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?

why do people think Ben Goldacre's an arse?

The people that do, that is. I'm not extrapolating for a population from a sample of 2!

Not convinced by Goldacre yet but haven't seen/read enough of his opinions to have a conclusion on his arsiness.

But in general, I think people are arses when they are convinced that the only things that happen (or that are of any importance or worth) in the world are those things that they can measure using known scientific techniques. And who are unbearably smug about their cleverness.

Now, I can't stand Gillian McKeith. I'm not a big fan of religion. I'm not a total believer in homeopathy.

But I'm willing to say there is more out there that we don't yet know about, whether it is the supernatural, energy fields, god, aliens or whatever. I think people are arsey when they laugh at those possibilities or use them to suggest how gullible or stupid others are.

Well,I've got two 'placeboes' asleep upstairs in bed.After years of tests,scans and drugs everyone involved in conventional medicine,both private and NHS told me I'd never have children,but after a few months of acupuncture I was pregnant and now have 2 lovely dds.What else can I say,but it worked for me and I'm no crystal waving alternative sort.

Very well put Carmen.

Re this Carmen

'But in general, I think people are arses when they are convinced that the only things that happen (or that are of any importance or worth) in the world are those things that they can measure using known scientific techniques.'

Er, do what you want if it with someone else's money, be it ingesting lemur dung, waving crystals or chanting Hoopoe mourning songs but when it comes to money rased through taxes I'm kind of with the idea of scientifically validating such things.

I'm a bit of a y'know, square like that.

I've just started doing acupuncture for the NHS. Giving treatment, not recieving. And i'm as sceptical as anyone.
I'm hoping to see some results so I can see it working.

I see it less as Chi and meridians and more to do with stimulating circulation and having an effect of pain physiology. I think it's helpful to have an open mind though.

I also believe that there is likely to be an awful lot of things out there that we, as yet, know very little about. However, I am happy to hang fire until we have scientific evidence of such things before slipping them into any public policies and giving them funding.

I don't think that's arsey, I just think it's the most sensible approach.

Convential therapies and treatments do far more damage than alternative therapies. The numbers run into tens of thousands.

Ah. ~You see, in this debate, for me the arses are the people who say "Here is some lark's vomit. It will cure your {insert illness here}. That'll be £50 please, and no I am not prepared for this treatment to be tested in any proper objective way"

Ben Goldacre has, as far as I know, never said that there aren't things we don't understand, or that there are no more discoveries to be made. What he does say is that IF a treatment is effective is should be testable, measurable and replicable.

Yes: but the disbenefits are never tested or measured properly.

"Convential therapies and treatments do far more damage than alternative therapies"

Of course! That's because alternative therapies don't do anything!

Well that's not true at all. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

I would just disagree with BA, but I think he's an arse because of his "not welcome" message to parents of MMR children. It says such a lot.

I would disagree with him anyway, but that's mainly why I think he's a wanker.

Read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. He isn't the most likeable chap but the man has a point.

Message withdrawn

"Convential therapies and treatments do far more damage than alternative therapies"

Do you mean on a case-by-case basis, or in absolute terms?

Has this actually been studied?

Because TCM, as mentioned upthread by me and several others, has a fine and noble tradition of poisoning people with steroids and heavy metals.

Acupuncture has a (very small) risk profile of infection and neuronal damage.

Chiropractic and osteopathy have harmed and in some cases paralysed a number of people.

In fact the only things that are unlkely to have a risk profile are homeopathy - unless you're diabetic and you try to overdose - and whichever "massage" it is that doesn't involve actual physical contact.

Modern medicine has a number of drugs and treatments that cause both morbidity and mortality - this is because they are very powerful and mostly effective. And because they have been studied then the people using them can give you pretty accurate numbers for this. As they are also bound by a legal and ethical code and are regulated properly - and in this country certainly aren't just out for a quick buck - they tell you these figures before you go anywhere near the needle.

For those people skim-reading, the keywords in the above post were -

studied legal and ethical code regulated figures

and

tell you

Message withdrawn

'Because TCM, as mentioned upthread by me and several others, has a fine and noble tradition of poisoning people with steroids and heavy metals.

Where did you get these ideas from? Newspaper articles or research papers from recognized journals?

There was a definitely a study in the BMJ about eczema treatments bought from chinese herbalists containing very high doses of steroids.

Pitchounette. You've just said exactly the same thing about acupuncture as I did. I think we got those ideas from the same place.

What's your point? (geddit?)

You then go on to say that "herbal medicine has been proven to be very effective", as some kind of rebuttal. But it's not a rebuttal, as I said nothing about herbal medicine, and didn't even say that TCM was ineffective.

My point was that it can be EXTREMELY effective - but unregulated and potentially dangerous as here.

See also Ayurvedic medicine.

Everyone knows that "herbal medicine" is effective, otherwise we wouldn't use aspirin, atropine and digoxin, to trot out some rather weary examples.

I'm not sure what you point is? You seem to be agreeing that research and regulation are important, which is what the alt med community mainly shy from.

Oh my goodness -- I'll get some numbers for you. Not a problem.

uar - you're tilting at windmills. No-one on this thread has said that conventional medicine does not have a side-effect/risk/morbidity/mortality issue. If you've ever read a PIL for the simplest medicine you'd have seen that.

The argument is that alt med is disingenous in implying or stating that their products are risk free, or low risk, for the same benefit.

I think I'm still allowed to point it out. It's often a reason why people choose a different path. I'm not so keen on complementary medicine, I prefer a nutritional approach, but this rage about it -- I think a few people need a spot of Rescue Remedy