Holistic, Homeopathy, and Acupuncture in Veterinary Medicine

[New Foundland]

About glucosamine: I think it has been proven as more of a preventative for arthritis rather than a cure. Yeah, once you have arthritis, it will not cure it, and will not help pain.

However, if you start using it at the earliest evidence of pre-arthritis, it will help prevent further degeneration of the cartilege.

hold up a sec.
The thread is still reeling from your first post..
Can you please clarify/address or defend these points:
1) Doctor of Osteopathy is not in any way the "same thing" as an MD.
2) Chiropractic has been shown to be completely useless for most remedies it claims to treat, save lower back-pain, for which it is as effective as physiotherapy (in humans). The core of chiropractic philosophy is unscientific.
3) There are no "good, quantifiable" aspects to homeopathy. Quantify this: Many standard homeopathic dilutions are diluted well beyond 1 in 6.022x10^23 parts, meaning they almost definitely have zero remaining molecules of the initial substance.
4) no there are not a "host" of good reasons to use homeopathic compounds..
5) The fact that active substances have a toxicity curve proves nothing at all.. water has a toxicity curve. apples have a toxicity curve. Pointing out that "side effects exist" does not lend support for the use of ineffective alternative treatment methods.
6) Please give me your definition of "real quackery". Seriously, please..
7) "it's not that hard" to avoid real quackery eh? Evidently it is.

And from your 2nd post:
8) No, glucosamine has NOT been proven as having any significant preventative effect at all. See the above poster's link to the recent Skeptvet entry..



I thought sumstorm's Name that logical fallacy! challenge (climaxing at a chilling homeopathy/vaccination false equivalency) was disturbing..


Now I'm so motivated to start a Science-Based Vet Med student group when I get into vet school..
Maybe this thread isn't so bad after all

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[New Foundland]

if you want to sway people to your line of thought, it helps to not piss them off first.

Very true, i know this all too well..

But sometimes you can calculate the probability of people changing their line of thought even if you are polite about it, and it's not worth the attempt..

 

[Coquette22]

I don't have access to the whole article without buying it, but here's the abstract:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0738081X86900751

This is just an example of where alternative medicine could be effective.

I am NOT shoving beliefs down anyone's throat, I'm interested in other scientific people's insights.

That isn't homeopathy. It's a dilution, yes, but as it has been pointed out repeatedly, homeopathy calls for dilution beyond any measurable amount of active ingredient.

 

[JulesMichy]

Now I'm so motivated to start a Science-Based Vet Med student group when I get into vet school..
Maybe this thread isn't so bad after all

I'm in the process of doing so! I've got two faculty advisers on board and have been talking with Dr. McKenzie (the Skeptvet) in order to help the EBVMA develop supplemental materials for EBM/SBM clubs to use for lectures, workshops, etc.

My plans for the club are to first develop a tool box for evaluating studies; how to calculate an adequate sample size, appropriate margins of error for number of variables compared, etc. And then to vote on a topic each month to get together to do a literature review on.

But sometimes you can calculate the probability of people changing their line of thought even if you are polite about it, and it's not worth the attempt..

Pretty much my reasoning. True believers in alt med will never change their minds. They will always move the goalposts and rationalize why the latest meta analysis showing ineffectiveness for their flavor of woo is wrong. The latest argument I've heard is by far the most absurd, claiming that the modern scientific method can't be used for determining the efficacy of "Eastern" medicine.

 

[squeegee]

1) Doctor of Osteopathy is not in any way the "same thing" as an MD.

I'm pretty sure MD's and DO's have a comparable education and the only difference is that DO's have additional education in muscle manipulation and massage...they are so similar many people are unaware of whether their primary care physician is an MD or DO.

 

[JulesMichy]

I'm pretty sure MD's and DO's have a comparable education and the only difference is that DO's have additional education in muscle manipulation and massage...they are so similar many people are unaware of whether their primary care physician is an MD or DO.

Education is more or less comparable, but degree of intellectual integrity and use of evidence-based procedures is not: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html

"...the American Osteopathic Association is acting improperly by exaggerating the value of manipulative therapy and by failing to denounce cranial therapy. If you wish to select an osteopathic physician as your primary-care provider, your best bet is to seek one who: (a) has undergone residency training at a medical hospital; (b) does not assert that osteopaths have a unique philosophy or that manipulation offers general health benefits; (c) either does not use manipulation or uses it primarily to treat back pain; and (d) does not practice cranial therapy."

In other words, there are good osteopaths, but the prevalence of acceptance and use of alternative treatments among osteopaths is far higher than MDs.

