
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,421	Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey I'm not sure 'fortunately' is the word. Of course it is fortunate, it relieves them of excess cash, thus lightening their wallet, and we all know losing weight is good right?

18th October 2006, 11:04 PM	#11
Eos of the Eons Mad Scientist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta Posts: 13,894	Originally Posted by Bowser Fortunately homeopathy is there to help those who are utterly failed by allopathic medicine. The sarcasm thread can be found under "community"
	__________________ Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!

19th October 2006, 06:03 AM	#12
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	My memory tells me that this Goetzcth chappy has published a Cochrane review of this a couple of years ago, when exactly the same points were raised and discussed about possible harm to women. Is this actually based on any new data?? I've no time to double check now, but will try later. This sounds reminiscent of a Labour propaganda type exercise, where they announce new but identical initiatives or pretend they are providing new funding for something each year. ETA - a quick search found these: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s394891.htm http://www.epicentro.iss.it/1/proble...i/commenti.pdf I see this was 7 years ago, not "a couple". Ahhh.... How time flies when you are enjoying yourself. Also found this http://www.update-software.com/Abstracts/AB001877.htm which seems to be the same review updated from 2001 with a different coauthor. Is the latest update based on new data?
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	__________________ "Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja "Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles "The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda "Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM Last edited by Deetee; 19th October 2006 at 06:24 AM.

19th October 2006, 11:28 AM	#13
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by Deetee My memory tells me that this Goetzcth chappy has published a Cochrane review of this a couple of years ago, when exactly the same points were raised and discussed about possible harm to women. Is this actually based on any new data?? As far as I can tell, it is not. The report is listed as an update. And it mentions the identical number of studies and participants, with identical RR's (compared to the 2001 report). What is different is the conclusion, with a change in emphasis and wording to concede an effect on breast cancer mortality, but now more of a fuss wrt false positives. That is, the information extracted from the studies is unchanged, but the conclusions to be drawn from the information and the concerns to be emphasized have changed. I have to admit that I find the conclusions for both reviews almost bizarrely biased. It isn't something that I expect to see from a Cochrane review. And it further emphasizes my concern that the lay-practice of presenting the authors' conclusions as the results often misleads. Linda