Woo in my textbook!

Faustina · 23rd January 2007, 01:02 PM

I'm in surgical technology school right now. Most of what I'm learning has a hard scientific base, germ theory, asepsis, drug effects etc.
But while reading through one of my texts, Alexander's Care of the Patient in Surgery( a long time standard in the field), what do I find tucked away in the back? Ahh, a chapter on "Complimentary and Alternative Therapy" or as I like to think of it, crystal-waving B.S.
Let's see, there's talk of qi, Ayurveda, homeopathy (!!!), energy therapy, laying on of hands, and on and on. All treated in the same calm detached textbook manner as oh, say chapters on anesthesia, anatomy, surgical procedures, sterile fields and whatnot.
Am I overreacting? Because I'm seriously disturbed to find this in a textbook for a critical health care profession.

desertyeti · 23rd January 2007, 01:05 PM

I think it's good to have an idea of what this stuff is so when (if) a patient asks about it, you can at least discuss it intelligently. The alternative is staring blankly at said patient, blinking and uttering: "What the hell are you talking about?" whereupon, the self-fulfilling prophecy of the ignorant professional comes to fruition.

I think it's bad if it's being presented as a serious alternative to the remainder of the book.

Faustina · 23rd January 2007, 01:18 PM

I think that's what bothers me the most. It's not like the book says, "A lot of patients will be interested in these alternate therapies, but there's not a iota of evidence to support them". It's that they are written about as if they are as valid as scientific medical practice. F'instance:

"A human being is an open energy system. This assumption implies that the transfer of energy is natural and continuous. When a healer transfers energy to a healee using TT (therapeutic touch), it is without effort and guided by conscious, mindful action. The healer adds intentionality within a compassionate context.
Illness is an imbalance in an individual's energy field. With TT, the healer manipulates the energy field by directing or modulating using the sense of touch much like the other four major senses of the body. All of these senses are able to act from a distance without direct connection. The human energy field extends a few inches away from the body surface, and the practitioner senses fine energy cues such as changes in pattern."

Alexander's Care of the Patient in Surgery, Rothrock, et al.

desertyeti · 23rd January 2007, 01:22 PM

Dear...God...
Well, is there any wonder why people get so upset over woo?
If I go to a doctor, shell out lord knows how much $$$, and have it explained to me that my "energy field is out of sync," I think I'd probably be very, very unhappy.

Faustina · 23rd January 2007, 01:25 PM

I think after I graduate, I'll write a snotty letter to the publisher....

desertyeti · 23rd January 2007, 01:27 PM

You should probably also voice your concerns to your instructor and department chair. There's probably a wide variety of texts out there that are just as good, just as expensive, and lacking the woo factor. Good luck!

sat556 · 23rd January 2007, 03:38 PM

I found woo in my textbook last year too! Not much, only a couple of pages. After fuming the whole way through it, I found that it was mentioned that there was no evidence for it, bar placebo stuff. Kept me seething that there was even mention though, as I couldn't see the relevance of it. Mind you, I couldn't see the relevance of a whole lot that was in there. As part of the course I have to do these sociology parts, and it's not my bag, baby.

fuelair · 23rd January 2007, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Faustina

I think that's what bothers me the most. It's not like the book says, "A lot of patients will be interested in these alternate therapies, but there's not a iota of evidence to support them". It's that they are written about as if they are as valid as scientific medical practice. F'instance:

"A human being is an open energy system. This assumption implies that the transfer of energy is natural and continuous. When a healer transfers energy to a healee using TT (therapeutic touch), it is without effort and guided by conscious, mindful action. The healer adds intentionality within a compassionate context.
Illness is an imbalance in an individual's energy field. With TT, the healer manipulates the energy field by directing or modulating using the sense of touch much like the other four major senses of the body. All of these senses are able to act from a distance without direct connection. The human energy field extends a few inches away from the body surface, and the practitioner senses fine energy cues such as changes in pattern."

Alexander's Care of the Patient in Surgery, Rothrock, et al.

Since TT was thoroughly debunked by a young girl as a science project about six years ago, might I ask how long ago that crap was promulgated?