 

[Mohorsegirl]

That isn't homeopathy. It's a dilution, yes, but as it has been pointed out repeatedly, homeopathy calls for dilution beyond any measurable amount of active ingredient.

Then with that definition, I also agree homeopathy is a rip off. However, the wikipedia definition is not how it is used in real practices. The terms homeopathy and holistic medicine are used interchangeably with most of the people who will make up our clientele, as well as herbal remedies/alternative medicine.

However you want to term it, most people put probiotics, suppliments, chiropractic, massage, and acupuncture in the homeopathic category.

If you want to have a profitable practice, I suggest not getting caught up in explaining unimportant technicalities.

Reeling from my first post, huh? I didn't know I held so much power. Please tell me what logical fallacy appears in my post.

 

[Coquette22]

However you want to term it, most people put probiotics, suppliments, chiropractic, massage, and acupuncture in the homeopathic category.

If you want to have a profitable practice, I suggest not getting caught up in explaining unimportant technicalities.

I would argue that whether or not something actually contains an active ingredient is hardly unimportant. That strikes me as being a very important technicality. YMMV. If I buy Tylenol and lab tests show it doesn't actually contain acetominophen, that's not an "unimportant technicality". If I buy a homeopathic remedy that's supposed to have an active ingredient and that ingredient can't be found, that's important.

And if people are calling themselves "homeopaths" and creating "remedies" by diluting it to noneffective doses, then that is the definition of homeopathy.

 

[New Foundland]

Then with that definition, I also agree homeopathy is a rip off. However, the wikipedia definition is not how it is used in real practices. The terms homeopathy and holistic medicine are used interchangeably with most of the people who will make up our clientele, as well as herbal remedies/alternative medicine.

However you want to term it, most people put probiotics, suppliments, chiropractic, massage, and acupuncture in the homeopathic category.

If you want to have a profitable practice, I suggest not getting caught up in explaining unimportant technicalities.

That's what homeopathy is! the wikipedia definition.
The reason you think it is synonymous with holistic or natural is because you don't know what homeopathy is! and in that sense you are much like the majority of people who use homeopathy.
Just because people are uninformed about homeopathy does not mean that the definition of it has been de facto supplanted by the misconceptions of these people!


most people think chiropractors are doctors who work on backs/necks. that doesn't make them such!

Reeling from my first post, huh? I didn't know I held so much power. Please tell me what logical fallacy appears in my post.

My logical fallacy comment was with regards to sumstorm. You haven't really been using logic, just mostly saying things that are plain wrong or completely uninformed.

 

[Mohorsegirl]

Education is more or less comparable, but degree of intellectual integrity and use of evidence-based procedures is not: http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html

"...the American Osteopathic Association is acting improperly by exaggerating the value of manipulative therapy and by failing to denounce cranial therapy. If you wish to select an osteopathic physician as your primary-care provider, your best bet is to seek one who: (a) has undergone residency training at a medical hospital; (b) does not assert that osteopaths have a unique philosophy or that manipulation offers general health benefits; (c) either does not use manipulation or uses it primarily to treat back pain; and (d) does not practice cranial therapy."

In other words, there are good osteopaths, but the prevalence of acceptance and use of alternative treatments among osteopaths is far higher than MDs.

And is this source not biased???

Regardless of the position of different organizations on alternative medicine, people and animals have benefitted from manipulations. And to say that they only service the lower back is false. You can control sensation all the way in the fingers with cervical vertebra, and it is well known that sciatic pain can radiate down the back of the legs.

No, I am not a chiropractor, and I have nothing to benefit from changing your opinion. I am just a vet student. But, I have seen many horses benefit from a chiropractic adjustment (IMMEDIATE lengthening of stride, movement that seemed to be pain free. And no, you can't quantify pain, but if you work with animals enough you can recognize the signs).

 

[Mohorsegirl]

I would argue that whether or not something actually contains an active ingredient is hardly unimportant. That strikes me as being a very important technicality. YMMV. If I buy Tylenol and lab tests show it doesn't actually contain acetominophen, that's not an "unimportant technicality". If I buy a homeopathic remedy that's supposed to have an active ingredient and that ingredient can't be found, that's important.

And if people are calling themselves "homeopaths" and creating "remedies" by diluting it to noneffective doses, then that is the definition of homeopathy.

No, I mean the technicality of missnaming homeopathic/holistic/alternative/herbal

 

[JulesMichy]

However you want to term it, most people put probiotics, suppliments, chiropractic, massage, and acupuncture in the homeopathic category.

If you want to have a profitable practice, I suggest not getting caught up in explaining unimportant technicalities.

