to wonder why dr's are so dismissive of "alternative" therapies?

[tialys]

For example - ds1 was a very difficult baby - he either cried or fed. He saw a cranial osteopath (as a last resort) when he was 5/6 months old. Within 2 days, he was a different baby. Dr's completely dismissed it as coincidence, as CO is completely untested and unresearched.
So 5 years down the line, it must have been another coincidence when ds2 underwent a similar miracle cure?

Another example - I've spent the last few months with terrible asthma - hospitalised 3 times, nothing the dr's did made any difference at all.
I've started having accupuncture (again as a last resort) and within 2 weeks, my asthma is better than it has been for years. Saw my dr, who said "ah good - looks like your steroid inhaler is finally doing its job" (I started it months before the astham attacks started ) and warned me away from charlatans like acupuncturists.

Why can't they accept that sometimes, alternative therapies can be more effective than giving more and more drugs to their patients?

Both excellent, and yet strangely irrelevant questions!

You'll have to dilute your point a few more times, dittany, it's not strong enough to register yet.

Are you trying to say that only professors of science can tell other professors of science that they're full of crap?

So if Sir Paul Stephenson kills someone then only Mike Bowron can arrest him?

Dittany. I would love for you to show me the actual science that Baroness Greenfield - an actual scientist - has done to corroborate her claims about TV and social networking.

We will have to agree to disagree, then. I personally think that if someone with her background says "I think that TV/social networking is doing this to young brains", then that counts as a claim. But this is just wanking around with definitions.

I'm quite concerned that you think that science post-grads are the only people qualified to judge or even report on scientific matters?

It would also be interesting to see which specific mistakes you think BG has made in his work and commentary as a result of lacking a PhD.

"Pharmaceutical drugs on the list there, Seeker?"

Don't understand. If you mean am I outraged by the behaviour of the big pharmaceutical companies, then yes, I often am. The issue of anti-retrovirals and their distribution in the developing world is one area where their stance is unforgivable. There are many other similar areas.

if you mean something else - could you explain, please?

Re: acupuncture. In China, it's main stream, and not alternative at all!

Dittany, first you said doctorates, now it's "some qualifications". I disagree with the first, of course I agree with the second. This squirming around doesn't really do you any favours.

Second shifting position - you berate BG for going after "soft targets" but go on to say he's not allowed to criticise Baroness G because she's a professor?

I'm also not sure it's a fault of his that he's high-profile. Perhaps the actual scientist/journalists, whoever they are, should buck their ideas up?

"I rage about anything that exploits the gullible or the desperate."

That's what I mean. You must be in a permanent fit of apoplexy over the use of unnecessary Calpol, Ritalin, anti- depressants, Vioxx, suicide-causing acne drugs, the Mirena coil, Cox 2 inhibitors and so on.

How are the people on those drugs being exploited, uar?

Once again, with weariness - no-one is saying that unnecessary prescribing is a good thing. Are people still taking Vioxx? No. Why? Because it was studied and found to have more risk than benefit.

I'm, again, not sure what point you're trying to address, or if you even know.

Just because I'm outraged by that lot doesn't mean that I can't also be outraged by the snake oil peddlers!

No, it's all allowed of course. Look forward to having your support on the next vaccine damage thread

"With weariness"

A lot of people suffered before it was withdrawn. There was a tooth and nail fight, and British users are yet to recieve compensation. The problems were ignored when there was money to be made.

We are discussing issues of trust, mendacity, and sound testing with complementary medicine. Have another little think about why my point is relevant.

I am starting to feel so sorry for GPs.

Really? Don't you feel sorry for the people involved? How awful.

Thank goodness I'm not. You must be so embarrassed at your failure to hold yourself on this thread.

It is odd that you feel sorry for GPs and the "patients" of complementary therapists, but not for the people who've suffered real and lasting damage without voice or compensation from conventional medicine.

It's ridiculous. Heartless double standards.

Brux, I've got a funny feeling you aren't worth my time. It's awful to have to say that but you are being really noxious.

You've tried to imply that I don't feel anything for people suffering, for whatever reason. This is not true, and nothing I have posted even comes close to suggesting this.

You suggested this in an attempt to score a point. This is pretty appalling behaviour, and I'm sorry if I reacted like that. I will retract "twat" and substitute "appalling human being".

I'm not sure you should be that proud of yourself, really.

Your response to my posts about the suffering caused by conventional medicine was: I feel sorry for GPs.

I think you implied it yourself.

Of course I'm not an appalling human being. What's the matter with you?

That wasn't in response to your post. There are others on this thread.

Do you think it's impossible to feel sorry for more than one group of people?