Faustina · 23rd January 2007, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Since TT was thoroughly debunked by a young girl as a science project about six years ago, might I ask how long ago that crap was promulgated?

The copyright on my edition is 2003.

Gord_in_Toronto · 23rd January 2007, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Since TT was thoroughly debunked by a young girl as a science project about six years ago, might I ask how long ago that crap was promulgated?

Unfortunately, I don't think that convinced a single believer. I mean wasn't Randi or somebody similar involved at some point at some time? And we all know how that affects things.

subgenius · 23rd January 2007, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Faustina

I'm in surgical technology school right now. Most of what I'm learning has a hard scientific base, germ theory, asepsis, drug effects etc.
But while reading through one of my texts, Alexander's Care of the Patient in Surgery( a long time standard in the field), what do I find tucked away in the back? Ahh, a chapter on "Complimentary and Alternative Therapy" or as I like to think of it, crystal-waving B.S.
Let's see, there's talk of qi, Ayurveda, homeopathy (!!!), energy therapy, laying on of hands, and on and on. All treated in the same calm detached textbook manner as oh, say chapters on anesthesia, anatomy, surgical procedures, sterile fields and whatnot.
Am I overreacting? Because I'm seriously disturbed to find this in a textbook for a critical health care profession.

Fight the good fight.

desertyeti · 24th January 2007, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Unfortunately, I don't think that convinced a single believer. I mean wasn't Randi or somebody similar involved at some point at some time? And we all know how that affects things.

Happens all the time.
People still believe Televangelists, Uri Gellar, Congress, etc.
Seems no matter how many times these losers get busted, the willfully ignorant will take up their cause and go right on acting like buffoons.
Seriously, write to the book's publisher and/or author(s) and make your displeasure known. It can't hurt.

Faustina · 24th January 2007, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by desertyeti

Seriously, write to the book's publisher and/or author(s) and make your displeasure known. It can't hurt.

I think I am. And I was going to speak to my instructor today but I didn't see her since I was in clinicals all day. But I'll track her down tomorrow!

Cuddles · 25th January 2007, 04:44 AM

I might have woo in my textbooks, but since they're mostly on quantum physics it's hard to tell.

BayAreaGuy · 25th January 2007, 07:21 PM

I'm not surprised by this at all, Faustina. The college I teach for has a thriving Nursing department that is, like most, rife with pseudo-science and nonsense. Courses include homeopathy, acupuncture/acupressure, Therapeutic Touch therapy, and a whole host of other "complimentary and alternative medicine" subjects.

As is the case with laws, it's easy to get one passed and nearly impossible to get rid of it. Our Curriculum Approval Committee is made up of volunteers from numerous disciplines, but they really don't have the expertise to critically assess each and every course. They pretty much leave that up to the Faculty who create the new class; as a result, if something seems to have any merit whatsoever, it gets approved.

I'm currently working on investigating the process and will publish the results (to expose its ineffectiveness), but change is slow. The same is true for text books, and in that case it's even worse because market trends are really all that matters. In other words, if it sells, it gets printed. It's not in a publisher's best interest to refuse to print something marketable simply because it's not true; the gatekeepers for truth are the Faculty, and THAT'S who you should be making your complaint to! (After you get your grade, of course!).

Good luck with it.

Mr. Stick · 26th January 2007, 03:19 PM

Remember:
"If you don't do it, nobody will. If you don't do it today, it'll never be done"

Good luck.

23rd January 2007, 01:02 PM	#1
Faustina JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 79	Woo in my textbook! I'm in surgical technology school right now. Most of what I'm learning has a hard scientific base, germ theory, asepsis, drug effects etc. But while reading through one of my texts, Alexander's Care of the Patient in Surgery( a long time standard in the field), what do I find tucked away in the back? Ahh, a chapter on "Complimentary and Alternative Therapy" or as I like to think of it, crystal-waving B.S. Let's see, there's talk of qi, Ayurveda, homeopathy (!!!), energy therapy, laying on of hands, and on and on. All treated in the same calm detached textbook manner as oh, say chapters on anesthesia, anatomy, surgical procedures, sterile fields and whatnot. Am I overreacting? Because I'm seriously disturbed to find this in a textbook for a critical health care profession.
Faustina JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 79	__________________ My Myspace page