Okay, well then even going by your definition of homeopathy I will explain the very important detail that none of the treatments you listed have very strong evidence supporting their effectiveness, or have been outright proven to have little to no benefit. Whether or not that garners me a profitable practice doesn't concern me nearly as much as whether or not I'm practicing good medicine and maintaining my integrity as a medical professional.

Besides which, I plan on practicing lab animal medicine, so not only will my income not depend on clientele but luckily (hopefully) I will be surrounded by people as rationally-inclined as myself.

 

[Coquette22]

That's what homeopathy is! the wikipedia definition.
The reason you think it is synonymous with holistic or natural is because you don't know what homeopathy is! and in that sense you are much like the majority of people who use homeopathy.
Just because people are uninformed about homeopathy does not mean that the definition of it has been de facto supplanted by the misconceptions of these people!

New Foundland, I can't wait to meet you in real life at some point, because I swear you're a man after my own heart.

Here's what a homeopath defines homeopathy as: http://www.classichomeopathy.com/remedies/howmade.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]The mother tincture is put through the basic process of being potentised. Quite simply, one drop of the mother tincture is put into a vial and then nine drops of a diluting material is added (again an alcohol and water solution). This mixture is succussed (shaken with impact).

Succussion is essential. It has been proven that just diluting the material is ineffectual for making homeopathic remedies. Each dilution must be shaken violently with impact in order to become an effective remedy.

Succussion can be as simple as holding the vile containing the solution and pounding it against a book on a desk (with a lid on, of-course). This is now a 1X potency. X stands for ten in Roman numerals. To make a 2X potency you take one part of the 1X potency again adding it to nine parts of the diluting solution (alcohol, and water) in a vile with a lid, and then succus it. Seccussion is done at a minimum of 100 times per each level of dilution starting from the very beginning. This process continues until the desired potency (strength) of the remedy is attained..

And again: http://www.healthynewage.com/what-is-homeopathy.htm

Paradoxically, the more a homeopathic remedy is diluted the more effective a remedy will work.

And again: http://be-well-now.org/how-are-homeopathic-medicines-made/

The first step it to make a ‘mother tincture’ which is the typical strength of an herbal medicine. To do this, one part of the medicinal substance is mixed with nine parts of 35% alcohol. This is a 1/10 dilution. It is the first step in creating a homeopathic remedy. If the substance is a mineral then it is ground with sugar into a fine powder. One part of this tincture is then mixed with ninety-nine parts of distilled water and then shaken vigorously (this shaking is known as ‘succussion’). This is now called the 1c dilution. It is a 1/1,000 dilution, which is never used as a medicine, because it is considered too weak.
In the next step, one part of the 1c is taken and mixed with another ninety-nine parts of distilled water and succussed, creating a 2c dilution potency. This process is repeated four more times to create the 6c potency. A 6c dilution is also considered to be a ‘weak dose’, but, therapeutically, it can be taken by a patient up to four times a day. The 6c potency has one part of the original substance in 10,000,000,000,000 parts of water.
The 30c potency means that 24 more dilutions are made to the 6c dilution and this new concentration is one part of the original substance in 1, followed by 60 zeros, parts of water.

 

[Coquette22]

No, I mean the technicality of missnaming homeopathic/holistic/alternative/herbal

No, I still disagree. Just because people use them wrong doesn't change the definition. I also said further up in the thread (or maybe it was the antibody thread, I'm not sure) that I think homeopathic "remedies" should have to be labelled and someone explain to the the customer at the time of sale exactly how they're made, so as not to confuse them with herbal. I've also said I have no problem with herbal remedies. But homeopathy is nothing but a scam, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[squeegee]

In other words, there are good osteopaths, but the prevalence of acceptance and use of alternative treatments among osteopaths is far higher than MDs.

Well I would assume so, since DO's are trained in OMM they will use it as an "alternative treatment" 100% more often than an MD without that training. But regardless of what guidelines there are in osteopathic medicine it doesn't mean they have to always use OMM in practice; in fact many of my friends who graduated from DO schools don't ever plan on using OMM and only attended that school because they did not gain admission to an MD program.

I am curious as to what you mean by "degree of intellectual integrity...is not [more or less comparable]"...to me that's saying that DO's are either not as smart as MD's or are of questionable character...

 

[twelvetigers]

As far as anyone not trying to decide what they personally want to pursue, DO=MD. I don't care which one my doctors are, and I think they produce, by and large, equally trained students.

And most DOs think chiropracty is BS too.

We get mad when they make idiotic assumptions about vet med schools, admissions, and students, so let's not go around doing the same thing to them.

