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?

Dittany: "Like I said he doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference between putting forward a hypothesis and making claims without evidential backing. Greenfield did the former not the latter. It's pretty basic stuff."

He does, and he explains why he still has a problem with it here:
"Her claims about computers damaging childrens brains have been going on for years now (bits on it here and here, endlessly repurposed eg here). In my view her argument is pretty thin, and the goalposts and extremities of the claims seem to me to shift depending on the audience. All I have said is: write it up in an academic journal, making your hypothesis clear, set out the evidence, and set out what evidence you think should be gathered. Often overlooked, alongside this barrage of media work on the dangers of computers, but her media work explaining that cannabis can blow your mind forever was also a bit depressing, and built largely on plays from authority ("I'm professor of pharmacology, so what I say..."). I'd like to see someone in her position - director of the Royal Institution - showing people what science is about: by clearly describing and evaluating evidence."

bengoldacre.posterous.com/a-clarification-why-people-have-been-concerne

In answer to why their is inadequate research into lots of alternative therapies is that no one is willing to pay for extensive and thus expensive studies.

the majority of medical research is funded by pharmacetical companies and for obvious reasons they do not want to do any positive studies into the benefits of alternative medicine.

Also in cases such as acupuncture the whole methodology of Chinese Medicine does not fit into the western paradigm and causes a whole array of difficulties and misrepresentations of outcomes.

Trying to do a double blind trial with a therapy that requires indivdual treatment at each session is extremely difficult.

Dittany: "Maybe he should take his own advice and step out of the media spotlight and write up his criticisms of science for peer reviewed scientific journals."

PubMed lists 9 papers by Ben Goldacre in peer reviewed scientific journals which seem to fit the bill.

Search his name here:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Just because things haven't been proven or aren't understood by scientists doesn't mean they don't work. Such a shortsighted opinion is ridiculous. And I say this is someone who spent 5 yrs studying Biology at university!

I have recently started having reflexology - I think it's wonderful

Was it a 3-year course, RnB?

Dittany, you said he should write up his criticisms of science for a peer reviewed journal, and he did, but that's still not good enough? He has done some research, but not enough? As well as being a doctor, a psychiatrist and an award winning journalist, author, and university lecturer, his credentials are lacking?

Who would you allow to criticise Baroness Greenfield's shameless self-publicity?

God.

"Just because things haven't been proven or aren't understood by scientists doesn't mean they don't work. "

That's true. But if they work, they should pass clinical trials as better than a placebo. And a lot of alternative therapies simply don't.

Really good post, CloudDragon.

That's the thing - herbal medicines etc. CAN work. We just don't have the data to know exactly how well and what exactly the side effects are, although we have a general idea. Certainly any significant side effects are usually spotted pretty quickly and dealt with, such as deglycyrrhizinated licorice being offered instead of regular licorice when it was found to potentially increase blood pressure in large doses.

We do know that many prescription medicines have some horrendous side effects and they don't work for everyone so it is sometimes perfectly reasonable and rational to try a herbal alternative over a prescription medicine.

Just because they haven't been tested doesn't mean they're invalid, it just means you have to be prepared to weigh up the risks and do your own research.

So she is a shameless self-publicist, then?

I'm awfully confused.

"In answer to why their is inadequate research into lots of alternative therapies is that no one is willing to pay for extensive and thus expensive studies."

Alternative medicine is a huge industry and they do conduct clinical studies. Lots of them. Pick an alternative therapy and chances are that there have been a few trials.

Unfortunately a lot of them are poorly designed, but that's another story.

Dittany, one wonders why a respected scientist would choose the popular media over science journals in which to make their speculations if they really are interested in the advancement of science rather than catchy headlines.

Alternative medicine is a huge industry and they do conduct clinical studies. Lots of them. Pick an alternative therapy and chances are that there have been a few trials.

It's absolutely tiny compared to Glaxo, Merck etc.

And let's bear in mind that trials are designed by pharmaceutical scientists to work with pharmaceuticals. As was said earlier, you just can't test acupuncture (for example) in the same way as aspirin. Different mechanism entirely.

Message withdrawn

"Do you read many science journals so you know for sure that Greenfield isn't putting her arguments across there too, NG? I mean I don't so I can't say, but if she was we'd hardly be likely to be hearing about it would we"

A quick search of PubMed suggests that she isn't. And while I don't read that many science journals, Ben Goldacre certainly has more access to them than I do, and if he suggests that she publish something there, then she probably hasn't already.

I expect Greenfield would absolutely be doing the research herself, except she's rather busy promoting her computer game.

Worth remembering the the estimated annual global spend on alternative medicines is £40 billion. They're not short of a bob or two to run proper trials.

"And let's bear in mind that trials are designed by pharmaceutical scientists to work with pharmaceuticals. As was said earlier, you just can't test acupuncture (for example) in the same way as aspirin. Different mechanism entirely."

They have tested acupuncture. There have been many attempts to come up with a placebo version of acupuncture for comparison. Acupuncture supposedly works by tapping into meridians so the sham acupuncture either involves needles in the wrong places, or telescopic needles which look like the real thing but don't actually pierce the skin.

Real acupuncture hasn't done that well against them so far.