How do *****s become doctors?

[Brent8927]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I don't know enough about acupuncture to know whether it works or not but I get frustrated by dogmatic followers on both sides of the CAM debate. As scientists, we cannot say accept or dismiss out of hand medications simply because it's labeled with 'alternative' or 'modern' in it.

As an above poster pointed out, an ancient antimalarial drug was found to have real pharmaceutical properties. Sadly, some people would dismiss such a drug merely because it is "ancient Chinese nonsense". Interestingly, ephedrine was also used by the ancient Chinese, it's properties were written down by physicians at the time---but I doubt many people would now call ephedrine "ancient ", "Chinese" or "nonsensical". 😉

Myself, I take a more moderated approach. Just as I think it's foolhardy for some people to assume ALL natural or 'ancient' remedies must be good (because they have some mystical properties), I won't close my eyes to nonproven medicines simply because it has not been studied----that isn't to say I'd prescribe it, but I wouldn't dismiss out of hand if a patient says it works for them. It is the height of arrogance to assume modern scientists is the sole repository of pharmaceutical knowledge.

Nicely worded 🙂

 

[softmed]

I don't know enough about acupuncture to know whether it works or not but I get frustrated by dogmatic followers on both sides of the CAM debate. As scientists, we cannot say accept or dismiss out of hand medications simply because it's labeled with 'alternative' or 'modern' in it.

As an above poster pointed out, an ancient antimalarial drug was found to have real pharmaceutical properties. Sadly, some people would dismiss such a drug merely because it is "ancient Chinese nonsense". Interestingly, ephedrine was also used by the ancient Chinese, it's properties were written down by physicians at the time---but I doubt many people would now call ephedrine "ancient ", "Chinese" or "nonsensical". 😉

Myself, I take a more moderated approach. Just as I think it's foolhardy for some people to assume ALL natural or 'ancient' remedies must be good (because they have some mystical properties), I won't close my eyes to nonproven medicines simply because it has not been studied----that isn't to say I'd prescribe it, but I wouldn't dismiss out of hand if a patient says it works for them. It is the height of arrogance to assume modern scientists is the sole repository of pharmaceutical knowledge.

Do you also get frustrated with people who go on one side of the evolution "debate"? It's simple: there's medicine with evidence, and there's medicine without evidence. By some coincidence the stuff without evidence might work, but the vast majority of it is placebo.

 

[146233]

Do you also get frustrated with people who go on one side of the evolution "debate"? It's simple: there's medicine with evidence, and there's medicine without evidence. By some coincidence the stuff without evidence might work, but the vast majority of it is placebo.

Cite your source.

 

[softmed]

Please keep an open mind.

Keeping an open mind means being open to the evidence. It doesn't mean you can't tell someone they're a fool if they believe in ghosts or alternative medicine.

 

[Depakote]

it sounds as if the efficacy of acupuncture is still up for debate, perhaps some sort of double blind trial is in order... they could use sham acupuncture as a control arm. That way we could study the proposed effect rather than dismissing it without cause.

As an aside, this sounds like a great project for a fellow looking to publish a study that sort of therapy.

 

[softmed]

Cite your source.

http://nccam.nih.gov/

But for the laymen: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/

 

[softmed]

it sounds as if the efficacy of acupuncture is still up for debate, perhaps some sort of double blind trial is in order... they could use sham acupuncture as a control arm. That way we could study the proposed effect rather than dismissing it without cause.

As an aside, this sounds like a great project for a fellow looking to publish a study that sort of therapy.

There have been plenty of studies showing acupuncture doesn't really do anything (especially vs sham acupuncture). We don't need to waste any more money and time. Here's what the NCCAM says:

"An emerging theme in acupuncture research is the role of the placebo. For example, a 2009 systematic review of research on the pain-relieving effects of acupuncture compared with placebo (simulated) or no acupuncture was inconclusive. The reviewers found a small difference between acupuncture and placebo and a moderate difference between placebo and no acupuncture; the effect of placebo acupuncture varied considerably, and the effect of acupuncture appeared unrelated to the specific kind of placebo procedure used. All of the study participants received standard care, typically consisting of analgesic drugs and physical therapy."

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/acupuncture-for-pain.htm#science

So according to the best and latest source on this matter acupuncture vs no acupuncture was inconclusive for pain relief.

 

[Forthegood]

No. If you all would just sit down and read through a couple of these papers... you would not feel this way. Take the hour that you will spend on here defending this crap by actually reading the primary literature on it. It's the height of ignorance to be given the truth in plain text and ignore it.

BTW, I have nothing against ABCs for malaria, and I don't assume that all CAM is necessarily placebo. But the vast majority of it has been studied in detail, and as far as I have seen, it has all been placebo (with VERY few exceptions).