 

[JulesMichy]

Well I would assume so, since DO's are trained in OMM they will use it as an "alternative treatment" 100% more often than an MD without that training. But regardless of what guidelines there are in osteopathic medicine it doesn't mean they have to always use OMM in practice; in fact many of my friends who graduated from DO schools don't ever plan on using OMM and only attended that school because they did not gain admission to an MD program.

I am curious as to what you mean by "degree of intellectual integrity...is not [more or less comparable]"...to me that's saying that DO's are either not as smart as MD's or are of questionable character...

That was pretty much my point. That there are people who attend osteopathic medical schools just to get the MD training because they weren't accepted into medical schools, and that the curriculum is pretty much identical apart from the OMM aspect.

By intellectual integrity I meant the acceptance of OMM, chiropractic and other alternative medicine modalities is far higher amongst osteopaths than MDs. There are some, as you said, that reject that stuff the moment they have their degree in hand and only practice evidence-based medicine. But many go on to careers in "complimentary" medicine (ask me how much I hate that word).

 

[LetItSnow]

I've always been interested in how people make the decisions they do.

So it's really interesting to me that a number of us have ridiculed people who, as clients, have put stock in alternative treatment modalities. Yet, there's clearly a divide even among people like us (who presumably have at least a smidgen more technical understanding of what's going on).

Seems to me we ought to be a little more understanding of our (future) clients' confusion since we can't even seem to agree ourselves.

 

[eventualeventer]

That was pretty much my point. That there are people who attend osteopathic medical schools just to get the MD training because they weren't accepted into medical schools, and that the curriculum is pretty much identical apart from the OMM aspect.

By intellectual integrity I meant the acceptance of OMM, chiropractic and other alternative medicine modalities is far higher amongst osteopaths than MDs. There are some, as you said, that reject that stuff the moment they have their degree in hand and only practice evidence-based medicine. But many go on to careers in "complimentary" medicine (ask me how much I hate that word).

Could you please provide some numbers to go with your claim that acceptance of alt med is "far higher among osteopaths than MD's"? It's true that MD's do not receive training in OMM, but that training is far from a prerequisite to drink the Kool-Aid of alt med. I would actually be interested in both numbers.

I guess you could put me squarely in the middle - I lean more to the skeptic side, but I reserve judgment on some things. I do think that a lot of alt med practitioners are full of s*** when it comes to promoting their kind of alt med for every possible ailment, or mixing quasi-legitimate things with voodoo like homeopathy. I am also very cognizant of the fact that anything that has a biological effect has the potential to cause harm, including alt meds except homeopathy (well, true, if you drank enough you could get water intoxication ), so I don't really trust herbs unless they (and the specific manufacturer/supplier - there's that whole lack of regulation/standardization) have a long track record of safe use.

I have seen spinal manipulation appear to make a significant difference in horses with primary back and pelvis problems or who even just seemed "stuck" under saddle, but I guess it's sort of like PT for horses and IMO there isn't an alternative currently which accomplishes the same thing. I accept that the evidence isn't there and would only let a vet I knew and trusted to do spinal manipulation, and a horse with a serious issue needs radiographs and possibly other things like steroid injections, muscle relaxants, etc.

LetItSnow, regarding how we think about these things, I recently had acupuncture despite the knowledge that any effect might be a placebo. Why? Because, for relieving pain for a condition that is already being appropriately treated medically, I don't particularly care WHY the brain is giving you fewer pain messages, just that it does, and the risk for acupuncture done with single-use sterile needles is very low, low enough that I considered it an acceptable risk-potential benefit tradeoff. I was under the care of a physician who actually suggested acupuncture as possibly helping, and it didn't interfere with any of my conventional treatments. I paid for it myself, so it wasn't costing my health insurance, and by extension other people, anything (although the Celebrex I tried cost MORE per week). It helped some, enough to make it easier to function while waiting for surgery, and I still don't know what was placebo vs effect on ascending nociceptive pathways or descending control thereof, but since pain (as opposed to nociception) is a conscious process anyway, how much does it matter for a relatively short-term process?

 

[LetItSnow]

LetItSnow, regarding how we think about these things, I recently had acupuncture despite the knowledge that any effect might be a placebo. Why? Because, for relieving pain for a condition that is already being appropriately treated medically, I don't particularly care WHY the brain is giving you fewer pain messages, just that it does

So in other words, your desire for pain relief was sufficiently overwhelming that you opted for a treatment modality with little to no evidence of efficacy, in the hopes that it either directly caused relief or brought about relief via placebo effect?