23rd January 2007, 01:05 PM	#2
desertyeti Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: down by the river Posts: 838	I think it's good to have an idea of what this stuff is so when (if) a patient asks about it, you can at least discuss it intelligently. The alternative is staring blankly at said patient, blinking and uttering: "What the hell are you talking about?" whereupon, the self-fulfilling prophecy of the ignorant professional comes to fruition. I think it's bad if it's being presented as a serious alternative to the remainder of the book.
	__________________ "He is a sick, demented yeti." They only poo in other dimensions!

23rd January 2007, 01:18 PM	#3
Faustina JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 79	I think that's what bothers me the most. It's not like the book says, "A lot of patients will be interested in these alternate therapies, but there's not a iota of evidence to support them". It's that they are written about as if they are as valid as scientific medical practice. F'instance: "A human being is an open energy system. This assumption implies that the transfer of energy is natural and continuous. When a healer transfers energy to a healee using TT (therapeutic touch), it is without effort and guided by conscious, mindful action. The healer adds intentionality within a compassionate context. Illness is an imbalance in an individual's energy field. With TT, the healer manipulates the energy field by directing or modulating using the sense of touch much like the other four major senses of the body. All of these senses are able to act from a distance without direct connection. The human energy field extends a few inches away from the body surface, and the practitioner senses fine energy cues such as changes in pattern." Alexander's Care of the Patient in Surgery, Rothrock, et al.
Faustina JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 79	__________________ My Myspace page

23rd January 2007, 01:22 PM	#4
desertyeti Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: down by the river Posts: 838	Dear...God... Well, is there any wonder why people get so upset over woo? If I go to a doctor, shell out lord knows how much $$$, and have it explained to me that my "energy field is out of sync," I think I'd probably be very, very unhappy.
	__________________ "He is a sick, demented yeti." They only poo in other dimensions!

23rd January 2007, 01:25 PM	#5
Faustina JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 79	I think after I graduate, I'll write a snotty letter to the publisher....
Faustina JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 79	__________________ My Myspace page

23rd January 2007, 01:27 PM	#6
desertyeti Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: down by the river Posts: 838	You should probably also voice your concerns to your instructor and department chair. There's probably a wide variety of texts out there that are just as good, just as expensive, and lacking the woo factor. Good luck!
	__________________ "He is a sick, demented yeti." They only poo in other dimensions!

23rd January 2007, 03:38 PM	#7
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553	I found woo in my textbook last year too! Not much, only a couple of pages. After fuming the whole way through it, I found that it was mentioned that there was no evidence for it, bar placebo stuff. Kept me seething that there was even mention though, as I couldn't see the relevance of it. Mind you, I couldn't see the relevance of a whole lot that was in there. As part of the course I have to do these sociology parts, and it's not my bag, baby.
sat556 Guest Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 553

23rd January 2007, 05:42 PM	#8
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	Originally Posted by Faustina I think that's what bothers me the most. It's not like the book says, "A lot of patients will be interested in these alternate therapies, but there's not a iota of evidence to support them". It's that they are written about as if they are as valid as scientific medical practice. F'instance: "A human being is an open energy system. This assumption implies that the transfer of energy is natural and continuous. When a healer transfers energy to a healee using TT (therapeutic touch), it is without effort and guided by conscious, mindful action. The healer adds intentionality within a compassionate context. Illness is an imbalance in an individual's energy field. With TT, the healer manipulates the energy field by directing or modulating using the sense of touch much like the other four major senses of the body. All of these senses are able to act from a distance without direct connection. The human energy field extends a few inches away from the body surface, and the practitioner senses fine energy cues such as changes in pattern." Alexander's Care of the Patient in Surgery, Rothrock, et al. Since TT was thoroughly debunked by a young girl as a science project about six years ago, might I ask how long ago that crap was promulgated?
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881