I have zero problem with that. Pain sucks, it's your body, and if I were in your shoes I might give just about anything a try, too, if I didn't think there was a significant risk of it causing more problems.

My point was that in spite of our personal opinions (pro, con, somewhere in the middle) the fact is that even the medical community itself presents a mixed message to the general public. For that reason alone, I think it behooves us to be understanding of people who turn to alternative medicine. Pretty unreasonable to expect them to be "rational" when the medical community can't even provide a unified front.

And I'm happy for you that you found some pain relief.

 

[eventualeventer]

So in other words, your desire for pain relief was sufficiently overwhelming that you opted for a treatment modality with little to no evidence of efficacy, in the hopes that it either directly caused relief or brought about relief via placebo effect?

I have zero problem with that. Pain sucks, it's your body, and if I were in your shoes I might give just about anything a try, too, if I didn't think there was a significant risk of it causing more problems.

My point was that in spite of our personal opinions (pro, con, somewhere in the middle) the fact is that even the medical community itself presents a mixed message to the general public. For that reason alone, I think it behooves us to be understanding of people who turn to alternative medicine. Pretty unreasonable to expect them to be "rational" when the medical community can't even provide a unified front.

And I'm happy for you that you found some pain relief.

Thanks. And, yes, you summed it up. I wouldn't even say that the pain was overwhelming, just persistent and intrusive. Nevertheless, in my worldview, it *was* a rational decision based on the relative values I placed on each part of the picture - the pain was enough to motivate me to try something, I placed a high value on even a "placebo" outcome (and how would I tell placebo from non-placebo?), and I placed a low value on the risks. I would expect this to vary from person to person; some would put less value on pain relief (maybe they're less wimpy than me), or more value on the small but present risks, and conclude that the chance of improvement wasn't worth it. Similarly, I accepted or rejected other options based on this sort of judgment. Celebrex and Tylenol - low risk, no side effects seen, modest benefit - accepted. Low-dose TCA - low risk and moderate benefit possible, so I tried, but ended up with side effects I judged to be more important than the possible benefits, so I stopped.

This is the same sort of calculation anyone goes through when making a treatment decision based on informed consent or whatever the closest thing is to truly informed consent for a layperson. I guess I would say that our job as future health professionals is to do our best to help our clients make informed decisions. Although we are within our rights to decide not to offer certain treatments or even to fire someone as a client if we are not comfortable with their decision, but I think it's important to think about what's behind their decisions.

 

[RadRadTerp]

No, I still disagree. Just because people use them wrong doesn't change the definition. I also said further up in the thread (or maybe it was the antibody thread, I'm not sure) that I think homeopathic "remedies" should have to be labelled and someone explain to the the customer at the time of sale exactly how they're made, so as not to confuse them with herbal. I've also said I have no problem with herbal remedies. But homeopathy is nothing but a scam, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that we should stick to the correct definitions, but it is also important to recognize that people don't often stick to the dictionary/internet definition of a term and that language is fluid, so changes in meaning will occur over time. I suspect that if/when I practice, I will encounter people desiring of some alternative treatment and I'll have to focus more on the specific nature of that treatment rather than its appropriate classification.

 

[Coquette22]

I suspect that if/when I practice, I will encounter people desiring of some alternative treatment and I'll have to focus more on the specific nature of that treatment rather than its appropriate classification.

Of course, in practice I'd deal with it as it came up - if a client asked about homeopathic remedies and actually wanted herbal, then that's fine. But for the purposes of internet debate, it works much better if everyone is using the same definition.

 

[JulesMichy]

Could you please provide some numbers to go with your claim that acceptance of alt med is "far higher among osteopaths than MD's"? It's true that MD's do not receive training in OMM, but that training is far from a prerequisite to drink the Kool-Aid of alt med. I would actually be interested in both numbers.

I already did, above.

"The percentages of DOs involved in chelation therapy, clinical ecology, orthomolecular therapy, homeopathy, ayurvedic medicine, and several other dubious practices appear to be higher among osteopaths than among medical doctors by inspecting the membership directories of groups that promote these practices and/or by comparing the relative percentages of MDs and DOs listed in the Alternative Medicine Yellow Pages [4] and HealthWorld Online's Professional Referral Network. The most widespread dubious treatment among DOs appears to be cranial therapy."

 

[awaring1]

I just got a job offer for the summer working at a vet office that practices "traditional Chinese veterinary medicine" and uses a mix of Eastern and Western practices. I still don't know if I will take the job (I have another offer to work part-time at a local zoo that is about 20 miles closer) but if I do, I would love to share any neat things they do.

 

[JulesMichy]

I just got a job offer for the summer working at a vet office that practices "traditional Chinese veterinary medicine"

If they offer acupuncture, then they're lying. That whole thing about acupuncture being thousands of years old is a fabrication.

"To start with, this ancient Chinese treatment is not so ancient and may not even be Chinese! From studying the earliest documents, Chinese scholar Paul Unschuld suspects the idea may have originated with the Greek Hippocrates of Cos and later spread to China. There’s certainly no evidence that it’s 3000 years old. The earliest Chinese medical texts, from the 3rd century BC, don’t mention it. The earliest reference to “needling” is from 90 BC, but it refers to bloodletting and lancing abscesses with large needles or lancets. There is nothing in those documents to suggest anything like today’s acupuncture. We have the archaeological evidence of needles from that era – they are large; the technology for manufacturing thin steel needles appropriate for acupuncture didn’t exist until 400 years ago."

 

[2CatMatt]

If they offer acupuncture, then they're lying.

I like this sentence from the first paragraph, "Please keep in mind that it was written for a popular audience and excuse the lack of scholarly citations."

Anyway, red flags immediately go up for me when someone makes an argument that is so staunchly black or white it leaves no room for anything else. Science is amazing because it is constantly evolving and changing things we thought we knew. Red flags also go up for me when the web url has the words "quack" or "skeptic" in them.

Point being, I understand people's views against alternative medicine, and probably even agree with you on most of it, but some of these assertions are treading dangerously close to "conspiracy theory" territory.

 

[New Foundland]

I like this sentence from the first paragraph, "Please keep in mind that it was written for a popular audience and excuse the lack of scholarly citations."

Anyway, red flags immediately go up for me when someone makes an argument that is so staunchly black or white it leaves no room for anything else. Science is amazing because it is constantly evolving and changing things we thought we knew. Red flags also go up for me when the web url has the words "quack" or "skeptic" in them.

Point being, I understand people's views against alternative medicine, and probably even agree with you on most of it, but some of these assertions are treading dangerously close to "conspiracy theory" territory.

matt, is there anything of substance regarding alt.med that you're willing to defend?
or do you just not like the tone with which some people dismiss certain treatments?

"Please keep in mind that it was written for a popular audience and excuse the lack of scholarly citations."

Do you use this to dismiss the entire article?
A shame you couldn't have gotten as far as the next sentence - "You may recognize some of the studies I refer to from previous blog entries"
Dr. Hall hardly wrote an opinion piece. She is fully familiar with the acupuncture research and what it does and doesn't say, as well as the history of acupuncture.


If you have anything substantial more than "I don't like people who call themselves skeptics or use the word quack", I'd love to have an actual argument..

Who is treading close to the "conspiracy theory" realm?
What do they say that is so farfetched or exaggerated or unfounded?

 

[JulesMichy]

Do you use this to dismiss the entire article?
A shame you couldn't have gotten as far as the next sentence - "You may recognize some of the studies I refer to from previous blog entries"
Dr. Hall hardly wrote an opinion piece. She is fully familiar with the acupuncture research and what it does and doesn't say, as well as the history of acupuncture.

Thank you, I was just about to say the same and encourage Matt to feel free to check out any of the other entries under the acupuncture category which do contain scholarly source citations. Such as this article by David Ramey, DVM: "Acupuncture and history: The "ancient" therapy that's been around for decades."

Sounds like yet another attempt to dismiss skeptics as "narrow-minded" without attacking the substance of their arguments.

 

[2CatMatt]

matt, is there anything of substance regarding alt.med that you're willing to defend?
or do you just not like the tone with which some people dismiss certain treatments?

The tone that is being used. That, plus ad hominem attacks against people who may disagree does a disservice to any argument however valid it may be.

 

[2CatMatt]

If you have anything substantial more than "I don't like people who call themselves skeptics or use the word quack", I'd love to have an actual argument..

Also, do not misquote me, that is not what I said. What I meant was when a website's URL has words such as those, I assume it was created for one sole purpose (anything, not just alternative medicine, "Western" medicine, e.g. dogsaredumber.com, whatever) and therefore raises a red flag for me as a signal that it may have an inherent bias. So that is my actual argument and the point of my post.

All your other questions you posed to me are not relevant to what I posted.

 

[JulesMichy]

The tone that is being used. That, plus ad hominem attacks against people who may disagree does a disservice to any argument however valid it may be.

Please don't misuse that term. The internet is full of people shouting "ad hominem" without actually knowing what it means. Ad hominem has a very specific meaning in debate and it does not mean simply insulting the person that you are arguing against.