23rd January 2007, 05:57 PM	#9
Faustina JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 79	Originally Posted by fuelair Since TT was thoroughly debunked by a young girl as a science project about six years ago, might I ask how long ago that crap was promulgated? The copyright on my edition is 2003.
Faustina JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 79	__________________ My Myspace page

23rd January 2007, 06:02 PM	#10
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,409	Originally Posted by fuelair Since TT was thoroughly debunked by a young girl as a science project about six years ago, might I ask how long ago that crap was promulgated? Unfortunately, I don't think that convinced a single believer. I mean wasn't Randi or somebody similar involved at some point at some time? And we all know how that affects things.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

23rd January 2007, 08:26 PM	#11
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	Originally Posted by Faustina I'm in surgical technology school right now. Most of what I'm learning has a hard scientific base, germ theory, asepsis, drug effects etc. But while reading through one of my texts, Alexander's Care of the Patient in Surgery( a long time standard in the field), what do I find tucked away in the back? Ahh, a chapter on "Complimentary and Alternative Therapy" or as I like to think of it, crystal-waving B.S. Let's see, there's talk of qi, Ayurveda, homeopathy (!!!), energy therapy, laying on of hands, and on and on. All treated in the same calm detached textbook manner as oh, say chapters on anesthesia, anatomy, surgical procedures, sterile fields and whatnot. Am I overreacting? Because I'm seriously disturbed to find this in a textbook for a critical health care profession. Fight the good fight.
subgenius Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 4,788	__________________ "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling private power."---Franklin D. Roosevelt Proud to be Liberal

24th January 2007, 12:28 PM	#12
desertyeti Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: down by the river Posts: 838	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto Unfortunately, I don't think that convinced a single believer. I mean wasn't Randi or somebody similar involved at some point at some time? And we all know how that affects things. Happens all the time. People still believe Televangelists, Uri Gellar, Congress, etc. Seems no matter how many times these losers get busted, the willfully ignorant will take up their cause and go right on acting like buffoons. Seriously, write to the book's publisher and/or author(s) and make your displeasure known. It can't hurt.
	__________________ "He is a sick, demented yeti." They only poo in other dimensions!

24th January 2007, 12:55 PM	#13
Faustina JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 79	Originally Posted by desertyeti Seriously, write to the book's publisher and/or author(s) and make your displeasure known. It can't hurt. I think I am. And I was going to speak to my instructor today but I didn't see her since I was in clinicals all day. But I'll track her down tomorrow!
Faustina JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 79	__________________ My Myspace page

25th January 2007, 04:44 AM	#14
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,564	I might have woo in my textbooks, but since they're mostly on quantum physics it's hard to tell.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

25th January 2007, 07:21 PM	#15
BayAreaGuy Student Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 42	I'm not surprised by this at all, Faustina. The college I teach for has a thriving Nursing department that is, like most, rife with pseudo-science and nonsense. Courses include homeopathy, acupuncture/acupressure, Therapeutic Touch therapy, and a whole host of other "complimentary and alternative medicine" subjects. As is the case with laws, it's easy to get one passed and nearly impossible to get rid of it. Our Curriculum Approval Committee is made up of volunteers from numerous disciplines, but they really don't have the expertise to critically assess each and every course. They pretty much leave that up to the Faculty who create the new class; as a result, if something seems to have any merit whatsoever, it gets approved. I'm currently working on investigating the process and will publish the results (to expose its ineffectiveness), but change is slow. The same is true for text books, and in that case it's even worse because market trends are really all that matters. In other words, if it sells, it gets printed. It's not in a publisher's best interest to refuse to print something marketable simply because it's not true; the gatekeepers for truth are the Faculty, and THAT'S who you should be making your complaint to! (After you get your grade, of course!). Good luck with it.
BayAreaGuy Student Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 42

26th January 2007, 03:19 PM	#16
Mr. Stick Thinker Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Denmark Posts: 231	Remember: "If you don't do it, nobody will. If you don't do it today, it'll never be done" Good luck.
	__________________ John Edward: But, I'm a psychic. Stan Marsh: No, dude. You're a douche. John Edward: I'm not a douche. What if I really believed dead people talk to me? Stan Marsh: Then, you're a stupid douche!