An example of an ad hominem would be: "You're an idiot who believes in holistic medicine, therefore you're wrong."

This is not an example of ad hominem: "You are an idiot who believes in holistic medicine, and also you're wrong."

The personal insult or attack must be the premise of the argument in order to qualify as ad hominem. Simply insulting someone while also making an argument completely separate from the insult does not fit the criteria.

 

[awaring1]

If they offer acupuncture, then they're lying. That whole thing about acupuncture being thousands of years old is a fabrication.

I am not sure about acupuncture. I really have no experience with this clinic. This is what their website says:

"An initial consultation with Dr. ****** includes a review of previous medical records and diagnostic test results and a thorough Western and Eastern physical examination. After reviewing all findings, Dr. ****** formulates a TCVM diagnosis and treatment plan. The consultation also includes a thorough discussion of treatment objectives and expectations, as well as time to answer any questions the owner may have."


(TCVM= traditional Chinese veterinary medicine)

 

[awaring1]

 

[twelvetigers]

I don't think that the 4th panel was originally intended for its use as presented here with a soap container... lol.

 

[New Foundland]

2catmatt, it's fair to be on alert for idealism indicators on the web. Necessary even.

But your red flag system is all wrong..

The majority of the modern "Skeptical" movement are very open-minded academics and other folk who value evidence above all else.
to "be skeptical" does not mean to debunk claims and doubt everything, it means to be open-minded and examine the evidence and hold your viewpoint based on the evidence available.

I encourage you to go through the Science-based-medicine blog, or neurologica, or skeptvet, or david ramey's blog...
If you take a fair look at any of the authors of these sites, I promise you will see integrity in a rather pure form, and a very strong commitment to evidence.
Such academic principles are not often found on the web, but the force remains strong with the (capital S) Skeptics.

It may seem like most of what they do is "debunk", but keep in mind that the lion's share of alt.med is poorly supported at best and often-times sad or laughable.
They are usually dealing with popular subjects for which the supporting evidence is utter junk.

Quackwatch is another site run by a fantastic academic who has an incredibly strong grasp on how to appraise evidence and read peer-reviewed literature (he's been an editor for numerous top med journals).
Unfortunately quacks are rampant in all societies. I agree with labeling snake oil as snake oil, and snake oil salespersons as quacks. Nobody is standing up and yelling "Quack!" at everyone who has sold glucosamine supplements. That would be extreme and unwarranted. But quack is a useful term and unfortunately is widely applicable in many cases all over the world.


You seem to want to be all PC and non-confrontational about things.
Seems like you're opposing those you accuse of being over-zealous merely because of their zeal and not because of the issue that births their zeal.


Shameful that we can't get anyone to cogently argue for the use of alt.med or debate the evidence of X alt.med in such a thread as this..
You just end up with discussion over things like being sensitive to the misinformed, or facing the realities of the business world. Which sure are legitimate topics, but it just shows you how indefensible most of these CAM "treatments" really are.


PS: comics? i want in.

 

[JulesMichy]

New Foundland: Link for the comic?

 

[New Foundland]

New Foundland: Link for the comic?

Cectic

it's an amazing site. I'd go to the archive and start from the oldest cartoon and go through every one of them

 

[Mohorsegirl]

"Shameful that we can't get anyone to cogently argue for the use of alt.med or debate the evidence of X alt.med in such a thread as this.."

So every thing I've said so far is chopped liver, huh?

How about this: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/9272472/reload=0;jsessionid=EDAF62BEF96E8131CB0642B96F80BA52.jvm4

 

[KiaKia]

"Shameful that we can't get anyone to cogently argue for the use of alt.med or debate the evidence of X alt.med in such a thread as this.."

So every thing I've said so far is chopped liver, huh?

How about this: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/9272472/reload=0;jsessionid=EDAF62BEF96E8131CB0642B96F80BA52.jvm4

Maybe pick something that isn't fibromyalgia, which controversial in its diagnosis, treatment, existence, everything. Must suck to have a pain disorder whose main mode of treatment is antidepressants.

It's a wacky disorder. The podcast twiv covers it frequently, since there's some of research connecting it to the XMRV virus.

 

[New Foundland]

"Shameful that we can't get anyone to cogently argue for the use of alt.med or debate the evidence of X alt.med in such a thread as this.."

So every thing I've said so far is chopped liver, huh?

It would seem as such..
You've shown that you don't know what homeopathy is, yet you try to defend its use.. You've tried to claim that glucosamine is proven effective, while the evidence tends to disagree.. You linked to a poison hyposensitization abstract, wrongfully presuming that it is evidence in favour of homeopathy.. Quibbled over definitions for a bit.. Then insisted that chiropractic is effective, citing your own experiences as your reasoning..

Chopped liver? Well I wouldn't use such a term..

How about this: http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/9272472/reload=0;jsessionid=EDAF62BEF96E8131CB0642B96F80BA52.jvm4

i'm afraid linking to a poorly controlled pilot study abstract is not a strong form of argument..

All kinds of things have shown moderate to limited efficacy for fibromyalgia patients.. exercise, massage, CBT, physio, strength training, spa therapy, etc etc..

Also, from just looking at the abstract I can not only see how poorly controlled it is, i can also see that the chiropractic management incorporated "soft tissue therapy" and stretching into its regiment..
That study does absolutely nothing to support the efficacy of spinal manipulation in fibromyalgia..
chiropractors have been known to mix in other forms of treatment (physio etc) with their spinal manipulations..
When you study chiropractic, it is manipulations that are of interest..

 

[KiaKia]

there's chiropractors that insist that spinal realignment is necessary to prevent disease etc

then there's "chiropractors" that crack your joints for you because they hurt and you can't do it yourself. These people don't necessarily act on the belief system of chiropractic, and even if they did, who cares, you're going to them for sports medicine/back pain type stuff that *does* actually need someone who is an expert in putting bones and joints back where they are supposed to go. They could be flat-earthers for all I care.

I've been treated by both kinds, I've only been treated by real chiropractors when I was expecting the physical therapist type of treatment. The real kind, doesn't do much, is expensive, and they also need all sorts of x-rays to treat diseases that don't need radiology to diagnose. The physical therapist type - I pray there's one at every sports competition I participate in so they can put my battered bones back into position.

 

[JulesMichy]

someone who is an expert in putting bones and joints back where they are supposed to go.

This is one of those poorly-defined, over-hyped ideas that alt med has excelled at getting the general public to buy into. Unless you've got a luxated patella or dislocated shoulder, your bones are exactly where they are supposed to be. That cracking sound your bones make when you get an "adjustment" isn't your bones falling back into a supposed perfect conformation, it's air pockets within synovial fluid being expelled from your joints.

Now an argument could be made that trauma could force air pockets to form, causing pressure in the joint that can be relieved through "popping" the joint. But that is not the same thing as a supposed "misalignment."

If I've learned anything in vet school so far it's that lateral, collateral, medial, oblique, etc. ad nauseum ligaments exist on practically every joint in your body, preventing them from moving in ways that they're not supposed to. They do a very good job of it, too. And if they're not then something is very wrong and requires medical attention, not a witch doctor mashing on your back.

 

[Coquette22]

If we're posting comments, I can't help but add some XKCD:

 

[KiaKia]

This is one of those poorly-defined, over-hyped ideas that alt med has excelled at getting the general public to buy into. Unless you've got a luxated patella or dislocated shoulder, your bones are exactly where they are supposed to be. That cracking sound your bones make when you get an "adjustment" isn't your bones falling back into a supposed perfect conformation, it's air pockets within synovial fluid being expelled from your joints.

Now an argument could be made that trauma could force air pockets to form, causing pressure in the joint that can be relieved through "popping" the joint. But that is not the same thing as a supposed "misalignment."

If I've learned anything in vet school so far it's that lateral, collateral, medial, oblique, etc. ad nauseum ligaments exist on practically every joint in your body, preventing them from moving in ways that they're not supposed to. They do a very good job of it, too. And if they're not then something is very wrong and requires medical attention, not a witch doctor mashing on your back.

I understand all that, but I also participate in a sometimes brutal contact sport in which people do sometimes dislocate their shoulders, and your opponent is actively moving your joints in ways that they're not supposed to.

ok final edit, on the other hand, you're right, witch doctoring won't fix much. I'm basing support of hands-on manipulation on 2 experiences at 2 tournaments - I went to people labeled "chiropractor" and said "i'm having trouble moving my arm/shoulder, and my neck hurts" they manipulated my shoulder with zero pops/cracks and I could move it again! didn't fix the problem permanently obviously, but it was enough to get me through the day. I don't think these people were what other chiropractors would consider chiropractors, since they did nothing to my spine. (and my neck still hurt)

Also, my track record with doctors + sports injuries has been less than great. I don't act like someone in pain/discomfort(I can't help that, it's just how I act), so they basically tell me not to do my preferred activities and give me some NSAIDs. When I demanded x-rays i got the x-rays and ... my prescription for NSAID and "as we get older, we can't be as active as we were when we were younger". There's some truth to that, sure, but I'm 24.